Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period, 58178-58202 [2023-18278]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
58178
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
submissions in response to this
document, see DHS’s eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
[EPA–R03–OAR–2022–0912; FRL–11269–
01–R3]
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
Part 117—Drawbridge Operation
Regulations
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
■
2. Revise § 117.799(e) to read as
follows:
■
§ 117.799 Long Island, New York Inland
Waterway from East Rockaway Inlet to
Shinnecock Canal.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) The draw of the Atlantic Beach
Bridge across Reynolds Channel, mile
0.4, shall operate as follows:
(1) From October 1 through May 14
the draw shall open on signal from 8
a.m. to midnight.
(2) From midnight to 8 a.m. yearround, the draw shall open on signal if
at least eight hours notice is given.
(3) From May 15 through September
30, except that it need be opened only
on the hour and half-hour from 4 p.m.
to 7 p.m. on weekdays and from 11 a.m.
to 9 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays,
Memorial Day, Independence Day, and
Labor Day.
(4) From May 15 through September
30, from two hours before to one hour
after predicted high tide. Predicted high
tide occurs 10 minutes earlier than that
predicted for Sandy Hook, as given in
the tide table published by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: August 20, 2023.
J. W. Mauger,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2023–18322 Filed 8–24–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the regional haze state implementation
plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maryland on February 8, 2022,
as satisfying applicable requirements
under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
EPA’s Regional Haze Rule for the
program’s second implementation
period. Maryland’s SIP submission
addresses the requirement that states
must periodically revise their long-term
strategies for making reasonable
progress towards the national goal of
preventing any future, and remedying
any existing, anthropogenic impairment
of visibility, including regional haze, in
mandatory Class I Federal areas. The
SIP submission also addresses other
applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional
haze program. The EPA is taking this
action pursuant to sections 110 and
169A of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 25,
2023.
SUMMARY:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1;
DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No.
01.3.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
40 CFR Part 52
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2022–0912 at
www.regulations.gov. 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, the 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. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Adam Yarina, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 3, 1600 John
F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103–2852, at (215) 814–
2108, or by email at yarina.Adam@
epa.gov.
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for
Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for
the Second Implementation Period
A. Identification of Class I Areas
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and
Natural Visibility Conditions; Progress to
Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State
Implementation Plan Requirements
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports
Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Requirements for State and Federal
Land Manager Coordination
IV. EPA’s Evaluation of Maryland’s Regional
Haze Submission for the Second
Implementation Period
A. Background on Maryland’s First
Implementation Period SIP Submission
B. Maryland’s Second Implementation
Period SIP Submission and the EPA’s
Evaluation
C. Identification of Class I Areas
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and
Natural Visibility Conditions; Progress to
Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports
Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land
Manager Coordination
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On February 8, 2022, the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE)
submitted a revision to its SIP to
address regional haze for the second
implementation period. MDE made this
SIP submission to satisfy the
requirements of the CAA’s regional haze
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
program pursuant to CAA sections 169A
and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. The EPA
is proposing to find that the Maryland
regional haze SIP submission for the
second implementation period meets
the applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements and thus proposes to
approve Maryland’s submission into its
SIP.
II. Background and Requirements for
Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
In the 1977 CAA Amendments,
Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation’s
mandatory Class I Federal areas, which
include certain national parks and
wilderness areas.1 CAA 169A. 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 which impairment results from
manmade air pollution.’’ CAA
169A(a)(1). The CAA further directs the
EPA to promulgate regulations to assure
reasonable progress toward meeting this
national goal. CAA 169A(a)(4). On
December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated
regulations to address visibility
impairment in mandatory Class I
Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as
‘‘Class I areas’’) that is ‘‘reasonably
attributable’’ to a single source or small
group of sources. (45 FR 80084,
December 2, 1980). These regulations,
codified at 40 CFR 51.300 through
51.307, represented the first phase of the
EPA’s efforts to address visibility
impairment. In 1990, Congress added
section 169B to the CAA to further
address visibility impairment,
specifically, impairment from regional
haze. CAA 169B. The EPA promulgated
the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), codified
at 40 CFR 51.308,2 on July 1, 1999. (64
FR 35714, July 1, 1999). These regional
haze regulations are a central
component of the EPA’s comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I
areas.
1 Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class
I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding
6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial
parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977.
CAA 162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas.
The list of areas to which the requirements of the
visibility protection program apply is in 40 CFR
part 81, subpart D.
2 In addition to the generally applicable regional
haze provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, the EPA also
promulgated regulations specific to addressing
regional haze visibility impairment in Class I areas
on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The
latter regulations are applicable only for specific
jurisdictions’ regional haze plans submitted no later
than December 17, 2007, and thus are not relevant
here.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
Regional haze is visibility impairment
that is produced by a multitude of
anthropogenic sources and activities
which are located across a broad
geographic area and that emit pollutants
that impair visibility. Visibility
impairing pollutants include fine and
coarse particulate matter (PM) (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, volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and ammonia (NH3)). Fine
particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form fine particulate
matter (PM2.5), which impairs visibility
by scattering and absorbing light.
Visibility impairment reduces the
perception of clarity and color, as well
as visible distance.3
To address regional haze visibility
impairment, the 1999 RHR established
an iterative planning process that
requires both states in which Class I
areas are located and states ‘‘the
emissions from which may reasonably
be anticipated to cause or contribute to
any impairment of visibility’’ in a Class
I area to periodically submit SIP
revisions to address such impairment.
CAA 169A(b)(2); 4 see also 40 CFR
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission
dates for iterative regional haze SIP
revisions); (64 FR 35714 at 35768, July
1, 1999). Under the CAA, each SIP
submission must contain ‘‘a long-term
(ten to fifteen years) strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the
national goal,’’ CAA 169A(b)(2)(B); the
initial round of SIP submissions also
3 There are several ways to measure the amount
of visibility impairment, i.e., haze. One such
measurement is the deciview, which is the
principal metric used by the RHR. Under many
circumstances, a change in one deciview will be
perceived by the human eye to be the same on both
clear and hazy days. The deciview is unitless. It is
proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric
extinction of light, which is the perceived dimming
of light due to its being scattered and absorbed as
it passes through the atmosphere. Atmospheric light
extinction (bext) is a metric used to for expressing
visibility and is measured in inverse megameters
(Mm¥1). The EPA’s Guidance on Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans for the Second
Implementation Period (‘‘2019 Guidance’’) offers
the flexibility for the use of light extinction in
certain cases. Light extinction can be simpler to use
in calculations than deciviews, since it is not a
logarithmic function. See, e.g., 2019 Guidance at 16,
19, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidanceregional-haze-state-implementation-plans-secondimplementation-period, The EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park (August 20, 2019). The formula for the
deciview is 10 ln (bext)/10 Mm¥1). 40 CFR 51.301.
4 The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for
states to submit plans addressing out-of-state class
I areas by providing that states must address
visibility impairment ‘‘in each mandatory Class I
Federal area located outside the State that may be
affected by emissions from within the State.’’ 40
CFR 51.308(d), (f).
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58179
had to address the statutory requirement
that certain older, larger sources of
visibility impairing pollutants install
and operate the best available retrofit
technology (BART). CAA 169A(b)(2)(A);
40 CFR 51.308(d), (e). States’ first
regional haze SIPs were due by
December 17, 2007, 40 CFR 51.308(b),
with subsequent SIP submissions
containing updated long-term strategies
originally due July 31, 2018, and every
ten years thereafter. (64 FR 35714 at
35768, July 1, 1999). The EPA
established in the 1999 RHR that all
states either have Class I areas within
their borders or ‘‘contain sources whose
emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to regional haze in a Class I
area’’; therefore, all states must submit
regional haze SIPs.5 Id. at 35721.
Much of the focus in the first
implementation period of the regional
haze program, which ran from 2007
through 2018, was on satisfying states’
BART obligations. First implementation
period SIPs were additionally required
to contain long-term strategies for
making reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal, of which BART
is one component. The core required
elements for the first implementation
period SIPs (other than BART) are laid
out in 40 CFR 51.308(d). Those
provisions required that states
containing Class I areas establish
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) that
are measured in deciviews and reflect
the anticipated visibility conditions at
the end of the implementation period
including from implementation of
states’ long-term strategies. The first
planning period RPGs were required to
provide for an improvement in visibility
for the most impaired days over the
period of the implementation plan and
ensure no degradation in visibility for
the least impaired days over the same
period. In establishing the RPGs for any
Class I area in a state, the state was
required to consider four statutory
factors: the costs of compliance, the
time necessary for compliance, the
energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance,
and the remaining useful life of any
potentially affected sources. CAA
169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
States were also required to calculate
baseline (using the five year period of
2000–2004) and natural visibility
conditions (i.e., visibility conditions
without anthropogenic visibility
5 In addition to each of the fifty states, the EPA
also concluded that the Virgin Islands and District
of Columbia must also submit regional haze SIPs
because they either contain a Class I area or contain
sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated
to contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40
CFR 51.300(b) and (d)(3).
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
58180
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
impairment) for each Class I area, and
to calculate the linear rate of progress
needed to attain natural visibility
conditions, assuming a starting point of
baseline visibility conditions in 2004
and ending with natural conditions in
2064. This linear interpolation is known
as the uniform rate of progress (URP)
and is used as a tracking metric to help
states assess the amount of progress they
are making towards the national
visibility goal over time in each Class I
area.6 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) and
(d)(2). The 1999 RHR also provided that
States’ long-term strategies must include
the ‘‘enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance, schedules, and other
measures as necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals.’’ 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3). In establishing their longterm strategies, states are required to
consult with other states that also
contribute to visibility impairment in a
given Class I area and include all
measures necessary to obtain their
shares of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(i) and (ii). Section
51.308(d) also contains seven additional
factors states must consider in
formulating their long-term strategies,
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), as well as
provisions governing monitoring and
other implementation plan
requirements. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4).
Finally, the 1999 RHR required states to
submit periodic progress reports—SIP
revisions due every five years that
contain information on states’
implementation of their regional haze
plans and an assessment of whether
anything additional is needed to make
reasonable progress, see 40 CFR
51.308(g) and (h)—and to consult with
the Federal Land Manager(s) 7 (FLMs)
6 EPA established the URP framework in the 1999
RHR to provide ‘‘an equitable analytical approach’’
to assessing the rate of visibility improvement at
Class I areas across the country. The start point for
the URP analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was
calculated based on the amount of visibility
improvement that was anticipated to result from
implementation of existing CAA programs over the
period from the mid-1990s to approximately 2005.
Assuming this rate of progress would continue into
the future, EPA determined that natural visibility
conditions would be reached in 60 years, or 2064
(60 years from the baseline starting point of 2004).
However, EPA did not establish 2064 as the year
by which the national goal must be reached. 64 FR
35714 at 35731–32, July 1, 1999. That is, the URP
and the 2064 date are not enforceable targets, but
are rather tools that ‘‘allow for analytical
comparisons between the rate of progress that
would be achieved by the state’s chosen set of
control measures and the URP.’’ (82 FR 3078, 3084,
January 10, 2017).
7 The EPA’s regulations define ‘‘Federal Land
Manager’’ as ‘‘the Secretary of the department with
authority over the Federal Class I area (or the
Secretary’s designee) or, with respect to RooseveltCampobello International Park, the Chairman of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
responsible for each Class I area
according to the requirements in CAA
169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i).
On January 10, 2017, the EPA
promulgated revisions to the RHR, (82
FR 3078, January 10, 2017), that apply
for the second and subsequent
implementation periods. The 2017
rulemaking made several changes to the
requirements for regional haze SIPs to
clarify States’ obligations and streamline
certain regional haze requirements. The
revisions to the regional haze program
for the second and subsequent
implementation periods focused on the
requirement that States’ SIPs contain
long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal. The reasonable
progress requirements as revised in the
2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the
2017 RHR Revisions) are codified at 40
CFR 51.308(f). Among other changes,
the 2017 RHR Revisions adjusted the
deadline for States to submit their
second implementation period SIPs
from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021,
clarified the order of analysis and the
relationship between RPGs and the
long-term strategy, and focused on
making visibility improvements on the
days with the most anthropogenic
visibility impairment, as opposed to the
days with the most visibility
impairment overall. The EPA also
revised requirements of the visibility
protection program related to periodic
progress reports and FLM consultation.
The specific requirements applicable to
second implementation period regional
haze SIP submissions are addressed in
detail below.
The EPA provided guidance to the
states for their second implementation
period SIP submissions in the preamble
to the 2017 RHR Revisions as well as in
subsequent, stand-alone guidance
documents. In August 2019, the EPA
issued ‘‘Guidance on Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans for the
Second Implementation Period’’ (‘‘2019
Guidance’’).8 On July 8, 2021, the EPA
issued a memorandum containing
‘‘Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans for the
Second Implementation Period’’ (‘‘2021
Clarifications Memo’’).9 Additionally,
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park
Commission.’’ 40 CFR 51.301.
8 Guidance on Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second
Implementation Period. www.epa.gov/visibility/
guidance-regional-haze-state-implementationplans-second-implementation-period. The EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019).
9 Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second
Implementation Period. www.epa.gov/system/files/
documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the EPA further clarified the
recommended procedures for processing
ambient visibility data and optionally
adjusting the URP to account for
international anthropogenic and
prescribed fire impacts in two technical
guidance documents: the December
2018 ‘‘Technical Guidance on Tracking
Visibility Progress for the Second
Implementation Period of the Regional
Haze Program’’ (‘‘2018 Visibility
Tracking Guidance’’),10 and the June
2020 ‘‘Recommendation for the Use of
Patched and Substituted Data and
Clarification of Data Completeness for
Tracking Visibility Progress for the
Second Implementation Period of the
Regional Haze Program’’ and associated
Technical Addendum (‘‘2020 Data
Completeness Memo’’).11
As previously explained in the 2021
Clarifications Memo, EPA intends the
second implementation period of the
regional haze program to secure
meaningful reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants that build on the
significant progress states have achieved
to date. The Agency also recognizes that
analyses regarding reasonable progress
are state-specific and that, based on
states’ and sources’ individual
circumstances, what constitutes
reasonable reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants will vary from
state-to-state. While there exist many
opportunities for states to leverage both
ongoing and upcoming emission
reductions under other CAA programs,
the Agency expects states to undertake
rigorous reasonable progress analyses
that identify further opportunities to
advance the national visibility goal
consistent with the statutory and
regulatory requirements. See generally
2021 Clarifications Memo. This is
consistent with Congress’s
determination that a visibility
protection program is needed in
addition to the CAA’s National Ambient
Air Quality Standards and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration programs, as
regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-thesecond-implementation-period.pdf. The EPA Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
10 Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility
Progress for the Second Implementation Period of
the Regional Haze Program. www.epa.gov/visibility/
technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progresssecond-implementation-period-regional. The EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park. (December 20, 2018).
11 Recommendation for the Use of Patched and
Substituted Data and Clarification of Data
Completeness for Tracking Visibility Progress for
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional
Haze Program. www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-andtechnical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-andcompleteness-regional-haze-program. The EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park (June 3, 2020).
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
further emission reductions may be
necessary to adequately protect
visibility in Class I areas throughout the
country.12
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
Because the air pollutants and
pollution affecting visibility in Class I
areas can be transported over long
distances, successful implementation of
the regional haze program requires longterm, regional coordination among
multiple jurisdictions and agencies that
have responsibility for Class I areas and
the emissions that impact visibility in
those areas. In order to address regional
haze, states need to develop strategies in
coordination with one another,
considering the effect of emissions from
one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs),13 which include
representation from state and tribal
governments, the EPA, and FLMs, were
developed in the lead-up to the first
implementation period to address
regional haze. RPOs evaluate technical
information to better understand how
emissions from State and Tribal land
impact Class I areas across the country,
pursue the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of
particulate matter and other pollutants
leading to regional haze, and help states
meet the consultation requirements of
the RHR.
The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility
Union (MANE–VU), one of the five
RPOs described above, is a collaborative
effort of state governments, tribal
governments, and various Federal
agencies established to initiate and
coordinate activities associated with the
management of regional haze, visibility,
and other air quality issues in the MidAtlantic and Northeast corridor of the
United States. Member states and tribal
governments (listed alphabetically)
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.
The Federal partner members of MANE–
VU are EPA, U.S. National Parks Service
12 See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95–294 at 205 (‘‘In
determining how to best remedy the growing
visibility problem in these areas of great scenic
importance, the committee realizes that as a matter
of equity, the national ambient air quality standards
cannot be revised to adequately protect visibility in
all areas of the country.’’), (‘‘the mandatory class I
increments of [the PSD program] do not adequately
protect visibility in class I areas’’).
13 RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ‘‘multijurisdictional organizations,’’ or MJOs. For the
purposes of this document, the terms RPO and MJO
are synonymous.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
(NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
III. Requirements for Regional Haze
Plans for the Second Implementation
Period
Under the CAA and EPA’s
regulations, all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
are required to submit regional haze
SIPs satisfying the applicable
requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional
haze program by July 31, 2021. Each
state’s SIP must contain a long-term
strategy for making reasonable progress
toward meeting the national goal of
remedying any existing and preventing
any future anthropogenic visibility
impairment in Class I areas. CAA
169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, 40 CFR
51.308(f) lays out the process by which
states determine what constitutes their
long-term strategies, with the order of
the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)
through (3) generally mirroring the
order of the steps in the reasonable
progress analysis 14 and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(4) through (6) containing
additional, related requirements.
Broadly speaking, a state first must
identify the Class I areas within the state
and determine the Class I areas outside
the state in which visibility may be
affected by emissions from the state.
These are the Class I areas that must be
addressed in the state’s long-term
strategy. See 40 CFR 51.308(f) and (f)(2).
For each Class I area within its borders,
a state must then calculate the baseline,
current, and natural visibility
conditions for that area, as well as the
visibility improvement made to date
and the URP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1).
Each state having a Class I area and/or
emissions that may affect visibility in a
Class I area must then develop a longterm strategy that includes the
enforceable emission limitations,
compliance schedules, and other
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress in such areas. A
reasonable progress determination is
based on applying the four factors in
CAA section 169A(g)(1) to sources of
visibility-impairing pollutants that the
state has selected to assess for controls
for the second implementation period.
Additionally, as further explained
below, the RHR at 40 CFR
51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five
‘‘additional factors’’ 15 that states must
14 EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that
we were adopting new regulatory language in 40
CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike the structure in
51.308(d), ‘‘tracked the actual planning sequence.’’
(82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017).
15 The five ‘‘additional factors’’ for consideration
in section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58181
consider in developing their long-term
strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A
state evaluates potential emission
reduction measures for those selected
sources and determines which are
necessary to make reasonable progress.
Those measures are then incorporated
into the state’s long-term strategy. After
a state has developed its long-term
strategy, it then establishes RPGs for
each Class I area within its borders by
modeling the visibility impacts of all
reasonable progress controls at the end
of the second implementation period,
i.e., in 2028, as well as the impacts of
other requirements of the CAA. The
RPGs include reasonable progress
controls not only for sources in the state
in which the Class I area is located, but
also for sources in other states that
contribute to visibility impairment in
that area. The RPGs are then compared
to the baseline visibility conditions and
the URP to ensure that progress is being
made towards the statutory goal of
preventing any future and remedying
any existing anthropogenic visibility
impairment in Class I areas. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2) and (3).
In addition to satisfying the
requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f) related
to reasonable progress, the regional haze
SIP submissions revisions due by July
31, 2021, for the second implementation
period must address the requirements in
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5)
pertaining to periodic reports describing
progress towards the RPGs, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements for
FLM consultation that apply to all
visibility protection SIPs and SIP
revisions. 40 CFR 51.308(i).
A state must submit its regional haze
SIP and subsequent SIP revisions to the
EPA according to the requirements
applicable to all SIP revisions under the
CAA and EPA’s regulations. See CAA
169(b)(2); CAA 110(a). Upon EPA
approval, a SIP is enforceable by the
Agency and the public under the CAA.
If EPA finds that a state fails to make a
required SIP revision, or if the EPA
finds that a state’s SIP is incomplete or
if disapproves the SIP, the Agency must
promulgate a federal implementation
plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable
requirements. CAA 110(c)(1).
A. Identification of Class I Areas
The first step in developing a regional
haze SIP is for a state to determine
which Class I areas, in addition to those
within its borders, ‘‘may be affected’’ by
emissions from within the state. In the
1999 RHR, the EPA determined that all
factors listed in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must consider and apply
to sources in determining reasonable progress.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
58182
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
states contribute to visibility
impairment in at least one Class I area,
64 FR 35720–22, July 1, 1999, and
explained that the statute and
regulations lay out an ‘‘extremely low
triggering threshold’’ for determining
‘‘whether States should be required to
engage in air quality planning and
analysis as a prerequisite to determining
the need for control of emissions from
sources within their State.’’ Id. at 35721.
A state must determine which Class I
areas must be addressed by its SIP by
evaluating the total emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants from all
sources within the state. While the RHR
does not require this evaluation to be
conducted in any particular manner,
EPA’s 2019 Guidance provides
recommendations for how such an
assessment might be accomplished,
including by, where appropriate, using
the determinations previously made for
the first implementation period. 2019
Guidance at 8–9. In addition, the
determination of which Class I areas
may be affected by a state’s emissions is
subject to the requirement in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ‘‘document the
technical basis, including modeling,
monitoring, cost, engineering, and
emissions information, on which the
State is relying to determine the
emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress
in each mandatory Class I Federal area
it affects.’’
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current,
and Natural Visibility Conditions;
Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate
of Progress
As part of assessing whether a SIP
submission for the second
implementation period is providing for
reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal, the RHR
contains requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility
improvement over time. The
requirements of this subsection apply
only to states having Class I areas within
their borders; the required calculations
must be made for each such Class I area.
EPA’s 2018 Visibility Tracking
Guidance 16 provides recommendations
to assist states in satisfying their
obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1);
specifically, in developing information
on baseline, current, and natural
visibility conditions, and in making
optional adjustments to the URP to
account for the impacts of international
16 The
2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance
references and relies on parts of the 2003 Tracking
Guidance: ‘‘Guidance for Tracking Progress Under
the Regional Haze Rule,’’ which can be found at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/
visible/tracking.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
anthropogenic emissions and prescribed
fires. See 82 FR 3078 at 3103–05,
January 10, 2017.
The RHR requires tracking of
visibility conditions on two sets of days:
the clearest and the most impaired days.
Visibility conditions for both sets of
days are expressed as the average
deciview index for the relevant five-year
period (the period representing baseline
or current visibility conditions). The
RHR provides that the relevant sets of
days for visibility tracking purposes are
the 20% clearest (the 20% of monitored
days in a calendar year with the lowest
values of the deciview index) and 20%
most impaired days (the 20% of
monitored days in a calendar year with
the highest amounts of anthropogenic
visibility impairment).17 40 CFR 51.301.
A state must calculate visibility
conditions for both the 20% clearest and
20% most impaired days for the
baseline period of 2000–2004 and the
most recent five-year period for which
visibility monitoring data are available
(representing current visibility
conditions). 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i) and
(iii). States must also calculate natural
visibility conditions for the clearest and
most impaired days,18 by estimating the
conditions that would exist on those
two sets of days absent anthropogenic
visibility impairment. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(ii). Using all these data,
states must then calculate, for each
Class I area, the amount of progress
made since the baseline period (2000–
2004) and how much improvement is
left to achieve in order to reach natural
visibility conditions.
Using the data for the set of most
impaired days only, states must plot a
line between visibility conditions in the
baseline period and natural visibility
conditions for each Class I area to
determine the URP—the amount of
visibility improvement, measured in
deciviews, that would need to be
achieved during each implementation
period in order to achieve natural
visibility conditions by the end of 2064.
The URP is used in later steps of the
17 This document also refers to the 20% clearest
and 20% most anthropogenically impaired days as
the ‘‘clearest’’ and ‘‘most impaired’’ or ‘‘most
anthropogenically impaired’’ days, respectively.
18 The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an
error related to the requirement for calculating two
sets of natural conditions values. The rule says
‘‘most impaired days or the clearest days’’ where it
should say ‘‘most impaired days and clearest days.’’
This is an error that was intended to be corrected
in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected
in the final rule language. This is supported by the
preamble text at 82 FR 3098, January 10, 2017: ‘‘In
the final version of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii), an
occurrence of ‘‘or’’ has been corrected to ‘‘and’’ to
indicate that natural visibility conditions for both
the most impaired days and the clearest days must
be based on available monitoring information.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reasonable progress analysis for
informational purposes and to provide a
non-enforceable benchmark against
which to assess a Class I area’s rate of
visibility improvement.19 Additionally,
in the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA
provided states the option of proposing
to adjust the endpoint of the URP to
account for impacts of anthropogenic
sources outside the United States and/
or impacts of certain types of wildland
prescribed fires. These adjustments,
which must be approved by the EPA,
are intended to avoid any perception
that states should compensate for
impacts from international
anthropogenic sources and to give states
the flexibility to determine that limiting
the use of wildland-prescribed fire is
not necessary for reasonable progress.
82 FR 3078 at 3107 footnote 116,
January 10, 2017.
EPA’s 2018 Visibility Tracking
Guidance can be used to help satisfy the
40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements,
including in developing information on
baseline, current, and natural visibility
conditions, and in making optional
adjustments to the URP. In addition, the
2020 Data Completeness Memo provides
recommendations on the data
completeness language referenced in 40
CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides
updated natural conditions estimates for
each Class I area.
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional
Haze
The core component of a regional
haze SIP submission is a long-term
strategy that addresses regional haze in
each Class I area within a state’s borders
and each Class I area that may be
affected by emissions from the state.
The long-term strategy ‘‘must include
the enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress, as determined
pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through (iv).’’ 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of
progress that is ‘‘reasonable progress’’ is
based on applying the four statutory
factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an
evaluation of potential control options
for sources of visibility impairing
pollutants, which is referred to as a
‘‘four-factor’’ analysis. The outcome of
that analysis is the emission reduction
measures that a particular source or
group of sources needs to implement in
order to make reasonable progress
19 Being on or below the URP is not a ‘‘safe
harbor’’; i.e., achieving the URP does not mean that
a Class I area is making ‘‘reasonable progress’’ and
does not relieve a state from using the four statutory
factors to determine what level of control is needed
to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR 3078 at
3093, January 10, 2017.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
towards the national visibility goal. See
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission
reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress may be either
new, additional control measures for a
source, or they may be the existing
emission reduction measures that a
source is already implementing. See
2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications
Memo at 8–10. Such measures must be
represented by ‘‘enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and
other measures’’ (i.e., any additional
compliance tools) in a state’s long-term
strategy in its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the
requirements for the four-factor
analysis. The first step of this analysis
entails selecting the sources to be
evaluated for emission reduction
measures; to this end, the RHR requires
states to consider ‘‘major and minor
stationary sources or groups of sources,
mobile sources, and area sources’’ of
visibility impairing pollutants for
potential four-factor control analysis. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A threshold
question at this step is which visibility
impairing pollutants will be analyzed.
As EPA previously explained,
consistent with the first implementation
period, EPA generally expects that each
state will analyze at least SO2 and NOX
in selecting sources and determining
control measures. See 2019 Guidance at
12, 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4. A
state that chooses not to consider at
least these two pollutants should
demonstrate why such consideration
would be unreasonable. 2021
Clarifications Memo at 4.
While states have the option to
analyze all sources, the 2019 Guidance
explains that ‘‘an analysis of control
measures is not required for every
source in each implementation period,’’
and that ‘‘[s]electing a set of sources for
analysis of control measures in each
implementation period is . . .
consistent with the Regional Haze Rule,
which sets up an iterative planning
process and anticipates that a state may
not need to analyze control measures for
all its sources in a given SIP revision.’’
2019 Guidance at 9. However, given that
source selection is the basis of all
subsequent control determinations, a
reasonable source selection process
‘‘should be designed and conducted to
ensure that source selection results in a
set of pollutants and sources the
evaluation of which has the potential to
meaningfully reduce their contributions
to visibility impairment.’’ 2021
Clarifications Memo at 3.
EPA explained in the 2021
Clarifications Memo that each state has
an obligation to submit a long-term
strategy that addresses the regional haze
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
visibility impairment that results from
emissions from within that state. Thus,
source selection should focus on the instate contribution to visibility
impairment and be designed to capture
a meaningful portion of the state’s total
contribution to visibility impairment in
Class I areas. A state should not decline
to select its largest in-state sources on
the basis that there are even larger outof-state contributors. 2021 Clarifications
Memo at 4.20
Thus, while states have discretion to
choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable,
whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that a state’s
SIP submission include ‘‘a description
of the criteria it used to determine
which sources or groups of sources it
evaluated.’’ The technical basis for
source selection, which may include
methods for quantifying potential
visibility impacts such as emissions
divided by distance metrics, trajectory
analyses, residence time analyses, and/
or photochemical modeling, must also
be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a state has selected the set of
sources, the next step is to determine
the emissions reduction measures for
those sources that are necessary to make
reasonable progress for the second
implementation period.21 This is
accomplished by considering the four
factors—‘‘the costs of compliance, the
time necessary for compliance, and the
energy and nonair quality
environmental impacts of compliance,
and the remaining useful life of any
existing source subject to such
requirements.’’ CAA 169A(g)(1). The
EPA has explained that the four-factor
analysis is an assessment of potential
emission reduction measures (i.e.,
control options) for sources; ‘‘use of the
terms ‘compliance’ and ‘subject to such
requirements’ in section 169A(g)(1)
strongly indicates that Congress
20 Similarly,
in responding to comments on the
2017 RHR Revisions EPA explained that ‘‘[a] state
should not fail to address its many relatively lowimpact sources merely because it only has such
sources and another state has even more low-impact
sources and/or some high impact sources.’’
Responses to Comments on Protection of Visibility:
Amendments to Requirements for State Plans;
Proposed Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) at 87–
88.
21 The CAA provides that, ‘‘[i]n determining
reasonable progress there shall be taken into
consideration’’ the four statutory factors. CAA
169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-factor
analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or
source categories, a state may also consider
additional emission reduction measures for
inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g., from other
newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules
and measures for sources not selected for four-factor
analysis for the second planning period.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58183
intended the relevant determination to
be the requirements with which sources
would have to comply in order to satisfy
the CAA’s reasonable progress
mandate.’’ 82 FR 3078 at 3091, January
10, 2017. Thus, for each source it has
selected for four-factor analysis,22 a state
must consider a ‘‘meaningful set’’ of
technically feasible control options for
reducing emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants. Id. at 3088. The
2019 Guidance provides that ‘‘[a] state
must reasonably pick and justify the
measures that it will consider,
recognizing that there is no statutory or
regulatory requirement to consider all
technically feasible measures or any
particular measures. A range of
technically feasible measures available
to reduce emissions would be one way
to justify a reasonable set.’’ 2019
Guidance at 29.
EPA’s 2021 Clarifications Memo
provides further guidance on what
constitutes a reasonable set of control
options for consideration: ‘‘A reasonable
four-factor analysis will consider the
full range of potentially reasonable
options for reducing emissions.’’ 2021
Clarifications Memo at 7. In addition to
add-on controls and other retrofits (i.e.,
new emission reduction measures for
sources), EPA explained that states
should generally analyze efficiency
improvements for sources’ existing
measures as control options in their
four-factor analyses, as in many cases
such improvements are reasonable given
that they typically involve only
additional operation and maintenance
costs. Additionally, the 2021
Clarifications Memo provides that states
that have assumed a higher emission
rate than a source has achieved or could
potentially achieve using its existing
measures should also consider lower
emission rates as potential control
options. That is, a state should consider
a source’s recent actual and projected
emission rates to determine if it could
22 ‘‘Each source’’ or ‘‘particular source’’ is used
here as shorthand. While a source-specific analysis
is one way of applying the four factors, neither the
statute nor the RHR requires states to evaluate
individual sources. Rather, states have ‘‘the
flexibility to conduct four-factor analyses for
specific sources, groups of sources or even entire
source categories, depending on state policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each
state.’’ 82 FR 3078 at 3088, January 10, 2017.
However, not all approaches to grouping sources for
four-factor analysis are necessarily reasonable; the
reasonableness of grouping sources in any
particular instance will depend on the
circumstances and the manner in which grouping
is conducted. If it is feasible to establish and
enforce different requirements for sources or
subgroups of sources, and if relevant factors can be
quantified for those sources or subgroups, then
states should make a separate reasonable progress
determination for each source or subgroup. 2021
Clarifications Memo at 7–8.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58184
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
reasonably attain lower emission rates
with its existing measures. If so, the
state should analyze the lower emission
rate as a control option for reducing
emissions. 2021 Clarifications Memo at
7. The EPA’s recommendations to
analyze potential efficiency
improvements and achievable lower
emission rates apply to both sources
that have been selected for four-factor
analysis and those that have forgone a
four-factor analysis on the basis of
existing ‘‘effective controls.’’ See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 5, 10.
After identifying a reasonable set of
potential control options for the sources
it has selected, a state then collects
information on the four factors with
regard to each option identified. The
EPA has also explained that, in addition
to the four statutory factors, states have
flexibility under the CAA and RHR to
reasonably consider visibility benefits as
an additional factor alongside the four
statutory factors.23 The 2019 Guidance
provides recommendations for the types
of information that can be used to
characterize the four factors (with or
without visibility), as well as ways in
which states might reasonably consider
and balance that information to
determine which of the potential control
options is necessary to make reasonable
progress. See 2019 Guidance at 30–36.
The 2021 Clarifications Memo contains
further guidance on how states can
reasonably consider modeled visibility
impacts or benefits in the context of a
four-factor analysis. 2021 Clarifications
Memo at 12–13, 14–15. Specifically,
EPA explained that while visibility can
reasonably be used when comparing
and choosing between multiple
reasonable control options, it should not
be used to summarily reject controls
that are reasonable given the four
statutory factors. 2021 Clarifications
Memo at 13. Ultimately, while states
have discretion to reasonably weigh the
factors and to determine what level of
control is needed, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i)
provides that a state ‘‘must include in
its implementation plan a description of
. . . how the four factors were taken
into consideration in selecting the
measure for inclusion in its long-term
strategy.’’
As explained above, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to
determine the emission reduction
measures for sources that are necessary
to make reasonable progress by
considering the four factors. Pursuant to
23 See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection
of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for
State Plans; Proposed Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4,
2016), Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0531,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186; 2019
Guidance at 36–37.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress
towards the national visibility goal must
be included in a state’s long-term
strategy and in its SIP.24 If the outcome
of a four-factor analysis is a new,
additional emission reduction measure
for a source, that new measure is
necessary to make reasonable progress
towards remedying existing
anthropogenic visibility impairment and
must be included in the SIP. If the
outcome of a four-factor analysis is that
no new measures are reasonable for a
source, continued implementation of
the source’s existing measures is
generally necessary to prevent future
emission increases and thus to make
reasonable progress towards the second
part of the national visibility goal:
preventing future anthropogenic
visibility impairment. See CAA
169A(a)(1). That is, when the result of
a four-factor analysis is that no new
measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress, the source’s
existing measures are generally
necessary to make reasonable progress
and must be included in the SIP.
However, there may be circumstances in
which a state can demonstrate that a
source’s existing measures are not
necessary to make reasonable progress.
Specifically, if a state can demonstrate
that a source will continue to
implement its existing measures and
will not increase its emission rate, it
may not be necessary to have those
measures in the long-term strategy in
order to prevent future emission
increases and future visibility
impairment. EPA’s 2021 Clarifications
Memo provides further explanation and
guidance on how states may
demonstrate that a source’s existing
measures are not necessary to make
reasonable progress. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 8–10. If the state
can make such a demonstration, it need
not include a source’s existing measures
in the long-term strategy or its SIP.
As with source selection, the
characterization of information on each
of the factors is also subject to the
documentation requirement in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress
analysis, including source selection,
information gathering, characterization
of the four statutory factors (and
potentially visibility), balancing of the
four factors, and selection of the
emission reduction measures that
represent reasonable progress, is a
technically complex exercise, but also a
flexible one that provides states with
bounded discretion to design and
implement approaches appropriate to
their circumstances. Given this
flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays
an important function in requiring a
state to document the technical basis for
its decision making so that the public
and the EPA can comprehend and
evaluate the information and analysis
the state relied upon to determine what
emission reduction measures must be in
place to make reasonable progress. The
technical documentation must include
the modeling, monitoring, cost,
engineering, and emissions information
on which the state relied to determine
the measures necessary to make
reasonable progress. This
documentation requirement can be met
through the provision of and reliance on
technical analyses developed through a
regional planning process, so long as
that process and its output has been
approved by all state participants. In
addition to the explicit regulatory
requirement to document the technical
basis of their reasonable progress
determinations, states are also subject to
the general principle that those
determinations must be reasonably
moored to the statute.25 That is, a state’s
decisions about the emission reduction
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress must be consistent
with the statutory goal of remedying
existing and preventing future visibility
impairment.
The four statutory factors (and
potentially visibility) are used to
determine what emission reduction
measures for selected sources must be
included in a state’s long-term strategy
for making reasonable progress.
Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR
51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five
‘‘additional factors’’ 26 that states must
consider in developing their long-term
24 States may choose to, but are not required to,
include measures in their long-term strategies
beyond just the emission reduction measures that
are necessary for reasonable progress. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with
smoke management programs may choose to submit
their smoke management plans to EPA for inclusion
in their SIPs but are not required to do so. See, e.g.,
82 FR 3078 at 3108–09, January 10, 2017
(requirement to consider smoke management
practices and smoke management programs under
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not require states to
adopt such practices or programs into their SIPs,
although they may elect to do so).
25 See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815
F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA,
812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir. 2016); North Dakota v.
EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013); Oklahoma
v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208–10 (10th Cir.
2013); cf. also Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v.
EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165 (3d Cir. 2015); Alaska Dep’t
of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 485,
490 (2004).
26 The five ‘‘additional factors’’ for consideration
in section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four
factors listed in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must consider and apply
to sources in determining reasonable progress.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
strategies: (1) emission reductions due
to ongoing air pollution control
programs, including measures to
address reasonably attributable visibility
impairment; (2) measures to reduce the
impacts of construction activities; (3)
source retirement and replacement
schedules; (4) basic smoke management
practices for prescribed fire used for
agricultural and wildland vegetation
management purposes and smoke
management programs; and (5) 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. The
2019 Guidance provides that a state may
satisfy this requirement by considering
these additional factors in the process of
selecting sources for four-factor
analysis, when performing that analysis,
or both, and that not every one of the
additional factors needs to be
considered at the same stage of the
process. See 2019 Guidance at 21. EPA
provided further guidance on the five
additional factors in the 2021
Clarifications Memo, explaining that a
state should generally not reject costeffective and otherwise reasonable
controls merely because there have been
emission reductions since the first
planning period owing to other ongoing
air pollution control programs or merely
because visibility is otherwise projected
to improve at Class I areas.
Additionally, states generally should
not rely on these additional factors to
summarily assert that the state has
already made sufficient progress and,
therefore, no sources need to be selected
or no new controls are needed
regardless of the outcome of four-factor
analyses. 2021 Clarifications Memo at
13.
Because the air pollution that causes
regional haze crosses state boundaries,
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to
consult with other states that also have
emissions that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in a given Class I area.
Consultation allows for each state that
impacts visibility in an area to share
whatever technical information,
analyses, and control determinations
may be necessary to develop
coordinated emission management
strategies. This coordination may be
managed through inter- and intra-RPO
consultation and the development of
regional emissions strategies; additional
consultations between states outside of
RPO processes may also occur. If a state,
pursuant to consultation, agrees that
certain measures (e.g., a certain
emission limitation) are necessary to
make reasonable progress at a Class I
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
area, it must include those measures in
its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A).
Additionally, the RHR requires that
states that contribute to visibility
impairment at the same Class I area
consider the emission reduction
measures the other contributing states
have identified as being necessary to
make reasonable progress for their own
sources. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a
state has been asked to consider or
adopt certain emission reduction
measures, but ultimately determines
those measures are not necessary to
make reasonable progress, that state
must document in its SIP the actions
taken to resolve the disagreement. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). The EPA will
consider the technical information and
explanations presented by the
submitting state and the state with
which it disagrees when considering
whether to approve the state’s SIP. See
id.; 2019 Guidance at 53. Under all
circumstances, a state must document in
its SIP submission all substantive
consultations with other contributing
states. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
Reasonable progress goals ‘‘measure
the progress that is projected to be
achieved by the control measures states
have determined are necessary to make
reasonable progress based on a fourfactor analysis.’’ 82 FR 3078 at 3091,
January 10, 2017. Their primary purpose
is to assist the public and the EPA in
assessing the reasonableness of states’
long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii) and (iv). States in which
Class I areas are located must establish
two RPGs, both in deciviews—one
representing visibility conditions on the
clearest days and one representing
visibility on the most anthropogenically
impaired days—for each area within
their borders. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). The
two RPGs are intended to reflect the
projected impacts, on the two sets of
days, of the emission reduction
measures the state with the Class I area,
as well as all other contributing states,
have included in their long-term
strategies for the second implementation
period.27 The RPGs also account for the
27 RPGs are intended to reflect the projected
impacts of the measures all contributing states
include in their long-term strategies. However, due
to the timing of analyses and of control
determinations by other states, other on-going
emissions changes, a particular state’s RPGs may
not reflect all control measures and emissions
reductions that are expected to occur by the end of
the implementation period. The 2019 Guidance
provides recommendations for addressing the
timing of RPG calculations when states are
developing their long-term strategies on disparate
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58185
projected impacts of implementing
other CAA requirements, including nonSIP based requirements. Because RPGs
are the modeled result of the measures
in states’ long-term strategies (as well as
other measures required under the
CAA), they cannot be determined before
states have conducted their four-factor
analyses and determined the control
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 6.
For the second implementation
period, the RPGs are set for 2028.
Reasonable progress goals are not
enforceable targets, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they ‘‘provide a
way for the states to check the projected
outcome of the [long-term strategy]
against the goals for visibility
improvement.’’ 2019 Guidance at 46.
While states are not legally obligated to
achieve the visibility conditions
described in their RPGs, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ‘‘[t]he longterm strategy and the reasonable
progress goals must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most
impaired days since the baseline period
and ensure no degradation in visibility
for the clearest days since the baseline
period.’’ Thus, states are required to
have emission reduction measures in
their long-term strategies that are
projected to achieve visibility
conditions on the most impaired days
that are better than the baseline period
and shows no degradation on the
clearest days compared to the clearest
days from the baseline period. The
baseline period for the purpose of this
comparison is the baseline visibility
condition—the annual average visibility
condition for the period 2000–2004. See
40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR 3078 at
3097–98, January 10, 2017.
So that RPGs may also serve as a
metric for assessing the amount of
progress a state is making towards the
national visibility goal, the RHR
requires states with Class I areas to
compare the 2028 RPG for the most
impaired days to the corresponding
point on the URP line (representing
visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility
were to improve at a linear rate from
conditions in the baseline period of
2000–2004 to natural visibility
conditions in 2064). If the most
impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the
URP (i.e., if visibility conditions are
improving more slowly than the rate
described by the URP), each state that
contributes to visibility impairment in
the Class I area must demonstrate, based
on the four-factor analysis required
schedules, as well as for adjusting RPGs using a
post-modeling approach. 2019 Guidance at 47–48.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
58186
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no
additional emission reduction measures
would be reasonable to include in its
long-term strategy. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii) requires that each state
contributing to visibility impairment in
a Class I area that is projected to
improve more slowly than the URP
provide ‘‘a robust demonstration,
including documenting the criteria used
to determine which sources or groups
[of] sources were evaluated and how the
four factors required by paragraph
(f)(2)(i) were taken into consideration in
selecting the measures for inclusion in
its long-term strategy.’’ The 2019
Guidance provides suggestions about
how such a ‘‘robust demonstration’’
might be conducted. See 2019 Guidance
at 50–51.
The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and
2021 Clarifications Memo also explain
that projecting an RPG that is on or
below the URP based on only on-thebooks and/or on-the-way control
measures (i.e., control measures already
required or anticipated before the fourfactor analysis is conducted) is not a
‘‘safe harbor’’ from the CAA’s and RHR’s
requirement that all states must conduct
a four-factor analysis to determine what
emission reduction measures constitute
reasonable progress. The URP is a
planning metric used to gauge the
amount of progress made thus far and
the amount left before reaching natural
visibility conditions. However, the URP
is not based on consideration of the four
statutory factors and therefore cannot
answer the question of whether the
amount of progress being made in any
particular implementation period is
‘‘reasonable progress.’’ See 82 FR 3078
at 3093, 3099–3100, January 10, 2017;
2019 Guidance at 22; 2021 Clarifications
Memo at 15–16.
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State
Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to
have certain strategies and elements in
place for assessing and reporting on
visibility. Individual requirements
under this subsection apply either to
states with Class I areas within their
borders, states with no Class I areas but
that are reasonably anticipated to cause
or contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I area, or both. A state with
Class I areas within its borders must
submit with its SIP revision a
monitoring strategy for measuring,
characterizing, and reporting regional
haze visibility impairment that is
representative of all Class I areas within
the state. SIP revisions for such states
must also provide for the establishment
of any additional monitoring sites or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
equipment needed to assess visibility
conditions in Class I areas, as well as
reporting of all visibility monitoring
data to the EPA at least annually.
Compliance with the monitoring
strategy requirement may be met
through a state’s participation in the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, which is used to
measure visibility impairment caused
by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i) and (iv). The
IMPROVE monitoring data is used to
determine the 20% most
anthropogenically impaired and 20%
clearest sets of days every year at each
Class I area and tracks visibility
impairment over time.
All states’ SIPs must provide for
procedures by which monitoring data
and other information are used to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment in affected Class I
areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii) and (iii).
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires
that all states’ SIPs provide for 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 the most recent year for which data
are available and estimates of future
projected emissions. States must also
include commitments to update their
inventories periodically. The
inventories themselves do not need to
be included as elements in the SIP and
are not subject to EPA review as part of
the Agency’s evaluation of a SIP
revision.28 All states’ SIPs must also
provide for any other elements,
including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures, that are necessary for
states to assess and report on visibility.
40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). Per the 2019
Guidance, a state may note in its
regional haze SIP that its compliance
with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule
(AERR) in 40 CFR part 51 Subpart A
satisfies the requirement to provide for
an emissions inventory for the most
recent year for which data are available.
To satisfy the requirement to provide
estimates of future projected emissions,
a state may explain in its SIP how
projected emissions were developed for
use in establishing RPGs for its own and
nearby Class I areas.29
Separate from the requirements
related to monitoring for regional haze
28 See
‘‘Step 8: Additional requirements for
regional haze SIPs’’ in 2019 Regional Haze
Guidance at 55.
29 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the
RHR also contains a requirement at 40
CFR 51.308(f)(4) related to any
additional monitoring that may be
needed to address visibility impairment
in Class I areas from a single source or
a small group of sources. This is called
‘‘reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.’’ 30 Under this provision, if
the EPA or the FLM of an affected Class
I area has advised a state that additional
monitoring is needed to assess
reasonably attributable visibility
impairment, the state must include in
its SIP revision for the second
implementation period an appropriate
strategy for evaluating such impairment.
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports
Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state’s
regional haze SIP revision to address the
requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1) through (5) so that the plan
revision due in 2021 will serve also as
a progress report addressing the period
since submission of the progress report
for the first implementation period. The
regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the
public and the EPA about a state’s
implementation of its existing long-term
strategy and whether such
implementation is in fact resulting in
the expected visibility improvement.
See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016),
(82 FR 3078 at 3119, January 10, 2017).
To this end, every state’s SIP revision
for the second implementation period is
required to describe the status of
implementation of all measures
included in the state’s long-term
strategy, including BART and
reasonable progress emission reduction
measures from the first implementation
period, and the resulting emissions
reductions. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
A core component of the progress
report requirements is an assessment of
changes in visibility conditions on the
clearest and most impaired days. For
second implementation period progress
reports, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires
states with Class I areas within their
borders to first determine current
visibility conditions for each area on the
most impaired and clearest days, 40
CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i)(B), and then to
calculate the difference between those
current conditions and baseline (2000–
2004) visibility conditions in order to
assess progress made to date. See 40
CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii)(B). States must also
30 EPA’s visibility protection regulations define
‘‘reasonably attributable visibility impairment’’ as
‘‘visibility impairment that is caused by the
emission of air pollutants from one, or a small
number of sources.’’ 40 CFR 51.301.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
assess the changes in visibility
impairment for the most impaired and
clearest days since they submitted their
first implementation period progress
reports. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(iii)(B)
and (f)(5). Since different states
submitted their first implementation
period progress reports at different
times, the starting point for this
assessment will vary state by state.
Similarly, states must provide
analyses tracking the change in
emissions of pollutants contributing to
visibility impairment from all sources
and activities within the state over the
period since they submitted their first
implementation period progress reports.
See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) and (f)(5).
Changes in emissions should be
identified by the type of source or
activity. Section 51.308(g)(5) also
addresses changes in emissions since
the period addressed by the previous
progress report and requires states’ SIP
revisions to include an assessment of
any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the state. This assessment must
include an explanation of whether these
changes in emissions were anticipated
and whether they have limited or
impeded progress in reducing emissions
and improving visibility relative to what
the state projected based on its longterm strategy for the first
implementation period.
G. Requirements for State and Federal
Land Manager Coordination
Clean Air Act section 169A(d)
requires that before a state holds a
public hearing on a proposed regional
haze SIP revision, it must consult with
the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant
to that consultation, the state must
include a summary of the FLMs’
conclusions and recommendations in
the notice to the public. Consistent with
this statutory requirement, the RHR also
requires that states ‘‘provide the [FLM]
with an opportunity for consultation, in
person and at a point early enough in
the State’s policy analyses of its longterm strategy emission reduction
obligation so that information and
recommendations provided by the
[FLM] can meaningfully inform the
State’s decisions on the long-term
strategy.’’ 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2).
Consultation that occurs 120 days prior
to any public hearing or public
comment opportunity will be deemed
‘‘early enough,’’ but the RHR provides
that in any event the opportunity for
consultation must be provided at least
60 days before a public hearing or
comment opportunity. This consultation
must include the opportunity for the
FLMs to discuss their assessment of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
visibility impairment in any Class I area
and their recommendations on the
development and implementation of
strategies to address such impairment.
40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In order for the EPA
to evaluate whether FLM consultation
meeting the requirements of the RHR
has occurred, the SIP submission should
include documentation of the timing
and content of such consultation. The
SIP revision submitted to the EPA must
also describe how the state addressed
any comments provided by the FLMs.
40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP
revision 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.
40 CFR 51.308(i)(4).
IV. EPA’s Evaluation of Maryland’s
Regional Haze Submission for the
Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Maryland’s First
Implementation Period SIP Submission
MDE submitted its regional haze SIP
for the first implementation period to
the EPA on February 13, 2012. The EPA
approved Maryland’s first
implementation period regional haze
SIP submission on July 6, 2012 (77 FR
39938, July 6, 2012), effective August 6,
2012. EPA’s approval included the
portions of the plan that addressed the
reasonable progress requirements and
Maryland’s implementation of Best
Available Retrofit Technologies (BART)
on eligible sources. The requirements
for regional haze SIPs for the first
implementation period are contained in
40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e). 40 CFR
51.308(b). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g),
Maryland was also responsible for
submitting a five-year progress report as
a SIP revision for the first
implementation period, which it did on
August 9, 2017. The EPA approved the
progress report on November 26, 2018
(83 FR 60363, November 26, 2018),
effective December 26, 2018.
B. Maryland’s Second Implementation
Period SIP Submission and the EPA’s
Evaluation
In accordance with CAA sections
169A and the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f),
on February 8, 2022, MDE submitted a
revision to the Maryland SIP to address
its regional haze obligations for the
second implementation period, which
runs through 2028. Maryland made its
2020 Regional Haze SIP submission
available for public comment on
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58187
December 1, 2021 through January 4,
2022. MDE received and responded to
public comments and included the
comments and responses to those
comments in their submission.
The following sections describe
Maryland’s SIP submission, including
analyses conducted by MANE–VU and
Maryland’s determinations based on
those analyses, Maryland’s assessment
of progress made since the first
implementation period in reducing
emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants, and the visibility
improvement progress at nearby Class I
areas. This document also contains
EPA’s evaluation of Maryland’s
submission against the requirements of
the CAA and RHR for the second
implementation period of the regional
haze program.
C. Identification of Class I Areas
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA
requires each state in which any Class
I area is located or ‘‘the emissions from
which may reasonably be anticipated to
cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility’’ in a Class I area to have a
plan for making reasonable progress
toward the national visibility goal. The
RHR implements this statutory
requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which
provides that each state’s plan ‘‘must
address regional haze in each
mandatory Class I Federal area located
within the State and in each mandatory
Class I Federal area located outside the
State that may be affected by emissions
from within the State,’’ and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2), which requires each state’s
plan to include a long-term strategy that
addresses regional haze in such Class I
areas.
The EPA explained in the 1999 RHR
preamble that the CAA section
169A(b)(2) requirement that states
submit SIPs to address visibility
impairment establishes ‘‘an ‘extremely
low triggering threshold’ in determining
which States should submit SIPs for
regional haze.’’ 64 FR 35714 at 35721,
July 1, 1999. In concluding that each of
the contiguous 48 states and the District
of Columbia meet this threshold,31 the
EPA relied on ‘‘a large body of evidence
demonstrat[ing] that long-range
transport of fine PM contributes to
regional haze,’’ id., including modeling
studies that ‘‘preliminarily
31 EPA determined that ‘‘there is more than
sufficient evidence to support our conclusion that
emissions from each of the 48 contiguous states and
the District of Columba may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in a Class I area.’’ 64 FR 35714 at
35721, July 1, 1999. Hawaii, Alaska, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands must also submit regional haze SIPs
because they contain Class I areas.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58188
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
demonstrated that each State not having
a Class I area had emissions
contributing to impairment in at least
one downwind Class I area.’’ Id. at
35722. In addition to the technical
evidence supporting a conclusion that
each state contributes to existing
visibility impairment, the EPA also
explained that the second half of the
national visibility goal—preventing
future visibility impairment—requires
having a framework in place to address
future growth in visibility-impairing
emissions and makes it inappropriate to
‘‘establish criteria for excluding States
or geographic areas from consideration
as potential contributors to regional
haze visibility impairment.’’ Id. at
35721. Thus, the EPA concluded that
the agency’s ‘‘statutory authority and
the scientific evidence are sufficient to
require all States to develop regional
haze SIPs to ensure the prevention of
any future impairment of visibility, and
to conduct further analyses to determine
whether additional control measures are
needed to ensure reasonable progress in
remedying existing impairment in
downwind Class I areas.’’ Id. at 35722.
EPA’s 2017 revisions to the RHR did not
disturb this conclusion. See 82 FR 3078
at 3094, January 10, 2017.
Maryland has no mandatory Class I
Federal area within its borders, but has
previously been shown to have sources
with emissions that impact visibility at
downwind mandatory Class I Federal
areas. For the second implementation
period, MANE–VU performed technical
analyses 32 to help assess source and
state-level contributions to visibility
impairment and the need for interstate
consultation. MANE–VU used the
results of these analyses to determine
which states’ emissions ‘‘have a high
likelihood of affecting visibility in
MANE–VU’s Class I areas.’’ 33 Similar to
metrics used in the first implementation
period,34 MANE–VU used a greater than
2 percent of sulfate plus nitrate
emissions contribution criteria to
determine whether emissions from
individual jurisdictions within the
region affected visibility in any Class I
areas. The MANE–VU analyses for the
second implementation period used a
combination of data analysis
techniques, including emissions data,
distance from Class I areas, wind
trajectories, and CALPUFF dispersion
modeling. Although many of the
32 The contribution assessment methodologies for
MANE–VU Class I areas are summarized in
Appendix 1 of Maryland’s SIP submittal, which can
be found in the docket, ‘‘Selection of States for
MANE–VU Regional Haze Consultation (2018).’’
33 Id.
34 See docket EPA–R03–OAR–2022–0912 for
MANE–VU supporting materials.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
analyses focused only on SO2 emissions
and resultant particulate sulfate
contributions to visibility impairment,
some also incorporated NOX emissions
to estimate particulate nitrate
contributions.
One MANE–VU analysis used for
contribution assessment was CALPUFF
air dispersion modeling. The CALPUFF
model was used to estimate sulfate and
nitrate formation and transport in
MANE–VU and nearby regions
originating from large electric generating
unit (EGU) point sources and other large
industrial and institutional sources in
the eastern and central United States.
Information from an initial round of
CALPUFF modeling was collated for the
444 EGUs that were determined to
warrant further scrutiny based on their
emissions of SO2 and NOX. The list of
EGUs was based on an enhanced ‘‘Q/d’’
analysis 35 that considered recent SO2
emissions in the eastern United States
and an analysis that adjusted previous
2002 MANE–VU CALPUFF modeling by
applying a ratio of 2011 to 2002 SO2
emissions. This list of sources was then
enhanced by including the top five SO2
and NOX emission sources for 2011 for
each state included in the modeling
domain. A total of 311 EGU stacks (as
opposed to individual units) were
included in the CALPUFF modeling
analysis. Initial information was also
collected on the 50 industrial and
institutional sources that, according to
2011 Q/d analysis, contributed the most
to visibility impact in each Class I area.
The ultimate CALPUFF modeling run
included a total of 311 EGU stacks and
82 industrial facilities. The summary
report for the CALPUFF modeling
included the top 10 most impacting
EGUs and the top 5 most impacting
industrial/institutional sources for each
Class I area and compiled those results
into a ranked list of the most impacting
EGUs and industrial sources at MANE–
VU Class I areas.36
Maryland had ten EGU sources 37 and
six industrial/institutional sources 38
35 ‘‘Q/d’’
is emissions (Q) in tons per year,
typically of one or a combination of visibilityimpairing pollutants, divided by distance to a class
I area (d) in kilometers. The resulting ratio is
commonly used as a metric to assess a source’s
potential visibility impacts on a particular class I
area.
36 See docket document, ‘‘2016 MANE VU Source
Contribution Modeling Report (CALPUFF Modeling
of Large EGUs and Industrial Sources) (April 4,
2017)’’.
37 Brandon Shores (Unit 1 & Unit 2), CP Crane
(Unit 1 & Unit 2), Chalk Point (Units 1 & 2),
Dickerson (Units 1–3), Herbert Wager (Unit 3 &
Units 1, 2, and 4), and Morgantown (Unit 1 and
Unit 2).
38 Luke Paper Company (Unit 0018, Unit 0019,
and Unit 0235), Naval Support Facility Indian
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that were included in the MANE–VU
CALPUFF modeling analysis.39 The
EGU facilities Brandon Shores, Chalk
Point, Herbert Wagner, and Morgantown
were identified as among the Top 25
most impactful EGU facilities for
Shenandoah National Park Class I area,
and EGU facility CP Crane was also
identified as among the Top 25 most
impactful EGU facilities for Dolly Sods
Wilderness Class I area. EGU facilities
Brandon Shores, Chalk Point, CP Crane,
Herbert Wagner, and Morgantown were
also among the EGU facilities identified
as having the Top Impacting EGU
stacks. The Luke Paper Company and
Sparrows Point industrial facilities were
identified as among the Top 25 visibility
impacting industrial/institutional
sources for Acadia National Park,
Brigantine National Wilderness Area,
Great Gulf Wilderness, Lye Brook
Wilderness, Dolly Sods Wilderness, and
Shenandoah National Park Class I areas.
The Indian Head Naval Support Facility
was also identified as among the Top 25
visibility impacting industrial/
institutional sources for Dolly Sods
Wilderness and Shenandoah National
Park.
In its submittal, Maryland indicates
that Brandon Shores Generating Station
has agreed via legal consent agreement
to cease coal combustion at the site by
2026.40 Maryland indicates that Chalk
Point Generation Station ceased coal
operations in 2021 and closed, and that
Maryland subsequently filed a Retired
Unit Exemption form with EPA,
specifying that the Chalk Point units
identified are permanently shut down
and cannot be restarted, and that a new
owner would be required to obtain all
new permits.41 Maryland also indicates
that Herbert Wagner Generating Station
has agreed to cease coal combustion by
2026; MDE and Herbert Wagner owner/
operator Raven Power, Fort Smallwood
LLC, entered into a legal consent order
requiring Raven Power to cease coal
combustion at Herbert Wager no later
than January 1, 2026.42 Maryland
Head, and Sparrows Point, LLC (Unit 0939 and Unit
0941).
39 See docket document, ‘‘2016 MANE VU Source
Contribution Modeling Report (CALPUFF Modeling
of Large EGUs and Industrial Sources) (April 4,
2017)’’.
40 See Section 2.4 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018–2028
(February 8, 2022), and docket documents ‘‘MDE
SO2 2010 NAAQS SIP for Baltimore and Anne
Arundel NA (January 31, 2020)’’, and ‘‘MDE SO2
2010 NAAQS SIP for Baltimore and Anne Arundel
NA (January 31, 2020)—Appendix B—Consent
Orders, Permits, and Plan Approvals’’.
41 See docket document, ‘‘MDE EPA Chalk Point
Units 1&2 Retired Unit Exemption Forms 6–4–21
(June 4, 2021)’’.
42 See Appendix 19, ‘‘Herbert A. Wagner
Generating Station Consent Order’’.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
included the consent order as part of its
SIP submittal. Maryland also indicates
that CP Crane Generating Station has
disabled its coal boilers and agreed via
legal consent agreement to never again
stockpile or burn coal at the facility.43
Maryland further indicates that the Luke
Paper Company industrial facility has
ceased operations, closed and
relinquished their air permits as of May
29, 2020; 44 that the Sparrows Point
industrial facility was retired as of
December 31, 2012; 45 and that the
primary emissions units at the Indian
Head Naval Support Facility, which
consisted of three coal- and No. 6 fuel
oil-fired boilers at the Goddard Steam
Plant, were permanently shut down in
2014.46
The second MANE–VU contribution
analysis used a meteorologically
weighted Q/d calculation to assess
states’ contributions to visibility
impairment at MANE–VU Class I
areas.47 This analysis focused
predominantly on SO2 emissions and
used cumulative SO2 emissions from a
source and a state for the variable ‘‘Q,’’
and the distance of the source or state
to the IMPROVE monitor receptor at a
Class I area as ‘‘d.’’ The result is then
multiplied by a constant (Ci), which is
determined based on the prevailing
wind patterns. MANE–VU selected a
meteorologically weighted Q/d analysis
as an inexpensive initial screening tool
that could easily be repeated to
determine which states, sectors, or
sources have a larger relative impact
and warrant further analysis. MANE–
VU updated its analysis in 2016 using
2011 emissions and 2018 projected
emissions, which Maryland included as
part of its submittal. MANE–VU’s
analysis estimated Maryland’s 2018
sulfate contribution at 3.77% at Acadia
National Park, 8.89% at Brigantine
Wilderness, 3.36% at Great Gulf 3.80%
at Lye Brook, and 3.35% at Moosehorn
Class I areas based on maximum daily
43 See Section 2.6.1 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018–2028
(February 8, 2022), and docket documents ‘‘MDE
SO2 2010 NAAQS SIP for Baltimore and Anne
Arundel NA (January 31, 2020)’’, and ‘‘MDE SO2
2010 NAAQS SIP for Baltimore and Anne Arundel
NA (January 31, 2020)—Appendix B—Consent
Orders, Permits, and Plan Approvals’’.
44 See docket documents, ‘‘Verso Luke Paper—
Luke MD Title V Permit Termination (May 7,
2020)’’ and ‘‘Verso Luke Paper—Verso Luke Close
Out Letter (May 8, 2020)’’.
45 See docket document, ‘‘MDE Sparrows Point
Administrative Consent Order (September 12,
2014)’’.
46 See docket document, ‘‘MDE EPA Indian Head
Boiler Decommision letter (January 29, 2016)’’.
47 See docket document, ‘‘MANE–VU
Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic United States (August 2006)’’.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
impact.48 Although MANE–VU did not
originally estimate nitrate impacts, the
MANE–VU Q/d analysis was
subsequently extended to account for
nitrate contributions from NOX
emissions and to approximate the
nitrate impacts from area and mobile
sources. MANE–VU therefore developed
a ratio of nitrate to sulfate impacts based
on the previously described CALPUFF
modeling and applied those to the
sulfate Q/d results in order to derive
nitrate contribution estimates. Several
states did not have CALPUFF nitrate to
sulfate ratio results, however, because
there were no point sources modeled
with CALPUFF.
In order to develop a final set of
contribution estimates, MANE–VU
weighted the results from both the Q/d
and CALPUFF analyses. The MANE–VU
mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate
contribution results were reported for
the MANE–VU Class I areas (the Q/d
summary report included results for
several non-MANE–VU areas as well). If
a state’s contribution to sulfate and
nitrate concentrations at a particular
Class I area was 2 percent or greater,
MANE–VU regarded that state as
contributing to visibility impairment in
that area. According to MANE–VU’s
analyses, sources in Maryland were
found to contribute to visibility
impairment at all seven downwind
MANE–VU Class I areas,49 as well as
VISTA Class I areas including James
River Face and Shenandoah National
Park in Virginia and Dolly Sods
Wilderness and Otter Creek Wilderness
in West Virginia.50 MANE–VU
determined that modeled emissions
sources that have the potential for 3.0
Mm¥1 or greater visibility impacts at
any MANE–VU Class I area should
perform a four-factor analysis for
reasonable installation or upgrade to
emissions controls. Maryland indicated
in its submittal that it agrees with
MANE–VU’s approach and assessment.
As explained above, the EPA
concluded in the 1999 RHR that ‘‘all
[s]tates contain sources whose
emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to regional haze in a Class I
area,’’ 64 FR 35714 at 35721, July 1,
1999, and this determination was not
48 See ‘‘Table 2–2: Q/d results using 2011 and
2018 inventory data for 32 states’’, of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
49 Acadia National Park, Moosehorn National
Wildlife Refuge, and Roosevelt Campobello
International Park in Maine; Brigantine Wilderness
in New Jersey; Great Gulf Wilderness and
Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness in New
Hampshire; and Lye Brook Wilderness in Vermont.
50 See docket document, ‘‘2016 MANE–VU
Source Contribution Modeling Report (April 4,
2017),’’ Tables 1 through 33.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58189
changed in the 2017 RHR. Critically, the
statute and regulation both require that
the cause-or-contribute assessment
consider all emissions of visibilityimpairing pollutants from a state, as
opposed to emissions of a particular
pollutant or emissions from a certain set
of sources. Consistent with these
requirements, the 2019 Guidance makes
it clear that ‘‘all types of anthropogenic
sources are to be included in the
determination’’ of whether a state’s
emissions are reasonably anticipated to
result in any visibility impairment. 2019
Guidance at 8.
First, the screening analyses on which
MANE–VU relied are useful for certain
purposes. MANE–VU used information
from its technical analysis to rank the
largest contributing states to sulfate and
nitrate impairment in five Class I areas
within MANE–VU states and three
additional, nearby Class I areas.51 The
rankings were used to determine
upwind states that were deemed
important to include in state-to-state
consultation (based on an identified
impact screening threshold).
Additionally, large individual source
impacts were used to target MANE–VU
control analysis ‘‘Asks’’ 52 of states and
sources both within and upwind of
MANE–VU.53 The EPA finds the nature
of the analyses generally appropriate to
support decisions on states with which
to consult. However, we have cautioned
that source selection methodologies that
target the largest regional contributors to
visibility impairment across multiple
states may not be reasonable for a
particular state if it results in few or no
sources being selected for subsequent
analysis. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 3.
With regard to the analysis and
determinations regarding Maryland’s
contribution to visibility impairment at
out-of-state Class I areas, the MANE–VU
technical work focuses on the
magnitude of visibility impacts from
certain Maryland emissions on
downwind Class I areas. However, the
analyses did not account for all
51 The Class I areas analyzed were Acadia
National Park in Maine, Brigantine Wilderness in
New Jersey, Great Gulf Wilderness in New
Hampshire, Lye Brook Wilderness in Vermont,
Moosehorn Wilderness in Maine, Shenandoah
National Park in Virginia, James River Face
Wilderness in Virginia, and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek
Wildernesses in West Virginia.
52 As explained more fully in Section IV.E.1 of
this document, MANE–VU refers to each of the
components of its overall strategy as an ‘‘Ask ‘‘of
its member states.
53 The MANE–VU Consultation Report (Appendix
7) explains that ‘‘[t]he objective of this technical
work was to identify states and sources from which
MANE–VU will pursue further analysis. This
screening was intended to identify which states to
invite to consultation, not a definitive list of which
states are contributing.’’
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58190
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
emissions and all components of
visibility impairment (e.g., primary PM
emissions, and impairment from fine
PM, elemental carbon, and organic
carbon). In addition, Q/d analyses with
a relatively simplistic accounting for
wind trajectories and CALPUFF applied
to a very limited set of EGUs and major
industrial sources of SO2 and NOX are
not scientifically rigorous tools capable
of evaluating contribution to visibility
impairment from all emissions in a
state. While Maryland noted that
contributions from other states are larger
than its own, we again clarify that each
state is obligated under the CAA and
RHR to address regional haze visibility
impairment resulting from emissions
from within the state, irrespective of
whether another state’s contribution is
greater. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at
3. Additionally, we note that the 2
percent or greater sulfate-plus-nitrate
threshold used to determine whether
Maryland emissions contribute to
visibility impairment at a particular
Class I area may be higher than what
EPA believes is an ‘‘extremely low
triggering threshold’’ intended by the
statute and regulations. In sum, based
on the information provided, it is clear
that emissions from Maryland
contribute to visibility impairment at
out-of-state Class I areas.
Regardless, we note that Maryland did
determine that sources and emissions
within the state contribute to visibility
impairment at out-of-state Class I areas.
Furthermore, the state took part in the
emission control strategy consultation
process as a member of MANE–VU. As
part of that process, MANE–VU
developed a set of emissions reduction
measures identified as being necessary
to make reasonable progress in the five
MANE–VU Class I areas. This strategy
consists of six Asks for states within
MANE–VU and five Asks for states
outside the region that were found to
impact visibility at Class I areas within
MANE–VU.54 Maryland’s submittal
discusses each of the Asks and explains
why or why not each is applicable and
how it has complied with the relevant
components of the emissions control
strategy MANE–VU has laid out for its
states. Maryland worked with MANE–
VU to determine potential reasonable
measures that could be implemented by
2028, considering the cost of
compliance, the time necessary for
compliance, the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts, and the
remaining useful life of any potentially
54 See docket documents, ‘‘MANE–VU IntraRegional Ask Final 8–25–2017 (August 25, 2017)’’
and ‘‘MANE–VU Inter-Regional Ask Final 8–25–
2017 (August 25, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
affected sources. As discussed in further
detail below, the EPA is proposing to
find that Maryland has submitted a
regional haze plan that meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)
related to the development of a longterm strategy. Although we have
concerns regarding some aspects of
MANE–VU’s technical analyses
supporting states’ contribution
determinations, we propose to find that
Maryland has satisfied the applicable
requirements for making reasonable
progress towards natural visibility
conditions in Class I areas that may be
affected be emissions from the state.
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current,
and Natural Visibility Conditions;
Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate
of Progress
Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to
determine the following for ‘‘each
mandatory Class I Federal area located
within the State’’: baseline visibility
conditions for the most impaired and
clearest days, natural visibility
conditions for the most impaired and
clearest days, progress to date for the
most impaired and clearest days, the
differences between current visibility
conditions and natural visibility
conditions, and the URP. This section
also provides the option for states to
propose adjustments to the URP line for
a Class I area to account for visibility
impacts from anthropogenic sources
outside the United States and/or the
impacts from wildland prescribed fires
that were conducted for certain,
specified objectives. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
Maryland does not have any
mandatory Class I areas within its
borders; therefore, Section 51.308(f)(1)
and its requirements do not apply.
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
1. Maryland’s Response to the Six
MANE–VU Asks
Each state having a Class I area within
its borders or emissions that may affect
visibility in a Class I area must develop
a long-term strategy for making
reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal. CAA
169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in the
Background section of this document,
reasonable progress is achieved when
all states contributing to visibility
impairment in a Class I area are
implementing the measures
determined—through application of the
four statutory factors to sources of
visibility impairing pollutants—to be
necessary to make reasonable progress.
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each state’s longterm strategy must include the
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
enforceable emission limitations,
compliance schedules, and other
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2). All new (i.e., additional)
measures that are the outcome of fourfactor analyses are necessary to make
reasonable progress and must be in the
long-term strategy. If the outcome of a
four-factor analysis and other measures
necessary to make reasonable progress is
that no new measures are reasonable for
a source, that source’s existing measures
are necessary to make reasonable
progress, unless the state can
demonstrate that the source will
continue to implement those measures
and will not increase its emission rate.
Existing measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress must also be
in the long-term strategy. In developing
its long-term strategies, a state must also
consider the five additional factors in 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its
reasonable progress determinations, the
state must describe the criteria used to
determine which sources or group of
sources were evaluated (i.e., subjected
to four-factor analysis) for the second
implementation period and how the
four factors were taken into
consideration in selecting the emission
reduction measures for inclusion in the
long-term strategy. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii).
The following section summarizes
how Maryland’s SIP submission
addressed the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i); specifically, it describes
MANE–VU’s development of the six
Asks and how Maryland addressed
each. The EPA’s evaluation of
Maryland’s SIP revision with regard to
the same is contained in the following
Section IV.E.2 of this document.
Maryland’s SIP submission describes
how it plans to meet the long-term
strategy requirements defined by the
state and MANE–VU and provides that
‘‘[t]hese long-term strategies are referred
to as the ‘Asks’.’’ 55
States may rely on technical
information developed by the RPOs of
which they are members to select
sources for four-factor analysis and to
conduct that analysis, as well as to
satisfy the documentation requirements
under 40 CFR 51.308(f). Where an RPO
has performed source selection and/or
four-factor analyses (or considered the
five additional factors in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member states,
those states may rely on the RPO’s
analyses for the purpose of satisfying
the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the states have
55 See MD Regional Haze SIP submission Section
2.3 (Page 8).
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
a reasonable basis to do so and all state
participants in the RPO process have
approved the technical analyses. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii). States may also satisfy
the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii) to engage in interstate
consultation with other states that have
emissions that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in a given Class I area under
the auspices of intra- and inter-RPO
engagement.
Maryland is a member of the MANE–
VU RPO and participated in the RPO’s
regional approach to developing a
strategy for making reasonable progress
towards the national visibility goal in
the MANE–VU Class I areas. MANE–
VU’s strategy includes a combination of:
(1) measures for certain source sectors
and groups of sectors that the RPO
determined were reasonable for states to
pursue, and (2) a request for member
states to conduct four-factor analyses for
individual sources that it identified as
contributing to visibility impairment.
MANE–VU refers to each of the
components of its overall strategy as an
Ask of its member states. On August 25,
2017, the Executive Director of MANE–
VU, on behalf of the MANE–VU states
and tribal nations, signed a statement
that identifies six emission reduction
measures that comprise the Asks for the
second implementation period.56 The
Asks were ‘‘designed to identify
reasonable emission reduction strategies
that must be addressed by the states and
tribal nations of MANE–VU through
their regional haze SIP updates.’’ 57 The
statement explains that ‘‘[i]f any State
cannot agree with or complete a Class I
State’s Asks, the State must describe the
actions taken to resolve the
disagreement in the Regional Haze
SIP.’’ 58
MANE–VU’s recommendations as to
the appropriate control measures were
based on technical analyses
documented in the RPO’s reports and
included as appendices to or referenced
in Maryland’s regional haze SIP
submission. One of the initial steps of
MANE–VU’s technical analysis was to
determine which visibility-impairing
pollutants should be the focus of its
efforts for the second implementation
period. In the first implementation
period, MANE–VU determined that
56 See Appendix 8, ‘‘Statement of the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU)
Concerning a Course of Action within MANE–VU
toward Assuring Reasonable Progress for the
Second Regional Haze Implementation Period
(2018–2028), (August 2017); and Appendix 7
‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze Consultation Report’’
(July 27, 2018).’’
57 Id.
58 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
sulfates were the most significant
visibility impairing pollutant at the
region’s Class I areas. To determine the
impact of certain pollutants on visibility
at Class I areas for the purpose of second
implementation period planning,
MANE–VU conducted an analysis
comparing the pollutant contribution on
the clearest and most impaired days in
the baseline period (2000–2004) to the
most recent period (2012–2016) 59 at
MANE–VU and nearby Class I areas.
MANE–VU found that while SO2
emissions were decreasing and visibility
was improving, sulfates still made up
the most significant contribution to
visibility impairment at MANE–VU and
nearby Class I areas. According to the
analysis, NOX emissions have begun to
play a more significant role in visibility
impacts in recent years. The technical
analyses used by Maryland are included
or referenced in their submission, and
are as follows:
• Selection of States for MANE–VU
Regional Haze Consultation (2018)
(MANE–VU, September 2017)
(Appendix 1);
• Contributions to Regional Haze in
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United
States: Preliminary Update through
2007 (NESCAUM, March 2012); 60
• MANE–VU Updated Q/d*C
Contribution Assessment (MANE–VU,
April 2016) (Appendix 3);
• 2016 MANE–VU Source
Contribution Modeling Report—
CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical
Generating Units and Industrial Sources
(MANE–VU, May 2006) (Appendix 4);
• Assessment of Reasonable Progress
for Regional Haze in MANE–VU Class I
areas (referred to as the MACTEC
Report) MACTEC (July 2007); 61
• Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/
Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU)
Concerning a Course of Action within
MANE–VU toward Assuring Reasonable
Progress for the Second Regional Haze
Implementation Period (2018–2028)
(August 2017); 62
• Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/
Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU)
Concerning a Course of Action In
Contributing States Located Upwind of
MANE–VU Toward Assuring
Reasonable Progress for the Second
59 The
period of 2012–2016 was the most recent
period for which data was available at the time of
analysis.
60 See docket document, NESCAUM—
Contributions to Regional Haze Preliminary Update
Through 2007 (March 21, 2012)
61 See docket document, ‘‘Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze In MANE–
VU Class I Areas (July 2007) (MACTEC Reasonable
Progress Report)’’
62 See docket document, ‘‘MANE–VU IntraRegional Ask Final (August 25, 2017)’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58191
Regional Haze Implementation Period
(2018–2028) (Appendix 8);
• Technical Support Document for
the 2011 Northeastern U.S. Gamma
Emission Inventory (January 2018)
(Appendix 10);
• Ozone Transport Commission/MidAtlantic Northeastern Visibility Union
2011 Based Modeling Platform Support
Document—October 2018 Update
(October 2018) (Appendix 11);
• The Nature of Fine Particle and
Regional Haze Air Quality Problems in
the MANE–VU Region: A Conceptual
Description (NESCAUM, November
2006, Revised August 2010) (Appendix
12);
• Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S.
Visibility Data 2004–2017 (2nd RH SIP
Metrics) (MANE–VU, December 2018)
(Appendix 13);
• Additional MANE–VU
documentation for establishing 3.0
Mm¥1 Threshold (Appendix 17);
• 20% Most Impaired Days Based on
Deciviews, as Detailed in
Recommendation on Approaches to
Selecting the 20% Most Impaired Days
(March 2, 2017) (Appendix 18);
• Technical Support Document on
Measures to Mitigate the Visibility
Impacts of Construction Activities in the
MANE–VU Region (MANE–VU,
September 2006); 63
• Baseline and Natural Background
Visibility Conditions (NESCAUM,
December 2006); 64
• 2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze
in MANE–VU Class I Areas, January 31,
2016 (MARAMA, January 31, 2016); 65
To support development of the Asks,
MANE–VU gathered information on the
four statutory factors for six source
sectors it determined, based on an
examination of annual emission
inventories, ‘‘had emissions that were
reasonabl[y] anticipated to contribute to
visibility degradation in MANE–VU:’’
electric generating units (EGUs),
industrial/commercial/institutional
boilers (ICI boilers), cement kilns,
heating oil, residential wood
combustion, and outdoor wood
combustion.66 MANE–VU also collected
data on individual sources within the
EGU, ICI boiler, and cement kiln
63 See docket document, ‘‘MANE–VU TSD on
Measures to Mitigate the Visibility Impacts of
Construction Activities in the MANE–VU Region
(September 2006).’’
64 See docket document ‘‘NESCAUM—Baseline
and Natural Background Visibility Conditions
(December 2006).’’
65 See docket document, ‘‘2016 Updates to the
Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional
Haze in MANE–VU Class I Areas (January 31,
2016).’’
66 See docket document ‘‘MANE–VU Four Factor
Data Collection Memo (March 30, 2017)’’ at 1.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
58192
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
sectors.67 Information for the six sectors
included explanations of technically
feasible control options for SO2 or NOX,
illustrative cost-effectiveness estimates
for a range of model units and control
options, sector-wide cost
considerations, potential time frames for
compliance with control options,
potential energy and non-air-quality
environmental impacts of certain
control options, and how the remaining
useful lives of sources might be
considered in a control analysis.68
Source-specific data included SO2
emissions 69 and existing controls 70 for
certain existing EGUs, ICI boilers, and
cement kilns. MANE–VU considered
this information on the four factors as
well as the analyses developed by the
RPO’s Technical Support Committee
when it determined specific emission
reduction measures that were found to
be reasonable for certain sources within
two of the sectors it had examined—
EGUs and ICI boilers. The Asks were
based on this analysis and looked to
either optimize the use of existing
controls, have states conduct further
analysis on EGU or ICI boilers with
considerable visibility impacts,
implement low sulfur fuel standards, or
lock-in lower emission rates.
MANE–VU Ask 1 requests that states
‘‘ensure the most effective use of control
technologies on a year-round basis to
consistently minimize emissions of haze
precursors, or obtain equivalent
alternative emission reductions’’ at
EGUs ‘‘with a nameplate capacity larger
than or equal to 25 MW with already
installed NOX and/or SO2 controls’’.71
In its submission, Maryland stated that
COMAR 21.11.27—Emission
Limitations for Power Plants (Maryland
Healthy Air Act) ‘‘caps NOX emissions
on an ozone season and annual basis for
each coal-fired EGU in Maryland.’’ In
addition, Maryland also stated that
COMAR 26.11.40—NOX Ozone Season
Emission Caps for Non-trading Large
NOX Units ‘‘assures optimization of
post-combustion (Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) and Selective NonCatalytic Reduction (SNCR)) NOX
controls on coal-fired EGUs and sets
NOX Indicator Rates for each unit to
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67 See
docket document, ‘‘2016 Updates to the
Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional
Haze in MANE–VU Class I Areas (January 31,
2016).’’
68 Id.
69 See docket document ‘‘MANE–VU Four Factor
Data Collection Memo (March 30, 2017).’’
70 See docket document ‘‘MANE–VU Status of the
Top 167 Stacks from the 2008 MANE–VU Ask (July
2016).’’
71 See Appendix 7, ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report (July 27, 2018),’’ of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
assure optimization.’’ 72 Maryland
credited these regulations with
‘‘reducing annual NOX mass emissions
by almost 95% compared to 2002
levels.’’ 73 Regarding SO2 emission
controls, Maryland stated that COMAR
21.11.27—Emission Limitations for
Power Plans (Maryland Healthy Air Act)
‘‘caps SO2 emissions limits on an
annual basis for each coal-fired EGU in
Maryland. All non-fluidized bed base
load coal-fired units are equipped with
Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) except
one. H.A. Wagner Unit 3 is the only
coal-fired EGU not equipped with an
FGD. H.A. Wagner Unit 3 is named as
a unit requiring a four-factor analysis
and is analyzed further in Section
2.5.2.’’ Maryland also stated that permit
limits associated with a federally
enforceable consent order for the Anne
Arundel and Baltimore County SO2
nonattainment area include SO2
emission limits. Taken together,
Maryland credited these requirements
with ‘‘reducing the annual SO2 mass
emissions by over 95% compared to
2002 levels’’.74 Maryland therefore
concluded it is meeting Ask 1.
MANE–VU Ask 2 requests that states
‘‘perform a four-factor analysis for
reasonable installation or upgrade to
emissions controls’’ at ‘‘emission
sources modeled by MANE–VU that
have the potential for 3.0 Mm¥1 or
greater visibility impacts at any MANE–
VU Class I area, as identified by MANE–
VU contribution analyses’’. MANE–VU
developed its Ask 2 list of sources for
analysis by performing modeling and
identifying facilities with the potential
for 3.0 inverse megameters (Mm¥1) or
greater impacts on visibility at any Class
I area in the MANE–VU region. MANE–
VU identified emission sources at the
Herbert A. Wagner Generating Facility
in Anne Arundel County, Maryland and
at the Verso Luke Paper Company
facility in Allegany County, Maryland as
having the potential for 3.0 Mm¥1 or
greater visibility impacts at any MANE–
VU Class I area; 75 specifically, Unit 3 at
Herbert A. Wagner Generating Facility
and Units 001–0011–3–0018 and 001–
0011–3–0019 at Verso Luke Paper
Company. Maryland stated that ‘‘Luke
72 See
Section 2.5.1 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018–2028
(February 8, 2022).
73 See Table 2–8, Figure 2–3, and Figure 2–4 of
the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018–2028 (February 8,
2022).
74 See Table 2–7 and Figure 2–3 of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
75 See Appendix 4, ‘‘2016 MANE VU Source
Contribution Modeling Report: CALPUFF Modeling
of Large Electrical Generating Units and Industrial
Sources (April 4, 2017)’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Paper Company ceased operations,
closed, and relinquished their air
permits’’, and that this information was
shared in a transmittal letter to EPA
dated May 29, 2020 and included in an
attainment designation request letter.76
In addition, Maryland also stated that,
after requesting a four-factor analysis for
Herbert A. Wagner Unit 3 from the
facility’s owner/operator, ‘‘the parent
company to the H.A. Wagner Generating
Station publicly announced a strategic
repositioning of the facility that would
eliminate the use of coal. The owners of
the H.A. Wagner Generating Station
have agreed and signed a legal consent
order with [MDE] to cease the
combustion of coal by 2026 . . .
Therefore, according to the statutory
factor of remaining useful life for this
facility, further control is not reasonable
. . . A four-factor analysis of H.A.
Wagner Unit 3 similarly concludes that
no additional controls would effectively
control SO2 and NOX emissions at this
facility since the remaining useful life of
the coal-fired unit is approximately 41⁄2
years’’.77 Given the remaining useful life
of this source, and the closure of Luke
Paper Company, Maryland concluded
that no further action is necessary to
satisfy Ask 2.78
MANE–VU Ask 3 requests that, for
‘‘each MANE–VU state that has not yet
fully adopted an ultra-low fuel oil
standard as requested by MANE–VU in
2007’’, to ‘‘pursue this standard as
expeditiously as possible and before
2028, depending on supply
availability’’. The Ask includes percent
by weight standards for #2 distillate oil
(0.0015% sulfur by weight or 15 ppm),
#4 residual oil (0.25–0.5% sulfur by
weight), and #6 residual oil (0.3–0.5%
sulfur by weight). On October 3, 2014,
Maryland adopted a rule 79 to modify
the sulfur-in-fuel limits in accordance
with the MANE–VU Ask. This rule
lowered the sulfur content of all
distillate fuel oils (#2 fuel oil and
lighter) to 500 ppm (0.05% by mass) on
and after July 1, 2016; this rule was
subsequently amended 80 to lower the
required sulfur content of all distillate
fuel oils (#2 fuel oil and lighter) to 15
76 See docket documents, ‘‘Verso Luke Paper—
Luke MD Title V Permit Termination (May 7,
2020)’’ and ‘‘Verso Luke Paper—Verso Luke Close
Out Letter (May 8, 2020)’’.
77 See Appendix 19, Herbert A. Wagner
Generating Station Consent Order.
78 See Section 2.5.2 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018–2028
(February 8, 2022).
79 41:20 Md. R. 1111 (Maryland Register, Volume
41, Issue 20, dated October 3, 2014), effective
October 13, 2014.
80 45:24 Md. R. 1162 (Maryland Register, Volume
45, Issue 24, dated November 26, 2018), effective
December 6, 2018.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ppm (0.0015% by mass) on and after
July 1, 2019. Maryland therefore
concluded that it is meeting Ask 3.
MANE–VU Ask 4 requests that states
‘‘pursue updating permits, enforceable
agreements, and/or rules to lock-in
lower emission rates for SO2, NOX, and
PM’’ at ‘‘EGUs and other large point
emission sources larger than 250
MMBTU per hour heat input that have
switched to lower emitting fuels’’. Ask
4 also states that ‘‘the permit,
enforceable agreement, and/or rule can
allow for suspension of the lower
emission rate during natural gas
curtailment’’. Maryland’s SIP submittal
states that ‘‘EGUs and other large point
emission sources that have switched
operations to lower emitting fuels are
already locked into the lower emission
rates for NOX, SO2, and PM by permits,
enforceable agreements, and/or rules.
These units are required to amend their
permits through the New Source Review
(NSR) process if they plan to switch
back to coal or another fuel that will
increase emissions. A change in fuel,
unless already allowed in the permit,
would be a modification.’’ 81 Maryland’s
submittal also states that ‘‘COMAR
26.11.02.02 requires that a permit to
construct and an approval from MDE is
required before construction or
modification of a source.’’ Maryland
therefore concluded it is meeting Ask 4.
MANE–VU Ask 5 requests that
MANE–VU states, ‘‘where emission
rules have not been adopted, control
NOX emissions for peaking combustion
turbines that have the potential to
operate on high electric demand days’’
by either: ‘‘(a) Striving to meet NOX
emissions standards of no greater than
22 ppm at 15% O2 for natural gas and
42 ppm at 15% O2 for fuel oil but at a
minimum meet NOX emission standards
of no greater than 42 ppm at 15% O2 for
natural gas and 96 ppm at 15% O2 for
fuel oil’’, or ‘‘(b) Performing a four-factor
analysis for reasonable installation of or
upgrade to emission controls’’, or ‘‘(c)
Obtaining equivalent emission
reductions on high electric demand
days.’’ 82 Maryland elected to perform a
four-factor analysis for reasonable
installation of or upgrade to emission
controls for sources that met the
definition of combustion turbines that
have the potential to operate on high
electric demand days (HEDD),83 and
determined that it would not be
technically feasible or cost effective to
implement additional controls at this
time. Maryland therefore concluded it is
meeting Ask 5.
MANE–VU Ask 6, the last Ask,
requests that ‘‘each State should
consider and report in their SIP
measures or programs to: a) decrease
energy demand through the use of
energy efficiency, and b) increase the
use within their state of Combined Heat
and Power (CHP) and other clean
Distributed Generation technologies
including fuel cells, wind, and solar’’.84
Maryland stated in its SIP submittal that
the electricity generation strategy in the
state’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Act (GGRA) Plan 85 86 is designed to
achieve 100% Clean and Renewable
Electricity by 2040 by both deploying
energy through the existing Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the
proposed Clean and Renewable Energy
Standard (CARES), and by capping and
reducing emissions through the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
(RGGI).87 88 Maryland’s RPS requires
Maryland electric utilities to purchase
increasingly large proportions of
Maryland’s electricity from renewable
energy sources like solar, wind,
hydropower, and qualifying biomass,
with a current RPS goal of 50% clean
electricity by 2030 and 100% clean
electricity by 2040. Maryland states that
these goals rely on both renewable
energy and additional zero- and lowcarbon electricity sources to meet that
goal where most cost-effective,
including Maryland solar power beyond
current RPS requirements, new efficient
CHP systems in Maryland buildings,
new nuclear power, and natural gas or
qualifying biomass power plants with
carbon capture and storage. Maryland
further states that, although RGGI is
designed to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions, other benefits in terms of
NOX and SO2 are realized through
81 See COMAR 26.11.01.01, defining ‘‘Modify’’ or
‘‘Modification’’ to mean ‘‘any physical change in, or
change in the operation of, a source or installation
which causes a change in the quantity, nature or
characteristics of emissions from the source or
installation. However, this term excludes routine
maintenance and routine repair, and increases in
the hours of operation or in the production rate,
unless these increases would be prohibited under
any permit or approval conditions adopted by the
Department.’’
82 See Appendix 7, ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report (July 27, 2018),’’ of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
83 See Section 2.5.5 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018–2028
(February 8, 2022).
84 See Appendix 7, ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report (July 27, 2018),’’ of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
85 See docket document, ‘‘MDE The 2030
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act (GGRA)
Plan (February 19, 2021)’’.
86 mde.maryland.gov/programs/air/
ClimateChange/Pages/Greenhouse-Gas-EmissionsReduction-Act-(GGRA)-Plan.aspx.
87 www.rggi.org/.
88 www.rggiprojectseries.org/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58193
energy efficiency promotion, CHP
deployment, and additional deployment
of renewable energy sources, including
offshore wind power and community
solar generation.89 Maryland therefore
concludes that it is meeting Ask 6.
2. The EPA’s Evaluation of Maryland’s
Response to the Six MANE–VU Asks
and Compliance With § 51.308(f)(2)(i)
The EPA is proposing to find that
Maryland has satisfied the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) related to
evaluating sources and determining the
emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress
by considering the four statutory factors.
We are proposing to find that Maryland
has satisfied the four-factor analysis
requirement through its analysis and
actions to address MANE–VU Ask 2 and
Ask 5. We also propose to find that
Maryland reasonably concluded that it
satisfied all six Asks.
As explained above, Maryland relied
on MANE–VU’s technical analyses and
framework (i.e., the Asks) to select
sources and form the basis of its longterm strategy. MANE–VU conducted an
inventory analysis to identify the source
sectors that produced the greatest
amount of SO2 and NOX emissions in
2011; inventory data were also projected
to 2018. Based on this analysis, MANE–
VU identified the top-emitting sectors
for each of the two pollutants, which for
SO2 include coal-fired EGUs, industrial
boilers, oil-fired EGUs, and oil-fired area
sources including residential,
commercial, and industrial sources.
Major-emitting sources of NOX include
on-road vehicles, non-road vehicles, and
EGUs.90 The RPO’s documentation
explains that ‘‘[EGUs] emitting SO2 and
NOX and industrial point sources
emitting SO2 were found to be sectors
with high emissions that warranted
further scrutiny. Mobile sources were
not considered in this analysis because
any ask concerning mobile sources
would be made to EPA and not during
the intra-RPO and inter-RPO
consultation process among the states
and tribes.’’ 91 EPA proposes to find that
Maryland reasonably evaluated the two
pollutants—SO2 and NOX—that
currently drive visibility impairment
within the MANE–VU region and that it
adequately explained and supported its
decision to focus on these two
89 See Section 2.5.6 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018–2028
(February 8, 2022).
90 See Appendix 3 ‘‘MANE–VU Updated Q/d*C
Contribution Assessment (MANE–VU, April 2016).
91 See docket documents, ‘‘MANE–VU InterRegional Ask Final 8–25–2017 (August 25, 2017)’’
and MANE–VU Intra-Regional Ask Final 8–25–2017
(August 25, 2017).
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
58194
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
pollutants through its reliance on the
MANE–VU technical analyses cited in
its submission.
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states
to evaluate and determine the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress by applying
the four statutory factors to sources in
a control analysis. As explained
previously, the MANE–VU Asks are a
mix of measures for sectors and groups
of sources identified as reasonable for
states to address in their regional haze
plans. While MANE–VU formulated the
Asks to be ‘‘reasonable emission
reduction strategies’’ to control
emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants,92 EPA believes that
Maryland’s responses to two of the
Asks, in particular, engage with the
requirement that states determine the
emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress
through consideration of the four
factors. As laid out in further detail
below, the EPA is proposing to find that
MANE–VU’s four-factor analysis
conducted to support the emission
reduction measures in Ask 3 (ultra-low
sulfur fuel oil Ask), in conjunction with
Maryland’s supplemental analysis and
explanation of how it has complied with
Ask 2 (perform four-factor analyses for
sources with potential for ≥3.0 Mm¥1
impacts) satisfy the requirement of 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). The emission
reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress must be
included in the long-term strategy, i.e.,
in Maryland’s SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Maryland asserted that it satisfies Ask
1 because it has SIP-approved
regulations applicable to EGU boilers
that include annual emission limits for
both NOX93 94 and SO2,95 and require
the most effective use of emission
control technologies on a year-round
basis. Maryland also claimed additional
SIP-approved SO2 emission reductions
as a result of the consent order for the
Anne Arundel County and Baltimore
County SO2 nonattainment area for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS.96 As a reminder,
92 Id.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
93 See
COMAR 26.11.27, ‘‘Emission Limitations
for Power Plants’’, also at www.epa.gov/sips-md/
maryland-sip-emission-limitations-power-plants.
94 See COMAR 26.11.40, ‘‘NO Ozone Season
X
Emission Caps for Non-trading Large NOX Units’’
also at www.epa.gov/sips-md/maryland-sip-noxozone-season-emission-caps-non-trading-large-noxunits.
95 See COMAR 26.11.27, ‘‘Emission Limitations
for Power Plants’’, also at www.epa.gov/sips-md/
maryland-sip-emission-limitations-power-plants.
96 See 87 FR 66086, November 2, 2022, and
docket documents ‘‘MDE SO2 2010 NAAQS SIP for
Baltimore and Anne Arundel NA (January 31,
2020)’’, and ‘‘MDE SO2 2010 NAAQS SIP for
Baltimore and Anne Arundel NA (January 31,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
MANE–VU Ask 1 requests that states
‘‘ensure the most effective use of control
technologies on a year-round basis to
consistently minimize emissions of haze
precursors, or obtain equivalent
alternative emission reductions’’ at
EGUs ‘‘with a nameplate capacity larger
than or equal to 25 MW with already
installed NOX and/or SO2 controls’’.97
Therefore, EPA finds it reasonable to
conclude that Maryland has satisfied
Ask 1.
Ask 2 addresses the sources MANE–
VU determined have the potential for
larger than, or equal to, 3.0 Mm¥1
visibility impact at any MANE–VU
Class I area; the Ask requests MANE–
VU states to conduct four-factor
analyses for the specified sources within
their borders. This Ask explicitly
engages with the statutory and
regulatory requirement to determine
reasonable progress based on the four
factors; MANE–VU considered it
‘‘reasonable to have the greatest
contributors to visibility impairment
conduct a four-factor analysis that
would determine whether emission
control measures should be pursued and
what would be reasonable for each
source.’’ 98
As an initial matter, EPA does not
necessarily agree that 3.0 Mm¥1
visibility impact is a reasonable
threshold for source selection. The RHR
recognizes that, due to the nature of
regional haze visibility impairment,
numerous and sometimes relatively
small sources may need to be selected
and evaluated for control measures in
order to make reasonable progress. See
2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.99 As
explained in the 2021 Clarifications
Memo, while states have discretion to
choose any source selection threshold
that is reasonable, ‘‘[a] state that relies
on a visibility (or proxy for visibility
impact) threshold to select sources for
four-factor analysis should set the
threshold at a level that captures a
meaningful portion of the state’s total
contribution to visibility impairment to
Class I areas.’’ 2021 Memo at 3.100 In
this case, the 3.0 Mm¥1 threshold
identified only two sources in Maryland
(and only 22 across the entire MANE–
VU region), indicating that they may be
2020)—Appendix B—Consent Orders, Permits, and
Plan Approvals’’.
97 See Appendix 7, ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report (July 27, 2018),’’ of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
98 See Appendix 7, ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report (July 27, 2018),’’ of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
99 See docket document, ‘‘EPA 2021 Regional
Haze Clarifications Memo (July 8, 2021)’’.
100 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
unreasonably high. Maryland selected
all sources identified by MANE–VU as
being above MANE–VU’s 3.0 Mm¥1
threshold for four-factor analysis.
MANE–VU identified one unit at the
Herbert A. Wagner Generating
Facility,101 a coal-fired EGU, and two
units at Verso Luke Paper Company,102
a large industrial source, as having a
greater than 3.0 Mm¥1 visibility impact
and thus meeting the threshold for fourfactor analyses. Maryland’s SIP
submittal indicates that it sent a letter
requesting a four-factor analysis to
Herbert A. Wagner Facility’s owner/
operator,103 who subsequently
announced that it would eliminate the
use of coal at the facility. This was
codified into a consent order between
Maryland and the owner/operator to
cease coal combustion at the facility by
January 1, 2026.104 Maryland has
requested that the entire consent order
be incorporated into Maryland’s SIP and
made federally enforceable upon EPA’s
approval; 105 EPA intends to incorporate
this consent order into the Maryland SIP
by reference as a source-specific
requirement upon final approval of this
proposed rulemaking. Maryland’s
subsequent four-factor analysis for the
facility concluded that no further
control was necessary. Regarding the
Verso Luke Paper industrial source,
Maryland stated that this facility ceased
operations, shut down and surrendered
their existing air permits as of May 7,
2020.106 Informed in part by this
development, EPA found that the area
was monitoring air quality consistent
with achieving the 2010 1-Hour SO2
Primary NAAQS. See 87 FR 66086,
November 2, 2022. Maryland therefore
concluded that no further action was
necessary for this facility. Given that no
other sources in Maryland met the 3.0
Mm¥1 threshold for visibility impacts
in MANE–VU’s analysis,107 Maryland
concluded that it had met the
requirements for Ask 2.
The EPA proposes to find that
Maryland reasonably determined it has
satisfied Ask 2. As explained above, we
101 H.A.
Wagner Unit 3.
Paper Unit 001–0011–3–0018 & Unit
001–0011–3–0019.
103 Raven Power Fort Smallwood, LLC.
104 See Appendix 19, ‘‘Herbert A. Wagner
Generating Station Consent Order’’.
105 See Section 2.5.2 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018–2028
(February 8, 2022).
106 See docket documents, ‘‘Verso Luke Paper—
Luke MD Title V Permit Termination (May 7,
2020)’’ and ‘‘Verso Luke Paper—Verso Luke Close
Out Letter (May 8, 2020)’’.
107 See Appendix 4, ‘‘2016 MANE VU Source
Contribution Modeling Report: CALPUFF Modeling
of Large Electrical Generating Units and Industrial
Sources (April 4, 2017)’’.
102 Luke
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
do not necessarily agree that a 3.0
Mm¥1 threshold for selecting sources
for four-factor analysis results in a set of
sources the evaluation of which has the
potential to meaningfully reduce the
state’s contribution to visibility
impairment. MANE–VU’s threshold
identified only two sources in Maryland
for four-factor analysis. However, in this
instance we propose to find that
Maryland’s additional information and
explanation indicates that the state has
in fact examined a reasonable set of
sources; Maryland chose to address 12
of the 13 sources identified by FLMs,
including 10 that went beyond the
MANE–VU source selection process,
and reasonably concluded that fourfactor analyses for its top-impacting
sources are not necessary because the
outcome would be that no further
emission reductions would be
reasonable. EPA is basing this proposed
finding on the state’s examination of its
largest operating EGU and ICI sources,
at the time of SIP submission, and on
the emissions from and controls that
apply to those sources, as well as on
Maryland’s existing SIP-approved NOX
and SO2 rules that effectively control
emissions from the largest contributing
stationary-source sectors. Maryland’s
submittal includes additional
information on and analysis of 13
Maryland facilities, which was provided
in response a National Park Service
(NPS) analysis that identified these
facilities as contributing to ‘‘80% of the
Q/d total’’ visibility impact at
downwind NPS Class I Federal areas
based on 2014 emissions data and
requested that states ‘‘review and
consider these sources for inclusion in
their long term strategies’’.108 109
Maryland provided the NPS with
additional information on these 13
facilities, including facility descriptions,
current control devices/technologies for
NOX, SO2, and PM, current monitoring
devices, regulations/consent orders/
permit conditions that limit emissions,
and analysis and documentation of
historical emissions to demonstrate
control strategy effectiveness.
Maryland also examined the 13
facilities identified by NPS as a percent
of their total Q/d contribution. This
included Luke Paper Company, which
comprised 54.71% of the Q/d total;
Maryland stated that this facility ceased
operations, shut down and surrendered
their existing air permits as of May 7,
108 See Section 2.6.1 and Table 2–12 of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
109 See docket document, ‘‘NPS Letter—MANE–
VU draft Statement on source screening (April 12,
2018)’’.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
2020.110 When combined with Brandon
Shores Generating Station, H.A. Wagner
Generating Station, Chalk Point
Generating Station, C.P. Crane
Generating Station, and Naval Support
Facility Indian Head, all of which have
closed, will close by 2026, or have
switched or will switch fuels, and
Morgantown Generating Station, which
is considered by Maryland as effectively
controlled through SCR, these facilities
comprised 75.57% of the Q/d total.
When adding the two municipal solid
waste combustor facilities identified by
the NPS (Wheelabrator and Montgomery
County RRF) both of which are
considered by Maryland as wellcontrolled, these facilities comprise
82.22% of the Q/d total. Finally,
Maryland also provided additional
information on the remaining three
sources identified by the NPS (Holcim
Cement, Lehigh Cement, and the AES
Warrior Run EGU).111 Therefore, EPA
finds it reasonable to conclude that
Maryland has satisfied Ask 2.
Ask 3, which addresses the sulfur
content of heating oil used in MANE–
VU states, is based on a four-factor
analysis for the heating oil sulfur
reduction regulations contained in that
Ask; 112 specifically, for the control
strategy of reducing the sulfur content of
distillate oil to 15 ppm. The analysis
started with an assessment of the costs
of retrofitting refineries to produce 15
ppm heating oil in sufficient quantities
to support implementation of the
standard, as well as the impacts of
requiring a reduction in sulfur content
on consumer prices. The analysis noted
that, as a result of previous EPA
rulemakings to reduce the sulfur content
of on-road and non-road-fuels to 15
ppm, technologies are currently
available to achieve sulfur reductions
and many refiners are already meeting
this standard, meaning that the capital
investments for further reductions in the
sulfur content of heating oil are
expected to be relatively low compared
to costs incurred in the past. The
analysis also examined, by way of
example, the impacts of New York’s
existing 15 ppm sulfur requirements on
heating oil prices and concluded that
the cost associated with reducing sulfur
was relatively small in terms of the
absolute price of heating oil compared
110 See docket documents, ‘‘Verso Luke Paper—
Luke MD Title V Permit Termination (May 7,
2020)’’ and ‘‘Verso Luke Paper—Verso Luke Close
Out Letter (May 8, 2020)’’.
111 See Section 2.6.1 and Table 2–13 of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
112 See docket document, ‘‘2016 Updates to the
Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional
Haze in MANE–VU Class I Areas (January 31,
2016)’’ at 8–4.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58195
to the magnitude of volatility in crude
oil prices. It also noted that the slight
price premium is compensated by cost
savings due to the benefits of lowersulfur fuels in terms of equipment life
and maintenance and fuel stability.
Consideration of the time necessary for
compliance with a 15 ppm sulfur
standard was accomplished through a
discussion of the amount of time
refiners had needed to comply with the
EPA’s on-road and non-road fuel 15
ppm requirement, and the implications
existing refinery capacity and
distribution infrastructure may have for
compliance times with a 15 ppm
heating oil standard. The analysis
concluded that with phased-in timing
for states that have not yet adopted a 15
ppm heating oil standard there ‘‘appears
to be sufficient time to allow refiners to
add any additional heating oil capacity
that may be required.’’ 113 The analysis
further noted the beneficial energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts
of a 15 ppm sulfur heating oil
requirement and that reducing sulfur
content may also have a salutary impact
on the remaining useful life of
residential furnaces and boilers.114
EPA proposes to find that Maryland
reasonably relied on MANE–VU’s fourfactor analysis for a low-sulfur fuel oil
regulation, which engaged with each of
the statutory factors and explained how
the information supported a conclusion
that a 15 ppm sulfur fuel oil standard is
reasonable; as a reminder, MANE–VU
Ask 3 requests that, for ‘‘each MANE–
VU state that has not yet fully adopted
an ultra-low fuel oil standard as
requested by MANE–VU in 2007’’, to
‘‘pursue this standard as expeditiously
as possible and before 2028, depending
on supply availability’’. Maryland’s
ultra-low sulfur fuel oil regulations 115
are consistent with Ask 3. EPA therefore
proposes to find that Maryland
reasonably determined that it has
satisfied Ask 3.
Maryland concluded that no
additional updates were needed to meet
Ask 4, which requests that MANE–VU
states pursue updating permits,
enforceable agreements, and/or rules to
lock-in lower emission rates for sources
larger than 250 MMBtu per hour that
have switched to lower emitting fuels.
As explained above, Maryland has
asserted that EGUs and other large point
emission sources that have switched
operations to lower emitting fuels are
already locked into the lower emission
rates for NOX, SO2, and PM by permits,
113 Id.
see 8–7.
see 8–8.
115 See COMAR 03.03.05.04, ‘‘Specifications for
No. 1 and No. 2 Fuel Oil (ASTM D–396)’’.
114 Id.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
58196
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
enforceable agreements and/or rules. In
addition, modified units in Maryland
are required to amend their permits
through the New Source Review (NSR)
process if they plan to switch back to
coal or a fuel that will increase
emissions. A change in fuel, unless
already allowed in the permit, would be
a modification,116 and Maryland’s
regulations require that an application
to modify the permit be submitted prior
to a change in fuel.117 As a reminder,
MANE–VU Ask 4 requests that states
‘‘pursue updating permits, enforceable
agreements, and/or rules to lock-in
lower emission rates for SO2, NOX, and
PM’’ at ‘‘EGUs and other large point
emission sources larger than 250
MMBTU per hour heat input that have
switched to lower emitting fuels’’. Ask
4 also states that ‘‘the permit,
enforceable agreement, and/or rule can
allow for suspension of the lower
emission rate during natural gas
curtailment’’. EPA proposes to find that
Maryland reasonably determined it has
satisfied Ask 4. This is because the
permitting and regulatory requirements
outlined above, including the fact that
sources that have switched fuel are
generally required to revise their
permits to reflect the change, and
because the state rules make any
proposed reversion difficult by
requiring permitting and other control
analyses, including NSR.
Ask 5 addresses NOX emissions from
peaking combustion turbines 118 that
have the potential to operate on high
electric demand days (HEDD).119
Maryland conducted a four-factor
analysis to evaluate potential control
116 See COMAR 26.11.01.01, defining ‘‘Modify’’
or ‘‘Modification’’ to mean ‘‘any physical change in,
or change in the operation of, a source or
installation which causes a change in the quantity,
nature or characteristics of emissions from the
source or installation. However, this term excludes
routine maintenance and routine repair, and
increases in the hours of operation or in the
production rate, unless these increases would be
prohibited under any permit or approval conditions
adopted by the Department.’’
117 See COMAR 26.11.02.02., ‘‘General
Provisions’’, which states that ‘‘A permit to
construct and an approval from the Department is
required before construction or modification of a
source’’.
118 Peaking combustion turbine is defined for the
purpose of this Ask as a turbine capable of
generating 15 megawatts or more, that commenced
operation prior to May 1, 2007, is used to generate
electricity all or part of which is delivered to
electric power distribution grid for commercial sale
and that operated less than or equal to an average
of 1,752 hours (or 20%) per year during 2014 to
2016.
119 High electric demand days are days when
higher than usual electrical demands bring
additional generation units online, many of which
are infrequently operated and may have
significantly higher emissions rates of the
generation fleet.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
options for HEDD units. For one
potentially technically feasible control
option, Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR), Maryland estimated compliance
costs as ranging from $6 million to $15.7
million per unit.120 These cost estimates
are similar to those found in EPA’s
Combustion Turbine NOX Control
Technology Memo published in January
2022.121 Due to the relatively low level
of reported annual NOX emissions from
these units within the state (i.e., less
than 10 tons of NOX emitted per unit
per year), Maryland concluded that SCR
was not an economically feasible
control option due to the high cost of
control. Maryland also evaluated the
cost of water/steam injection as a
potentially technically feasible control
option, but found that the cost of control
($87,906.95 per ton of NOX removed)
was not economically feasible.122 As a
reminder, MANE–VU Ask 5 requests
that MANE–VU states, ‘‘where emission
rules have not been adopted, control
NOX emissions for peaking combustion
turbines that have the potential to
operate on high electric demand days’’
by either: ‘‘(a) Striving to meet NOX
emissions standards of no greater than
22 ppm at 15% O2 for natural gas and
42 ppm at 15% O2 for fuel oil but at a
minimum meet NOX emission standards
of no greater than 42 ppm at 15% O2 for
natural gas and 96 ppm at 15% O2 for
fuel oil’’, or ‘‘(b) Performing a four-factor
analysis for reasonable installation of or
upgrade to emission controls’’, or ‘‘(c)
Obtaining equivalent emission
reductions on high electric demand
days.’’ 123 Because Maryland evaluated
multiple technically feasible controls,
the high cost of controls, and the
relatively low level of reported annual
NOX emissions from peaking
combustion turbines with the potential
to operate on HEDD days, EPA proposes
to find that Maryland reasonably
concluded that it has satisfied Ask 5.
Finally, regarding Ask 6, Maryland
explains the greenhouse gas initiatives
and clean energy requirements within
the state, including promulgation of the
state’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Act (GGRA) Plan, RPS, and
participation in RGGI. As a reminder,
MANE–VU Ask 6, the last Ask, requests
120 See Section 2.5.5 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018–2028
(February 8, 2022).
121 See docket document, ‘‘EPA Combustion
Turbine NOX Control Technology Memo (January
2022)’’.
122 See Section 2.5.5 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018–2028
(February 8, 2022).
123 See Appendix 7, ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report (July 27, 2018),’’ of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that ‘‘each State should consider and
report in their SIP measures or programs
to: (a) decrease energy demand through
the use of energy efficiency, and (b)
increase the use within their state of
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and
other clean Distributed Generation
technologies including fuel cells, wind,
and solar’’.124 The EPA is therefore
proposing to find that Maryland has
satisfied Ask 6’s request to consider and
report in its SIP measures or programs
related to energy efficiency,
cogeneration, and other clean
distributed generation technologies.
In sum, the EPA is proposing to find
that—based on Maryland’s participation
in the MANE–VU planning process,
how it has addressed each of the Asks,
its supplemental information and
explanation regarding NOX sources and
emissions, and the EPA’s additional
assessment of Maryland’s emissions and
point sources—Maryland has complied
with the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i). Specifically, MANE–VU
Asks 2 and 3 engage with the
requirement that states evaluate and
determine the emission reduction
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress by considering the
four statutory factors. EPA is proposing
to find Maryland’s approach to Ask 2
reasonable because it demonstrated that
the sources with the greatest modeled
impacts on visibility either have
federally-enforceable shut downs, have
reduced their emissions so significantly
that it is clear a four-factor analysis
would not yield further reasonable
emission reductions, or are subject to
stringent emission control measures.
Maryland’s SIP-approved control
measures, emissions inventory 125 and
information provided in response to
comments 126 demonstrate that the
sources of SO2 and NOX within the state
that would be expected to contribute to
visibility impairment have small
emissions of NOX and SO2, are well
controlled, or both. Maryland’s sulfur in
fuel limits sets stringent limits for sulfur
content and SO2 emissions for non-solid
fuels.127 Therefore, it is reasonable to
assume that selecting additional sources
from MANE–VU’s or FLMs’ lists for
four-factor analysis would not have
resulted in additional emission
124 See Appendix 7, ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report (July 27, 2018),’’ of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
125 See Appendix 1, ‘‘Selection of States for
MANE–VU Regional Haze Consultation (2018)—
Final’’.
126 See Appendix 20, ‘‘Public Hearing Notices,
Comments, and Responses—Regional Haze Second
Implementation Period Plan (2018–2028)’’.
127 See COMAR 03.03.05.04, ‘‘Specifications for
No. 1 and No. 2 Fuel Oil (ASTM D–396)’’.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
reduction measures being determined to
be necessary to make reasonable
progress for the second implementation
period.
Additionally, MANE–VU conducted a
four-factor analysis to support Ask 3,
which requests that states pursue ultralow sulfur fuel oil standards to address
SO2 emissions. Maryland has done so.
This also contributes to satisfying the
requirements that states determine the
emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress
by considering the four factors, and that
their long-term strategies include the
enforceable emission limitations,
compliance schedules, and other
measures necessary to make reasonable
progress. To the extent that MANE–VU
and Maryland regard the measures in
Asks 1 and 4 through 6 as being part of
the region’s strategy for making
reasonable progress, we propose to find
it reasonable for Maryland to address
these Asks by pointing to existing
measures that satisfy each.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3. Additional Long-Term Strategy
Requirements
The consultation requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provides that states
must consult with other states that are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinate emission
management strategies containing the
emission reductions measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress.
Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B)
require states to consider the emission
reduction measures identified by other
states as necessary for reasonable
progress and to include agreed upon
measures in their SIPs, respectively.
Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to
what happens if states cannot agree on
what measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress.
Maryland participated in and
provided documentation of the MANE–
VU intra- and inter-RPO consultation
processes and addressed the MANE–VU
Asks by providing information on the
measures it has in place that satisfy each
Ask.128 129 MANE–VU also documented
disagreements that occurred during
128 See Appendix 5, ‘‘Inter-RPO Consultation
Briefing Book’’; Appendix 7, ‘‘MANE–VU Regional
Haze Consultation Report’’; Appendix 9, ‘‘National
Park Service Letter to MANE–VU (April 2018)’’; and
Appendix 17, ‘‘Additional MANE–VU
documentation for establishing 3.0 Mm-1
Threshold’’.
129 See Appendix 14, ‘‘FLM Consultation
Initiation Letter (April 2019)’’; Appendix 15,
‘‘National Park Service Correspondence with
Maryland’’; Appendix 16, ‘‘US Forest Service
Consultation Response Letter’’; and Appendix 20,
‘‘Public Hearing Notices, Comments, and
Responses—Regional Haze Second Implementation
Period Plan (2018–2028)’’.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
consultation. MANE–VU noted in their
Consultation Report that upwind states
expressed concern regarding the
analyses the RPO utilized for the
selection of states for the consultation.
MANE–VU agreed that these tools, as all
models, have their limitations, but
nonetheless deemed them appropriate.
Additionally, there were several
comments regarding the choice of the
2011 modeling base year. MANE–VU
agreed that the choice of base year is
critical to the outcome of the study.
MANE–VU acknowledged that there
were newer versions of the emission
inventories and the need to use the best
available inventory for each analysis.
However, MANE–VU disagreed that the
choice of these inventories was not
appropriate for the analysis. Upwind
states also suggested that MANE–VU
states adopt the 2021 timeline for
regional haze SIP submissions for the
second planning period. MANE–VU
agreed with the reasons the comments
provided, such as collaboration with
data and planning efforts. However,
MANE–VU disagreed that the 2018
timeline would prohibit collaboration.
Additionally, upwind states noted that
they would not be able to address the
MANE–VU Asks until they finalize their
SIPs. MANE–VU believed the
assumption of the implementation of
the Asks from upwind states in its 2028
control case modeling was reasonable.
In sum, Maryland participated in the
MANE–VU intra- and inter-RPO
consultation and satisfied the MANE–
VU Asks, satisfying 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B). Maryland
satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) by
participating in MANE–VU’s
consultation process, which
documented the disagreements between
the upwind states and MANE–VU and
explained MANE–VU’s reasoning on
each of the disputed issues. Based on
the entirety of MANE–VU’s intra- and
inter-RPO consultation and both
MANE–VU’s and Maryland’s responses
to states’ comments on the SIP
submission and various technical
analyses therein, we propose to
determine that Maryland has satisfied
the consultation requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii).
The documentation requirement of 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides that states
may meet their obligations to document
the technical bases on which they are
relying to determine the emission
reductions measures that are necessary
to make reasonable progress through an
RPO, as long as the process has been
‘‘approved by all State participants.’’ As
explained above, Maryland chose to rely
on MANE–VU’s technical information,
modeling, and analysis to support
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58197
development of its long-term strategy.
The MANE–VU technical analyses on
which Maryland relied are listed in the
state’s SIP submission and include
source contribution assessments,
information on each of the four factors
and visibility modeling information for
certain EGUs, and evaluations of
emission reduction strategies for
specific source categories. Maryland
also provided supplemental information
to further demonstrate the technical
bases and emission information on
which it relied on to determine the
emission reductions measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress.
Based on the documentation provided
by the state, we propose to find
Maryland satisfies the documentation
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires
that the emissions information
considered to determine the measures
that are necessary to make reasonable
progress include information on
emissions for the most recent year for
which the state has submitted triennial
emissions data to the EPA (or a more
recent year), with a 12-month
exemption period for newly submitted
data. Maryland’s SIP submission
included 2017 NEI emission data for
NOX, SO2, PM, and NH3 and 2017 Air
Markets Program Data (AMPD)
emissions for NOX and SO2. Maryland’s
SIP submission also included 2019
AMPD for NOX and SO2.130 Based on
Maryland’s consideration and analysis
of the 2017 and 2019 emission data in
their SIP submittal and supplemental
documentation, the EPA proposes to
find that Maryland has satisfied the
emissions information requirement in
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
We also propose to find that Maryland
reasonably considered the five
additional factors in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing its longterm strategy. Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), Maryland noted that
existing and ongoing state and Federal
emission control programs that
contribute to emission reductions
through 2028 would impact emissions
of visibility impairing pollutants from
point and nonpoint sources in the
second implementation period.
Maryland included in their SIP
comprehensive lists of control measures
with their effective dates, pollutants
addressed, and corresponding Code of
Maryland Regulations provisions.131
130 See Section 2.21 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018–2028
(February 8, 2022).
131 See Section 2.8.1 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018–2028
(February 8, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
58198
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Maryland’s consideration of measures
to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities as required by 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B) includes, in section
2.8.2 of its SIP submission, a list of
measures that Maryland has
implemented to mitigate the impacts
from such activities. Maryland has
implemented standards that reduce
fugitive dust emissions from
construction,132 rules to address exhaust
emissions,133 134 135 including rules to
limit the idling of vehicles and
equipment and rules to reduce
allowable smoke from on-road diesel
engines,136 and general conformity
rules.137 138
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C),
source retirements and replacement
schedules are addressed in section 2.8.3
of Maryland’s submission. Source
retirements and replacements were
considered in developing the 2028
emission projections, with on the books/
on the way retirements and
replacements included in the 2028
projections. The EGU point sources
included in the inventories used in the
MANE–VU contribution assessment and
that were subsequently retired are
identified in Table 2–14.139 No nonEGU point source retirements in
Maryland were considered when
developing the 2028 emissions
projections.
In considering smoke management as
required in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D),
Maryland explained, in section 2.8.4 of
its submission, that emissions from
agricultural and prescribed burning for
forestry smoke management within the
state are low; PM2.5 statewide emissions
from prescribed fires were 1,349.18 tons
(4.13% of Maryland’s overall PM2.5
emissions inventory) and emissions
from agricultural burning were 1.5 tons
(<1% of Maryland’s overall PM2.5
emissions inventory). Maryland
132 COMAR 26.11.06.03. ‘‘Particulate Matter’’,
subsection D; State Effective Date November 11,
2002 (29:22 Md. R. 1724) (68 FR 46487).
133 COMAR 11.14. ‘‘MOTOR VEHICLE
ADMINISTRATION—VEHICLE INSPECTIONS’’,
.01, .06, and .08.
134 COMAR. 11.21.02. ‘‘Diesel Vehicle Emissions
Control Program’’; State Effective Date July 10, 2000
(27:13 Md. R. 1212).
135 Md. Code, Transp. § 23–401 through 23–404.
136 Md. Code, Transp. § 21–1101.
137 The authority to address General Conformity
is set forth in Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act
and the requirements to demonstrate conformity are
found in the EPA’s implementing regulation (40
CFR part 93, subpart B—Determining Conformity of
General Federal Actions to State or Federal
Implementation Plans).
138 COMAR 26.11.26. ‘‘Conformity’’; State
Effective Date June 5, 1995 (22:11 Md. R. 825).
139 See ‘‘Table 2–14: Units Retired in the Regional
Haze Inventories’’ of the MD Regional Haze SIP for
the Second Implementation Period 2018—2028
(February 8, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
therefore concludes that it is unlikely
that fires in Maryland for agricultural or
forestry management cause impacts on
visibility in the MANE–VU and nearby
Class I areas, including Shenandoah,
Dolly Sods, Otter Creek, and James
River Face. Maryland states that Smoke
Management Plans is a required element
of a SIP only if it is required to make
reasonable progress, and that although
Maryland does not need an official
Smoke Management Plan, it has the
legal authority to manage burning
through a formal permitting system if
necessary.
Maryland considered the anticipated
net effect of projected changes in
emissions as required by 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E) by discussing, in
section 2.8.5 of its submission, the
photochemical modeling for the 2018–
2028 period it conducted in
collaboration with MANE–VU. The two
modeling cases run were a 2028 base
case, which considered only on-thebooks controls, and a 2028 control case
that considered implementation of the
MANE–VU Ask. Maryland presented
the differences between the base and
control cases on the 20% most impaired
and 20% clearest days for each MANE–
VU Class I area.140
Because Maryland has reasonably
considered each of the five additional
factors the EPA proposes to find that
Maryland has satisfied the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the
requirements pertaining to RPGs for
each Class I area. Section 51.308(f)(3)(i)
requires a state in which a Class I area
is located to establish RPGs—one each
for the most impaired and clearest
days—reflecting the visibility
conditions that will be achieved at the
end of the implementation period as a
result of the emission limitations,
compliance schedules and other
measures required under paragraph
(f)(2) to be in states’ long-term strategies,
as well as implementation of other CAA
requirements. The long-term strategies
as reflected by the RPGs must provide
for an improvement in visibility on the
most impaired days relative to the
baseline period and ensure no
degradation on the clearest days relative
to the baseline period. Section
51.308(f)(3)(ii) applies in circumstances
in which a Class I area’s RPG for the
most impaired days represents a slower
rate of visibility improvement than the
uniform rate of progress calculated
140 See Figures 2–7 through 2–10 of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi). Under 40
CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the state in
which a mandatory Class I area is
located establishes an RPG for the most
impaired days that provides for a slower
rate of visibility improvement than the
URP, the state must demonstrate that
there are no additional emission
reduction measures for anthropogenic
sources or groups of sources in the state
that would be reasonable to include in
its long-term strategy. Section
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that if a state
contains sources that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in a Class I area in another
state, and the RPG for the most impaired
days in that Class I area is above the
URP, the upwind state must provide the
same demonstration. Because Maryland
has no Class I areas within its borders,
it is subject only to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B).
Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), a
state that contains sources that are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area in
another state for which a demonstration
by the other state is required under 40
CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) must demonstrate
that there are no additional emission
reduction measures that would be
reasonable to include in its long-term
strategy. Maryland’s SIP submittal
included MANE–VU’s glidepath checks
for nearby downwind Class I areas,141 142
which show that the RPG for the 20
percent most anthropogenically
impaired days for the affected
downwind Class I areas (Acadia,
Brigantine, Great Gulf, Lye Brook,
Moosehorn, Dolly Sods and
Shenandoah) are not above the URP
glidepath, and that the RPG for the 20
percent clearest days shows no
degradation. In addition, the modeled
MANE–VU 2028 visibility projections at
nearby Class I areas 143 show that the
base case 2028 projections for the most
impaired days at these areas are below
the respective 2028 points on the URPs.
Therefore, we propose it is reasonable to
assume that the demonstration
requirement under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) as it pertains to these
areas will not be triggered.
The EPA proposes to determine that
Maryland has satisfied the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)
relating to RPGs.
141 See docket document, ‘‘TD MANE–VU 2000–
19 RH METRICS COMPARISON PLOTS 12–19–
20.xlsx’’.
142 See docket document, ‘‘TD MANE–VU 2000–
19 RHII & III Metrics Trends Plots 12–19–20.xlsx’’.
143 See docket document, ‘‘MANE–VU Trends
2004–17 Report 2nd SIP Metrics—December 2018
Update—Final’’.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that
each comprehensive revision of a state’s
regional haze SIP must contain or
provide for certain elements, including
monitoring strategies, emissions
inventories, and any reporting,
recordkeeping and other measures
needed to assess and report on
visibility. A main requirement of this
subsection is for states with Class I areas
to submit monitoring strategies for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting
on visibility impairment. Compliance
with this requirement may be met
through participation in the Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) network.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to
provide for the establishment of any
additional monitoring sites or
equipment needed to assess whether
reasonable progress goals to address
regional haze for all mandatory Class I
Federal areas within the state are being
achieved. Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii)
requires SIPs to provide for procedures
by which monitoring data and other
information are used in determining the
contribution of emissions from within
the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at mandatory Class I
Federal areas both within and outside
the state. Because Maryland does not
have any Class I Federal areas located
within its borders, Section
51.308(f)(6)(i) and (ii) do not apply.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(iii) requires states
with no Class I areas to include
procedures by which monitoring data
and other information are used in
determining the contribution of
emissions from within the State to
regional haze visibility impairment at
Class I areas in other states. States with
Class I areas must establish a monitoring
program and report data to EPA that is
representative of visibility at the Class I
Federal areas. The IMPROVE network
meets this requirement. Maryland stated
that, as a participant in MANE–VU, it
reviewed information about the
chemical composition of baseline
monitoring data at Class I Federal areas
in and near MANE–VU in order to
understand the sources of haze causing
pollutants. Maryland commits to
continuing support of ongoing visibility
monitoring in Class I Federal areas,
agrees that the IMPROVE network is an
appropriate monitoring network to track
regional haze progress, and commits to
working with neighboring states and
FLMs to meet the goals of the IMPROVE
program. Maryland also commits to
using monitoring data and procedures
consistent with US EPA guidance to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
review progress and trends in visibility
at Class I Federal areas that may be
affected by emissions from Maryland,
both for comprehensive periodic
revisions of this implementation plan
and for periodic reports describing
progress towards the reasonable
progress goals for those areas.144
Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the
SIP to provide for the reporting of all
visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each
Class I area in the state. As noted above,
Maryland does not have any Class I
Federal areas located within its borders,
therefore this requirement does not
apply.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to
provide for a statewide inventory of
emissions of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment,
including emissions for the most recent
year for which data are available and
estimates of future projected emissions.
It also requires a commitment to update
the inventory periodically. Maryland
provides for emissions inventories and
estimates for future projected emissions
by participating in the MANE–VU RPO
and complying with EPA’s Air
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR). In 40
CFR part 51, subpart A, the AERR
requires states to submit updated
emissions inventories for criteria
pollutants to EPA’s Emissions Inventory
System (EIS) every three years. The
emission inventory data is used to
develop the NEI, which provides for,
among other things, a triennial statewide inventory of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment.
Section 2.21 of Maryland’s
submission includes tables of NEI data.
The source categories of the emissions
inventories included are: (1) point
sources, (2) nonpoint sources, (3) nonroad mobile sources, and (4) on-road
mobile sources. The point source
category is further divided into AMPD
point sources and non-AMPD point
sources.145 Maryland included NEI
emissions inventories for the following
years: 2002 (one of the regional haze
program baseline years), 2008, 2011,
2014, and 2017; and for the following
pollutants: SO2, NOX, PM10, PM2.5,
VOCs, and NH3. Maryland also provided
a summary of SO2 and NOX emissions
for AMPD sources for the years of 2016,
2017, 2018, and 2019.
144 See Section 2.16 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018–2028
(February 8, 2022).
145 AMPD sources are facilities that participate in
EPA’s emission trading programs. The majority of
AMPD sources are electric generating units (EGUs).
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58199
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires
states to include estimates of future
projected emissions and include a
commitment to update the inventory
periodically. Maryland relied on the
MANE–VU 2028 emissions projections
for MANE–VU states. MANE–VU
completed two 2028 projected
emissions modeling cases—a 2028 base
case that considers only on-the-books
controls and a 2028 control case that
considers implementation of the
MANE–VU Asks.146
EPA proposes to find that Maryland
has met the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6) as described above,
including through its continued
participation in the IMPROVE network
and the MANE–VU RPO and its ongoing compliance with the AERR, and
that no further elements are necessary at
this time for Maryland to assess and
report on visibility pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(vi).
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports
Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that
periodic comprehensive revisions of
states’ regional haze plans also address
the progress report requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The
purpose of these requirements is to
evaluate progress towards the applicable
RPGs for each Class I area within the
state and each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions
from within that state. Section
51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all states
and require a description of the status
of implementation of all measures
included in a state’s first
implementation period regional haze
plan and a summary of the emission
reductions achieved through
implementation of those measures.
Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to
states with Class I areas within their
borders and requires such states to
assess current visibility conditions,
changes in visibility relative to baseline
(2000–2004) visibility conditions, and
changes in visibility conditions relative
to the period addressed in the first
implementation period progress report.
Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all states
and requires an analysis tracking
changes in emissions of pollutants
contributing to visibility impairment
from all sources and sectors since the
period addressed by the first
implementation period progress report.
This provision further specifies the year
146 See Appendix 11 ‘‘Ozone Transport
Commission/Mid-Atlantic Northeastern Visibility
Union 2011 Based Modeling Platform Support
Document—October 2018 Update (October 2018)’’.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58200
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
or years through which the analysis
must extend depending on the type of
source and the platform through which
its emission information is reported.
Finally, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), which also
applies to all states, requires an
assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the state have occurred since the
period addressed by the first
implementation period progress report,
including whether such changes were
anticipated and whether they have
limited or impeded expected progress
towards reducing emissions and
improving visibility.
Maryland’s submission describes the
status of measures of the long-term
strategy from the first implementation
period. As a member of MANE–VU,
Maryland considered the MANE–VU
Asks and adopted corresponding
measures into its long-term strategy for
the first implementation period. The
MANE–VU Asks were: (1) Timely
implementation of Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART)
requirements; (2) EGU controls
including Controls at 167 Key Sources
that most affect MANE–VU Class I areas;
(3) Low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (4)
Continued evaluation of other control
measures. Maryland met all the
identified reasonable measures
requested during the first
implementation period. During the first
planning period for regional haze,
programs that were put in place focused
on reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions. The reductions achieved led
to vast improvements in visibility at the
MANE–VU Federal Class I Areas due to
reduced sulfates formed from SO2
emissions. Maryland describes in
Section 2.18 of its submittal control
measures put in place during the first
implementation period to help reduce
the emissions of visibility-impairing
pollutants, including NOX and SO2.
This includes the Maryland Healthy Air
Act (HAA), which covered Maryland
emission sources named in MANE–VU’s
‘‘167 Stacks’’; the HAA was
implemented in 2010 and further
tightened SO2 emission control
requirements in 2013, resulting in
significant reductions in visibilityimpairing pollutants throughout the
state that exceeded MANE–VU target
goals. Maryland also described its
implementation of low sulfur fuel oil
standards for the state, and the status of
the remaining emissions sources in the
state subject to BART requirements,
which included emission reductions for
Portland cement plants to satisfy
Reasonably Available Control
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
Technology (RACT) requirements for
ozone.147
EPA proposes to find that Maryland
has met the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1) and (2) because its SIP
submission describes the measures
included in the long-term strategy from
the first implementation period, as well
as the status of their implementation
and the emission reductions achieved
through such implementation.
Section 51.308(g)(3) requires states to
assess Reasonable Progress Goals,
including current visibility conditions
and changes, for any Class I areas within
the state. As described above, Maryland
does not have any Class I areas within
its borders, therefore 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3) does not apply.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), in
Section 2.21 of their submittal,
Maryland provided a summary of
emissions of NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5,
VOCs, and NH3 from all sources and
activities, including from point,
nonpoint, non-road mobile, and on-road
mobile sources, for the time period from
2002 to 2017. Maryland also included
AMPD data for SO2 and NOX emissions
for 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 in their
submission.
The reductions achieved through
Maryland emission control measures are
seen in the emissions inventory. Based
on Maryland’s SIP submittal, NOX
emissions have continuously declined
in Maryland from 2002 through 2017,
especially in the point, nonroad and
onroad mobile sectors. During that
period, onroad sources contributed
almost half of the emissions at 47%,
followed by point sources at 27%.
Nonroad sources contributed 13% and
area sources contributed 13%. Table 2–
20 of Maryland’s SIP submittal also
shows additional NOX emissions data
from 2016 to 2019 for Maryland’s point
sources that report to EPA’s AMPD.
NOX emissions are expected to continue
to decrease as fleet turnover occurs and
the older more polluting vehicles and
equipment are replaced by newer,
cleaner ones.148
Emissions of SO2 have shown a
significant decline in Maryland from
2002 to 2017 across multiple sectors; see
Section 2.21.3 and Table 2–28 of
Maryland’s SIP submittal.149 Reductions
in point emissions are primarily due to
147 COMAR 26.11.30—Control of Portland
Cement Manufacturing Plants. Effective date: July
20, 2015 (42:Md. R. 884). www.dsd.state.md.us/
comar/SubtitleSearch.aspx?search=26.11.30.*
Approved by EPA March 28, 2018, 83 FR 13192
148 See Section 2.21.1 and Table 2–20 of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018—2028 (February 8, 2022)
149 See Section 2.21.3 and Table 2–28 of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the acid rain program, Maryland power
plant consent decrees and regulations
including the Maryland Health Air Act,
and Federal and State low sulfur fuel
regulations. Additionally, some of these
decreases may be attributable to the
MANE–VU low sulfur fuel strategy and
the 90% or greater reduction in SO2
emissions at 167 EGU stacks, both
inside and outside of MANE–VU,
requested in the ‘‘Non-MANE–VU Ask’’
for states within MANE–VU for the first
regional haze planning period.150
Emissions of PM10 have steadily
decreased in Maryland from 2002 to
2017, particularly in the point and
nonroad sectors; see Section 2.21.2 and
Table 2–25 of Maryland’s SIP
submittal.151 The variations in the
onroad sector are likely due to changes
in emission inventory calculation
methodologies, which resulted in higher
particulate matter estimates in the other
years than in 2002. The large variation
in emissions in the nonpoint category is
likely due to changes in calculation
methodologies for residential wood
burning and fugitive dust categories,
which have varied significantly.
Emissions of ammonia (NH3) have
shown declines in Maryland from 2002
to 2017; see Section 2.21.4 and Table 2–
33 of Maryland’s SIP submittal.152
Ammonia decreases were achieved in
the onroad sector due to Federal new
engine standards for vehicles and
equipment. Nonpoint increases and
decreases from 2002 to 2014 are due to
reporting, grouping and methodology
changes. While ammonia emissions
grew slightly between the 2002 and
2008 emission inventories, ammonia
emissions have decreased from 2011 to
2017.
The EPA is proposing to find that
Maryland has satisfied the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) by providing
emissions information for NOX, SO2,
PM10, PM2.5, VOCs, and NH3 broken
down by type of source.
Maryland uses the emissions trend
data in the SIP submission 153 and
supporting MANE-VU information 154
provided to support the assessment that
150 See ‘‘Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE–VU) Concerning a Course
of Action within MANE–VU Toward Assuring
Reasonable Progress’’ in the docket.
151 See Section 2.21.2 and Table 2–25 of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
152 See Section 2.21.4 and Table 2–33 of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
153 See Section 2.21 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018–2028
(February 8, 2022).
154 See docket document, ‘‘MANE-VU Trends
2004–17 Report 2nd SIP Metrics - December 2018
Update—Final’’.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
anthropogenic haze-causing pollutant
emissions in Maryland have decreased
during the reporting period and that
changes in emissions have not limited
or impeded progress in reducing
pollutant emissions and improving
visibility, Maryland 2017 emission
inventories for NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5,
VOCs, and NH3 were lower than their
2014 emission inventories for those
same pollutants emissions.155 The EPA
is proposing to find that Maryland has
met the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g)(5).
I. Requirements for State and Federal
Land Manager Coordination
Section 169A(d) of the Clean Air Act
requires states to consult with FLMs
before holding the public hearing on a
proposed regional haze SIP, and to
include a summary of the FLMs’
conclusions and recommendations in
the notice to the public. In addition, 40
CFR 51.308(i)(2)’s FLM consultation
provision requires a state to provide
FLMs with an opportunity for
consultation that is early enough in the
state’s policy analyses of its emission
reduction obligation so that information
and recommendations provided by the
FLMs’ can meaningfully inform the
state’s decisions on its long-term
strategy. If the consultation has taken
place at least 120 days before a public
hearing or public comment period, the
opportunity for consultation will be
deemed early enough, Regardless, the
opportunity for consultation must be
provided at least sixty days before a
public hearing or public comment
period at the state level. Section
51.308(i)(2) also provides two
substantive topics on which FLMs must
be provided an opportunity to discuss
with states: assessment of visibility
impairment in any Class I area and
recommendations on the development
and implementation of strategies to
address visibility impairment. Section
51.308(i)(3) requires states, in
developing their implementation plans,
to include a description of how they
addressed FLMs’ comments.
The states in the MANE-VU RPO
conducted FLM consultation early in
the planning process concurrent with
the state-to-state consultation that
formed the basis of the RPO’s decision
making process. As part of the
consultation, the FLMs were given the
opportunity to review and comment on
the technical documents developed by
MANE-VU. The FLMs were invited to
attend the intra- and inter-RPO
155 See Section 2.16 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018–2028
(February 8, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
consultations calls among states and at
least one FLM representative was
documented to have attended seven
intra-RPO meetings and all inter-RPO
meetings. Maryland participated in
these consultation meetings and
calls.156
As part of this early engagement with
the FLMs, on April 12, 2018, the NPS
sent letters to the MANE-VU states
requesting that they consider specific
individual sources in their long-term
strategies.157 NPS used an analysis of
emissions divided by distance (Q/d) to
estimate the impact of MANE-VU
facilities. To select the facilities, NPS
first summed 2014 NEI NOX, PM10, SO2,
and SO4 emissions and divided by the
distance to a specified NPS mandatory
Class I Federal area. NPS summed the
Q/d values across all MANE-VU states
relative to Acadia, Mammoth Cave and
Shenandoah National Parks, ranked the
Q/d values relative to each Class I area,
created a running total, and identified
those facilities contributing to 80% of
the total impact at each NPS Class I
area. NPS applied a similar process to
facilities in Maine relative to Acadia
National Park. NPS merged the resulting
lists of facilities and sorted them by
their states. NPS suggested that a state
consider those facilities comprising
80% of the Q/d total, not to exceed the
25 top ranked facilities. The NPS
identified 12 facilities in Maryland in
this letter.158 Maryland included the
NPS initial letter in their proposed SIP.
In a subsequent letter dated October 22,
2018, NPS identified 13 facilities for
which more control information was
desired.159 Maryland detailed the
emission controls and updates to these
facilities in its SIP submittal to address
the NPS’s request for more
information.160
On September 2, 2021, Maryland
submitted a draft Regional Haze SIP to
the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the National
156 See Appendix 7, ‘‘MANE-VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report (July 27, 2018),’’ of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
157 See Appendix 7, ‘‘MANE-VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report (July 27, 2018),’’ and Appendix
9, ‘‘National Park Service Letter to MANE-VU (April
2018)’’ of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018–2028 (February 8,
2022).
158 See Appendix 7, ‘‘MANE-VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report (July 27, 2018),’’ of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
159 See Appendix 15, ‘‘National Park Service
Correspondence with Maryland’’, of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
160 See Section 2.6 and Appendix 20 of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation
Period 2018–2028 (February 8, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58201
Park Service for a 60-day review and
comment period pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2).161 Maryland received
comments from the Forest Service on
October 28, 2021, and from the National
Park Service on October 29, 2021.
Maryland responded to the FLM
comments and included the responses
in Appendix 20 of their submission to
EPA, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(i)(3). Notices of the proposed
SIP, availability and the public hearing
were published on MDE’s website and
in the Maryland Register, and interested
parties were emailed the notice, along
with air quality contacts from other
states, air quality regional organizations
and the EPA. A public hearing on the
proposed SIP revision was held on
January 4, 2022. Written comments
relevant to the proposal were accepted
until the close of business January 4,
2022.
For the reasons stated above, the EPA
proposes to find that Maryland has
satisfied the requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(i) to consult with the FLMs on
its regional haze SIP for the second
implementation period.
Maryland’s February 8, 2022 SIP
submission includes a commitment to
revise and submit a regional haze SIP by
July 31, 2028, and every ten years
thereafter. The state’s commitment
includes submitting periodic progress
reports in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(f) and a commitment to evaluate
progress towards the reasonable
progress goal for each mandatory Class
I Federal area located within the state
and in each mandatory Class I Federal
area located outside the state that may
be affected by emissions from within the
state in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(g).162
V. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve
Maryland’s February 8, 2022 SIP
submission, as satisfying the regional
haze requirements for the second
implementation period contained in 40
CFR 51.308(f).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
161 See Appendix 14, Appendix 15, Appendix 16,
and Appendix 20 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for
the Second Implementation Period 2018–2028
(February 8, 2022), and docket documents,
‘‘National Park Service Comments’’; ‘‘State of
Maryland Mail—Forest Service’’; ‘‘USFS MD RH
SIP Comment Letter’’; ‘‘USFS MD RH SIP Comment
Enclosure’’
162 See Section 2.17, ‘‘Progress Report
Requirements’’, of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018–2028
(February 8, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58202
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 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
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
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
agencies to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further
defines the term fair treatment to mean
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Aug 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
that ‘‘no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’ The Maryland Department of
the Environment did not evaluate
environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and
applicable implementing regulations
neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this
action. Due to the nature of the action
being taken here, this action is expected
to have a neutral to positive impact on
the air quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no
information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for
people of color, low-income
populations, and Indigenous peoples.
In addition, this proposed rulemaking
action, pertaining to Maryland regional
haze SIP submission for the second
planning period, is not approved to
apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
Reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2023–18278 Filed 8–24–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R02–OAR–2022–0648, FRL–11358–
01–R2]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New York;
Elements of the 2008 and 2015 Ozone
National Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of New
York for purposes of certifying and
meeting the requirements for
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for the Serious
classification of the 2008 and Moderate
classification of the 2015 8-hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The EPA is also proposing to
approve that this SIP revision fulfills
SIP requirements pertaining to the
Ozone Transport Region (OTR) for the
2015 Ozone NAAQS. The EPA is
proposing to approve the demonstration
portion of the comprehensive SIP
revision submitted by New York that
certify that the State has satisfied the
requirements for an Ozone
nonattainment new source review
program, certify that the State has
satisfied the requirements for a
nonattainment emission inventory, and
certify that the State has satisfied the
requirements for clean fuels for fleets.
The EPA is also proposing to approve
New York’s reasonable further progress
plans and motor vehicle emissions
budgets for both the Moderate and
Serious classifications of the 2008
Ozone NAAQS.
SUMMARY:
Written comments must be
received on or before September 25,
2023.
DATES:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R02–OAR–2022–0648 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The 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. The 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, 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.
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 164 (Friday, August 25, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58178-58202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18278]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0912; FRL-11269-01-R3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maryland on February 8, 2022, as satisfying
applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's
Regional Haze Rule for the program's second implementation period.
Maryland's SIP submission addresses the requirement that states must
periodically revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress towards the national goal of preventing any future, and
remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility,
including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP
submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program. The EPA is taking
this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 25,
2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2022-0912 at www.regulations.gov. 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, the 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. The 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 www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Yarina, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 3, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2852, at (215) 814-2108, or by email
at [email protected].
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second
Implementation Period
A. Identification of Class I Areas
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan
Requirements
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Maryland's Regional Haze Submission for the
Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Maryland's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
B. Maryland's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and
the EPA's Evaluation
C. Identification of Class I Areas
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On February 8, 2022, the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE) submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional haze for the
second implementation period. MDE made this SIP submission to satisfy
the requirements of the CAA's regional haze
[[Page 58179]]
program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. The
EPA is proposing to find that the Maryland regional haze SIP submission
for the second implementation period meets the applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements and thus proposes to approve Maryland's
submission into its SIP.
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas,
which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.\1\ CAA 169A.
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 which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.'' CAA 169A(a)(1). The CAA further directs the EPA to
promulgate regulations to assure reasonable progress toward meeting
this national goal. CAA 169A(a)(4). On December 2, 1980, the EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in mandatory
Class I Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as ``Class I areas'')
that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group
of sources. (45 FR 80084, December 2, 1980). These regulations,
codified at 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.307, represented the first phase
of the EPA's efforts to address visibility impairment. In 1990,
Congress added section 169B to the CAA to further address visibility
impairment, specifically, impairment from regional haze. CAA 169B. The
EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), codified at 40 CFR
51.308,\2\ on July 1, 1999. (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999). These regional
haze regulations are a central component of the EPA's comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all
international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. CAA
162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of areas to
which the requirements of the visibility protection program apply is
in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
\2\ In addition to the generally applicable regional haze
provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, the EPA also promulgated regulations
specific to addressing regional haze visibility impairment in Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The latter
regulations are applicable only for specific jurisdictions' regional
haze plans submitted no later than December 17, 2007, and thus are
not relevant here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair
visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse
particulate matter (PM) (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, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia
(NH3)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the perception of clarity and color, as well as visible
distance.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which
is the principal metric used by the RHR. Under many circumstances, a
change in one deciview will be perceived by the human eye to be the
same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview is unitless. It is
proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric extinction of
light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to its being
scattered and absorbed as it passes through the atmosphere.
Atmospheric light extinction (b\ext\) is a metric used to for
expressing visibility and is measured in inverse megameters (Mm-1).
The EPA's Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for
the Second Implementation Period (``2019 Guidance'') offers the
flexibility for the use of light extinction in certain cases. Light
extinction can be simpler to use in calculations than deciviews,
since it is not a logarithmic function. See, e.g., 2019 Guidance at
16, 19, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period, The EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (August
20, 2019). The formula for the deciview is 10 ln (b\ext\)/10 Mm-1).
40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR
established an iterative planning process that requires both states in
which Class I areas are located and states ``the emissions from which
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility'' in a Class I area to periodically submit SIP revisions
to address such impairment. CAA 169A(b)(2); \4\ see also 40 CFR
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional
haze SIP revisions); (64 FR 35714 at 35768, July 1, 1999). Under the
CAA, each SIP submission must contain ``a long-term (ten to fifteen
years) strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the
national goal,'' CAA 169A(b)(2)(B); the initial round of SIP
submissions also had to address the statutory requirement that certain
older, larger sources of visibility impairing pollutants install and
operate the best available retrofit technology (BART). CAA
169A(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR 51.308(d), (e). States' first regional haze SIPs
were due by December 17, 2007, 40 CFR 51.308(b), with subsequent SIP
submissions containing updated long-term strategies originally due July
31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter. (64 FR 35714 at 35768, July
1, 1999). The EPA established in the 1999 RHR that all states either
have Class I areas within their borders or ``contain sources whose
emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to regional haze in
a Class I area''; therefore, all states must submit regional haze
SIPs.\5\ Id. at 35721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for states to
submit plans addressing out-of-state class I areas by providing that
states must address visibility impairment ``in each mandatory Class
I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions from within the State.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
\5\ In addition to each of the fifty states, the EPA also
concluded that the Virgin Islands and District of Columbia must also
submit regional haze SIPs because they either contain a Class I area
or contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.300(b) and
(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the focus in the first implementation period of the
regional haze program, which ran from 2007 through 2018, was on
satisfying states' BART obligations. First implementation period SIPs
were additionally required to contain long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal, of which BART
is one component. The core required elements for the first
implementation period SIPs (other than BART) are laid out in 40 CFR
51.308(d). Those provisions required that states containing Class I
areas establish reasonable progress goals (RPGs) that are measured in
deciviews and reflect the anticipated visibility conditions at the end
of the implementation period including from implementation of states'
long-term strategies. The first planning period RPGs were required to
provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days
over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days over the same period. In
establishing the RPGs for any Class I area in a state, the state was
required to consider four statutory factors: the costs of compliance,
the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of
any potentially affected sources. CAA 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
States were also required to calculate baseline (using the five
year period of 2000-2004) and natural visibility conditions (i.e.,
visibility conditions without anthropogenic visibility
[[Page 58180]]
impairment) for each Class I area, and to calculate the linear rate of
progress needed to attain natural visibility conditions, assuming a
starting point of baseline visibility conditions in 2004 and ending
with natural conditions in 2064. This linear interpolation is known as
the uniform rate of progress (URP) and is used as a tracking metric to
help states assess the amount of progress they are making towards the
national visibility goal over time in each Class I area.\6\ 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) and (d)(2). The 1999 RHR also provided that States'
long-term strategies must include the ``enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance, schedules, and other measures as necessary to
achieve the reasonable progress goals.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). In
establishing their long-term strategies, states are required to consult
with other states that also contribute to visibility impairment in a
given Class I area and include all measures necessary to obtain their
shares of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(i) and (ii). Section 51.308(d) also contains seven
additional factors states must consider in formulating their long-term
strategies, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), as well as provisions governing
monitoring and other implementation plan requirements. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4). Finally, the 1999 RHR required states to submit periodic
progress reports--SIP revisions due every five years that contain
information on states' implementation of their regional haze plans and
an assessment of whether anything additional is needed to make
reasonable progress, see 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h)--and to consult with
the Federal Land Manager(s) \7\ (FLMs) responsible for each Class I
area according to the requirements in CAA 169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA established the URP framework in the 1999 RHR to provide
``an equitable analytical approach'' to assessing the rate of
visibility improvement at Class I areas across the country. The
start point for the URP analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was
calculated based on the amount of visibility improvement that was
anticipated to result from implementation of existing CAA programs
over the period from the mid-1990s to approximately 2005. Assuming
this rate of progress would continue into the future, EPA determined
that natural visibility conditions would be reached in 60 years, or
2064 (60 years from the baseline starting point of 2004). However,
EPA did not establish 2064 as the year by which the national goal
must be reached. 64 FR 35714 at 35731-32, July 1, 1999. That is, the
URP and the 2064 date are not enforceable targets, but are rather
tools that ``allow for analytical comparisons between the rate of
progress that would be achieved by the state's chosen set of control
measures and the URP.'' (82 FR 3078, 3084, January 10, 2017).
\7\ The EPA's regulations define ``Federal Land Manager'' as
``the Secretary of the department with authority over the Federal
Class I area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park, the Chairman of the
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 10, 2017, the EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR, (82
FR 3078, January 10, 2017), that apply for the second and subsequent
implementation periods. The 2017 rulemaking made several changes to the
requirements for regional haze SIPs to clarify States' obligations and
streamline certain regional haze requirements. The revisions to the
regional haze program for the second and subsequent implementation
periods focused on the requirement that States' SIPs contain long-term
strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national
visibility goal. The reasonable progress requirements as revised in the
2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the 2017 RHR Revisions) are
codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f). Among other changes, the 2017 RHR
Revisions adjusted the deadline for States to submit their second
implementation period SIPs from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021,
clarified the order of analysis and the relationship between RPGs and
the long-term strategy, and focused on making visibility improvements
on the days with the most anthropogenic visibility impairment, as
opposed to the days with the most visibility impairment overall. The
EPA also revised requirements of the visibility protection program
related to periodic progress reports and FLM consultation. The specific
requirements applicable to second implementation period regional haze
SIP submissions are addressed in detail below.
The EPA provided guidance to the states for their second
implementation period SIP submissions in the preamble to the 2017 RHR
Revisions as well as in subsequent, stand-alone guidance documents. In
August 2019, the EPA issued ``Guidance on Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2019
Guidance'').\8\ On July 8, 2021, the EPA issued a memorandum containing
``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for
the Second Implementation Period'' (``2021 Clarifications Memo'').\9\
Additionally, the EPA further clarified the recommended procedures for
processing ambient visibility data and optionally adjusting the URP to
account for international anthropogenic and prescribed fire impacts in
two technical guidance documents: the December 2018 ``Technical
Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for the Second Implementation
Period of the Regional Haze Program'' (``2018 Visibility Tracking
Guidance''),\10\ and the June 2020 ``Recommendation for the Use of
Patched and Substituted Data and Clarification of Data Completeness for
Tracking Visibility Progress for the Second Implementation Period of
the Regional Haze Program'' and associated Technical Addendum (``2020
Data Completeness Memo'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the
Second Implementation Period. www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period. The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019).
\9\ Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans for the Second Implementation Period. www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf.
The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
\10\ Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for the
Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program.
www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progress-second-implementation-period-regional. The EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park.
(December 20, 2018).
\11\ Recommendation for the Use of Patched and Substituted Data
and Clarification of Data Completeness for Tracking Visibility
Progress for the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze
Program. www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program. The EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (June 3,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, EPA
intends the second implementation period of the regional haze program
to secure meaningful reductions in visibility impairing pollutants that
build on the significant progress states have achieved to date. The
Agency also recognizes that analyses regarding reasonable progress are
state-specific and that, based on states' and sources' individual
circumstances, what constitutes reasonable reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants will vary from state-to-state. While there exist
many opportunities for states to leverage both ongoing and upcoming
emission reductions under other CAA programs, the Agency expects states
to undertake rigorous reasonable progress analyses that identify
further opportunities to advance the national visibility goal
consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements. See
generally 2021 Clarifications Memo. This is consistent with Congress's
determination that a visibility protection program is needed in
addition to the CAA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration programs, as
[[Page 58181]]
further emission reductions may be necessary to adequately protect
visibility in Class I areas throughout the country.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95-294 at 205 (``In determining how
to best remedy the growing visibility problem in these areas of
great scenic importance, the committee realizes that as a matter of
equity, the national ambient air quality standards cannot be revised
to adequately protect visibility in all areas of the country.''),
(``the mandatory class I increments of [the PSD program] do not
adequately protect visibility in class I areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Because the air pollutants and pollution affecting visibility in
Class I areas can be transported over long distances, successful
implementation of the regional haze program requires long-term,
regional coordination among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that
have responsibility for Class I areas and the emissions that impact
visibility in those areas. In order to address regional haze, states
need to develop strategies in coordination with one another,
considering the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air
quality in another. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs),\13\
which include representation from state and tribal governments, the
EPA, and FLMs, were developed in the lead-up to the first
implementation period to address regional haze. RPOs evaluate technical
information to better understand how emissions from State and Tribal
land impact Class I areas across the country, pursue the development of
regional strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter and other
pollutants leading to regional haze, and help states meet the
consultation requirements of the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ``multi-
jurisdictional organizations,'' or MJOs. For the purposes of this
document, the terms RPO and MJO are synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), one of the
five RPOs described above, 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 (listed alphabetically) 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. The Federal partner members of MANE-VU are EPA, U.S. National
Parks Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S.
Forest Service (USFS).
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Implementation
Period
Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to submit regional
haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021.
Each state's SIP must contain a long-term strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any
existing and preventing any future anthropogenic visibility impairment
in Class I areas. CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f) lays
out the process by which states determine what constitutes their long-
term strategies, with the order of the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1) through (3) generally mirroring the order of the steps in
the reasonable progress analysis \14\ and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) through
(6) containing additional, related requirements. Broadly speaking, a
state first must identify the Class I areas within the state and
determine the Class I areas outside the state in which visibility may
be affected by emissions from the state. These are the Class I areas
that must be addressed in the state's long-term strategy. See 40 CFR
51.308(f) and (f)(2). For each Class I area within its borders, a state
must then calculate the baseline, current, and natural visibility
conditions for that area, as well as the visibility improvement made to
date and the URP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each state having a Class I
area and/or emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must
then develop a long-term strategy that includes the enforceable
emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress in such areas. A reasonable
progress determination is based on applying the four factors in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) to sources of visibility-impairing pollutants that
the state has selected to assess for controls for the second
implementation period. Additionally, as further explained below, the
RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five ``additional
factors'' \15\ that states must consider in developing their long-term
strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A state evaluates potential
emission reduction measures for those selected sources and determines
which are necessary to make reasonable progress. Those measures are
then incorporated into the state's long-term strategy. After a state
has developed its long-term strategy, it then establishes RPGs for each
Class I area within its borders by modeling the visibility impacts of
all reasonable progress controls at the end of the second
implementation period, i.e., in 2028, as well as the impacts of other
requirements of the CAA. The RPGs include reasonable progress controls
not only for sources in the state in which the Class I area is located,
but also for sources in other states that contribute to visibility
impairment in that area. The RPGs are then compared to the baseline
visibility conditions and the URP to ensure that progress is being made
towards the statutory goal of preventing any future and remedying any
existing anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I areas. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that we were
adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike
the structure in 51.308(d), ``tracked the actual planning
sequence.'' (82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017).
\15\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to satisfying the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f)
related to reasonable progress, the regional haze SIP submissions
revisions due by July 31, 2021, for the second implementation period
must address the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5)
pertaining to periodic reports describing progress towards the RPGs, 40
CFR 51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements for FLM consultation that
apply to all visibility protection SIPs and SIP revisions. 40 CFR
51.308(i).
A state must submit its regional haze SIP and subsequent SIP
revisions to the EPA according to the requirements applicable to all
SIP revisions under the CAA and EPA's regulations. See CAA 169(b)(2);
CAA 110(a). Upon EPA approval, a SIP is enforceable by the Agency and
the public under the CAA. If EPA finds that a state fails to make a
required SIP revision, or if the EPA finds that a state's SIP is
incomplete or if disapproves the SIP, the Agency must promulgate a
federal implementation plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable
requirements. CAA 110(c)(1).
A. Identification of Class I Areas
The first step in developing a regional haze SIP is for a state to
determine which Class I areas, in addition to those within its borders,
``may be affected'' by emissions from within the state. In the 1999
RHR, the EPA determined that all
[[Page 58182]]
states contribute to visibility impairment in at least one Class I
area, 64 FR 35720-22, July 1, 1999, and explained that the statute and
regulations lay out an ``extremely low triggering threshold'' for
determining ``whether States should be required to engage in air
quality planning and analysis as a prerequisite to determining the need
for control of emissions from sources within their State.'' Id. at
35721.
A state must determine which Class I areas must be addressed by its
SIP by evaluating the total emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants from all sources within the state. While the RHR does not
require this evaluation to be conducted in any particular manner, EPA's
2019 Guidance provides recommendations for how such an assessment might
be accomplished, including by, where appropriate, using the
determinations previously made for the first implementation period.
2019 Guidance at 8-9. In addition, the determination of which Class I
areas may be affected by a state's emissions is subject to the
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ``document the technical
basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions
information, on which the State is relying to determine the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress in
each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects.''
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
As part of assessing whether a SIP submission for the second
implementation period is providing for reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal, the RHR contains requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility improvement over time. The
requirements of this subsection apply only to states having Class I
areas within their borders; the required calculations must be made for
each such Class I area. EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance \16\
provides recommendations to assist states in satisfying their
obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1); specifically, in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP to account for the
impacts of international anthropogenic emissions and prescribed fires.
See 82 FR 3078 at 3103-05, January 10, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance references and relies
on parts of the 2003 Tracking Guidance: ``Guidance for Tracking
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule,'' which can be found at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/visible/tracking.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RHR requires tracking of visibility conditions on two sets of
days: the clearest and the most impaired days. Visibility conditions
for both sets of days are expressed as the average deciview index for
the relevant five-year period (the period representing baseline or
current visibility conditions). The RHR provides that the relevant sets
of days for visibility tracking purposes are the 20% clearest (the 20%
of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest values of the
deciview index) and 20% most impaired days (the 20% of monitored days
in a calendar year with the highest amounts of anthropogenic visibility
impairment).\17\ 40 CFR 51.301. A state must calculate visibility
conditions for both the 20% clearest and 20% most impaired days for the
baseline period of 2000-2004 and the most recent five-year period for
which visibility monitoring data are available (representing current
visibility conditions). 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i) and (iii). States must
also calculate natural visibility conditions for the clearest and most
impaired days,\18\ by estimating the conditions that would exist on
those two sets of days absent anthropogenic visibility impairment. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii). Using all these data, states must then calculate,
for each Class I area, the amount of progress made since the baseline
period (2000-2004) and how much improvement is left to achieve in order
to reach natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ This document also refers to the 20% clearest and 20% most
anthropogenically impaired days as the ``clearest'' and ``most
impaired'' or ``most anthropogenically impaired'' days,
respectively.
\18\ The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an error
related to the requirement for calculating two sets of natural
conditions values. The rule says ``most impaired days or the
clearest days'' where it should say ``most impaired days and
clearest days.'' This is an error that was intended to be corrected
in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected in the final
rule language. This is supported by the preamble text at 82 FR 3098,
January 10, 2017: ``In the final version of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii),
an occurrence of ``or'' has been corrected to ``and'' to indicate
that natural visibility conditions for both the most impaired days
and the clearest days must be based on available monitoring
information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, states must
plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and
natural visibility conditions for each Class I area to determine the
URP--the amount of visibility improvement, measured in deciviews, that
would need to be achieved during each implementation period in order to
achieve natural visibility conditions by the end of 2064. The URP is
used in later steps of the reasonable progress analysis for
informational purposes and to provide a non-enforceable benchmark
against which to assess a Class I area's rate of visibility
improvement.\19\ Additionally, in the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA
provided states the option of proposing to adjust the endpoint of the
URP to account for impacts of anthropogenic sources outside the United
States and/or impacts of certain types of wildland prescribed fires.
These adjustments, which must be approved by the EPA, are intended to
avoid any perception that states should compensate for impacts from
international anthropogenic sources and to give states the flexibility
to determine that limiting the use of wildland-prescribed fire is not
necessary for reasonable progress. 82 FR 3078 at 3107 footnote 116,
January 10, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Being on or below the URP is not a ``safe harbor''; i.e.,
achieving the URP does not mean that a Class I area is making
``reasonable progress'' and does not relieve a state from using the
four statutory factors to determine what level of control is needed
to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR 3078 at 3093, January 10,
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance can be used to help satisfy
the 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, including in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP. In addition, the 2020
Data Completeness Memo provides recommendations on the data
completeness language referenced in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides
updated natural conditions estimates for each Class I area.
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
The core component of a regional haze SIP submission is a long-term
strategy that addresses regional haze in each Class I area within a
state's borders and each Class I area that may be affected by emissions
from the state. The long-term strategy ``must include the enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that
are necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to
(f)(2)(i) through (iv).'' 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of progress
that is ``reasonable progress'' is based on applying the four statutory
factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of potential control
options for sources of visibility impairing pollutants, which is
referred to as a ``four-factor'' analysis. The outcome of that analysis
is the emission reduction measures that a particular source or group of
sources needs to implement in order to make reasonable progress
[[Page 58183]]
towards the national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
Emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress may be either new, additional control measures for a source,
or they may be the existing emission reduction measures that a source
is already implementing. See 2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications
Memo at 8-10. Such measures must be represented by ``enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures''
(i.e., any additional compliance tools) in a state's long-term strategy
in its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements for the four-
factor analysis. The first step of this analysis entails selecting the
sources to be evaluated for emission reduction measures; to this end,
the RHR requires states to consider ``major and minor stationary
sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area sources'' of
visibility impairing pollutants for potential four-factor control
analysis. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A threshold question at this step is
which visibility impairing pollutants will be analyzed. As EPA
previously explained, consistent with the first implementation period,
EPA generally expects that each state will analyze at least
SO2 and NOX in selecting sources and determining
control measures. See 2019 Guidance at 12, 2021 Clarifications Memo at
4. A state that chooses not to consider at least these two pollutants
should demonstrate why such consideration would be unreasonable. 2021
Clarifications Memo at 4.
While states have the option to analyze all sources, the 2019
Guidance explains that ``an analysis of control measures is not
required for every source in each implementation period,'' and that
``[s]electing a set of sources for analysis of control measures in each
implementation period is . . . consistent with the Regional Haze Rule,
which sets up an iterative planning process and anticipates that a
state may not need to analyze control measures for all its sources in a
given SIP revision.'' 2019 Guidance at 9. However, given that source
selection is the basis of all subsequent control determinations, a
reasonable source selection process ``should be designed and conducted
to ensure that source selection results in a set of pollutants and
sources the evaluation of which has the potential to meaningfully
reduce their contributions to visibility impairment.'' 2021
Clarifications Memo at 3.
EPA explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo that each state has
an obligation to submit a long-term strategy that addresses the
regional haze visibility impairment that results from emissions from
within that state. Thus, source selection should focus on the in-state
contribution to visibility impairment and be designed to capture a
meaningful portion of the state's total contribution to visibility
impairment in Class I areas. A state should not decline to select its
largest in-state sources on the basis that there are even larger out-
of-state contributors. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Similarly, in responding to comments on the 2017 RHR
Revisions EPA explained that ``[a] state should not fail to address
its many relatively low-impact sources merely because it only has
such sources and another state has even more low-impact sources and/
or some high impact sources.'' Responses to Comments on Protection
of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) at 87-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, while states have discretion to choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that
a state's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.''
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a state has selected the set of sources, the next step is to
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation
period.\21\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy
and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements.'' CAA 169A(g)(1). The EPA has explained that the four-
factor analysis is an assessment of potential emission reduction
measures (i.e., control options) for sources; ``use of the terms
`compliance' and `subject to such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1)
strongly indicates that Congress intended the relevant determination to
be the requirements with which sources would have to comply in order to
satisfy the CAA's reasonable progress mandate.'' 82 FR 3078 at 3091,
January 10, 2017. Thus, for each source it has selected for four-factor
analysis,\22\ a state must consider a ``meaningful set'' of technically
feasible control options for reducing emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants. Id. at 3088. The 2019 Guidance provides that ``[a] state
must reasonably pick and justify the measures that it will consider,
recognizing that there is no statutory or regulatory requirement to
consider all technically feasible measures or any particular measures.
A range of technically feasible measures available to reduce emissions
would be one way to justify a reasonable set.'' 2019 Guidance at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The CAA provides that, ``[i]n determining reasonable
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four
statutory factors. CAA 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-
factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or source
categories, a state may also consider additional emission reduction
measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g., from other
newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and measures for
sources not selected for four-factor analysis for the second
planning period.
\22\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires states to
evaluate individual sources. Rather, states have ``the flexibility
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of
sources or even entire source categories, depending on state policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each state.'' 82 FR
3078 at 3088, January 10, 2017. However, not all approaches to
grouping sources for four-factor analysis are necessarily
reasonable; the reasonableness of grouping sources in any particular
instance will depend on the circumstances and the manner in which
grouping is conducted. If it is feasible to establish and enforce
different requirements for sources or subgroups of sources, and if
relevant factors can be quantified for those sources or subgroups,
then states should make a separate reasonable progress determination
for each source or subgroup. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further guidance on what
constitutes a reasonable set of control options for consideration: ``A
reasonable four-factor analysis will consider the full range of
potentially reasonable options for reducing emissions.'' 2021
Clarifications Memo at 7. In addition to add-on controls and other
retrofits (i.e., new emission reduction measures for sources), EPA
explained that states should generally analyze efficiency improvements
for sources' existing measures as control options in their four-factor
analyses, as in many cases such improvements are reasonable given that
they typically involve only additional operation and maintenance costs.
Additionally, the 2021 Clarifications Memo provides that states that
have assumed a higher emission rate than a source has achieved or could
potentially achieve using its existing measures should also consider
lower emission rates as potential control options. That is, a state
should consider a source's recent actual and projected emission rates
to determine if it could
[[Page 58184]]
reasonably attain lower emission rates with its existing measures. If
so, the state should analyze the lower emission rate as a control
option for reducing emissions. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7. The EPA's
recommendations to analyze potential efficiency improvements and
achievable lower emission rates apply to both sources that have been
selected for four-factor analysis and those that have forgone a four-
factor analysis on the basis of existing ``effective controls.'' See
2021 Clarifications Memo at 5, 10.
After identifying a reasonable set of potential control options for
the sources it has selected, a state then collects information on the
four factors with regard to each option identified. The EPA has also
explained that, in addition to the four statutory factors, states have
flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably consider visibility
benefits as an additional factor alongside the four statutory
factors.\23\ The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations for the types
of information that can be used to characterize the four factors (with
or without visibility), as well as ways in which states might
reasonably consider and balance that information to determine which of
the potential control options is necessary to make reasonable progress.
See 2019 Guidance at 30-36. The 2021 Clarifications Memo contains
further guidance on how states can reasonably consider modeled
visibility impacts or benefits in the context of a four-factor
analysis. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 12-13, 14-15. Specifically, EPA
explained that while visibility can reasonably be used when comparing
and choosing between multiple reasonable control options, it should not
be used to summarily reject controls that are reasonable given the four
statutory factors. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13. Ultimately, while
states have discretion to reasonably weigh the factors and to determine
what level of control is needed, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a
state ``must include in its implementation plan a description of . . .
how the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the
measure for inclusion in its long-term strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016), Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0531,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186; 2019 Guidance at 36-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal must be
included in a state's long-term strategy and in its SIP.\24\ If the
outcome of a four-factor analysis is a new, additional emission
reduction measure for a source, that new measure is necessary to make
reasonable progress towards remedying existing anthropogenic visibility
impairment and must be included in the SIP. If the outcome of a four-
factor analysis is that no new measures are reasonable for a source,
continued implementation of the source's existing measures is generally
necessary to prevent future emission increases and thus to make
reasonable progress towards the second part of the national visibility
goal: preventing future anthropogenic visibility impairment. See CAA
169A(a)(1). That is, when the result of a four-factor analysis is that
no new measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, the source's
existing measures are generally necessary to make reasonable progress
and must be included in the SIP. However, there may be circumstances in
which a state can demonstrate that a source's existing measures are not
necessary to make reasonable progress. Specifically, if a state can
demonstrate that a source will continue to implement its existing
measures and will not increase its emission rate, it may not be
necessary to have those measures in the long-term strategy in order to
prevent future emission increases and future visibility impairment.
EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further explanation and
guidance on how states may demonstrate that a source's existing
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 8-10. If the state can make such a
demonstration, it need not include a source's existing measures in the
long-term strategy or its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ States may choose to, but are not required to, include
measures in their long-term strategies beyond just the emission
reduction measures that are necessary for reasonable progress. See
2021 Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with smoke
management programs may choose to submit their smoke management
plans to EPA for inclusion in their SIPs but are not required to do
so. See, e.g., 82 FR 3078 at 3108-09, January 10, 2017 (requirement
to consider smoke management practices and smoke management programs
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not require states to adopt such
practices or programs into their SIPs, although they may elect to do
so).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with source selection, the characterization of information on
each of the factors is also subject to the documentation requirement in
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress analysis, including
source selection, information gathering, characterization of the four
statutory factors (and potentially visibility), balancing of the four
factors, and selection of the emission reduction measures that
represent reasonable progress, is a technically complex exercise, but
also a flexible one that provides states with bounded discretion to
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances.
Given this flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important
function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for its
decision making so that the public and the EPA can comprehend and
evaluate the information and analysis the state relied upon to
determine what emission reduction measures must be in place to make
reasonable progress. The technical documentation must include the
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on
which the state relied to determine the measures necessary to make
reasonable progress. This documentation requirement can be met through
the provision of and reliance on technical analyses developed through a
regional planning process, so long as that process and its output has
been approved by all state participants. In addition to the explicit
regulatory requirement to document the technical basis of their
reasonable progress determinations, states are also subject to the
general principle that those determinations must be reasonably moored
to the statute.\25\ That is, a state's decisions about the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress must
be consistent with the statutory goal of remedying existing and
preventing future visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531
(9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA, 812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir.
2016); North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013);
Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208-10 (10th Cir. 2013); cf.
also Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165 (3d
Cir. 2015); Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S.
461, 485, 490 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The four statutory factors (and potentially visibility) are used to
determine what emission reduction measures for selected sources must be
included in a state's long-term strategy for making reasonable
progress. Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ``additional factors'' \26\ that states must consider in
developing their long-term
[[Page 58185]]
strategies: (1) emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution
control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable
visibility impairment; (2) measures to reduce the impacts of
construction activities; (3) source retirement and replacement
schedules; (4) basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire
used for agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and
smoke management programs; and (5) 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. The 2019
Guidance provides that a state may satisfy this requirement by
considering these additional factors in the process of selecting
sources for four-factor analysis, when performing that analysis, or
both, and that not every one of the additional factors needs to be
considered at the same stage of the process. See 2019 Guidance at 21.
EPA provided further guidance on the five additional factors in the
2021 Clarifications Memo, explaining that a state should generally not
reject cost-effective and otherwise reasonable controls merely because
there have been emission reductions since the first planning period
owing to other ongoing air pollution control programs or merely because
visibility is otherwise projected to improve at Class I areas.
Additionally, states generally should not rely on these additional
factors to summarily assert that the state has already made sufficient
progress and, therefore, no sources need to be selected or no new
controls are needed regardless of the outcome of four-factor analyses.
2021 Clarifications Memo at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses state
boundaries, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to consult with
other states that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area.
Consultation allows for each state that impacts visibility in an area
to share whatever technical information, analyses, and control
determinations may be necessary to develop coordinated emission
management strategies. This coordination may be managed through inter-
and intra-RPO consultation and the development of regional emissions
strategies; additional consultations between states outside of RPO
processes may also occur. If a state, pursuant to consultation, agrees
that certain measures (e.g., a certain emission limitation) are
necessary to make reasonable progress at a Class I area, it must
include those measures in its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A).
Additionally, the RHR requires that states that contribute to
visibility impairment at the same Class I area consider the emission
reduction measures the other contributing states have identified as
being necessary to make reasonable progress for their own sources. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a state has been asked to consider or adopt
certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately determines those
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress, that state must
document in its SIP the actions taken to resolve the disagreement. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). The EPA will consider the technical
information and explanations presented by the submitting state and the
state with which it disagrees when considering whether to approve the
state's SIP. See id.; 2019 Guidance at 53. Under all circumstances, a
state must document in its SIP submission all substantive consultations
with other contributing states. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
Reasonable progress goals ``measure the progress that is projected
to be achieved by the control measures states have determined are
necessary to make reasonable progress based on a four-factor
analysis.'' 82 FR 3078 at 3091, January 10, 2017. Their primary purpose
is to assist the public and the EPA in assessing the reasonableness of
states' long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii) and (iv). States
in which Class I areas are located must establish two RPGs, both in
deciviews--one representing visibility conditions on the clearest days
and one representing visibility on the most anthropogenically impaired
days--for each area within their borders. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). The
two RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts, on the two sets
of days, of the emission reduction measures the state with the Class I
area, as well as all other contributing states, have included in their
long-term strategies for the second implementation period.\27\ The RPGs
also account for the projected impacts of implementing other CAA
requirements, including non-SIP based requirements. Because RPGs are
the modeled result of the measures in states' long-term strategies (as
well as other measures required under the CAA), they cannot be
determined before states have conducted their four-factor analyses and
determined the control measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts of the
measures all contributing states include in their long-term
strategies. However, due to the timing of analyses and of control
determinations by other states, other on-going emissions changes, a
particular state's RPGs may not reflect all control measures and
emissions reductions that are expected to occur by the end of the
implementation period. The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations
for addressing the timing of RPG calculations when states are
developing their long-term strategies on disparate schedules, as
well as for adjusting RPGs using a post-modeling approach. 2019
Guidance at 47-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the second implementation period, the RPGs are set for 2028.
Reasonable progress goals are not enforceable targets, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they ``provide a way for the states to check
the projected outcome of the [long-term strategy] against the goals for
visibility improvement.'' 2019 Guidance at 46. While states are not
legally obligated to achieve the visibility conditions described in
their RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ``[t]he long-term
strategy and the reasonable progress goals must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the baseline
period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the clearest days
since the baseline period.'' Thus, states are required to have emission
reduction measures in their long-term strategies that are projected to
achieve visibility conditions on the most impaired days that are better
than the baseline period and shows no degradation on the clearest days
compared to the clearest days from the baseline period. The baseline
period for the purpose of this comparison is the baseline visibility
condition--the annual average visibility condition for the period 2000-
2004. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR 3078 at 3097-98, January 10,
2017.
So that RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of
progress a state is making towards the national visibility goal, the
RHR requires states with Class I areas to compare the 2028 RPG for the
most impaired days to the corresponding point on the URP line
(representing visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility were to
improve at a linear rate from conditions in the baseline period of
2000-2004 to natural visibility conditions in 2064). If the most
impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the URP (i.e., if visibility
conditions are improving more slowly than the rate described by the
URP), each state that contributes to visibility impairment in the Class
I area must demonstrate, based on the four-factor analysis required
[[Page 58186]]
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional emission reduction
measures would be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii) requires
that each state contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I area
that is projected to improve more slowly than the URP provide ``a
robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria used to
determine which sources or groups [of] sources were evaluated and how
the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken into
consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term
strategy.'' The 2019 Guidance provides suggestions about how such a
``robust demonstration'' might be conducted. See 2019 Guidance at 50-
51.
The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and 2021 Clarifications Memo also
explain that projecting an RPG that is on or below the URP based on
only on-the-books and/or on-the-way control measures (i.e., control
measures already required or anticipated before the four-factor
analysis is conducted) is not a ``safe harbor'' from the CAA's and
RHR's requirement that all states must conduct a four-factor analysis
to determine what emission reduction measures constitute reasonable
progress. The URP is a planning metric used to gauge the amount of
progress made thus far and the amount left before reaching natural
visibility conditions. However, the URP is not based on consideration
of the four statutory factors and therefore cannot answer the question
of whether the amount of progress being made in any particular
implementation period is ``reasonable progress.'' See 82 FR 3078 at
3093, 3099-3100, January 10, 2017; 2019 Guidance at 22; 2021
Clarifications Memo at 15-16.
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual
requirements under this subsection apply either to states with Class I
areas within their borders, states with no Class I areas but that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area, or both. A state with Class I areas within its
borders must submit with its SIP revision a monitoring strategy for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility
impairment that is representative of all Class I areas within the
state. SIP revisions for such states must also provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess visibility conditions in Class I areas, as well as reporting of
all visibility monitoring data to the EPA at least annually. Compliance
with the monitoring strategy requirement may be met through a state's
participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring network, which is used to measure
visibility impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i) and
(iv). The IMPROVE monitoring data is used to determine the 20% most
anthropogenically impaired and 20% clearest sets of days every year at
each Class I area and tracks visibility impairment over time.
All states' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring
data and other information are used to determine the contribution of
emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment
in affected Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii) and (iii). Section
51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires that all states' SIPs provide for 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 the most recent
year for which data are available and estimates of future projected
emissions. States must also include commitments to update their
inventories periodically. The inventories themselves do not need to be
included as elements in the SIP and are not subject to EPA review as
part of the Agency's evaluation of a SIP revision.\28\ All states' SIPs
must also provide for any other elements, including reporting,
recordkeeping, and other measures, that are necessary for states to
assess and report on visibility. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). Per the 2019
Guidance, a state may note in its regional haze SIP that its compliance
with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) in 40 CFR part 51 Subpart
A satisfies the requirement to provide for an emissions inventory for
the most recent year for which data are available. To satisfy the
requirement to provide estimates of future projected emissions, a state
may explain in its SIP how projected emissions were developed for use
in establishing RPGs for its own and nearby Class I areas.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See ``Step 8: Additional requirements for regional haze
SIPs'' in 2019 Regional Haze Guidance at 55.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate from the requirements related to monitoring for regional
haze purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the RHR also contains a
requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) related to any additional monitoring
that may be needed to address visibility impairment in Class I areas
from a single source or a small group of sources. This is called
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment.'' \30\ Under this
provision, if the EPA or the FLM of an affected Class I area has
advised a state that additional monitoring is needed to assess
reasonably attributable visibility impairment, the state must include
in its SIP revision for the second implementation period an appropriate
strategy for evaluating such impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ EPA's visibility protection regulations define ``reasonably
attributable visibility impairment'' as ``visibility impairment that
is caused by the emission of air pollutants from one, or a small
number of sources.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report
for the first implementation period. The regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the public and the EPA about a
state's implementation of its existing long-term strategy and whether
such implementation is in fact resulting in the expected visibility
improvement. See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016), (82 FR 3078 at 3119,
January 10, 2017). To this end, every state's SIP revision for the
second implementation period is required to describe the status of
implementation of all measures included in the state's long-term
strategy, including BART and reasonable progress emission reduction
measures from the first implementation period, and the resulting
emissions reductions. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
A core component of the progress report requirements is an
assessment of changes in visibility conditions on the clearest and most
impaired days. For second implementation period progress reports, 40
CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires states with Class I areas within their
borders to first determine current visibility conditions for each area
on the most impaired and clearest days, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i)(B), and
then to calculate the difference between those current conditions and
baseline (2000-2004) visibility conditions in order to assess progress
made to date. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii)(B). States must also
[[Page 58187]]
assess the changes in visibility impairment for the most impaired and
clearest days since they submitted their first implementation period
progress reports. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(iii)(B) and (f)(5). Since
different states submitted their first implementation period progress
reports at different times, the starting point for this assessment will
vary state by state.
Similarly, states must provide analyses tracking the change in
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all
sources and activities within the state over the period since they
submitted their first implementation period progress reports. See 40
CFR 51.308(g)(4) and (f)(5). Changes in emissions should be identified
by the type of source or activity. Section 51.308(g)(5) also addresses
changes in emissions since the period addressed by the previous
progress report and requires states' SIP revisions to include an
assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within
or outside the state. This assessment must include an explanation of
whether these changes in emissions were anticipated and whether they
have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving
visibility relative to what the state projected based on its long-term
strategy for the first implementation period.
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Clean Air Act section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a
public hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must
consult with the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that
consultation, the state must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions
and recommendations in the notice to the public. Consistent with this
statutory requirement, the RHR also requires that states ``provide the
[FLM] with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point
early enough in the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy
emission reduction obligation so that information and recommendations
provided by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on
the long-term strategy.'' 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). Consultation that occurs
120 days prior to any public hearing or public comment opportunity will
be deemed ``early enough,'' but the RHR provides that in any event the
opportunity for consultation must be provided at least 60 days before a
public hearing or comment opportunity. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of visibility
impairment in any Class I area and their recommendations on the
development and implementation of strategies to address such
impairment. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In order for the EPA to evaluate
whether FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the RHR has
occurred, the SIP submission should include documentation of the timing
and content of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to the EPA
must also describe how the state addressed any comments provided by the
FLMs. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision 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. 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4).
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Maryland's Regional Haze Submission for the
Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Maryland's First Implementation Period SIP Submission
MDE submitted its regional haze SIP for the first implementation
period to the EPA on February 13, 2012. The EPA approved Maryland's
first implementation period regional haze SIP submission on July 6,
2012 (77 FR 39938, July 6, 2012), effective August 6, 2012. EPA's
approval included the portions of the plan that addressed the
reasonable progress requirements and Maryland's implementation of Best
Available Retrofit Technologies (BART) on eligible sources. The
requirements for regional haze SIPs for the first implementation period
are contained in 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e). 40 CFR 51.308(b). Pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.308(g), Maryland was also responsible for submitting a
five-year progress report as a SIP revision for the first
implementation period, which it did on August 9, 2017. The EPA approved
the progress report on November 26, 2018 (83 FR 60363, November 26,
2018), effective December 26, 2018.
B. Maryland's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and the EPA's
Evaluation
In accordance with CAA sections 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(f), on February 8, 2022, MDE submitted a revision to the
Maryland SIP to address its regional haze obligations for the second
implementation period, which runs through 2028. Maryland made its 2020
Regional Haze SIP submission available for public comment on December
1, 2021 through January 4, 2022. MDE received and responded to public
comments and included the comments and responses to those comments in
their submission.
The following sections describe Maryland's SIP submission,
including analyses conducted by MANE-VU and Maryland's determinations
based on those analyses, Maryland's assessment of progress made since
the first implementation period in reducing emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants, and the visibility improvement progress at nearby
Class I areas. This document also contains EPA's evaluation of
Maryland's submission against the requirements of the CAA and RHR for
the second implementation period of the regional haze program.
C. Identification of Class I Areas
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each state in which any
Class I area is located or ``the emissions from which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility'' in
a Class I area to have a plan for making reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. The RHR implements this statutory requirement
at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which provides that each state's plan ``must
address regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within the
State,'' and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), which requires each state's plan to
include a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze in such Class
I areas.
The EPA explained in the 1999 RHR preamble that the CAA section
169A(b)(2) requirement that states submit SIPs to address visibility
impairment establishes ``an `extremely low triggering threshold' in
determining which States should submit SIPs for regional haze.'' 64 FR
35714 at 35721, July 1, 1999. In concluding that each of the contiguous
48 states and the District of Columbia meet this threshold,\31\ the EPA
relied on ``a large body of evidence demonstrat[ing] that long-range
transport of fine PM contributes to regional haze,'' id., including
modeling studies that ``preliminarily
[[Page 58188]]
demonstrated that each State not having a Class I area had emissions
contributing to impairment in at least one downwind Class I area.'' Id.
at 35722. In addition to the technical evidence supporting a conclusion
that each state contributes to existing visibility impairment, the EPA
also explained that the second half of the national visibility goal--
preventing future visibility impairment--requires having a framework in
place to address future growth in visibility-impairing emissions and
makes it inappropriate to ``establish criteria for excluding States or
geographic areas from consideration as potential contributors to
regional haze visibility impairment.'' Id. at 35721. Thus, the EPA
concluded that the agency's ``statutory authority and the scientific
evidence are sufficient to require all States to develop regional haze
SIPs to ensure the prevention of any future impairment of visibility,
and to conduct further analyses to determine whether additional control
measures are needed to ensure reasonable progress in remedying existing
impairment in downwind Class I areas.'' Id. at 35722. EPA's 2017
revisions to the RHR did not disturb this conclusion. See 82 FR 3078 at
3094, January 10, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ EPA determined that ``there is more than sufficient
evidence to support our conclusion that emissions from each of the
48 contiguous states and the District of Columba may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area.'' 64 FR 35714 at 35721, July 1, 1999. Hawaii, Alaska,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands must also submit regional haze SIPs
because they contain Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland has no mandatory Class I Federal area within its borders,
but has previously been shown to have sources with emissions that
impact visibility at downwind mandatory Class I Federal areas. For the
second implementation period, MANE-VU performed technical analyses \32\
to help assess source and state-level contributions to visibility
impairment and the need for interstate consultation. MANE-VU used the
results of these analyses to determine which states' emissions ``have a
high likelihood of affecting visibility in MANE-VU's Class I areas.''
\33\ Similar to metrics used in the first implementation period,\34\
MANE-VU used a greater than 2 percent of sulfate plus nitrate emissions
contribution criteria to determine whether emissions from individual
jurisdictions within the region affected visibility in any Class I
areas. The MANE-VU analyses for the second implementation period used a
combination of data analysis techniques, including emissions data,
distance from Class I areas, wind trajectories, and CALPUFF dispersion
modeling. Although many of the analyses focused only on SO2
emissions and resultant particulate sulfate contributions to visibility
impairment, some also incorporated NOX emissions to estimate
particulate nitrate contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The contribution assessment methodologies for MANE-VU Class
I areas are summarized in Appendix 1 of Maryland's SIP submittal,
which can be found in the docket, ``Selection of States for MANE-VU
Regional Haze Consultation (2018).''
\33\ Id.
\34\ See docket EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0912 for MANE-VU supporting
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One MANE-VU analysis used for contribution assessment was CALPUFF
air dispersion modeling. The CALPUFF model was used to estimate sulfate
and nitrate formation and transport in MANE-VU and nearby regions
originating from large electric generating unit (EGU) point sources and
other large industrial and institutional sources in the eastern and
central United States. Information from an initial round of CALPUFF
modeling was collated for the 444 EGUs that were determined to warrant
further scrutiny based on their emissions of SO2 and
NOX. The list of EGUs was based on an enhanced ``Q/d''
analysis \35\ that considered recent SO2 emissions in the
eastern United States and an analysis that adjusted previous 2002 MANE-
VU CALPUFF modeling by applying a ratio of 2011 to 2002 SO2
emissions. This list of sources was then enhanced by including the top
five SO2 and NOX emission sources for 2011 for
each state included in the modeling domain. A total of 311 EGU stacks
(as opposed to individual units) were included in the CALPUFF modeling
analysis. Initial information was also collected on the 50 industrial
and institutional sources that, according to 2011 Q/d analysis,
contributed the most to visibility impact in each Class I area. The
ultimate CALPUFF modeling run included a total of 311 EGU stacks and 82
industrial facilities. The summary report for the CALPUFF modeling
included the top 10 most impacting EGUs and the top 5 most impacting
industrial/institutional sources for each Class I area and compiled
those results into a ranked list of the most impacting EGUs and
industrial sources at MANE-VU Class I areas.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ ``Q/d'' is emissions (Q) in tons per year, typically of one
or a combination of visibility-impairing pollutants, divided by
distance to a class I area (d) in kilometers. The resulting ratio is
commonly used as a metric to assess a source's potential visibility
impacts on a particular class I area.
\36\ See docket document, ``2016 MANE VU Source Contribution
Modeling Report (CALPUFF Modeling of Large EGUs and Industrial
Sources) (April 4, 2017)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland had ten EGU sources \37\ and six industrial/institutional
sources \38\ that were included in the MANE-VU CALPUFF modeling
analysis.\39\ The EGU facilities Brandon Shores, Chalk Point, Herbert
Wagner, and Morgantown were identified as among the Top 25 most
impactful EGU facilities for Shenandoah National Park Class I area, and
EGU facility CP Crane was also identified as among the Top 25 most
impactful EGU facilities for Dolly Sods Wilderness Class I area. EGU
facilities Brandon Shores, Chalk Point, CP Crane, Herbert Wagner, and
Morgantown were also among the EGU facilities identified as having the
Top Impacting EGU stacks. The Luke Paper Company and Sparrows Point
industrial facilities were identified as among the Top 25 visibility
impacting industrial/institutional sources for Acadia National Park,
Brigantine National Wilderness Area, Great Gulf Wilderness, Lye Brook
Wilderness, Dolly Sods Wilderness, and Shenandoah National Park Class I
areas. The Indian Head Naval Support Facility was also identified as
among the Top 25 visibility impacting industrial/institutional sources
for Dolly Sods Wilderness and Shenandoah National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Brandon Shores (Unit 1 & Unit 2), CP Crane (Unit 1 & Unit
2), Chalk Point (Units 1 & 2), Dickerson (Units 1-3), Herbert Wager
(Unit 3 & Units 1, 2, and 4), and Morgantown (Unit 1 and Unit 2).
\38\ Luke Paper Company (Unit 0018, Unit 0019, and Unit 0235),
Naval Support Facility Indian Head, and Sparrows Point, LLC (Unit
0939 and Unit 0941).
\39\ See docket document, ``2016 MANE VU Source Contribution
Modeling Report (CALPUFF Modeling of Large EGUs and Industrial
Sources) (April 4, 2017)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its submittal, Maryland indicates that Brandon Shores Generating
Station has agreed via legal consent agreement to cease coal combustion
at the site by 2026.\40\ Maryland indicates that Chalk Point Generation
Station ceased coal operations in 2021 and closed, and that Maryland
subsequently filed a Retired Unit Exemption form with EPA, specifying
that the Chalk Point units identified are permanently shut down and
cannot be restarted, and that a new owner would be required to obtain
all new permits.\41\ Maryland also indicates that Herbert Wagner
Generating Station has agreed to cease coal combustion by 2026; MDE and
Herbert Wagner owner/operator Raven Power, Fort Smallwood LLC, entered
into a legal consent order requiring Raven Power to cease coal
combustion at Herbert Wager no later than January 1, 2026.\42\ Maryland
[[Page 58189]]
included the consent order as part of its SIP submittal. Maryland also
indicates that CP Crane Generating Station has disabled its coal
boilers and agreed via legal consent agreement to never again stockpile
or burn coal at the facility.\43\ Maryland further indicates that the
Luke Paper Company industrial facility has ceased operations, closed
and relinquished their air permits as of May 29, 2020; \44\ that the
Sparrows Point industrial facility was retired as of December 31, 2012;
\45\ and that the primary emissions units at the Indian Head Naval
Support Facility, which consisted of three coal- and No. 6 fuel oil-
fired boilers at the Goddard Steam Plant, were permanently shut down in
2014.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Section 2.4 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022), and docket
documents ``MDE SO2 2010 NAAQS SIP for Baltimore and Anne
Arundel NA (January 31, 2020)'', and ``MDE SO2 2010 NAAQS
SIP for Baltimore and Anne Arundel NA (January 31, 2020)--Appendix
B--Consent Orders, Permits, and Plan Approvals''.
\41\ See docket document, ``MDE EPA Chalk Point Units 1&2
Retired Unit Exemption Forms 6-4-21 (June 4, 2021)''.
\42\ See Appendix 19, ``Herbert A. Wagner Generating Station
Consent Order''.
\43\ See Section 2.6.1 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022), and
docket documents ``MDE SO2 2010 NAAQS SIP for Baltimore
and Anne Arundel NA (January 31, 2020)'', and ``MDE SO2
2010 NAAQS SIP for Baltimore and Anne Arundel NA (January 31,
2020)--Appendix B--Consent Orders, Permits, and Plan Approvals''.
\44\ See docket documents, ``Verso Luke Paper--Luke MD Title V
Permit Termination (May 7, 2020)'' and ``Verso Luke Paper--Verso
Luke Close Out Letter (May 8, 2020)''.
\45\ See docket document, ``MDE Sparrows Point Administrative
Consent Order (September 12, 2014)''.
\46\ See docket document, ``MDE EPA Indian Head Boiler
Decommision letter (January 29, 2016)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second MANE-VU contribution analysis used a meteorologically
weighted Q/d calculation to assess states' contributions to visibility
impairment at MANE-VU Class I areas.\47\ This analysis focused
predominantly on SO2 emissions and used cumulative
SO2 emissions from a source and a state for the variable
``Q,'' and the distance of the source or state to the IMPROVE monitor
receptor at a Class I area as ``d.'' The result is then multiplied by a
constant (Ci), which is determined based on the prevailing
wind patterns. MANE-VU selected a meteorologically weighted Q/d
analysis as an inexpensive initial screening tool that could easily be
repeated to determine which states, sectors, or sources have a larger
relative impact and warrant further analysis. MANE-VU updated its
analysis in 2016 using 2011 emissions and 2018 projected emissions,
which Maryland included as part of its submittal. MANE-VU's analysis
estimated Maryland's 2018 sulfate contribution at 3.77% at Acadia
National Park, 8.89% at Brigantine Wilderness, 3.36% at Great Gulf
3.80% at Lye Brook, and 3.35% at Moosehorn Class I areas based on
maximum daily impact.\48\ Although MANE-VU did not originally estimate
nitrate impacts, the MANE-VU Q/d analysis was subsequently extended to
account for nitrate contributions from NOX emissions and to
approximate the nitrate impacts from area and mobile sources. MANE-VU
therefore developed a ratio of nitrate to sulfate impacts based on the
previously described CALPUFF modeling and applied those to the sulfate
Q/d results in order to derive nitrate contribution estimates. Several
states did not have CALPUFF nitrate to sulfate ratio results, however,
because there were no point sources modeled with CALPUFF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See docket document, ``MANE-VU Contributions to Regional
Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States (August
2006)''.
\48\ See ``Table 2-2: Q/d results using 2011 and 2018 inventory
data for 32 states'', of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to develop a final set of contribution estimates, MANE-VU
weighted the results from both the Q/d and CALPUFF analyses. The MANE-
VU mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate contribution results were reported
for the MANE-VU Class I areas (the Q/d summary report included results
for several non-MANE-VU areas as well). If a state's contribution to
sulfate and nitrate concentrations at a particular Class I area was 2
percent or greater, MANE-VU regarded that state as contributing to
visibility impairment in that area. According to MANE-VU's analyses,
sources in Maryland were found to contribute to visibility impairment
at all seven downwind MANE-VU Class I areas,\49\ as well as VISTA Class
I areas including James River Face and Shenandoah National Park in
Virginia and Dolly Sods Wilderness and Otter Creek Wilderness in West
Virginia.\50\ MANE-VU determined that modeled emissions sources that
have the potential for 3.0 Mm-1 or greater visibility
impacts at any MANE-VU Class I area should perform a four-factor
analysis for reasonable installation or upgrade to emissions controls.
Maryland indicated in its submittal that it agrees with MANE-VU's
approach and assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Acadia National Park, Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge,
and Roosevelt Campobello International Park in Maine; Brigantine
Wilderness in New Jersey; Great Gulf Wilderness and Presidential
Range-Dry River Wilderness in New Hampshire; and Lye Brook
Wilderness in Vermont.
\50\ See docket document, ``2016 MANE-VU Source Contribution
Modeling Report (April 4, 2017),'' Tables 1 through 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, the EPA concluded in the 1999 RHR that ``all
[s]tates contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to regional haze in a Class I area,'' 64 FR 35714 at 35721,
July 1, 1999, and this determination was not changed in the 2017 RHR.
Critically, the statute and regulation both require that the cause-or-
contribute assessment consider all emissions of visibility-impairing
pollutants from a state, as opposed to emissions of a particular
pollutant or emissions from a certain set of sources. Consistent with
these requirements, the 2019 Guidance makes it clear that ``all types
of anthropogenic sources are to be included in the determination'' of
whether a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to result in any
visibility impairment. 2019 Guidance at 8.
First, the screening analyses on which MANE-VU relied are useful
for certain purposes. MANE-VU used information from its technical
analysis to rank the largest contributing states to sulfate and nitrate
impairment in five Class I areas within MANE-VU states and three
additional, nearby Class I areas.\51\ The rankings were used to
determine upwind states that were deemed important to include in state-
to-state consultation (based on an identified impact screening
threshold). Additionally, large individual source impacts were used to
target MANE-VU control analysis ``Asks'' \52\ of states and sources
both within and upwind of MANE-VU.\53\ The EPA finds the nature of the
analyses generally appropriate to support decisions on states with
which to consult. However, we have cautioned that source selection
methodologies that target the largest regional contributors to
visibility impairment across multiple states may not be reasonable for
a particular state if it results in few or no sources being selected
for subsequent analysis. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ The Class I areas analyzed were Acadia National Park in
Maine, Brigantine Wilderness in New Jersey, Great Gulf Wilderness in
New Hampshire, Lye Brook Wilderness in Vermont, Moosehorn Wilderness
in Maine, Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, James River Face
Wilderness in Virginia, and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek Wildernesses in
West Virginia.
\52\ As explained more fully in Section IV.E.1 of this document,
MANE-VU refers to each of the components of its overall strategy as
an ``Ask ``of its member states.
\53\ The MANE-VU Consultation Report (Appendix 7) explains that
``[t]he objective of this technical work was to identify states and
sources from which MANE-VU will pursue further analysis. This
screening was intended to identify which states to invite to
consultation, not a definitive list of which states are
contributing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the analysis and determinations regarding Maryland's
contribution to visibility impairment at out-of-state Class I areas,
the MANE-VU technical work focuses on the magnitude of visibility
impacts from certain Maryland emissions on downwind Class I areas.
However, the analyses did not account for all
[[Page 58190]]
emissions and all components of visibility impairment (e.g., primary PM
emissions, and impairment from fine PM, elemental carbon, and organic
carbon). In addition, Q/d analyses with a relatively simplistic
accounting for wind trajectories and CALPUFF applied to a very limited
set of EGUs and major industrial sources of SO2 and
NOX are not scientifically rigorous tools capable of
evaluating contribution to visibility impairment from all emissions in
a state. While Maryland noted that contributions from other states are
larger than its own, we again clarify that each state is obligated
under the CAA and RHR to address regional haze visibility impairment
resulting from emissions from within the state, irrespective of whether
another state's contribution is greater. See 2021 Clarifications Memo
at 3. Additionally, we note that the 2 percent or greater sulfate-plus-
nitrate threshold used to determine whether Maryland emissions
contribute to visibility impairment at a particular Class I area may be
higher than what EPA believes is an ``extremely low triggering
threshold'' intended by the statute and regulations. In sum, based on
the information provided, it is clear that emissions from Maryland
contribute to visibility impairment at out-of-state Class I areas.
Regardless, we note that Maryland did determine that sources and
emissions within the state contribute to visibility impairment at out-
of-state Class I areas. Furthermore, the state took part in the
emission control strategy consultation process as a member of MANE-VU.
As part of that process, MANE-VU developed a set of emissions reduction
measures identified as being necessary to make reasonable progress in
the five MANE-VU Class I areas. This strategy consists of six Asks for
states within MANE-VU and five Asks for states outside the region that
were found to impact visibility at Class I areas within MANE-VU.\54\
Maryland's submittal discusses each of the Asks and explains why or why
not each is applicable and how it has complied with the relevant
components of the emissions control strategy MANE-VU has laid out for
its states. Maryland worked with MANE-VU to determine potential
reasonable measures that could be implemented by 2028, considering the
cost of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts, and the remaining useful life of
any potentially affected sources. As discussed in further detail below,
the EPA is proposing to find that Maryland has submitted a regional
haze plan that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) related to
the development of a long-term strategy. Although we have concerns
regarding some aspects of MANE-VU's technical analyses supporting
states' contribution determinations, we propose to find that Maryland
has satisfied the applicable requirements for making reasonable
progress towards natural visibility conditions in Class I areas that
may be affected be emissions from the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See docket documents, ``MANE-VU Intra-Regional Ask Final 8-
25-2017 (August 25, 2017)'' and ``MANE-VU Inter-Regional Ask Final
8-25-2017 (August 25, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to determine the following for
``each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State'':
baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
progress to date for the most impaired and clearest days, the
differences between current visibility conditions and natural
visibility conditions, and the URP. This section also provides the
option for states to propose adjustments to the URP line for a Class I
area to account for visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources
outside the United States and/or the impacts from wildland prescribed
fires that were conducted for certain, specified objectives. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
Maryland does not have any mandatory Class I areas within its
borders; therefore, Section 51.308(f)(1) and its requirements do not
apply.
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
1. Maryland's Response to the Six MANE-VU Asks
Each state having a Class I area within its borders or emissions
that may affect visibility in a Class I area must develop a long-term
strategy for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility
goal. CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in the Background section of this
document, reasonable progress is achieved when all states contributing
to visibility impairment in a Class I area are implementing the
measures determined--through application of the four statutory factors
to sources of visibility impairing pollutants--to be necessary to make
reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each state's long-term
strategy must include the enforceable emission limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). All new (i.e., additional) measures that
are the outcome of four-factor analyses are necessary to make
reasonable progress and must be in the long-term strategy. If the
outcome of a four-factor analysis and other measures necessary to make
reasonable progress is that no new measures are reasonable for a
source, that source's existing measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress, unless the state can demonstrate that the source
will continue to implement those measures and will not increase its
emission rate. Existing measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress must also be in the long-term strategy. In developing its
long-term strategies, a state must also consider the five additional
factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its reasonable progress
determinations, the state must describe the criteria used to determine
which sources or group of sources were evaluated (i.e., subjected to
four-factor analysis) for the second implementation period and how the
four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the emission
reduction measures for inclusion in the long-term strategy. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii).
The following section summarizes how Maryland's SIP submission
addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i); specifically, it
describes MANE-VU's development of the six Asks and how Maryland
addressed each. The EPA's evaluation of Maryland's SIP revision with
regard to the same is contained in the following Section IV.E.2 of this
document. Maryland's SIP submission describes how it plans to meet the
long-term strategy requirements defined by the state and MANE-VU and
provides that ``[t]hese long-term strategies are referred to as the
`Asks'.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See MD Regional Haze SIP submission Section 2.3 (Page 8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States may rely on technical information developed by the RPOs of
which they are members to select sources for four-factor analysis and
to conduct that analysis, as well as to satisfy the documentation
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f). Where an RPO has performed source
selection and/or four-factor analyses (or considered the five
additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member states,
those states may rely on the RPO's analyses for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the
states have
[[Page 58191]]
a reasonable basis to do so and all state participants in the RPO
process have approved the technical analyses. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii).
States may also satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) to
engage in interstate consultation with other states that have emissions
that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment
in a given Class I area under the auspices of intra- and inter-RPO
engagement.
Maryland is a member of the MANE-VU RPO and participated in the
RPO's regional approach to developing a strategy for making reasonable
progress towards the national visibility goal in the MANE-VU Class I
areas. MANE-VU's strategy includes a combination of: (1) measures for
certain source sectors and groups of sectors that the RPO determined
were reasonable for states to pursue, and (2) a request for member
states to conduct four-factor analyses for individual sources that it
identified as contributing to visibility impairment. MANE-VU refers to
each of the components of its overall strategy as an Ask of its member
states. On August 25, 2017, the Executive Director of MANE-VU, on
behalf of the MANE-VU states and tribal nations, signed a statement
that identifies six emission reduction measures that comprise the Asks
for the second implementation period.\56\ The Asks were ``designed to
identify reasonable emission reduction strategies that must be
addressed by the states and tribal nations of MANE-VU through their
regional haze SIP updates.'' \57\ The statement explains that ``[i]f
any State cannot agree with or complete a Class I State's Asks, the
State must describe the actions taken to resolve the disagreement in
the Regional Haze SIP.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See Appendix 8, ``Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Concerning a Course of Action within
MANE-VU toward Assuring Reasonable Progress for the Second Regional
Haze Implementation Period (2018-2028), (August 2017); and Appendix
7 ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report'' (July 27, 2018).''
\57\ Id.
\58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU's recommendations as to the appropriate control measures
were based on technical analyses documented in the RPO's reports and
included as appendices to or referenced in Maryland's regional haze SIP
submission. One of the initial steps of MANE-VU's technical analysis
was to determine which visibility-impairing pollutants should be the
focus of its efforts for the second implementation period. In the first
implementation period, MANE-VU determined that sulfates were the most
significant visibility impairing pollutant at the region's Class I
areas. To determine the impact of certain pollutants on visibility at
Class I areas for the purpose of second implementation period planning,
MANE-VU conducted an analysis comparing the pollutant contribution on
the clearest and most impaired days in the baseline period (2000-2004)
to the most recent period (2012-2016) \59\ at MANE-VU and nearby Class
I areas. MANE-VU found that while SO2 emissions were
decreasing and visibility was improving, sulfates still made up the
most significant contribution to visibility impairment at MANE-VU and
nearby Class I areas. According to the analysis, NOX
emissions have begun to play a more significant role in visibility
impacts in recent years. The technical analyses used by Maryland are
included or referenced in their submission, and are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ The period of 2012-2016 was the most recent period for
which data was available at the time of analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection of States for MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation
(2018) (MANE-VU, September 2017) (Appendix 1);
Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic United States: Preliminary Update through 2007 (NESCAUM, March
2012); \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See docket document, NESCAUM--Contributions to Regional
Haze Preliminary Update Through 2007 (March 21, 2012)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Updated Q/d*C Contribution Assessment (MANE-VU,
April 2016) (Appendix 3);
2016 MANE-VU Source Contribution Modeling Report--CALPUFF
Modeling of Large Electrical Generating Units and Industrial Sources
(MANE-VU, May 2006) (Appendix 4);
Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in
MANE-VU Class I areas (referred to as the MACTEC Report) MACTEC (July
2007); \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See docket document, ``Assessment of Reasonable Progress
for Regional Haze In MANE-VU Class I Areas (July 2007) (MACTEC
Reasonable Progress Report)''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU) Concerning a Course of Action within MANE-VU toward Assuring
Reasonable Progress for the Second Regional Haze Implementation Period
(2018-2028) (August 2017); \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See docket document, ``MANE-VU Intra-Regional Ask Final
(August 25, 2017)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU) Concerning a Course of Action In Contributing States Located
Upwind of MANE-VU Toward Assuring Reasonable Progress for the Second
Regional Haze Implementation Period (2018-2028) (Appendix 8);
Technical Support Document for the 2011 Northeastern U.S.
Gamma Emission Inventory (January 2018) (Appendix 10);
Ozone Transport Commission/Mid-Atlantic Northeastern
Visibility Union 2011 Based Modeling Platform Support Document--October
2018 Update (October 2018) (Appendix 11);
The Nature of Fine Particle and Regional Haze Air Quality
Problems in the MANE-VU Region: A Conceptual Description (NESCAUM,
November 2006, Revised August 2010) (Appendix 12);
Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility Data 2004-2017 (2nd
RH SIP Metrics) (MANE-VU, December 2018) (Appendix 13);
Additional MANE-VU documentation for establishing 3.0
Mm-1 Threshold (Appendix 17);
20% Most Impaired Days Based on Deciviews, as Detailed in
Recommendation on Approaches to Selecting the 20% Most Impaired Days
(March 2, 2017) (Appendix 18);
Technical Support Document on Measures to Mitigate the
Visibility Impacts of Construction Activities in the MANE-VU Region
(MANE-VU, September 2006); \63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See docket document, ``MANE-VU TSD on Measures to Mitigate
the Visibility Impacts of Construction Activities in the MANE-VU
Region (September 2006).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline and Natural Background Visibility Conditions
(NESCAUM, December 2006); \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See docket document ``NESCAUM--Baseline and Natural
Background Visibility Conditions (December 2006).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Updates to the Assessment of Reasonable Progress for
Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas, January 31, 2016 (MARAMA,
January 31, 2016); \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See docket document, ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas
(January 31, 2016).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To support development of the Asks, MANE-VU gathered information on
the four statutory factors for six source sectors it determined, based
on an examination of annual emission inventories, ``had emissions that
were reasonabl[y] anticipated to contribute to visibility degradation
in MANE-VU:'' electric generating units (EGUs), industrial/commercial/
institutional boilers (ICI boilers), cement kilns, heating oil,
residential wood combustion, and outdoor wood combustion.\66\ MANE-VU
also collected data on individual sources within the EGU, ICI boiler,
and cement kiln
[[Page 58192]]
sectors.\67\ Information for the six sectors included explanations of
technically feasible control options for SO2 or
NOX, illustrative cost-effectiveness estimates for a range
of model units and control options, sector-wide cost considerations,
potential time frames for compliance with control options, potential
energy and non-air-quality environmental impacts of certain control
options, and how the remaining useful lives of sources might be
considered in a control analysis.\68\ Source-specific data included
SO2 emissions \69\ and existing controls \70\ for certain
existing EGUs, ICI boilers, and cement kilns. MANE-VU considered this
information on the four factors as well as the analyses developed by
the RPO's Technical Support Committee when it determined specific
emission reduction measures that were found to be reasonable for
certain sources within two of the sectors it had examined--EGUs and ICI
boilers. The Asks were based on this analysis and looked to either
optimize the use of existing controls, have states conduct further
analysis on EGU or ICI boilers with considerable visibility impacts,
implement low sulfur fuel standards, or lock-in lower emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See docket document ``MANE-VU Four Factor Data Collection
Memo (March 30, 2017)'' at 1.
\67\ See docket document, ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas
(January 31, 2016).''
\68\ Id.
\69\ See docket document ``MANE-VU Four Factor Data Collection
Memo (March 30, 2017).''
\70\ See docket document ``MANE-VU Status of the Top 167 Stacks
from the 2008 MANE-VU Ask (July 2016).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 1 requests that states ``ensure the most effective use
of control technologies on a year-round basis to consistently minimize
emissions of haze precursors, or obtain equivalent alternative emission
reductions'' at EGUs ``with a nameplate capacity larger than or equal
to 25 MW with already installed NOX and/or SO2
controls''.\71\ In its submission, Maryland stated that COMAR
21.11.27--Emission Limitations for Power Plants (Maryland Healthy Air
Act) ``caps NOX emissions on an ozone season and annual
basis for each coal-fired EGU in Maryland.'' In addition, Maryland also
stated that COMAR 26.11.40--NOX Ozone Season Emission Caps for Non-
trading Large NOX Units ``assures optimization of post-combustion
(Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Selective Non-Catalytic
Reduction (SNCR)) NOX controls on coal-fired EGUs and sets
NOX Indicator Rates for each unit to assure optimization.''
\72\ Maryland credited these regulations with ``reducing annual
NOX mass emissions by almost 95% compared to 2002 levels.''
\73\ Regarding SO2 emission controls, Maryland stated that
COMAR 21.11.27--Emission Limitations for Power Plans (Maryland Healthy
Air Act) ``caps SO2 emissions limits on an annual basis for
each coal-fired EGU in Maryland. All non-fluidized bed base load coal-
fired units are equipped with Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) except
one. H.A. Wagner Unit 3 is the only coal-fired EGU not equipped with an
FGD. H.A. Wagner Unit 3 is named as a unit requiring a four-factor
analysis and is analyzed further in Section 2.5.2.'' Maryland also
stated that permit limits associated with a federally enforceable
consent order for the Anne Arundel and Baltimore County SO2
nonattainment area include SO2 emission limits. Taken
together, Maryland credited these requirements with ``reducing the
annual SO2 mass emissions by over 95% compared to 2002
levels''.\74\ Maryland therefore concluded it is meeting Ask 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
(July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\72\ See Section 2.5.1 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\73\ See Table 2-8, Figure 2-3, and Figure 2-4 of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028
(February 8, 2022).
\74\ See Table 2-7 and Figure 2-3 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 2 requests that states ``perform a four-factor analysis
for reasonable installation or upgrade to emissions controls'' at
``emission sources modeled by MANE-VU that have the potential for 3.0
Mm-1 or greater visibility impacts at any MANE-VU Class I
area, as identified by MANE-VU contribution analyses''. MANE-VU
developed its Ask 2 list of sources for analysis by performing modeling
and identifying facilities with the potential for 3.0 inverse
megameters (Mm-1) or greater impacts on visibility at any
Class I area in the MANE-VU region. MANE-VU identified emission sources
at the Herbert A. Wagner Generating Facility in Anne Arundel County,
Maryland and at the Verso Luke Paper Company facility in Allegany
County, Maryland as having the potential for 3.0 Mm-1 or
greater visibility impacts at any MANE-VU Class I area; \75\
specifically, Unit 3 at Herbert A. Wagner Generating Facility and Units
001-0011-3-0018 and 001-0011-3-0019 at Verso Luke Paper Company.
Maryland stated that ``Luke Paper Company ceased operations, closed,
and relinquished their air permits'', and that this information was
shared in a transmittal letter to EPA dated May 29, 2020 and included
in an attainment designation request letter.\76\ In addition, Maryland
also stated that, after requesting a four-factor analysis for Herbert
A. Wagner Unit 3 from the facility's owner/operator, ``the parent
company to the H.A. Wagner Generating Station publicly announced a
strategic repositioning of the facility that would eliminate the use of
coal. The owners of the H.A. Wagner Generating Station have agreed and
signed a legal consent order with [MDE] to cease the combustion of coal
by 2026 . . . Therefore, according to the statutory factor of remaining
useful life for this facility, further control is not reasonable . . .
A four-factor analysis of H.A. Wagner Unit 3 similarly concludes that
no additional controls would effectively control SO2 and
NOX emissions at this facility since the remaining useful
life of the coal-fired unit is approximately 4\1/2\ years''.\77\ Given
the remaining useful life of this source, and the closure of Luke Paper
Company, Maryland concluded that no further action is necessary to
satisfy Ask 2.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See Appendix 4, ``2016 MANE VU Source Contribution Modeling
Report: CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical Generating Units and
Industrial Sources (April 4, 2017)''.
\76\ See docket documents, ``Verso Luke Paper--Luke MD Title V
Permit Termination (May 7, 2020)'' and ``Verso Luke Paper--Verso
Luke Close Out Letter (May 8, 2020)''.
\77\ See Appendix 19, Herbert A. Wagner Generating Station
Consent Order.
\78\ See Section 2.5.2 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 3 requests that, for ``each MANE-VU state that has not
yet fully adopted an ultra-low fuel oil standard as requested by MANE-
VU in 2007'', to ``pursue this standard as expeditiously as possible
and before 2028, depending on supply availability''. The Ask includes
percent by weight standards for #2 distillate oil (0.0015% sulfur by
weight or 15 ppm), #4 residual oil (0.25-0.5% sulfur by weight), and #6
residual oil (0.3-0.5% sulfur by weight). On October 3, 2014, Maryland
adopted a rule \79\ to modify the sulfur-in-fuel limits in accordance
with the MANE-VU Ask. This rule lowered the sulfur content of all
distillate fuel oils (#2 fuel oil and lighter) to 500 ppm (0.05% by
mass) on and after July 1, 2016; this rule was subsequently amended
\80\ to lower the required sulfur content of all distillate fuel oils
(#2 fuel oil and lighter) to 15
[[Page 58193]]
ppm (0.0015% by mass) on and after July 1, 2019. Maryland therefore
concluded that it is meeting Ask 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ 41:20 Md. R. 1111 (Maryland Register, Volume 41, Issue 20,
dated October 3, 2014), effective October 13, 2014.
\80\ 45:24 Md. R. 1162 (Maryland Register, Volume 45, Issue 24,
dated November 26, 2018), effective December 6, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 4 requests that states ``pursue updating permits,
enforceable agreements, and/or rules to lock-in lower emission rates
for SO2, NOX, and PM'' at ``EGUs and other large
point emission sources larger than 250 MMBTU per hour heat input that
have switched to lower emitting fuels''. Ask 4 also states that ``the
permit, enforceable agreement, and/or rule can allow for suspension of
the lower emission rate during natural gas curtailment''. Maryland's
SIP submittal states that ``EGUs and other large point emission sources
that have switched operations to lower emitting fuels are already
locked into the lower emission rates for NOX,
SO2, and PM by permits, enforceable agreements, and/or
rules. These units are required to amend their permits through the New
Source Review (NSR) process if they plan to switch back to coal or
another fuel that will increase emissions. A change in fuel, unless
already allowed in the permit, would be a modification.'' \81\
Maryland's submittal also states that ``COMAR 26.11.02.02 requires that
a permit to construct and an approval from MDE is required before
construction or modification of a source.'' Maryland therefore
concluded it is meeting Ask 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See COMAR 26.11.01.01, defining ``Modify'' or
``Modification'' to mean ``any physical change in, or change in the
operation of, a source or installation which causes a change in the
quantity, nature or characteristics of emissions from the source or
installation. However, this term excludes routine maintenance and
routine repair, and increases in the hours of operation or in the
production rate, unless these increases would be prohibited under
any permit or approval conditions adopted by the Department.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 5 requests that MANE-VU states, ``where emission rules
have not been adopted, control NOX emissions for peaking
combustion turbines that have the potential to operate on high electric
demand days'' by either: ``(a) Striving to meet NOX
emissions standards of no greater than 22 ppm at 15% O2 for natural gas
and 42 ppm at 15% O2 for fuel oil but at a minimum meet NOX
emission standards of no greater than 42 ppm at 15% O2 for natural gas
and 96 ppm at 15% O2 for fuel oil'', or ``(b) Performing a four-factor
analysis for reasonable installation of or upgrade to emission
controls'', or ``(c) Obtaining equivalent emission reductions on high
electric demand days.'' \82\ Maryland elected to perform a four-factor
analysis for reasonable installation of or upgrade to emission controls
for sources that met the definition of combustion turbines that have
the potential to operate on high electric demand days (HEDD),\83\ and
determined that it would not be technically feasible or cost effective
to implement additional controls at this time. Maryland therefore
concluded it is meeting Ask 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
(July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\83\ See Section 2.5.5 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 6, the last Ask, requests that ``each State should
consider and report in their SIP measures or programs to: a) decrease
energy demand through the use of energy efficiency, and b) increase the
use within their state of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and other clean
Distributed Generation technologies including fuel cells, wind, and
solar''.\84\ Maryland stated in its SIP submittal that the electricity
generation strategy in the state's 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act
(GGRA) Plan 85 86 is designed to achieve 100% Clean and
Renewable Electricity by 2040 by both deploying energy through the
existing Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the proposed Clean and
Renewable Energy Standard (CARES), and by capping and reducing
emissions through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
(RGGI).87 88 Maryland's RPS requires Maryland electric
utilities to purchase increasingly large proportions of Maryland's
electricity from renewable energy sources like solar, wind, hydropower,
and qualifying biomass, with a current RPS goal of 50% clean
electricity by 2030 and 100% clean electricity by 2040. Maryland states
that these goals rely on both renewable energy and additional zero- and
low-carbon electricity sources to meet that goal where most cost-
effective, including Maryland solar power beyond current RPS
requirements, new efficient CHP systems in Maryland buildings, new
nuclear power, and natural gas or qualifying biomass power plants with
carbon capture and storage. Maryland further states that, although RGGI
is designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, other benefits in terms
of NOX and SO2 are realized through energy
efficiency promotion, CHP deployment, and additional deployment of
renewable energy sources, including offshore wind power and community
solar generation.\89\ Maryland therefore concludes that it is meeting
Ask 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
(July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\85\ See docket document, ``MDE The 2030 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Reduction Act (GGRA) Plan (February 19, 2021)''.
\86\ mde.maryland.gov/programs/air/ClimateChange/Pages/Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-Reduction-Act-(GGRA)-Plan.aspx.
\87\ www.rggi.org/.
\88\ www.rggiprojectseries.org/.
\89\ See Section 2.5.6 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The EPA's Evaluation of Maryland's Response to the Six MANE-VU Asks
and Compliance With Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i)
The EPA is proposing to find that Maryland has satisfied the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) related to evaluating sources
and determining the emission reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress by considering the four statutory factors. We
are proposing to find that Maryland has satisfied the four-factor
analysis requirement through its analysis and actions to address MANE-
VU Ask 2 and Ask 5. We also propose to find that Maryland reasonably
concluded that it satisfied all six Asks.
As explained above, Maryland relied on MANE-VU's technical analyses
and framework (i.e., the Asks) to select sources and form the basis of
its long-term strategy. MANE-VU conducted an inventory analysis to
identify the source sectors that produced the greatest amount of
SO2 and NOX emissions in 2011; inventory data
were also projected to 2018. Based on this analysis, MANE-VU identified
the top-emitting sectors for each of the two pollutants, which for
SO2 include coal-fired EGUs, industrial boilers, oil-fired
EGUs, and oil-fired area sources including residential, commercial, and
industrial sources. Major-emitting sources of NOX include
on-road vehicles, non-road vehicles, and EGUs.\90\ The RPO's
documentation explains that ``[EGUs] emitting SO2 and
NOX and industrial point sources emitting SO2
were found to be sectors with high emissions that warranted further
scrutiny. Mobile sources were not considered in this analysis because
any ask concerning mobile sources would be made to EPA and not during
the intra-RPO and inter-RPO consultation process among the states and
tribes.'' \91\ EPA proposes to find that Maryland reasonably evaluated
the two pollutants--SO2 and NOX--that currently
drive visibility impairment within the MANE-VU region and that it
adequately explained and supported its decision to focus on these two
[[Page 58194]]
pollutants through its reliance on the MANE-VU technical analyses cited
in its submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See Appendix 3 ``MANE-VU Updated Q/d*C Contribution
Assessment (MANE-VU, April 2016).
\91\ See docket documents, ``MANE-VU Inter-Regional Ask Final 8-
25-2017 (August 25, 2017)'' and MANE-VU Intra-Regional Ask Final 8-
25-2017 (August 25, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to evaluate and determine
the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress by applying the four statutory factors to sources in a control
analysis. As explained previously, the MANE-VU Asks are a mix of
measures for sectors and groups of sources identified as reasonable for
states to address in their regional haze plans. While MANE-VU
formulated the Asks to be ``reasonable emission reduction strategies''
to control emissions of visibility impairing pollutants,\92\ EPA
believes that Maryland's responses to two of the Asks, in particular,
engage with the requirement that states determine the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress
through consideration of the four factors. As laid out in further
detail below, the EPA is proposing to find that MANE-VU's four-factor
analysis conducted to support the emission reduction measures in Ask 3
(ultra-low sulfur fuel oil Ask), in conjunction with Maryland's
supplemental analysis and explanation of how it has complied with Ask 2
(perform four-factor analyses for sources with potential for >=3.0
Mm-1 impacts) satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i). The emission reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress must be included in the long-term strategy,
i.e., in Maryland's SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland asserted that it satisfies Ask 1 because it has SIP-
approved regulations applicable to EGU boilers that include annual
emission limits for both NOX\93\ \94\ and
SO2,\95\ and require the most effective use of emission
control technologies on a year-round basis. Maryland also claimed
additional SIP-approved SO2 emission reductions as a result
of the consent order for the Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County
SO2 nonattainment area for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.\96\ As a reminder, MANE-VU Ask 1 requests that states ``ensure
the most effective use of control technologies on a year-round basis to
consistently minimize emissions of haze precursors, or obtain
equivalent alternative emission reductions'' at EGUs ``with a nameplate
capacity larger than or equal to 25 MW with already installed
NOX and/or SO2 controls''.\97\ Therefore, EPA
finds it reasonable to conclude that Maryland has satisfied Ask 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See COMAR 26.11.27, ``Emission Limitations for Power
Plants'', also at www.epa.gov/sips-md/maryland-sip-emission-limitations-power-plants.
\94\ See COMAR 26.11.40, ``NOX Ozone Season Emission
Caps for Non-trading Large NOX Units'' also at
www.epa.gov/sips-md/maryland-sip-nox-ozone-season-emission-caps-non-trading-large-nox-units.
\95\ See COMAR 26.11.27, ``Emission Limitations for Power
Plants'', also at www.epa.gov/sips-md/maryland-sip-emission-limitations-power-plants.
\96\ See 87 FR 66086, November 2, 2022, and docket documents
``MDE SO2 2010 NAAQS SIP for Baltimore and Anne Arundel
NA (January 31, 2020)'', and ``MDE SO2 2010 NAAQS SIP for
Baltimore and Anne Arundel NA (January 31, 2020)--Appendix B--
Consent Orders, Permits, and Plan Approvals''.
\97\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
(July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask 2 addresses the sources MANE-VU determined have the potential
for larger than, or equal to, 3.0 Mm-1 visibility impact at
any MANE-VU Class I area; the Ask requests MANE-VU states to conduct
four-factor analyses for the specified sources within their borders.
This Ask explicitly engages with the statutory and regulatory
requirement to determine reasonable progress based on the four factors;
MANE-VU considered it ``reasonable to have the greatest contributors to
visibility impairment conduct a four-factor analysis that would
determine whether emission control measures should be pursued and what
would be reasonable for each source.'' \98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
(July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an initial matter, EPA does not necessarily agree that 3.0
Mm-1 visibility impact is a reasonable threshold for source
selection. The RHR recognizes that, due to the nature of regional haze
visibility impairment, numerous and sometimes relatively small sources
may need to be selected and evaluated for control measures in order to
make reasonable progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.\99\ As
explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, while states have discretion
to choose any source selection threshold that is reasonable, ``[a]
state that relies on a visibility (or proxy for visibility impact)
threshold to select sources for four-factor analysis should set the
threshold at a level that captures a meaningful portion of the state's
total contribution to visibility impairment to Class I areas.'' 2021
Memo at 3.\100\ In this case, the 3.0 Mm-1 threshold
identified only two sources in Maryland (and only 22 across the entire
MANE-VU region), indicating that they may be unreasonably high.
Maryland selected all sources identified by MANE-VU as being above
MANE-VU's 3.0 Mm-1 threshold for four-factor analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ See docket document, ``EPA 2021 Regional Haze
Clarifications Memo (July 8, 2021)''.
\100\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU identified one unit at the Herbert A. Wagner Generating
Facility,\101\ a coal-fired EGU, and two units at Verso Luke Paper
Company,\102\ a large industrial source, as having a greater than 3.0
Mm-1 visibility impact and thus meeting the threshold for
four-factor analyses. Maryland's SIP submittal indicates that it sent a
letter requesting a four-factor analysis to Herbert A. Wagner
Facility's owner/operator,\103\ who subsequently announced that it
would eliminate the use of coal at the facility. This was codified into
a consent order between Maryland and the owner/operator to cease coal
combustion at the facility by January 1, 2026.\104\ Maryland has
requested that the entire consent order be incorporated into Maryland's
SIP and made federally enforceable upon EPA's approval; \105\ EPA
intends to incorporate this consent order into the Maryland SIP by
reference as a source-specific requirement upon final approval of this
proposed rulemaking. Maryland's subsequent four-factor analysis for the
facility concluded that no further control was necessary. Regarding the
Verso Luke Paper industrial source, Maryland stated that this facility
ceased operations, shut down and surrendered their existing air permits
as of May 7, 2020.\106\ Informed in part by this development, EPA found
that the area was monitoring air quality consistent with achieving the
2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary NAAQS. See 87 FR 66086, November 2,
2022. Maryland therefore concluded that no further action was necessary
for this facility. Given that no other sources in Maryland met the 3.0
Mm-1 threshold for visibility impacts in MANE-VU's
analysis,\107\ Maryland concluded that it had met the requirements for
Ask 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ H.A. Wagner Unit 3.
\102\ Luke Paper Unit 001-0011-3-0018 & Unit 001-0011-3-0019.
\103\ Raven Power Fort Smallwood, LLC.
\104\ See Appendix 19, ``Herbert A. Wagner Generating Station
Consent Order''.
\105\ See Section 2.5.2 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\106\ See docket documents, ``Verso Luke Paper--Luke MD Title V
Permit Termination (May 7, 2020)'' and ``Verso Luke Paper--Verso
Luke Close Out Letter (May 8, 2020)''.
\107\ See Appendix 4, ``2016 MANE VU Source Contribution
Modeling Report: CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical Generating
Units and Industrial Sources (April 4, 2017)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Maryland reasonably determined it has
satisfied Ask 2. As explained above, we
[[Page 58195]]
do not necessarily agree that a 3.0 Mm-1 threshold for
selecting sources for four-factor analysis results in a set of sources
the evaluation of which has the potential to meaningfully reduce the
state's contribution to visibility impairment. MANE-VU's threshold
identified only two sources in Maryland for four-factor analysis.
However, in this instance we propose to find that Maryland's additional
information and explanation indicates that the state has in fact
examined a reasonable set of sources; Maryland chose to address 12 of
the 13 sources identified by FLMs, including 10 that went beyond the
MANE-VU source selection process, and reasonably concluded that four-
factor analyses for its top-impacting sources are not necessary because
the outcome would be that no further emission reductions would be
reasonable. EPA is basing this proposed finding on the state's
examination of its largest operating EGU and ICI sources, at the time
of SIP submission, and on the emissions from and controls that apply to
those sources, as well as on Maryland's existing SIP-approved
NOX and SO2 rules that effectively control
emissions from the largest contributing stationary-source sectors.
Maryland's submittal includes additional information on and analysis of
13 Maryland facilities, which was provided in response a National Park
Service (NPS) analysis that identified these facilities as contributing
to ``80% of the Q/d total'' visibility impact at downwind NPS Class I
Federal areas based on 2014 emissions data and requested that states
``review and consider these sources for inclusion in their long term
strategies''.\108\ \109\ Maryland provided the NPS with additional
information on these 13 facilities, including facility descriptions,
current control devices/technologies for NOX,
SO2, and PM, current monitoring devices, regulations/consent
orders/permit conditions that limit emissions, and analysis and
documentation of historical emissions to demonstrate control strategy
effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ See Section 2.6.1 and Table 2-12 of the MD Regional Haze
SIP for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8,
2022).
\109\ See docket document, ``NPS Letter--MANE-VU draft Statement
on source screening (April 12, 2018)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland also examined the 13 facilities identified by NPS as a
percent of their total Q/d contribution. This included Luke Paper
Company, which comprised 54.71% of the Q/d total; Maryland stated that
this facility ceased operations, shut down and surrendered their
existing air permits as of May 7, 2020.\110\ When combined with Brandon
Shores Generating Station, H.A. Wagner Generating Station, Chalk Point
Generating Station, C.P. Crane Generating Station, and Naval Support
Facility Indian Head, all of which have closed, will close by 2026, or
have switched or will switch fuels, and Morgantown Generating Station,
which is considered by Maryland as effectively controlled through SCR,
these facilities comprised 75.57% of the Q/d total. When adding the two
municipal solid waste combustor facilities identified by the NPS
(Wheelabrator and Montgomery County RRF) both of which are considered
by Maryland as well-controlled, these facilities comprise 82.22% of the
Q/d total. Finally, Maryland also provided additional information on
the remaining three sources identified by the NPS (Holcim Cement,
Lehigh Cement, and the AES Warrior Run EGU).\111\ Therefore, EPA finds
it reasonable to conclude that Maryland has satisfied Ask 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ See docket documents, ``Verso Luke Paper--Luke MD Title V
Permit Termination (May 7, 2020)'' and ``Verso Luke Paper--Verso
Luke Close Out Letter (May 8, 2020)''.
\111\ See Section 2.6.1 and Table 2-13 of the MD Regional Haze
SIP for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask 3, which addresses the sulfur content of heating oil used in
MANE-VU states, is based on a four-factor analysis for the heating oil
sulfur reduction regulations contained in that Ask; \112\ specifically,
for the control strategy of reducing the sulfur content of distillate
oil to 15 ppm. The analysis started with an assessment of the costs of
retrofitting refineries to produce 15 ppm heating oil in sufficient
quantities to support implementation of the standard, as well as the
impacts of requiring a reduction in sulfur content on consumer prices.
The analysis noted that, as a result of previous EPA rulemakings to
reduce the sulfur content of on-road and non-road-fuels to 15 ppm,
technologies are currently available to achieve sulfur reductions and
many refiners are already meeting this standard, meaning that the
capital investments for further reductions in the sulfur content of
heating oil are expected to be relatively low compared to costs
incurred in the past. The analysis also examined, by way of example,
the impacts of New York's existing 15 ppm sulfur requirements on
heating oil prices and concluded that the cost associated with reducing
sulfur was relatively small in terms of the absolute price of heating
oil compared to the magnitude of volatility in crude oil prices. It
also noted that the slight price premium is compensated by cost savings
due to the benefits of lower-sulfur fuels in terms of equipment life
and maintenance and fuel stability. Consideration of the time necessary
for compliance with a 15 ppm sulfur standard was accomplished through a
discussion of the amount of time refiners had needed to comply with the
EPA's on-road and non-road fuel 15 ppm requirement, and the
implications existing refinery capacity and distribution infrastructure
may have for compliance times with a 15 ppm heating oil standard. The
analysis concluded that with phased-in timing for states that have not
yet adopted a 15 ppm heating oil standard there ``appears to be
sufficient time to allow refiners to add any additional heating oil
capacity that may be required.'' \113\ The analysis further noted the
beneficial energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of a 15 ppm
sulfur heating oil requirement and that reducing sulfur content may
also have a salutary impact on the remaining useful life of residential
furnaces and boilers.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ See docket document, ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas
(January 31, 2016)'' at 8-4.
\113\ Id. see 8-7.
\114\ Id. see 8-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Maryland reasonably relied on MANE-VU's
four-factor analysis for a low-sulfur fuel oil regulation, which
engaged with each of the statutory factors and explained how the
information supported a conclusion that a 15 ppm sulfur fuel oil
standard is reasonable; as a reminder, MANE-VU Ask 3 requests that, for
``each MANE-VU state that has not yet fully adopted an ultra-low fuel
oil standard as requested by MANE-VU in 2007'', to ``pursue this
standard as expeditiously as possible and before 2028, depending on
supply availability''. Maryland's ultra-low sulfur fuel oil regulations
\115\ are consistent with Ask 3. EPA therefore proposes to find that
Maryland reasonably determined that it has satisfied Ask 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ See COMAR 03.03.05.04, ``Specifications for No. 1 and No.
2 Fuel Oil (ASTM D-396)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland concluded that no additional updates were needed to meet
Ask 4, which requests that MANE-VU states pursue updating permits,
enforceable agreements, and/or rules to lock-in lower emission rates
for sources larger than 250 MMBtu per hour that have switched to lower
emitting fuels. As explained above, Maryland has asserted that EGUs and
other large point emission sources that have switched operations to
lower emitting fuels are already locked into the lower emission rates
for NOX, SO2, and PM by permits,
[[Page 58196]]
enforceable agreements and/or rules. In addition, modified units in
Maryland are required to amend their permits through the New Source
Review (NSR) process if they plan to switch back to coal or a fuel that
will increase emissions. A change in fuel, unless already allowed in
the permit, would be a modification,\116\ and Maryland's regulations
require that an application to modify the permit be submitted prior to
a change in fuel.\117\ As a reminder, MANE-VU Ask 4 requests that
states ``pursue updating permits, enforceable agreements, and/or rules
to lock-in lower emission rates for SO2, NOX, and
PM'' at ``EGUs and other large point emission sources larger than 250
MMBTU per hour heat input that have switched to lower emitting fuels''.
Ask 4 also states that ``the permit, enforceable agreement, and/or rule
can allow for suspension of the lower emission rate during natural gas
curtailment''. EPA proposes to find that Maryland reasonably determined
it has satisfied Ask 4. This is because the permitting and regulatory
requirements outlined above, including the fact that sources that have
switched fuel are generally required to revise their permits to reflect
the change, and because the state rules make any proposed reversion
difficult by requiring permitting and other control analyses, including
NSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ See COMAR 26.11.01.01, defining ``Modify'' or
``Modification'' to mean ``any physical change in, or change in the
operation of, a source or installation which causes a change in the
quantity, nature or characteristics of emissions from the source or
installation. However, this term excludes routine maintenance and
routine repair, and increases in the hours of operation or in the
production rate, unless these increases would be prohibited under
any permit or approval conditions adopted by the Department.''
\117\ See COMAR 26.11.02.02., ``General Provisions'', which
states that ``A permit to construct and an approval from the
Department is required before construction or modification of a
source''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask 5 addresses NOX emissions from peaking combustion
turbines \118\ that have the potential to operate on high electric
demand days (HEDD).\119\ Maryland conducted a four-factor analysis to
evaluate potential control options for HEDD units. For one potentially
technically feasible control option, Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR), Maryland estimated compliance costs as ranging from $6 million
to $15.7 million per unit.\120\ These cost estimates are similar to
those found in EPA's Combustion Turbine NOX Control
Technology Memo published in January 2022.\121\ Due to the relatively
low level of reported annual NOX emissions from these units
within the state (i.e., less than 10 tons of NOX emitted per
unit per year), Maryland concluded that SCR was not an economically
feasible control option due to the high cost of control. Maryland also
evaluated the cost of water/steam injection as a potentially
technically feasible control option, but found that the cost of control
($87,906.95 per ton of NOX removed) was not economically
feasible.\122\ As a reminder, MANE-VU Ask 5 requests that MANE-VU
states, ``where emission rules have not been adopted, control
NOX emissions for peaking combustion turbines that have the
potential to operate on high electric demand days'' by either: ``(a)
Striving to meet NOX emissions standards of no greater than
22 ppm at 15% O2 for natural gas and 42 ppm at 15%
O2 for fuel oil but at a minimum meet NOX
emission standards of no greater than 42 ppm at 15% O2 for
natural gas and 96 ppm at 15% O2 for fuel oil'', or ``(b)
Performing a four-factor analysis for reasonable installation of or
upgrade to emission controls'', or ``(c) Obtaining equivalent emission
reductions on high electric demand days.'' \123\ Because Maryland
evaluated multiple technically feasible controls, the high cost of
controls, and the relatively low level of reported annual
NOX emissions from peaking combustion turbines with the
potential to operate on HEDD days, EPA proposes to find that Maryland
reasonably concluded that it has satisfied Ask 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Peaking combustion turbine is defined for the purpose of
this Ask as a turbine capable of generating 15 megawatts or more,
that commenced operation prior to May 1, 2007, is used to generate
electricity all or part of which is delivered to electric power
distribution grid for commercial sale and that operated less than or
equal to an average of 1,752 hours (or 20%) per year during 2014 to
2016.
\119\ High electric demand days are days when higher than usual
electrical demands bring additional generation units online, many of
which are infrequently operated and may have significantly higher
emissions rates of the generation fleet.
\120\ See Section 2.5.5 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\121\ See docket document, ``EPA Combustion Turbine
NOX Control Technology Memo (January 2022)''.
\122\ See Section 2.5.5 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\123\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation
Report (July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, regarding Ask 6, Maryland explains the greenhouse gas
initiatives and clean energy requirements within the state, including
promulgation of the state's 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act (GGRA)
Plan, RPS, and participation in RGGI. As a reminder, MANE-VU Ask 6, the
last Ask, requests that ``each State should consider and report in
their SIP measures or programs to: (a) decrease energy demand through
the use of energy efficiency, and (b) increase the use within their
state of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and other clean Distributed
Generation technologies including fuel cells, wind, and solar''.\124\
The EPA is therefore proposing to find that Maryland has satisfied Ask
6's request to consider and report in its SIP measures or programs
related to energy efficiency, cogeneration, and other clean distributed
generation technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation
Report (July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the EPA is proposing to find that--based on Maryland's
participation in the MANE-VU planning process, how it has addressed
each of the Asks, its supplemental information and explanation
regarding NOX sources and emissions, and the EPA's
additional assessment of Maryland's emissions and point sources--
Maryland has complied with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
Specifically, MANE-VU Asks 2 and 3 engage with the requirement that
states evaluate and determine the emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four statutory
factors. EPA is proposing to find Maryland's approach to Ask 2
reasonable because it demonstrated that the sources with the greatest
modeled impacts on visibility either have federally-enforceable shut
downs, have reduced their emissions so significantly that it is clear a
four-factor analysis would not yield further reasonable emission
reductions, or are subject to stringent emission control measures.
Maryland's SIP-approved control measures, emissions inventory \125\ and
information provided in response to comments \126\ demonstrate that the
sources of SO2 and NOX within the state that
would be expected to contribute to visibility impairment have small
emissions of NOX and SO2, are well controlled, or
both. Maryland's sulfur in fuel limits sets stringent limits for sulfur
content and SO2 emissions for non-solid fuels.\127\
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that selecting additional sources
from MANE-VU's or FLMs' lists for four-factor analysis would not have
resulted in additional emission
[[Page 58197]]
reduction measures being determined to be necessary to make reasonable
progress for the second implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ See Appendix 1, ``Selection of States for MANE-VU Regional
Haze Consultation (2018)--Final''.
\126\ See Appendix 20, ``Public Hearing Notices, Comments, and
Responses--Regional Haze Second Implementation Period Plan (2018-
2028)''.
\127\ See COMAR 03.03.05.04, ``Specifications for No. 1 and No.
2 Fuel Oil (ASTM D-396)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, MANE-VU conducted a four-factor analysis to support
Ask 3, which requests that states pursue ultra-low sulfur fuel oil
standards to address SO2 emissions. Maryland has done so.
This also contributes to satisfying the requirements that states
determine the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress by considering the four factors, and that their
long-term strategies include the enforceable emission limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures necessary to make reasonable
progress. To the extent that MANE-VU and Maryland regard the measures
in Asks 1 and 4 through 6 as being part of the region's strategy for
making reasonable progress, we propose to find it reasonable for
Maryland to address these Asks by pointing to existing measures that
satisfy each.
3. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
The consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provides
that states must consult with other states that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinate emission management strategies containing the
emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) require states to
consider the emission reduction measures identified by other states as
necessary for reasonable progress and to include agreed upon measures
in their SIPs, respectively. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to what
happens if states cannot agree on what measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress.
Maryland participated in and provided documentation of the MANE-VU
intra- and inter-RPO consultation processes and addressed the MANE-VU
Asks by providing information on the measures it has in place that
satisfy each Ask.128 129 MANE-VU also documented
disagreements that occurred during consultation. MANE-VU noted in their
Consultation Report that upwind states expressed concern regarding the
analyses the RPO utilized for the selection of states for the
consultation. MANE-VU agreed that these tools, as all models, have
their limitations, but nonetheless deemed them appropriate.
Additionally, there were several comments regarding the choice of the
2011 modeling base year. MANE-VU agreed that the choice of base year is
critical to the outcome of the study. MANE-VU acknowledged that there
were newer versions of the emission inventories and the need to use the
best available inventory for each analysis. However, MANE-VU disagreed
that the choice of these inventories was not appropriate for the
analysis. Upwind states also suggested that MANE-VU states adopt the
2021 timeline for regional haze SIP submissions for the second planning
period. MANE-VU agreed with the reasons the comments provided, such as
collaboration with data and planning efforts. However, MANE-VU
disagreed that the 2018 timeline would prohibit collaboration.
Additionally, upwind states noted that they would not be able to
address the MANE-VU Asks until they finalize their SIPs. MANE-VU
believed the assumption of the implementation of the Asks from upwind
states in its 2028 control case modeling was reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ See Appendix 5, ``Inter-RPO Consultation Briefing Book'';
Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report''; Appendix
9, ``National Park Service Letter to MANE-VU (April 2018)''; and
Appendix 17, ``Additional MANE-VU documentation for establishing 3.0
Mm-1 Threshold''.
\129\ See Appendix 14, ``FLM Consultation Initiation Letter
(April 2019)''; Appendix 15, ``National Park Service Correspondence
with Maryland''; Appendix 16, ``US Forest Service Consultation
Response Letter''; and Appendix 20, ``Public Hearing Notices,
Comments, and Responses--Regional Haze Second Implementation Period
Plan (2018-2028)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, Maryland participated in the MANE-VU intra- and inter-RPO
consultation and satisfied the MANE-VU Asks, satisfying 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B). Maryland satisfied 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) by participating in MANE-VU's consultation process,
which documented the disagreements between the upwind states and MANE-
VU and explained MANE-VU's reasoning on each of the disputed issues.
Based on the entirety of MANE-VU's intra- and inter-RPO consultation
and both MANE-VU's and Maryland's responses to states' comments on the
SIP submission and various technical analyses therein, we propose to
determine that Maryland has satisfied the consultation requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
The documentation requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides
that states may meet their obligations to document the technical bases
on which they are relying to determine the emission reductions measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress through an RPO, as long
as the process has been ``approved by all State participants.'' As
explained above, Maryland chose to rely on MANE-VU's technical
information, modeling, and analysis to support development of its long-
term strategy. The MANE-VU technical analyses on which Maryland relied
are listed in the state's SIP submission and include source
contribution assessments, information on each of the four factors and
visibility modeling information for certain EGUs, and evaluations of
emission reduction strategies for specific source categories. Maryland
also provided supplemental information to further demonstrate the
technical bases and emission information on which it relied on to
determine the emission reductions measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress. Based on the documentation provided by the state,
we propose to find Maryland satisfies the documentation requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that the emissions
information considered to determine the measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most
recent year for which the state has submitted triennial emissions data
to the EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period
for newly submitted data. Maryland's SIP submission included 2017 NEI
emission data for NOX, SO2, PM, and
NH3 and 2017 Air Markets Program Data (AMPD) emissions for
NOX and SO2. Maryland's SIP submission also
included 2019 AMPD for NOX and SO2.\130\ Based on
Maryland's consideration and analysis of the 2017 and 2019 emission
data in their SIP submittal and supplemental documentation, the EPA
proposes to find that Maryland has satisfied the emissions information
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ See Section 2.21 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also propose to find that Maryland reasonably considered the
five additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing its
long-term strategy. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), Maryland
noted that existing and ongoing state and Federal emission control
programs that contribute to emission reductions through 2028 would
impact emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from point and
nonpoint sources in the second implementation period. Maryland included
in their SIP comprehensive lists of control measures with their
effective dates, pollutants addressed, and corresponding Code of
Maryland Regulations provisions.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ See Section 2.8.1 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58198]]
Maryland's consideration of measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B)
includes, in section 2.8.2 of its SIP submission, a list of measures
that Maryland has implemented to mitigate the impacts from such
activities. Maryland has implemented standards that reduce fugitive
dust emissions from construction,\132\ rules to address exhaust
emissions,133 134 135 including rules to limit the idling of
vehicles and equipment and rules to reduce allowable smoke from on-road
diesel engines,\136\ and general conformity rules.137 138
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ COMAR 26.11.06.03. ``Particulate Matter'', subsection D;
State Effective Date November 11, 2002 (29:22 Md. R. 1724) (68 FR
46487).
\133\ COMAR 11.14. ``MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION--VEHICLE
INSPECTIONS'', .01, .06, and .08.
\134\ COMAR. 11.21.02. ``Diesel Vehicle Emissions Control
Program''; State Effective Date July 10, 2000 (27:13 Md. R. 1212).
\135\ Md. Code, Transp. Sec. 23-401 through 23-404.
\136\ Md. Code, Transp. Sec. 21-1101.
\137\ The authority to address General Conformity is set forth
in Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act and the requirements to
demonstrate conformity are found in the EPA's implementing
regulation (40 CFR part 93, subpart B--Determining Conformity of
General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans).
\138\ COMAR 26.11.26. ``Conformity''; State Effective Date June
5, 1995 (22:11 Md. R. 825).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), source retirements and
replacement schedules are addressed in section 2.8.3 of Maryland's
submission. Source retirements and replacements were considered in
developing the 2028 emission projections, with on the books/on the way
retirements and replacements included in the 2028 projections. The EGU
point sources included in the inventories used in the MANE-VU
contribution assessment and that were subsequently retired are
identified in Table 2-14.\139\ No non-EGU point source retirements in
Maryland were considered when developing the 2028 emissions
projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ See ``Table 2-14: Units Retired in the Regional Haze
Inventories'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018--2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering smoke management as required in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), Maryland explained, in section 2.8.4 of its
submission, that emissions from agricultural and prescribed burning for
forestry smoke management within the state are low; PM2.5
statewide emissions from prescribed fires were 1,349.18 tons (4.13% of
Maryland's overall PM2.5 emissions inventory) and emissions
from agricultural burning were 1.5 tons (<1% of Maryland's overall
PM2.5 emissions inventory). Maryland therefore concludes
that it is unlikely that fires in Maryland for agricultural or forestry
management cause impacts on visibility in the MANE-VU and nearby Class
I areas, including Shenandoah, Dolly Sods, Otter Creek, and James River
Face. Maryland states that Smoke Management Plans is a required element
of a SIP only if it is required to make reasonable progress, and that
although Maryland does not need an official Smoke Management Plan, it
has the legal authority to manage burning through a formal permitting
system if necessary.
Maryland considered the anticipated net effect of projected changes
in emissions as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E) by discussing,
in section 2.8.5 of its submission, the photochemical modeling for the
2018-2028 period it conducted in collaboration with MANE-VU. The two
modeling cases run were a 2028 base case, which considered only on-the-
books controls, and a 2028 control case that considered implementation
of the MANE-VU Ask. Maryland presented the differences between the base
and control cases on the 20% most impaired and 20% clearest days for
each MANE-VU Class I area.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ See Figures 2-7 through 2-10 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Maryland has reasonably considered each of the five
additional factors the EPA proposes to find that Maryland has satisfied
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements pertaining to RPGs
for each Class I area. Section 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires a state in
which a Class I area is located to establish RPGs--one each for the
most impaired and clearest days--reflecting the visibility conditions
that will be achieved at the end of the implementation period as a
result of the emission limitations, compliance schedules and other
measures required under paragraph (f)(2) to be in states' long-term
strategies, as well as implementation of other CAA requirements. The
long-term strategies as reflected by the RPGs must provide for an
improvement in visibility on the most impaired days relative to the
baseline period and ensure no degradation on the clearest days relative
to the baseline period. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii) applies in
circumstances in which a Class I area's RPG for the most impaired days
represents a slower rate of visibility improvement than the uniform
rate of progress calculated under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi). Under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the state in which a mandatory Class I area is
located establishes an RPG for the most impaired days that provides for
a slower rate of visibility improvement than the URP, the state must
demonstrate that there are no additional emission reduction measures
for anthropogenic sources or groups of sources in the state that would
be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy. Section
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that if a state contains sources that are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area in another state, and the RPG for the most impaired days
in that Class I area is above the URP, the upwind state must provide
the same demonstration. Because Maryland has no Class I areas within
its borders, it is subject only to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B).
Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), a state that contains sources
that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment
in a Class I area in another state for which a demonstration by the
other state is required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) must
demonstrate that there are no additional emission reduction measures
that would be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy.
Maryland's SIP submittal included MANE-VU's glidepath checks for nearby
downwind Class I areas,141 142 which show that the RPG for
the 20 percent most anthropogenically impaired days for the affected
downwind Class I areas (Acadia, Brigantine, Great Gulf, Lye Brook,
Moosehorn, Dolly Sods and Shenandoah) are not above the URP glidepath,
and that the RPG for the 20 percent clearest days shows no degradation.
In addition, the modeled MANE-VU 2028 visibility projections at nearby
Class I areas \143\ show that the base case 2028 projections for the
most impaired days at these areas are below the respective 2028 points
on the URPs. Therefore, we propose it is reasonable to assume that the
demonstration requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) as it
pertains to these areas will not be triggered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ See docket document, ``TD MANE-VU 2000-19 RH METRICS
COMPARISON PLOTS 12-19-20.xlsx''.
\142\ See docket document, ``TD MANE-VU 2000-19 RHII & III
Metrics Trends Plots 12-19-20.xlsx''.
\143\ See docket document, ``MANE-VU Trends 2004-17 Report 2nd
SIP Metrics--December 2018 Update--Final''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to determine that Maryland has satisfied the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) relating to RPGs.
[[Page 58199]]
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each comprehensive revision of
a state's regional haze SIP must contain or provide for certain
elements, including monitoring strategies, emissions inventories, and
any reporting, recordkeeping and other measures needed to assess and
report on visibility. A main requirement of this subsection is for
states with Class I areas to submit monitoring strategies for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting on visibility impairment.
Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in
the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
network.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess whether reasonable progress goals to address regional haze for
all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state are being
achieved. Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii) requires SIPs to provide for
procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in
determining the contribution of emissions from within the state to
regional haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas
both within and outside the state. Because Maryland does not have any
Class I Federal areas located within its borders, Section
51.308(f)(6)(i) and (ii) do not apply.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(iii) requires states with no Class I areas to
include procedures by which monitoring data and other information are
used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State
to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas in other
states. States with Class I areas must establish a monitoring program
and report data to EPA that is representative of visibility at the
Class I Federal areas. The IMPROVE network meets this requirement.
Maryland stated that, as a participant in MANE-VU, it reviewed
information about the chemical composition of baseline monitoring data
at Class I Federal areas in and near MANE-VU in order to understand the
sources of haze causing pollutants. Maryland commits to continuing
support of ongoing visibility monitoring in Class I Federal areas,
agrees that the IMPROVE network is an appropriate monitoring network to
track regional haze progress, and commits to working with neighboring
states and FLMs to meet the goals of the IMPROVE program. Maryland also
commits to using monitoring data and procedures consistent with US EPA
guidance to review progress and trends in visibility at Class I Federal
areas that may be affected by emissions from Maryland, both for
comprehensive periodic revisions of this implementation plan and for
periodic reports describing progress towards the reasonable progress
goals for those areas.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ See Section 2.16 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the SIP to provide for the
reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each Class I area in the state. As noted above,
Maryland does not have any Class I Federal areas located within its
borders, therefore this requirement does not apply.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for a statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for
the most recent year for which data are available and estimates of
future projected emissions. It also requires a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. Maryland provides for emissions inventories and
estimates for future projected emissions by participating in the MANE-
VU RPO and complying with EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR). In
40 CFR part 51, subpart A, the AERR requires states to submit updated
emissions inventories for criteria pollutants to EPA's Emissions
Inventory System (EIS) every three years. The emission inventory data
is used to develop the NEI, which provides for, among other things, a
triennial state-wide inventory of pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment.
Section 2.21 of Maryland's submission includes tables of NEI data.
The source categories of the emissions inventories included are: (1)
point sources, (2) nonpoint sources, (3) non-road mobile sources, and
(4) on-road mobile sources. The point source category is further
divided into AMPD point sources and non-AMPD point sources.\145\
Maryland included NEI emissions inventories for the following years:
2002 (one of the regional haze program baseline years), 2008, 2011,
2014, and 2017; and for the following pollutants: SO2,
NOX, PM10, PM2.5, VOCs, and
NH3. Maryland also provided a summary of SO2 and
NOX emissions for AMPD sources for the years of 2016, 2017,
2018, and 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ AMPD sources are facilities that participate in EPA's
emission trading programs. The majority of AMPD sources are electric
generating units (EGUs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires states to include estimates
of future projected emissions and include a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. Maryland relied on the MANE-VU 2028 emissions
projections for MANE-VU states. MANE-VU completed two 2028 projected
emissions modeling cases--a 2028 base case that considers only on-the-
books controls and a 2028 control case that considers implementation of
the MANE-VU Asks.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ See Appendix 11 ``Ozone Transport Commission/Mid-Atlantic
Northeastern Visibility Union 2011 Based Modeling Platform Support
Document--October 2018 Update (October 2018)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Maryland has met the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(f)(6) as described above, including through its continued
participation in the IMPROVE network and the MANE-VU RPO and its on-
going compliance with the AERR, and that no further elements are
necessary at this time for Maryland to assess and report on visibility
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic comprehensive revisions
of states' regional haze plans also address the progress report
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The purpose of these
requirements is to evaluate progress towards the applicable RPGs for
each Class I area within the state and each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions from within that state. Section
51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all states and require a description of
the status of implementation of all measures included in a state's
first implementation period regional haze plan and a summary of the
emission reductions achieved through implementation of those measures.
Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to states with Class I areas within
their borders and requires such states to assess current visibility
conditions, changes in visibility relative to baseline (2000-2004)
visibility conditions, and changes in visibility conditions relative to
the period addressed in the first implementation period progress
report. Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all states and requires an
analysis tracking changes in emissions of pollutants contributing to
visibility impairment from all sources and sectors since the period
addressed by the first implementation period progress report. This
provision further specifies the year
[[Page 58200]]
or years through which the analysis must extend depending on the type
of source and the platform through which its emission information is
reported. Finally, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), which also applies to all
states, requires an assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state have occurred since
the period addressed by the first implementation period progress
report, including whether such changes were anticipated and whether
they have limited or impeded expected progress towards reducing
emissions and improving visibility.
Maryland's submission describes the status of measures of the long-
term strategy from the first implementation period. As a member of
MANE-VU, Maryland considered the MANE-VU Asks and adopted corresponding
measures into its long-term strategy for the first implementation
period. The MANE-VU Asks were: (1) Timely implementation of Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements; (2) EGU controls
including Controls at 167 Key Sources that most affect MANE-VU Class I
areas; (3) Low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (4) Continued evaluation
of other control measures. Maryland met all the identified reasonable
measures requested during the first implementation period. During the
first planning period for regional haze, programs that were put in
place focused on reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions.
The reductions achieved led to vast improvements in visibility at the
MANE-VU Federal Class I Areas due to reduced sulfates formed from
SO2 emissions. Maryland describes in Section 2.18 of its
submittal control measures put in place during the first implementation
period to help reduce the emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants,
including NOX and SO2. This includes the Maryland
Healthy Air Act (HAA), which covered Maryland emission sources named in
MANE-VU's ``167 Stacks''; the HAA was implemented in 2010 and further
tightened SO2 emission control requirements in 2013,
resulting in significant reductions in visibility-impairing pollutants
throughout the state that exceeded MANE-VU target goals. Maryland also
described its implementation of low sulfur fuel oil standards for the
state, and the status of the remaining emissions sources in the state
subject to BART requirements, which included emission reductions for
Portland cement plants to satisfy Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) requirements for ozone.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ COMAR 26.11.30--Control of Portland Cement Manufacturing
Plants. Effective date: July 20, 2015 (42:Md. R. 884).
www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/SubtitleSearch.aspx?search=26.11.30.*
Approved by EPA March 28, 2018, 83 FR 13192
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Maryland has met the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) because its SIP submission describes the
measures included in the long-term strategy from the first
implementation period, as well as the status of their implementation
and the emission reductions achieved through such implementation.
Section 51.308(g)(3) requires states to assess Reasonable Progress
Goals, including current visibility conditions and changes, for any
Class I areas within the state. As described above, Maryland does not
have any Class I areas within its borders, therefore 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3) does not apply.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), in Section 2.21 of their
submittal, Maryland provided a summary of emissions of NOX,
SO2, PM10, PM2.5, VOCs, and
NH3 from all sources and activities, including from point,
nonpoint, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile sources, for the time
period from 2002 to 2017. Maryland also included AMPD data for
SO2 and NOX emissions for 2016, 2017, 2018, and
2019 in their submission.
The reductions achieved through Maryland emission control measures
are seen in the emissions inventory. Based on Maryland's SIP submittal,
NOX emissions have continuously declined in Maryland from
2002 through 2017, especially in the point, nonroad and onroad mobile
sectors. During that period, onroad sources contributed almost half of
the emissions at 47%, followed by point sources at 27%. Nonroad sources
contributed 13% and area sources contributed 13%. Table 2-20 of
Maryland's SIP submittal also shows additional NOX emissions
data from 2016 to 2019 for Maryland's point sources that report to
EPA's AMPD. NOX emissions are expected to continue to
decrease as fleet turnover occurs and the older more polluting vehicles
and equipment are replaced by newer, cleaner ones.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ See Section 2.21.1 and Table 2-20 of the MD Regional Haze
SIP for the Second Implementation Period 2018--2028 (February 8,
2022)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions of SO2 have shown a significant decline in
Maryland from 2002 to 2017 across multiple sectors; see Section 2.21.3
and Table 2-28 of Maryland's SIP submittal.\149\ Reductions in point
emissions are primarily due to the acid rain program, Maryland power
plant consent decrees and regulations including the Maryland Health Air
Act, and Federal and State low sulfur fuel regulations. Additionally,
some of these decreases may be attributable to the MANE-VU low sulfur
fuel strategy and the 90% or greater reduction in SO2
emissions at 167 EGU stacks, both inside and outside of MANE-VU,
requested in the ``Non-MANE-VU Ask'' for states within MANE-VU for the
first regional haze planning period.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ See Section 2.21.3 and Table 2-28 of the MD Regional Haze
SIP for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8,
2022).
\150\ See ``Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility
Union (MANE-VU) Concerning a Course of Action within MANE-VU Toward
Assuring Reasonable Progress'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions of PM10 have steadily decreased in Maryland
from 2002 to 2017, particularly in the point and nonroad sectors; see
Section 2.21.2 and Table 2-25 of Maryland's SIP submittal.\151\ The
variations in the onroad sector are likely due to changes in emission
inventory calculation methodologies, which resulted in higher
particulate matter estimates in the other years than in 2002. The large
variation in emissions in the nonpoint category is likely due to
changes in calculation methodologies for residential wood burning and
fugitive dust categories, which have varied significantly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ See Section 2.21.2 and Table 2-25 of the MD Regional Haze
SIP for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions of ammonia (NH3) have shown declines in
Maryland from 2002 to 2017; see Section 2.21.4 and Table 2-33 of
Maryland's SIP submittal.\152\ Ammonia decreases were achieved in the
onroad sector due to Federal new engine standards for vehicles and
equipment. Nonpoint increases and decreases from 2002 to 2014 are due
to reporting, grouping and methodology changes. While ammonia emissions
grew slightly between the 2002 and 2008 emission inventories, ammonia
emissions have decreased from 2011 to 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ See Section 2.21.4 and Table 2-33 of the MD Regional Haze
SIP for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to find that Maryland has satisfied the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) by providing emissions information
for NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5,
VOCs, and NH3 broken down by type of source.
Maryland uses the emissions trend data in the SIP submission \153\
and supporting MANE-VU information \154\ provided to support the
assessment that
[[Page 58201]]
anthropogenic haze-causing pollutant emissions in Maryland have
decreased during the reporting period and that changes in emissions
have not limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions
and improving visibility, Maryland 2017 emission inventories for
NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5,
VOCs, and NH3 were lower than their 2014 emission
inventories for those same pollutants emissions.\155\ The EPA is
proposing to find that Maryland has met the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ See Section 2.21 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\154\ See docket document, ``MANE-VU Trends 2004-17 Report 2nd
SIP Metrics - December 2018 Update--Final''.
\155\ See Section 2.16 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Section 169A(d) of the Clean Air Act requires states to consult
with FLMs before holding the public hearing on a proposed regional haze
SIP, and to include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and
recommendations in the notice to the public. In addition, 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2)'s FLM consultation provision requires a state to provide
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation that is early enough in the
state's policy analyses of its emission reduction obligation so that
information and recommendations provided by the FLMs' can meaningfully
inform the state's decisions on its long-term strategy. If the
consultation has taken place at least 120 days before a public hearing
or public comment period, the opportunity for consultation will be
deemed early enough, Regardless, the opportunity for consultation must
be provided at least sixty days before a public hearing or public
comment period at the state level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also provides
two substantive topics on which FLMs must be provided an opportunity to
discuss with states: assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I
area and recommendations on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3)
requires states, in developing their implementation plans, to include a
description of how they addressed FLMs' comments.
The states in the MANE-VU RPO conducted FLM consultation early in
the planning process concurrent with the state-to-state consultation
that formed the basis of the RPO's decision making process. As part of
the consultation, the FLMs were given the opportunity to review and
comment on the technical documents developed by MANE-VU. The FLMs were
invited to attend the intra- and inter-RPO consultations calls among
states and at least one FLM representative was documented to have
attended seven intra-RPO meetings and all inter-RPO meetings. Maryland
participated in these consultation meetings and calls.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation
Report (July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of this early engagement with the FLMs, on April 12, 2018,
the NPS sent letters to the MANE-VU states requesting that they
consider specific individual sources in their long-term
strategies.\157\ NPS used an analysis of emissions divided by distance
(Q/d) to estimate the impact of MANE-VU facilities. To select the
facilities, NPS first summed 2014 NEI NOX, PM10,
SO2, and SO4 emissions and divided by the
distance to a specified NPS mandatory Class I Federal area. NPS summed
the Q/d values across all MANE-VU states relative to Acadia, Mammoth
Cave and Shenandoah National Parks, ranked the Q/d values relative to
each Class I area, created a running total, and identified those
facilities contributing to 80% of the total impact at each NPS Class I
area. NPS applied a similar process to facilities in Maine relative to
Acadia National Park. NPS merged the resulting lists of facilities and
sorted them by their states. NPS suggested that a state consider those
facilities comprising 80% of the Q/d total, not to exceed the 25 top
ranked facilities. The NPS identified 12 facilities in Maryland in this
letter.\158\ Maryland included the NPS initial letter in their proposed
SIP. In a subsequent letter dated October 22, 2018, NPS identified 13
facilities for which more control information was desired.\159\
Maryland detailed the emission controls and updates to these facilities
in its SIP submittal to address the NPS's request for more
information.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation
Report (July 27, 2018),'' and Appendix 9, ``National Park Service
Letter to MANE-VU (April 2018)'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\158\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation
Report (July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\159\ See Appendix 15, ``National Park Service Correspondence
with Maryland'', of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\160\ See Section 2.6 and Appendix 20 of the MD Regional Haze
SIP for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 2, 2021, Maryland submitted a draft Regional Haze SIP
to the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
National Park Service for a 60-day review and comment period pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2).\161\ Maryland received comments from the Forest
Service on October 28, 2021, and from the National Park Service on
October 29, 2021. Maryland responded to the FLM comments and included
the responses in Appendix 20 of their submission to EPA, in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Notices of the proposed SIP, availability and
the public hearing were published on MDE's website and in the Maryland
Register, and interested parties were emailed the notice, along with
air quality contacts from other states, air quality regional
organizations and the EPA. A public hearing on the proposed SIP
revision was held on January 4, 2022. Written comments relevant to the
proposal were accepted until the close of business January 4, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ See Appendix 14, Appendix 15, Appendix 16, and Appendix 20
of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation Period
2018-2028 (February 8, 2022), and docket documents, ``National Park
Service Comments''; ``State of Maryland Mail--Forest Service'';
``USFS MD RH SIP Comment Letter''; ``USFS MD RH SIP Comment
Enclosure''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons stated above, the EPA proposes to find that
Maryland has satisfied the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(i) to
consult with the FLMs on its regional haze SIP for the second
implementation period.
Maryland's February 8, 2022 SIP submission includes a commitment to
revise and submit a regional haze SIP by July 31, 2028, and every ten
years thereafter. The state's commitment includes submitting periodic
progress reports in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(f) and a commitment
to evaluate progress towards the reasonable progress goal for each
mandatory Class I Federal area located within the state and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the state that may be
affected by emissions from within the state in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(g).\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ See Section 2.17, ``Progress Report Requirements'', of the
MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028
(February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Maryland's February 8, 2022 SIP
submission, as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second
implementation period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission
[[Page 58202]]
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 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 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
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' The Maryland
Department of the Environment did not evaluate environmental justice
considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ
in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this
action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air
quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, pertaining to
Maryland regional haze SIP submission for the second planning period,
is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other
area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
Reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2023-18278 Filed 8-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
