Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period, 58663-58685 [2024-15857]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
OMB Control Numbers 0651–0050
(Response to Office Action and
Voluntary Amendment Forms) and
0651–0055 (Post Registration
(Trademark Processing).
Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to respond
to nor shall any person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
P. E-Government Act Compliance:
The USPTO is committed to compliance
with the E-Government Act to promote
the use of the internet and other
information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and
services, and for other purposes.
Katherine K. Vidal,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2024–15472 Filed 7–18–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2023–0186; FRL–12105–
01–R1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the regional haze state implementation
plan (SIP) revision submitted by
Connecticut on January 5, 2022, as
satisfying applicable requirements
under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
EPA’s Regional Haze Rule for the
program’s second implementation
period. Connecticut’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
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
haze program. The EPA is taking this
action pursuant to the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 19, 2024.
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2023–0186 at https://
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
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Rackauskas, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, Air
Quality Branch, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, (Mail code 5–MI), Boston,
MA 02109–3912, telephone number:
(617) 918–1628, email address:
rackauskas.eric@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
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
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
G. Requirements for State and Federal
Land Manager Coordination
IV. The EPA’s Evaluation of Connecticut’s
Regional Haze Submission for the
Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Connecticut’s First
Implementation Period SIP Submission
B. Connecticut’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
a. Connecticut’s Response to the Six
MANEVU Asks
b. The EPA’s Evaluation of Connecticut’s
Response to the Six MANEVU Asks and
Compliance With § 51.308(f)(2)(i)
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy
Requirements
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
J. Other Required Commitments
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On January 5, 2022, the Connecticut
Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP)
submitted a revision to its SIP to
address regional haze for the second
implementation period. CT DEEP made
this SIP submission to satisfy the
requirements of the CAA’s regional haze
program pursuant to CAA sections 169A
and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. The EPA
is proposing to find that the Connecticut
regional haze SIP submission for the
second implementation period meets
the applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements and thus proposes to
approve Connecticut’s submission into
its SIP.
II. Background and Requirements for
Regional Haze Plans
Table of Contents
PO 00000
58663
Sfmt 4702
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 section 169A.
The CAA establishes as a national goal
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 section 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.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
58664
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 section
169A(a)(1). The CAA further directs the
EPA to promulgate regulations to assure
reasonable progress toward meeting this
national goal. CAA section 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 section 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.
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
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 section 169A(b)(2); 4 see also 40
CFR 51.308(b), (f) (establishing
submission dates for iterative regional
haze SIP revisions); (64 FR 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 section
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 section 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 longterm strategies originally due July 31,
2018, and every ten years thereafter. (64
FR 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
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).
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), (d)(3).
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
section 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
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), (d)(2).
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
at 35731–32. 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
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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), (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), (h)—and to consult
with the Federal Land Manager(s)7
(FLMs) responsible for each Class I area
according to the requirements in CAA
section 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
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 designee) or, with respect to RooseveltCampobello International Park, the Chairman of the
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park
Commission.’’ 40 CFR 51.301.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
8 Guidance on Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second
Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/
visibility/guidance-regional-haze-stateimplementation-plans-second-implementationperiod. 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. https://www.epa.gov/
system/files/documents/2021-07/clarificationsregarding-regional-haze-state-implementationplans-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. https://www.epa.gov/
visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibilityprogress-second-implementation-period-regional.
The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park. (December 20,
2018).
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58665
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
further emission reductions may be
necessary to adequately protect
visibility in Class I areas throughout the
country.12
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
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. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/
memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-datausage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program.
The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park (June 3, 2020).
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’’).
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
58666
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 (MANEVU), 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
MANEVU are EPA, U.S. National Parks
Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), and U.S. Forest Service
(USFS).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
section 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end,
§ 51.308(f) lays out the process by which
states determine what constitutes their
long-term strategies, with the order of
the requirements in § 51.308(f)(1)
through (f)(3) generally mirroring the
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
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
order of the steps in the reasonable
progress analysis 14 and (f)(4) through
(f)(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), (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.
See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). Additionally,
as further explained below, the RHR at
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ‘‘additional factors’’ 15 that
states must consider in developing their
long-term strategies. 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 longterm 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
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 § 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 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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)–(3).
In addition to satisfying the
requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f) related
to reasonable progress, the regional haze
SIP revisions for the second
implementation period must address the
requirements in § 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
section 169(b)(2); CAA section 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
section 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
states contribute to visibility
impairment in at least one Class I area,
64 FR at 35720–22, 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
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 § 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 § 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 at 3103–05.
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
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.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
conditions). 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), (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 per year,
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 3107 footnote 116.
EPA’s 2018 Visibility Tracking
Guidance can be used to help satisfy the
40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements,
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: ‘‘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.’’
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 at 3093.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58667
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
§ 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
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
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58668
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance,
and the remaining useful life of any
existing source subject to such
requirements.’’ CAA section 169A(g)(1).
The EPA has explained that the fourfactor 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 CAA 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 at
3091. 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,
21 The CAA provides that, ‘‘[i]n determining
reasonable progress there shall be taken into
consideration’’ the four statutory factors. CAA
section 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to fourfactor 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 fourfactor 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 at 3088. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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, § 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, § 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 § 51.308(f)(2), measures that
are necessary to make reasonable
progress towards the national visibility
goal must be included in a state’s longterm 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 section
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 at 3108–09 (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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
§ 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, § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58669
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
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
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 Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation
v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 485, 490 (2004); Nat’l Parks
Conservation Ass’n v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165 (3d
Cir. 2015).
26 The five ‘‘additional factors’’ for consideration
in § 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.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58670
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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,
§ 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-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
factor analysis.’’ 82 FR at 3091. 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)–(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.
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, § 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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
strategies that are projected to achieve
visibility conditions on the most
impaired days that are better than the
baseline period and show 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 at 3097–98.
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
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
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 at
3093, 3099–3100; 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), (f)(6)(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), (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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the
RHR also contains a requirement at
§ 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
28 See ‘‘Step 8: Additional requirements for
regional haze SIPs’’ in 2019 Regional Haze
Guidance at 55.
29 Id.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58671
implementation is in fact resulting in
the expected visibility improvement.
See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016),
(82 FR 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, § 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
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),
(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), (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.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
58672
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
G. Requirements for State and Federal
Land Manager Coordination
CAA 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. The EPA’s Evaluation of
Connecticut’s Regional Haze
Submission for the Second
Implementation Period
A. Background on Connecticut’s First
Implementation Period SIP Submission
CT DEEP submitted its regional haze
SIP for the first implementation period
to the EPA on November 18, 2009, and
supplemented it on February 24, 2012,
and March 12, 2012. The EPA approved
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
Connecticut’s first implementation
period regional haze SIP submission on
July 10, 2014 (79 FR 39322). EPA’s
approval included, but was not limited
to, the portions of the plan that address
the reasonable progress requirements,
Connecticut’s maintenance of nitrogen
oxide emissions controls, as well as
Connecticut’s low sulfur fuel program.
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), Connecticut was also
responsible for submitting a five-year
progress report as a SIP revision for the
first implementation period, which it
did on June 30, 2015. The EPA
approved the progress report into the
Connecticut SIP on November 26, 2019
(84 FR 65007).
B. Connecticut’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 January 5, 2022, Connecticut
submitted a revision to the Connecticut
SIP to address its regional haze
obligations for the second
implementation period, which runs
through 2028. Connecticut made a draft
Regional Haze SIP submission available
for public comment on December 3,
2020. Connecticut has included the
public comments and its responses to
those comments in the submission.
The following sections describe
Connecticut’s SIP submission, including
analyses conducted by MANEVU and
Connecticut’s determinations based on
those analyses, Connecticut’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 Connecticut’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
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 (f)(2), which
requires each state’s plan to include a
long-term strategy that addresses
regional haze in such Class I areas.
Connecticut has no mandatory Class I
Federal area within its borders.
For the second implementation
period, MANEVU performed technical
analyses 31 to help assess source and
state-level contributions to visibility
impairment and the need for interstate
consultation. MANEVU used the results
of these analyses to determine which
states’ emissions ‘‘have a high
likelihood of affecting visibility in
MANEVU’s Class I areas.’’ 32 Similar to
metrics used in the first implementation
period,33 MANEVU 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 MANEVU 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.
One MANEVU analysis used for
contribution assessment was CALPUFF
air dispersion modeling. The CALPUFF
model was used to estimate sulfate and
nitrate formation and transport in
MANEVU 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 34 that considered recent SO2
31 The contribution assessment methodologies for
MANEVU Class I areas are summarized in CT RH
SIP appendix ‘‘Selection of States for MANEVU
Regional Haze Consultation (2018),’’ MANEVU
TSC. September 5, 2017.
32 Id.
33 See docket EPA–R01–OAR–2023–0186 for
MANEVU supporting materials.
34 ‘‘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
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
emissions in the eastern United States
and an analysis that adjusted previous
2002 MANEVU 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
MANEVU Class I areas.35 Overall,
MANEVU found that emission sources
located close to Class I areas typically
show higher visibility impacts than
similarly sized facilities further away.
However, visibility degradation appears
to be dominated by the more distant
emission sources due to their larger
emissions. Connecticut had three EGUs
identified in the CALPUFF modeling as
having a magnitude of emissions located
close enough to a Class I area that they
could have the potential for visibility
impacts: Middletown Unit 4, Bridgeport
Harbor Station Unit 3, and New Haven
Harbor Unit 1.36
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 at 35721, and this
determination was not changed in the
2017 RHR. Critically, the statute and
regulation both require that the causeor-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
potential visibility impacts on a particular class I
area.
35 See ‘‘2016 MANEVU Source Contribution
Modeling Report—CALPUFF Modeling of Large
Electrical Generating Units and Industrial Sources.’’
MANEVU TSC. April 4, 2017.
36 Connecticut Regional Haze SIP Revision at 45.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
visibility impairment. 2019 Guidance at
8.
The screening analyses on which
MANEVU relied are useful for certain
purposes. MANEVU used information
from its technical analysis to rank the
largest contributing states to sulfate and
nitrate impairment in the seven
MANEVU Class I areas and three
additional, nearby Class I areas.37 The
rankings were used to determine
upwind states that MANEVU deemed
important to include in state-to-state
consultation based on an identified
visibility impact screening threshold.
Additionally, large individual source
impacts were used to target MANEVU
control analysis ‘‘Asks’’ 38 of states and
sources both within and upwind of
MANEVU.39 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 Connecticut’s
contribution to visibility impairment at
out-of-state Class I areas, the MANEVU
technical work focuses on the
magnitude of visibility impacts from
certain Connecticut emissions on nearby
Class I areas. The MANEVU
contribution screening results estimate
Connecticut’s highest percent massweighted sulfate and nitrate
contribution to be 1.4% at Moosehorn
Wilderness and Roosevelt Campobello
International Park, with Acadia National
Park and the Lye Brook Wilderness the
next closest Class I areas impacted by
Connecticut emissions at 1.3% and
1.2%, respectively.40 However, the
MANEVU analyses did not account for
all emissions and all components of
37 The Class I areas analyzed were Acadia
National Park in Maine, Brigantine Wilderness in
New Jersey, Great Gulf Wilderness and Presidential
Range—Dry River Wilderness in New Hampshire,
Lye Brook Wilderness in Vermont, Moosehorn
Wilderness in Maine, Roosevelt Campobello
International Park in New Brunswick, Shenandoah
National Park in Virginia, James River Face
Wilderness in Virginia, and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek
Wildernesses in West Virginia.
38 As explained more fully in section IV.E.a.,
MANEVU refers to each of the components of its
overall strategy as an ‘‘Ask ‘‘of its member states.
39 The MANEVU consultation report explains that
‘‘[t]he objective of this technical work was to
identify states and sources from which MANEVU
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.’’
40 See table 4–1 of the CT RH SIP.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58673
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. The EPA acknowledges that the
contribution to visibility impairment
from Connecticut’s emissions at nearby
out-of-state Class I areas is smaller than
that from numerous other states. While
some MANEVU states noted that the
contributions from several states outside
the MANEVU region are significantly
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 Connecticut
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 Connecticut have
relatively small contributions to Class I
areas. However, due to the low
triggering threshold implied by the Rule
and the lack of rigorous modeling
analyses, we do not necessarily agree
with the level of the State’s 2%
contribution threshold.
In any event, pursuant to the
regulatory requirements, Connecticut
took part in the emission control
strategy consultation process as a
member of MANEVU. As part of that
process, MANEVU developed a set of
emissions reduction measures identified
as being necessary to make reasonable
progress in the seven MANEVU Class I
areas. This strategy consists of six Asks
for states within MANEVU and five
Asks for states outside the region that
were found to impact visibility at Class
I areas within MANEVU.41
Connecticut’s submission 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 the MANEVU states laid out.
Connecticut worked with MANEVU to
determine potential reasonable
41 See
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
section 5.1 of the CT RH SIP.
19JYP1
58674
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.42 As discussed in
further detail below, the EPA is
proposing to find that Connecticut 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. Thus, we
propose to find that Connecticut has
satisfied the applicable requirements for
making reasonable progress towards
natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas that may be affected by 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).
Connecticut has no Class I areas.
MANEVU Class I areas, as well as other
nearby Class I areas that MANEVU
examined, are listed below. MANEVU
used certain areas (as noted below) to
represent nearby Class I areas where
monitors do not exist.43
The MANEVU Class I Areas are Lye
Brook Wilderness Area (Vermont), Great
Gulf Wilderness Area (New Hampshire)
(used to represent Presidential Range—
Dry River Wilderness Area), Presidential
Range—Dry River Wilderness Area
(New Hampshire), Acadia National Park
(Maine), Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge
(Maine) (used to represent Roosevelt
Campobello International Park),
Roosevelt Campobello International
42 See
42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
U.S. Visibility Data,
2004–2017 (2nd RH SIP Metrics). MANEVU
(prepared by Maine Department of Environmental
Protection). December 18, 2018 revision. p.2–1
(appendix 22).
43 Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
Park (New Brunswick, Canada),
Brigantine Wildlife Refuge (New Jersey).
Nearby Class I Areas consist of Dolly
Sods Wilderness Area (West Virginia)
(used to represent Otter Creek
Wilderness Area), Otter Creek
Wilderness Area (West Virginia),
Shenandoah National Park (Virginia),
and James River Face Wilderness Area
(Virginia).
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
a. Connecticut’s Response to the Six
MANEVU 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 section
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
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
§ 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)(i).
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The following section summarizes
how Connecticut’s SIP submission
addressed the requirements of
§ 51.308(f)(2)(i); specifically, it describes
MANEVU’s development of the six Asks
and how Connecticut addressed each.
The regulations Connecticut identifies
as a result of its responses to the six
Asks comprise Connecticut’s long-term
strategy for the second planning period
to address regional haze visibility
impairment for each mandatory Class I
Federal area that may be affected by
emissions from Connecticut. When
developing the Asks with the other
MANEVU states and applying them to
sources in Connecticut, the State
considered the four statutory factors and
the additional regulatory factors and
identified emissions control measures
necessary to make reasonable progress
towards the goal of preventing of any
future, and remedying any existing,
anthropogenic visibility impairment in
Class I areas that may be affected by
emissions from Connecticut.
Connecticut’s SIP submission describes
how it plans to meet the long-term
strategy requirements defined by the
State and MANEVU via its responses to
the ‘‘Asks.’’ The EPA’s evaluation of
Connecticut’s long-term strategy is
contained in section IV.E.b.
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 § 51.308(f). Where an RPO has
performed source selection and/or fourfactor analyses (or considered the five
additional factors in § 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 § 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the states
have a reasonable basis to do so and all
state participants in the RPO process
have approved the technical analyses.
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). States may also
satisfy the requirement of
§ 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.
Connecticut is a member of the
MANEVU RPO and participated in the
RPO’s regional approach to developing
a strategy for making reasonable
progress towards the national visibility
goal in the MANEVU Class I areas.
MANEVU’s strategy includes a
combination of: (1) measures for certain
source sectors and groups of sectors that
the RPO determined were reasonable for
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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. MANEVU 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 MANEVU, on behalf of the MANEVU
states and tribal nations, signed a
statement that identifies six emission
reduction measures that comprise the
Asks for the second implementation
period.44 The Asks were ‘‘designed to
identify reasonable emission reduction
strategies that must be addressed by the
states and tribal nations of MANEVU
through their regional haze SIP
updates.’’ 45 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.’’ 46
MANEVU’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, Connecticut’s regional haze SIP
submission. One of the initial steps of
MANEVU’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, MANEVU 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,
MANEVU 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) 47 at
MANEVU and nearby Class I areas.
MANEVU found that while SO2
emissions were decreasing and visibility
was improving, sulfates still made up
the most significant contribution to
visibility impairment at MANEVU 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 as SO2
emissions have decreased. The technical
analyses used by Connecticut are
included in its submission and are as
follows: 48
• 2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze
in MANEVU Class I Areas;
• Impact of Wintertime SCR/SNCR
Optimization on Visibility Impairing
Nitrate Precursor Emissions. November
2017;
• High Electric Demand Days and
Visibility Impairment in MANEVU.
December 2017;
• Benefits of Combined Heat and
Power Systems for Reducing Pollutant
Emissions in MANEVU States. March
2016;
• 2016 MANEVU Source
Contribution Modeling Report—
CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical
Generating Units and Industrial
Sources. April 4, 2017;
• Contribution Assessment
Preliminary Inventory Analysis. October
10, 2016;
• Four-Factor Data Collection Memo.
March 2017;
• Status of the Top 167 Stacks from
the 2008 MANEVU Ask. July 2016;
• Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S.
Visibility Data, 2004–2019 (2nd RH SIP
Metrics);
• Selection of States for MANEVU
Regional Haze Consultation 2018;
• Ozone Transport Commission/
MANEVU 2011 Based Modeling
Platform Support Document October
(2018 Update).
MANEVU gathered information on
each of the four statutory factors for six
source sectors it determined, based on
an examination of annual emission
inventories, ‘‘had emissions [of SO2
and/or NOX] that were reasonabl[y]
anticipated to contribute to visibility
degradation in MANEVU:’’ electric
generating units (EGUs), industrial/
commercial/institutional boilers (ICI
boilers), cement kilns, heating oil,
residential wood combustion, and
outdoor wood combustion.49 MANEVU
also collected data on individual
sources within the EGU, ICI boiler, and
cement kiln sectors.50 Information for
the six sectors included explanations of
technically feasible control options for
SO2 or NOX, illustrative costeffectiveness estimates for a range of
model units and control options, sectorwide cost considerations, potential time
frames for compliance with control
options, potential energy and non-airquality environmental impacts of
certain control options, and how the
remaining useful lives of sources might
be considered in a control analysis.51
Source-specific data included SO2
emissions 52 and existing controls 53 for
certain existing EGUs, ICI boilers, and
cement kilns. MANEVU 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.54 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.
MANEVU Ask 1 is ‘‘Electric
Generating Units (EGUs) with a
nameplate capacity larger than or equal
to 25 MW with already installed NOX
and/or SO2 controls—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.’’ MANEVU
observed that EGUs often only run NOX
emissions controls to comply with
ozone season trading programs and
consequently, NOX sources may be
uncontrolled during the winter and nonpeak summer days. MANEVU found
that: (1) running existing installed
controls [selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) and selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR)] is one of the most
cost-effective ways to control NOX
emissions from EGUs; and (2) that
running existing controls year-round
could substantially reduce the NOX
emissions in many of the states upwind
of Class I areas in MANEVU that lead to
visibility impairment during the winter
from nitrates.55 MANEVU included this
as an emission management strategy
because large EGUs had already been
identified as dominant contributors to
visibility impairment and the low cost
of running already installed controls
made it reasonable.
Connecticut identified 33 EGU units
that meet the criteria of 25 MW or larger
51 Id.
52 See
‘‘Four Factor Data Collection Memo.’’
‘‘Status of the Top 167 Stacks from the
2008 MANEVU Ask. July 2016.’’
54 See ‘‘Four Factor Data Collection Memo’’; 2016
Updates to the Assessment of Reasonable Progress
for Regional Haze in MANEVU Class I Areas.’’
55 See ‘‘Impact of Wintertime SCR/SNCR
Optimization on Visibility Impairing Nitrate
Precursor Emissions.’’
53 See
44 See ‘‘MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation
Report and Consultation Documentation—Final.’’
45 Id.
46 Id.
47 The period of 2012–2016 was the most recent
period for which data were available at the time of
analysis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
48 These documents can be found in the docket
for this rulemaking.
49 See ‘‘MANEVU Four Factor Data Collection
Memo,’’ at 1, March 30, 2017.
50 See ‘‘2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANEVU
Class I Areas,’’ Jan. 31, 2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58675
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58676
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
with installed controls.56 Connecticut
explained that all of these units
identified are turbines with Selective
Catalytic Reduction (SCR) to control
nitrogen oxides with the exception of
Middletown Unit 3, which is a boiler
controlled by Selective Non-Catalytic
Reduction (SNCR) to reduce emissions
of nitrogen oxides. Connecticut further
explained that these sources are subject
to requirements to maintain and operate
the control equipment to minimize
emissions and are made enforceable
through record keeping and reporting
requirements contained in Regulations
of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA)
section 22a–174–7 and the indicated
new source review permits. These units
are all Title V sources, and the
requirements and enforceability are
reviewed at least once every five years
and are federally enforceable as well.
Connecticut also noted that are no
electric generating units of 25 MW or
more with control devices to treat
emissions of sulfur oxides and that
Connecticut generally addresses sulfur
emissions ‘‘on the front end’’ via sulfurin-fuel restrictions.57 Connecticut
concluded that it has therefore met the
requirements of Ask 1.
MANEVU Ask 2 consists of a request
that states ‘‘Emission sources modeled
by MANEVU that have the potential for
3.0 Mm¥1 or greater visibility impacts at
any MANEVU Class I area, as identified
by MANEVU contribution analyses . . .
perform a four-factor analysis for
reasonable installation or upgrade to
emission controls.’’ Based on an
examination of visibility impact
modeling results, MANEVU concluded
that a 3.0 Mm¥1 cutoff captured an
appropriately-sized group of sources
contributing the largest percentage of
visibility impairing pollutants to Class I
areas in the MANEVU states.58 For units
identified for the Ask 2 analysis,
MANEVU requested that states
determine reasonable controls through
the consideration of the four factors on
a state-by-state and unit-by-unit basis.
MANEVU’s analysis for Ask 2 did not
identify any units in Connecticut with
a potential impact of at least 3.0
Mm¥1.59 Connecticut notes that the
highest estimated impact from any
Connecticut source to any Class I area
is just over 1.0 Mm¥1. Furthermore, this
particular source—Bridgeport Harbor
56 See
table 5–1 of the Connecticut submittal.
for example, the discussion of Ask 3
Station Unit 3—shuttered in 2021.60
Based on the lack of identified sources
at or above the 3.0 Mm¥1 threshold,
Connecticut concluded that it met Ask
2.
MANEVU Ask 3 is: ‘‘Each MANEVU
State that has not yet fully adopted an
ultra-low sulfur fuel oil standard as
requested by MANEVU in 2007—pursue
this standard as expeditiously as
possible and before 2028, depending on
supply availability, where the standards
are as follows: a. distillate oil to
0.0015% sulfur by weight (15 ppm); b.
#4 residual oil within a range of 0.25 to
0.5% sulfur by weight; and c. #6
residual oil within a range of 0.3 to
0.5% sulfur by weight.’’ Connecticut
explained that the State has an ultra-low
sulfur fuel program, with the most
recent sulfur content limitations
effective as of July 1, 2018.
Connecticut’s ultra-low sulfur fuel
program consists of Connecticut General
Statutes (CGS) section 16a–21a and
RCSA sections 22a–174–19a and 22a–
174–19b. CGS 16a–21a and RCSA 22a–
174–19a limit the sulfur content of
home heating oil to 15ppm and the
sulfur content of off-road diesel to 3000
ppm (0.3%S). RCSA 22a–174–19b
further limits sulfur content of fuel oil
sold in Connecticut for use in stationary
sources to 15 ppm for distillate and
3000 ppm (0.3%S) for aviation and
residual fuels. EPA approved the latest
revisions of these rules into
Connecticut’s SIP on May 25, 2016 (81
FR 33134). Based on the above,
Connecticut concluded that the State’s
low sulfur fuel program meets Ask 3.
MANEVU Ask 4 requests states to
update permits to ‘‘lock in’’ lower
emissions rates for NOX, SO2, and PM
at emissions sources larger than 250
million British Thermal Units (MMBtu)
per hour heat input that have switched
operations to lower emitting fuels.
Connecticut explained that EGUs and
large sources in the State are subject to
Title V permitting requirements under
RCSA section 22a–174–33, and that the
permits for these sources are reviewed
every five years and specify allowable
operating scenarios, including the type
of fuels fired. Connecticut further
explained that Title V permit conditions
for these sources related to lower
emitting fuels stem from Connecticut’s
sulfur-in-fuel regulations (RCSA
sections 22a–174–19a and –19b), New
Source Review (NSR) permits, and
trading orders that restrict oil firing in
favor of natural gas. A change in fuel
57 See,
below.
58 Units with smaller contributions of visibilityimpairing pollutants were captured by other Asks.
59 See MANEVU Intra-Regional Ask Final August
25, 2017.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
60 CT DEEP revoked the operating permit for
Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3 on October 28,
2021. See ‘‘Combined NSR & Registration
Revocation Letter’’ in the docket for this
rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
type not allowed by permit would
trigger requirements for a new or
modified permit under RCSA section
22a–174–3a and –33. Connecticut
concluded that it therefore met the
requirements of Ask 4.
Ask 5 requests that MANEVU states
‘‘control NOX emissions for peaking
combustion turbines that have the
potential to operate on high electric
demand days’’ by either: (1) Meeting
NOX emissions standards specified in
the Ask for turbines that run on natural
gas and fuel oil, (2) performing a fourfactor analysis for reasonable
installation of or upgrade to emission
controls, or (3) obtaining equivalent
emission reductions on high electric
demand days.61 The Ask requests states
to strive for NOX emission standards of
no greater than 25 ppm for natural gas
and 42 ppm for fuel oil, or at a
minimum, NOX emissions standards of
no greater than 42 ppm for natural gas
and 96 ppm at for fuel oil.
Connecticut identified two state
regulations EPA previously approved
into Connecticut’s SIP that limit NOX
emissions from electric generating units
and other stationary sources. RCSA
section 22a–174–22e (86 FR 37053)
prescribes averaging times and emission
limits for units at major sources of NOX.
RCSA section 22a–174–22f (82 FR
35454) applies to generators at nonmajor facilities during the summer
season, and section 22a–174–22f(e)(4)
requires that any affected unit that
exceeds the allowable daily thresholds
is to be subject to the same limits that
apply to sources in RCSA section 22a–
174–22e. The requirements of RCSA
section 22a–174–22e were phased-in
over two implementation periods. The
first phase became effective June 1,
2018, and the second phase became
effective June 1, 2023. Under Phase 2,
daily NOX limits for combined cycle
turbines are set at 25 ppm for natural
gas and 42 ppm for fuel oil, RCSA
section 22a–174–22e(d)(5)(C), and daily
NOX limits for simple cycle turbines are
set at 40 ppm for natural gas and 50
ppm for fuel oil, id. section 22a–174–
22e(d)(4)(C). Connecticut noted that
these already adopted rules to control
nitrogen oxide emissions from peaking
turbines are at least as stringent as the
limits in Ask 5.62 Therefore,
Connecticut concluded that it fully
addressed Ask 5.
The last Ask for states within
MANEVU (Ask 6) requests states to
report in their regional haze SIPs about
programs that decrease energy demand
61 See ‘‘MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation
Report and Consultation Documentation—Final.’’
62 See table 5–2 of the CT RH SIP.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
and increase the use of combined heat
and power (CHP) and other distributed
generation technologies such as fuel
cells, wind and solar. Connecticut
asserted that the state continues to
support programs to increase energy
efficiency, CHP, and other clean energy
technologies. The submittal provides as
an example Energize ConnecticutSM,
which it describes as an initiative of the
Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund, the
Connecticut Green Bank, the State, and
local utilities dedicated to saving energy
and building a clean energy future for
everyone in the state. The initiative has
funding support from a charge on
customer energy bills. Connecticut
reports that energy savings efforts
through 2018 have resulted in emissions
avoidance of the equivalent of one 130
MW power plant. Connecticut also
identified off-shore wind programs,
State Executive Order No. 3 (which
commits the CT DEEP, in consultation
with the Connecticut Public Utilities
Regulatory Authority to analyze and
recommend strategies for achieving a
carbon emissions free goal for the
electricity-generating sector by 2040),
and the state’s membership in the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
(RGGI) as programs that provide air
quality benefits. Connecticut therefore
concluded that it satisfies Ask 6.
In summary, Connecticut identified
the following SIP-approved programs as
necessary for reasonable progress and
therefore included in the State’s long
term strategy: RCSA 22a–174–19a,
Control of sulfur dioxide emissions from
power plants and other large stationary
sources of air pollution; RCSA 22a–174–
19b, Fuel sulfur content limitations for
stationary sources; RCSA 22a–174–22e,
Control of nitrogen oxides emissions
from fuel-burning equipment at major
stationary sources of nitrogen oxides;
RCSA 22a–174–22f, High daily NOX
emitting units at non-major sources of
NOX; and RCSA 22a–174–38, Municipal
Waste Combustors.63
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
b. The EPA’s Evaluation of
Connecticut’s Response to the Six
MANEVU Asks and Compliance With
§ 51.308(f)(2)(i)
The EPA is proposing to find that
Connecticut has satisfied the
requirements of § 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 Connecticut has satisfied the
four-factor analysis requirement through
63 See
CT RH Submittal at 75, 78.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
its analysis and actions to address
MANEVU Ask 3.
As explained above, Connecticut
relied on MANEVU’s technical analyses
and framework (i.e., the Asks) to select
sources and develop its long-term
strategy. MANEVU 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,
MANEVU 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.64 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 interRPO consultation process among the
states and tribes.’’ 65 EPA proposes to
find that Connecticut reasonably
evaluated the two pollutants—SO2 and
NOX—that currently drive visibility
impairment within the MANEVU region
and that it adequately explained and
supported its decision to focus on these
two pollutants through its reliance on
the MANEVU 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 MANEVU Asks are a
mix of measures for sectors and groups
of sources identified as reasonable for
states to address in their regional haze
plans. Several of the Asks include
analyses of emissions controls, and
Connecticut identifies numerous
existing controls that are in the SIP and
are included in the long-term strategy.
While MANEVU formulated the Asks to
be ‘‘reasonable emission reduction
strategies’’ to control emissions of
64 See ‘‘Contributions to Regional Haze in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States: MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU)
Contribution Assessment. NESCAUM. August
2006.’’
65 See ‘‘Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility
Data, 2004–2019 (2nd RH SIP Metrics). MANEVU
(prepared by Maine Department of Environmental
Protection). January 21, 2021, revision.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58677
visibility impairing pollutants,66 Ask 3
(adoption of ultra-low sulfur fuel oil)
engages 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 MANEVU’s fourfactor analysis conducted to support the
emission reduction measures in Ask 3,
satisfies the requirement of
§ 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
Connecticut’s SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Connecticut asserted that it satisfies
Ask 1 because the state permits for the
EGUs covered by this Ask include yearround emission limits and require that
controls be run at all times the units are
in operation and emitting air pollutants.
Furthermore, the requirements to
maintain and operate the control
equipment to minimize emissions are
made enforceable through record
keeping and reporting requirements
contained in previously SIP-approved
RCSA section 22a–174–7 (79 FR 41427)
and New Source Review permits. As
each of these units are at Title V
sources, the requirements are federally
enforceable, and Connecticut renews the
permits every five years. EPA thus
agrees that Connecticut satisfied Ask 1.
Ask 2 addresses the sources MANEVU
determined have the potential for larger
than, or equal to, 3.0 Mm¥1 visibility
impact at any MANEVU Class I area; the
Ask requests MANEVU 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; MANEVU 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.’’ 67
As an initial matter, EPA does not
generally 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. As explained
66 Id.
67 See ‘‘MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation
Report and Consultation Documentation—Final.’’
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
58678
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 fourfactor 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. In this case, the
3.0 Mm¥1 threshold did not identify
any sources in Connecticut (and
identified only 22 across the entire
MANEVU region), indicating that it may
be unreasonably high. We also note,
however, that the 3.0 Mm¥1 threshold
used in this Ask is only one part of the
MANEVU source identification process
and that being below this threshold did
not necessarily exclude a source from
additional review in connection with
another Ask.
The EPA agrees that Connecticut
reasonably determined it has satisfied
Ask 2. As explained above, while we do
not generally agree that a 3.0 Mm¥1
threshold for selecting sources for fourfactor analysis results in a set of sources
the evaluation of which has the
potential to meaningfully reduce the
state’s contribution to visibility
impairment, the MANEVU analysis did
not identify any sources in Connecticut
with an impact at or above 3.0 Mm¥1.
EPA notes that the MANEVU analysis
also did not identify any sources in
Connecticut above 2.0 Mm¥1 and only
once source above 1 Mm¥1: Bridgeport
Harbor Station Unit 3 (at 1.22 Mm¥1),68
which permanently retired on May 31,
2021. The State of Connecticut has
revoked the permit for this unit 69 and
has committed funding to assist in
demolishing the facility and
redeveloping the site.70
Ask 3, which addresses the sulfur
content of heating oil used in MANEVU
states, is based on a four-factor analysis
for the heating oil sulfur reduction
regulations contained in that Ask; 71
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
68 See 2016 MANEVU CALPUFF Modeling of
Large Electrical Generating Units and Industrial
Sources.
69 See ‘‘Combined NSR & Registration Revocation
Letter’’ in the docket for this rulemaking.
70 See https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/ctbridgeport-pseg-power-plant-demolition18388093.php (also in docket for this rulemaking).
71 See 2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress For Regional Haze In
MANEVU Class I Areas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
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-roadfuels 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 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.’’ 72 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.73
The EPA agrees that Connecticut
reasonably relied on MANEVU’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
for fuel oils is reasonable. As noted
above, RCSA 22a–174–19a limits the
sulfur content of home heating oil to 15
ppm and the sulfur content of off-road
diesel to 3000 ppm (0.3%S). RCSA 22a–
174–19b further limits sulfur content of
fuel oil sold in Connecticut for use in
stationary sources to 15 ppm for
distillate and 3000 ppm (0.3%S) for
PO 00000
72 Id.
73 Id.
at 8–7.
at 8–8.
Frm 00043
aviation and residual fuels. EPA
approved the latest revisions of these
rules into Connecticut’s SIP on May 25,
2016,74 and Connecticut includes both
in its long-term strategy for the second
planning period.75 Connecticut’s SIPapproved ultra-low sulfur fuel oil rule is
consistent with Ask 3’s sulfur content
standards for the three types of fuel oils
(distillate oil, #4 residual oil, #6
residual oil). EPA therefore agrees that
Connecticut satisfied Ask 3.
Connecticut concluded that no
additional updates were needed to meet
Ask 4, which requests that MANEVU
states pursue updating permits,
enforceable agreements, and/or rules to
lock-in lower emission rates for SO2,
NOX and PM at EGUs and other sources
larger than 250 MMBtu per hour that
have switched operations to lower
emitting fuels. As noted above,
Connecticut has asserted that EGUs and
large sources are already subject to Title
V permitting requirements under RCSA
section 22a–174–33 and that permits for
these sources are renewed every five
years and specify allowable operating
scenarios, which includes type of fuels
fired. Any change in fuel type that is not
allowed by permit would trigger
requirements for a new or modified
permit under RCSA sections 22a–174–
3a and –33, which are in the SIP. While
requirements for lower emitting fuels
contained in state fuel sulfur regulations
at RCSA sections 22a–174–19a may be
a means to achieve SO2 reductions at
sources covered by this Ask that have
switched to a lower emitting fuel oil, it
is not clear from the discussion in
Connecticut’s submittal what actions
the State has ‘‘pursued’’ under this Ask
to ‘‘lock-in lower emission rates’’ of
SO2, NOX and PM at other sources
covered by the Ask (i.e., sources that
have switched to other lower emitting
fuel types). The submittal does not
provide specific examples of sources
previously authorized to burn more than
one fuel type that have been ‘‘locked-in’’
to the lower-emitting fuel under this
Ask. Satisfaction of Ask 4 is not
necessarily a required element of a
Regional Haze SIP, however. In
addition, as Connecticut notes, any
sources that wish to make a future
switch to higher emitting fuels not
currently authorized by permit are
required to revise their permits to reflect
the change, and state rules favor loweremitting fuels and make any permit
revision subject to additional analyses,
including NSR.
Ask 5 addresses NOX emissions from
peaking combustion turbines that have
74 81
FR 33134.
CT RH SIP Submittal at 75.
75 See
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the potential to operate on high electric
demand days. The Ask requests states to
‘‘strive’’ for NOX emission standards of
no greater than 25 ppm for natural gas
and 42 ppm for fuel oil but at a
minimum, meet NOX emissions
standards of no greater than 42 ppm for
natural gas and 96 ppm for fuel oil.
As discussed above, Connecticut
identified two recently approved
regulations in the SIP that address NOX
emissions from electric generating units
and other stationary sources. RCSA
section 22a–174–22e prescribes
averaging times and emission limits for
units at major sources of NOX. As of
June 1, 2023, the state regulations set
limits of 25 ppm for natural gas and 42
ppm for fuel oil at combined cycle
turbines and 40 ppm for natural gas and
50 ppm for fuel oil at simple cycle
turbines. The combined cycle limits
match the ‘‘strive for’’ limits in the Ask.
And while the simple cycle limits do
not, they are more stringent than the
‘‘minimum’’ limits in the Ask.76 In
addition, RCSA section 22a–174–22f
applies to combustion turbines at
facilities that are not major sources of
NOX and provides that combustion
turbines that meet the generating
criterion of the Ask (i.e., capable of
generating 15 MW or more) are also
subject to the limits in RCSA section
22a–174–22e. See RCSA section 22a–
174–22f(a)(1), (e)(4). Connecticut
includes both regulations in its longterm strategy for the second planning
period,77 and both are in the SIP. EPA
agrees that Connecticut reasonably
demonstrated that it meets Ask 5.
Finally, regarding Ask 6, Connecticut
pointed to various state regulations,
State Executive Orders, participation in
offshore wind projects, and membership
in RGGI as policy efforts to increase
energy efficiency and reduce reliance on
fossil fuels for energy. Additionally, as
discussed in the previous section,
Connecticut reported energy savings
efforts through 2018 have resulted in
avoidance of the equivalent of one 130
MW power plant. The EPA agrees that
Connecticut 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—based on Connecticut’s
participation in the MANEVU planning
process, how it has addressed the Asks,
and the EPA’s assessment of
Connecticut’s emissions and point
sources—that Connecticut has complied
with the requirements of
§ 51.308(f)(2)(i). Specifically,
Connecticut’s application of MANEVU
Ask 3 engages with the requirement that
states evaluate and determine the
emission reduction measures necessary
to make reasonable progress by
considering the four statutory factors.
The EPA is proposing to find the
state’s approach meets the statutory and
regulatory requirements for several
reasons. Connecticut reasonably
evaluated and explained its decision to
focus on SO2 and NOX to address
visibility impairment within the
MANEVU region. Connecticut
adequately supported that decision
through reasonable reliance on the
MANEVU technical analyses cited in its
submission. In addition, as the EPA
discusses in more detail in section IV.I.
below, Connecticut adequately
responded to comments to consider
sources identified by the FLMs through
the consultation process. The Agency
notes that MANE–VU concluded that
sulfates from SO2 emissions were still
the primary driver of visibility
impairment in the second
implementation period and that
MANEVU conducted a four-factor
analysis to support Ask 3, which
requests that states pursue ultra-low
sulfur fuel oil standards to address SO2
emissions. Connecticut’s SIP-approved
sulfur in fuel rule sets stringent limits
for sulfur content and SO2 emissions for
fuels. Additionally, Connecticut’s SIP
submittal identifies a long-term strategy
that includes five state regulations
previously approved into its SIP. The
provisions at RCSA 22a–174–19a
control SO2 emissions by limiting the
sulfur content of home heating oil to 15
ppm and the sulfur content of off-road
diesel to 3000 ppm (0.3%S). RCSA 22a–
174–19b further controls SO2 emissions
by limiting sulfur content of fuel oil
sold in Connecticut for use in stationary
sources to 15 ppm for distillate and
3000 ppm (0.3%S) for aviation and
residual fuels. EPA approved the latest
revisions of these rules into
Connecticut’s SIP on May 25, 2016.78
Connecticut’s regulations at RCSA 22a–
174–22e and RCSA 22a–174–22f
prescribe averaging times and set
emission limits for sources of NOX at 25
ppm for natural gas and 42 ppm for fuel
oil at combined cycle turbines and at 40
ppm for natural gas and 50 ppm for fuel
oil at simple cycle turbines. EPA most
recently approved these regulations into
Connecticut’s SIP on July 14, 2021, and
July 31, 2017, respectively.79 Further,
RCSA 22a–174–38, most recently
approved into Connecticut’s SIP on July
31, 2017,80 regulates NOX emissions
from municipal waste combustors.
The EPA also notes the relatively low
impact Connecticut’s emissions have on
the visibility impairment in nearby
Class 1 areas. While, as discussed
earlier, we do not necessarily agree with
the level of the State’s chosen 2%
contribution threshold, it appears that
emissions from Connecticut have
relatively small contributions to Class I
areas.81 Further, Connecticut is in the
Ozone Transport Region and is
currently designated nonattainment
statewide for both the 2008 and 2015
ozone standards. As a result,
Connecticut already imposes stringent
controls on its sources, including
through statewide Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT)
requirements, to limit emissions of the
ozone precursors NOX and VOCs. In
addition, Connecticut must continue to
control emissions of these precursors to
attain, and then maintain, the ozone
standards. As NOX and VOCs are also
contributors to visibility impairment,
these requirements have had the
additional effect of controlling hazeforming emissions from sources
throughout the State and are generally
reflected in the MANEVU contribution
screening results. Based on the
MANEVU contribution screening
analysis, Connecticut’s highest percent
mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate
contribution to any Class I area is
estimated to be 1.4% at Moosehorn
Wilderness and Roosevelt Campobello
International Park, and 1.3% and 1.2%
to Acadia National Park and the Lye
Brook Wilderness Area, respectively.82
Slightly lower percent contributions are
estimated from Connecticut’s emissions
to the other Class I areas in the
MANEVU states: 1.0% to the Brigantine
Wilderness Area and 0.7% to the two
New Hampshire Wilderness Areas.83 As
discussed earlier, Connecticut’s
submittal includes and adopts a fourfactor analysis conducted by the
MANEVU states to support low-sulfur
fuel restrictions that Connecticut has
included in its long-term strategy. EPA
believes it was reasonable for
Connecticut not to conduct additional
four-factor analyses in this case because
haze-forming emissions from the State
are already limited by EPA-approved
emissions limits in the SIP (as a result
of other CAA requirements), there are
no other large visibility impairing point
sources of SO2 or NOX in the State, and
the State’s overall small contributions to
80 82
FR 35454.
CT RH Submittal at 19–27, 46.
82 See table 4–1 of the CT RH SIP.
83 See id.
81 See
76 See
77 See
CT RH SIP Submittal, table 5–2.
id. at 75.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
78 81
79 86
PO 00000
FR 33134.
FR 37053; 82 FR 35454.
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58679
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
58680
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
visibility impairment in nearby Class I
areas.
For the above reasons, the EPA
proposes to find that Connecticut’s SIP
submittal satisfies the requirements that
a State submit a long-term strategy that
addresses regional haze visibility
impairment for each mandatory Class I
Federal area that may be affected by
emissions from the State and that the
long-term strategy include the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress determined by
considering the four factors.
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy
Requirements
The consultation requirements of
§ 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide that states must
consult with other states that are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinated 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.
Connecticut participated in and
provided documentation of the
MANEVU intra- and inter-RPO
consultation processes, which included
consulting with both MANEVU and
non-MANEVU states about emissions
from Connecticut reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in
Class I areas within the MANEVU area
and in adjacent areas. The consultations
addressed developing coordinated
emission management strategies
containing the emission reductions
necessary to make reasonable progress
at the Class I areas impacted by
emissions from States within MANEVU.
Connecticut addressed the MANEVU
Asks by providing information on the
enforceable measures it has in place that
satisfy each Ask.84 While Connecticut
did not receive any requests from nonMANEVU states to consider additional
measures to address visibility
impairment in Class I areas outside
MANEVU, MANEVU documented
disagreements that occurred during
consultation. For instance, MANEVU
noted in its Consultation Report that
upwind states expressed concern
regarding the analyses the RPO utilized
84 See ‘‘MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation
Report.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
for the selection of states for the
consultation. MANEVU 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.
MANEVU agreed that the choice of base
year is critical to the outcome of the
study. MANEVU acknowledged that
there were newer versions of the
emission inventories and the need to
use the best available inventory for each
analysis. MANEVU, however,
concluded that the selected inventories
were appropriate for the analysis.
Additionally, upwind states noted that
they would not be able to address the
MANEVU Asks until they finalize their
SIPs. MANEVU believed the assumption
of the implementation of the Asks from
upwind states in its 2028 control case
modeling was reasonable, and
Connecticut included both the 2028
base case and control case modeling
results in its SIP, representing visibility
conditions at the Class 1 areas in the
MANU–VU States assuming upwind
states do not and do implement the
Asks, respectively.
In sum, Connecticut participated in
the MANEVU intra- and inter-RPO
consultation and included in its SIP
submittal the measures identified and
agreed to during those consultations,
thereby satisfying § 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A)
and (B). Connecticut satisfied
§ 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) by participating in
MANEVU’s consultation process, which
documented the disagreements between
the upwind states and MANEVU and
explained MANEVU’s reasoning on
each of the disputed issues. Based on
the entirety of MANEVU’s intra- and
inter-RPO consultation and MANEVU’s
and Connecticut’s responses to
comments on the SIP submission and
various technical analyses therein, we
propose to determine that Connecticut
has satisfied the consultation
requirements of § 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
The documentation requirement of
§ 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, Connecticut chose to
rely on MANEVU’s technical
information, modeling, and analysis to
support development of its long-term
strategy. The MANEVU technical
analyses on which Connecticut relied
are listed in the state’s SIP submission
and include source contribution
assessments, information on each of the
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
four factors and visibility modeling
information for certain EGUs, and
evaluations of emission reduction
strategies for specific source categories.
Connecticut also provided additional
information to further demonstrate the
technical bases and emission
information 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
Connecticut satisfies this requirement of
§ 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. Connecticut’s SIP submission
included 2017 NEI emission data for
NOX, SO2, PM, VOCs and NH3 and 2017
Air Markets Program Data (AMPD)
emissions for NOX and SO2. Based on
Connecticut’s consideration and
analysis of the 2017 and 2019 emission
data in its SIP submittal, the EPA
proposes to find that Connecticut has
satisfied the emissions information
requirement in § 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
We also propose to find that
Connecticut reasonably considered the
five additional factors in
§ 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing its longterm strategy. Pursuant to
§ 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), Connecticut 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.
Connecticut included in its SIP a
comprehensive lists of control measures
and other requirements that will
continue to reduce emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants,
identifying the source category and
corresponding Connecticut regulatory
provisions. These measures include SIP
approved revisions to RCSA section
22a–174–38 (82 FR 35454) to obtain
NOX emission reductions from
municipal waste combustors;
implementation of RCSA sections 22a–
174–22e (86 FR 37053) and 22a–174–22f
(82 FR 35454) to obtain NOX emissions
from major and minor sources of NOX;
and implementation of the last phase of
RCSA section 22a–174–19b (81 FR
33134) to reduce sulfur oxide emissions
from fuel burning sources.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Connecticut’s consideration of
measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities as required by
§ 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B) includes, in section
8.2 of its SIP submission, measures that
Connecticut has implemented to
mitigate the impacts from such
activities. Connecticut has implemented
standards that reduce fugitive dust
emissions from construction, rules to
address exhaust emissions including
rules to limit the idling of vehicles and
equipment, rules to reduce allowable
smoke from on-road diesel engines, and
general conformity rules.
Pursuant to § 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C),
source retirements and replacement
schedules are addressed in section 8.3
of Connecticut’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
MANEVU contribution assessment and
that were subsequently retired are
described in section 8.3 of the
Connecticut submission. Connecticut
calculated a net reduction of
approximately 8,990 tons per year (tpy)
of allowable NOX emissions and 17,350
tpy of allowable SO2 emissions between
the 2011 base year and the 2028
projected year based on EGU
retirements (including retirement of the
last coal-fired unit in the state) and
replacement during that time with lower
emitting units.
In considering smoke management as
required in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D),
Connecticut explained, in section 8.4 of
its submission, that it addresses smoke
management through a program under
state law at CGS section 22a–174(f) that
authorizes open burning (including
prescribed burns for agriculture and
wildland vegetation management
purposes) through permits issued by
municipal officials but limits it on poor
air quality days, thereby reducing the
impacts of prescribed burns on
visibility. EPA approved this program
into Connecticut’s SIP on September 1,
2016. 81 FR 60274. Connecticut
considers these efforts to be sufficient to
protect visibility in Class I areas,
including from agriculture- and forestryrelated smoke. The EPA agrees that
Connecticut adequately considered
smoke management practices as part of
its submittal as required by
§ 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D).
Connecticut considered the
anticipated net effect of projected
changes in emissions as required by
§ 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E) by discussing, in
section 8.1 of its submission, various
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
programs and state regulations that
control emissions from the State’s point,
area, and mobile sources. Connecticut,
through its nonattainment status for the
2008 and 2015 ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, is required to
implement programs to reduce vehicle
miles traveled (VMTs), which will
reduce emissions in the mobile source
sector. This sector also contributes to
regional haze, so any reductions would
have the added benefit of helping to
improve visibility. Additionally, section
6 of the Connecticut submittal contains
emissions projections for 2028, modeled
in collaboration with MANEVU. These
projected emissions incorporate the
impact of strategies that are on-thebooks, anticipated growth in the
respective sector, and anticipated unit
closures and the MANEVU ‘‘Ask.’’ The
2028 inventory projections demonstrate
an overall reduction in emissions
between the 2011 base year and 2028
modeled year thus, satisfying
(f)(2)(iv)(e).
Because Connecticut has reasonably
considered each of the five additional
factors, the EPA proposes to find that
Connecticut 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. Because Connecticut
does not host a Class I area, it is not
subject to either § 51.308(f)(3)(i) or
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A). 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 glidepath, the upwind state must
provide the same demonstration.
None of the Class I areas in or
adjacent to the MANEVU region have
RPGs above their respective URP
glidepath. Table 2–1 of Connecticut’s
SIP submittal summarizes baseline
visibility conditions (i.e., visibility
conditions during 2000–2004) for the
most impaired and clearest days at each
area as well as information on natural
visibility conditions. Table 2–3 of the
submittal shows the values on the URP
glidepaths for 2028. Figures 7–1 and 7–
2 summarize the 2028 RPG for the most
impaired days for each area, as well as
the modeled 2028 base case
(representing visibility conditions in
2028 with existing controls),
respectively. These visibility conditions,
as well as the 2028 reasonable progress
goals for the clearest days, are also
included. The 2028 RPGs for each Class
I area are well below their respective
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58681
URP glidepaths. Therefore,
§ 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) is not applicable to
Connecticut.
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. Since Connecticut does not
contain any Class I areas, it is not
required to submit the monitoring
strategy referenced in § 51.308(f)(6), nor
are the requirements in § 51.308(f)(6)(i),
(ii), and (iv) applicable.
40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iii), however,
applies to states with no Class I areas
(such as Connecticut) and requires them
to include in their Regional Haze SIPs
procedures by which monitoring data
and other information are used in
determining the contribution of
emissions from within the state to
visibility impairment at Class I areas in
other states. Monitoring in Connecticut
that contributes data for assessing
visibility is described in section 2.1 of
the Connecticut SIP submission.85
Visibility data analysis procedures are
described in the MANEVU visibility
data report. Other procedures and data
used for determining Connecticut
contribution to visibility impairment are
described in section 4 of the
Connecticut SIP and the MANEVU
documents referenced.86 An IMPROVE
monitor at the Mohawk Mountain site in
Connecticut provides data to assess
current visibility, track changes in
visibility, and help determine the causes
of visibility impairment in Class I areas
in the region.
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. Connecticut
provides for emissions inventories and
estimates for future projected emissions
by participating in the MANEVU 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
85 Connecticut’s submission contains two sections
identified as 2.1. The first one discusses the
IMPROVE monitoring network.
86 Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility Data,
2004–2019 (2nd RH SIP Metrics).
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
58682
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
emissions inventories for criteria
pollutants to EPA’s Emissions Inventory
System (EIS) every three years. The
emission inventory data are 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 3 of Connecticut’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. Connecticut
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.
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. Connecticut relied on the
MANEVU 2028 emissions projections
for MANEVU states. MANEVU
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
MANEVU Asks.87
The EPA proposes to find that
Connecticut has met the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) as described above,
including through its continued
participation in the MANEVU RPO and
its on-going compliance with the AERR,
and that no further elements are
necessary at this time for Connecticut to
assess and report on visibility pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). Connecticut’s
SIP submittal also includes a
commitment to update the statewide
emissions inventory periodically.
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 any Class I area within the
state and each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions
from within that state. Sections
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
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, § 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 that 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.
Connecticut’s submission describes
the status of measures of the long-term
strategy from the first implementation
period.88 As a member of MANEVU,
Connecticut considered the MANEVU
Asks and adopted corresponding
measures into its long-term strategy for
the first implementation period. The
MANEVU Asks were: (1) Timely
implementation of Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART)
requirements; (2) EGU controls
including Controls at 167 Key Sources
that most affect MANEVU Class I areas;
(3) Low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (4)
Continued evaluation of other control
measures. Connecticut 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 SO2 emissions. The
reductions achieved led to vast
improvements in visibility at the
MANEVU Federal Class I Areas due to
reduced sulfates formed from SO2
87 See ‘‘OTC MANEVU 2011 Based Modeling
Platform Support Document October 2018—Final.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
88 See
section 5.5 of the CT RH SIP.
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
emissions. Connecticut describes the
control measures that help control the
emissions of VOCs, NOX, PM and SO2
from a wide range of sources in the SIP
submission and identifies BART and
Alternative to BART requirements in
section 5.5. The submission also
includes periodic emission data that
demonstrate a decrease in VOCs, NOX,
PM and SO2 emissions throughout the
state.89
The EPA proposes to find that
Connecticut 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.
Pursuant to § 51.308(g)(4), in section 3
of its submittal, Connecticut 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. With respect
to sources that report directly to the
EPA, Connecticut also included AMPD
state summary data for SO2 and NOX
emissions for 2018 and 2019.
The reductions achieved by
Connecticut emission control measures
are seen in the emissions inventory.
Based on Connecticut’s SIP submission,
NOX emissions have steadily declined
in Connecticut from 2002 through 2017,
especially in the point, nonroad and
onroad mobile sectors. 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.
Emissions of SO2 have shown a decline
of 93% in Connecticut over the period
2002 to 2017. Connecticut attributes the
reductions in point emissions to fuel
switching from coal and oil to natural
gas, federal and state low sulfur fuel
regulations, NOX budget and successor
programs for power plants and the
retirement of older units as well as
improved controls on new units. Since
some components of the MANEVU low
sulfur fuel strategy were not
implemented until 2018, and as
MANEVU states continue to adopt rules
to implement the strategy, additional
SO2 emissions reductions are expected
to continue into the future.
Table 3–11 of Connecticut’s
submission shows VOC emissions from
all NEI data categories for the period
2002 to 2017 in Connecticut. VOC
emissions have shown a steady decline
in Connecticut over this period. VOC
89 See
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
section 3 of the CT RH SIP.
19JYP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
decreases were achieved in all sectors
due to Federal new engine standards for
onroad and nonroad vehicles and
equipment, the National and State low
emission vehicle programs, SIPapproved area source rules such as
consumer products, portable fuel
containers, paints, autobody refinishing,
asphalt paving applications, and solvent
cleaning operations, and VOC storage
tank rules.
In Connecticut’s submission, table 3–
14 shows a summary of PM10 emissions
from all NEI data categories point,
nonpoint, non-road, and onroad for the
period from 2002 to 2017 in
Connecticut. In Connecticut, PM10
emissions steadily decreased in the
point, nonpoint, and nonroad categories
for the period from 2002 to 2017. The
apparent increase in the onroad
emissions is due to changes in emission
inventory calculation methodologies,
which resulted in higher particulate
matter estimates. The variation in
emissions in the nonpoint category is
due to changes in calculation
methodologies for residential wood
burning and fugitive dust categories,
which have varied significantly.
Table 3–17 of Connecticut’s
submission shows a summary of PM2.5
emissions from all NEI data categories
for the period from 2002 to 2017 in
Connecticut. PM2.5 emissions steadily
decreased in the nonroad category for
the period from 2002 to 2014. Most
reductions came from the nonpoint
category, which experienced periodic
variation in emissions due to changes in
calculation methodologies for
residential wood burning and fugitive
dust categories. The decrease in
nonroad PM2.5 emissions can likely be
attributed to new Federal engine
standards for nonroad vehicles and
equipment.90 Similarly, an overall
decrease in onroad emissions can be
attributed to Federal and State vehicle
regulations and standards, which
impose increasingly tighter emissions
limits with incremental model year
vehicles.91 The increase in emissions in
the onroad category from 2002 to 2008
is due to changes in emission inventory
calculation methodologies and a model
change, as previously explained, which
resulted in higher fine particulate matter
estimates.
Table 3–20 of Connecticut’s
submission shows ammonia (NH3)
emissions from all NEI data categories
for the period 2002 to 2017 in
90 See https://www.epa.gov/emission-standardsreference-guide/epa-emission-standards-nonroadengines-and-vehicles for info on the EPA’s nonroad
engine programs.
91 See 80 FR 13768.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
Connecticut. Though ammonia
decreases were achieved in the onroad
sector due to Federal new engine
standards for vehicles and equipment,
increases and decreases from 2002 to
2017 in the other categories are due to
reporting, grouping and methodology
changes. There was little change to
nonroad ammonia emissions. Overall,
ammonia emissions have decreased
from 2008 to 2017.
The EPA is proposing to find that
Connecticut has satisfied the
requirements of § 51.308(g)(4) by
providing emissions information for
NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, VOCs, and NH3
broken down by type of source.
Connecticut uses the emissions trend
data in the SIP submission to support
the assessment that anthropogenic hazecausing pollutant emissions in
Connecticut have decreased during the
reporting period and that changes in
emissions have not limited or impeded
progress in reducing pollutant
emissions and improving visibility. The
data Connecticut presents for NOX, SO2,
VOCs, PM10, PM2.5, and NH3 show
consistently declining emissions of
those pollutants. The EPA is proposing
to find that Connecticut has met the
requirements of § 51.308(g)(5).
I. Requirements for State and Federal
Land Manager Coordination
Section 169A(d) of the CAA 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,
§ 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, but 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 requires that the
consultation 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 visibility
impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3)
requires states, in developing their
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58683
implementation plans, to include a
description of how they addressed
FLMs’ comments.
The states in the MANEVU 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. Connecticut participated in
these consultation meetings and calls.92
As part of this early engagement with
the FLMs, on April 12, 2018, the NPS
sent letters to the MANEVU states
requesting that they consider specific
individual sources in their long-term
strategies.93 NPS used an analysis of
emissions divided by distance (Q/d) to
estimate the impact of MANEVU
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 MANEVU 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 but relative to just
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 nine facilities in
Connecticut in this letter.94 Connecticut
addressed the NPS initial letter in
section 5.4 of its proposed SIP.
Connecticut explained that five of the
facilities are municipal waste
combustors that became subject to more
stringent NOX and ammonia limits in
2017 through the implementation of
SIP-approved RCSA 22a–174–38 (82 FR
35454) and whose emissions have, as a
result, been reduced from the levels the
NPS noted in its initial letter.95 In
addition, units at four of the other
facilities became subject to more
92 See ‘‘MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation
Report and Consultation Documentation—Final.’’
93 Id.
94 Id.
95 Connecticut RH Submittal at 53–55.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58684
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
stringent NOX limits in 2023 through
the implementation of RCSA 22a–174–
22e, which is also in Connecticut’s SIP
(86 FR 37053).96 Further, the coalburning unit at one of these latter
facilities retired in 2021 (that is,
Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3),97 and, as
noted earlier, DEEP revoked the permit.
Finally, DEEP explained that the
Cromwell compressor station has also
reduced its emissions from those noted
by the NPS for this facility.98 In 2019,
the facility replaced several engines
with more efficient and lower-emitting
turbines that are subject to the NOX
emission limits in RCSA 22a–174–22e
that meet the ‘‘strive for’’ limits in Ask
5 (i.e., 25 ppmvd).99 100 This facility is
located in a severe nonattainment area
and was issued a New Source Review
permit for the new turbines.
On January 15, 2020, Connecticut sent
the proposed SIP, including the above
explanations of how it addressed the
FLM comments, to representatives of
the NPS, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS),
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
for a 60-day review and comment period
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) before
making it available for public comment.
Connecticut received comments from
the NPS and the USFS. Connecticut
included responses to the comments in
appendix A of its submission to EPA, in
accordance with § 51.308(i)(3). In its
comments, the NPS requested that the
State consider 4 municipal waste
combustors (MWCs) for four-factor
analysis. In response to NPS’s request,
Connecticut again noted that MWCs in
the State are already subject to SIP
approved 22a–174–38. Connecticut also
noted that the state is currently in
nonattainment for both the 2008 and
2015 ozone standards and is required to
impose RACT and obtain emission
reductions of ozone precursors of not
less than 3% per year in order to attain
the ozone standards. Related to the
RACT requirement, CT DEEP explained
that it actively participates in an Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC)
workgroup to evaluate and compare
emissions from MWCs and pursue more
stringent regulation of their NOX
emissions. CT DEEP explained that the
State has already committed in its RACT
SIP to act on the information compiled
by this workgroup and adhere to the
resultant OTC recommendations for
96 Id.
97 Id.
98 Id.
at 54–55.
at 55 (table 5–3).
99 Id.
100 The permit restricts these turbines to a ppmvd
NOX emission limit, well below the ‘‘strive for’’
limits of Ask 5.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
MWC emission limits.101 CT DEEP also
responded to comments from the USFS
regarding three EGUs.102
On December 3, 2020, CT DEEP
issued a notice of public hearing and
comment and the availability of the
draft Regional Haze SIP revision for
2018–2028 on CT DEEP’s Public Notices
and Hearings web page. The document
announced the opportunity to submit
written comments until January 29,
2021, as well as a public hearing
proposed for January 29, 2021, provided
such hearing was requested. No such
request was received, and the hearing
was cancelled. The Connecticut SIP
submittal contains the public comments
received and CT DEEP’s responses,
including responses to additional
comments received from the NPS during
the public comment period.
For the reasons stated above, the EPA
proposes to find that Connecticut 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.
J. Other Required Commitments
Connecticut’s January 5, 2022, SIP
submission includes a commitment to
revise and submit a regional haze SIP in
2028, and every ten years thereafter. The
state’s commitment includes submitting
periodic progress reports in accordance
with § 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
§ 51.308(g).
V. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
‘‘Connecticut Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan Revision Second
Planning Period (2018–2028)’’, Final
Submittal dated November 2021 and
submitted to EPA on January 5, 2022, as
satisfying the regional haze
requirements for the second
implementation period contained in 40
CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
101 See Appendix A—Summary of Comments
from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Federal Land Managers (FLMs) with Responses
from the Department.
102 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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); and
• 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.
In addition, this proposed rulemaking
action, pertaining to Connecticut
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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies
to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 air agency 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.
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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: July 15, 2024.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2024–15857 Filed 7–18–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
[EPA–R06–OAR–2020–0610; FRL–11996–
01–R6]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Air Quality Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants; Oklahoma;
Control of Emissions From Existing
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing to approve the CAA section
111(d)/129 state plan revision submitted
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jul 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
by the State of Oklahoma for sources
subject to the Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
units (CISWI) Emission Guidelines (EG).
The Oklahoma CISWI plan was
submitted to fulfill state obligations
under CAA section 111(d)/129 to
implement and enforce the
requirements under the CISWI EG. The
EPA is proposing to approve the state
plan and amend the agency regulations
in accordance with the requirements of
the CAA.
Written comments must be
received on or before August 19, 2024.
DATES:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2020–0610, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
ruan-lei.karolina@epa.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, please
contact Karolina Ruan Lei, (214) 665–
7346, ruan-lei.karolina@epa.gov. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may not be
publicly available due to docket file size
restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karolina Ruan Lei, EPA Region 6 Office,
Air and Radiation Division—State
Planning and Implementation Branch
(R6–ARSH), (214) 665–7346, ruanlei.karolina@epa.gov. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://
www.regulations.gov. Please call or
email the contact listed above if you
need alternative access to material
indexed but not provided in the docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58685
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
I. Background
A. Clean Air Act Section 111(d)/129
Requirements
Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA
require states to submit plans to control
certain pollutants (designated
pollutants) at existing solid waste
combustor facilities (designated
facilities) whenever standards of
performance have been established
under section 111(b) for new sources of
the same type, and the EPA has
established emission guidelines for such
existing sources. CAA section 129
directs the EPA to establish standards of
performance for new sources (NSPS)
and emissions guidelines (EG) for
existing 1 sources for each category of
solid waste incinerator specified in CAA
section 129. Under CAA section 129,
NSPS and EG must contain numerical
emissions limitations for particulate
matter, opacity (as appropriate), sulfur
dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of
nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead,
cadmium, mercury, and dioxins and
dibenzofurans. While NSPS are directly
applicable to new sources, EG for
existing sources (designated facilities)
are intended for states to use to develop
a state plan to submit to the EPA. When
designated facilities are located in a
state, the state must then develop and
submit a plan for the control of the
designated pollutants.
State plan submittals and revisions
under CAA section 111(d) must be
consistent with the applicable EG and
the requirements of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart B, and part 62, subpart A. The
regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B,
contain general provisions applicable to
the adoption and submittal of state
plans and plan revisions under CAA
section 111(d). Additionally, 40 CFR
part 62, subpart A, provides the
procedural framework by which the
EPA will approve or disapprove such
plans and plan revisions submitted by a
state. Once approved by the EPA, the
state plan becomes federally
enforceable. If a state does not submit an
approvable state plan to the EPA, the
EPA is responsible for developing,
implementing, and enforcing a federal
plan. However, 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 40
CFR 62.06 provide that if there are no
1 In this context and for purposes under CAA
section 111(d)/129, the term ‘‘existing’’ source is
synonymous with designated facility. These are
sources that were constructed, reconstructed, or
modified on or before the date specified in the
emission guideline the source applies to.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58663-58685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15857]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0186; FRL-12105-01-R1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; 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 Connecticut on January 5, 2022, as satisfying applicable
requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
for the program's second implementation period. Connecticut'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 the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 19, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2023-0186 at https://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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Rackauskas, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, Air Quality Branch, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, (Mail code 5-MI), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number:
(617) 918-1628, email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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. The EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's Regional Haze Submission
for the Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Connecticut's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
B. Connecticut'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
a. Connecticut's Response to the Six MANEVU Asks
b. The EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's Response to the Six
MANEVU Asks and Compliance With Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i)
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
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
J. Other Required Commitments
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On January 5, 2022, the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted a revision to its SIP to
address regional haze for the second implementation period. CT DEEP
made this SIP submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's
regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR
51.308. The EPA is proposing to find that the Connecticut regional haze
SIP submission for the second implementation period meets the
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and thus proposes to
approve Connecticut'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
section 169A. The CAA establishes as a national goal
[[Page 58664]]
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 section
169A(a)(1). The CAA further directs the EPA to promulgate regulations
to assure reasonable progress toward meeting this national goal. CAA
section 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 section 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
section 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 section 169A(b)(2); \4\ see also 40 CFR
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional
haze SIP revisions); (64 FR 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 section 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 section
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 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),
(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 section 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 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), (d)(2).
[[Page 58665]]
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), (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), (h)--and to consult with the Federal Land Manager(s)
\7\ (FLMs) responsible for each Class I area according to the
requirements in CAA section 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 at 35731-32. 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 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. 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).
\9\ Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans for the Second Implementation Period. https://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. https://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. https://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 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
[[Page 58666]]
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 (MANEVU), 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 MANEVU 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 section 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, Sec.
51.308(f) lays out the process by which states determine what
constitutes their long-term strategies, with the order of the
requirements in Sec. 51.308(f)(1) through (f)(3) generally mirroring
the order of the steps in the reasonable progress analysis \14\ and
(f)(4) through (f)(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), (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. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). Additionally, as
further explained below, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ``additional factors'' \15\ that states must consider in
developing their long-term strategies. 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)-(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 Sec.
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 revisions for the
second implementation period must address the requirements in Sec.
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 section
169(b)(2); CAA section 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 section 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 states contribute to visibility
impairment in at least one Class I area, 64 FR at 35720-22, 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
[[Page 58667]]
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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 at 3103-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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), (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:
``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 per year, 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 3107 footnote 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 at 3093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 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 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
[[Page 58668]]
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 non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements.'' CAA section 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 CAA 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 at 3091. 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 section 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 at
3088. 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 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
[[Page 58669]]
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, Sec.
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, Sec. 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 Sec. 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
section 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 at 3108-09 (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
Sec. 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, Sec. 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 Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 485,
490 (2004); Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165
(3d Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
[[Page 58670]]
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 Sec.
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, Sec. 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 at 3091. 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)-(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, Sec. 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 show 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 at 3097-98.
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
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
[[Page 58671]]
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 at 3093,
3099-3100; 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),
(f)(6)(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), (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 Sec. 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 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, Sec.
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 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), (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), (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.
[[Page 58672]]
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
CAA 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. The EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's Regional Haze Submission for
the Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Connecticut's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
CT DEEP submitted its regional haze SIP for the first
implementation period to the EPA on November 18, 2009, and supplemented
it on February 24, 2012, and March 12, 2012. The EPA approved
Connecticut's first implementation period regional haze SIP submission
on July 10, 2014 (79 FR 39322). EPA's approval included, but was not
limited to, the portions of the plan that address the reasonable
progress requirements, Connecticut's maintenance of nitrogen oxide
emissions controls, as well as Connecticut's low sulfur fuel program.
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), Connecticut was also responsible for
submitting a five-year progress report as a SIP revision for the first
implementation period, which it did on June 30, 2015. The EPA approved
the progress report into the Connecticut SIP on November 26, 2019 (84
FR 65007).
B. Connecticut'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 January 5, 2022, Connecticut submitted a revision to the
Connecticut SIP to address its regional haze obligations for the second
implementation period, which runs through 2028. Connecticut made a
draft Regional Haze SIP submission available for public comment on
December 3, 2020. Connecticut has included the public comments and its
responses to those comments in the submission.
The following sections describe Connecticut's SIP submission,
including analyses conducted by MANEVU and Connecticut's determinations
based on those analyses, Connecticut'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 Connecticut'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 (f)(2), which requires each state's plan to include a
long-term strategy that addresses regional haze in such Class I areas.
Connecticut has no mandatory Class I Federal area within its borders.
For the second implementation period, MANEVU performed technical
analyses \31\ to help assess source and state-level contributions to
visibility impairment and the need for interstate consultation. MANEVU
used the results of these analyses to determine which states' emissions
``have a high likelihood of affecting visibility in MANEVU's Class I
areas.'' \32\ Similar to metrics used in the first implementation
period,\33\ MANEVU 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 MANEVU 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The contribution assessment methodologies for MANEVU Class
I areas are summarized in CT RH SIP appendix ``Selection of States
for MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation (2018),'' MANEVU TSC.
September 5, 2017.
\32\ Id.
\33\ See docket EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0186 for MANEVU supporting
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One MANEVU analysis used for contribution assessment was CALPUFF
air dispersion modeling. The CALPUFF model was used to estimate sulfate
and nitrate formation and transport in MANEVU 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 \34\ that considered recent SO2
[[Page 58673]]
emissions in the eastern United States and an analysis that adjusted
previous 2002 MANEVU 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 MANEVU Class I areas.\35\
Overall, MANEVU found that emission sources located close to Class I
areas typically show higher visibility impacts than similarly sized
facilities further away. However, visibility degradation appears to be
dominated by the more distant emission sources due to their larger
emissions. Connecticut had three EGUs identified in the CALPUFF
modeling as having a magnitude of emissions located close enough to a
Class I area that they could have the potential for visibility impacts:
Middletown Unit 4, Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3, and New Haven
Harbor Unit 1.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ ``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.
\35\ See ``2016 MANEVU Source Contribution Modeling Report--
CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical Generating Units and Industrial
Sources.'' MANEVU TSC. April 4, 2017.
\36\ Connecticut Regional Haze SIP Revision at 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 at 35721, 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.
The screening analyses on which MANEVU relied are useful for
certain purposes. MANEVU used information from its technical analysis
to rank the largest contributing states to sulfate and nitrate
impairment in the seven MANEVU Class I areas and three additional,
nearby Class I areas.\37\ The rankings were used to determine upwind
states that MANEVU deemed important to include in state-to-state
consultation based on an identified visibility impact screening
threshold. Additionally, large individual source impacts were used to
target MANEVU control analysis ``Asks'' \38\ of states and sources both
within and upwind of MANEVU.\39\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The Class I areas analyzed were Acadia National Park in
Maine, Brigantine Wilderness in New Jersey, Great Gulf Wilderness
and Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness in New Hampshire, Lye
Brook Wilderness in Vermont, Moosehorn Wilderness in Maine,
Roosevelt Campobello International Park in New Brunswick, Shenandoah
National Park in Virginia, James River Face Wilderness in Virginia,
and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek Wildernesses in West Virginia.
\38\ As explained more fully in section IV.E.a., MANEVU refers
to each of the components of its overall strategy as an ``Ask ``of
its member states.
\39\ The MANEVU consultation report explains that ``[t]he
objective of this technical work was to identify states and sources
from which MANEVU 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
Connecticut's contribution to visibility impairment at out-of-state
Class I areas, the MANEVU technical work focuses on the magnitude of
visibility impacts from certain Connecticut emissions on nearby Class I
areas. The MANEVU contribution screening results estimate Connecticut's
highest percent mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate contribution to be
1.4% at Moosehorn Wilderness and Roosevelt Campobello International
Park, with Acadia National Park and the Lye Brook Wilderness the next
closest Class I areas impacted by Connecticut emissions at 1.3% and
1.2%, respectively.\40\ However, the MANEVU analyses did not account
for all 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. The EPA acknowledges that the contribution to visibility
impairment from Connecticut's emissions at nearby out-of-state Class I
areas is smaller than that from numerous other states. While some
MANEVU states noted that the contributions from several states outside
the MANEVU region are significantly 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 Connecticut 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 Connecticut have relatively small
contributions to Class I areas. However, due to the low triggering
threshold implied by the Rule and the lack of rigorous modeling
analyses, we do not necessarily agree with the level of the State's 2%
contribution threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See table 4-1 of the CT RH SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any event, pursuant to the regulatory requirements, Connecticut
took part in the emission control strategy consultation process as a
member of MANEVU. As part of that process, MANEVU developed a set of
emissions reduction measures identified as being necessary to make
reasonable progress in the seven MANEVU Class I areas. This strategy
consists of six Asks for states within MANEVU and five Asks for states
outside the region that were found to impact visibility at Class I
areas within MANEVU.\41\ Connecticut's submission 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
the MANEVU states laid out. Connecticut worked with MANEVU to determine
potential reasonable
[[Page 58674]]
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.\42\ As discussed in further detail below,
the EPA is proposing to find that Connecticut 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. Thus, we propose to find that
Connecticut has satisfied the applicable requirements for making
reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas that may be affected by emissions from the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See section 5.1 of the CT RH SIP.
\42\ See 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
Connecticut has no Class I areas. MANEVU Class I areas, as well as
other nearby Class I areas that MANEVU examined, are listed below.
MANEVU used certain areas (as noted below) to represent nearby Class I
areas where monitors do not exist.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility Data, 2004-2017 (2nd
RH SIP Metrics). MANEVU (prepared by Maine Department of
Environmental Protection). December 18, 2018 revision. p.2-1
(appendix 22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MANEVU Class I Areas are Lye Brook Wilderness Area (Vermont),
Great Gulf Wilderness Area (New Hampshire) (used to represent
Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness Area), Presidential Range--Dry
River Wilderness Area (New Hampshire), Acadia National Park (Maine),
Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge (Maine) (used to represent Roosevelt
Campobello International Park), Roosevelt Campobello International Park
(New Brunswick, Canada), Brigantine Wildlife Refuge (New Jersey).
Nearby Class I Areas consist of Dolly Sods Wilderness Area (West
Virginia) (used to represent Otter Creek Wilderness Area), Otter Creek
Wilderness Area (West Virginia), Shenandoah National Park (Virginia),
and James River Face Wilderness Area (Virginia).
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
a. Connecticut's Response to the Six MANEVU 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 section 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 Sec. 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)(i).
The following section summarizes how Connecticut's SIP submission
addressed the requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i); specifically, it
describes MANEVU's development of the six Asks and how Connecticut
addressed each. The regulations Connecticut identifies as a result of
its responses to the six Asks comprise Connecticut's long-term strategy
for the second planning period to address regional haze visibility
impairment for each mandatory Class I Federal area that may be affected
by emissions from Connecticut. When developing the Asks with the other
MANEVU states and applying them to sources in Connecticut, the State
considered the four statutory factors and the additional regulatory
factors and identified emissions control measures necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the goal of preventing of any future, and
remedying any existing, anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I
areas that may be affected by emissions from Connecticut. Connecticut's
SIP submission describes how it plans to meet the long-term strategy
requirements defined by the State and MANEVU via its responses to the
``Asks.'' The EPA's evaluation of Connecticut's long-term strategy is
contained in section IV.E.b.
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 Sec. 51.308(f). Where an RPO has performed source
selection and/or four-factor analyses (or considered the five
additional factors in Sec. 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 Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the
states have a reasonable basis to do so and all state participants in
the RPO process have approved the technical analyses. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii). States may also satisfy the requirement of Sec.
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.
Connecticut is a member of the MANEVU RPO and participated in the
RPO's regional approach to developing a strategy for making reasonable
progress towards the national visibility goal in the MANEVU Class I
areas. MANEVU's strategy includes a combination of: (1) measures for
certain source sectors and groups of sectors that the RPO determined
were reasonable for
[[Page 58675]]
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. MANEVU 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 MANEVU, on behalf of the
MANEVU states and tribal nations, signed a statement that identifies
six emission reduction measures that comprise the Asks for the second
implementation period.\44\ The Asks were ``designed to identify
reasonable emission reduction strategies that must be addressed by the
states and tribal nations of MANEVU through their regional haze SIP
updates.'' \45\ 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.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report and
Consultation Documentation--Final.''
\45\ Id.
\46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANEVU'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, Connecticut's regional
haze SIP submission. One of the initial steps of MANEVU'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, MANEVU 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, MANEVU 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) \47\ at MANEVU
and nearby Class I areas. MANEVU found that while SO2
emissions were decreasing and visibility was improving, sulfates still
made up the most significant contribution to visibility impairment at
MANEVU 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 as SO2 emissions have
decreased. The technical analyses used by Connecticut are included in
its submission and are as follows: \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ The period of 2012-2016 was the most recent period for
which data were available at the time of analysis.
\48\ These documents can be found in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Updates to the Assessment of Reasonable Progress for
Regional Haze in MANEVU Class I Areas;
Impact of Wintertime SCR/SNCR Optimization on Visibility
Impairing Nitrate Precursor Emissions. November 2017;
High Electric Demand Days and Visibility Impairment in
MANEVU. December 2017;
Benefits of Combined Heat and Power Systems for Reducing
Pollutant Emissions in MANEVU States. March 2016;
2016 MANEVU Source Contribution Modeling Report--CALPUFF
Modeling of Large Electrical Generating Units and Industrial Sources.
April 4, 2017;
Contribution Assessment Preliminary Inventory Analysis.
October 10, 2016;
Four-Factor Data Collection Memo. March 2017;
Status of the Top 167 Stacks from the 2008 MANEVU Ask.
July 2016;
Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility Data, 2004-2019
(2nd RH SIP Metrics);
Selection of States for MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation
2018;
Ozone Transport Commission/MANEVU 2011 Based Modeling
Platform Support Document October (2018 Update).
MANEVU gathered information on each of the four statutory factors
for six source sectors it determined, based on an examination of annual
emission inventories, ``had emissions [of SO2 and/or
NOX] that were reasonabl[y] anticipated to contribute to
visibility degradation in MANEVU:'' electric generating units (EGUs),
industrial/commercial/institutional boilers (ICI boilers), cement
kilns, heating oil, residential wood combustion, and outdoor wood
combustion.\49\ MANEVU also collected data on individual sources within
the EGU, ICI boiler, and cement kiln sectors.\50\ 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.\51\
Source-specific data included SO2 emissions \52\ and
existing controls \53\ for certain existing EGUs, ICI boilers, and
cement kilns. MANEVU 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.\54\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See ``MANEVU Four Factor Data Collection Memo,'' at 1,
March 30, 2017.
\50\ See ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of Reasonable Progress
for Regional Haze in MANEVU Class I Areas,'' Jan. 31, 2016.
\51\ Id.
\52\ See ``Four Factor Data Collection Memo.''
\53\ See ``Status of the Top 167 Stacks from the 2008 MANEVU
Ask. July 2016.''
\54\ See ``Four Factor Data Collection Memo''; 2016 Updates to
the Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANEVU
Class I Areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANEVU Ask 1 is ``Electric Generating Units (EGUs) with a nameplate
capacity larger than or equal to 25 MW with already installed
NOX and/or SO2 controls--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.'' MANEVU observed that EGUs often only
run NOX emissions controls to comply with ozone season
trading programs and consequently, NOX sources may be
uncontrolled during the winter and non-peak summer days. MANEVU found
that: (1) running existing installed controls [selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)] is one of
the most cost-effective ways to control NOX emissions from
EGUs; and (2) that running existing controls year-round could
substantially reduce the NOX emissions in many of the states
upwind of Class I areas in MANEVU that lead to visibility impairment
during the winter from nitrates.\55\ MANEVU included this as an
emission management strategy because large EGUs had already been
identified as dominant contributors to visibility impairment and the
low cost of running already installed controls made it reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See ``Impact of Wintertime SCR/SNCR Optimization on
Visibility Impairing Nitrate Precursor Emissions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut identified 33 EGU units that meet the criteria of 25 MW
or larger
[[Page 58676]]
with installed controls.\56\ Connecticut explained that all of these
units identified are turbines with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
to control nitrogen oxides with the exception of Middletown Unit 3,
which is a boiler controlled by Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
(SNCR) to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides. Connecticut further
explained that these sources are subject to requirements to maintain
and operate the control equipment to minimize emissions and are made
enforceable through record keeping and reporting requirements contained
in Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-7
and the indicated new source review permits. These units are all Title
V sources, and the requirements and enforceability are reviewed at
least once every five years and are federally enforceable as well.
Connecticut also noted that are no electric generating units of 25 MW
or more with control devices to treat emissions of sulfur oxides and
that Connecticut generally addresses sulfur emissions ``on the front
end'' via sulfur-in-fuel restrictions.\57\ Connecticut concluded that
it has therefore met the requirements of Ask 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See table 5-1 of the Connecticut submittal.
\57\ See, for example, the discussion of Ask 3 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANEVU Ask 2 consists of a request that states ``Emission sources
modeled by MANEVU that have the potential for 3.0 Mm-1 or
greater visibility impacts at any MANEVU Class I area, as identified by
MANEVU contribution analyses . . . perform a four-factor analysis for
reasonable installation or upgrade to emission controls.'' Based on an
examination of visibility impact modeling results, MANEVU concluded
that a 3.0 Mm-1 cutoff captured an appropriately-sized group
of sources contributing the largest percentage of visibility impairing
pollutants to Class I areas in the MANEVU states.\58\ For units
identified for the Ask 2 analysis, MANEVU requested that states
determine reasonable controls through the consideration of the four
factors on a state-by-state and unit-by-unit basis. MANEVU's analysis
for Ask 2 did not identify any units in Connecticut with a potential
impact of at least 3.0 Mm-1.\59\ Connecticut notes that the
highest estimated impact from any Connecticut source to any Class I
area is just over 1.0 Mm-1. Furthermore, this particular
source--Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3--shuttered in 2021.\60\ Based
on the lack of identified sources at or above the 3.0 Mm-1
threshold, Connecticut concluded that it met Ask 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Units with smaller contributions of visibility-impairing
pollutants were captured by other Asks.
\59\ See MANEVU Intra-Regional Ask Final August 25, 2017.
\60\ CT DEEP revoked the operating permit for Bridgeport Harbor
Station Unit 3 on October 28, 2021. See ``Combined NSR &
Registration Revocation Letter'' in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANEVU Ask 3 is: ``Each MANEVU State that has not yet fully adopted
an ultra-low sulfur fuel oil standard as requested by MANEVU in 2007--
pursue this standard as expeditiously as possible and before 2028,
depending on supply availability, where the standards are as follows:
a. distillate oil to 0.0015% sulfur by weight (15 ppm); b. #4 residual
oil within a range of 0.25 to 0.5% sulfur by weight; and c. #6 residual
oil within a range of 0.3 to 0.5% sulfur by weight.'' Connecticut
explained that the State has an ultra-low sulfur fuel program, with the
most recent sulfur content limitations effective as of July 1, 2018.
Connecticut's ultra-low sulfur fuel program consists of Connecticut
General Statutes (CGS) section 16a-21a and RCSA sections 22a-174-19a
and 22a-174-19b. CGS 16a-21a and RCSA 22a-174-19a limit the sulfur
content of home heating oil to 15ppm and the sulfur content of off-road
diesel to 3000 ppm (0.3%S). RCSA 22a-174-19b further limits sulfur
content of fuel oil sold in Connecticut for use in stationary sources
to 15 ppm for distillate and 3000 ppm (0.3%S) for aviation and residual
fuels. EPA approved the latest revisions of these rules into
Connecticut's SIP on May 25, 2016 (81 FR 33134). Based on the above,
Connecticut concluded that the State's low sulfur fuel program meets
Ask 3.
MANEVU Ask 4 requests states to update permits to ``lock in'' lower
emissions rates for NOX, SO2, and PM at emissions
sources larger than 250 million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) per hour
heat input that have switched operations to lower emitting fuels.
Connecticut explained that EGUs and large sources in the State are
subject to Title V permitting requirements under RCSA section 22a-174-
33, and that the permits for these sources are reviewed every five
years and specify allowable operating scenarios, including the type of
fuels fired. Connecticut further explained that Title V permit
conditions for these sources related to lower emitting fuels stem from
Connecticut's sulfur-in-fuel regulations (RCSA sections 22a-174-19a and
-19b), New Source Review (NSR) permits, and trading orders that
restrict oil firing in favor of natural gas. A change in fuel type not
allowed by permit would trigger requirements for a new or modified
permit under RCSA section 22a-174-3a and -33. Connecticut concluded
that it therefore met the requirements of Ask 4.
Ask 5 requests that MANEVU states ``control NOX
emissions for peaking combustion turbines that have the potential to
operate on high electric demand days'' by either: (1) Meeting
NOX emissions standards specified in the Ask for turbines
that run on natural gas and fuel oil, (2) performing a four-factor
analysis for reasonable installation of or upgrade to emission
controls, or (3) obtaining equivalent emission reductions on high
electric demand days.\61\ The Ask requests states to strive for
NOX emission standards of no greater than 25 ppm for natural
gas and 42 ppm for fuel oil, or at a minimum, NOX emissions
standards of no greater than 42 ppm for natural gas and 96 ppm at for
fuel oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report and
Consultation Documentation--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut identified two state regulations EPA previously
approved into Connecticut's SIP that limit NOX emissions
from electric generating units and other stationary sources. RCSA
section 22a-174-22e (86 FR 37053) prescribes averaging times and
emission limits for units at major sources of NOX. RCSA
section 22a-174-22f (82 FR 35454) applies to generators at non-major
facilities during the summer season, and section 22a-174-22f(e)(4)
requires that any affected unit that exceeds the allowable daily
thresholds is to be subject to the same limits that apply to sources in
RCSA section 22a-174-22e. The requirements of RCSA section 22a-174-22e
were phased-in over two implementation periods. The first phase became
effective June 1, 2018, and the second phase became effective June 1,
2023. Under Phase 2, daily NOX limits for combined cycle
turbines are set at 25 ppm for natural gas and 42 ppm for fuel oil,
RCSA section 22a-174-22e(d)(5)(C), and daily NOX limits for
simple cycle turbines are set at 40 ppm for natural gas and 50 ppm for
fuel oil, id. section 22a-174-22e(d)(4)(C). Connecticut noted that
these already adopted rules to control nitrogen oxide emissions from
peaking turbines are at least as stringent as the limits in Ask 5.\62\
Therefore, Connecticut concluded that it fully addressed Ask 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See table 5-2 of the CT RH SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last Ask for states within MANEVU (Ask 6) requests states to
report in their regional haze SIPs about programs that decrease energy
demand
[[Page 58677]]
and increase the use of combined heat and power (CHP) and other
distributed generation technologies such as fuel cells, wind and solar.
Connecticut asserted that the state continues to support programs to
increase energy efficiency, CHP, and other clean energy technologies.
The submittal provides as an example Energize Connecticut\SM\, which it
describes as an initiative of the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund,
the Connecticut Green Bank, the State, and local utilities dedicated to
saving energy and building a clean energy future for everyone in the
state. The initiative has funding support from a charge on customer
energy bills. Connecticut reports that energy savings efforts through
2018 have resulted in emissions avoidance of the equivalent of one 130
MW power plant. Connecticut also identified off-shore wind programs,
State Executive Order No. 3 (which commits the CT DEEP, in consultation
with the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority to analyze
and recommend strategies for achieving a carbon emissions free goal for
the electricity-generating sector by 2040), and the state's membership
in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) as programs that
provide air quality benefits. Connecticut therefore concluded that it
satisfies Ask 6.
In summary, Connecticut identified the following SIP-approved
programs as necessary for reasonable progress and therefore included in
the State's long term strategy: RCSA 22a-174-19a, Control of sulfur
dioxide emissions from power plants and other large stationary sources
of air pollution; RCSA 22a-174-19b, Fuel sulfur content limitations for
stationary sources; RCSA 22a-174-22e, Control of nitrogen oxides
emissions from fuel-burning equipment at major stationary sources of
nitrogen oxides; RCSA 22a-174-22f, High daily NOX emitting
units at non-major sources of NOX; and RCSA 22a-174-38,
Municipal Waste Combustors.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See CT RH Submittal at 75, 78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. The EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's Response to the Six MANEVU
Asks and Compliance With Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i)
The EPA is proposing to find that Connecticut has satisfied the
requirements of Sec. 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 Connecticut has satisfied the four-factor
analysis requirement through its analysis and actions to address MANEVU
Ask 3.
As explained above, Connecticut relied on MANEVU's technical
analyses and framework (i.e., the Asks) to select sources and develop
its long-term strategy. MANEVU 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, MANEVU 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.\64\ 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.'' \65\ EPA proposes to find that Connecticut reasonably
evaluated the two pollutants--SO2 and NOX--that
currently drive visibility impairment within the MANEVU region and that
it adequately explained and supported its decision to focus on these
two pollutants through its reliance on the MANEVU technical analyses
cited in its submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See ``Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic United States: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANEVU) Contribution Assessment. NESCAUM. August 2006.''
\65\ See ``Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility Data, 2004-
2019 (2nd RH SIP Metrics). MANEVU (prepared by Maine Department of
Environmental Protection). January 21, 2021, revision.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 MANEVU Asks are a mix of
measures for sectors and groups of sources identified as reasonable for
states to address in their regional haze plans. Several of the Asks
include analyses of emissions controls, and Connecticut identifies
numerous existing controls that are in the SIP and are included in the
long-term strategy. While MANEVU formulated the Asks to be ``reasonable
emission reduction strategies'' to control emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants,\66\ Ask 3 (adoption of ultra-low sulfur fuel oil)
engages 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 MANEVU's four-factor
analysis conducted to support the emission reduction measures in Ask 3,
satisfies the requirement of Sec. 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 Connecticut's SIP. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut asserted that it satisfies Ask 1 because the state
permits for the EGUs covered by this Ask include year-round emission
limits and require that controls be run at all times the units are in
operation and emitting air pollutants. Furthermore, the requirements to
maintain and operate the control equipment to minimize emissions are
made enforceable through record keeping and reporting requirements
contained in previously SIP-approved RCSA section 22a-174-7 (79 FR
41427) and New Source Review permits. As each of these units are at
Title V sources, the requirements are federally enforceable, and
Connecticut renews the permits every five years. EPA thus agrees that
Connecticut satisfied Ask 1.
Ask 2 addresses the sources MANEVU determined have the potential
for larger than, or equal to, 3.0 Mm-1 visibility impact at
any MANEVU Class I area; the Ask requests MANEVU 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;
MANEVU 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.'' \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report and
Consultation Documentation--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an initial matter, EPA does not generally 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. As
explained
[[Page 58678]]
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. In this case, the 3.0 Mm-1 threshold did not identify any
sources in Connecticut (and identified only 22 across the entire MANEVU
region), indicating that it may be unreasonably high. We also note,
however, that the 3.0 Mm-1 threshold used in this Ask is
only one part of the MANEVU source identification process and that
being below this threshold did not necessarily exclude a source from
additional review in connection with another Ask.
The EPA agrees that Connecticut reasonably determined it has
satisfied Ask 2. As explained above, while we do not generally 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, the MANEVU analysis did not identify any sources
in Connecticut with an impact at or above 3.0 Mm-1. EPA
notes that the MANEVU analysis also did not identify any sources in
Connecticut above 2.0 Mm-1 and only once source above 1
Mm-1: Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3 (at 1.22
Mm-1),\68\ which permanently retired on May 31, 2021. The
State of Connecticut has revoked the permit for this unit \69\ and has
committed funding to assist in demolishing the facility and
redeveloping the site.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See 2016 MANEVU CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical
Generating Units and Industrial Sources.
\69\ See ``Combined NSR & Registration Revocation Letter'' in
the docket for this rulemaking.
\70\ See https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/ct-bridgeport-pseg-power-plant-demolition-18388093.php (also in docket for this
rulemaking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask 3, which addresses the sulfur content of heating oil used in
MANEVU states, is based on a four-factor analysis for the heating oil
sulfur reduction regulations contained in that Ask; \71\ 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.'' \72\ 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.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See 2016 Updates to the Assessment of Reasonable Progress
For Regional Haze In MANEVU Class I Areas.
\72\ Id. at 8-7.
\73\ Id. at 8-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA agrees that Connecticut reasonably relied on MANEVU'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 for fuel
oils is reasonable. As noted above, RCSA 22a-174-19a limits the sulfur
content of home heating oil to 15 ppm and the sulfur content of off-
road diesel to 3000 ppm (0.3%S). RCSA 22a-174-19b further limits sulfur
content of fuel oil sold in Connecticut for use in stationary sources
to 15 ppm for distillate and 3000 ppm (0.3%S) for aviation and residual
fuels. EPA approved the latest revisions of these rules into
Connecticut's SIP on May 25, 2016,\74\ and Connecticut includes both in
its long-term strategy for the second planning period.\75\
Connecticut's SIP-approved ultra-low sulfur fuel oil rule is consistent
with Ask 3's sulfur content standards for the three types of fuel oils
(distillate oil, #4 residual oil, #6 residual oil). EPA therefore
agrees that Connecticut satisfied Ask 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ 81 FR 33134.
\75\ See CT RH SIP Submittal at 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut concluded that no additional updates were needed to
meet Ask 4, which requests that MANEVU states pursue updating permits,
enforceable agreements, and/or rules to lock-in lower emission rates
for SO2, NOX and PM at EGUs and other sources
larger than 250 MMBtu per hour that have switched operations to lower
emitting fuels. As noted above, Connecticut has asserted that EGUs and
large sources are already subject to Title V permitting requirements
under RCSA section 22a-174-33 and that permits for these sources are
renewed every five years and specify allowable operating scenarios,
which includes type of fuels fired. Any change in fuel type that is not
allowed by permit would trigger requirements for a new or modified
permit under RCSA sections 22a-174-3a and -33, which are in the SIP.
While requirements for lower emitting fuels contained in state fuel
sulfur regulations at RCSA sections 22a-174-19a may be a means to
achieve SO2 reductions at sources covered by this Ask that
have switched to a lower emitting fuel oil, it is not clear from the
discussion in Connecticut's submittal what actions the State has
``pursued'' under this Ask to ``lock-in lower emission rates'' of
SO2, NOX and PM at other sources covered by the
Ask (i.e., sources that have switched to other lower emitting fuel
types). The submittal does not provide specific examples of sources
previously authorized to burn more than one fuel type that have been
``locked-in'' to the lower-emitting fuel under this Ask. Satisfaction
of Ask 4 is not necessarily a required element of a Regional Haze SIP,
however. In addition, as Connecticut notes, any sources that wish to
make a future switch to higher emitting fuels not currently authorized
by permit are required to revise their permits to reflect the change,
and state rules favor lower-emitting fuels and make any permit revision
subject to additional analyses, including NSR.
Ask 5 addresses NOX emissions from peaking combustion
turbines that have
[[Page 58679]]
the potential to operate on high electric demand days. The Ask requests
states to ``strive'' for NOX emission standards of no
greater than 25 ppm for natural gas and 42 ppm for fuel oil but at a
minimum, meet NOX emissions standards of no greater than 42
ppm for natural gas and 96 ppm for fuel oil.
As discussed above, Connecticut identified two recently approved
regulations in the SIP that address NOX emissions from
electric generating units and other stationary sources. RCSA section
22a-174-22e prescribes averaging times and emission limits for units at
major sources of NOX. As of June 1, 2023, the state
regulations set limits of 25 ppm for natural gas and 42 ppm for fuel
oil at combined cycle turbines and 40 ppm for natural gas and 50 ppm
for fuel oil at simple cycle turbines. The combined cycle limits match
the ``strive for'' limits in the Ask. And while the simple cycle limits
do not, they are more stringent than the ``minimum'' limits in the
Ask.\76\ In addition, RCSA section 22a-174-22f applies to combustion
turbines at facilities that are not major sources of NOX and
provides that combustion turbines that meet the generating criterion of
the Ask (i.e., capable of generating 15 MW or more) are also subject to
the limits in RCSA section 22a-174-22e. See RCSA section 22a-174-
22f(a)(1), (e)(4). Connecticut includes both regulations in its long-
term strategy for the second planning period,\77\ and both are in the
SIP. EPA agrees that Connecticut reasonably demonstrated that it meets
Ask 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ See CT RH SIP Submittal, table 5-2.
\77\ See id. at 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, regarding Ask 6, Connecticut pointed to various state
regulations, State Executive Orders, participation in offshore wind
projects, and membership in RGGI as policy efforts to increase energy
efficiency and reduce reliance on fossil fuels for energy.
Additionally, as discussed in the previous section, Connecticut
reported energy savings efforts through 2018 have resulted in avoidance
of the equivalent of one 130 MW power plant. The EPA agrees that
Connecticut 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--based on Connecticut's
participation in the MANEVU planning process, how it has addressed the
Asks, and the EPA's assessment of Connecticut's emissions and point
sources--that Connecticut has complied with the requirements of Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(i). Specifically, Connecticut's application of MANEVU Ask
3 engages with the requirement that states evaluate and determine the
emission reduction measures necessary to make reasonable progress by
considering the four statutory factors.
The EPA is proposing to find the state's approach meets the
statutory and regulatory requirements for several reasons. Connecticut
reasonably evaluated and explained its decision to focus on
SO2 and NOX to address visibility impairment
within the MANEVU region. Connecticut adequately supported that
decision through reasonable reliance on the MANEVU technical analyses
cited in its submission. In addition, as the EPA discusses in more
detail in section IV.I. below, Connecticut adequately responded to
comments to consider sources identified by the FLMs through the
consultation process. The Agency notes that MANE-VU concluded that
sulfates from SO2 emissions were still the primary driver of
visibility impairment in the second implementation period and that
MANEVU conducted a four-factor analysis to support Ask 3, which
requests that states pursue ultra-low sulfur fuel oil standards to
address SO2 emissions. Connecticut's SIP-approved sulfur in
fuel rule sets stringent limits for sulfur content and SO2
emissions for fuels. Additionally, Connecticut's SIP submittal
identifies a long-term strategy that includes five state regulations
previously approved into its SIP. The provisions at RCSA 22a-174-19a
control SO2 emissions by limiting the sulfur content of home
heating oil to 15 ppm and the sulfur content of off-road diesel to 3000
ppm (0.3%S). RCSA 22a-174-19b further controls SO2 emissions
by limiting sulfur content of fuel oil sold in Connecticut for use in
stationary sources to 15 ppm for distillate and 3000 ppm (0.3%S) for
aviation and residual fuels. EPA approved the latest revisions of these
rules into Connecticut's SIP on May 25, 2016.\78\ Connecticut's
regulations at RCSA 22a-174-22e and RCSA 22a-174-22f prescribe
averaging times and set emission limits for sources of NOX
at 25 ppm for natural gas and 42 ppm for fuel oil at combined cycle
turbines and at 40 ppm for natural gas and 50 ppm for fuel oil at
simple cycle turbines. EPA most recently approved these regulations
into Connecticut's SIP on July 14, 2021, and July 31, 2017,
respectively.\79\ Further, RCSA 22a-174-38, most recently approved into
Connecticut's SIP on July 31, 2017,\80\ regulates NOX
emissions from municipal waste combustors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 81 FR 33134.
\79\ 86 FR 37053; 82 FR 35454.
\80\ 82 FR 35454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also notes the relatively low impact Connecticut's
emissions have on the visibility impairment in nearby Class 1 areas.
While, as discussed earlier, we do not necessarily agree with the level
of the State's chosen 2% contribution threshold, it appears that
emissions from Connecticut have relatively small contributions to Class
I areas.\81\ Further, Connecticut is in the Ozone Transport Region and
is currently designated nonattainment statewide for both the 2008 and
2015 ozone standards. As a result, Connecticut already imposes
stringent controls on its sources, including through statewide
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements, to limit
emissions of the ozone precursors NOX and VOCs. In addition,
Connecticut must continue to control emissions of these precursors to
attain, and then maintain, the ozone standards. As NOX and
VOCs are also contributors to visibility impairment, these requirements
have had the additional effect of controlling haze-forming emissions
from sources throughout the State and are generally reflected in the
MANEVU contribution screening results. Based on the MANEVU contribution
screening analysis, Connecticut's highest percent mass-weighted sulfate
and nitrate contribution to any Class I area is estimated to be 1.4% at
Moosehorn Wilderness and Roosevelt Campobello International Park, and
1.3% and 1.2% to Acadia National Park and the Lye Brook Wilderness
Area, respectively.\82\ Slightly lower percent contributions are
estimated from Connecticut's emissions to the other Class I areas in
the MANEVU states: 1.0% to the Brigantine Wilderness Area and 0.7% to
the two New Hampshire Wilderness Areas.\83\ As discussed earlier,
Connecticut's submittal includes and adopts a four-factor analysis
conducted by the MANEVU states to support low-sulfur fuel restrictions
that Connecticut has included in its long-term strategy. EPA believes
it was reasonable for Connecticut not to conduct additional four-factor
analyses in this case because haze-forming emissions from the State are
already limited by EPA-approved emissions limits in the SIP (as a
result of other CAA requirements), there are no other large visibility
impairing point sources of SO2 or NOX in the
State, and the State's overall small contributions to
[[Page 58680]]
visibility impairment in nearby Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See CT RH Submittal at 19-27, 46.
\82\ See table 4-1 of the CT RH SIP.
\83\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the above reasons, the EPA proposes to find that Connecticut's
SIP submittal satisfies the requirements that a State submit a long-
term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for
each mandatory Class I Federal area that may be affected by emissions
from the State and that the long-term strategy include the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress
determined by considering the four factors.
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
The consultation requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide
that states must consult with other states that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinated 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.
Connecticut participated in and provided documentation of the
MANEVU intra- and inter-RPO consultation processes, which included
consulting with both MANEVU and non-MANEVU states about emissions from
Connecticut reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in Class I areas within the MANEVU area and in adjacent
areas. The consultations addressed developing coordinated emission
management strategies containing the emission reductions necessary to
make reasonable progress at the Class I areas impacted by emissions
from States within MANEVU. Connecticut addressed the MANEVU Asks by
providing information on the enforceable measures it has in place that
satisfy each Ask.\84\ While Connecticut did not receive any requests
from non-MANEVU states to consider additional measures to address
visibility impairment in Class I areas outside MANEVU, MANEVU
documented disagreements that occurred during consultation. For
instance, MANEVU noted in its Consultation Report that upwind states
expressed concern regarding the analyses the RPO utilized for the
selection of states for the consultation. MANEVU 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. MANEVU agreed that the
choice of base year is critical to the outcome of the study. MANEVU
acknowledged that there were newer versions of the emission inventories
and the need to use the best available inventory for each analysis.
MANEVU, however, concluded that the selected inventories were
appropriate for the analysis. Additionally, upwind states noted that
they would not be able to address the MANEVU Asks until they finalize
their SIPs. MANEVU believed the assumption of the implementation of the
Asks from upwind states in its 2028 control case modeling was
reasonable, and Connecticut included both the 2028 base case and
control case modeling results in its SIP, representing visibility
conditions at the Class 1 areas in the MANU-VU States assuming upwind
states do not and do implement the Asks, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, Connecticut participated in the MANEVU intra- and inter-RPO
consultation and included in its SIP submittal the measures identified
and agreed to during those consultations, thereby satisfying Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B). Connecticut satisfied Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) by participating in MANEVU's consultation process,
which documented the disagreements between the upwind states and MANEVU
and explained MANEVU's reasoning on each of the disputed issues. Based
on the entirety of MANEVU's intra- and inter-RPO consultation and
MANEVU's and Connecticut's responses to comments on the SIP submission
and various technical analyses therein, we propose to determine that
Connecticut has satisfied the consultation requirements of Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(ii).
The documentation requirement of Sec. 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, Connecticut chose to rely on MANEVU's technical
information, modeling, and analysis to support development of its long-
term strategy. The MANEVU technical analyses on which Connecticut
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.
Connecticut also provided additional information to further demonstrate
the technical bases and emission information 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 Connecticut satisfies this requirement of Sec.
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. Connecticut's SIP submission included 2017
NEI emission data for NOX, SO2, PM, VOCs and
NH3 and 2017 Air Markets Program Data (AMPD) emissions for
NOX and SO2. Based on Connecticut's consideration
and analysis of the 2017 and 2019 emission data in its SIP submittal,
the EPA proposes to find that Connecticut has satisfied the emissions
information requirement in Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
We also propose to find that Connecticut reasonably considered the
five additional factors in Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing its
long-term strategy. Pursuant to Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), Connecticut
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. Connecticut
included in its SIP a comprehensive lists of control measures and other
requirements that will continue to reduce emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants, identifying the source category and corresponding
Connecticut regulatory provisions. These measures include SIP approved
revisions to RCSA section 22a-174-38 (82 FR 35454) to obtain
NOX emission reductions from municipal waste combustors;
implementation of RCSA sections 22a-174-22e (86 FR 37053) and 22a-174-
22f (82 FR 35454) to obtain NOX emissions from major and
minor sources of NOX; and implementation of the last phase
of RCSA section 22a-174-19b (81 FR 33134) to reduce sulfur oxide
emissions from fuel burning sources.
[[Page 58681]]
Connecticut's consideration of measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities as required by Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B)
includes, in section 8.2 of its SIP submission, measures that
Connecticut has implemented to mitigate the impacts from such
activities. Connecticut has implemented standards that reduce fugitive
dust emissions from construction, rules to address exhaust emissions
including rules to limit the idling of vehicles and equipment, rules to
reduce allowable smoke from on-road diesel engines, and general
conformity rules.
Pursuant to Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), source retirements and
replacement schedules are addressed in section 8.3 of Connecticut'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 MANEVU
contribution assessment and that were subsequently retired are
described in section 8.3 of the Connecticut submission. Connecticut
calculated a net reduction of approximately 8,990 tons per year (tpy)
of allowable NOX emissions and 17,350 tpy of allowable
SO2 emissions between the 2011 base year and the 2028
projected year based on EGU retirements (including retirement of the
last coal-fired unit in the state) and replacement during that time
with lower emitting units.
In considering smoke management as required in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), Connecticut explained, in section 8.4 of its
submission, that it addresses smoke management through a program under
state law at CGS section 22a-174(f) that authorizes open burning
(including prescribed burns for agriculture and wildland vegetation
management purposes) through permits issued by municipal officials but
limits it on poor air quality days, thereby reducing the impacts of
prescribed burns on visibility. EPA approved this program into
Connecticut's SIP on September 1, 2016. 81 FR 60274. Connecticut
considers these efforts to be sufficient to protect visibility in Class
I areas, including from agriculture- and forestry-related smoke. The
EPA agrees that Connecticut adequately considered smoke management
practices as part of its submittal as required by Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D).
Connecticut considered the anticipated net effect of projected
changes in emissions as required by Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E) by
discussing, in section 8.1 of its submission, various programs and
state regulations that control emissions from the State's point, area,
and mobile sources. Connecticut, through its nonattainment status for
the 2008 and 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, is
required to implement programs to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMTs),
which will reduce emissions in the mobile source sector. This sector
also contributes to regional haze, so any reductions would have the
added benefit of helping to improve visibility. Additionally, section 6
of the Connecticut submittal contains emissions projections for 2028,
modeled in collaboration with MANEVU. These projected emissions
incorporate the impact of strategies that are on-the-books, anticipated
growth in the respective sector, and anticipated unit closures and the
MANEVU ``Ask.'' The 2028 inventory projections demonstrate an overall
reduction in emissions between the 2011 base year and 2028 modeled year
thus, satisfying (f)(2)(iv)(e).
Because Connecticut has reasonably considered each of the five
additional factors, the EPA proposes to find that Connecticut 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. Because Connecticut does not host a Class I
area, it is not subject to either Sec. 51.308(f)(3)(i) or
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A). 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
glidepath, the upwind state must provide the same demonstration.
None of the Class I areas in or adjacent to the MANEVU region have
RPGs above their respective URP glidepath. Table 2-1 of Connecticut's
SIP submittal summarizes baseline visibility conditions (i.e.,
visibility conditions during 2000-2004) for the most impaired and
clearest days at each area as well as information on natural visibility
conditions. Table 2-3 of the submittal shows the values on the URP
glidepaths for 2028. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 summarize the 2028 RPG for the
most impaired days for each area, as well as the modeled 2028 base case
(representing visibility conditions in 2028 with existing controls),
respectively. These visibility conditions, as well as the 2028
reasonable progress goals for the clearest days, are also included. The
2028 RPGs for each Class I area are well below their respective URP
glidepaths. Therefore, Sec. 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) is not applicable to
Connecticut.
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. Since Connecticut does not contain any Class I
areas, it is not required to submit the monitoring strategy referenced
in Sec. 51.308(f)(6), nor are the requirements in Sec.
51.308(f)(6)(i), (ii), and (iv) applicable.
40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iii), however, applies to states with no Class
I areas (such as Connecticut) and requires them to include in their
Regional Haze SIPs procedures by which monitoring data and other
information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from
within the state to visibility impairment at Class I areas in other
states. Monitoring in Connecticut that contributes data for assessing
visibility is described in section 2.1 of the Connecticut SIP
submission.\85\ Visibility data analysis procedures are described in
the MANEVU visibility data report. Other procedures and data used for
determining Connecticut contribution to visibility impairment are
described in section 4 of the Connecticut SIP and the MANEVU documents
referenced.\86\ An IMPROVE monitor at the Mohawk Mountain site in
Connecticut provides data to assess current visibility, track changes
in visibility, and help determine the causes of visibility impairment
in Class I areas in the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Connecticut's submission contains two sections identified
as 2.1. The first one discusses the IMPROVE monitoring network.
\86\ Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility Data, 2004-2019 (2nd
RH SIP Metrics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Connecticut provides for emissions inventories
and estimates for future projected emissions by participating in the
MANEVU 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
[[Page 58682]]
emissions inventories for criteria pollutants to EPA's Emissions
Inventory System (EIS) every three years. The emission inventory data
are 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 3 of Connecticut'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. Connecticut
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.
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. Connecticut relied on the MANEVU 2028 emissions
projections for MANEVU states. MANEVU 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 MANEVU Asks.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See ``OTC MANEVU 2011 Based Modeling Platform Support
Document October 2018--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Connecticut has met the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) as described above, including through its
continued participation in the MANEVU RPO and its on-going compliance
with the AERR, and that no further elements are necessary at this time
for Connecticut to assess and report on visibility pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(vi). Connecticut's SIP submittal also includes a
commitment to update the statewide emissions inventory periodically.
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
any Class I area within the state and each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions from within that state.
Sections 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 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,
Sec. 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 that 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.
Connecticut's submission describes the status of measures of the
long-term strategy from the first implementation period.\88\ As a
member of MANEVU, Connecticut considered the MANEVU Asks and adopted
corresponding measures into its long-term strategy for the first
implementation period. The MANEVU Asks were: (1) Timely implementation
of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements; (2) EGU
controls including Controls at 167 Key Sources that most affect MANEVU
Class I areas; (3) Low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (4) Continued
evaluation of other control measures. Connecticut 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
SO2 emissions. The reductions achieved led to vast
improvements in visibility at the MANEVU Federal Class I Areas due to
reduced sulfates formed from SO2 emissions. Connecticut
describes the control measures that help control the emissions of VOCs,
NOX, PM and SO2 from a wide range of sources in
the SIP submission and identifies BART and Alternative to BART
requirements in section 5.5. The submission also includes periodic
emission data that demonstrate a decrease in VOCs, NOX, PM
and SO2 emissions throughout the state.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See section 5.5 of the CT RH SIP.
\89\ See section 3 of the CT RH SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Connecticut 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.
Pursuant to Sec. 51.308(g)(4), in section 3 of its submittal,
Connecticut 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. With respect to sources that report directly
to the EPA, Connecticut also included AMPD state summary data for
SO2 and NOX emissions for 2018 and 2019.
The reductions achieved by Connecticut emission control measures
are seen in the emissions inventory. Based on Connecticut's SIP
submission, NOX emissions have steadily declined in
Connecticut from 2002 through 2017, especially in the point, nonroad
and onroad mobile sectors. 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.
Emissions of SO2 have shown a decline of 93% in Connecticut
over the period 2002 to 2017. Connecticut attributes the reductions in
point emissions to fuel switching from coal and oil to natural gas,
federal and state low sulfur fuel regulations, NOX budget
and successor programs for power plants and the retirement of older
units as well as improved controls on new units. Since some components
of the MANEVU low sulfur fuel strategy were not implemented until 2018,
and as MANEVU states continue to adopt rules to implement the strategy,
additional SO2 emissions reductions are expected to continue
into the future.
Table 3-11 of Connecticut's submission shows VOC emissions from all
NEI data categories for the period 2002 to 2017 in Connecticut. VOC
emissions have shown a steady decline in Connecticut over this period.
VOC
[[Page 58683]]
decreases were achieved in all sectors due to Federal new engine
standards for onroad and nonroad vehicles and equipment, the National
and State low emission vehicle programs, SIP-approved area source rules
such as consumer products, portable fuel containers, paints, autobody
refinishing, asphalt paving applications, and solvent cleaning
operations, and VOC storage tank rules.
In Connecticut's submission, table 3-14 shows a summary of
PM10 emissions from all NEI data categories point, nonpoint,
non-road, and onroad for the period from 2002 to 2017 in Connecticut.
In Connecticut, PM10 emissions steadily decreased in the
point, nonpoint, and nonroad categories for the period from 2002 to
2017. The apparent increase in the onroad emissions is due to changes
in emission inventory calculation methodologies, which resulted in
higher particulate matter estimates. The variation in emissions in the
nonpoint category is due to changes in calculation methodologies for
residential wood burning and fugitive dust categories, which have
varied significantly.
Table 3-17 of Connecticut's submission shows a summary of
PM2.5 emissions from all NEI data categories for the period
from 2002 to 2017 in Connecticut. PM2.5 emissions steadily
decreased in the nonroad category for the period from 2002 to 2014.
Most reductions came from the nonpoint category, which experienced
periodic variation in emissions due to changes in calculation
methodologies for residential wood burning and fugitive dust
categories. The decrease in nonroad PM2.5 emissions can
likely be attributed to new Federal engine standards for nonroad
vehicles and equipment.\90\ Similarly, an overall decrease in onroad
emissions can be attributed to Federal and State vehicle regulations
and standards, which impose increasingly tighter emissions limits with
incremental model year vehicles.\91\ The increase in emissions in the
onroad category from 2002 to 2008 is due to changes in emission
inventory calculation methodologies and a model change, as previously
explained, which resulted in higher fine particulate matter estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/epa-emission-standards-nonroad-engines-and-vehicles for info on the
EPA's nonroad engine programs.
\91\ See 80 FR 13768.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3-20 of Connecticut's submission shows ammonia
(NH3) emissions from all NEI data categories for the period
2002 to 2017 in Connecticut. Though ammonia decreases were achieved in
the onroad sector due to Federal new engine standards for vehicles and
equipment, increases and decreases from 2002 to 2017 in the other
categories are due to reporting, grouping and methodology changes.
There was little change to nonroad ammonia emissions. Overall, ammonia
emissions have decreased from 2008 to 2017.
The EPA is proposing to find that Connecticut has satisfied the
requirements of Sec. 51.308(g)(4) by providing emissions information
for NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5,
VOCs, and NH3 broken down by type of source.
Connecticut uses the emissions trend data in the SIP submission to
support the assessment that anthropogenic haze-causing pollutant
emissions in Connecticut have decreased during the reporting period and
that changes in emissions have not limited or impeded progress in
reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility. The data
Connecticut presents for NOX, SO2, VOCs,
PM10, PM2.5, and NH3 show consistently
declining emissions of those pollutants. The EPA is proposing to find
that Connecticut has met the requirements of Sec. 51.308(g)(5).
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Section 169A(d) of the CAA 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, Sec. 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,
but 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 requires that the consultation 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 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 MANEVU 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.
Connecticut participated in these consultation meetings and calls.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report and
Consultation Documentation--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of this early engagement with the FLMs, on April 12, 2018,
the NPS sent letters to the MANEVU states requesting that they consider
specific individual sources in their long-term strategies.\93\ NPS used
an analysis of emissions divided by distance (Q/d) to estimate the
impact of MANEVU 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
MANEVU 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 but relative to just 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 nine facilities in Connecticut in this
letter.\94\ Connecticut addressed the NPS initial letter in section 5.4
of its proposed SIP. Connecticut explained that five of the facilities
are municipal waste combustors that became subject to more stringent
NOX and ammonia limits in 2017 through the implementation of
SIP-approved RCSA 22a-174-38 (82 FR 35454) and whose emissions have, as
a result, been reduced from the levels the NPS noted in its initial
letter.\95\ In addition, units at four of the other facilities became
subject to more
[[Page 58684]]
stringent NOX limits in 2023 through the implementation of
RCSA 22a-174-22e, which is also in Connecticut's SIP (86 FR 37053).\96\
Further, the coal-burning unit at one of these latter facilities
retired in 2021 (that is, Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3),\97\ and, as noted
earlier, DEEP revoked the permit. Finally, DEEP explained that the
Cromwell compressor station has also reduced its emissions from those
noted by the NPS for this facility.\98\ In 2019, the facility replaced
several engines with more efficient and lower-emitting turbines that
are subject to the NOX emission limits in RCSA 22a-174-22e
that meet the ``strive for'' limits in Ask 5 (i.e., 25
ppmvd).99 100 This facility is located in a severe
nonattainment area and was issued a New Source Review permit for the
new turbines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Id.
\94\ Id.
\95\ Connecticut RH Submittal at 53-55.
\96\ Id.
\97\ Id. at 54-55.
\98\ Id. at 55 (table 5-3).
\99\ Id.
\100\ The permit restricts these turbines to a ppmvd
NOX emission limit, well below the ``strive for'' limits
of Ask 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 15, 2020, Connecticut sent the proposed SIP, including
the above explanations of how it addressed the FLM comments, to
representatives of the NPS, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a 60-day review and comment period
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) before making it available for public
comment. Connecticut received comments from the NPS and the USFS.
Connecticut included responses to the comments in appendix A of its
submission to EPA, in accordance with Sec. 51.308(i)(3). In its
comments, the NPS requested that the State consider 4 municipal waste
combustors (MWCs) for four-factor analysis. In response to NPS's
request, Connecticut again noted that MWCs in the State are already
subject to SIP approved 22a-174-38. Connecticut also noted that the
state is currently in nonattainment for both the 2008 and 2015 ozone
standards and is required to impose RACT and obtain emission reductions
of ozone precursors of not less than 3% per year in order to attain the
ozone standards. Related to the RACT requirement, CT DEEP explained
that it actively participates in an Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
workgroup to evaluate and compare emissions from MWCs and pursue more
stringent regulation of their NOX emissions. CT DEEP
explained that the State has already committed in its RACT SIP to act
on the information compiled by this workgroup and adhere to the
resultant OTC recommendations for MWC emission limits.\101\ CT DEEP
also responded to comments from the USFS regarding three EGUs.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ See Appendix A--Summary of Comments from U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
with Responses from the Department.
\102\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 3, 2020, CT DEEP issued a notice of public hearing and
comment and the availability of the draft Regional Haze SIP revision
for 2018-2028 on CT DEEP's Public Notices and Hearings web page. The
document announced the opportunity to submit written comments until
January 29, 2021, as well as a public hearing proposed for January 29,
2021, provided such hearing was requested. No such request was
received, and the hearing was cancelled. The Connecticut SIP submittal
contains the public comments received and CT DEEP's responses,
including responses to additional comments received from the NPS during
the public comment period.
For the reasons stated above, the EPA proposes to find that
Connecticut 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.
J. Other Required Commitments
Connecticut's January 5, 2022, SIP submission includes a commitment
to revise and submit a regional haze SIP in 2028, and every ten years
thereafter. The state's commitment includes submitting periodic
progress reports in accordance with Sec. 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 Sec.
51.308(g).
V. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the ``Connecticut Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan Revision Second Planning Period (2018-
2028)'', Final Submittal dated November 2021 and submitted to EPA on
January 5, 2022, as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the
second implementation period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and
(i).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely 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); and
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.
In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, pertaining to
Connecticut 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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations
[[Page 58685]]
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 air agency 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. 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: July 15, 2024.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2024-15857 Filed 7-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
