Proposed Rule2023-18278
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 25, 2023
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland on February 8, 2022, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule for the program's second implementation period. Maryland's SIP submission addresses the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze program. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 164 (Friday, August 25, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 164 (Friday, August 25, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58178-58202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18278]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0912; FRL-11269-01-R3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maryland on February 8, 2022, as satisfying
applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's
Regional Haze Rule for the program's second implementation period.
Maryland's SIP submission addresses the requirement that states must
periodically revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress towards the national goal of preventing any future, and
remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility,
including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP
submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program. The EPA is taking
this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 25,
2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2022-0912 at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. For comments submitted at
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Yarina, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 3, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2852, at (215) 814-2108, or by email
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#95ecf4e7fcfbf4bbd4f1f4f8d5f0e5f4bbf2fae3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bcc5ddced5d2dd92fdd8ddd1fcd9ccdd92dbd3ca">[email protected]</span></a>.
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second
Implementation Period
A. Identification of Class I Areas
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan
Requirements
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Maryland's Regional Haze Submission for the
Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Maryland's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
B. Maryland's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and
the EPA's Evaluation
C. Identification of Class I Areas
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On February 8, 2022, the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE) submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional haze for the
second implementation period. MDE made this SIP submission to satisfy
the requirements of the CAA's regional haze
[[Page 58179]]
program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. The
EPA is proposing to find that the Maryland regional haze SIP submission
for the second implementation period meets the applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements and thus proposes to approve Maryland's
submission into its SIP.
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas,
which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.\1\ CAA 169A.
The CAA establishes as a national goal the ``prevention of any future,
and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.'' CAA 169A(a)(1). The CAA further directs the EPA to
promulgate regulations to assure reasonable progress toward meeting
this national goal. CAA 169A(a)(4). On December 2, 1980, the EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in mandatory
Class I Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as ``Class I areas'')
that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group
of sources. (45 FR 80084, December 2, 1980). These regulations,
codified at 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.307, represented the first phase
of the EPA's efforts to address visibility impairment. In 1990,
Congress added section 169B to the CAA to further address visibility
impairment, specifically, impairment from regional haze. CAA 169B. The
EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), codified at 40 CFR
51.308,\2\ on July 1, 1999. (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999). These regional
haze regulations are a central component of the EPA's comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all
international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. CAA
162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of areas to
which the requirements of the visibility protection program apply is
in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
\2\ In addition to the generally applicable regional haze
provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, the EPA also promulgated regulations
specific to addressing regional haze visibility impairment in Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The latter
regulations are applicable only for specific jurisdictions' regional
haze plans submitted no later than December 17, 2007, and thus are
not relevant here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair
visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse
particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., sulfur
dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), and, in
some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia
(NH<INF>3</INF>)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>), 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, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period</a>, The EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (August
20, 2019). The formula for the deciview is 10 ln (b\ext\)/10 Mm-1).
40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR
established an iterative planning process that requires both states in
which Class I areas are located and states ``the emissions from which
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility'' in a Class I area to periodically submit SIP revisions
to address such impairment. CAA 169A(b)(2); \4\ see also 40 CFR
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional
haze SIP revisions); (64 FR 35714 at 35768, July 1, 1999). Under the
CAA, each SIP submission must contain ``a long-term (ten to fifteen
years) strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the
national goal,'' CAA 169A(b)(2)(B); the initial round of SIP
submissions also had to address the statutory requirement that certain
older, larger sources of visibility impairing pollutants install and
operate the best available retrofit technology (BART). CAA
169A(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR 51.308(d), (e). States' first regional haze SIPs
were due by December 17, 2007, 40 CFR 51.308(b), with subsequent SIP
submissions containing updated long-term strategies originally due July
31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter. (64 FR 35714 at 35768, July
1, 1999). The EPA established in the 1999 RHR that all states either
have Class I areas within their borders or ``contain sources whose
emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to regional haze in
a Class I area''; therefore, all states must submit regional haze
SIPs.\5\ Id. at 35721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for states to
submit plans addressing out-of-state class I areas by providing that
states must address visibility impairment ``in each mandatory Class
I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions from within the State.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
\5\ In addition to each of the fifty states, the EPA also
concluded that the Virgin Islands and District of Columbia must also
submit regional haze SIPs because they either contain a Class I area
or contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.300(b) and
(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the focus in the first implementation period of the
regional haze program, which ran from 2007 through 2018, was on
satisfying states' BART obligations. First implementation period SIPs
were additionally required to contain long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal, of which BART
is one component. The core required elements for the first
implementation period SIPs (other than BART) are laid out in 40 CFR
51.308(d). Those provisions required that states containing Class I
areas establish reasonable progress goals (RPGs) that are measured in
deciviews and reflect the anticipated visibility conditions at the end
of the implementation period including from implementation of states'
long-term strategies. The first planning period RPGs were required to
provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days
over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days over the same period. In
establishing the RPGs for any Class I area in a state, the state was
required to consider four statutory factors: the costs of compliance,
the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of
any potentially affected sources. CAA 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
States were also required to calculate baseline (using the five
year period of 2000-2004) and natural visibility conditions (i.e.,
visibility conditions without anthropogenic visibility
[[Page 58180]]
impairment) for each Class I area, and to calculate the linear rate of
progress needed to attain natural visibility conditions, assuming a
starting point of baseline visibility conditions in 2004 and ending
with natural conditions in 2064. This linear interpolation is known as
the uniform rate of progress (URP) and is used as a tracking metric to
help states assess the amount of progress they are making towards the
national visibility goal over time in each Class I area.\6\ 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) and (d)(2). The 1999 RHR also provided that States'
long-term strategies must include the ``enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance, schedules, and other measures as necessary to
achieve the reasonable progress goals.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). In
establishing their long-term strategies, states are required to consult
with other states that also contribute to visibility impairment in a
given Class I area and include all measures necessary to obtain their
shares of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(i) and (ii). Section 51.308(d) also contains seven
additional factors states must consider in formulating their long-term
strategies, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), as well as provisions governing
monitoring and other implementation plan requirements. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4). Finally, the 1999 RHR required states to submit periodic
progress reports--SIP revisions due every five years that contain
information on states' implementation of their regional haze plans and
an assessment of whether anything additional is needed to make
reasonable progress, see 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h)--and to consult with
the Federal Land Manager(s) \7\ (FLMs) responsible for each Class I
area according to the requirements in CAA 169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA established the URP framework in the 1999 RHR to provide
``an equitable analytical approach'' to assessing the rate of
visibility improvement at Class I areas across the country. The
start point for the URP analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was
calculated based on the amount of visibility improvement that was
anticipated to result from implementation of existing CAA programs
over the period from the mid-1990s to approximately 2005. Assuming
this rate of progress would continue into the future, EPA determined
that natural visibility conditions would be reached in 60 years, or
2064 (60 years from the baseline starting point of 2004). However,
EPA did not establish 2064 as the year by which the national goal
must be reached. 64 FR 35714 at 35731-32, July 1, 1999. That is, the
URP and the 2064 date are not enforceable targets, but are rather
tools that ``allow for analytical comparisons between the rate of
progress that would be achieved by the state's chosen set of control
measures and the URP.'' (82 FR 3078, 3084, January 10, 2017).
\7\ The EPA's regulations define ``Federal Land Manager'' as
``the Secretary of the department with authority over the Federal
Class I area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park, the Chairman of the
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 10, 2017, the EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR, (82
FR 3078, January 10, 2017), that apply for the second and subsequent
implementation periods. The 2017 rulemaking made several changes to the
requirements for regional haze SIPs to clarify States' obligations and
streamline certain regional haze requirements. The revisions to the
regional haze program for the second and subsequent implementation
periods focused on the requirement that States' SIPs contain long-term
strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national
visibility goal. The reasonable progress requirements as revised in the
2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the 2017 RHR Revisions) are
codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f). Among other changes, the 2017 RHR
Revisions adjusted the deadline for States to submit their second
implementation period SIPs from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021,
clarified the order of analysis and the relationship between RPGs and
the long-term strategy, and focused on making visibility improvements
on the days with the most anthropogenic visibility impairment, as
opposed to the days with the most visibility impairment overall. The
EPA also revised requirements of the visibility protection program
related to periodic progress reports and FLM consultation. The specific
requirements applicable to second implementation period regional haze
SIP submissions are addressed in detail below.
The EPA provided guidance to the states for their second
implementation period SIP submissions in the preamble to the 2017 RHR
Revisions as well as in subsequent, stand-alone guidance documents. In
August 2019, the EPA issued ``Guidance on Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2019
Guidance'').\8\ On July 8, 2021, the EPA issued a memorandum containing
``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for
the Second Implementation Period'' (``2021 Clarifications Memo'').\9\
Additionally, the EPA further clarified the recommended procedures for
processing ambient visibility data and optionally adjusting the URP to
account for international anthropogenic and prescribed fire impacts in
two technical guidance documents: the December 2018 ``Technical
Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for the Second Implementation
Period of the Regional Haze Program'' (``2018 Visibility Tracking
Guidance''),\10\ and the June 2020 ``Recommendation for the Use of
Patched and Substituted Data and Clarification of Data Completeness for
Tracking Visibility Progress for the Second Implementation Period of
the Regional Haze Program'' and associated Technical Addendum (``2020
Data Completeness Memo'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the
Second Implementation Period. <a href="http://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period">www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period</a>. 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. <a href="http://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf">www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf</a>.
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.
<a href="http://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progress-second-implementation-period-regional">www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progress-second-implementation-period-regional</a>. 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. <a href="http://www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program">www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program</a>. The EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (June 3,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, EPA
intends the second implementation period of the regional haze program
to secure meaningful reductions in visibility impairing pollutants that
build on the significant progress states have achieved to date. The
Agency also recognizes that analyses regarding reasonable progress are
state-specific and that, based on states' and sources' individual
circumstances, what constitutes reasonable reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants will vary from state-to-state. While there exist
many opportunities for states to leverage both ongoing and upcoming
emission reductions under other CAA programs, the Agency expects states
to undertake rigorous reasonable progress analyses that identify
further opportunities to advance the national visibility goal
consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements. See
generally 2021 Clarifications Memo. This is consistent with Congress's
determination that a visibility protection program is needed in
addition to the CAA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration programs, as
[[Page 58181]]
further emission reductions may be necessary to adequately protect
visibility in Class I areas throughout the country.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95-294 at 205 (``In determining how
to best remedy the growing visibility problem in these areas of
great scenic importance, the committee realizes that as a matter of
equity, the national ambient air quality standards cannot be revised
to adequately protect visibility in all areas of the country.''),
(``the mandatory class I increments of [the PSD program] do not
adequately protect visibility in class I areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Because the air pollutants and pollution affecting visibility in
Class I areas can be transported over long distances, successful
implementation of the regional haze program requires long-term,
regional coordination among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that
have responsibility for Class I areas and the emissions that impact
visibility in those areas. In order to address regional haze, states
need to develop strategies in coordination with one another,
considering the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air
quality in another. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs),\13\
which include representation from state and tribal governments, the
EPA, and FLMs, were developed in the lead-up to the first
implementation period to address regional haze. RPOs evaluate technical
information to better understand how emissions from State and Tribal
land impact Class I areas across the country, pursue the development of
regional strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter and other
pollutants leading to regional haze, and help states meet the
consultation requirements of the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ``multi-
jurisdictional organizations,'' or MJOs. For the purposes of this
document, the terms RPO and MJO are synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), one of the
five RPOs described above, is a collaborative effort of state
governments, tribal governments, and various Federal agencies
established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the
management of regional haze, visibility, and other air quality issues
in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast corridor of the United States. Member
states and tribal governments (listed alphabetically) include:
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and
Vermont. The Federal partner members of MANE-VU are EPA, U.S. National
Parks Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S.
Forest Service (USFS).
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Implementation
Period
Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to submit regional
haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021.
Each state's SIP must contain a long-term strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any
existing and preventing any future anthropogenic visibility impairment
in Class I areas. CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f) lays
out the process by which states determine what constitutes their long-
term strategies, with the order of the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1) through (3) generally mirroring the order of the steps in
the reasonable progress analysis \14\ and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) through
(6) containing additional, related requirements. Broadly speaking, a
state first must identify the Class I areas within the state and
determine the Class I areas outside the state in which visibility may
be affected by emissions from the state. These are the Class I areas
that must be addressed in the state's long-term strategy. See 40 CFR
51.308(f) and (f)(2). For each Class I area within its borders, a state
must then calculate the baseline, current, and natural visibility
conditions for that area, as well as the visibility improvement made to
date and the URP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each state having a Class I
area and/or emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must
then develop a long-term strategy that includes the enforceable
emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress in such areas. A reasonable
progress determination is based on applying the four factors in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) to sources of visibility-impairing pollutants that
the state has selected to assess for controls for the second
implementation period. Additionally, as further explained below, the
RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five ``additional
factors'' \15\ that states must consider in developing their long-term
strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A state evaluates potential
emission reduction measures for those selected sources and determines
which are necessary to make reasonable progress. Those measures are
then incorporated into the state's long-term strategy. After a state
has developed its long-term strategy, it then establishes RPGs for each
Class I area within its borders by modeling the visibility impacts of
all reasonable progress controls at the end of the second
implementation period, i.e., in 2028, as well as the impacts of other
requirements of the CAA. The RPGs include reasonable progress controls
not only for sources in the state in which the Class I area is located,
but also for sources in other states that contribute to visibility
impairment in that area. The RPGs are then compared to the baseline
visibility conditions and the URP to ensure that progress is being made
towards the statutory goal of preventing any future and remedying any
existing anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I areas. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that we were
adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike
the structure in 51.308(d), ``tracked the actual planning
sequence.'' (82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017).
\15\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to satisfying the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f)
related to reasonable progress, the regional haze SIP submissions
revisions due by July 31, 2021, for the second implementation period
must address the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5)
pertaining to periodic reports describing progress towards the RPGs, 40
CFR 51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements for FLM consultation that
apply to all visibility protection SIPs and SIP revisions. 40 CFR
51.308(i).
A state must submit its regional haze SIP and subsequent SIP
revisions to the EPA according to the requirements applicable to all
SIP revisions under the CAA and EPA's regulations. See CAA 169(b)(2);
CAA 110(a). Upon EPA approval, a SIP is enforceable by the Agency and
the public under the CAA. If EPA finds that a state fails to make a
required SIP revision, or if the EPA finds that a state's SIP is
incomplete or if disapproves the SIP, the Agency must promulgate a
federal implementation plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable
requirements. CAA 110(c)(1).
A. Identification of Class I Areas
The first step in developing a regional haze SIP is for a state to
determine which Class I areas, in addition to those within its borders,
``may be affected'' by emissions from within the state. In the 1999
RHR, the EPA determined that all
[[Page 58182]]
states contribute to visibility impairment in at least one Class I
area, 64 FR 35720-22, July 1, 1999, and explained that the statute and
regulations lay out an ``extremely low triggering threshold'' for
determining ``whether States should be required to engage in air
quality planning and analysis as a prerequisite to determining the need
for control of emissions from sources within their State.'' Id. at
35721.
A state must determine which Class I areas must be addressed by its
SIP by evaluating the total emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants from all sources within the state. While the RHR does not
require this evaluation to be conducted in any particular manner, EPA's
2019 Guidance provides recommendations for how such an assessment might
be accomplished, including by, where appropriate, using the
determinations previously made for the first implementation period.
2019 Guidance at 8-9. In addition, the determination of which Class I
areas may be affected by a state's emissions is subject to the
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ``document the technical
basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions
information, on which the State is relying to determine the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress in
each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects.''
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
As part of assessing whether a SIP submission for the second
implementation period is providing for reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal, the RHR contains requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility improvement over time. The
requirements of this subsection apply only to states having Class I
areas within their borders; the required calculations must be made for
each such Class I area. EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance \16\
provides recommendations to assist states in satisfying their
obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1); specifically, in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP to account for the
impacts of international anthropogenic emissions and prescribed fires.
See 82 FR 3078 at 3103-05, January 10, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance references and relies
on parts of the 2003 Tracking Guidance: ``Guidance for Tracking
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule,'' which can be found at
<a href="https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/visible/tracking.pdf">https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/visible/tracking.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RHR requires tracking of visibility conditions on two sets of
days: the clearest and the most impaired days. Visibility conditions
for both sets of days are expressed as the average deciview index for
the relevant five-year period (the period representing baseline or
current visibility conditions). The RHR provides that the relevant sets
of days for visibility tracking purposes are the 20% clearest (the 20%
of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest values of the
deciview index) and 20% most impaired days (the 20% of monitored days
in a calendar year with the highest amounts of anthropogenic visibility
impairment).\17\ 40 CFR 51.301. A state must calculate visibility
conditions for both the 20% clearest and 20% most impaired days for the
baseline period of 2000-2004 and the most recent five-year period for
which visibility monitoring data are available (representing current
visibility conditions). 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i) and (iii). States must
also calculate natural visibility conditions for the clearest and most
impaired days,\18\ by estimating the conditions that would exist on
those two sets of days absent anthropogenic visibility impairment. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii). Using all these data, states must then calculate,
for each Class I area, the amount of progress made since the baseline
period (2000-2004) and how much improvement is left to achieve in order
to reach natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ This document also refers to the 20% clearest and 20% most
anthropogenically impaired days as the ``clearest'' and ``most
impaired'' or ``most anthropogenically impaired'' days,
respectively.
\18\ The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an error
related to the requirement for calculating two sets of natural
conditions values. The rule says ``most impaired days or the
clearest days'' where it should say ``most impaired days and
clearest days.'' This is an error that was intended to be corrected
in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected in the final
rule language. This is supported by the preamble text at 82 FR 3098,
January 10, 2017: ``In the final version of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii),
an occurrence of ``or'' has been corrected to ``and'' to indicate
that natural visibility conditions for both the most impaired days
and the clearest days must be based on available monitoring
information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, states must
plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and
natural visibility conditions for each Class I area to determine the
URP--the amount of visibility improvement, measured in deciviews, that
would need to be achieved during each implementation period in order to
achieve natural visibility conditions by the end of 2064. The URP is
used in later steps of the reasonable progress analysis for
informational purposes and to provide a non-enforceable benchmark
against which to assess a Class I area's rate of visibility
improvement.\19\ Additionally, in the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA
provided states the option of proposing to adjust the endpoint of the
URP to account for impacts of anthropogenic sources outside the United
States and/or impacts of certain types of wildland prescribed fires.
These adjustments, which must be approved by the EPA, are intended to
avoid any perception that states should compensate for impacts from
international anthropogenic sources and to give states the flexibility
to determine that limiting the use of wildland-prescribed fire is not
necessary for reasonable progress. 82 FR 3078 at 3107 footnote 116,
January 10, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Being on or below the URP is not a ``safe harbor''; i.e.,
achieving the URP does not mean that a Class I area is making
``reasonable progress'' and does not relieve a state from using the
four statutory factors to determine what level of control is needed
to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR 3078 at 3093, January 10,
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance can be used to help satisfy
the 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, including in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP. In addition, the 2020
Data Completeness Memo provides recommendations on the data
completeness language referenced in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides
updated natural conditions estimates for each Class I area.
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
The core component of a regional haze SIP submission is a long-term
strategy that addresses regional haze in each Class I area within a
state's borders and each Class I area that may be affected by emissions
from the state. The long-term strategy ``must include the enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that
are necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to
(f)(2)(i) through (iv).'' 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of progress
that is ``reasonable progress'' is based on applying the four statutory
factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of potential control
options for sources of visibility impairing pollutants, which is
referred to as a ``four-factor'' analysis. The outcome of that analysis
is the emission reduction measures that a particular source or group of
sources needs to implement in order to make reasonable progress
[[Page 58183]]
towards the national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
Emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress may be either new, additional control measures for a source,
or they may be the existing emission reduction measures that a source
is already implementing. See 2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications
Memo at 8-10. Such measures must be represented by ``enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures''
(i.e., any additional compliance tools) in a state's long-term strategy
in its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements for the four-
factor analysis. The first step of this analysis entails selecting the
sources to be evaluated for emission reduction measures; to this end,
the RHR requires states to consider ``major and minor stationary
sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area sources'' of
visibility impairing pollutants for potential four-factor control
analysis. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A threshold question at this step is
which visibility impairing pollutants will be analyzed. As EPA
previously explained, consistent with the first implementation period,
EPA generally expects that each state will analyze at least
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> in selecting sources and determining
control measures. See 2019 Guidance at 12, 2021 Clarifications Memo at
4. A state that chooses not to consider at least these two pollutants
should demonstrate why such consideration would be unreasonable. 2021
Clarifications Memo at 4.
While states have the option to analyze all sources, the 2019
Guidance explains that ``an analysis of control measures is not
required for every source in each implementation period,'' and that
``[s]electing a set of sources for analysis of control measures in each
implementation period is . . . consistent with the Regional Haze Rule,
which sets up an iterative planning process and anticipates that a
state may not need to analyze control measures for all its sources in a
given SIP revision.'' 2019 Guidance at 9. However, given that source
selection is the basis of all subsequent control determinations, a
reasonable source selection process ``should be designed and conducted
to ensure that source selection results in a set of pollutants and
sources the evaluation of which has the potential to meaningfully
reduce their contributions to visibility impairment.'' 2021
Clarifications Memo at 3.
EPA explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo that each state has
an obligation to submit a long-term strategy that addresses the
regional haze visibility impairment that results from emissions from
within that state. Thus, source selection should focus on the in-state
contribution to visibility impairment and be designed to capture a
meaningful portion of the state's total contribution to visibility
impairment in Class I areas. A state should not decline to select its
largest in-state sources on the basis that there are even larger out-
of-state contributors. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Similarly, in responding to comments on the 2017 RHR
Revisions EPA explained that ``[a] state should not fail to address
its many relatively low-impact sources merely because it only has
such sources and another state has even more low-impact sources and/
or some high impact sources.'' Responses to Comments on Protection
of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) at 87-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, while states have discretion to choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that
a state's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.''
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a state has selected the set of sources, the next step is to
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation
period.\21\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy
and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements.'' CAA 169A(g)(1). The EPA has explained that the four-
factor analysis is an assessment of potential emission reduction
measures (i.e., control options) for sources; ``use of the terms
`compliance' and `subject to such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1)
strongly indicates that Congress intended the relevant determination to
be the requirements with which sources would have to comply in order to
satisfy the CAA's reasonable progress mandate.'' 82 FR 3078 at 3091,
January 10, 2017. Thus, for each source it has selected for four-factor
analysis,\22\ a state must consider a ``meaningful set'' of technically
feasible control options for reducing emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants. Id. at 3088. The 2019 Guidance provides that ``[a] state
must reasonably pick and justify the measures that it will consider,
recognizing that there is no statutory or regulatory requirement to
consider all technically feasible measures or any particular measures.
A range of technically feasible measures available to reduce emissions
would be one way to justify a reasonable set.'' 2019 Guidance at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The CAA provides that, ``[i]n determining reasonable
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four
statutory factors. CAA 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-
factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or source
categories, a state may also consider additional emission reduction
measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g., from other
newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and measures for
sources not selected for four-factor analysis for the second
planning period.
\22\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires states to
evaluate individual sources. Rather, states have ``the flexibility
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of
sources or even entire source categories, depending on state policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each state.'' 82 FR
3078 at 3088, January 10, 2017. However, not all approaches to
grouping sources for four-factor analysis are necessarily
reasonable; the reasonableness of grouping sources in any particular
instance will depend on the circumstances and the manner in which
grouping is conducted. If it is feasible to establish and enforce
different requirements for sources or subgroups of sources, and if
relevant factors can be quantified for those sources or subgroups,
then states should make a separate reasonable progress determination
for each source or subgroup. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further guidance on what
constitutes a reasonable set of control options for consideration: ``A
reasonable four-factor analysis will consider the full range of
potentially reasonable options for reducing emissions.'' 2021
Clarifications Memo at 7. In addition to add-on controls and other
retrofits (i.e., new emission reduction measures for sources), EPA
explained that states should generally analyze efficiency improvements
for sources' existing measures as control options in their four-factor
analyses, as in many cases such improvements are reasonable given that
they typically involve only additional operation and maintenance costs.
Additionally, the 2021 Clarifications Memo provides that states that
have assumed a higher emission rate than a source has achieved or could
potentially achieve using its existing measures should also consider
lower emission rates as potential control options. That is, a state
should consider a source's recent actual and projected emission rates
to determine if it could
[[Page 58184]]
reasonably attain lower emission rates with its existing measures. If
so, the state should analyze the lower emission rate as a control
option for reducing emissions. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7. The EPA's
recommendations to analyze potential efficiency improvements and
achievable lower emission rates apply to both sources that have been
selected for four-factor analysis and those that have forgone a four-
factor analysis on the basis of existing ``effective controls.'' See
2021 Clarifications Memo at 5, 10.
After identifying a reasonable set of potential control options for
the sources it has selected, a state then collects information on the
four factors with regard to each option identified. The EPA has also
explained that, in addition to the four statutory factors, states have
flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably consider visibility
benefits as an additional factor alongside the four statutory
factors.\23\ The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations for the types
of information that can be used to characterize the four factors (with
or without visibility), as well as ways in which states might
reasonably consider and balance that information to determine which of
the potential control options is necessary to make reasonable progress.
See 2019 Guidance at 30-36. The 2021 Clarifications Memo contains
further guidance on how states can reasonably consider modeled
visibility impacts or benefits in the context of a four-factor
analysis. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 12-13, 14-15. Specifically, EPA
explained that while visibility can reasonably be used when comparing
and choosing between multiple reasonable control options, it should not
be used to summarily reject controls that are reasonable given the four
statutory factors. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13. Ultimately, while
states have discretion to reasonably weigh the factors and to determine
what level of control is needed, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a
state ``must include in its implementation plan a description of . . .
how the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the
measure for inclusion in its long-term strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016), Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0531,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186; 2019 Guidance at 36-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal must be
included in a state's long-term strategy and in its SIP.\24\ If the
outcome of a four-factor analysis is a new, additional emission
reduction measure for a source, that new measure is necessary to make
reasonable progress towards remedying existing anthropogenic visibility
impairment and must be included in the SIP. If the outcome of a four-
factor analysis is that no new measures are reasonable for a source,
continued implementation of the source's existing measures is generally
necessary to prevent future emission increases and thus to make
reasonable progress towards the second part of the national visibility
goal: preventing future anthropogenic visibility impairment. See CAA
169A(a)(1). That is, when the result of a four-factor analysis is that
no new measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, the source's
existing measures are generally necessary to make reasonable progress
and must be included in the SIP. However, there may be circumstances in
which a state can demonstrate that a source's existing measures are not
necessary to make reasonable progress. Specifically, if a state can
demonstrate that a source will continue to implement its existing
measures and will not increase its emission rate, it may not be
necessary to have those measures in the long-term strategy in order to
prevent future emission increases and future visibility impairment.
EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further explanation and
guidance on how states may demonstrate that a source's existing
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 8-10. If the state can make such a
demonstration, it need not include a source's existing measures in the
long-term strategy or its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ States may choose to, but are not required to, include
measures in their long-term strategies beyond just the emission
reduction measures that are necessary for reasonable progress. See
2021 Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with smoke
management programs may choose to submit their smoke management
plans to EPA for inclusion in their SIPs but are not required to do
so. See, e.g., 82 FR 3078 at 3108-09, January 10, 2017 (requirement
to consider smoke management practices and smoke management programs
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not require states to adopt such
practices or programs into their SIPs, although they may elect to do
so).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with source selection, the characterization of information on
each of the factors is also subject to the documentation requirement in
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress analysis, including
source selection, information gathering, characterization of the four
statutory factors (and potentially visibility), balancing of the four
factors, and selection of the emission reduction measures that
represent reasonable progress, is a technically complex exercise, but
also a flexible one that provides states with bounded discretion to
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances.
Given this flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important
function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for its
decision making so that the public and the EPA can comprehend and
evaluate the information and analysis the state relied upon to
determine what emission reduction measures must be in place to make
reasonable progress. The technical documentation must include the
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on
which the state relied to determine the measures necessary to make
reasonable progress. This documentation requirement can be met through
the provision of and reliance on technical analyses developed through a
regional planning process, so long as that process and its output has
been approved by all state participants. In addition to the explicit
regulatory requirement to document the technical basis of their
reasonable progress determinations, states are also subject to the
general principle that those determinations must be reasonably moored
to the statute.\25\ That is, a state's decisions about the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress must
be consistent with the statutory goal of remedying existing and
preventing future visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531
(9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA, 812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir.
2016); North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013);
Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208-10 (10th Cir. 2013); cf.
also Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165 (3d
Cir. 2015); Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S.
461, 485, 490 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The four statutory factors (and potentially visibility) are used to
determine what emission reduction measures for selected sources must be
included in a state's long-term strategy for making reasonable
progress. Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ``additional factors'' \26\ that states must consider in
developing their long-term
[[Page 58185]]
strategies: (1) emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution
control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable
visibility impairment; (2) measures to reduce the impacts of
construction activities; (3) source retirement and replacement
schedules; (4) basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire
used for agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and
smoke management programs; and (5) the anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by the long-term strategy. The 2019
Guidance provides that a state may satisfy this requirement by
considering these additional factors in the process of selecting
sources for four-factor analysis, when performing that analysis, or
both, and that not every one of the additional factors needs to be
considered at the same stage of the process. See 2019 Guidance at 21.
EPA provided further guidance on the five additional factors in the
2021 Clarifications Memo, explaining that a state should generally not
reject cost-effective and otherwise reasonable controls merely because
there have been emission reductions since the first planning period
owing to other ongoing air pollution control programs or merely because
visibility is otherwise projected to improve at Class I areas.
Additionally, states generally should not rely on these additional
factors to summarily assert that the state has already made sufficient
progress and, therefore, no sources need to be selected or no new
controls are needed regardless of the outcome of four-factor analyses.
2021 Clarifications Memo at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses state
boundaries, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to consult with
other states that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area.
Consultation allows for each state that impacts visibility in an area
to share whatever technical information, analyses, and control
determinations may be necessary to develop coordinated emission
management strategies. This coordination may be managed through inter-
and intra-RPO consultation and the development of regional emissions
strategies; additional consultations between states outside of RPO
processes may also occur. If a state, pursuant to consultation, agrees
that certain measures (e.g., a certain emission limitation) are
necessary to make reasonable progress at a Class I area, it must
include those measures in its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A).
Additionally, the RHR requires that states that contribute to
visibility impairment at the same Class I area consider the emission
reduction measures the other contributing states have identified as
being necessary to make reasonable progress for their own sources. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a state has been asked to consider or adopt
certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately determines those
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress, that state must
document in its SIP the actions taken to resolve the disagreement. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). The EPA will consider the technical
information and explanations presented by the submitting state and the
state with which it disagrees when considering whether to approve the
state's SIP. See id.; 2019 Guidance at 53. Under all circumstances, a
state must document in its SIP submission all substantive consultations
with other contributing states. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
Reasonable progress goals ``measure the progress that is projected
to be achieved by the control measures states have determined are
necessary to make reasonable progress based on a four-factor
analysis.'' 82 FR 3078 at 3091, January 10, 2017. Their primary purpose
is to assist the public and the EPA in assessing the reasonableness of
states' long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii) and (iv). States
in which Class I areas are located must establish two RPGs, both in
deciviews--one representing visibility conditions on the clearest days
and one representing visibility on the most anthropogenically impaired
days--for each area within their borders. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). The
two RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts, on the two sets
of days, of the emission reduction measures the state with the Class I
area, as well as all other contributing states, have included in their
long-term strategies for the second implementation period.\27\ The RPGs
also account for the projected impacts of implementing other CAA
requirements, including non-SIP based requirements. Because RPGs are
the modeled result of the measures in states' long-term strategies (as
well as other measures required under the CAA), they cannot be
determined before states have conducted their four-factor analyses and
determined the control measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts of the
measures all contributing states include in their long-term
strategies. However, due to the timing of analyses and of control
determinations by other states, other on-going emissions changes, a
particular state's RPGs may not reflect all control measures and
emissions reductions that are expected to occur by the end of the
implementation period. The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations
for addressing the timing of RPG calculations when states are
developing their long-term strategies on disparate schedules, as
well as for adjusting RPGs using a post-modeling approach. 2019
Guidance at 47-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the second implementation period, the RPGs are set for 2028.
Reasonable progress goals are not enforceable targets, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they ``provide a way for the states to check
the projected outcome of the [long-term strategy] against the goals for
visibility improvement.'' 2019 Guidance at 46. While states are not
legally obligated to achieve the visibility conditions described in
their RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ``[t]he long-term
strategy and the reasonable progress goals must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the baseline
period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the clearest days
since the baseline period.'' Thus, states are required to have emission
reduction measures in their long-term strategies that are projected to
achieve visibility conditions on the most impaired days that are better
than the baseline period and shows no degradation on the clearest days
compared to the clearest days from the baseline period. The baseline
period for the purpose of this comparison is the baseline visibility
condition--the annual average visibility condition for the period 2000-
2004. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR 3078 at 3097-98, January 10,
2017.
So that RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of
progress a state is making towards the national visibility goal, the
RHR requires states with Class I areas to compare the 2028 RPG for the
most impaired days to the corresponding point on the URP line
(representing visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility were to
improve at a linear rate from conditions in the baseline period of
2000-2004 to natural visibility conditions in 2064). If the most
impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the URP (i.e., if visibility
conditions are improving more slowly than the rate described by the
URP), each state that contributes to visibility impairment in the Class
I area must demonstrate, based on the four-factor analysis required
[[Page 58186]]
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional emission reduction
measures would be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii) requires
that each state contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I area
that is projected to improve more slowly than the URP provide ``a
robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria used to
determine which sources or groups [of] sources were evaluated and how
the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken into
consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term
strategy.'' The 2019 Guidance provides suggestions about how such a
``robust demonstration'' might be conducted. See 2019 Guidance at 50-
51.
The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and 2021 Clarifications Memo also
explain that projecting an RPG that is on or below the URP based on
only on-the-books and/or on-the-way control measures (i.e., control
measures already required or anticipated before the four-factor
analysis is conducted) is not a ``safe harbor'' from the CAA's and
RHR's requirement that all states must conduct a four-factor analysis
to determine what emission reduction measures constitute reasonable
progress. The URP is a planning metric used to gauge the amount of
progress made thus far and the amount left before reaching natural
visibility conditions. However, the URP is not based on consideration
of the four statutory factors and therefore cannot answer the question
of whether the amount of progress being made in any particular
implementation period is ``reasonable progress.'' See 82 FR 3078 at
3093, 3099-3100, January 10, 2017; 2019 Guidance at 22; 2021
Clarifications Memo at 15-16.
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual
requirements under this subsection apply either to states with Class I
areas within their borders, states with no Class I areas but that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area, or both. A state with Class I areas within its
borders must submit with its SIP revision a monitoring strategy for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility
impairment that is representative of all Class I areas within the
state. SIP revisions for such states must also provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess visibility conditions in Class I areas, as well as reporting of
all visibility monitoring data to the EPA at least annually. Compliance
with the monitoring strategy requirement may be met through a state's
participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring network, which is used to measure
visibility impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i) and
(iv). The IMPROVE monitoring data is used to determine the 20% most
anthropogenically impaired and 20% clearest sets of days every year at
each Class I area and tracks visibility impairment over time.
All states' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring
data and other information are used to determine the contribution of
emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment
in affected Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii) and (iii). Section
51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires that all states' SIPs provide for a
statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area; the inventory must include emissions for the most recent
year for which data are available and estimates of future projected
emissions. States must also include commitments to update their
inventories periodically. The inventories themselves do not need to be
included as elements in the SIP and are not subject to EPA review as
part of the Agency's evaluation of a SIP revision.\28\ All states' SIPs
must also provide for any other elements, including reporting,
recordkeeping, and other measures, that are necessary for states to
assess and report on visibility. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). Per the 2019
Guidance, a state may note in its regional haze SIP that its compliance
with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) in 40 CFR part 51 Subpart
A satisfies the requirement to provide for an emissions inventory for
the most recent year for which data are available. To satisfy the
requirement to provide estimates of future projected emissions, a state
may explain in its SIP how projected emissions were developed for use
in establishing RPGs for its own and nearby Class I areas.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See ``Step 8: Additional requirements for regional haze
SIPs'' in 2019 Regional Haze Guidance at 55.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate from the requirements related to monitoring for regional
haze purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the RHR also contains a
requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) related to any additional monitoring
that may be needed to address visibility impairment in Class I areas
from a single source or a small group of sources. This is called
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment.'' \30\ Under this
provision, if the EPA or the FLM of an affected Class I area has
advised a state that additional monitoring is needed to assess
reasonably attributable visibility impairment, the state must include
in its SIP revision for the second implementation period an appropriate
strategy for evaluating such impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ EPA's visibility protection regulations define ``reasonably
attributable visibility impairment'' as ``visibility impairment that
is caused by the emission of air pollutants from one, or a small
number of sources.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report
for the first implementation period. The regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the public and the EPA about a
state's implementation of its existing long-term strategy and whether
such implementation is in fact resulting in the expected visibility
improvement. See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016), (82 FR 3078 at 3119,
January 10, 2017). To this end, every state's SIP revision for the
second implementation period is required to describe the status of
implementation of all measures included in the state's long-term
strategy, including BART and reasonable progress emission reduction
measures from the first implementation period, and the resulting
emissions reductions. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
A core component of the progress report requirements is an
assessment of changes in visibility conditions on the clearest and most
impaired days. For second implementation period progress reports, 40
CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires states with Class I areas within their
borders to first determine current visibility conditions for each area
on the most impaired and clearest days, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i)(B), and
then to calculate the difference between those current conditions and
baseline (2000-2004) visibility conditions in order to assess progress
made to date. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii)(B). States must also
[[Page 58187]]
assess the changes in visibility impairment for the most impaired and
clearest days since they submitted their first implementation period
progress reports. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(iii)(B) and (f)(5). Since
different states submitted their first implementation period progress
reports at different times, the starting point for this assessment will
vary state by state.
Similarly, states must provide analyses tracking the change in
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all
sources and activities within the state over the period since they
submitted their first implementation period progress reports. See 40
CFR 51.308(g)(4) and (f)(5). Changes in emissions should be identified
by the type of source or activity. Section 51.308(g)(5) also addresses
changes in emissions since the period addressed by the previous
progress report and requires states' SIP revisions to include an
assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within
or outside the state. This assessment must include an explanation of
whether these changes in emissions were anticipated and whether they
have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving
visibility relative to what the state projected based on its long-term
strategy for the first implementation period.
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Clean Air Act section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a
public hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must
consult with the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that
consultation, the state must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions
and recommendations in the notice to the public. Consistent with this
statutory requirement, the RHR also requires that states ``provide the
[FLM] with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point
early enough in the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy
emission reduction obligation so that information and recommendations
provided by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on
the long-term strategy.'' 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). Consultation that occurs
120 days prior to any public hearing or public comment opportunity will
be deemed ``early enough,'' but the RHR provides that in any event the
opportunity for consultation must be provided at least 60 days before a
public hearing or comment opportunity. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of visibility
impairment in any Class I area and their recommendations on the
development and implementation of strategies to address such
impairment. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In order for the EPA to evaluate
whether FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the RHR has
occurred, the SIP submission should include documentation of the timing
and content of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to the EPA
must also describe how the state addressed any comments provided by the
FLMs. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision must provide
procedures for continuing consultation between the state and FLMs
regarding the state's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4).
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Maryland's Regional Haze Submission for the
Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Maryland's First Implementation Period SIP Submission
MDE submitted its regional haze SIP for the first implementation
period to the EPA on February 13, 2012. The EPA approved Maryland's
first implementation period regional haze SIP submission on July 6,
2012 (77 FR 39938, July 6, 2012), effective August 6, 2012. EPA's
approval included the portions of the plan that addressed the
reasonable progress requirements and Maryland's implementation of Best
Available Retrofit Technologies (BART) on eligible sources. The
requirements for regional haze SIPs for the first implementation period
are contained in 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e). 40 CFR 51.308(b). Pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.308(g), Maryland was also responsible for submitting a
five-year progress report as a SIP revision for the first
implementation period, which it did on August 9, 2017. The EPA approved
the progress report on November 26, 2018 (83 FR 60363, November 26,
2018), effective December 26, 2018.
B. Maryland's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and the EPA's
Evaluation
In accordance with CAA sections 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(f), on February 8, 2022, MDE submitted a revision to the
Maryland SIP to address its regional haze obligations for the second
implementation period, which runs through 2028. Maryland made its 2020
Regional Haze SIP submission available for public comment on December
1, 2021 through January 4, 2022. MDE received and responded to public
comments and included the comments and responses to those comments in
their submission.
The following sections describe Maryland's SIP submission,
including analyses conducted by MANE-VU and Maryland's determinations
based on those analyses, Maryland's assessment of progress made since
the first implementation period in reducing emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants, and the visibility improvement progress at nearby
Class I areas. This document also contains EPA's evaluation of
Maryland's submission against the requirements of the CAA and RHR for
the second implementation period of the regional haze program.
C. Identification of Class I Areas
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each state in which any
Class I area is located or ``the emissions from which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility'' in
a Class I area to have a plan for making reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. The RHR implements this statutory requirement
at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which provides that each state's plan ``must
address regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within the
State,'' and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), which requires each state's plan to
include a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze in such Class
I areas.
The EPA explained in the 1999 RHR preamble that the CAA section
169A(b)(2) requirement that states submit SIPs to address visibility
impairment establishes ``an `extremely low triggering threshold' in
determining which States should submit SIPs for regional haze.'' 64 FR
35714 at 35721, July 1, 1999. In concluding that each of the contiguous
48 states and the District of Columbia meet this threshold,\31\ the EPA
relied on ``a large body of evidence demonstrat[ing] that long-range
transport of fine PM contributes to regional haze,'' id., including
modeling studies that ``preliminarily
[[Page 58188]]
demonstrated that each State not having a Class I area had emissions
contributing to impairment in at least one downwind Class I area.'' Id.
at 35722. In addition to the technical evidence supporting a conclusion
that each state contributes to existing visibility impairment, the EPA
also explained that the second half of the national visibility goal--
preventing future visibility impairment--requires having a framework in
place to address future growth in visibility-impairing emissions and
makes it inappropriate to ``establish criteria for excluding States or
geographic areas from consideration as potential contributors to
regional haze visibility impairment.'' Id. at 35721. Thus, the EPA
concluded that the agency's ``statutory authority and the scientific
evidence are sufficient to require all States to develop regional haze
SIPs to ensure the prevention of any future impairment of visibility,
and to conduct further analyses to determine whether additional control
measures are needed to ensure reasonable progress in remedying existing
impairment in downwind Class I areas.'' Id. at 35722. EPA's 2017
revisions to the RHR did not disturb this conclusion. See 82 FR 3078 at
3094, January 10, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ EPA determined that ``there is more than sufficient
evidence to support our conclusion that emissions from each of the
48 contiguous states and the District of Columba may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area.'' 64 FR 35714 at 35721, July 1, 1999. Hawaii, Alaska,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands must also submit regional haze SIPs
because they contain Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland has no mandatory Class I Federal area within its borders,
but has previously been shown to have sources with emissions that
impact visibility at downwind mandatory Class I Federal areas. For the
second implementation period, MANE-VU performed technical analyses \32\
to help assess source and state-level contributions to visibility
impairment and the need for interstate consultation. MANE-VU used the
results of these analyses to determine which states' emissions ``have a
high likelihood of affecting visibility in MANE-VU's Class I areas.''
\33\ Similar to metrics used in the first implementation period,\34\
MANE-VU used a greater than 2 percent of sulfate plus nitrate emissions
contribution criteria to determine whether emissions from individual
jurisdictions within the region affected visibility in any Class I
areas. The MANE-VU analyses for the second implementation period used a
combination of data analysis techniques, including emissions data,
distance from Class I areas, wind trajectories, and CALPUFF dispersion
modeling. Although many of the analyses focused only on SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions and resultant particulate sulfate contributions to visibility
impairment, some also incorporated NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to estimate
particulate nitrate contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The contribution assessment methodologies for MANE-VU Class
I areas are summarized in Appendix 1 of Maryland's SIP submittal,
which can be found in the docket, ``Selection of States for MANE-VU
Regional Haze Consultation (2018).''
\33\ Id.
\34\ See docket EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0912 for MANE-VU supporting
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One MANE-VU analysis used for contribution assessment was CALPUFF
air dispersion modeling. The CALPUFF model was used to estimate sulfate
and nitrate formation and transport in MANE-VU and nearby regions
originating from large electric generating unit (EGU) point sources and
other large industrial and institutional sources in the eastern and
central United States. Information from an initial round of CALPUFF
modeling was collated for the 444 EGUs that were determined to warrant
further scrutiny based on their emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF>. The list of EGUs was based on an enhanced ``Q/d''
analysis \35\ that considered recent SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in the
eastern United States and an analysis that adjusted previous 2002 MANE-
VU CALPUFF modeling by applying a ratio of 2011 to 2002 SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions. This list of sources was then enhanced by including the top
five SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emission sources for 2011 for
each state included in the modeling domain. A total of 311 EGU stacks
(as opposed to individual units) were included in the CALPUFF modeling
analysis. Initial information was also collected on the 50 industrial
and institutional sources that, according to 2011 Q/d analysis,
contributed the most to visibility impact in each Class I area. The
ultimate CALPUFF modeling run included a total of 311 EGU stacks and 82
industrial facilities. The summary report for the CALPUFF modeling
included the top 10 most impacting EGUs and the top 5 most impacting
industrial/institutional sources for each Class I area and compiled
those results into a ranked list of the most impacting EGUs and
industrial sources at MANE-VU Class I areas.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ ``Q/d'' is emissions (Q) in tons per year, typically of one
or a combination of visibility-impairing pollutants, divided by
distance to a class I area (d) in kilometers. The resulting ratio is
commonly used as a metric to assess a source's potential visibility
impacts on a particular class I area.
\36\ See docket document, ``2016 MANE VU Source Contribution
Modeling Report (CALPUFF Modeling of Large EGUs and Industrial
Sources) (April 4, 2017)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland had ten EGU sources \37\ and six industrial/institutional
sources \38\ that were included in the MANE-VU CALPUFF modeling
analysis.\39\ The EGU facilities Brandon Shores, Chalk Point, Herbert
Wagner, and Morgantown were identified as among the Top 25 most
impactful EGU facilities for Shenandoah National Park Class I area, and
EGU facility CP Crane was also identified as among the Top 25 most
impactful EGU facilities for Dolly Sods Wilderness Class I area. EGU
facilities Brandon Shores, Chalk Point, CP Crane, Herbert Wagner, and
Morgantown were also among the EGU facilities identified as having the
Top Impacting EGU stacks. The Luke Paper Company and Sparrows Point
industrial facilities were identified as among the Top 25 visibility
impacting industrial/institutional sources for Acadia National Park,
Brigantine National Wilderness Area, Great Gulf Wilderness, Lye Brook
Wilderness, Dolly Sods Wilderness, and Shenandoah National Park Class I
areas. The Indian Head Naval Support Facility was also identified as
among the Top 25 visibility impacting industrial/institutional sources
for Dolly Sods Wilderness and Shenandoah National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Brandon Shores (Unit 1 & Unit 2), CP Crane (Unit 1 & Unit
2), Chalk Point (Units 1 & 2), Dickerson (Units 1-3), Herbert Wager
(Unit 3 & Units 1, 2, and 4), and Morgantown (Unit 1 and Unit 2).
\38\ Luke Paper Company (Unit 0018, Unit 0019, and Unit 0235),
Naval Support Facility Indian Head, and Sparrows Point, LLC (Unit
0939 and Unit 0941).
\39\ See docket document, ``2016 MANE VU Source Contribution
Modeling Report (CALPUFF Modeling of Large EGUs and Industrial
Sources) (April 4, 2017)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its submittal, Maryland indicates that Brandon Shores Generating
Station has agreed via legal consent agreement to cease coal combustion
at the site by 2026.\40\ Maryland indicates that Chalk Point Generation
Station ceased coal operations in 2021 and closed, and that Maryland
subsequently filed a Retired Unit Exemption form with EPA, specifying
that the Chalk Point units identified are permanently shut down and
cannot be restarted, and that a new owner would be required to obtain
all new permits.\41\ Maryland also indicates that Herbert Wagner
Generating Station has agreed to cease coal combustion by 2026; MDE and
Herbert Wagner owner/operator Raven Power, Fort Smallwood LLC, entered
into a legal consent order requiring Raven Power to cease coal
combustion at Herbert Wager no later than January 1, 2026.\42\ Maryland
[[Page 58189]]
included the consent order as part of its SIP submittal. Maryland also
indicates that CP Crane Generating Station has disabled its coal
boilers and agreed via legal consent agreement to never again stockpile
or burn coal at the facility.\43\ Maryland further indicates that the
Luke Paper Company industrial facility has ceased operations, closed
and relinquished their air permits as of May 29, 2020; \44\ that the
Sparrows Point industrial facility was retired as of December 31, 2012;
\45\ and that the primary emissions units at the Indian Head Naval
Support Facility, which consisted of three coal- and No. 6 fuel oil-
fired boilers at the Goddard Steam Plant, were permanently shut down in
2014.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Section 2.4 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022), and docket
documents ``MDE SO<INF>2</INF> 2010 NAAQS SIP for Baltimore and Anne
Arundel NA (January 31, 2020)'', and ``MDE SO<INF>2</INF> 2010 NAAQS
SIP for Baltimore and Anne Arundel NA (January 31, 2020)--Appendix
B--Consent Orders, Permits, and Plan Approvals''.
\41\ See docket document, ``MDE EPA Chalk Point Units 1&2
Retired Unit Exemption Forms 6-4-21 (June 4, 2021)''.
\42\ See Appendix 19, ``Herbert A. Wagner Generating Station
Consent Order''.
\43\ See Section 2.6.1 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022), and
docket documents ``MDE SO<INF>2</INF> 2010 NAAQS SIP for Baltimore
and Anne Arundel NA (January 31, 2020)'', and ``MDE SO<INF>2</INF>
2010 NAAQS SIP for Baltimore and Anne Arundel NA (January 31,
2020)--Appendix B--Consent Orders, Permits, and Plan Approvals''.
\44\ See docket documents, ``Verso Luke Paper--Luke MD Title V
Permit Termination (May 7, 2020)'' and ``Verso Luke Paper--Verso
Luke Close Out Letter (May 8, 2020)''.
\45\ See docket document, ``MDE Sparrows Point Administrative
Consent Order (September 12, 2014)''.
\46\ See docket document, ``MDE EPA Indian Head Boiler
Decommision letter (January 29, 2016)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second MANE-VU contribution analysis used a meteorologically
weighted Q/d calculation to assess states' contributions to visibility
impairment at MANE-VU Class I areas.\47\ This analysis focused
predominantly on SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and used cumulative
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from a source and a state for the variable
``Q,'' and the distance of the source or state to the IMPROVE monitor
receptor at a Class I area as ``d.'' The result is then multiplied by a
constant (C<INF>i</INF>), which is determined based on the prevailing
wind patterns. MANE-VU selected a meteorologically weighted Q/d
analysis as an inexpensive initial screening tool that could easily be
repeated to determine which states, sectors, or sources have a larger
relative impact and warrant further analysis. MANE-VU updated its
analysis in 2016 using 2011 emissions and 2018 projected emissions,
which Maryland included as part of its submittal. MANE-VU's analysis
estimated Maryland's 2018 sulfate contribution at 3.77% at Acadia
National Park, 8.89% at Brigantine Wilderness, 3.36% at Great Gulf
3.80% at Lye Brook, and 3.35% at Moosehorn Class I areas based on
maximum daily impact.\48\ Although MANE-VU did not originally estimate
nitrate impacts, the MANE-VU Q/d analysis was subsequently extended to
account for nitrate contributions from NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and to
approximate the nitrate impacts from area and mobile sources. MANE-VU
therefore developed a ratio of nitrate to sulfate impacts based on the
previously described CALPUFF modeling and applied those to the sulfate
Q/d results in order to derive nitrate contribution estimates. Several
states did not have CALPUFF nitrate to sulfate ratio results, however,
because there were no point sources modeled with CALPUFF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See docket document, ``MANE-VU Contributions to Regional
Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States (August
2006)''.
\48\ See ``Table 2-2: Q/d results using 2011 and 2018 inventory
data for 32 states'', of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to develop a final set of contribution estimates, MANE-VU
weighted the results from both the Q/d and CALPUFF analyses. The MANE-
VU mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate contribution results were reported
for the MANE-VU Class I areas (the Q/d summary report included results
for several non-MANE-VU areas as well). If a state's contribution to
sulfate and nitrate concentrations at a particular Class I area was 2
percent or greater, MANE-VU regarded that state as contributing to
visibility impairment in that area. According to MANE-VU's analyses,
sources in Maryland were found to contribute to visibility impairment
at all seven downwind MANE-VU Class I areas,\49\ as well as VISTA Class
I areas including James River Face and Shenandoah National Park in
Virginia and Dolly Sods Wilderness and Otter Creek Wilderness in West
Virginia.\50\ MANE-VU determined that modeled emissions sources that
have the potential for 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> or greater visibility
impacts at any MANE-VU Class I area should perform a four-factor
analysis for reasonable installation or upgrade to emissions controls.
Maryland indicated in its submittal that it agrees with MANE-VU's
approach and assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Acadia National Park, Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge,
and Roosevelt Campobello International Park in Maine; Brigantine
Wilderness in New Jersey; Great Gulf Wilderness and Presidential
Range-Dry River Wilderness in New Hampshire; and Lye Brook
Wilderness in Vermont.
\50\ See docket document, ``2016 MANE-VU Source Contribution
Modeling Report (April 4, 2017),'' Tables 1 through 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, the EPA concluded in the 1999 RHR that ``all
[s]tates contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to regional haze in a Class I area,'' 64 FR 35714 at 35721,
July 1, 1999, and this determination was not changed in the 2017 RHR.
Critically, the statute and regulation both require that the cause-or-
contribute assessment consider all emissions of visibility-impairing
pollutants from a state, as opposed to emissions of a particular
pollutant or emissions from a certain set of sources. Consistent with
these requirements, the 2019 Guidance makes it clear that ``all types
of anthropogenic sources are to be included in the determination'' of
whether a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to result in any
visibility impairment. 2019 Guidance at 8.
First, the screening analyses on which MANE-VU relied are useful
for certain purposes. MANE-VU used information from its technical
analysis to rank the largest contributing states to sulfate and nitrate
impairment in five Class I areas within MANE-VU states and three
additional, nearby Class I areas.\51\ The rankings were used to
determine upwind states that were deemed important to include in state-
to-state consultation (based on an identified impact screening
threshold). Additionally, large individual source impacts were used to
target MANE-VU control analysis ``Asks'' \52\ of states and sources
both within and upwind of MANE-VU.\53\ The EPA finds the nature of the
analyses generally appropriate to support decisions on states with
which to consult. However, we have cautioned that source selection
methodologies that target the largest regional contributors to
visibility impairment across multiple states may not be reasonable for
a particular state if it results in few or no sources being selected
for subsequent analysis. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ The Class I areas analyzed were Acadia National Park in
Maine, Brigantine Wilderness in New Jersey, Great Gulf Wilderness in
New Hampshire, Lye Brook Wilderness in Vermont, Moosehorn Wilderness
in Maine, Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, James River Face
Wilderness in Virginia, and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek Wildernesses in
West Virginia.
\52\ As explained more fully in Section IV.E.1 of this document,
MANE-VU refers to each of the components of its overall strategy as
an ``Ask ``of its member states.
\53\ The MANE-VU Consultation Report (Appendix 7) explains that
``[t]he objective of this technical work was to identify states and
sources from which MANE-VU will pursue further analysis. This
screening was intended to identify which states to invite to
consultation, not a definitive list of which states are
contributing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the analysis and determinations regarding Maryland's
contribution to visibility impairment at out-of-state Class I areas,
the MANE-VU technical work focuses on the magnitude of visibility
impacts from certain Maryland emissions on downwind Class I areas.
However, the analyses did not account for all
[[Page 58190]]
emissions and all components of visibility impairment (e.g., primary PM
emissions, and impairment from fine PM, elemental carbon, and organic
carbon). In addition, Q/d analyses with a relatively simplistic
accounting for wind trajectories and CALPUFF applied to a very limited
set of EGUs and major industrial sources of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> are not scientifically rigorous tools capable of
evaluating contribution to visibility impairment from all emissions in
a state. While Maryland noted that contributions from other states are
larger than its own, we again clarify that each state is obligated
under the CAA and RHR to address regional haze visibility impairment
resulting from emissions from within the state, irrespective of whether
another state's contribution is greater. See 2021 Clarifications Memo
at 3. Additionally, we note that the 2 percent or greater sulfate-plus-
nitrate threshold used to determine whether Maryland emissions
contribute to visibility impairment at a particular Class I area may be
higher than what EPA believes is an ``extremely low triggering
threshold'' intended by the statute and regulations. In sum, based on
the information provided, it is clear that emissions from Maryland
contribute to visibility impairment at out-of-state Class I areas.
Regardless, we note that Maryland did determine that sources and
emissions within the state contribute to visibility impairment at out-
of-state Class I areas. Furthermore, the state took part in the
emission control strategy consultation process as a member of MANE-VU.
As part of that process, MANE-VU developed a set of emissions reduction
measures identified as being necessary to make reasonable progress in
the five MANE-VU Class I areas. This strategy consists of six Asks for
states within MANE-VU and five Asks for states outside the region that
were found to impact visibility at Class I areas within MANE-VU.\54\
Maryland's submittal discusses each of the Asks and explains why or why
not each is applicable and how it has complied with the relevant
components of the emissions control strategy MANE-VU has laid out for
its states. Maryland worked with MANE-VU to determine potential
reasonable measures that could be implemented by 2028, considering the
cost of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts, and the remaining useful life of
any potentially affected sources. As discussed in further detail below,
the EPA is proposing to find that Maryland has submitted a regional
haze plan that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) related to
the development of a long-term strategy. Although we have concerns
regarding some aspects of MANE-VU's technical analyses supporting
states' contribution determinations, we propose to find that Maryland
has satisfied the applicable requirements for making reasonable
progress towards natural visibility conditions in Class I areas that
may be affected be emissions from the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See docket documents, ``MANE-VU Intra-Regional Ask Final 8-
25-2017 (August 25, 2017)'' and ``MANE-VU Inter-Regional Ask Final
8-25-2017 (August 25, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to determine the following for
``each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State'':
baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
progress to date for the most impaired and clearest days, the
differences between current visibility conditions and natural
visibility conditions, and the URP. This section also provides the
option for states to propose adjustments to the URP line for a Class I
area to account for visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources
outside the United States and/or the impacts from wildland prescribed
fires that were conducted for certain, specified objectives. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
Maryland does not have any mandatory Class I areas within its
borders; therefore, Section 51.308(f)(1) and its requirements do not
apply.
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
1. Maryland's Response to the Six MANE-VU Asks
Each state having a Class I area within its borders or emissions
that may affect visibility in a Class I area must develop a long-term
strategy for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility
goal. CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in the Background section of this
document, reasonable progress is achieved when all states contributing
to visibility impairment in a Class I area are implementing the
measures determined--through application of the four statutory factors
to sources of visibility impairing pollutants--to be necessary to make
reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each state's long-term
strategy must include the enforceable emission limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). All new (i.e., additional) measures that
are the outcome of four-factor analyses are necessary to make
reasonable progress and must be in the long-term strategy. If the
outcome of a four-factor analysis and other measures necessary to make
reasonable progress is that no new measures are reasonable for a
source, that source's existing measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress, unless the state can demonstrate that the source
will continue to implement those measures and will not increase its
emission rate. Existing measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress must also be in the long-term strategy. In developing its
long-term strategies, a state must also consider the five additional
factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its reasonable progress
determinations, the state must describe the criteria used to determine
which sources or group of sources were evaluated (i.e., subjected to
four-factor analysis) for the second implementation period and how the
four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the emission
reduction measures for inclusion in the long-term strategy. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii).
The following section summarizes how Maryland's SIP submission
addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i); specifically, it
describes MANE-VU's development of the six Asks and how Maryland
addressed each. The EPA's evaluation of Maryland's SIP revision with
regard to the same is contained in the following Section IV.E.2 of this
document. Maryland's SIP submission describes how it plans to meet the
long-term strategy requirements defined by the state and MANE-VU and
provides that ``[t]hese long-term strategies are referred to as the
`Asks'.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See MD Regional Haze SIP submission Section 2.3 (Page 8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States may rely on technical information developed by the RPOs of
which they are members to select sources for four-factor analysis and
to conduct that analysis, as well as to satisfy the documentation
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f). Where an RPO has performed source
selection and/or four-factor analyses (or considered the five
additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member states,
those states may rely on the RPO's analyses for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the
states have
[[Page 58191]]
a reasonable basis to do so and all state participants in the RPO
process have approved the technical analyses. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii).
States may also satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) to
engage in interstate consultation with other states that have emissions
that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment
in a given Class I area under the auspices of intra- and inter-RPO
engagement.
Maryland is a member of the MANE-VU RPO and participated in the
RPO's regional approach to developing a strategy for making reasonable
progress towards the national visibility goal in the MANE-VU Class I
areas. MANE-VU's strategy includes a combination of: (1) measures for
certain source sectors and groups of sectors that the RPO determined
were reasonable for states to pursue, and (2) a request for member
states to conduct four-factor analyses for individual sources that it
identified as contributing to visibility impairment. MANE-VU refers to
each of the components of its overall strategy as an Ask of its member
states. On August 25, 2017, the Executive Director of MANE-VU, on
behalf of the MANE-VU states and tribal nations, signed a statement
that identifies six emission reduction measures that comprise the Asks
for the second implementation period.\56\ The Asks were ``designed to
identify reasonable emission reduction strategies that must be
addressed by the states and tribal nations of MANE-VU through their
regional haze SIP updates.'' \57\ The statement explains that ``[i]f
any State cannot agree with or complete a Class I State's Asks, the
State must describe the actions taken to resolve the disagreement in
the Regional Haze SIP.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See Appendix 8, ``Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Concerning a Course of Action within
MANE-VU toward Assuring Reasonable Progress for the Second Regional
Haze Implementation Period (2018-2028), (August 2017); and Appendix
7 ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report'' (July 27, 2018).''
\57\ Id.
\58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU's recommendations as to the appropriate control measures
were based on technical analyses documented in the RPO's reports and
included as appendices to or referenced in Maryland's regional haze SIP
submission. One of the initial steps of MANE-VU's technical analysis
was to determine which visibility-impairing pollutants should be the
focus of its efforts for the second implementation period. In the first
implementation period, MANE-VU determined that sulfates were the most
significant visibility impairing pollutant at the region's Class I
areas. To determine the impact of certain pollutants on visibility at
Class I areas for the purpose of second implementation period planning,
MANE-VU conducted an analysis comparing the pollutant contribution on
the clearest and most impaired days in the baseline period (2000-2004)
to the most recent period (2012-2016) \59\ at MANE-VU and nearby Class
I areas. MANE-VU found that while SO<INF>2</INF> emissions were
decreasing and visibility was improving, sulfates still made up the
most significant contribution to visibility impairment at MANE-VU and
nearby Class I areas. According to the analysis, NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions have begun to play a more significant role in visibility
impacts in recent years. The technical analyses used by Maryland are
included or referenced in their submission, and are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ The period of 2012-2016 was the most recent period for
which data was available at the time of analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Selection of States for MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation
(2018) (MANE-VU, September 2017) (Appendix 1);
<bullet> Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic United States: Preliminary Update through 2007 (NESCAUM, March
2012); \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See docket document, NESCAUM--Contributions to Regional
Haze Preliminary Update Through 2007 (March 21, 2012)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> MANE-VU Updated Q/d*C Contribution Assessment (MANE-VU,
April 2016) (Appendix 3);
<bullet> 2016 MANE-VU Source Contribution Modeling Report--CALPUFF
Modeling of Large Electrical Generating Units and Industrial Sources
(MANE-VU, May 2006) (Appendix 4);
<bullet> Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in
MANE-VU Class I areas (referred to as the MACTEC Report) MACTEC (July
2007); \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See docket document, ``Assessment of Reasonable Progress
for Regional Haze In MANE-VU Class I Areas (July 2007) (MACTEC
Reasonable Progress Report)''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU) Concerning a Course of Action within MANE-VU toward Assuring
Reasonable Progress for the Second Regional Haze Implementation Period
(2018-2028) (August 2017); \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See docket document, ``MANE-VU Intra-Regional Ask Final
(August 25, 2017)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU) Concerning a Course of Action In Contributing States Located
Upwind of MANE-VU Toward Assuring Reasonable Progress for the Second
Regional Haze Implementation Period (2018-2028) (Appendix 8);
<bullet> Technical Support Document for the 2011 Northeastern U.S.
Gamma Emission Inventory (January 2018) (Appendix 10);
<bullet> Ozone Transport Commission/Mid-Atlantic Northeastern
Visibility Union 2011 Based Modeling Platform Support Document--October
2018 Update (October 2018) (Appendix 11);
<bullet> The Nature of Fine Particle and Regional Haze Air Quality
Problems in the MANE-VU Region: A Conceptual Description (NESCAUM,
November 2006, Revised August 2010) (Appendix 12);
<bullet> Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility Data 2004-2017 (2nd
RH SIP Metrics) (MANE-VU, December 2018) (Appendix 13);
<bullet> Additional MANE-VU documentation for establishing 3.0
Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> Threshold (Appendix 17);
<bullet> 20% Most Impaired Days Based on Deciviews, as Detailed in
Recommendation on Approaches to Selecting the 20% Most Impaired Days
(March 2, 2017) (Appendix 18);
<bullet> Technical Support Document on Measures to Mitigate the
Visibility Impacts of Construction Activities in the MANE-VU Region
(MANE-VU, September 2006); \63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See docket document, ``MANE-VU TSD on Measures to Mitigate
the Visibility Impacts of Construction Activities in the MANE-VU
Region (September 2006).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Baseline and Natural Background Visibility Conditions
(NESCAUM, December 2006); \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See docket document ``NESCAUM--Baseline and Natural
Background Visibility Conditions (December 2006).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> 2016 Updates to the Assessment of Reasonable Progress for
Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas, January 31, 2016 (MARAMA,
January 31, 2016); \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See docket document, ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas
(January 31, 2016).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To support development of the Asks, MANE-VU gathered information on
the four statutory factors for six source sectors it determined, based
on an examination of annual emission inventories, ``had emissions that
were reasonabl[y] anticipated to contribute to visibility degradation
in MANE-VU:'' electric generating units (EGUs), industrial/commercial/
institutional boilers (ICI boilers), cement kilns, heating oil,
residential wood combustion, and outdoor wood combustion.\66\ MANE-VU
also collected data on individual sources within the EGU, ICI boiler,
and cement kiln
[[Page 58192]]
sectors.\67\ Information for the six sectors included explanations of
technically feasible control options for SO<INF>2</INF> or
NO<INF>X</INF>, illustrative cost-effectiveness estimates for a range
of model units and control options, sector-wide cost considerations,
potential time frames for compliance with control options, potential
energy and non-air-quality environmental impacts of certain control
options, and how the remaining useful lives of sources might be
considered in a control analysis.\68\ Source-specific data included
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions \69\ and existing controls \70\ for certain
existing EGUs, ICI boilers, and cement kilns. MANE-VU considered this
information on the four factors as well as the analyses developed by
the RPO's Technical Support Committee when it determined specific
emission reduction measures that were found to be reasonable for
certain sources within two of the sectors it had examined--EGUs and ICI
boilers. The Asks were based on this analysis and looked to either
optimize the use of existing controls, have states conduct further
analysis on EGU or ICI boilers with considerable visibility impacts,
implement low sulfur fuel standards, or lock-in lower emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See docket document ``MANE-VU Four Factor Data Collection
Memo (March 30, 2017)'' at 1.
\67\ See docket document, ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas
(January 31, 2016).''
\68\ Id.
\69\ See docket document ``MANE-VU Four Factor Data Collection
Memo (March 30, 2017).''
\70\ See docket document ``MANE-VU Status of the Top 167 Stacks
from the 2008 MANE-VU Ask (July 2016).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 1 requests that states ``ensure the most effective use
of control technologies on a year-round basis to consistently minimize
emissions of haze precursors, or obtain equivalent alternative emission
reductions'' at EGUs ``with a nameplate capacity larger than or equal
to 25 MW with already installed NO<INF>X</INF> and/or SO<INF>2</INF>
controls''.\71\ In its submission, Maryland stated that COMAR
21.11.27--Emission Limitations for Power Plants (Maryland Healthy Air
Act) ``caps NO<INF>X</INF> emissions on an ozone season and annual
basis for each coal-fired EGU in Maryland.'' In addition, Maryland also
stated that COMAR 26.11.40--NOX Ozone Season Emission Caps for Non-
trading Large NOX Units ``assures optimization of post-combustion
(Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Selective Non-Catalytic
Reduction (SNCR)) NO<INF>X</INF> controls on coal-fired EGUs and sets
NO<INF>X</INF> Indicator Rates for each unit to assure optimization.''
\72\ Maryland credited these regulations with ``reducing annual
NO<INF>X</INF> mass emissions by almost 95% compared to 2002 levels.''
\73\ Regarding SO<INF>2</INF> emission controls, Maryland stated that
COMAR 21.11.27--Emission Limitations for Power Plans (Maryland Healthy
Air Act) ``caps SO<INF>2</INF> emissions limits on an annual basis for
each coal-fired EGU in Maryland. All non-fluidized bed base load coal-
fired units are equipped with Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) except
one. H.A. Wagner Unit 3 is the only coal-fired EGU not equipped with an
FGD. H.A. Wagner Unit 3 is named as a unit requiring a four-factor
analysis and is analyzed further in Section 2.5.2.'' Maryland also
stated that permit limits associated with a federally enforceable
consent order for the Anne Arundel and Baltimore County SO<INF>2</INF>
nonattainment area include SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits. Taken
together, Maryland credited these requirements with ``reducing the
annual SO<INF>2</INF> mass emissions by over 95% compared to 2002
levels''.\74\ Maryland therefore concluded it is meeting Ask 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
(July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\72\ See Section 2.5.1 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\73\ See Table 2-8, Figure 2-3, and Figure 2-4 of the MD
Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028
(February 8, 2022).
\74\ See Table 2-7 and Figure 2-3 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 2 requests that states ``perform a four-factor analysis
for reasonable installation or upgrade to emissions controls'' at
``emission sources modeled by MANE-VU that have the potential for 3.0
Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> or greater visibility impacts at any MANE-VU Class I
area, as identified by MANE-VU contribution analyses''. MANE-VU
developed its Ask 2 list of sources for analysis by performing modeling
and identifying facilities with the potential for 3.0 inverse
megameters (Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>) or greater impacts on visibility at any
Class I area in the MANE-VU region. MANE-VU identified emission sources
at the Herbert A. Wagner Generating Facility in Anne Arundel County,
Maryland and at the Verso Luke Paper Company facility in Allegany
County, Maryland as having the potential for 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> or
greater visibility impacts at any MANE-VU Class I area; \75\
specifically, Unit 3 at Herbert A. Wagner Generating Facility and Units
001-0011-3-0018 and 001-0011-3-0019 at Verso Luke Paper Company.
Maryland stated that ``Luke Paper Company ceased operations, closed,
and relinquished their air permits'', and that this information was
shared in a transmittal letter to EPA dated May 29, 2020 and included
in an attainment designation request letter.\76\ In addition, Maryland
also stated that, after requesting a four-factor analysis for Herbert
A. Wagner Unit 3 from the facility's owner/operator, ``the parent
company to the H.A. Wagner Generating Station publicly announced a
strategic repositioning of the facility that would eliminate the use of
coal. The owners of the H.A. Wagner Generating Station have agreed and
signed a legal consent order with [MDE] to cease the combustion of coal
by 2026 . . . Therefore, according to the statutory factor of remaining
useful life for this facility, further control is not reasonable . . .
A four-factor analysis of H.A. Wagner Unit 3 similarly concludes that
no additional controls would effectively control SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions at this facility since the remaining useful
life of the coal-fired unit is approximately 4\1/2\ years''.\77\ Given
the remaining useful life of this source, and the closure of Luke Paper
Company, Maryland concluded that no further action is necessary to
satisfy Ask 2.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See Appendix 4, ``2016 MANE VU Source Contribution Modeling
Report: CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical Generating Units and
Industrial Sources (April 4, 2017)''.
\76\ See docket documents, ``Verso Luke Paper--Luke MD Title V
Permit Termination (May 7, 2020)'' and ``Verso Luke Paper--Verso
Luke Close Out Letter (May 8, 2020)''.
\77\ See Appendix 19, Herbert A. Wagner Generating Station
Consent Order.
\78\ See Section 2.5.2 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 3 requests that, for ``each MANE-VU state that has not
yet fully adopted an ultra-low fuel oil standard as requested by MANE-
VU in 2007'', to ``pursue this standard as expeditiously as possible
and before 2028, depending on supply availability''. The Ask includes
percent by weight standards for #2 distillate oil (0.0015% sulfur by
weight or 15 ppm), #4 residual oil (0.25-0.5% sulfur by weight), and #6
residual oil (0.3-0.5% sulfur by weight). On October 3, 2014, Maryland
adopted a rule \79\ to modify the sulfur-in-fuel limits in accordance
with the MANE-VU Ask. This rule lowered the sulfur content of all
distillate fuel oils (#2 fuel oil and lighter) to 500 ppm (0.05% by
mass) on and after July 1, 2016; this rule was subsequently amended
\80\ to lower the required sulfur content of all distillate fuel oils
(#2 fuel oil and lighter) to 15
[[Page 58193]]
ppm (0.0015% by mass) on and after July 1, 2019. Maryland therefore
concluded that it is meeting Ask 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ 41:20 Md. R. 1111 (Maryland Register, Volume 41, Issue 20,
dated October 3, 2014), effective October 13, 2014.
\80\ 45:24 Md. R. 1162 (Maryland Register, Volume 45, Issue 24,
dated November 26, 2018), effective December 6, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 4 requests that states ``pursue updating permits,
enforceable agreements, and/or rules to lock-in lower emission rates
for SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM'' at ``EGUs and other large
point emission sources larger than 250 MMBTU per hour heat input that
have switched to lower emitting fuels''. Ask 4 also states that ``the
permit, enforceable agreement, and/or rule can allow for suspension of
the lower emission rate during natural gas curtailment''. Maryland's
SIP submittal states that ``EGUs and other large point emission sources
that have switched operations to lower emitting fuels are already
locked into the lower emission rates for NO<INF>X</INF>,
SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM by permits, enforceable agreements, and/or
rules. These units are required to amend their permits through the New
Source Review (NSR) process if they plan to switch back to coal or
another fuel that will increase emissions. A change in fuel, unless
already allowed in the permit, would be a modification.'' \81\
Maryland's submittal also states that ``COMAR 26.11.02.02 requires that
a permit to construct and an approval from MDE is required before
construction or modification of a source.'' Maryland therefore
concluded it is meeting Ask 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See COMAR 26.11.01.01, defining ``Modify'' or
``Modification'' to mean ``any physical change in, or change in the
operation of, a source or installation which causes a change in the
quantity, nature or characteristics of emissions from the source or
installation. However, this term excludes routine maintenance and
routine repair, and increases in the hours of operation or in the
production rate, unless these increases would be prohibited under
any permit or approval conditions adopted by the Department.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 5 requests that MANE-VU states, ``where emission rules
have not been adopted, control NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for peaking
combustion turbines that have the potential to operate on high electric
demand days'' by either: ``(a) Striving to meet NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions standards of no greater than 22 ppm at 15% O2 for natural gas
and 42 ppm at 15% O2 for fuel oil but at a minimum meet NO<INF>X</INF>
emission standards of no greater than 42 ppm at 15% O2 for natural gas
and 96 ppm at 15% O2 for fuel oil'', or ``(b) Performing a four-factor
analysis for reasonable installation of or upgrade to emission
controls'', or ``(c) Obtaining equivalent emission reductions on high
electric demand days.'' \82\ Maryland elected to perform a four-factor
analysis for reasonable installation of or upgrade to emission controls
for sources that met the definition of combustion turbines that have
the potential to operate on high electric demand days (HEDD),\83\ and
determined that it would not be technically feasible or cost effective
to implement additional controls at this time. Maryland therefore
concluded it is meeting Ask 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
(July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\83\ See Section 2.5.5 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 6, the last Ask, requests that ``each State should
consider and report in their SIP measures or programs to: a) decrease
energy demand through the use of energy efficiency, and b) increase the
use within their state of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and other clean
Distributed Generation technologies including fuel cells, wind, and
solar''.\84\ Maryland stated in its SIP submittal that the electricity
generation strategy in the state's 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act
(GGRA) Plan <SUP>85 86</SUP> is designed to achieve 100% Clean and
Renewable Electricity by 2040 by both deploying energy through the
existing Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the proposed Clean and
Renewable Energy Standard (CARES), and by capping and reducing
emissions through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
(RGGI).<SUP>87 88</SUP> Maryland's RPS requires Maryland electric
utilities to purchase increasingly large proportions of Maryland's
electricity from renewable energy sources like solar, wind, hydropower,
and qualifying biomass, with a current RPS goal of 50% clean
electricity by 2030 and 100% clean electricity by 2040. Maryland states
that these goals rely on both renewable energy and additional zero- and
low-carbon electricity sources to meet that goal where most cost-
effective, including Maryland solar power beyond current RPS
requirements, new efficient CHP systems in Maryland buildings, new
nuclear power, and natural gas or qualifying biomass power plants with
carbon capture and storage. Maryland further states that, although RGGI
is designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, other benefits in terms
of NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> are realized through energy
efficiency promotion, CHP deployment, and additional deployment of
renewable energy sources, including offshore wind power and community
solar generation.\89\ Maryland therefore concludes that it is meeting
Ask 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
(July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\85\ See docket document, ``MDE The 2030 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Reduction Act (GGRA) Plan (February 19, 2021)''.
\86\ <a href="http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/air/ClimateChange/Pages/Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-Reduction-Act-">mde.maryland.gov/programs/air/ClimateChange/Pages/Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-Reduction-Act-</a>(GGRA)-Plan.aspx.
\87\ <a href="http://www.rggi.org/">www.rggi.org/</a>.
\88\ <a href="http://www.rggiprojectseries.org/">www.rggiprojectseries.org/</a>.
\89\ See Section 2.5.6 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The EPA's Evaluation of Maryland's Response to the Six MANE-VU Asks
and Compliance With Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i)
The EPA is proposing to find that Maryland has satisfied the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) related to evaluating sources
and determining the emission reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress by considering the four statutory factors. We
are proposing to find that Maryland has satisfied the four-factor
analysis requirement through its analysis and actions to address MANE-
VU Ask 2 and Ask 5. We also propose to find that Maryland reasonably
concluded that it satisfied all six Asks.
As explained above, Maryland relied on MANE-VU's technical analyses
and framework (i.e., the Asks) to select sources and form the basis of
its long-term strategy. MANE-VU conducted an inventory analysis to
identify the source sectors that produced the greatest amount of
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in 2011; inventory data
were also projected to 2018. Based on this analysis, MANE-VU identified
the top-emitting sectors for each of the two pollutants, which for
SO<INF>2</INF> include coal-fired EGUs, industrial boilers, oil-fired
EGUs, and oil-fired area sources including residential, commercial, and
industrial sources. Major-emitting sources of NO<INF>X</INF> include
on-road vehicles, non-road vehicles, and EGUs.\90\ The RPO's
documentation explains that ``[EGUs] emitting SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> and industrial point sources emitting SO<INF>2</INF>
were found to be sectors with high emissions that warranted further
scrutiny. Mobile sources were not considered in this analysis because
any ask concerning mobile sources would be made to EPA and not during
the intra-RPO and inter-RPO consultation process among the states and
tribes.'' \91\ EPA proposes to find that Maryland reasonably evaluated
the two pollutants--SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>--that currently
drive visibility impairment within the MANE-VU region and that it
adequately explained and supported its decision to focus on these two
[[Page 58194]]
pollutants through its reliance on the MANE-VU technical analyses cited
in its submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See Appendix 3 ``MANE-VU Updated Q/d*C Contribution
Assessment (MANE-VU, April 2016).
\91\ See docket documents, ``MANE-VU Inter-Regional Ask Final 8-
25-2017 (August 25, 2017)'' and MANE-VU Intra-Regional Ask Final 8-
25-2017 (August 25, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to evaluate and determine
the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress by applying the four statutory factors to sources in a control
analysis. As explained previously, the MANE-VU Asks are a mix of
measures for sectors and groups of sources identified as reasonable for
states to address in their regional haze plans. While MANE-VU
formulated the Asks to be ``reasonable emission reduction strategies''
to control emissions of visibility impairing pollutants,\92\ EPA
believes that Maryland's responses to two of the Asks, in particular,
engage with the requirement that states determine the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress
through consideration of the four factors. As laid out in further
detail below, the EPA is proposing to find that MANE-VU's four-factor
analysis conducted to support the emission reduction measures in Ask 3
(ultra-low sulfur fuel oil Ask), in conjunction with Maryland's
supplemental analysis and explanation of how it has complied with Ask 2
(perform four-factor analyses for sources with potential for >=3.0
Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> impacts) satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i). The emission reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress must be included in the long-term strategy,
i.e., in Maryland's SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland asserted that it satisfies Ask 1 because it has SIP-
approved regulations applicable to EGU boilers that include annual
emission limits for both NO<INF>X</INF>\93\ \94\ and
SO<INF>2</INF>,\95\ and require the most effective use of emission
control technologies on a year-round basis. Maryland also claimed
additional SIP-approved SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions as a result
of the consent order for the Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County
SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area for the 2010 SO<INF>2</INF>
NAAQS.\96\ As a reminder, MANE-VU Ask 1 requests that states ``ensure
the most effective use of control technologies on a year-round basis to
consistently minimize emissions of haze precursors, or obtain
equivalent alternative emission reductions'' at EGUs ``with a nameplate
capacity larger than or equal to 25 MW with already installed
NO<INF>X</INF> and/or SO<INF>2</INF> controls''.\97\ Therefore, EPA
finds it reasonable to conclude that Maryland has satisfied Ask 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See COMAR 26.11.27, ``Emission Limitations for Power
Plants'', also at <a href="http://www.epa.gov/sips-md/maryland-sip-emission-limitations-power-plants">www.epa.gov/sips-md/maryland-sip-emission-limitations-power-plants</a>.
\94\ See COMAR 26.11.40, ``NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Emission
Caps for Non-trading Large NO<INF>X</INF> Units'' also at
<a href="http://www.epa.gov/sips-md/maryland-sip-nox-ozone-season-emission-caps-non-trading-large-nox-units">www.epa.gov/sips-md/maryland-sip-nox-ozone-season-emission-caps-non-trading-large-nox-units</a>.
\95\ See COMAR 26.11.27, ``Emission Limitations for Power
Plants'', also at <a href="http://www.epa.gov/sips-md/maryland-sip-emission-limitations-power-plants">www.epa.gov/sips-md/maryland-sip-emission-limitations-power-plants</a>.
\96\ See 87 FR 66086, November 2, 2022, and docket documents
``MDE SO<INF>2</INF> 2010 NAAQS SIP for Baltimore and Anne Arundel
NA (January 31, 2020)'', and ``MDE SO<INF>2</INF> 2010 NAAQS SIP for
Baltimore and Anne Arundel NA (January 31, 2020)--Appendix B--
Consent Orders, Permits, and Plan Approvals''.
\97\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
(July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask 2 addresses the sources MANE-VU determined have the potential
for larger than, or equal to, 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> visibility impact at
any MANE-VU Class I area; the Ask requests MANE-VU states to conduct
four-factor analyses for the specified sources within their borders.
This Ask explicitly engages with the statutory and regulatory
requirement to determine reasonable progress based on the four factors;
MANE-VU considered it ``reasonable to have the greatest contributors to
visibility impairment conduct a four-factor analysis that would
determine whether emission control measures should be pursued and what
would be reasonable for each source.'' \98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
(July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an initial matter, EPA does not necessarily agree that 3.0
Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> visibility impact is a reasonable threshold for source
selection. The RHR recognizes that, due to the nature of regional haze
visibility impairment, numerous and sometimes relatively small sources
may need to be selected and evaluated for control measures in order to
make reasonable progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.\99\ As
explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, while states have discretion
to choose any source selection threshold that is reasonable, ``[a]
state that relies on a visibility (or proxy for visibility impact)
threshold to select sources for four-factor analysis should set the
threshold at a level that captures a meaningful portion of the state's
total contribution to visibility impairment to Class I areas.'' 2021
Memo at 3.\100\ In this case, the 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> threshold
identified only two sources in Maryland (and only 22 across the entire
MANE-VU region), indicating that they may be unreasonably high.
Maryland selected all sources identified by MANE-VU as being above
MANE-VU's 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> threshold for four-factor analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ See docket document, ``EPA 2021 Regional Haze
Clarifications Memo (July 8, 2021)''.
\100\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU identified one unit at the Herbert A. Wagner Generating
Facility,\101\ a coal-fired EGU, and two units at Verso Luke Paper
Company,\102\ a large industrial source, as having a greater than 3.0
Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> visibility impact and thus meeting the threshold for
four-factor analyses. Maryland's SIP submittal indicates that it sent a
letter requesting a four-factor analysis to Herbert A. Wagner
Facility's owner/operator,\103\ who subsequently announced that it
would eliminate the use of coal at the facility. This was codified into
a consent order between Maryland and the owner/operator to cease coal
combustion at the facility by January 1, 2026.\104\ Maryland has
requested that the entire consent order be incorporated into Maryland's
SIP and made federally enforceable upon EPA's approval; \105\ EPA
intends to incorporate this consent order into the Maryland SIP by
reference as a source-specific requirement upon final approval of this
proposed rulemaking. Maryland's subsequent four-factor analysis for the
facility concluded that no further control was necessary. Regarding the
Verso Luke Paper industrial source, Maryland stated that this facility
ceased operations, shut down and surrendered their existing air permits
as of May 7, 2020.\106\ Informed in part by this development, EPA found
that the area was monitoring air quality consistent with achieving the
2010 1-Hour SO<INF>2</INF> Primary NAAQS. See 87 FR 66086, November 2,
2022. Maryland therefore concluded that no further action was necessary
for this facility. Given that no other sources in Maryland met the 3.0
Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> threshold for visibility impacts in MANE-VU's
analysis,\107\ Maryland concluded that it had met the requirements for
Ask 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ H.A. Wagner Unit 3.
\102\ Luke Paper Unit 001-0011-3-0018 & Unit 001-0011-3-0019.
\103\ Raven Power Fort Smallwood, LLC.
\104\ See Appendix 19, ``Herbert A. Wagner Generating Station
Consent Order''.
\105\ See Section 2.5.2 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\106\ See docket documents, ``Verso Luke Paper--Luke MD Title V
Permit Termination (May 7, 2020)'' and ``Verso Luke Paper--Verso
Luke Close Out Letter (May 8, 2020)''.
\107\ See Appendix 4, ``2016 MANE VU Source Contribution
Modeling Report: CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical Generating
Units and Industrial Sources (April 4, 2017)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Maryland reasonably determined it has
satisfied Ask 2. As explained above, we
[[Page 58195]]
do not necessarily agree that a 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> threshold for
selecting sources for four-factor analysis results in a set of sources
the evaluation of which has the potential to meaningfully reduce the
state's contribution to visibility impairment. MANE-VU's threshold
identified only two sources in Maryland for four-factor analysis.
However, in this instance we propose to find that Maryland's additional
information and explanation indicates that the state has in fact
examined a reasonable set of sources; Maryland chose to address 12 of
the 13 sources identified by FLMs, including 10 that went beyond the
MANE-VU source selection process, and reasonably concluded that four-
factor analyses for its top-impacting sources are not necessary because
the outcome would be that no further emission reductions would be
reasonable. EPA is basing this proposed finding on the state's
examination of its largest operating EGU and ICI sources, at the time
of SIP submission, and on the emissions from and controls that apply to
those sources, as well as on Maryland's existing SIP-approved
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> rules that effectively control
emissions from the largest contributing stationary-source sectors.
Maryland's submittal includes additional information on and analysis of
13 Maryland facilities, which was provided in response a National Park
Service (NPS) analysis that identified these facilities as contributing
to ``80% of the Q/d total'' visibility impact at downwind NPS Class I
Federal areas based on 2014 emissions data and requested that states
``review and consider these sources for inclusion in their long term
strategies''.\108\ \109\ Maryland provided the NPS with additional
information on these 13 facilities, including facility descriptions,
current control devices/technologies for NO<INF>X</INF>,
SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM, current monitoring devices, regulations/consent
orders/permit conditions that limit emissions, and analysis and
documentation of historical emissions to demonstrate control strategy
effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ See Section 2.6.1 and Table 2-12 of the MD Regional Haze
SIP for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8,
2022).
\109\ See docket document, ``NPS Letter--MANE-VU draft Statement
on source screening (April 12, 2018)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland also examined the 13 facilities identified by NPS as a
percent of their total Q/d contribution. This included Luke Paper
Company, which comprised 54.71% of the Q/d total; Maryland stated that
this facility ceased operations, shut down and surrendered their
existing air permits as of May 7, 2020.\110\ When combined with Brandon
Shores Generating Station, H.A. Wagner Generating Station, Chalk Point
Generating Station, C.P. Crane Generating Station, and Naval Support
Facility Indian Head, all of which have closed, will close by 2026, or
have switched or will switch fuels, and Morgantown Generating Station,
which is considered by Maryland as effectively controlled through SCR,
these facilities comprised 75.57% of the Q/d total. When adding the two
municipal solid waste combustor facilities identified by the NPS
(Wheelabrator and Montgomery County RRF) both of which are considered
by Maryland as well-controlled, these facilities comprise 82.22% of the
Q/d total. Finally, Maryland also provided additional information on
the remaining three sources identified by the NPS (Holcim Cement,
Lehigh Cement, and the AES Warrior Run EGU).\111\ Therefore, EPA finds
it reasonable to conclude that Maryland has satisfied Ask 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ See docket documents, ``Verso Luke Paper--Luke MD Title V
Permit Termination (May 7, 2020)'' and ``Verso Luke Paper--Verso
Luke Close Out Letter (May 8, 2020)''.
\111\ See Section 2.6.1 and Table 2-13 of the MD Regional Haze
SIP for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask 3, which addresses the sulfur content of heating oil used in
MANE-VU states, is based on a four-factor analysis for the heating oil
sulfur reduction regulations contained in that Ask; \112\ specifically,
for the control strategy of reducing the sulfur content of distillate
oil to 15 ppm. The analysis started with an assessment of the costs of
retrofitting refineries to produce 15 ppm heating oil in sufficient
quantities to support implementation of the standard, as well as the
impacts of requiring a reduction in sulfur content on consumer prices.
The analysis noted that, as a result of previous EPA rulemakings to
reduce the sulfur content of on-road and non-road-fuels to 15 ppm,
technologies are currently available to achieve sulfur reductions and
many refiners are already meeting this standard, meaning that the
capital investments for further reductions in the sulfur content of
heating oil are expected to be relatively low compared to costs
incurred in the past. The analysis also examined, by way of example,
the impacts of New York's existing 15 ppm sulfur requirements on
heating oil prices and concluded that the cost associated with reducing
sulfur was relatively small in terms of the absolute price of heating
oil compared to the magnitude of volatility in crude oil prices. It
also noted that the slight price premium is compensated by cost savings
due to the benefits of lower-sulfur fuels in terms of equipment life
and maintenance and fuel stability. Consideration of the time necessary
for compliance with a 15 ppm sulfur standard was accomplished through a
discussion of the amount of time refiners had needed to comply with the
EPA's on-road and non-road fuel 15 ppm requirement, and the
implications existing refinery capacity and distribution infrastructure
may have for compliance times with a 15 ppm heating oil standard. The
analysis concluded that with phased-in timing for states that have not
yet adopted a 15 ppm heating oil standard there ``appears to be
sufficient time to allow refiners to add any additional heating oil
capacity that may be required.'' \113\ The analysis further noted the
beneficial energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of a 15 ppm
sulfur heating oil requirement and that reducing sulfur content may
also have a salutary impact on the remaining useful life of residential
furnaces and boilers.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ See docket document, ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas
(January 31, 2016)'' at 8-4.
\113\ Id. see 8-7.
\114\ Id. see 8-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Maryland reasonably relied on MANE-VU's
four-factor analysis for a low-sulfur fuel oil regulation, which
engaged with each of the statutory factors and explained how the
information supported a conclusion that a 15 ppm sulfur fuel oil
standard is reasonable; as a reminder, MANE-VU Ask 3 requests that, for
``each MANE-VU state that has not yet fully adopted an ultra-low fuel
oil standard as requested by MANE-VU in 2007'', to ``pursue this
standard as expeditiously as possible and before 2028, depending on
supply availability''. Maryland's ultra-low sulfur fuel oil regulations
\115\ are consistent with Ask 3. EPA therefore proposes to find that
Maryland reasonably determined that it has satisfied Ask 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ See COMAR 03.03.05.04, ``Specifications for No. 1 and No.
2 Fuel Oil (ASTM D-396)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland concluded that no additional updates were needed to meet
Ask 4, which requests that MANE-VU states pursue updating permits,
enforceable agreements, and/or rules to lock-in lower emission rates
for sources larger than 250 MMBtu per hour that have switched to lower
emitting fuels. As explained above, Maryland has asserted that EGUs and
other large point emission sources that have switched operations to
lower emitting fuels are already locked into the lower emission rates
for NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM by permits,
[[Page 58196]]
enforceable agreements and/or rules. In addition, modified units in
Maryland are required to amend their permits through the New Source
Review (NSR) process if they plan to switch back to coal or a fuel that
will increase emissions. A change in fuel, unless already allowed in
the permit, would be a modification,\116\ and Maryland's regulations
require that an application to modify the permit be submitted prior to
a change in fuel.\117\ As a reminder, MANE-VU Ask 4 requests that
states ``pursue updating permits, enforceable agreements, and/or rules
to lock-in lower emission rates for SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and
PM'' at ``EGUs and other large point emission sources larger than 250
MMBTU per hour heat input that have switched to lower emitting fuels''.
Ask 4 also states that ``the permit, enforceable agreement, and/or rule
can allow for suspension of the lower emission rate during natural gas
curtailment''. EPA proposes to find that Maryland reasonably determined
it has satisfied Ask 4. This is because the permitting and regulatory
requirements outlined above, including the fact that sources that have
switched fuel are generally required to revise their permits to reflect
the change, and because the state rules make any proposed reversion
difficult by requiring permitting and other control analyses, including
NSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ See COMAR 26.11.01.01, defining ``Modify'' or
``Modification'' to mean ``any physical change in, or change in the
operation of, a source or installation which causes a change in the
quantity, nature or characteristics of emissions from the source or
installation. However, this term excludes routine maintenance and
routine repair, and increases in the hours of operation or in the
production rate, unless these increases would be prohibited under
any permit or approval conditions adopted by the Department.''
\117\ See COMAR 26.11.02.02., ``General Provisions'', which
states that ``A permit to construct and an approval from the
Department is required before construction or modification of a
source''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask 5 addresses NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from peaking combustion
turbines \118\ that have the potential to operate on high electric
demand days (HEDD).\119\ Maryland conducted a four-factor analysis to
evaluate potential control options for HEDD units. For one potentially
technically feasible control option, Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR), Maryland estimated compliance costs as ranging from $6 million
to $15.7 million per unit.\120\ These cost estimates are similar to
those found in EPA's Combustion Turbine NO<INF>X</INF> Control
Technology Memo published in January 2022.\121\ Due to the relatively
low level of reported annual NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from these units
within the state (i.e., less than 10 tons of NO<INF>X</INF> emitted per
unit per year), Maryland concluded that SCR was not an economically
feasible control option due to the high cost of control. Maryland also
evaluated the cost of water/steam injection as a potentially
technically feasible control option, but found that the cost of control
($87,906.95 per ton of NO<INF>X</INF> removed) was not economically
feasible.\122\ As a reminder, MANE-VU Ask 5 requests that MANE-VU
states, ``where emission rules have not been adopted, control
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for peaking combustion turbines that have the
potential to operate on high electric demand days'' by either: ``(a)
Striving to meet NO<INF>X</INF> emissions standards of no greater than
22 ppm at 15% O<INF>2</INF> for natural gas and 42 ppm at 15%
O<INF>2</INF> for fuel oil but at a minimum meet NO<INF>X</INF>
emission standards of no greater than 42 ppm at 15% O<INF>2</INF> for
natural gas and 96 ppm at 15% O<INF>2</INF> for fuel oil'', or ``(b)
Performing a four-factor analysis for reasonable installation of or
upgrade to emission controls'', or ``(c) Obtaining equivalent emission
reductions on high electric demand days.'' \123\ Because Maryland
evaluated multiple technically feasible controls, the high cost of
controls, and the relatively low level of reported annual
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from peaking combustion turbines with the
potential to operate on HEDD days, EPA proposes to find that Maryland
reasonably concluded that it has satisfied Ask 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Peaking combustion turbine is defined for the purpose of
this Ask as a turbine capable of generating 15 megawatts or more,
that commenced operation prior to May 1, 2007, is used to generate
electricity all or part of which is delivered to electric power
distribution grid for commercial sale and that operated less than or
equal to an average of 1,752 hours (or 20%) per year during 2014 to
2016.
\119\ High electric demand days are days when higher than usual
electrical demands bring additional generation units online, many of
which are infrequently operated and may have significantly higher
emissions rates of the generation fleet.
\120\ See Section 2.5.5 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\121\ See docket document, ``EPA Combustion Turbine
NO<INF>X</INF> Control Technology Memo (January 2022)''.
\122\ See Section 2.5.5 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\123\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation
Report (July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, regarding Ask 6, Maryland explains the greenhouse gas
initiatives and clean energy requirements within the state, including
promulgation of the state's 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act (GGRA)
Plan, RPS, and participation in RGGI. As a reminder, MANE-VU Ask 6, the
last Ask, requests that ``each State should consider and report in
their SIP measures or programs to: (a) decrease energy demand through
the use of energy efficiency, and (b) increase the use within their
state of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and other clean Distributed
Generation technologies including fuel cells, wind, and solar''.\124\
The EPA is therefore proposing to find that Maryland has satisfied Ask
6's request to consider and report in its SIP measures or programs
related to energy efficiency, cogeneration, and other clean distributed
generation technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation
Report (July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the EPA is proposing to find that--based on Maryland's
participation in the MANE-VU planning process, how it has addressed
each of the Asks, its supplemental information and explanation
regarding NO<INF>X</INF> sources and emissions, and the EPA's
additional assessment of Maryland's emissions and point sources--
Maryland has complied with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
Specifically, MANE-VU Asks 2 and 3 engage with the requirement that
states evaluate and determine the emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four statutory
factors. EPA is proposing to find Maryland's approach to Ask 2
reasonable because it demonstrated that the sources with the greatest
modeled impacts on visibility either have federally-enforceable shut
downs, have reduced their emissions so significantly that it is clear a
four-factor analysis would not yield further reasonable emission
reductions, or are subject to stringent emission control measures.
Maryland's SIP-approved control measures, emissions inventory \125\ and
information provided in response to comments \126\ demonstrate that the
sources of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> within the state that
would be expected to contribute to visibility impairment have small
emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>, are well controlled, or
both. Maryland's sulfur in fuel limits sets stringent limits for sulfur
content and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions for non-solid fuels.\127\
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that selecting additional sources
from MANE-VU's or FLMs' lists for four-factor analysis would not have
resulted in additional emission
[[Page 58197]]
reduction measures being determined to be necessary to make reasonable
progress for the second implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ See Appendix 1, ``Selection of States for MANE-VU Regional
Haze Consultation (2018)--Final''.
\126\ See Appendix 20, ``Public Hearing Notices, Comments, and
Responses--Regional Haze Second Implementation Period Plan (2018-
2028)''.
\127\ See COMAR 03.03.05.04, ``Specifications for No. 1 and No.
2 Fuel Oil (ASTM D-396)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, MANE-VU conducted a four-factor analysis to support
Ask 3, which requests that states pursue ultra-low sulfur fuel oil
standards to address SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Maryland has done so.
This also contributes to satisfying the requirements that states
determine the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress by considering the four factors, and that their
long-term strategies include the enforceable emission limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures necessary to make reasonable
progress. To the extent that MANE-VU and Maryland regard the measures
in Asks 1 and 4 through 6 as being part of the region's strategy for
making reasonable progress, we propose to find it reasonable for
Maryland to address these Asks by pointing to existing measures that
satisfy each.
3. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
The consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provides
that states must consult with other states that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinate emission management strategies containing the
emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) require states to
consider the emission reduction measures identified by other states as
necessary for reasonable progress and to include agreed upon measures
in their SIPs, respectively. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to what
happens if states cannot agree on what measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress.
Maryland participated in and provided documentation of the MANE-VU
intra- and inter-RPO consultation processes and addressed the MANE-VU
Asks by providing information on the measures it has in place that
satisfy each Ask.<SUP>128 129</SUP> MANE-VU also documented
disagreements that occurred during consultation. MANE-VU noted in their
Consultation Report that upwind states expressed concern regarding the
analyses the RPO utilized for the selection of states for the
consultation. MANE-VU agreed that these tools, as all models, have
their limitations, but nonetheless deemed them appropriate.
Additionally, there were several comments regarding the choice of the
2011 modeling base year. MANE-VU agreed that the choice of base year is
critical to the outcome of the study. MANE-VU acknowledged that there
were newer versions of the emission inventories and the need to use the
best available inventory for each analysis. However, MANE-VU disagreed
that the choice of these inventories was not appropriate for the
analysis. Upwind states also suggested that MANE-VU states adopt the
2021 timeline for regional haze SIP submissions for the second planning
period. MANE-VU agreed with the reasons the comments provided, such as
collaboration with data and planning efforts. However, MANE-VU
disagreed that the 2018 timeline would prohibit collaboration.
Additionally, upwind states noted that they would not be able to
address the MANE-VU Asks until they finalize their SIPs. MANE-VU
believed the assumption of the implementation of the Asks from upwind
states in its 2028 control case modeling was reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ See Appendix 5, ``Inter-RPO Consultation Briefing Book'';
Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report''; Appendix
9, ``National Park Service Letter to MANE-VU (April 2018)''; and
Appendix 17, ``Additional MANE-VU documentation for establishing 3.0
Mm-1 Threshold''.
\129\ See Appendix 14, ``FLM Consultation Initiation Letter
(April 2019)''; Appendix 15, ``National Park Service Correspondence
with Maryland''; Appendix 16, ``US Forest Service Consultation
Response Letter''; and Appendix 20, ``Public Hearing Notices,
Comments, and Responses--Regional Haze Second Implementation Period
Plan (2018-2028)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, Maryland participated in the MANE-VU intra- and inter-RPO
consultation and satisfied the MANE-VU Asks, satisfying 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B). Maryland satisfied 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) by participating in MANE-VU's consultation process,
which documented the disagreements between the upwind states and MANE-
VU and explained MANE-VU's reasoning on each of the disputed issues.
Based on the entirety of MANE-VU's intra- and inter-RPO consultation
and both MANE-VU's and Maryland's responses to states' comments on the
SIP submission and various technical analyses therein, we propose to
determine that Maryland has satisfied the consultation requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
The documentation requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides
that states may meet their obligations to document the technical bases
on which they are relying to determine the emission reductions measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress through an RPO, as long
as the process has been ``approved by all State participants.'' As
explained above, Maryland chose to rely on MANE-VU's technical
information, modeling, and analysis to support development of its long-
term strategy. The MANE-VU technical analyses on which Maryland relied
are listed in the state's SIP submission and include source
contribution assessments, information on each of the four factors and
visibility modeling information for certain EGUs, and evaluations of
emission reduction strategies for specific source categories. Maryland
also provided supplemental information to further demonstrate the
technical bases and emission information on which it relied on to
determine the emission reductions measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress. Based on the documentation provided by the state,
we propose to find Maryland satisfies the documentation requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that the emissions
information considered to determine the measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most
recent year for which the state has submitted triennial emissions data
to the EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period
for newly submitted data. Maryland's SIP submission included 2017 NEI
emission data for NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, PM, and
NH<INF>3</INF> and 2017 Air Markets Program Data (AMPD) emissions for
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>. Maryland's SIP submission also
included 2019 AMPD for NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>.\130\ Based on
Maryland's consideration and analysis of the 2017 and 2019 emission
data in their SIP submittal and supplemental documentation, the EPA
proposes to find that Maryland has satisfied the emissions information
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ See Section 2.21 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also propose to find that Maryland reasonably considered the
five additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing its
long-term strategy. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), Maryland
noted that existing and ongoing state and Federal emission control
programs that contribute to emission reductions through 2028 would
impact emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from point and
nonpoint sources in the second implementation period. Maryland included
in their SIP comprehensive lists of control measures with their
effective dates, pollutants addressed, and corresponding Code of
Maryland Regulations provisions.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ See Section 2.8.1 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58198]]
Maryland's consideration of measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B)
includes, in section 2.8.2 of its SIP submission, a list of measures
that Maryland has implemented to mitigate the impacts from such
activities. Maryland has implemented standards that reduce fugitive
dust emissions from construction,\132\ rules to address exhaust
emissions,<SUP>133 134 135</SUP> including rules to limit the idling of
vehicles and equipment and rules to reduce allowable smoke from on-road
diesel engines,\136\ and general conformity rules.<SUP>137 138</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ COMAR 26.11.06.03. ``Particulate Matter'', subsection D;
State Effective Date November 11, 2002 (29:22 Md. R. 1724) (68 FR
46487).
\133\ COMAR 11.14. ``MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION--VEHICLE
INSPECTIONS'', .01, .06, and .08.
\134\ COMAR. 11.21.02. ``Diesel Vehicle Emissions Control
Program''; State Effective Date July 10, 2000 (27:13 Md. R. 1212).
\135\ Md. Code, Transp. Sec. 23-401 through 23-404.
\136\ Md. Code, Transp. Sec. 21-1101.
\137\ The authority to address General Conformity is set forth
in Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act and the requirements to
demonstrate conformity are found in the EPA's implementing
regulation (40 CFR part 93, subpart B--Determining Conformity of
General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans).
\138\ COMAR 26.11.26. ``Conformity''; State Effective Date June
5, 1995 (22:11 Md. R. 825).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), source retirements and
replacement schedules are addressed in section 2.8.3 of Maryland's
submission. Source retirements and replacements were considered in
developing the 2028 emission projections, with on the books/on the way
retirements and replacements included in the 2028 projections. The EGU
point sources included in the inventories used in the MANE-VU
contribution assessment and that were subsequently retired are
identified in Table 2-14.\139\ No non-EGU point source retirements in
Maryland were considered when developing the 2028 emissions
projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ See ``Table 2-14: Units Retired in the Regional Haze
Inventories'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018--2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering smoke management as required in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), Maryland explained, in section 2.8.4 of its
submission, that emissions from agricultural and prescribed burning for
forestry smoke management within the state are low; PM<INF>2.5</INF>
statewide emissions from prescribed fires were 1,349.18 tons (4.13% of
Maryland's overall PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions inventory) and emissions
from agricultural burning were 1.5 tons (<1% of Maryland's overall
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions inventory). Maryland therefore concludes
that it is unlikely that fires in Maryland for agricultural or forestry
management cause impacts on visibility in the MANE-VU and nearby Class
I areas, including Shenandoah, Dolly Sods, Otter Creek, and James River
Face. Maryland states that Smoke Management Plans is a required element
of a SIP only if it is required to make reasonable progress, and that
although Maryland does not need an official Smoke Management Plan, it
has the legal authority to manage burning through a formal permitting
system if necessary.
Maryland considered the anticipated net effect of projected changes
in emissions as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E) by discussing,
in section 2.8.5 of its submission, the photochemical modeling for the
2018-2028 period it conducted in collaboration with MANE-VU. The two
modeling cases run were a 2028 base case, which considered only on-the-
books controls, and a 2028 control case that considered implementation
of the MANE-VU Ask. Maryland presented the differences between the base
and control cases on the 20% most impaired and 20% clearest days for
each MANE-VU Class I area.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ See Figures 2-7 through 2-10 of the MD Regional Haze SIP
for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Maryland has reasonably considered each of the five
additional factors the EPA proposes to find that Maryland has satisfied
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements pertaining to RPGs
for each Class I area. Section 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires a state in
which a Class I area is located to establish RPGs--one each for the
most impaired and clearest days--reflecting the visibility conditions
that will be achieved at the end of the implementation period as a
result of the emission limitations, compliance schedules and other
measures required under paragraph (f)(2) to be in states' long-term
strategies, as well as implementation of other CAA requirements. The
long-term strategies as reflected by the RPGs must provide for an
improvement in visibility on the most impaired days relative to the
baseline period and ensure no degradation on the clearest days relative
to the baseline period. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii) applies in
circumstances in which a Class I area's RPG for the most impaired days
represents a slower rate of visibility improvement than the uniform
rate of progress calculated under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi). Under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the state in which a mandatory Class I area is
located establishes an RPG for the most impaired days that provides for
a slower rate of visibility improvement than the URP, the state must
demonstrate that there are no additional emission reduction measures
for anthropogenic sources or groups of sources in the state that would
be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy. Section
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that if a state contains sources that are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area in another state, and the RPG for the most impaired days
in that Class I area is above the URP, the upwind state must provide
the same demonstration. Because Maryland has no Class I areas within
its borders, it is subject only to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B).
Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), a state that contains sources
that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment
in a Class I area in another state for which a demonstration by the
other state is required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) must
demonstrate that there are no additional emission reduction measures
that would be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy.
Maryland's SIP submittal included MANE-VU's glidepath checks for nearby
downwind Class I areas,<SUP>141 142</SUP> which show that the RPG for
the 20 percent most anthropogenically impaired days for the affected
downwind Class I areas (Acadia, Brigantine, Great Gulf, Lye Brook,
Moosehorn, Dolly Sods and Shenandoah) are not above the URP glidepath,
and that the RPG for the 20 percent clearest days shows no degradation.
In addition, the modeled MANE-VU 2028 visibility projections at nearby
Class I areas \143\ show that the base case 2028 projections for the
most impaired days at these areas are below the respective 2028 points
on the URPs. Therefore, we propose it is reasonable to assume that the
demonstration requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) as it
pertains to these areas will not be triggered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ See docket document, ``TD MANE-VU 2000-19 RH METRICS
COMPARISON PLOTS 12-19-20.xlsx''.
\142\ See docket document, ``TD MANE-VU 2000-19 RHII & III
Metrics Trends Plots 12-19-20.xlsx''.
\143\ See docket document, ``MANE-VU Trends 2004-17 Report 2nd
SIP Metrics--December 2018 Update--Final''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to determine that Maryland has satisfied the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) relating to RPGs.
[[Page 58199]]
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each comprehensive revision of
a state's regional haze SIP must contain or provide for certain
elements, including monitoring strategies, emissions inventories, and
any reporting, recordkeeping and other measures needed to assess and
report on visibility. A main requirement of this subsection is for
states with Class I areas to submit monitoring strategies for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting on visibility impairment.
Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in
the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
network.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess whether reasonable progress goals to address regional haze for
all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state are being
achieved. Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii) requires SIPs to provide for
procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in
determining the contribution of emissions from within the state to
regional haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas
both within and outside the state. Because Maryland does not have any
Class I Federal areas located within its borders, Section
51.308(f)(6)(i) and (ii) do not apply.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(iii) requires states with no Class I areas to
include procedures by which monitoring data and other information are
used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State
to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas in other
states. States with Class I areas must establish a monitoring program
and report data to EPA that is representative of visibility at the
Class I Federal areas. The IMPROVE network meets this requirement.
Maryland stated that, as a participant in MANE-VU, it reviewed
information about the chemical composition of baseline monitoring data
at Class I Federal areas in and near MANE-VU in order to understand the
sources of haze causing pollutants. Maryland commits to continuing
support of ongoing visibility monitoring in Class I Federal areas,
agrees that the IMPROVE network is an appropriate monitoring network to
track regional haze progress, and commits to working with neighboring
states and FLMs to meet the goals of the IMPROVE program. Maryland also
commits to using monitoring data and procedures consistent with US EPA
guidance to review progress and trends in visibility at Class I Federal
areas that may be affected by emissions from Maryland, both for
comprehensive periodic revisions of this implementation plan and for
periodic reports describing progress towards the reasonable progress
goals for those areas.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ See Section 2.16 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the SIP to provide for the
reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each Class I area in the state. As noted above,
Maryland does not have any Class I Federal areas located within its
borders, therefore this requirement does not apply.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for a statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for
the most recent year for which data are available and estimates of
future projected emissions. It also requires a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. Maryland provides for emissions inventories and
estimates for future projected emissions by participating in the MANE-
VU RPO and complying with EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR). In
40 CFR part 51, subpart A, the AERR requires states to submit updated
emissions inventories for criteria pollutants to EPA's Emissions
Inventory System (EIS) every three years. The emission inventory data
is used to develop the NEI, which provides for, among other things, a
triennial state-wide inventory of pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment.
Section 2.21 of Maryland's submission includes tables of NEI data.
The source categories of the emissions inventories included are: (1)
point sources, (2) nonpoint sources, (3) non-road mobile sources, and
(4) on-road mobile sources. The point source category is further
divided into AMPD point sources and non-AMPD point sources.\145\
Maryland included NEI emissions inventories for the following years:
2002 (one of the regional haze program baseline years), 2008, 2011,
2014, and 2017; and for the following pollutants: SO<INF>2</INF>,
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, VOCs, and
NH<INF>3</INF>. Maryland also provided a summary of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for AMPD sources for the years of 2016, 2017,
2018, and 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ AMPD sources are facilities that participate in EPA's
emission trading programs. The majority of AMPD sources are electric
generating units (EGUs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires states to include estimates
of future projected emissions and include a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. Maryland relied on the MANE-VU 2028 emissions
projections for MANE-VU states. MANE-VU completed two 2028 projected
emissions modeling cases--a 2028 base case that considers only on-the-
books controls and a 2028 control case that considers implementation of
the MANE-VU Asks.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ See Appendix 11 ``Ozone Transport Commission/Mid-Atlantic
Northeastern Visibility Union 2011 Based Modeling Platform Support
Document--October 2018 Update (October 2018)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Maryland has met the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(f)(6) as described above, including through its continued
participation in the IMPROVE network and the MANE-VU RPO and its on-
going compliance with the AERR, and that no further elements are
necessary at this time for Maryland to assess and report on visibility
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic comprehensive revisions
of states' regional haze plans also address the progress report
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The purpose of these
requirements is to evaluate progress towards the applicable RPGs for
each Class I area within the state and each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions from within that state. Section
51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all states and require a description of
the status of implementation of all measures included in a state's
first implementation period regional haze plan and a summary of the
emission reductions achieved through implementation of those measures.
Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to states with Class I areas within
their borders and requires such states to assess current visibility
conditions, changes in visibility relative to baseline (2000-2004)
visibility conditions, and changes in visibility conditions relative to
the period addressed in the first implementation period progress
report. Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all states and requires an
analysis tracking changes in emissions of pollutants contributing to
visibility impairment from all sources and sectors since the period
addressed by the first implementation period progress report. This
provision further specifies the year
[[Page 58200]]
or years through which the analysis must extend depending on the type
of source and the platform through which its emission information is
reported. Finally, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), which also applies to all
states, requires an assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state have occurred since
the period addressed by the first implementation period progress
report, including whether such changes were anticipated and whether
they have limited or impeded expected progress towards reducing
emissions and improving visibility.
Maryland's submission describes the status of measures of the long-
term strategy from the first implementation period. As a member of
MANE-VU, Maryland considered the MANE-VU Asks and adopted corresponding
measures into its long-term strategy for the first implementation
period. The MANE-VU Asks were: (1) Timely implementation of Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements; (2) EGU controls
including Controls at 167 Key Sources that most affect MANE-VU Class I
areas; (3) Low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (4) Continued evaluation
of other control measures. Maryland met all the identified reasonable
measures requested during the first implementation period. During the
first planning period for regional haze, programs that were put in
place focused on reducing sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) emissions.
The reductions achieved led to vast improvements in visibility at the
MANE-VU Federal Class I Areas due to reduced sulfates formed from
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Maryland describes in Section 2.18 of its
submittal control measures put in place during the first implementation
period to help reduce the emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants,
including NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>. This includes the Maryland
Healthy Air Act (HAA), which covered Maryland emission sources named in
MANE-VU's ``167 Stacks''; the HAA was implemented in 2010 and further
tightened SO<INF>2</INF> emission control requirements in 2013,
resulting in significant reductions in visibility-impairing pollutants
throughout the state that exceeded MANE-VU target goals. Maryland also
described its implementation of low sulfur fuel oil standards for the
state, and the status of the remaining emissions sources in the state
subject to BART requirements, which included emission reductions for
Portland cement plants to satisfy Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) requirements for ozone.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ COMAR 26.11.30--Control of Portland Cement Manufacturing
Plants. Effective date: July 20, 2015 (42:Md. R. 884).
<a href="http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/SubtitleSearch.aspx?search=26.11.30.*">www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/SubtitleSearch.aspx?search=26.11.30.*</a>
Approved by EPA March 28, 2018, 83 FR 13192
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Maryland has met the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) because its SIP submission describes the
measures included in the long-term strategy from the first
implementation period, as well as the status of their implementation
and the emission reductions achieved through such implementation.
Section 51.308(g)(3) requires states to assess Reasonable Progress
Goals, including current visibility conditions and changes, for any
Class I areas within the state. As described above, Maryland does not
have any Class I areas within its borders, therefore 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3) does not apply.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), in Section 2.21 of their
submittal, Maryland provided a summary of emissions of NO<INF>X</INF>,
SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, VOCs, and
NH<INF>3</INF> from all sources and activities, including from point,
nonpoint, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile sources, for the time
period from 2002 to 2017. Maryland also included AMPD data for
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for 2016, 2017, 2018, and
2019 in their submission.
The reductions achieved through Maryland emission control measures
are seen in the emissions inventory. Based on Maryland's SIP submittal,
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions have continuously declined in Maryland from
2002 through 2017, especially in the point, nonroad and onroad mobile
sectors. During that period, onroad sources contributed almost half of
the emissions at 47%, followed by point sources at 27%. Nonroad sources
contributed 13% and area sources contributed 13%. Table 2-20 of
Maryland's SIP submittal also shows additional NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
data from 2016 to 2019 for Maryland's point sources that report to
EPA's AMPD. NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are expected to continue to
decrease as fleet turnover occurs and the older more polluting vehicles
and equipment are replaced by newer, cleaner ones.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ See Section 2.21.1 and Table 2-20 of the MD Regional Haze
SIP for the Second Implementation Period 2018--2028 (February 8,
2022)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> have shown a significant decline in
Maryland from 2002 to 2017 across multiple sectors; see Section 2.21.3
and Table 2-28 of Maryland's SIP submittal.\149\ Reductions in point
emissions are primarily due to the acid rain program, Maryland power
plant consent decrees and regulations including the Maryland Health Air
Act, and Federal and State low sulfur fuel regulations. Additionally,
some of these decreases may be attributable to the MANE-VU low sulfur
fuel strategy and the 90% or greater reduction in SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions at 167 EGU stacks, both inside and outside of MANE-VU,
requested in the ``Non-MANE-VU Ask'' for states within MANE-VU for the
first regional haze planning period.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ See Section 2.21.3 and Table 2-28 of the MD Regional Haze
SIP for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8,
2022).
\150\ See ``Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility
Union (MANE-VU) Concerning a Course of Action within MANE-VU Toward
Assuring Reasonable Progress'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions of PM<INF>10</INF> have steadily decreased in Maryland
from 2002 to 2017, particularly in the point and nonroad sectors; see
Section 2.21.2 and Table 2-25 of Maryland's SIP submittal.\151\ The
variations in the onroad sector are likely due to changes in emission
inventory calculation methodologies, which resulted in higher
particulate matter estimates in the other years than in 2002. The large
variation in emissions in the nonpoint category is likely due to
changes in calculation methodologies for residential wood burning and
fugitive dust categories, which have varied significantly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ See Section 2.21.2 and Table 2-25 of the MD Regional Haze
SIP for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions of ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) have shown declines in
Maryland from 2002 to 2017; see Section 2.21.4 and Table 2-33 of
Maryland's SIP submittal.\152\ Ammonia decreases were achieved in the
onroad sector due to Federal new engine standards for vehicles and
equipment. Nonpoint increases and decreases from 2002 to 2014 are due
to reporting, grouping and methodology changes. While ammonia emissions
grew slightly between the 2002 and 2008 emission inventories, ammonia
emissions have decreased from 2011 to 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ See Section 2.21.4 and Table 2-33 of the MD Regional Haze
SIP for the Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to find that Maryland has satisfied the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) by providing emissions information
for NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>,
VOCs, and NH<INF>3</INF> broken down by type of source.
Maryland uses the emissions trend data in the SIP submission \153\
and supporting MANE-VU information \154\ provided to support the
assessment that
[[Page 58201]]
anthropogenic haze-causing pollutant emissions in Maryland have
decreased during the reporting period and that changes in emissions
have not limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions
and improving visibility, Maryland 2017 emission inventories for
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>,
VOCs, and NH<INF>3</INF> were lower than their 2014 emission
inventories for those same pollutants emissions.\155\ The EPA is
proposing to find that Maryland has met the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ See Section 2.21 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
\154\ See docket document, ``MANE-VU Trends 2004-17 Report 2nd
SIP Metrics - December 2018 Update--Final''.
\155\ See Section 2.16 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Section 169A(d) of the Clean Air Act requires states to consult
with FLMs before holding the public hearing on a proposed regional haze
SIP, and to include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and
recommendations in the notice to the public. In addition, 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2)'s FLM consultation provision requires a state to provide
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation that is early enough in the
state's policy analyses of its emission reduction obligation so that
information and recommendations provided by the FLMs' can meaningfully
inform the state's decisions on its long-term strategy. If the
consultation has taken place at least 120 days before a public hearing
or public comment period, the opportunity for consultation will be
deemed early enough, Regardless, the opportunity for consultation must
be provided at least sixty days before a public hearing or public
comment period at the state level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also provides
two substantive topics on which FLMs must be provided an opportunity to
discuss with states: assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I
area and recommendations on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3)
requires states, in developing their implementation plans, to include a
description of how they addressed FLMs' comments.
The states in the MANE-VU RPO conducted FLM consultation early in
the planning process concurrent with the state-to-state consultation
that formed the basis of the RPO's decision making process. As part of
the consultation, the FLMs were given the opportunity to review and
comment on the technical documents developed by MANE-VU. The FLMs were
invited to attend the intra- and inter-RPO consultations calls among
states and at least one FLM representative was documented to have
attended seven intra-RPO meetings and all inter-RPO meetings. Maryland
participated in these consultation meetings and calls.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ See Appendix 7, ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation
Report (July 27, 2018),'' of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of this early engagement with the FLMs, on April 12, 2018,
the NPS sent letters to the MANE-VU states requesting that they
consider specific individual sources in their long-term
strategies.\157\ NPS used an analysis of emissions divided by distance
(Q/d) to estimate the impact of MANE-VU facilities. To select the
facilities, NPS first summed 2014 NEI NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>,
SO<INF>2</INF>, and SO<INF>4</INF> emissions and divided by the
distance to a specified NPS mandatory Class I Federal area. NPS summed
the Q/d values across all MANE-VU states relative to Acadia, Mammoth
Cave and Shenandoah National Parks, ranked the Q/d values relative to
each Class I area, created a running total, and identified
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on August 25, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.