Rule2024-06415
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan; 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
April 1, 2024
Effective
May 1, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by Maryland on February 8, 2022, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 63 (Monday, April 1, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 63 (Monday, April 1, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22337-22342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06415]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0912; FRL-11269-02-R3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan;
Maryland; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by
Maryland on February 8, 2022, as satisfying applicable requirements
under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
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.
DATES: This final rule is effective on May 1, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0912. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, or please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Yarina, Planning & Implementation
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 3, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103-2852. The telephone number is (215) 814-2108. Mr.
Yarina can also be reached via electronic mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0970687b60676827686d6864496c7968276e667f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fc859d8e95929dd29d989d91bc998c9dd29b938a">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
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 program pursuant to CAA
sections 169A and 169B and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.308.
On August 25, 2023 (88 FR 58178), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing approval of Maryland's February 8,
2022, SIP submission as satisfying the regional haze requirements for
the second implementation period contained in the CAA and 40 CFR
51.308. EPA is now determining that the Maryland regional haze SIP
submission for the second implementation period meets the applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements and is thus approving Maryland's
submission into its SIP.
II. EPA's Response to Comments Received
EPA received two sets of comments in response to the NPRM. One set
of comments originated from three Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)
conservation groups writing as a
[[Page 22338]]
coalition (i.e., the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA),
Sierra Club, and the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks),
and one set of comments from an individual. These comments are
available in the docket for this action via Docket ID Number EPA-R03-
OAR-2022-0912 on the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> website. EPA's summary of and
response to those comments is provided below.
Comment: NGO commenters praised Maryland's submittal, stating that
``the MDE has engaged with many of the worst haze-polluting
facilities'' for the second implementation period, that ``Maryland's
SIP should be a model for all of EPA Region 3'', and that ``the MDE
engaged early with the National Park Service (``NPS'') as part of the
Federal Land Manager (FLM) consultation period and provided in-depth
information regarding control technologies, emissions limits, and
retirement plans for the majority of sources identified by NPS.'' NGO
commenters also provided additional feedback as to how Maryland's
submittal could be further improved, which is described in more detail
below.
Response: EPA appreciates and agrees with this comment.
Comment: NGO commenters also stated that SIP measures, including
stationary source emission limitations, must be practically enforceable
and approved into the SIP. NGO commenters express their belief that MDE
improperly excluded certain facilities, including Brandon Shores
Generating Station and the AES Warrior Run Facility, from a four-factor
analysis. Specifically, NGO commenters express concern that MDE
excluded the Brandon Shores Generating Station from being selected for
a four-factor analysis based on an agreement between Brandon Shores
Generating Station's owner and Sierra Club to cease coal combustion at
the site by December 31, 2025, because the plans to cease fuel
combustion or shutdown the facility are not a federally enforceable
part of the revised SIP. NGO commenters therefore request that EPA
require MDE to ``amend its Revised SIP to either (1) make Brandon
Shores' plans to cease coal combustion or retire a federally
enforceable part of the State's Revised SIP or (2) conduct a four-
factor analysis for Brandon Shores to ensure the facility is supporting
the MDE long-term strategy and reasonable progress goals.'' Regarding
the AES Warrior Run Facility, which MDE did not select for a four-
factor analysis, NGO commenters request that EPA require MDE to conduct
a four-factor analysis for this facility per FLM recommendations.
Response: As explained in the NPRM, the RHR does not require states
to consider controls for all sources, all source categories, or any or
all sources in a particular source category. Rather, states have
discretion to choose any source selection methodology or threshold that
is reasonable, provided that the choices they make are reasonably
explained.<SUP>1 2</SUP> To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires
that a state's SIP submission must include ``a description of the
criteria it used to determine which sources or groups of sources it
evaluated.'' The technical basis for source selection must also be
appropriately documented, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). In
this particular instance, EPA proposed to find that Maryland's
information and explanation included in its SIP submittal indicated
that the State had in fact examined a reasonable set of sources,
including sources identified by the FLMs. Furthermore, EPA proposed
that Maryland had reasonably concluded that four-factor analyses were
not necessary for all identified sources because the outcome would be
that no further emission reductions would be reasonable for this
planning period. EPA based the proposed finding on the State's
examination of its largest operating electric generating units (EGUs)
and its industrial commercial institutional (ICI) boilers, 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 nitrogen
oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) and sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) rules that
effectively control emissions from the largest contributing stationary-
source sectors. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that selecting
additional sources from the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast-Visibility Union
(MANE-VU's) or FLMs' lists for four-factor analysis would not have
resulted in additional emission reduction measures being determined to
be necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 88 FR 58178, 58194 (August 25, 2023).
\2\ See Sections 2 and 2.1 of 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Brandon Shores Generating Station, EPA notes that based
on an existing consent agreement between the owner/operator of Brandon
Shores and Sierra Club, the facility is scheduled to shut down by June
1, 2025. As noted by the NGO commenters, it is possible that the
shutdown date could be extended as far as 2028. However, EPA notes
that, even if the owner/operator of this facility were to extend or
delay its currently scheduled shutdown date of June 1, 2025, to 2028,
which is the date anticipated by NGO commenters,\3\ this would be
unlikely to affect Maryland's conclusion for this facility (i.e., that
no additional controls are reasonable based on installing controls
during the short remaining useful life of the source).\4\ Regarding the
AES Warrior Run facility, EPA notes that the facility recently filed a
deactivation notice with its Regional Transmission Organization (RTO),
PJM Interconnection LLC, to retire by June 1, 2024,\5\ and PJM's
response to that notice indicated that the facility could deactivate as
desired.\6\ Thus, any assessment of additional emissions controls for
this facility would also likely conclude that no additional controls
are reasonable based on the short remaining useful life of the source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See docket document, ``2023-11-13--Sierra Club ex parte
letter to PJM re Brandon Shores, AES Warrior Run'' dated November
13, 2023; and Sierra Club press release dated November 15, 2023,
``Maryland On Track To Be Coal-Free by 2025 with Announced
Retirement of Warrior Run Plant,'' at <a href="http://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2023/11/maryland-track-be-coal-free-2025-announced-retirement-warrior-run-plant">www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2023/11/maryland-track-be-coal-free-2025-announced-retirement-warrior-run-plant</a>.
\4\ In addition, whether such an extension or delay occurs
appears to be dependent on whether one NGO commenter, Sierra Club,
will agree to a revision of the consent agreement with the owner/
operator of Brandon Shores. See docket documents, ``2023-12-05--PJM
Letter to Sierra Club re Brandon Shores Consent Decree'' dated
December 5, 2023, and ``2023-12-07--Talen Energy response to PJM re
Brandon Shores'', dated December 7, 2023.
\5\ See docket document, ``2023-09-30--AES Warrior Run
Deactivation Notice to PJM'', dated September 30, 2023.
\6\ See docket document, ``2023-11-30--PJM Response Letter to
AES Warrior Run Deactivation Notice'', dated November 30, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is therefore likely that both Brandon Shores and AES Warrior Run
will be shut down by 2025 or 2028 at the latest, and EPA notes that
either of these dates would still fall within the second implementation
period. However, Maryland was not obligated to select these facilities
for a four-factor analysis in order to make reasonable progress and
fulfill its RHR obligations for the second implementation period, and
EPA's proposed approval of Maryland's SIP submission was not dependent
on Maryland selecting those facilities for a four-factor analysis.
Therefore, regardless of the ultimate outcome for those facilities,
Maryland satisfied its RHR obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and
considered and reasonably explained the methodology
[[Page 22339]]
by which it selected and analyzed the particular sources that have the
largest contribution to visibility impairment in Class I areas.
Comment: NGO commenters also state that EPA must thoroughly
consider environmental justice concerns, and state that the Maryland
SIP revision fails to adequately account for these concerns. The
commenters go on to state that the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance factor directs states to consider
the broader environmental implications of their regional haze plans, by
requiring an analysis of the ``non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance,'' including environmental justice. In addition, the
commenters assert that EPA failed to consider environmental justice
concerns in several Maryland communities around AES Warrior Run, NRG
Morgantown Generating Station, and Wheelabrator Baltimore, identified
as having high percentiles of low-income populations and unemployment
rates, which are two of the Socioeconomic Indicators in the Database.
The commenters also assert that, according to EPA's EJ Screen, the
community near the Wheelabrator Baltimore facility ranks above the 80th
percentile for State environmental justice indexes for fine particulate
matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) and ozone.
Response: The regional haze statutory provisions do not explicitly
address considerations of environmental justice, and neither do the
regulatory requirements of the second planning period in 40 CFR
51.308(f), (g), and (i). As explained in ``EPA Legal Tools to Advance
Environmental Justice,'' \7\ the CAA provides states with the
discretion to consider environmental justice in developing rules and
measures related to regional haze. While a State may consider
environmental justice under the reasonable progress factors, neither
the statute nor the regulation requires states to conduct an
environmental justice analysis for EPA to approve a SIP submission.
Furthermore, the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation of environmental justice with
regard to a regional haze SIP. In this instance, Maryland concluded
that it ``has documented its long-term strategy to assure reasonable
progress toward visibility goals in nearby Class I areas and assessed
its progress in reducing emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice, May
2022, available at <a href="http://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/EJ%20Legal%20Tools%20May%202022%20FINAL.pdf">www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/EJ%20Legal%20Tools%20May%202022%20FINAL.pdf</a> at 35-36.
\8\ See Section 3 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NGO commenters provided additional information from an EJ
Screen analysis. Without agreeing with the particular relevance or
accuracy of this information, EPA acknowledges the EJ Screen
information provided as part of the comment, which identifies certain
demographic and environmental information regarding communities near
AES Warrior Run, NRG Morgantown Generating Solution, and Wheelabrator
Baltimore. The focus of the SIP at issue here, the regional haze SIP
for Maryland, is SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions as they
impact visibility in Class I areas. This action addresses ten EGU
sources and six industrial/institutional sources of air pollution
impacting Class I areas. As discussed in the NPRM and in this final
rule, EPA has evaluated Maryland's SIP submission against the statutory
and regulatory regional haze requirements and determined that it
satisfies those minimum requirements.
Comment: NGO commenters also alleged that the timing and nature of
MDE's state public comment period for this SIP submission hindered
stakeholder participation, due to alleged insufficient notification of
Maryland's comment period on the revised SIP, and the fact that the
state's public comment period encompassed two Federal holidays. The
commenters state that, as a result, they were unable to engage directly
with MDE during its public comment period for this SIP submittal. The
commenters also state that they want ``to ensure that EPA is aware of
the lack of public communication related to the State's public comment
period on the Revised SIP.''
Response: In reviewing Maryland's February 8, 2022, regional haze
SIP revision, EPA found that MDE satisfied the public notice and
comment requirements for SIP revisions.\9\ Maryland provided an
opportunity to submit written comments and request a public hearing.
MDE published Maryland's revised SIP on the MDE website for public
comment from December 1, 2021 to January 4, 2022. The publication
included notification of the 30-day notice period and information about
the date, place, and time of the public hearing, as required under 40
CFR 51.102(a). After reasonable notice, the public hearing was held
online on January 4, 2022, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. See 40 CFR
51.102(d). The 30-day notice period is not limited to business days.
Id. Finally, Maryland's revised SIP submittal includes a certification
that the state satisfied the requirements in 40 CFR 51.102(a) and (d).
See 40 CFR 51.102(f). EPA notes that the commenters do not allege that
MDE failed to fulfill its public notice and comment obligations, nor is
there any indication that the commenters requested an extension to the
state's public comment period to allow for more time. EPA has seen no
evidence that Maryland did not fulfill its public notice requirements.
In this instance, the State's public comment process meets the minimum
requirements in the 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V for SIP submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 40 CFR 51.102; 40 CFR 51.104; and 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V, section 2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One individual commenter, requested that the EPA
``reconsider'' Maryland's SIP revision'' and require that Maryland
examine several source categories, including power plants (i.e.,
electric generating units), industrial boilers, cement kilns, glass
plants, landfills, and legacy diesel vehicles and equipment, and that
EPA require additional emissions control technologies for these source
categories as part of Maryland's Regional Haze SIP (e.g., selective
catalytic reduction, flue gas desulfurization, diesel oxidation
catalysts, etc), and that it implement measures to ``deter and punish''
owners and operators of legacy diesel vehicles and equipment owners in
con-compliance with the emission reduction measures. The commenter also
expressed concern that Maryland would not be able to achieve the
Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for the second implementation period
if these emissions controls were not implemented.
Finally, the commenter commended Maryland's efforts to increase its
renewable energy production and reduce its reliance on fossil fuel and
encouraged the state to install wind and solar power and consider small
modular nuclear power as ``a clean reliable and safe source of
electricity.''
Response: As explained in the NPRM, the 2021 Clarifications Memo
for the RHR, and in the response to NGO commenters above, the RHR does
not require states to consider controls for all sources, all source
categories, or any or all sources in a particular source category.
Rather, the states have discretion to choose any source selection
methodology or threshold that is reasonable, provided that the choices
they make are reasonably explained and result in a set of sources which
capture a meaningful portion of the state's total contribution to
visibility
[[Page 22340]]
impairment.<SUP>10 11</SUP> To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i)
requires that a state's SIP submission must 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). In
this particular instance, EPA proposed to find that Maryland's
information and explanation included in its SIP submittal indicated
that the State had in fact examined a reasonable set of sources,
including sources identified by the FLMs. Furthermore, EPA proposed
that Maryland had reasonably concluded that four-factor analyses for
all identified sources were not necessary because the outcome would be
that no further emission reductions would be reasonable for this
planning period. EPA based the proposed finding on the State's
examination of its largest operating EGUs and ICI boilers 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. In
short, even though Maryland did not consider controls for every type of
source and source category listed by the commenter, Maryland did
consider and reasonably explain the methodology by which it considered
the particular sources that capture a meaningful portion of the state's
total contribution to visibility impairment, consistent with EPA
guidance and with Maryland's obligations under the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 88 FR 58178, 58194 (August 25, 2023).
\11\ See Sections 2 and 2.1 of 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter also asserts, without supporting documentation, that
because the Maryland plan ``relies heavily on existing measures and
technologies that have already been implemented or required by other
Federal or state regulations,'' that the plan may not be able to meet
the reasonable progress goals (RPGs). The comment appears to
misunderstand the relationship between the RPGs and long-term
strategies established by the four-factor analysis for reasonable
progress, as well as the difference between RPGs and the reasonable
progress necessary to be achieved via the long-term strategies. EPA
explained at length in the NPRM, in particular in section E. Long-Term
Strategy for Regional Haze, that Maryland's long-term strategy includes
the enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures necessary to make reasonable progress.
EPA reiterates that the process for establishing RPGs for each
Class I area is prescribed in the Regional Haze Rule and its amendments
and related guidance.<SUP>12 13 14</SUP> The reasonable progress goals
established by the states with Class I areas are not directly
enforceable but will be considered by the Administrator in evaluating
the adequacy of the measures in the implementation plan in providing
for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions
at that area'' 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii). EPA notes that only states
with Class I areas within their borders are required to set RPGs for
those areas. Maryland does not have any Class I areas within its
borders and thus is not required to set RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 40 CFR 51.308; 64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999; and 82 FR
3078, January 10, 2017.
\13\ See 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).
\14\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All States, regardless of whether they have Class I areas within
their borders are, however, instructed to establish criteria for
selecting sources that emit visibility impairing pollutants that impact
visibility at downwind Class I Areas for further evaluation of
potential emissions controls as part of a four-factor analysis, in
keeping with the state's long-term strategy for making reasonable
progress toward meeting the national visibility goal. To that end,
states have discretion in establishing source selection processes and
criteria, provided that such processes and criteria: are adequately
justified and supported; select a reasonable number of sources that
emit visibility impairing pollutants affecting downwind Class I Areas;
and put the state on target for remedying any existing and preventing
any future anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I areas.\15\ To
this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f) lays out the process by which states
determine what constitutes their long-term strategies, and 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See CAA 169A(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the NPRM, 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).\16\ The amount of
progress that is ``reasonable progress'' is based on applying the four
statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of
potential control options for sources of visibility impairing
pollutants, which is referred to as a ``four-factor'' analysis. The
outcome of that analysis is the emission reduction measures that a
particular source or group of sources needs to implement in order to
make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal.\17\
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 measures that a source is already
implementing.\18\ 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.\19\ The 2021 Clarifications Memo to the RHR explains that
RPGs cannot be determined before states have conducted their four-
factor analyses and determined the control measures that are necessary
to make reasonable progress and that RPGs for states with Class I areas
are the modeled result of the measures in states' long-term strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
\17\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
\18\ See 2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 8-10.
\19\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the outcome of a state's source selection process and
subsequent evaluation of technically feasible and cost-effective
emissions controls as part
[[Page 22341]]
of four-factor analyses determine what constitutes the state's long-
term strategy for that particular implementation period. If a state's
source selection process and evaluation of technically feasible and
cost-effective controls results in a long-term strategy that includes
the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules and other
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, then the
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule are satisfied for that
Implementation Period.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving, as a SIP revision, the State of Maryland's
February 8, 2022, SIP submission as satisfying the regional haze
requirements for the second implementation period contained in 40 CFR
51.308(f).
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the consent
order, effective July 6, 2021, between MDE and Raven Power Fort
Smallwood LLC, for H.A. Wagner Generating Station to permanently cease
the combustion of coal by January 1, 2026 as discussed in section II of
this preamble. The consent order is contained in Appendix 19 of MDE's
February 8, 2022 Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation Period
2018-2028 submitted on behalf of the State of Maryland. EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and at the EPA Region 3 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have
been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated
by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the
final rule of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in
the next update to the SIP compilation.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
<bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
<bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
<bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
MDE did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part
of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations
neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an
EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature
of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a
neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of
Executive Order 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of
color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 31, 2024. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not
[[Page 22342]]
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (See
section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart V--Maryland
0
2. In Sec. 52.1070:
0
a. Amend the table in paragraph (d) by adding an entry for ``Raven
Power Fort Smallwood, LLC--H.A. Wagner Generating Station'' at the end
of the table; and
0
b. Amend the table in paragraph (e) by adding an entry for ``Regional
Haze Plan from 2018-2028'' at the end of the table.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1070 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Permit No./type effective EPA approval date Additional explanation
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Raven Power Fort Smallwood, Consent Order......... 7/6/2021 4/1/24, [INSERT Consent Order approved
LLC--H.A. Wagner Generating Federal Register via Docket EPA-R03-
Station. CITATION]. OAR-2022-0912, as an
element of Maryland's
February 8, 2022
Regional Haze Plan
from 2018-2028,
Appendix 19.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable geographic submittal EPA approval date Additional explanation
revision area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan from 2018- State-wide............ 2/8/2022 4/1/24, [INSERT
2028. Federal Register
CITATION].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2024-06415 Filed 3-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 1, 2024.
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.