Proposed Rule2024-19189
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Regional Haze 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 30, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the Ohio regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio or Ohio EPA) on July 30, 2021, which Ohio EPA supplemented on August 6, 2024, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule for the program's second implementation period. EPA proposes to find that Ohio'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, and also addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze program. EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the CAA.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 169 (Friday, August 30, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71124-71151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19189]
[[Page 71123]]
Vol. 89
Friday,
No. 169
August 30, 2024
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 52
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Regional Haze Plan for the Second
Implementation Period; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 71124]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0544; FRL-12175-01-R5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Regional Haze 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 Ohio regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio or Ohio
EPA) on July 30, 2021, which Ohio EPA supplemented on August 6, 2024,
as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
EPA's Regional Haze Rule for the program's second implementation
period. EPA proposes to find that Ohio'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, and also addresses other applicable requirements for the
second implementation period of the regional haze program. EPA is
taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 30,
2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2021-0544 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or via email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#167a7778717b7778387b7f757e77737a5673667738717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1478757a7379757a3a797d777c757178547164753a737b62">[email protected]</span></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 the docket. EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's
docket at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> any information you consider to
be confidential business information (CBI), Proprietary Business
Information (PBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI
or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alisa Liu, Air and Radiation Division
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-3193, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#25494c500b44494c5644654055440b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eb87829ec58a8782988aab8e9b8ac58c849d">[email protected]</span></a>.
The EPA Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is 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 Ohio's Regional Haze Submission for the
Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Ohio's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
B. Ohio's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and 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
1. Selection of Sources for Analysis
2. Emission Measures Necessary To Make Reasonable Progress
3. Ohio's Long-Term Strategy
4. EPA's Evaluation of Ohio's Compliance With 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i)
5. Consultation With States
6. Five Additional Factors
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 EPA proposing?
On July 30, 2021, Ohio EPA submitted a revision to its SIP to
address regional haze for the second implementation period and
supplemented it on August 6, 2024. Ohio EPA made this SIP submission to
satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to
CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. EPA proposes to find that
the Ohio regional haze SIP submission for the second implementation
period meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and
thus proposes to approve Ohio'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 EPA to
promulgate regulations to assure reasonable progress toward meeting
this national goal. CAA 169A(a)(4). On December 2, 1980, 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 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
[[Page 71125]]
haze. CAA 169B. 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 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, 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).
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 deciview,
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>, 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 at 35768, July 1,
1999). 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) and (f).
\5\ In addition to each of the fifty States, 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 (dv) 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 impairment) for
each Class I area, and to calculate the linear rate of progress needed
to attain natural visibility conditions, assuming a starting point of
baseline visibility conditions in 2004 and ending with natural
conditions in 2064. This linear interpolation is known as the uniform
rate of progress (URP) and is used as a tracking metric to help States
assess the amount of progress they are making towards the national
visibility goal over time in each Class I area.\6\ 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(2). 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. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(i), (ii). The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(d) also contain
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).
[[Page 71126]]
Finally, the 1999 RHR required States to submit periodic progress
reports--SIP revisions due every five years that contain information on
States' implementation of their regional haze plans and an assessment
of whether anything additional is needed to make reasonable progress,
see 40 CFR 51.308(g),(h)--and to consult with the Federal Land
Manager(s) \7\ (FLMs) responsible for each Class I area according to
the requirements in CAA 169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA established the URP framework in the 1999 RHR to provide
``an equitable analytical approach'' to assessing the rate of
visibility improvement at Class I areas across the country. The
start point for the URP analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was
calculated based on the amount of visibility improvement that was
anticipated to result from implementation of existing CAA programs
over the period from the mid-1990s to approximately 2005. Assuming
this rate of progress would continue into the future, EPA determined
that natural visibility conditions would be reached in 60 years, or
2064 (60 years from the baseline starting point of 2004). However,
EPA did not establish 2064 as the year by which the national goal
must be reached. 64 FR at 35731-32. That is, the URP and the 2064
date are not enforceable targets but are rather tools that ``allow
for analytical comparisons between the rate of progress that would
be achieved by the State's chosen set of control measures and the
URP.'' (82 FR 3078 at 3084, January 10, 2017).
\7\ 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, 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. 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.
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,
EPA issued ``Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for
the Second Implementation Period'' (``2019 Guidance'').\8\ On July 8,
2021, EPA issued a memorandum containing ``Clarifications Regarding
Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation
Period'' (``2021 Clarifications Memo'').\9\ Additionally, 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="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> 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="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf</a>. 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="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/tracking.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/tracking.pdf</a> 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="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program</a> EPA Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (June
3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As 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 (NAAQS)
and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs, as further
emission reductions may be necessary to adequately protect visibility
in Class I areas throughout the country.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95-294 at 205 (``In determining how
to best remedy the growing visibility problem in these areas of
great scenic importance, the committee realizes that as a matter of
equity, the national ambient air quality standards cannot be revised
to adequately protect visibility in all areas of the country.''),
(``the mandatory class I increments of [the PSD program] do not
adequately protect visibility in class I areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Because the air pollutants and pollution affecting visibility in
Class I areas can be transported over long distances, successful
implementation of the regional haze program requires long-term,
regional coordination among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that
have responsibility for Class I areas and the emissions that impact
visibility in those areas. 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, 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
notice, the terms RPO and MJO are synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) is an RPO that
includes the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
and Wisconsin. LADCO's work is a
[[Page 71127]]
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 Midwest. Along with the six LADCO
States, participants in LADCO's Regional Haze Technical Workgroup
include 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 were 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 (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),
(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 51.308(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 revisions 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 EPA according to the requirements applicable to all SIP
revisions under the CAA and EPA's regulations. See CAA 169A(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 EPA finds that a State's SIP is incomplete
or disapproves the SIP, the Agency must promulgate a Federal
implementation plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable requirements.
See 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, EPA determined that all States contribute to visibility impairment
in at least one Class I area 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.'' 64 FR 35714
at 35720-22, July 1, 1999.
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. See
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 section 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
[[Page 71128]]
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://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/tracking.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/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 percent clearest
(the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest
values of the deciview index) and 20 percent most impaired days (the 20
percent 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 percent clearest
and 20 percent 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 to reach natural visibility
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ This action also refers to the 20 percent clearest and 20
percent most anthropogenically impaired days as the ``clearest'' and
``most impaired'' or ``most anthropogenically impaired'' days,
respectively.
\18\ The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an error
related to the requirement for calculating two sets of natural
conditions values. The rule says, ``most impaired days or the
clearest days'' where it should say ``most impaired days and
clearest days.'' This is an error that was intended to be corrected
in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected in the final
rule language. This is supported by the preamble text at 82 FR 3098:
``In the final version of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii), an occurrence of
``or'' has been corrected to ``and'' to indicate that natural
visibility conditions for both the most impaired days and the
clearest days must be based on available monitoring information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, States must
plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and
natural visibility conditions for each Class I area to determine the
URP--the amount of visibility improvement, measured in dv, that would
need to be achieved during each implementation period 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, 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 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. See 82 FR 3078 at 3107, January 10, 2017, footnote 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Being on or below the URP is not a ``safe harbor''; i.e.,
achieving the URP does not mean that a Class I area is making
``reasonable progress'' and does not relieve a State from using the
four statutory factors to determine what level of control is needed
to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR 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 to make reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress may
be either new, additional control measures for a source, or they may be
the existing emission reduction measures that a source is already
implementing. See 2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 8-
10. Such measures must be represented by ``enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures'' (i.e., any
additional compliance tools) in a State's long-term strategy in its
SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
The construct of 40 CFR 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
[[Page 71129]]
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 at 26987-88, May 4, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, while States have discretion to choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that
a State's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.''
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a State has selected the set of sources, the next step is to
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation
period.\21\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements.'' CAA 169A(g)(1). 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 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 emissions 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 emissions rate than a source has achieved or
could potentially achieve using its existing measures should also
consider lower emissions rates as potential control options. That is, a
State should consider a source's recent actual and projected emission
rates to determine if it could reasonably attain lower emission rates
with its existing measures. If so, the State should analyze the lower
emission rate as a control option for reducing emissions. 2021
Clarifications Memo at 7. 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. 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
[[Page 71130]]
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 emissions rate, it may not be
necessary to have those measures in the long-term strategy to prevent
future emissions 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 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 51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ``additional factors'' \26\ that States must consider in
developing their long-term strategies: (1) Emission reductions due to
ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address
reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (2) measures to reduce
the impacts of construction activities; (3) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (4) basic smoke management practices for
prescribed fire used for agricultural and wildland vegetation
management purposes and smoke management programs; and (5) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point,
area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the
long-term strategy. The 2019 Guidance provides that a State may satisfy
this requirement by considering these additional factors in the process
of selecting sources for four-factor analysis, when performing that
analysis, or both, and that not every one of the additional factors
needs to be considered at the same stage of the process. See 2019
Guidance at 21. EPA provided further guidance on the five additional
factors in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, explaining that a State should
generally not reject cost-effective and otherwise reasonable controls
merely because there have been emission reductions since the first
planning period owing to other ongoing air pollution control programs
or merely 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
[[Page 71131]]
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). 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 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
dv--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, control
determinations by other States, and 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
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 at 3093,
3099-3100; 2019 Guidance at 22; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 15-16.
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements
The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) require States to have
certain strategies and elements in place for assessing and reporting on
visibility. Individual requirements under this section 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
[[Page 71132]]
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 EPA at least annually. Compliance
with the monitoring strategy requirement may be met through a State's
participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring network, which is used to measure
visibility impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i),
(f)(6)(iv). The IMPROVE monitoring data is used to determine the 20
percent most anthropogenically impaired and 20 percent clearest sets of
days every year at each Class I area and tracks visibility impairment
over time.
All States' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring
data and other information are used to determine the contribution of
emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment
in affected Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii). The
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(v) further require 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 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 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
The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) require 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 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), and
then to calculate the difference between those current conditions and
baseline (2000-2004) visibility conditions to assess progress made to
date. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii). States must also assess the changes
in visibility impairment for the most impaired and clearest days since
they submitted their first implementation period progress reports. See
40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(iii), (f)(5). Since different States submitted
their first implementation period progress reports at different times,
the starting point for this assessment will vary State by State.
Similarly, States must provide analyses tracking the change in
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all
sources and activities within the State over the period since they
submitted their first implementation period progress reports. See 40
CFR 51.308(g)(4), (f)(5). Changes in emissions should be identified by
the type of source or activity. The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5)
also address 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 explain 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
CAA section 169A(d) requires that before a State holds a public
hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must consult with
the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that consultation, the State
must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in
the notice to the public. Consistent with this statutory requirement,
the RHR also requires that States ``provide the [FLM] with an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point early enough in
the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy emission
reduction obligation so that information and recommendations provided
by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on the long-
term strategy.'' 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). Consultation that occurs 120 days
prior to any public hearing or public comment opportunity will be
deemed ``early enough,'' but the RHR provides that in any event the
opportunity for consultation must be provided at least 60 days before a
public hearing or
[[Page 71133]]
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). For 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 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 Ohio's Regional Haze Submission for the Second
Implementation Period
A. Background on Ohio's First Implementation Period SIP Submission
Ohio submitted its regional haze SIP for the first implementation
period for 2007-2018 to EPA on December 31, 2008. Based on the failure
to submit a complete SIP addressing all elements of 40 CFR 51.308, EPA
issued a finding of failure to submit on January 9, 2009. 74 FR 2392,
January 15, 2009.
On March 11, 2011, Ohio submitted an updated first implementation
period regional haze SIP, and EPA finalized a limited approval on May
29, 2012. 77 FR 39177, July 2, 2012.
In a separate action, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Ohio's
March 11, 2011, regional haze SIP because of deficiencies arising from
the remand of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). EPA promulgated a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to replace Ohio's reliance on CAIR
with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 77 FR 33642, June 7,
2012.
On April 14, 2014, Ohio submitted a revision to its March 11, 2011,
regional haze SIP and supplemented it on July 27, 2015, to extend the
compliance date for the non-EGU BART emission limits for
SO<INF>2</INF>, which EPA approved on February 22, 2016. 81 FR 11445,
March 4, 2016.
On November 30, 2016, Ohio EPA submitted a second revision to
change reliance on CAIR to reliance on the CSAPR, which EPA approved on
April 30, 2018, converting EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval
of Ohio's March 11, 2011, regional haze SIP to a full approval, and
withdrawing the FIP provisions that addressed the limited disapproval.
See 83 FR 21719, May 10, 2018. 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), Ohio was also responsible for
submitting a five-year progress report as a SIP revision for the first
implementation period, which it did on March 11, 2016. EPA approved
this five-year progress report as a revision to the Ohio SIP at 40 CFR
52.1870(e) on December 8, 2017 (82 FR 60543, December 21, 2017).
B. Ohio's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and EPA's
Evaluation
In accordance with CAA sections 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(f), Ohio EPA submitted a revision to the Ohio SIP on July 30,
2021, to address its regional haze obligations for the second
implementation period, which runs through 2028. Ohio EPA supplemented
its SIP submittal on August 6, 2024. Ohio initiated an FLM consultation
process and provided three public comment periods on the regional haze
SIP for the second implementation period. The first public comment
period on the initial SIP revision ran from May 10, 2021 through June
28, 2021, and a public hearing was held on June 14, 2021. The second
public comment period, limited to proposed emission limitations for
three sources, ran from January 16, 2024 through March 18, 2024, and a
public hearing was held on March 18, 2024. The third public comment
period, regarding draft administrative orders effectuating the proposed
emission limitations for the three sources, ran from June 6, 2024
through July 8, 2024, and a public hearing was held on July 9, 2024.
Ohio received and responded to comments from FLMs and the public. Ohio
included the comments and responses in Appendices K1-K4, L1-L4, M1-M3,
N1-N2, O, and P9-P12 of its July 30, 2021, submission and in Appendices
C3, C4, C7, C8, E2, E3, F2, F3, F4, F5, and G of its August 6, 2024,
supplement.
The following sections describe Ohio's SIP submission, including
Ohio'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. Also
described is Ohio's August 6, 2024 supplement, which provides
administrative orders effectuating emission limitations for three
sources to be incorporated into the regulatory portion of Ohio's SIP at
40 CFR 52.1870(d). This action also contains EPA's evaluation of Ohio's
submission against the requirements of the CAA and the RHR for the
second implementation period of the regional haze program.
C. Identification of Class I Areas
The provisions of section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA require each State
in which any Class I area is located or ``the emissions from which may
reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of
visibility'' in a Class I area to have a plan for making reasonable
progress toward the national visibility goal. The RHR implements this
statutory requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which provides that each
State's plan ``must address regional haze in each mandatory Class I
Federal area located within the State and in each mandatory Class I
Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions from within the State,'' and (f)(2), which requires each
State's plan to include a long-term strategy that addresses regional
haze in such Class I areas.
Ohio has no Class I areas within its borders that are among the 156
mandatory Class I Federal areas where EPA deemed visibility to be an
important value. See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D. Thus, Ohio EPA only
considered out-of-state mandatory Class I Federal areas covered under
the RHR.
Ohio is a member of LADCO and participated in its regional approach
for developing a strategy for making reasonable progress towards the
national visibility in the northern Midwest Class I areas. Ohio EPA
reviewed technical analyses conducted by LADCO to determine what Class
I areas outside the State are affected by Ohio emission sources. For
the second regional haze implementation period, LADCO used the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions Particulate Matter
Source Apportionment Tool (PSAT). LADCO tagged States and regions as
well as individual point sources and inventory source groups to
apportion emissions to States and regions. LADCO assessed relative
visibility impacts in 2028 by projecting representative emissions
inventories and known emission controls from 2016.\31\ A group of RPOs,
[[Page 71134]]
States, and EPA established 2016 as the base year for a national air
quality modeling platform for future ozone, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and
regional haze SIP development because of fairly typical ozone
conditions and wildfire conditions.\32\ LADCO relied upon EPA's
inventory estimates for 2016 and 2028 for most emission sectors as
described in EPA's September 19, 2019, ``Availability of Modeling Data
and Associated Technical Support Document for the EPA's Updated 2028
Visibility Air Quality Modeling,'' (EPA's Updated 2028 Visibility Air
Quality Modeling).\33\ For Electric Generating Units (EGUs), LADCO used
forecasts from the Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee
(ERTAC) based on continuous emissions monitoring data from 2016 instead
of the Integrated Planning Model used in EPA's 2016 modeling platform.
LADCO also incorporated State-reported changes to EGUs received through
September 2020 to estimate 2028 EGU emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See appendix A of Ohio EPA's SIP submittal. Details of the
analysis and source-apportioned visibility contributions at Class I
areas within the LADCO region for regional haze second planning
period are documented in LADCO's modeling technical support document
(TSD), dated June 17, 2021.
\32\ See ``Base Year Selection Workgroup Final Report,''
produced by the Inventory Collaborative Base Year Selection
Workgroup, April 5, 2017. <a href="https://www.wrapair2.org/pdf/2017-12-12_Base_Year_Selection_Report_V1.1.pdf">https://www.wrapair2.org/pdf/2017-12-12_Base_Year_Selection_Report_V1.1.pdf</a>.
\33\ EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
``Availability of Modeling Data and Associate Technical Support
Document for EPA's Updated 2028 Visibility Air Quality Modeling,''
September 19, 2019. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/documents/updated_2028_regional_haze_modeling-tsd-2019_0.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/documents/updated_2028_regional_haze_modeling-tsd-2019_0.pdf</a>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio identified affected Class I areas where progress toward
natural visibility conditions may be impacted by emissions from sources
in Ohio. Ohio reviewed technical analyses conducted by LADCO and other
RPOs to determine which Class I areas outside the State are affected by
Ohio emission sources.
For the second implementation period, Ohio used LADCO's modeled
emissions projections for 2028 as a framework to assess the potential
for changes in visibility-impairing emissions. Like the metrics used in
the first implementation period,\34\ Ohio EPA retained the 2 percent
light extinction threshold for determining Ohio's contribution to
visibility at Class I areas. LADCO's modeling results showed that a 2
percent light extinction threshold, when applied to all six LADCO
States and seven other States, would account for 92 percent or more of
the total light extinction at the Class I areas located in the LADCO
States on the most impaired days. When applying the 2 percent total
light extinction threshold, Ohio identified 17 Class I areas affected
by Ohio emission sources for the second implementation period. These
Class I areas, along with Ohio's 2028 projected contributions to
visibility impairment, are: Sipsey Wilderness Area in Alabama (2.3
percent); Cohutta Wilderness Area in Georgia (2.1 percent); Mammoth
Cave National Park in Kentucky (5.9 percent); Seney Wilderness Area in
Michigan (2.0 percent); Great Gulf Wilderness Area (2.5 percent) and
Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness in New Hampshire (2.5
percent); Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey (4.3 percent);
Linville Gorge (3.8 percent) and Shining Rock Wilderness Areas (2.8
percent) and Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge in North Carolina
(3.6 percent); Great Smoky Mountains National Park (2.3 percent) and
Joyce-Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area in Tennessee (2.3 percent); Lye
Brook Wilderness Area in Vermont (3.3 percent); James River Face
Wilderness Area (6.5 percent) and Shenandoah National Park in Virginia
(10.5 percent); and Dolly Sods (13.1 percent) and Otter Creek
Wilderness Areas (13.1 percent) in West Virginia.\35\ Based on the
adjusted URP glidepaths for each of these Class I areas provided in
EPA's Updated 2028 Visibility Air Quality Modeling, visibility
conditions, as depicted in Table 1 of Ohio's SIP submission, are
projected to be below their respective glidepaths in 2028. Visibility
conditions at Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Wilderness Areas, the Class I
areas impacted most significantly by Ohio, are projected to be
approximately 5 dv below their respective glidepaths in 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Section III.2. and Appendix A of Ohio's SIP submission
for LADCO's technical support document and supporting materials.
\35\ The list of Class I areas impacted by Ohio, including the
2028 projections for visibility on the 20 percent most impaired days
and Ohio's contribution, is found in Table 1 of Ohio's SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) require 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).
Ohio has no mandatory Class I areas within its borders to which the
requirements of the visibility protection program apply in 40 CFR part
81, subpart D, and therefore, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) and its requirements
do not apply.
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
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
notice, 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).
[[Page 71135]]
1. Selection of Sources for Analysis
This section summarizes how Ohio EPA's SIP submission addressed the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) of the Regional Haze Rule.
Specifically, it describes the criteria Ohio EPA used to determine the
selection of sources or groups of sources it evaluated for an analysis
of potential emission control measures. 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).
In selecting sources to determine possible additional control
measures during the second planning period, Ohio EPA considered
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and NH<INF>3</INF>,
which are direct or precursor pollutants than can impair visibility.
Based on EPA's Updated 2028 Visibility Air Quality Modeling showing
that the EGU and non-EGU point source sectors contribute 37 to 76
percent of the visibility impact at Class I areas impacted by Ohio
sources, Ohio found it reasonable to focus on point sources for the
second implementation period.
To assist States with their source selection, LADCO generated
source lists based on total process-level emissions (Q) divided by
distance (d) to the nearest Class I area, where Q/d was used as a
surrogate quantitative metric of visibility impact. Total emissions of
Q refer to the sum of NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>,
and NH<INF>3</INF>. The National Emissions Inventory Collaborative 2016
alpha inventory was selected by participants in the LADCO Regional Haze
Technical Workgroup for the Q/d analysis in 2018 as the best available
inventory at that time. LADCO identified unit level sources above Q/d
thresholds of 1, 4, and 10, providing key information the States could
use to select potential sources to be subject to the four-factor
analysis. For details on the data and methods used in the Q/d analysis,
see LADCO's October 14, 2020, technical memorandum ``Description of the
Sources and Methods Used to Support Q/d Analysis for the 2nd Regional
Haze Planning Period'' and section 5 of LADCO's June 17, 2021,
Technical Support Document ``Modeling and Analysis for Demonstrating
Reasonable Progress for the Regional Haze Rule 2018-2028 Planning
Period,'' (LADCO's 2021 TSD) contained in appendix A and B of Ohio's
SIP submission.
In addition to LADCO's Q/d analysis, Ohio EPA compared point source
inventories from the 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and the
2018 Ohio Emissions Inventory System (EIS) \36\ with the emissions used
in LADCO's analysis. For sources where Q was greater than 500 tons per
year for the sum of NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>,
and NH<INF>3</INF> in either the emissions data from the 2016 alpha
inventory, 2017 NEI, or 2018 Ohio EIS, Ohio calculated updated Q/d
values to determine if any additional sources would be identified
beyond those in LADCO's list. However, the process did not result in
the identification of any additional sources. As such, Ohio EPA relied
upon the Q/d information developed by LADCO to select emission units
for further analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Ohio EPA's Emission Inventory System (EIS) is a compilation
of data describing emissions from different sources of air
pollution. Ohio EPA's EIS data and reports are available at <a href="https://epa.ohio.gov/divisions-and-offices/air-pollution-control/reports-and-data/emision-inventory-system">https://epa.ohio.gov/divisions-and-offices/air-pollution-control/reports-and-data/emision-inventory-system</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio EPA began by using a unit Q/d greater than 5 as a threshold
for selecting sources for further evaluation. Then on May 12, 2020, and
October 2, 2020, Ohio received lists of sources recommended for four-
factor analyses that were prepared by NPS and USFS, respectively, and
are included in Appendices K2, K3, and K4 in Ohio's SIP submission. The
list from NPS identified facilities with emissions comprising 80
percent of Ohio's total Q based on only SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> that covered a mix of years from 2014 to 2017, whereas
the list from USFS identified facilities with a Q/d greater than 8 as
calculated by LADCO with the addition of VOC to represent 80 percent of
Ohio's total Q at the closest Class I area to Ohio managed by USFS, the
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area. While Ohio EPA's primary approach was to
consider Q/d on an individual unit basis, the FLM's consideration of Q/
d on a facility-wide basis prompted Ohio to include facility-wide
contribution as an additional consideration. As such, Ohio EPA added a
secondary selection criterion for facility-wide Q/d and developed a
two-tiered approach to capture significant point source emissions in
Ohio for further analysis. Ohio EPA's first tier identified individual
units with a Q/d greater than 5 for a potential four-factor analysis.
For facilities with Q/d greater than 10, Ohio EPA's second tier
selected individual units with Q/d greater than 4 for a potential four-
factor analysis. This secondary selection criteria resulted in the
addition of two units to Ohio EPA's initial list for a total of 38
units at 16 facilities, accounting for 73 percent of the total Q for
all sources in Ohio with Q greater than 0.1 tons per year, including 80
percent of SO<INF>2</INF>, 57 percent of NO<INF>X</INF>, 47 percent of
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 23 percent of NH<INF>3</INF>.
Using this two-tiered approach, Ohio EPA identified the following
facilities and units: Avon Lake Power Plant Unit B012; Cardinal Power
Plant Units B001, B002, B009; Carmeuse Lime, Inc.--Maple Grove
Operations Units P003, P004; Conesville Power Plant Units B004, B007,
B008; City of Orrville Department of Public Utilities Units B001, B004;
Dover Municipal Light & Power Plant Unit B004; DP&L, J.M. Stuart
Generating Station Units B001, B002, B003, B004; DP&L, Killen
Generating Station Unit B001; FirstEnergy Generation LLC--Bay Shore
Plant Unit B006; General James M. Gavin Power Plant Units B003, B004;
Haverhill Coke Company LLC Unit P902; Miami Fort Power Station Units
B015, B016; Ohio Valley Electric Corp.--Kyger Creek Station Units B001,
B002, B003, B004, B005; P.H. Glatfelter Company--Chillicothe Facility
Units B002, B003; W.H. Sammis Plant Units B007, B008, B009, B010, B011,
B012, B013; and Zimmer Power Station Unit B006.
Ohio then refined the list above by considering whether units had
permanently shut down, accepted a commitment to permanently shut down
by 2028, converted to natural gas only, converted to limited use,
accepted new emission limits, or had existing effective controls such
that, in all these cases, a full four-factor analysis would likely
result in a conclusion that no further controls are necessary. For
units accepting a commitment to permanently shut down by 2028 or to
comply with new emission limits by 2025, Ohio issued Director's Final
Findings and Orders (DFFO) and requested they be incorporated into its
SIP to ensure that the measures become permanent and federally
enforceable. For units that had already permanently shut down or had
converted to natural gas or limited use, Ohio ensured measures were
permanent and federally enforceable through Ohio's permitting process
under its SIP approved Permit to Install (PTI) program and its title V
program. Ohio has PTI rules under Ohio Administrative Code (OAC)
Chapter 3745-31 that have been approved into Ohio's SIP at 40 CFR
52.1870 as well as a federally approved title V operating permit
program set forth at 40 CFR part 70. When an owner or operator
certifies a permanent shutdown and notifies Ohio EPA, the unit cannot
resume operation without being considered a new source subject to the
Federal New Source Review (NSR) requirements. Ohio's rules at OAC 3745-
31 prevent installation or
[[Page 71136]]
modification and subsequent operation of a new source without a new
permit.
Of the emission units that had already permanently shut down during
the second implementation period, 12 met Ohio's two-tier Q/d source
selection criteria. For Conesville Power Plant, coal-fired boiler B007
permanently shut down on May 31, 2019, and coal-fired boilers B004 and
B008 permanently shut down on May 31, 2020. DP&L--J.M. Stuart
Generating Station permanently shut down its coal-fired boiler B001 on
September 30, 2017, and boilers B002, B003, and B004 on June 1, 2018.
DP&L--Killen Generating Station also shut down its coal-fired boiler
B001 on June 1, 2018. W.H. Sammis Plant permanently shut down its coal-
fired boilers B007, B008, B009, and B010 on May 31, 2020.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Each of these units have been certified by the source owner
or operator as retired under the provisions for Retired Unit
Exemptions in the Acid Rain Program and/or CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> and
SO<INF>2</INF> Trading Programs. The Retired Unit Exemption
prohibits these units from emitting SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>,
or both starting on the day the exemption takes effect. See 40 CFR
72.8, 40 CFR 97.405, 40 CFR 97.505, 40 CFR 97.605, CFR 97.705, 40
CFR 97.805. Copies of the Retired Unit Exemption forms for each of
these units are included in the docket. Also included in the docket
is a copy of the list of retired generators from the Pennsylvania-
New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection (PJM) Regional Transmission
Organization (RTO), which includes each of these units as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the units that met Ohio's Q/d source selection criteria but had
not yet permanently shut down by Ohio's SIP submittal date in 2021, 3
units accepted enforceable commitments to permanently shut down by
2028: Miami Fort Power Station's coal-fired boilers B015 and B016 and
Zimmer Power Station's coal-fired boiler B006. On September 29, 2020,
the owner of Miami Fort and Zimmer Power Stations announced plans to
permanently shut down these units. In lieu of a four-factor analysis,
Ohio determined that these permanent shutdowns were necessary for
reasonable progress. As such, on July 9, 2021, Ohio EPA issued DFFOs
which established enforceable commitments for the shutdown of these
three units by January 1, 2028, and requested that the DFFOs be
approved into Ohio's SIP at 40 CFR 52.1870(d) for EPA approved State
source-specific requirements.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Appendix C of Ohio's July 30, 2021, SIP revision contains
the DFFOs issued for the Miami Fort and Zimmer Power Stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units that met Ohio's Q/d source selection criteria but have since
converted from coal to natural gas or limited use include the non-EGUs
at P.H. Glatfelter Company--Chillicothe Facility Units B002 and B003 as
well as the EGUs at the City of Orrville Department of Public Utilities
Units B001 and B004. P.H. Glatfelter Company, now Pixelle Specialty
Solutions LLC, converted units B002 and B003 to natural gas on May 31,
2016, and September 6, 2016, respectively. The conversions were part of
a strategy to address BART requirements under the first implementation
planning period as well as Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(Boiler MACT) under permit PTI P0118906. Following the conversions,
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from P.H. Glatfelter Company units B002 and
B003 decreased from 2,873 tons per year (tpy) and 5,708 tpy in 2016 to
1 tpy and 1 tpy in 2018, respectively, and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
decreased from 412 tpy and 691 tpy in 2016 to 134 tpy and 195 tpy in
2018, respectively. Similarly, the City of Orrville Department of
Public Utilities converted B004 to natural gas on December 20, 2016,
and converted B001 to a limited use boiler beginning January 31, 2017,
to comply with requirements of Boiler MACT and the Data Requirements
Rule (DRR) for the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS designation process under
permit PTI P0124959 and title V Permit No. P0125633. Following the
conversions, SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from B001 and B004 decreased from
3,846 tpy and 3,030 tpy in 2016 to 275 tpy and 0 tpy in 2018,
respectively, and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions decreased from 647 tpy and
510 tpy in 2016 to 57 tpy and 20 tpy in 2018, respectively. For both
facilities, reversing the conversion back to coal or fulltime use would
require approval for a modification of its federally enforceable
permit.
Beyond the 15 units shutting down and 4 units converting to natural
gas or limited use as described above, Ohio EPA also evaluated 13 units
at 5 facilities for existing effective controls. As explained in EPA's
July 8, 2021, Clarifications Memo (section 4.1), a ``source's existing
measures are generally needed to prevent future visibility impairment
(i.e., to prevent future emission increases) and thus necessary to make
reasonable progress.'' Measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress must be included in the SIP. However, 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 require those measures under the regional haze program in
its long-term strategy or SIP in order to prevent future emission
increases.
The units that Ohio identified with existing effective controls are
FirstEnergy Generation LLC--Bay Shore Plant Unit B006; Haverhill Coke
Company LLC Unit P902; and W.H. Sammis Plant Units B011, B012, B013.
Ohio provided a weight-of-evidence demonstration as each unit has
consistently implemented their existing measures and have achieved,
using those measures, a reasonably consistent emission rate. With
historical data from 2016 through 2019 showing reasonably consistent
emission rates and 2028 projections from LADCO showing rates consistent
with 2016, Ohio demonstrated that NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emission rates for these units are not expected to increase in the
future. As such, except where expressly noted below for Cardinal Power
Plant, Ohio Valley Electric Corp.--Kyger Creek Station, and General
James M. Gavin Power Plant, Ohio determined the existing measures are
not necessary to make reasonable progress or prevent future emission
increases and, thus, do not need to be included in the regulatory
portion of the SIP.
FirstEnergy Generation LLC--Bay Shore Plant Unit B006 is a
fluidized bed boiler with limestone injection and a baghouse. The
operational nature of this process, whereby calcium sulfate is formed
in the boiler and is captured in the baghouse, results in approximately
94 percent removal of SO<INF>2</INF> and a SO<INF>2</INF> emission rate
of 0.34 pounds per million British thermal units (lbs/MMBtu) or less.
Unit B006 operates with low combustion temperatures along with very low
nitrogen content petroleum coke fuel, which have resulted in
NO<INF>X</INF> emission rates of 0.08 lbs/MMBtu and less from 2016 to
2019. The facility's title V permit contains both SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits as well as a requirement for 90 percent
SO<INF>2</INF> reduction. Given the reasonably consistent emission
rates, the permitted emission limitations, and the operational nature
of the process in which SO<INF>2</INF> is inherently controlled and
NO<INF>X</INF> has a low formation potential, Ohio determined that B006
is effectively controlled and that a full four-factor analysis would
likely result in the conclusion that no further controls are necessary
for reasonable progress.
Haverhill Coke Company LLC Unit P902 is a coke battery with
SO<INF>2</INF> controls installed in 2007 with design control
efficiency of 92 percent. Under the terms of a Federal consent decree
entered in 2014 and amended in 2018,\39\ portions of which were
incorporated into the facility's title V permit, Heat Recovery Steam
Generators were
[[Page 71137]]
installed on P902. This resulted in further SO<INF>2</INF> emission
reductions from 1,183 tpy in 2016 to 777 tpy in 2019. With
SO<INF>2</INF> controls demonstrating greater than 90 percent
effectiveness, title V permit limits, and consent decree requirements
resulting in decreasing emissions, Ohio EPA determined that P902 is
effectively controlled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ United States of America, the State of Illinois and the
State of Ohio v. Gateway Energy & Coke Company, LLC, Haverhill Coke
Company, LLC and Suncoke Energy, Inc. (S.D. Illinois Case No. 3:13-
cv-00616-DH-SCW), entered on November 10, 2014, as amended on June
5, 2015, and July 10, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While W.H. Sammis Plant permanently shut down coal-fired Units
B007, B008, B009, and B010 in 2020 as noted above, there are three
remaining coal-fired Units B011, B012, B013 operating with an
SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit of 0.130 lbs/MMBtu under the terms of a
Federal consent decree,\40\ which was incorporated into the facility's
title V permit. For NO<INF>X</INF> control, a selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR) system was installed on B011 in 2006, and selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) systems with at least 90 percent control
efficiency were installed on B012 and B013 in 2010, all of which must
be operated continuously under the Federal consent decree. Flue Gas
Desulfurization (FGD) systems with 95 percent SO<INF>2</INF> control
efficiency were installed on each unit in 2010. With SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> controls achieving greater than 90 percent control
efficiency, title V SO<INF>2</INF> permit limits below the 0.2 lbs/
MMBtu limit in the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired
EGUs, and reasonably consistent emission rates showing no increasing
future trends, Ohio EPA determined that B012 and B013 are effectively
controlled as described in the 2019 Guidance. For B011 with a Q/d of 5,
Ohio determined that although the existing SNCR does not meet the
examples of in the 2019 Guidance, its year-round operation and an
emission rate consistently between 0.13 and of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu with no
future projected increase indicate that a full four-factor analysis
would likely result in the conclusion that no further controls are
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ United States of America, et al. v. Ohio Edison Company, et
al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, Civil Action No. C2-99-1181, entered on March 18, 2005.
Ohio EPA provided a link to the Consent Decree, a copy of which is
provided in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 13 units that Ohio initially identified with existing
effective controls, there were 8 units for which Ohio later provided,
in its August 6, 2024, supplement, new enforceable measures necessary
for reasonable progress as described below: Cardinal Power Units B001,
B002, B009; and Ohio Valley Electric Corp.--Kyger Creek Station Units
B001, B002, B003, B004, B005.
Cardinal Power Plant operates three coal-fired boilers: B001, B002,
and B009. For NO<INF>X</INF> control, SCRs with approximately 90
percent control efficiency were installed on all three boilers in 2003.
The SCRs must be continuously operated under the terms of their PTI
permits and a Federal consent decree.\41\ From 2016-2019, the SCRs have
consistently achieved NO<INF>X</INF> emission rates of 0.09 lbs/MMBtu
and lower. For SO<INF>2</INF> control, FGD systems with approximately
95 percent control efficiency were installed on B001 in 2008, on B002
in 2007, and on B009 in 2011. The FGD systems must be operated
continuously under the terms of the same Federal consent decree that
were incorporated into their PTI permits. The permitted SO<INF>2</INF>
emission limits were set at 1.056 lbs/MMBtu for B001 and B002 as well
as 0.66 lbs/MMBtu for B009. From 2016-2019, the FGDs have consistently
achieved SO<INF>2</INF> emission rates at or below 0.24 lbs/MMBtu for
B001, 0.27 lbs/MMBtu for B002, and 0.15 for B009. With FGD systems
achieving at least 90 percent effectiveness that were installed since
2007 and emission rates that were reasonably consistent from 2016 to
2019 with no projected increase, Ohio determined that the units were
effectively controlled as described in the 2019 Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ United States, et al. v. American Electric Power Service
Corp., et al., S.D. Ohio Civil Action Nos. C2-99-1250, C2-99-1182,
C2-05-360, and C2-04-1098 entered on December 10, 2007, and
substantively modified on July 17, 2019 (AEP Consent Decree). Ohio
provided a link to the AEP Consent Decree and modification, which
are included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, on August 6, 2024, Ohio EPA submitted a supplement to
its July 30, 2021, Regional Haze SIP after going through FLM
consultation and two public notice and comment periods. Units B001,
B002, and B009 combined are subject to a SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit
of 4,858.75 lbs/hour as a rolling, thirty-day average that was derived
as a part of the attainment demonstration for the Steubenville, OH-WV
2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area. The SO<INF>2</INF> limit
became effective on July 5, 2019 and was approved into Ohio`s SIP,
effective November 21, 2019.\42\ 84 FR 56385, October 22, 2019. Ohio
EPA submitted its August 6, 2024, supplement to incorporate the
SO<INF>2</INF> limit through a DFFO into the SIP for Regional Haze
purposes and to ensure reasonable progress by maintaining the existing
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ For the technical justification and development methodology
behind the SO<INF>2</INF> limit, Ohio EPA provided a link to its
June 2019 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Ohio
Portion of the Steubenville, OH-WV 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF>
Nonattainment Area, a copy of which is provided in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Valley Electric Corp.--Kyger Creek Station operates five coal-
fired boilers: B001, B002, B003, B004, and B005. For SO<INF>2</INF>
control, FGD systems operating year-round with 97 percent control
efficiency were installed on B001 and B002 in 2012 and on B003, B004,
and B005 in 2011. Under its title V permit, the facility demonstrates
compliance with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard through the
SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit of 0.2 lbs/MMBtu. For NO<INF>X</INF>
control, SCRs with 70-90 percent efficiency were installed on B001 and
B002 in 2002 and on B003, B004, and B005 in 2003. Together with
overfire air systems, the SCRs achieve an average 87 percent
NO<INF>X</INF> control efficiency. Ohio EPA recognized that the SCRs do
not meet the 90 percent control efficiency examples of effectively
controlled units in the 2019 Guidance and that NO<INF>X</INF> emission
control is limited by ammonia slip and mercury oxidation that
jeopardize compliance with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Since
Ohio submitted its SIP in 2021, Kyger Creek enhanced its preventative
maintenance and made process improvements to increase the reliability
of the urea injection system. This is expected to increase both
seasonal and year-round NO<INF>X</INF> removal efficiency. To ensure
that these recent improvements are sustained going forward, Ohio EPA
adopted NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits of 0.4 lbs/MMBtu on a 720-
operating rolling hourly average for each stack: Common Stack 12 for
combined emissions from B001 and B002 and Common Stack 35 for combined
emissions from B003, B004, and B005. Both stacks are equipped with
continuous emissions monitoring systems. The limits were developed by
analysis of NO<INF>X</INF> emission rates from 2018 to 2023, prior to
and following system improvements, and represent a reduction from the
previous permitted limit of 0.84 lbs/MMBtu. As such, in the supplement
that Ohio EPA submitted on August 6, 2024, Ohio requested to
incorporate the new NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit of 0.4 lbs/MMBtu for
both Common Stacks 12 and 35 into Ohio's SIP at 40 CFR 52.1870(d)
through a DFFO for Regional Haze purposes to ensure reasonable progress
by maintaining the recent improvements.
After refining the list of 38 units identified by Ohio's Q/d source
selection threshold and addressing 32 of those as described above, Ohio
EPA provided four-factor analyses for the remaining 6 units at the
following 4 facilities: Avon Lake Power Plant Unit B012; Carmeuse Lime,
Inc.--Maple Grove Operations Units P003 and P004; Dover Municipal Light
& Power Plant
[[Page 71138]]
Unit B004; and General James M. Gavin Power Plant Units B003 and B004.
The emission units that Ohio selected for a four-factor analysis are
described below.
Consistent with the first regional haze implementation period, Ohio
EPA focused on NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in
considering potential additional control measures at these four
facilities. As demonstrated by the analysis in LADCO's Technical
Support Document of the IMPROVE monitoring data, the NO<INF>X</INF> and
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions lead to the formation of the particulate
species of nitrate and sulfate that currently contribute more to
visibility impairment in the LADCO Class I Areas than PM<INF>2.5</INF>,
NH<INF>3</INF>, and VOC. The LADCO Class I Areas consist of Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota,
as well as Isle Royale National Park and Seney Wilderness Area in
Michigan. Additionally, in Table 20 of its submittal, Ohio EPA provided
2017 NEI data for Ohio point sources, showing smaller VOC, PM, and
NH<INF>3</INF> emissions relative to NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions. For this reason, Ohio EPA chose to focus on reducing
emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>, which the 2019 Guidance
recommended would be a reasonable approach for the second
implementation period. See 2019 Guidance at page 12. Nevertheless, Ohio
considered emissions from each of the regional haze precursors
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NH<INF>3</INF> and
VOC in the source selection process. As shown in Table 4 of its
submittal, the sources meeting Ohio's primary and secondary Q/d
selection criteria account for 38 units at 16 facilities, representing
80 percent of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, 57 percent of NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions, 47 percent of PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions, and 23 percent of
NH<INF>3</INF> emissions for all sources with a sum of SO<INF>2</INF>,
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and NH<INF>3</INF> emissions from
2016 greater than 0.1 tpy. The background on each of the 6 units
selected for a four-factor analysis is described below.
Avon Lake Power Plant
Avon Lake Power Plant is an EGU, and Unit B012 is a 6,040 MMBtu/
Hour pulverized coal-fired boiler that was installed in 1970. For
NO<INF>X</INF> control, B012 is equipped with low-NO<INF>X</INF> cell
burners and overfire air. For SO<INF>2</INF> control, Avon Lake Power
Plant accepted a federally enforceable SO<INF>2</INF> emissions limit
of 9,600 lbs/hr on a 1-hour average basis for all SO<INF>2</INF>-
emitting sources at the facility (B010, B012, B013, B015, and B016) to
satisfy requirements under the DRR for the 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS
designation process.\43\ See 83 FR 40723, August 16, 2018. The
facility's title V permit P0085253, effective April 18, 2017, contains
a SO<INF>2</INF> permit limit for B012, which was reduced from the
previous limit of 4.65 lbs/MMBtu to a new combined SO<INF>2</INF>
permit limit on B010 and B012 of 1.59 lbs/MMBtu as a rolling, 30-day
average. To comply with the new SO<INF>2</INF> emissions limits, the
facility switched to a blend of Western Bituminous and Powder River
Basin coal in 2016, which contributed to reductions in annual
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions for B012 from 8,862 tpy in 2016 to 1,597 tpy
in 2019, lowered the SO<INF>2</INF> emission rate from 1.60 lbs/MMBtu
in 2016 to 0.70 lbs/MMBtu in 2019, and reduced Q/d from 32 in 2016 to 7
in 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Ohio's January 13, 2017, submittals for the 2010
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS DRR describing the AERMOD Modeling Results for
Avon Lake Power Plant with the derivation of the limits of 1.59 lbs/
MMBtu and 9,600 lbs/hour as the resulting critical emissions value
is available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/so2-data-requirements-rule-january-13-2017-state-submittals-ohio">https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/so2-data-requirements-rule-january-13-2017-state-submittals-ohio</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carmeuse Lime, Inc.--Maple Grove Operations
Carmeuse Lime, Inc.--Maple Grove Operations is a lime manufacturing
plant. Unit P003 and Unit P004 both consist of a rotary kiln and cooler
as well as a shared stack for emissions. P003 and P004 burn coal,
petroleum coke, and/or natural gas. For PM control, both units have
baghouses, however, there are no add-on controls for SO<INF>2</INF> or
NO<INF>X</INF>. Although both units were subject to a best available
control technology analysis under the Federal PSD program in 2002-2003
when lime manufacturing operations were restarted, no add-on control
technologies for NO<INF>X</INF> or SO<INF>2</INF> were found to be
cost-effective. However, SO<INF>2</INF> at both units is inherently
controlled when calcium-rich lime kiln dust chemically absorbs the
SO<INF>2</INF> in the flue gas, which is then removed in the baghouse.
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions at both units are controlled by good
combustion practices.
Limits on SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> are included in the
facility's title V Permit P0125171. The permit includes a maximum
sulfur content limit for fuel of 5.50 percent for coal and 6.50 percent
for coke by weight. P003 and P004 are subject to SO<INF>2</INF> limits
of 1,102 lbs/hour and 4,826.80 tons per rolling, 12-month period. P003
and P004 are also subject to NO<INF>X</INF> limits of 1,234.90 lbs/hour
and 5,408.90 tons per rolling 12-month period.
Dover Municipal Light & Power Plant
Dover Municipal Light & Power Plant is a coal-fired electrical
generating plant. Unit B004 is a 247 MMBtu/hour coal-fired stoker
boiler that was installed in 1962 that uses natural gas as a backup
fuel. Under title V Permit P0090810, B004 is subject to SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions limit of 4.60 lbs/MMBtu.
General James M. Gavin Power Plant
General James M. Gavin Power Plant is a coal-fired electrical
generating plant. Unit B003 and Unit B004 are both 11,936 MMBtu/hr
pulverized coal-fired, dry-bottom boilers installed in 1974. For
SO<INF>2</INF>, wet FGD systems with 95 percent control efficiency were
installed on B003 in 1994 and on B004 in 1995. NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
for B003 and B004 are controlled through the use of low NO<INF>X</INF>
burners and SCR, achieving 91 percent control efficiency. The FGDs and
SCRs are operated continuously under the terms of the facility's title
V Permit P0089258 and the Federal AEP Consent Decree. A federally
enforceable SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit of 7.41 lbs/MMBtu applies to
both B003 and B004 under the title V permit. From 2016 to 2019,
SO<INF>2</INF> emission rates have ranged from 0.27 to 0.37 lbs/MMBtu
for B003 and 0.29 to 0.39 lbs/MMBtu for B004, while NO<INF>X</INF>
emission rates have remained between 0.10 and 0.11 for both units
during the same time period.
2. Emission Measures Necessary To Make Reasonable Progress
The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) require 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. The emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress must be included in the long-term
strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Ohio EPA's four-factor analyses are described below for each of the
6 units identified through its Q/d source selection process. This
includes units that had not already permanently shut down, accepted an
enforceable commitment to permanently shut down or comply with new
limits, converted to natural gas or limited use, or had existing
effective controls.
Avon Lake Power Plant
Avon Lake Power Plant Unit B012 was selected for a four-factor
analysis based on 2016 emissions resulting in a Q/d of 32. Avon Lake
evaluated B012 for both NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> controls.
Avon Lake evaluated wet FGD and a spray dryer absorber (SDA) for
SO<INF>2</INF> control. Capital costs were estimated at $417,000,000
for SDA and $483,000,000 for wet FGD. Annual operating costs
[[Page 71139]]
were estimated at $44,500,000 for SDA and $51,600,000$ for wet FGD.
Based on a remaining useful life of either 20 or 30 years and retrofit
factors of 1.2 and 1, the cost effectiveness was estimated at $19,500/
ton and $22,600/ton for wet FGD for 2,284 tpy in potential emission
reductions from either control option.
For NO<INF>X</INF> control, Avon Lake evaluated SNCR and SCR with
capital costs ranging from $13,000,000 for SNCR to $191,000,000 for
SCR, while annual operating costs were estimated at $1,679,100 for SNCR
and $25,600,000 for SCR. Cost effectiveness was estimated at $10,200/
ton for SNCR for 164 tpy in potential emission reductions and $26,700/
ton for SCR for 959 tpy in reductions. Installation time was estimated
at 5 years for SO<INF>2</INF> controls and 2 to 5 years for SNCR and
SCR, respectively. Impacts from energy requirements, solid waste, and
ammonia usage were also evaluated.
Carmeuse Lime, Inc.--Maple Grove Operations
Carmeuse Lime, Inc.--Maple Grove Operations Units P003 and P004
were selected for a four-factor analysis.
The evaluation of SO<INF>2</INF> controls at Units P003 and P004
included conditioning tower slurry injection, DSI, and wet scrubbers.
Capital costs for each unit were estimated at $14,437,783 for
conditioning tower slurry injection, $16,960,653 for DSI, and
$23,784,927 for wet scrubbers. Annual costs were estimated at
$3,982,597 for conditioning tower slurry injection, $9,140,819 for DSI,
and $6,305,184 for wet scrubber. The cost effectiveness values at Units
P003 and P004, respectively, were estimated for conditioning tower
slurry injection at $3,266 and $3,274/ton, DSI at $5,857 and $5,862/
ton, and wet scrubbing at $4,506 and 4,043/ton SO<INF>2</INF>.
Potential SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions for each unit P003 and
P004, respectively, were 1,221 and 1,216 tpy for conditioning tower
slurry injection, 1,566 and 1,559 tpy for DSI, and 1,559 and 1,559 tpy
for wet scrubbing.
Switching fuel to solely natural gas was also evaluated and found
to be technically infeasible due to the insufficient supply of natural
gas in the region as well as the impact on the production process that
would result from altering the product chemistry and capacity. The
switch to natural gas would fundamentally change the production process
since the flame temperature would be lower, altering product chemistry
and quality, changing the thermal profile of the kiln, and reducing
production capacity.
For NO<INF>X</INF>, several control options were evaluated,
including preheater installation, low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners, SCR, and
SNCR. However, no options were determined to be technically feasible
beyond current operation under good combustion practices. Despite the
concerns about technical feasibility, Carmeuse Lime, Inc.--Maple Grove
Operations performed a four-factor analysis on the addition of tail-end
SCR, which would have required the installation of an SO<INF>2</INF>
wet scrubber upstream and stack gas reheat downstream. Estimated
capital costs for Units P003 and P004 were $16,878,012 and $16,722,674,
respectively, while estimated annual costs were $11,596,001 and
$11,431,638, resulting in cost effectiveness values of $10,419 and
$11,484/ton NO<INF>X</INF>.
Both SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> analyses considered a
remaining useful life of 20 or 25 years, a 4 to 5 year installation
time, and energy and non-air quality environmental impacts. In addition
to the consideration of candidate control options, Carmeuse Lime,
Inc.,--Maple Grove Operations considered visibility impact and noted
that an analysis done during the first implementation period shows that
the facility is located outside the area of influence for the closest
Class I area, the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area, and that it was not one
of the four sources in Ohio identified by VISTAS in their June 22,
2020, request as a source that strongly contributes to regional haze.
Dover Municipal Light & Power Plant
Dover Municipal Light & Power Plant Unit B004 was selected for a
four-factor analysis based on 2016 emissions resulting in a Q/d of 7
and the absence of existing SO<INF>2</INF> add-on controls. The unit is
controlled with a baghouse for PM, activated carbon for mercury, and
DSI for hydrogen chloride.
The evaluation of SO<INF>2</INF> controls considered fuel
switching, DSI, wet FGD, and SDA. The City of Dover determined that
switching from the current low sulfur coal to natural gas was
infeasible, not only because it would require major changes to the
boiler's burner design and an additional mile of natural gas pipeline,
but also because of the insufficiency of a natural gas supply. For the
other control options, capital costs were estimated at $2,640,000 for
DSI, $28,110,269 for wet FGD, and $24,274,288 for SDA. Annual costs
were estimated at $1,558,509 for DSI, $4,615,991 for wet FGD, and
$4,030,803 for SDA. The cost effectiveness and potential reductions in
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions were estimated at $2,985/ton for 522 tpy with
DSI, $5,016/ton for 920 tpy with wet FGD, and $4,402/ton for 916 tpy
with SDA.
The analyses considered a remaining useful life of 30 years, a 5-
year installation time, as well as energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts. Dover Municipal Light & Power Plant also
compared annualized compliance costs as a percentage of sales for each
control option, which resulted in 6.2 percent for DSI and 18.5 percent
for wet FGD. Citing to guidance for the Regulatory Flexibility Act,\44\
Dover Municipal Light & Power Plant observed that EPA has employed
discretion in not proceeding with rulemakings that regulate only a
small number of small businesses with annualized compliance costs as a
percentage of sales greater than 3 percent. As such, Dover Municipal
Power & Light Plant noted that as a non-profit governmental
organization, the costs of any of the controls evaluated would threaten
the viability of the plant, with the options of wet FGD and SDA almost
certainly resulting in closure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ EPA Office of Policy, Economic and Innovation, ``Final
Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended
by the Small Business and Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act,''
November 30, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
General James M. Gavin Power Plant
General James M. Gavin Power Plant was selected for a four-factor
analysis based on 2016 emissions resulting in a Q/d above Ohio's
threshold for Units B003 and B004 as well as the relative impact of
this source on visibility impairment.
For NO<INF>X</INF>, Ohio EPA determined that the units were
effectively controlled. This determination considered that the SCRs
were installed in 2001, are operated continuously, and achieve 91
percent control efficiency with low NO<INF>X</INF> burners. In
addition, Ohio found that the emission rates, which ranged between 0.10
and 0.11 lbs/MMBtu from 2016 to 2019, were reasonably consistent and
that no increase in those rates was projected into 2028.
SO<INF>2</INF> was considered in the four-factor analysis since the
current FGDs were installed in 1994-1995 before the beginning of the
first implementation period. General James M. Gavin Power Plant
evaluated fuel switching, retrofitting new dry FGD, retrofitting new
wet FGD, and making operational improvements to the existing wet FGD.
General James M. Gavin Power Plant currently burns eastern bituminous
coal with a sulfur content of 3.9 to 4.2 percent. Switching to lower
sulfur coal was considered technically infeasible due to operational
issues from a higher ash content causing slagging issues and
overburdening the electrostatic precipitator (ESP), thereby decreasing
[[Page 71140]]
its control efficiency. Switching to natural gas was precluded since
natural gas is not currently available at the site, and the nearest
pipeline 10 miles away does not have the capacity to supply the
required loading to the plant.
In terms of add-on SO<INF>2</INF> controls, the existing DSI
systems designed for SO<INF>3</INF> emissions control were evaluated
for collateral removal of SO<INF>2.</INF> However, the analysis
determined that modifying operational parameters with higher sorbent
injection rates required for significant SO<INF>2</INF> emissions
control would overburden the ESP in handling particulate emissions.
Similarly, the analysis found that installation of a new SDA would
require replacing the existing ESP and would offer no advantage
compared to the existing wet FGD. In 2019, General James M. Gavin Power
Plant made significant expenditures to upgrade and optimize the
existing wet FGD systems which improved control efficiency to 95
percent. With the significant recent expenditures for the upgrades and
the lack of technically feasible options for further optimization, the
analysis cited to the 2019 Guidance in determining that replacing the
existing wet FGD was not a practical option and that additional
controls were unlikely to be reasonable. See 2019 Guidance at 22-23.
In December 2023, General James M. Gavin Power Plant provided to
Ohio EPA a supplemental analysis with new information on $9.3 million
in additional upgrades and improvements to their FGD systems made since
2020, many of which occurred after Ohio EPA submitted its Regional Haze
SIP in July 2021. Additionally, General James M. Gavin Power Plant
evaluated whether the facility could, at a reasonable cost, achieve a
consistently lower SO<INF>2</INF> emission rate either through existing
measures or potential low-cost upgrades. Although no additional
upgrades were found to be feasible based on the custom-build nature of
the FGD systems and the recent improvements, General James M. Gavin
Power Plant identified the feasibility of consistently achieving a
lower SO<INF>2</INF> emission rate as a result of the recent upgrades
based on 2019-2023 emissions data, load variability, coal content and
supply. To ensure that the recent improvements are maintained going
forward, Ohio adopted new SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits of 0.75 lbs/
MMBtu on a rolling 30-operating day average for both B003 and B004,
representing a reduction from the former SO<INF>2</INF> limits of 7.41
lbs/MMBtu. To ensure the new SO<INF>2</INF> limits are permanent and
federally enforceable, Ohio EPA submitted the August 6, 2024,
supplement to incorporate the new SO<INF>2</INF> limits through a DFFO
into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.1870(d) for Regional Haze purposes.
Ohio's Evaluation of the Four-Factor Analyses
In considering the four-factor analyses for each of the four
facilities described above, Ohio determined that additional add-on
controls are not cost-effective and thus not necessary for reasonable
progress in the second planning period. In making its determination,
Ohio evaluated the analyses of energy and solid waste impacts from
increased power usage and generation of solid waste and wastewater.
Ohio evaluated capital and operating costs, costs per ton of pollutant
removed, and potential emission reductions, and took under
consideration compliance costs/sales ratios. To compare the candidate
control options at a facility, Ohio estimated the visibility benefit of
potential emission reductions as a part of a weight-of evidence
approach to be considered alongside, not instead of, the four statutory
factors. In determining the maximum visibility benefit at any Class I
area in 2028, Ohio used source apportionment modeling conducted by
VISTAS \45\ and scaled the modeled visibility impacts to the expected
emissions reductions from the potential controls evaluated, which
ranged from 0.001 to 0.180 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> at Avon Lake Power Plant,
0.192 to 0.246 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> at Carmeuse Lime, Inc.--Maple Grove, and
0.041 to 0.072 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> at Dover Municipal Power & Light Plant.
Ohio also pointed to the State's progress report in its regional haze
SIP revision for the seconding planning period, showing emission trends
with significant reductions of 90 percent SO<INF>2</INF> and 57 percent
NO<INF>X</INF> from 2005 to 2017. Looking forward to 2028, Ohio
identified additional emission reductions that will be achieved in the
second planning period through measures identified in the long-term
strategy, which are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ ``The VISTAS Regional Haze Project,'' <a href="https://metro4-sesarm.org/content/vistas-regional-haze-program">https://metro4-sesarm.org/content/vistas-regional-haze-program</a>; ``Task 7--PSAT
Source Apportionment Modeling/Tagging,'' <a href="https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/task-7-source-apportionment-modelingtagging">https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/task-7-source-apportionment-modelingtagging</a>;
``PSAT Source Apportionment Modeling Results Report--August 2020,''
<a href="https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/sites/default/files/VISTAS%20Task%207%20PSAT_20200831.pdf">https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/sites/default/files/VISTAS%20Task%207%20PSAT_20200831.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio concluded that on-the-books and on-the-way controls identified
in the State's long-term strategy, including the DFFOs for permanent
shutdowns at Miami Fort Power Plant and Zimmer Power Station as well as
the DFFOs for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> limits at Cardinal
Power Plant, General James M. Gavin Power Plant, and Ohio Valley
Electric Corp.--Kyger Creek, are necessary to achieve reasonable
progress at the Class I areas impacted by emissions from Ohio.
3. Ohio's Long-Term Strategy
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). After
considering information regarding existing effective controls, analyses
under the four statutory factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), and the
five additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in addition to other
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) described below, Ohio
determined the State's long-term strategy for the second implementation
planning period is comprised of the following measures to make
reasonable progress.\46\ These measures represent reductions beyond
those planned in the first implementation planning period with numerous
changes in emissions and emission limits since the first implementation
planning period, as well as emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs and permanent shutdowns. Except as noted
below for the DFFOs and Ohio's Beneficiary Mitigation Plan for the
Volkswagen Settlement, the following measures in Ohio's long-term
strategy are already permanent and federally enforceable. Ohio EPA
requested that the DFFOs be incorporated into the regulatory portion of
Ohio's SIP at 40 CFR 52.1870(d) to ensure that they will also be
federally enforceable and permanent for regional haze purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ The measures listed in Ohio's long-term strategy are
described in Ohio's SIP submission in Section III.3(e)(5) and
III.5(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-the-books controls for the long-term strategy in the 2nd
implementation period include:
<bullet> Permanent shutdown of Conesville Power Plant Units B004, B007,
and B008
<bullet> Permanent shutdown of DP&L J.M. Stuart Units B001, B002, B003,
and B004
<bullet> Permanent shutdown of DP&L J.M. Killen Unit B001
<bullet> Permanent shutdown of W.H. Sammis Plant Units B007, B008,
B009, and B010
<bullet> National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
<bullet> Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (also
known as the Federal Mobile Source Air Toxics Rules)
[[Page 71141]]
<bullet> Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (40 CFR 63, subpart UUUUU)
<bullet> Federal Oil and Natural Gas Industry Standards
<bullet> NO<INF>X</INF> Emission Standards for New Commercial Aircraft
Engines (40 CFR 87, 40 CFR 1068)
<bullet> NESHAPs for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Area
Source Boilers, Major Source Boilers (40 CFR 63)
<bullet> New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI) (40 CFR 60, subpart CCCC,
40 CFR 60, subpart DDDD)
<bullet> NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters (40 CFR 60, subpart AAA)
<bullet> SO<INF>2</INF> Data Requirements Rule (40 CFR 51)
<bullet> Ohio's Beneficiary Mitigation Plan for the Volkswagen
Settlement (84 FR 43508, August 21, 2019)
On-the-way controls for the long-term strategy that reflect
additional emission reductions expected by 2028 include:
<bullet> Revised CSAPR Update (40 CFR 97, subpart GGGGG)
<bullet> DFFO for Miami Fort Power Station, providing for the permanent
shutdown of coal-fired Boilers B015 and B016, and for Zimmer Power
Station, providing for the permanent shutdown of coal-fired Boiler B006
<bullet> DFFO for Cardinal Power Plant, providing for an SO<INF>2</INF>
emission limit on coal-fired Boilers B001, B002, and B009
<bullet> DFFO for Ohio Valley Electric Corp.--Kyger Creek, providing
for a new NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit on coal-fired Boilers B001,
B002, B003, B004, and B005
<bullet> DFFO for General James M. Gavin Power Plant, providing for a
new SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit on coal-fired Boilers B003 and B004
4. EPA's Evaluation of Ohio's Compliance With 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i)
EPA proposes to find that Ohio 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. Ohio's selection of
sources and evaluation of control measures was reasonable and
consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
For Ohio's source selection methodology, Ohio EPA targeted the
sources with the highest potential to impair visibility at mandatory
Class I areas. Ohio EPA included a thorough description of its source
selection methodology. Starting with LADCO's calculations for Q/d based
on 2016 data, Ohio EPA compared more recent point source inventories
from the 2017 NEI and 2018 Ohio EIS to determine if updated Q/d values
on a unit basis would identify additional sources for selection. Then,
in response to other methods used by NPS and USFS to identify sources
for further evaluation, Ohio EPA modified its source selection process
by adding a secondary criterion for a facility-wide Q/d. Ohio EPA's
two-tiered approach broadened its source selection process and
identified individual units with a Q/d greater than 5 as well as units
with a Q/d greater than 4 at facilities with a Q/d greater than 10.
Using this source selection methodology, Ohio EPA selected 38 units at
16 facilities for further analysis, accounting for 80 percent of
SO<INF>2</INF> and 57 percent of NO<INF>X</INF> for point sources with
Q greater than 0.1 tpy.
In determining which facilities to evaluate through a four-factor
analysis, Ohio EPA refined the list of sources selected using its Q/d
thresholds by providing adequate justification for no further analysis
where sources had accepted an enforceable commitment for SO<INF>2</INF>
or NO<INF>X</INF> limits, permanently shut down, accepted an
enforceable commitment to permanently shut down by 2028, converted to
natural gas or limited use, or had existing effective controls.
For selected sources that had accepted an enforceable commitment
for SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> limits, Ohio issued DFFOs to be
incorporated into its SIP at 40 CFR 52.1870(d) for 10 units at 3
facilities: Cardinal Power Units B001, B002, and B009; Ohio Valley
Electric Corp.--Kyger Creek Station Units B001, B002, B003, B004, and
B005; and General James M. Gavin Power Plant Units B003 and B004. These
limits in the DFFOs ensure recent improvements in emission controls are
maintained and that the measures are permanent and federally
enforceable for regional haze purposes.
For selected sources that had permanently shut down or had accepted
an enforceable commitment to permanently shut down by 2028, Ohio
identified 15 units at 6 facilities: Conesville Power Plant Units B004,
B007, and B008; DP&L J.M. Stuart Units B001, B002, B003, and B004; DP&L
JM Killen Unit B001; W.H. Sammis Plant Units B007, B008, B009, and
B010; Miami Fort Power Station Units B015 and B016; and Zimmer Power
Station Unit B006. Based on 2016 inventories, the permanent shutdown of
these units represents federally enforceable and permanent emission
reductions from some of Ohio's largest sources as follows. In 2019 and
2020, the shutdowns at Conesville Power Plant Units B004, B007, and
B008 achieved emission reductions of 5,013 tpy SO<INF>2</INF> and 5,981
tpy NO<INF>X</INF>. In 2017 and 2018, the shutdowns at DP&L, J.M.
Stuart Generating Station achieved emission reductions of 9,005 tpy
SO<INF>2</INF> and 5,466 tpy NO<INF>X</INF>. In 2018, the shutdown at
DP&L, Killen Generating Station achieved emission reductions of 10,130
tpy SO<INF>2</INF> and 6,057 tpy NO<INF>X</INF>. In 2020, the shutdowns
at W.H. Sammis Plant achieved reductions of 2,996 tpy SO<INF>2</INF>
and 1,634 NO<INF>X</INF>. By 2028, under the DFFOs, the shutdowns at
Miami Fort Power Station will achieve emission reductions of 10,214 tpy
SO<INF>2</INF> and 5,052 tpy NO<INF>X</INF>, while the shutdown at
Zimmer Power Station will achieve emission reductions of 9,973 tpy
SO<INF>2</INF> and 5,458 tpy NO<INF>X</INF>. Together, these shutdowns
will reduce SO<INF>2</INF> by over 47,000 tpy and NO<INF>X</INF> by
over 33,000 tpy and represent emission reductions of 32 percent
SO<INF>2</INF> and 32 percent NO<INF>X</INF> from all point sources in
Ohio with total emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, PM, and
NH<INF>3</INF> greater than 0.1 tpy based on 2016 emissions.
For selected sources that converted to natural gas or limited use
under enforceable permit conditions, Ohio identified conversions at 4
units within 2 facilities, where add-on controls or more stringent
limits would not be necessary for reasonable progress. Compared to 2016
base-year emissions, the conversions at the City of Orrville Department
of Public Utilities Units B001 and B004 reduced SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions by 6,601 tpy, and the conversations at P.H. Glatfelter
Company--Chillicothe Facility B002 and B003 reduced SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions by 8,579 tpy. Together, in addition to the emission
reductions from the shutdowns mentioned above, these conversions
represent an additional 10 percent reduction in SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions from all point sources in Ohio with total emissions of
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, PM, and NH<INF>3</INF> greater than 0.1
tpy.
For selected sources that had existing effective controls, Ohio
sufficiently provided a weight-of-evidence demonstration as described
in the 2021 Clarifications Memo for 5 units at 3 facilities:
FirstEnergy Generation LLC--Bay Shore Plant Unit B006; Haverhill Coke
Company LLC Unit P902; and W.H. Sammis Plant Units B011, B012, B013.
Ohio documented that these units are effectively controlled for
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> by inherent process or control
systems installed during the first implementation period with greater
than 90 percent control efficiency as well as federally enforceable
limits in Federal consent decrees or limits below levels recommended in
the 2019 Guidance as potentially existing effective controls. With
reasonably
[[Page 71142]]
consistent trends in emission rates, Ohio also adequately demonstrated
that the existing measures for these units are not necessary to make
reasonable progress or prevent future emission increases and, thus, do
not need to be included in the regulatory portion of the SIP.
Of all the 38 emission units Ohio identified through its Q/d source
selection process listed above, Ohio relied upon the following specific
control measures at 25 units in its long-term strategy in addition to
the other Federal regulations and State programs included. For 12 of
those units, Ohio's long-term strategy relies upon permanent shutdowns
that have already occurred during the 2nd implementation period. For
the other 13 units, Ohio EPA provided DFFOs with enforceable
commitments for either SO<INF>2</INF> limits or NO<INF>X</INF> limits
by 2025 or permanent shutdowns by 2028 to be incorporated into Ohio's
SIP for regional haze purposes at 40 CFR 52.1870(d).
For the remaining 13 emission units that Ohio EPA identified
through its Q/d source selection process, Ohio did not rely on new or
existing measures as part of the long-term strategy to make reasonable
progress in the second planning period. At 4 of those units, Ohio EPA
documented enforceable conversions to natural gas or limited use. At
another 5 of those units, Ohio provided a weight of evidence
demonstration and determined their existing measures are not necessary
to make reasonable progress or prevent future emission increases. At
the other 4 units, Ohio provided four-factor analyses. Each of these
analyses considered all four statutory factors and appropriately
followed the methods in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual.\47\
The lowest cost control options in the four-factor analyses outlined
the potential for emission reductions at each unit for Avon Lake Power
Plant of 2,284 tpy SO<INF>2</INF> for $19,500/ton, Dover Municipal
Power & Light Plant of 522 tpy SO<INF>2</INF> for $2,985/ton, and at
Carmeuse Lime, Inc.--Maple Grove Operations of 1,221 and 1,216 tpy
SO<INF>2</INF> for $3,226/ton and $3,274/ton, respectively. With the
emission reductions from already implemented shutdowns and fuel
conversions, Ohio made a reasoned determination that additional add-on
controls are not cost effective and thus not necessary for reasonable
progress in the second planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, available at
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution">https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The permanent shutdown of 15 units at 6 large EGUs during the
second implementation period represents large enforceable reductions in
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> from Ohio sources that had impacted
the same Class I areas that are impacted by the 4 units evaluated in
the four-factor analyses. With a relatively small potential for
additional emission reductions identified in the four-factor analyses
compared to those of the shutdowns and fuel conversions already taking
place, Ohio EPA provided a reasoned basis for its conclusions to not
require additional controls at those 4 units for the second
implementation period.
Overall, 29 out of 38 coal-fired units above Ohio's Q/d threshold
either converted to natural gas or limited use, accepted enforceable
limits, or have or will permanently shut down by 2028. The trends in
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions noted in Ohio's progress
report discussed below demonstrate how Ohio's long-term strategy will
continue to make significant reductions during the second
implementation period. The shutdowns will reduce statewide
SO<INF>2</INF> by over 47,000 tpy and NO<INF>X</INF> by over 33,000
tpy, and the conversions to natural gas add another 15,000 tpy of
SO<INF>2</INF> reductions to that total. Together, these shutdowns and
fuel conversions represent statewide emission reductions of 43 percent
SO<INF>2</INF> and 32 percent NO<INF>X</INF> from point sources in Ohio
with total emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, PM, and
NH<INF>3</INF> greater than 0.1 tpy based on 2016 emissions. Ohio's
plan shows that these measures will achieve substantial SO<INF>2</INF>
and NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions beyond those included in its
first implementation period. These shutdowns, conversions, and
committed controls contribute to Ohio's emission reductions and the
associated visibility improvements at the affected Class I areas for
the second implementation planning period.
EPA proposes to find that the shutdowns and conversions noted above
that have already taken place during the second planning period are
already federally enforceable and permanent and do not need to be
included in the regulatory portion of the SIP. For the upcoming
permanent shutdowns and committed controls provided for in the DFFOs,
EPA proposes to find that those are necessary for reasonable progress
and must be included in the SIP and made federally enforceable and
permanent. For the other 9 coal-fired units, Ohio EPA determined that
no additional controls would be necessary for reasonable progress in
the second planning period based on existing effective controls that
have achieved reasonably consistent emission rates that are not
expected to increase in the future.
EPA proposes to find that Ohio 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 applying the four statutory factors to sources in a control
analysis. Ohio EPA's SIP submission, as supplemented, reasonably
applied the Q/d source selection process in relying on the closest
Class I areas and the emissions of NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>,
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NH<INF>3</INF> and VOC. Ohio EPA examined a
reasonable set of sources, including sources identified by FLMs. In
addition, Ohio EPA adequately explained its decision to focus on the
two pollutants--SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>--that currently drive
visibility impairment within the LADCO region. EPA proposes to find
that Ohio EPA adequately supported its conclusions for its top-
impacting sources in determining permanent and federally enforceable
shutdowns, controls, and fuel conversions necessary for reasonable
progress. EPA is basing this proposed finding on the State's
examination of its largest operating EGU and non-EGU sources. EPA
proposes to find the State's approach reasonable because it
demonstrated that these sources with the greatest modeled impacts on
visibility, as well as other sources above the State's Q/d threshold
that might be expected to impact visibility, either have shut down,
accepted an enforceable commitment to shut down by 2028, accepted new
emission limits by 2025, converted to natural gas or limited use, or
have existing effective controls.
As part of the State's long-term strategy, Ohio EPA submitted 4
DFFOs providing legally binding, enforceable commitments upon the
owners or operators of the facilities, and any subsequent owner or
operator, at the State level under Ohio Revised Code 3704.03 and
3745.01. Since Ohio is relying on these 4 DFFOs to make reasonable
progress as part of its long-term strategy for the second
implementation period, Ohio EPA requested the incorporation of the
DFFOs into the Ohio SIP to ensure that they are federally enforceable
and permanent for regional haze purposes. The first DFFO was effective
on July 9, 2021, and provides for the shutdown of Miami Fort Power
Station Units B015 and B016 and Zimmer Power Station Unit B006 by no
later than January 1, 2028. The other three DFFOs provide for
[[Page 71143]]
SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits at Cardinal Power Plant Units B001,
B002, and B009 and General James M. Gavin Power Plant Units B003 and
B004 as well as a NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit Ohio Valley Electric
Corp.--Kyger Creek Units B001, B002, B003, B004, and B005. These three
DFFOs became effective July 26, 2024, when they were entered into the
Ohio EPA Director's journal, and compliance begins on January 1, 2025.
Based on the discussion herein, these 4 DFFOs provide an adequate
technical and legal basis for source-specific measures that are
consistent with the CAA requirements and EPA's Regional Haze Rule. As
such, EPA proposes to approve Ohio EPA's request and incorporate by
reference these 4 DFFOs into the SIP.
5. Consultation With States
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 coordinated emission management strategies containing the
emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. The provisions of 40 CFR 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. The provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speak to what happens if States cannot agree on
what measures are necessary to make reasonable progress. States may
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.
Although Ohio has no mandatory Class I Federal areas within its
borders, Ohio has previously been shown to have sources with emissions
that impact visibility at downwind mandatory Class I Federal areas.
Ohio EPA consulted with other States to develop a coordinated emission
management approach to its regional haze SIP and to address Ohio's
impact on nearby Class I areas. Ohio EPA participated in the LADCO and
inter-RPO processes, which developed the technical information needed
for such coordinated strategies.
Ohio participated in the LADCO Regional Haze Technical Workgroup
meetings with other LADCO States, FLMs, and EPA Region 5. Through
LADCO, Ohio also consulted with other States and Tribes.
Ohio EPA received and responded to requests from MANE-VU and VISTAS
on behalf of the States in their RPOs. On August 25, 2017, Ohio EPA
received the ``Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU) Class I Area States 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),'' (2017 MANE-VU Ask).\48\ MANE-VU is the RPO for the
Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States and Tribal Governments, which
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. For the second implementation period, MANE-VU
performed contribution analyses to identify source and State-level
contributions to visibility impairment and the need for interstate
consultation. MANE-VU used the results of these analyses to determine
emission units in various States that have a potential for visibility
impacts of 3.0Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> or greater using action 2015 emissions
from EGUs and 2011 emissions from other sources. For Ohio, MANE-VU
identified 8 units at the following facilities: Avon Lake Power Plant
(Unit 12), General James M. Gavin Power Plant (Units 1 and 2), and
Muskingum River (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). The five specific parts of
the 2017 MANE-VU Ask requested Ohio and other upwind States to pursue
specific emission management strategies to meet the 2028 reasonable
progress goals for the second regional haze implementation period. On
December 20, 2017, LADCO responded to the MANE-VU Ask, indicating that
LADCO did not agree with MANE-VU's impact assessment results and
recommended that MANE-VU use emissions estimates that, in the opinion
of LADCO, better reflect the current state of knowledge.\49\ On
December 29, 2017, Ohio EPA also responded to the 2017 MANE-VU Ask to
address the requests and alleged inaccuracies regarding Ohio sources,
which did not include recent permanent shutdowns or fuel conversions
and resulted in modeling that overestimated Ohio's contribution.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ MANE-VU's ``2017 Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Class I Area States 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)'' dated August 25, 2017, which
includes a link to MANE-VU's contribution analyses report at <a href="http://www.otcair.org.manevu">http://www.otcair.org.manevu</a>, is provided as appendix M1 to Ohio's Regional
Haze SIP submission in the docket.
\49\ LACDO's December 20, 2017, response to the MANE-VU Ask is
found in appendix M2 of Ohio's Regional Haze SIP revision submittal
in the docket.
\50\ Ohio EPA's December 29, 2017, Technical Response Letter to
the 2017 MANE-VU Ask is found in appendix M3 of Ohio's Regional Haze
SIP revision in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 1 requested 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.'' MANE-VU Ask 2 requested four-factor analyses be performed
for any source modeled by MANE-VU that has the potential for a
visibility impact greater than 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>. In response to both
MANE-VU Asks 1 and 2, Ohio EPA referred to its Q/d source selection
process and four-factor analyses, where Ohio made a determination of
existing effective controls or provided a four-factor analysis for the
sources identified by MANE-VU: Avon Lake Power Plant and General James
M. Power Plant, with the exception of Muskingum River Power Plant,
which permanently shut down in 2015.
MANE-VU Ask 3 requested States pursue, before 2028, an ultra-low
sulfur fuel oil standard for #2 distillate oil of 0.0015 percent sulfur
by weight or 15 ppm, for #4 residual oil of 0.25-0.5 percent sulfur by
weight, and for #6 residual oil of 0.3-0.5 percent sulfur by weight.
Ohio responded to MANE-VU Ask 3 by explaining that these fuel types do
not comprise a significant portion of fuel usage in Ohio, and as such,
would have little impact on visibility and would not warrant further
evaluation and standard setting.
MANE-VU Ask 4 requested States lock in lower emission rates for
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM at EGUs and sources with more
than 250 MMBtu/hour heat input that have switched to lower emitting
fuels by updating permits, enforceable agreements, and/or rules. Ohio
responded to MANE-VU Ask 4 that, in most cases, switches to lower
emitting fuels have already been incorporated into Ohio's federally
enforceable permits, however, lowering emission rates for such
facilities across the board is not required or appropriate.
MANE-VU Ask 5 requested States include, in their Regional Haze SIP
revision, measures to decrease energy demand by improved energy
efficiency and to increase use of Combined Heat and Power and
distributed generation technologies, such as fuel cells, wind,
[[Page 71144]]
and solar. Ohio responded to MANE-VU Ask 5, noting that Ohio EPA lacks
the legislative authority to set energy policy, but encourages energy
efficiency through efforts such as Ohio's Encouraging Environmental
Excellence Program.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Ohio's Encouraging Environmental Excellence Program is
available at <a href="https://epa.ohio.gov/divisions-and-offices/environmental-financial-assistance/recognition-and-awards/e3-program">https://epa.ohio.gov/divisions-and-offices/environmental-financial-assistance/recognition-and-awards/e3-program</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU issued a second statement to Ohio EPA, similar to the one
discussed above and also dated August 25, 2017, entitled, ``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 Implementation Period (2018-2028).'' \52\ Ohio EPA responded
to MANE-VU's request, noting that even though Ohio's source selection
process did not result in the selection of peaking combustion turbines
for four-factor analysis, Ohio considered such NO<INF>X</INF> controls
and did not find the measures necessary for Ohio sources during the
second implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ MANE-VU's second statement dated August 25, 2017, entitled
``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 Implementation Period (2018-
2028)'' is included as appendix O in Ohio's Regional haze SIP
revision included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 22, 2020, the VISTAS RPO sent a letter to Ohio EPA on
behalf of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia.\53\ VISTAS shared with Ohio EPA the
results of a technical analyses identifying Ohio sources to which
VISTAS attributed significant impacts on visibility impairment at Class
I areas within the VISTAS states. VISTAS' analyses identified sources
with a sulfate or nitrate impact greater than 1.00 percent of the total
sulfate plus nitrate point source visibility impairment on the 20
percent most impaired days for each Class I area. For Ohio, VISTAS
identified the following four sources: Ohio Valley Electric Corp.--
Kyger Creek Station, Cardinal Power, General James M. Gavin Power
Plant, and Zimmer Power Station. VISTAS requested that Ohio conduct a
reasonable progress analysis for each of the four sources, and, if Ohio
determined that a four-factor analysis was not warranted, provide a
rationale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ VISTAS June 22, 2020, letter to Ohio EPA is included as
appendix N1 in Ohio's Regional Haze SIP revision included in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 29, 2020, Ohio EPA responded to VISTAS request by
providing information for each of the four sources on emissions
controls, control efficiencies, permitted limits, consent decree
provisions, and trends in emission rates and annual emissions from 2016
to 2019.\54\ Citing to examples in the 2019 Guidance of sources with
effective emission controls, Ohio replied to VISTAS that, other than
Zimmer Power Station, each of the other sources have existing effective
controls with FGD or SCR with at least 90 percent effectiveness, and
that a four-factor analysis would likely result in the conclusion that
no further controls are necessary. For Zimmer Power Station, Ohio EPA
confirmed that the facility announced it would permanently shut down in
2027, and that discussions were underway to secure the upcoming
shutdown in an enforceable commitment such that a four-factor analysis
would not be warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Ohio's October 29, 2020, response to VISTAS is included as
appendix N2 to Ohio's Regional Haze SIP revision included in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the measures identified by MANE-VU and VISTAS above,
Ohio reviewed the Regional Haze SIPs for other States, that were
available at the time, to ensure appropriate consideration was given to
measures determined necessary by other States for similar types of
sources as those selected by Ohio for four-factor analysis, which were
EGUs and lime manufacturing plants.
EPA proposes to find that Ohio has satisfied the consultation
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii). Ohio has met the 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) requirements with its participation in the
LADCO consultation process plus its individual consultation meetings
with contributing States. There were no disagreements with another
State, therefore 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) does not apply to Ohio.
The requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provide that a State
must document the technical basis for its decision making to determine
the emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. 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.'' Ohio documented the technical basis, including the
modeling, monitoring, engineering, costs, and emissions information
that was relied on in determining the emission reduction measures that
are necessary to make reasonable progress.
For modeling, Ohio EPA documented the modeling done by LADCO to
determine visibility projections and contributions to impairment at the
Class I areas. Ohio included justification for the 2016 base year
selection and the 2028 emission projections based on ERTAC forecasts
and State-reported changes.
For monitoring, Ohio described how ambient air quality monitoring
data were analyzed to produce a conceptual understanding of the air
quality problems contributing to haze as well as to project visibility
conditions in 2028 through LADCO's modeling and EPA's Updated 2028
Visibility Air Quality Modeling. Ohio noted that LADCO relied upon the
IMPROVE monitoring data to track the chemical composition of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> in haze at Class I areas in the LADCO region, which
included ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, elemental carbon, organic
carbon, sea salt, and inorganic soil. Ohio EPA also pointed to its
statewide monitoring network of EPA-approved monitors for ozone and
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, which Ohio continually reviews and uses to determine
the contribution of emissions from sources within Ohio to visibility
impairment at Class I areas in other States for SIP development.
For emissions information, Ohio EPA provided data for 2016 through
2019, the most recent data year available at the time, from various
sources for each unit screened in using Ohio's Q/d source selection
threshold. Data from 2016 for annual emissions of NO<INF>X</INF>,
SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and NH<INF>3</INF> that was used by
LADCO in the Q/d analysis relied upon the 2016 inventory developed by
the National Emissions Inventory Collaborative described above.
Emissions data for 2016-2019 for NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> were
obtained from EPA's Clean Air Markets Database (CAMD) for sources that
report emissions data to CAMD. To quantify emissions from sources that
do not report to CAMD, data for 2017-2019 was obtained from Ohio EPA's
EIS. Ohio also provided an emissions summary by source category and
pollutant obtained from the 2017 NEI, the most recent triennial NEI
available at the time. For engineering and costs, Ohio EPA provided
site-specific four-factor analyses, which evaluated potential
engineering designs and costs for various NO<INF>X</INF> and
SO<INF>2</INF> emission control systems for 4 coal-fired EGUs at 3
different power plants (Avon Lake Power Plant, Dover Municipal Light &
Power Plant, and General James M. Gavin Power Plant) and 2 coal-fired
boilers at one lime manufacturing plant (Carmeuse Lime, Inc.--Maple
Grove Operations). Additionally, Ohio EPA
[[Page 71145]]
provided information to support to the incorporation of specific
emissions rates in the long-term strategy and the SIP at 40 CFR
52.1870(d) at three power plants for the purposes of regional haze
(Cardinal Power Plant, General James M. Gavin Power Plant, and Ohio
Valley Electric Corp.--Kyger Creek Station). EPA proposes to find that
such documentation of the technical basis of the long-term strategy
satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) require 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 EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month
exemption period for newly submitted data. As previously mentioned
above, Ohio EPA participated in the development of technical analyses,
including emission inventory information, by LADCO and its member
States, and is relying in part on those analyses to satisfy the
emission inventory requirements. Ohio EPA explained that emissions for
the 2016 base year and the 2028 projected year used in LADCO's modeling
address elements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(v) of the Regional Haze Rule,
which requires that States provide recent and future year emissions
inventories of pollutants anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in any Class I areas. Ohio EPA's regional haze SIP revision
for the second implementation period also included 2017 NEI emission
data, which corresponds to the year of the most recent triennial NEI at
the time of Ohio's SIP submission, as required under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii) of the Regional Haze Rule. Based on Ohio EPA's
consideration and analysis of the 2017 emission data in its SIP
submittal, EPA proposes to find that Ohio has satisfied the emissions
information requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
6. Five Additional Factors
In addition to the four statutory factors, States must also
consider the five additional factors listed in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)
in developing their long-term strategies.
As required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), Ohio EPA considered
emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs. Ohio
EPA noted ongoing Federal and State emission control programs that have
reduced and will continue to reduce visibility impairing pollutants
from Ohio point and area sources as well as on-road and non-road mobile
sources in the second implementation period. For point sources, this
included Federal provisions for title V permitting actions; Acid Rain
Program; Boiler MACT; VOC MACT; Combustion turbine MACT; NSPS for New
Residential Wood Heaters; NSPS for Commercial and Industrial Solid
Waste Incinerators; NESHAPs for Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Area Source Boilers, Major Source Boilers; NESHAP for
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards for power plants; oil and natural gas industry standards;
SO<INF>2</INF> DRR; and Revised CSAPR Update. For area sources,
regulations include national emission standards for aerosol coatings
plus State regulations for Ohio's consumer product rules, Ohio's
Architectural and Industrial Maintenance coatings rules, and Ohio's
portable fuel container rules.
For on-road mobile sources, Ohio EPA cited to Federal regulations
for the Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program--low sulfur gasoline and
ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel; Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Mobile Sources; and NO<INF>X</INF> Emission Standards for New
Commercial Aircraft Engines. Among the controls for on-road mobile
sources is the Ohio-administered Federal inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program known as ``E-check'' in northeast Ohio, codified at Ohio
Administrative Code 3745-26-01(Z). For non-road mobile sources, Ohio
EPA cited to Federal regulations for the Clean Air Non-road Diesel
Rule, Non-road Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engine
Standards, New Non-road Spark Ignition Engines, heavy-duty diesel
engine standard/low sulfur fuel, railroad/locomotive standards, and
commercial marine vessel engine standards. For both on-road and non-
road mobile sources, Ohio EPA also provided information about Ohio's
Beneficiary Mitigation Plan, which accepted and distributed funds from
the Volkswagen settlement in 2018, resulting in benefits that compound
over the lifetime of the equipment purchased or repowered. This
included $40 million to on-road fleets (school bus replacements,
transit bus replacements, and class 4-8 local freight and port drayage
trucks and shuttle buses), $19 million to non-road equipment (tugboats,
ferries, switcher locomotives, airport ground support, and port cargo
handling equipment); and $11.25 million for infrastructure to support
Zero Emissions Vehicles.
As required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), Ohio's consideration of
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities in its SIP
submission focus on windblown dust resulting from earth moving
activities as a primary source of airborne particles. For work on
construction sites where greater than one acre of land is disturbed,
Ohio EPA points to general permits required under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, which require best management
practices to control soil erosion and stormwater runoff that are also
effective in preventing and reducing airborne soil as particulate
matter emissions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv), Ohio EPA's SIP submission
addressed schedules for source retirements, replacements, and natural
gas conversions for 18 coal-fired units that are or will be permanent
and federally enforceable during the second implementation period. As
such, Ohio did not select these sources for a four-factor analysis.
During the second implementation period, as enumerated above, 12 coal-
fired EGUs have already permanently shut down, 3 coal-fired units
converted to natural gas, and 3 coal-fired EGUs will permanently shut
down by 2028. These retirements and conversions contribute to Ohio's
emission reductions and the associated visibility improvements at the
affected Class I areas for the second implementation period.
In considering smoke management for prescribed burns as required in
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), Ohio EPA referred to interrelated laws and
regulations for management of air emissions from prescribed fires.
Among the enforcing agencies is the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources Division of Forestry, which has the authority under Ohio
Revised Code (ORC) 1503.18 \55\ to ban outdoor burning statewide in
unincorporated areas during certain months and times of the year and to
provide waivers only for individuals who are Certified Prescribed Fire
Managers. In addition, OAC 3745-19 \56\ ``Open Burning Standards''
regulates prescribed fires for horticultural, silvicultural, range, or
wildfire management practices and requires applications for permission,
which must specify methods to reduce air emissions and certify
adherence to the requirements of OAC 3745-19. To put Ohio's
contribution from prescribed fires into context, Ohio EPA also provided
emissions data from the 2017
[[Page 71146]]
NEI showing that prescribed fire activity in the State constitutes less
than 1 percent of total U.S. prescribed fire emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Ohio Revised Code (ORC), title 15 Conservation of Natural
Resources, Chapter 1503 Division of Forestry, Section 1503.18 is
available at <a href="https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-1503.18">https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-1503.18</a>.
\56\ Ohio Administrative Code (OAC), Chapter 3745-19 Open
Burning Standards is available at <a href="https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/chapter-3745-19">https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/chapter-3745-19</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv), Ohio EPA considered the
anticipated net effect on visibility improvements at the LADCO Class I
Areas due to projected changes in emissions from point, area, and
mobile sources during the second implementation period. For each
potential control measure evaluated in the four-factor analyses, Ohio
EPA projected the maximum estimated visibility benefit at any Class I
area among the sources that were modeled, as listed in Table 18 of
Ohio's SIP submission, to compare the relative control measures at a
particular facility. Ohio considered cost-effectiveness along with time
necessary to install controls, energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts, and remaining useful life. Ohio found no potential new add-on
controls necessary for reasonable progress.
Ohio EPA considered other projected changes in emissions that would
affect visibility at the LADCO Class I Areas. The visibility
improvement expected during the second implementation period was
estimated using LADCO's 2016 base year and 2028 future year inventory
components to simulate 2016 and 2028 air quality. As described above,
for EGUs, projected changes for 2028 emissions in LADCO's modeling
platform were based on ERTAC forecasts and State-reported changes. For
most other emission sectors, LADCO relied upon EPA's 2016 and 2028
inventory estimates for projected changes. As Ohio EPA pointed out in
section III.3(e)(5) of its SIP submission, these projected changes in
EPA's 2016 and 2028 inventory estimates took into account Federal on-
the-books controls, such as those listed in Ohio's long-term strategy
above. In addition, as noted in section III.3(e)(5) of Ohio's SIP
submission, improvements in visibility are also anticipated by the end
of the second implementation period due to the upcoming permanent
shutdowns of coal-fired EGUs at Miami Fort Power Station and Zimmer
Power Station by 2028.
Ohio EPA also demonstrated that visibility conditions in the LADCO
Class I Areas have shown continued improvement relative to baseline
conditions. As depicted in LADCO's 2021 TSD, 2016 visibility impairment
conditions at the LADCO Class I Areas on the 20 percent most impaired
days as well as the 20 percent clearest days were below their
respective glidepaths. By the end of the second implementation period
in 2028, both LADCO's projections and EPA's Updated 2028 Visibility Air
Quality Modeling show 2028 visibility conditions will be below the URP
glidepaths for the LADCO Class I Areas.
Ohio EPA concluded, in section V of its SIP submission, that when
weighing the four-factor analyses and the five additional required
factors, new add-on controls are not necessary to meet second
implementation period regional haze SIP requirements beyond the
measures included in Ohio's long-term strategy. Ohio's process for
selecting sources for four-factor analyses represented 80 percent of
the total SO<INF>2</INF> and 57 percent of NO<INF>X</INF> for all
sources with Q greater than 0.1 tons per year and provided an
analytical means for refining the list based on shutdowns, conversions,
and existing effective controls. For the add-on controls evaluated for
the 6 units selected for four-factor analyses, Ohio considered the cost
effectiveness, time necessary to install the controls, energy and solid
waste impacts, the costs/sales ratio, and comparable visibility
benefits in determining that the controls evaluated were not cost
effective to achieve emission reductions during the second
implementation period. Ohio EPA reflected upon the steady and
significant improvement in visibility at each of the Class I areas
impacted by sources in Ohio and noted that LADCO's modeling shows
continued improvement with 2028 projections below their URP glidepaths.
As discussed under the progress report elements below, from 2005 to
2017, Ohio's SO<INF>2</INF> emissions decreased by 90 percent while
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions decreased by 47 percent. During the second
implementation period, the decreasing trend continues with the
shutdowns of 12 coal-fired EGUs at 4 facilities and the upcoming
permanent shutdowns of 3 more coal-fired EGUs at 2 power stations.
Given all these factors, Ohio concluded that the on-the-books and on-
the-way controls included in its long-term strategy, including the
shutdowns and emission limits for NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> in
the DFFOs, are more than sufficient to make reasonable progress in the
second implementation period. EPA proposes to find that Ohio reasonably
considered and satisfied the requirements for each of the five
additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing its long-
term strategy.
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) contain the requirements
pertaining to RPGs for each Class I area. Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i),
a State, in which a mandatory Class I area is located, is required 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. The provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii) apply 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. The provisions of 40 CFR 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 Ohio has no Class I areas within its borders to
which the requirements of the visibility protection program apply in 40
CFR part 81, subpart D, Ohio is subject only to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), but not 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) or (f)(3)(ii)(A).
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. Ohio's
SIP submission at Table 1, section III(7)(b), and appendix A show that
at each of the Class I areas impacted by emissions from Ohio, the 2028
projected visibility impairment is not above the adjusted URP
glidepaths for the 20 percent most impaired days
[[Page 71147]]
and ensures no degradation on the 20 percent clearest days. Therefore,
EPA proposes 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.
EPA proposes to determine that Ohio has satisfied the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) relating to RPGs.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
The requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) specify 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 IMPROVE network.
The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(i) require 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. The provisions of 51.308(f)(6)(ii) require 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. As noted above, Ohio does not have
any mandatory Class I Federal areas located within its borders to which
the requirements of the visibility protection program apply in 40 CFR
part 81, subpart D. Therefore, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(i) and (ii) do not
apply.
The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iii) require 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. Ohio EPA stated that, as a participant in LADCO, it
reviewed information about the chemical composition of baseline
monitoring data at LADCO Class I Federal areas to understand the
sources of haze causing pollutants. Ohio EPA does not operate any
monitoring sites under the Federal IMPROVE program and, therefore, does
not require approval of its monitoring network under the Regional Haze
Rule. Ohio EPA relies upon participation in the IMPROVE network as part
of the State's monitoring strategy for regional haze to review progress
and trends in visibility at Class I areas that may be affected by
emissions from Ohio, for comprehensive periodic revisions of this
implementation plan, and for periodic reports describing progress
towards the reasonable progress goals for those areas. Ohio also runs a
monitoring network of EPA-approved monitors for ozone and
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, as described in section III(8)(c) of Ohio's SIP
submission, which Ohio EPA uses to determine the contribution of
emissions from sources within Ohio to visibility impairment at Class I
areas in other States for SIP development.
The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iv) require 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, Ohio does not have any mandatory Class I Federal areas
located within its borders to which the requirements of the visibility
protection program apply in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D, and, therefore,
40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iv) does not apply.
The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(v) require 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. Ohio EPA, as described in section III(8)(c)(ii) of its SIP
submission, provided statewide emission inventories, including data
from 2017 as the most recent year available at the time of the State's
SIP submission, by complying with EPA's 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
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. Ohio's SIP submission, in section
III(8)(b), includes a table of 2017 NEI data with source categories
covering emissions from EGU point, non-EGU point, on-road, non-road,
commercial marine vessels, dust, and other for the following
pollutants: SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>,
PM<INF>10</INF>, VOC, and NH<INF>3</INF>. To depict changes in
emissions over time, Ohio EPA accompanied the 2017 NEI data with side-
by-side comparisons comparing 2005 emissions for the same source
categories and pollutants. Ohio EPA also provided a summary of
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, VOCs, and
NH<INF>3</INF> emissions for 2016 that LADCO used in developing Q/d
metrics and the 2016 base year emissions inventory to project emissions
to year 2028. Additionally, as described in further detail under the
progress report elements in section III(8)(b) of Ohio's SIP submission,
Ohio EPA provided more recent data through 2019 from CAMD to depict
trends in EGU emissions, which demonstrated a 94 percent decrease in
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and an 84 percent decrease in NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions from 2005 to 2019.
The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(v) also require States to
include estimates of future projected emissions and include a
commitment to update the inventory periodically. For future projected
emissions, Ohio relied on the LADCO modeling and analysis, which
estimated 2028 projected emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
for specific facilities in the LADCO States to provide an assessment of
expected future year air quality based on 2016 emissions as well as
ERTAC and State forecasts. In addition to Ohio's commitment to comply
with the AERR to periodically update EPA's emission inventories for
creating and analyzing the NEI, Ohio annually updates the State's own
EIS for pollutants anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in Class I areas to support future regional haze progress
reports and SIP revisions.
EPA proposes to find that Ohio has met the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6) as described above, including through its continued
participation in LADCO, its own statewide EIS, and its emissions
reporting to EPA under AERR.
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) require 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. The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all
States
[[Page 71148]]
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. The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)
apply only to States with Class I areas within their borders and
requires such States to assess current visibility conditions, changes
in vi
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on August 30, 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.