Proposed Rule2025-20444
Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period; Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
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
November 20, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by Rhode Island on March 7, 2025, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second implementation period. Rhode Island's SIP submission addresses the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze program. EPA is also proposing to approve the remaining element of Rhode Island's September 23, 2020, infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The proposed approval of Rhode Island's second implementation period regional haze plan addresses infrastructure SIP requirements related to visibility protection. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 222 (Thursday, November 20, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 222 (Thursday, November 20, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52270-52288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-20444]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2025-0915 and EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0562; FRL-13065-01-R1]
Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period; Prong 4
(Visibility) for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by Rhode Island on March 7, 2025, as satisfying applicable
requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
(RHR) for the program's second implementation period. Rhode Island's
SIP submission addresses the requirement that states must periodically
revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress
towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any
existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional
haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also
addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation
period of the regional haze program. EPA is also proposing to approve
the remaining element of Rhode Island's September 23, 2020,
infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The proposed approval of Rhode Island's
second implementation period regional haze plan addresses
infrastructure SIP requirements related to visibility protection. The
EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the
Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 22,
2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2025-0915 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. For comments submitted at
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ayla Martinelli, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 5-MI), Boston, MA 02109--3912, tel. (617)
918-1057, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e984889b9d80878c858580c788908588a98c9988c78e869f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97faf6e5e3fef9f2fbfbfeb9f6eefbf6d7f2e7f6b9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second
Implementation Period
A. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
B. Reasonable Progress Goals
C. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan
Requirements
D. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
E. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of Rhode Island's Regional Haze Submission
for the Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Rhode Island's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
B. Rhode Island's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission
and the EPA's Evaluation
C. Identification of Class I Areas
[[Page 52271]]
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
a. Rhode Island's Response to the Six MANEVU Asks
b. The EPA's Evaluation of Rhode Island's Response to the Six
MANEVU Asks and Compliance With 40 CFR51.308(f)(2)(i)
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
J. Other Required Commitments
V. EPA's Evaluation of Rhode Island's Infrastructure SIP
A. Background and Purpose
B. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Visibility Protection
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On March 7, 2025, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management (RIDEM) submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional
haze for the second implementation period. RIDEM made this SIP
submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional haze
program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. The
EPA is proposing to find that the Rhode Island regional haze SIP
submission for the second implementation period meets the applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements and thus proposes to approve
Rhode Island's submission into its SIP.
On September 23, 2020, RIDEM submitted a SIP revision addressing,
among other CAA requirements, the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
visibility protection requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA is
proposing to find that, with the approval of the state's regional haze
plan, the SIP will contain adequate provisions to satisfy the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) relating to visibility
protection.
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A detailed history and background of the regional haze program is
provided in multiple prior EPA proposal actions.\1\ For additional
background on the 2017 RHR revisions, please refer to Section III.
Overview of Visibility Protection Statutory Authority, Regulation, and
Implementation of ``Protection of Visibility: Amendments to
Requirements for State Plans'' of the 2017 RHR.\2\ The following is an
abbreviated history and background of the regional haze program and
2017 Regional Haze Rule as it applies to the current action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example, see 90 FR 13516 (March 24, 2025).
\2\ See 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\3\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities that 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which
is the principal metric used by the RHR. Under many circumstances, a
change in one deciview will be perceived by the human eye to be the
same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview is unitless. It is
proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric extinction of
light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to its being
scattered and absorbed as it passes through the atmosphere.
Atmospheric light extinction (b\ext\) is a metric used to for
expressing visibility and is measured in inverse megameters (Mm-1).
The 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); see also 40 CFR 51.308(b),
(f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional haze SIP
revisions); 64 FR at 35768, July 1, 1999.
On January 10, 2017, the EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR, (82
FR 3078, January 10, 2017), that apply for the second and subsequent
implementation periods. The 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).
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Because the air pollutants and pollution affecting visibility in
Class I areas can be transported over long distances, successful
implementation of the regional haze program requires long-term,
regional coordination among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that
have responsibility for Class I areas and the emissions that impact
visibility in those areas. In order to address regional haze, states
need to develop strategies in coordination with one another,
considering the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air
quality in another. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs),\5\
which include representation from state and tribal governments, the
EPA, and federal land managers (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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 Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU), one of the
five RPOs described above, is a collaborative effort of state
governments, tribal governments, and various Federal agencies
established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the
management of regional haze, visibility, and other air quality issues
in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast corridor of the United States. Member
states and tribal governments (listed alphabetically) include
Connecticut, Delaware, the
[[Page 52272]]
District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode
Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and Vermont. The Federal partner
members of MANEVU are EPA, U.S. National Parks Service (NPS), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Implementation
Period
Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to submit regional
haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021.
Each state's SIP must contain a long-term strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any
existing and preventing any future anthropogenic visibility impairment
in Class I areas. CAA 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 (f)(3) generally mirroring the order of the steps
in the reasonable progress analysis \6\ and (f)(4) through (f)(6)
containing additional, related requirements. Broadly speaking, a state
first must identify the Class I areas within the state and determine
the Class I areas outside the state in which visibility may be affected
by emissions from the state. These are the Class I areas that must be
addressed in the state's long-term strategy. See 40 CFR 51.308(f),
(f)(2). For each Class I area within its borders, a state must then
calculate the baseline (five-year average period of 2000-2004),
current, and natural visibility conditions (i.e., visibility conditions
without anthropogenic visibility impairment) for that area, as well as
the visibility improvement made to date and the ``uniform rate of
progress'' (URP). The URP is 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 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.
See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each state having a Class I area and/or
emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must then
develop a long-term strategy that includes the enforceable emission
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress in such areas. A reasonable
progress determination is based on applying the four factors in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) to sources of visibility-impairing pollutants that
the state has selected to assess for controls for the second
implementation period. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). Additionally, as
further explained below, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ``additional factors'' \7\ that states must consider in
developing their long-term strategies. A state evaluates potential
emission reduction measures for those selected sources and determines
which are necessary to make reasonable progress. Those measures are
then incorporated into the state's long-term strategy. After a state
has developed its long-term strategy, it then establishes Reasonable
Progress Goals (RPGs) for each Class I area within its borders by
modeling the visibility impacts of all reasonable progress controls at
the end of the second implementation period, i.e., in 2028, as well as
the impacts of other requirements of the CAA. The RPGs include
reasonable progress controls not only for sources in the state in which
the Class I area is located, but also for sources in other states that
contribute to visibility impairment in that area. The RPGs are then
compared to the baseline visibility conditions and the URP to ensure
that progress is being made towards the statutory goal of preventing
any future and remedying any existing anthropogenic visibility
impairment in Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)-(3). There are
additional requirements in the rule, including FLM consultation, that
apply to all visibility protection SIPs and SIP revisions. See e.g., 40
CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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).
\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
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.\8\ 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). The EPA has explained that the four-
factor analysis is an assessment of potential emission reduction
measures (i.e., control options) for sources; ``use of the terms
`compliance' and `subject to such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1)
strongly indicates that Congress intended the relevant determination to
be the requirements with which sources would have to comply in order to
satisfy the CAA's reasonable progress mandate.'' 82 FR at 3091. Thus,
for each source it has selected for four-factor analysis,\9\ a state
must consider a ``meaningful set'' of technically feasible control
options for reducing emissions of visibility impairing pollutants. Id.
at 3088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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.
\9\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires states to
evaluate individual sources. Rather, states have ``the flexibility
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of
sources or even entire source categories, depending on state policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each state.'' 82 FR at
3088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has also explained that, in addition to the four statutory
factors, states have flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably
consider visibility benefits as an additional factor alongside the four
statutory factors.\10\
[[Page 52273]]
Ultimately, while states have discretion to reasonably weigh the
factors and to determine what level of control is needed, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a state ``must include in its
implementation plan a description of . . . how the four factors were
taken into consideration in selecting the measure for inclusion in its
long-term strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\11\ If the
outcome of a four-factor analysis is that an emissions reduction
measure is necessary to make reasonable progress towards remedying
existing or preventing future anthropogenic visibility impairment, that
measure must be included in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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. For
example, states with smoke management programs may choose to submit
their smoke management plans to EPA for inclusion in their SIPs but
are not required to do so. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3108-09 (requirement
to consider smoke management practices and smoke management programs
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not require states to adopt such
practices or programs into their SIPs, although they may elect to do
so).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 is a technically complex exercise, and
also a flexible one that provides states with bounded discretion to
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances.
Given this flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important
function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for its
decision making so that the public and the EPA can comprehend and
evaluate the information and analysis the state relied upon to
determine what emission reduction measures must be in place to make
reasonable progress. The technical documentation must include the
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on
which the state relied to determine the measures necessary to make
reasonable progress.
Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ``additional factors'' \12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in 40 CFR
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. 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). 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).
B. Reasonable Progress Goals
Reasonable progress goals ``measure the progress that is projected
to be achieved by the control measures states have determined are
necessary to make reasonable progress based on a four-factor
analysis.'' 82 FR at 3091.
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). 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.''
RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of
progress a state is making towards the national visibility goal. To
support this approach, 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.''
C. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual
requirements under this subsection apply either to states with Class I
areas within their borders, states with no Class I areas but that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area, or both. 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
[[Page 52274]]
covered by the visibility program. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i),
(f)(6)(iv).
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, as well as a statewide inventory documenting
such emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii), (v). 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).
D. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report
for the first implementation period. The regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the public and the EPA about a
state's implementation of its existing long-term strategy and whether
such implementation is in fact resulting in the expected visibility
improvement. See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016), (82 FR at 3119,
January 10, 2017). To this end, every state's SIP revision for the
second implementation period is required to assess changes in
visibility conditions and describe the status of implementation of all
measures included in the state's long-term strategy, including of Best
Available Retrofit Technology (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).
E. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Clean Air Act section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a
public hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must
consult with the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that
consultation, the state must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions
and recommendations in the notice to the public. Consistent with this
statutory requirement, the RHR also requires that states ``provide the
[FLM] with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point
early enough in the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy
emission reduction obligation so that information and recommendations
provided by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on
the long-term strategy.'' 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). For the EPA to evaluate
whether FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the RHR has
occurred, the SIP submission should include documentation of the timing
and content of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to the EPA
must also describe how the state addressed any comments provided by the
FLMs. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision must provide
procedures for continuing consultation between the state and FLMs
regarding the state's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4).
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of Rhode Island's Regional Haze Submission for
the Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Rhode Island's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
RIDEM submitted its regional haze SIP for the first implementation
period to the EPA on August 7, 2009. The EPA approved Rhode Island's
first implementation period regional haze SIP submission on May 22,
2012 (77 FR 30214). EPA's approval included, but was not limited to,
the portions of the plan that address the reasonable progress
requirements, as well as Rhode Island's maintenance of nitrogen oxide
emissions controls. 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), Rhode Island was also
responsible for submitting a five-year progress report as a SIP
revision for the first implementation period, which it did on January
7, 2015. The EPA approved the progress report into the Rhode Island SIP
on July 20, 2016 (81 FR 47036).
B. Rhode Island's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and the
EPA's Evaluation
In accordance with CAA section 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(f), on March 7, 2025, Rhode Island submitted a revision to the
Rhode Island SIP to address its regional haze obligations for the
second implementation period, which runs through 2028. Rhode Island
made a draft Regional Haze SIP submission available for public comment
on January 24, 2025. Rhode Island did not receive any public comments
during the public comment period, which concluded on February 28, 2025.
The following sections describe Rhode Island's SIP submission,
including analyses conducted by MANEVU and Rhode Island's
determinations based on those analyses, Rhode Island's assessment of
progress made since the first implementation period in reducing
emissions of visibility impairing pollutants, and the visibility
improvement progress at nearby Class I areas. This notice also contains
EPA's evaluation of Rhode Island's submission against the requirements
of the CAA and RHR for the second implementation period of the regional
haze program.
C. Identification of Class I Areas
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each state in which any
Class I area is located or ``the emissions from which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility'' in
a Class I area to have a plan for making reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. The RHR implements this statutory requirement
at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which provides that each state's plan ``must
address regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within the
State,'' and (f)(2), which requires each state's plan to include a
long-term strategy that addresses regional haze in such Class I areas.
Rhode Island has no mandatory Class I Federal area within its borders.
For the second implementation period, MANEVU performed technical
analyses \13\ to help assess source and state-level contributions to
visibility impairment and the need for interstate consultation. MANEVU
used the results of these analyses to determine which states' emissions
``have a high likelihood of affecting visibility in MANEVU's Class I
areas.'' \14\ Similar to metrics used in the first implementation
period,\15\ MANEVU used a greater than 2 percent of sulfate plus
nitrate emissions contribution criterion to determine whether emissions
from individual jurisdictions within the region affected visibility in
any Class I areas. The MANEVU analyses for the second implementation
period used a
[[Page 52275]]
combination of data analysis techniques, including emissions data,
distance from Class I areas, wind trajectories, and CALPUFF dispersion
modeling. Although many of the analyses focused only on SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions and resultant particulate sulfate contributions to visibility
impairment, some also incorporated NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to estimate
particulate nitrate contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The contribution assessment methodologies for MANEVU Class
I areas are summarized in appendix 16 ``Selection of States for
MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation (2018).''
\14\ Id.
\15\ See docket EPA-R01-2025-0915 for MANEVU supporting
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One MANEVU analysis used for contribution assessment was CALPUFF
air dispersion modeling. The CALPUFF model was used to estimate sulfate
and nitrate formation and transport in MANEVU and nearby regions
originating from large electric generating unit (EGU) point sources and
other large industrial and institutional sources in the eastern and
central United States. Information from an initial round of CALPUFF
modeling was collated for the 444 EGUs that were determined to warrant
further scrutiny based on their emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF>. The list of EGUs was based on an enhanced ``Q/d''
analysis \16\ that considered recent SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in the
eastern United States and an analysis that adjusted previous 2002
MANEVU CALPUFF modeling by applying a ratio of 2011 to 2002
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. This list of sources was then enhanced by
including the top five SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emission
sources for 2011 for each state included in the modeling domain. A
total of 311 EGU stacks (as opposed to individual units) were included
in the CALPUFF modeling analysis. Initial information was also
collected on the 50 industrial and institutional sources that,
according to 2011 Q/d analysis, contributed the most to visibility
impact in each Class I area. The ultimate CALPUFF modeling run included
a total of 311 EGU stacks and 82 industrial facilities. The summary
report for the CALPUFF modeling included the top 10 most impacting EGUs
and the top 5 most impacting industrial/institutional sources for each
Class I area and compiled those results into a ranked list of the most
impacting EGUs and industrial sources at MANEVU Class I areas.\17\
Overall, MANEVU found that emission sources located close to Class I
areas typically show higher visibility impacts than similarly sized
facilities further away. However, visibility degradation appears to be
dominated by the more distant emission sources due to their larger
emissions. CALPUFF modeling did not include any individual EGU or
industrial/institutional point sources in Rhode Island because the
state's SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions were much lower
than the other regional sources considered in the CALPUFF modeling
analysis.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Q/d'' is emissions (Q) in tons per year, typically of one
or a combination of visibility-impairing pollutants, divided by
distance to a class I area (d) in kilometers. The resulting ratio is
commonly used as a metric to assess a source's potential visibility
impacts on a particular class I area.
\17\ See appendix 8 ``2016 MANEVU Source Contribution Modeling
Report--CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical Generating Units and
Industrial Sources'' and appendix 9 ``MANEVU Updated Q/d*C
Contribution Assessment.''
\18\ RI Regional Haze SIP submittal at 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second MANEVU contribution analysis used a meteorologically
weighted Q/d calculation to assess states' contributions to visibility
impairment at MANEVU Class I areas.\19\ This analysis focused
predominantly on SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and used cumulative
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from a source and a state for the variable
``Q,'' and the distance of the source or state to the IMPROVE monitor
receptor at a Class I area as ``d.'' The result is then multiplied by a
constant (C<INF>i</INF>), which is determined based on the prevailing
wind patterns. MANEVU selected a meteorologically weighted Q/d analysis
as an inexpensive initial screening tool that could easily be repeated
to determine which states, sectors, or sources have a larger relative
impact and warrant further analysis. Although MANEVU did not originally
estimate nitrate impacts, the MANEVU Q/d analysis was subsequently
extended to account for nitrate contributions from NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions and to approximate the nitrate impacts from area and mobile
sources. MANEVU therefore developed a ratio of nitrate-to-sulfate
impacts based on the previously described CALPUFF modeling and applied
those to the sulfate Q/d results in order to derive nitrate
contribution estimates. Several states, such as Rhode Island, did not
have CALPUFF nitrate-to-sulfate ratio results because there was no
point sources modeled with CALPUFF in the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See appendix 9 ``MANEVU Updated Q/d*C Contribution
Assessment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to develop a final set of contribution estimates, MANEVU
weighted the results from both the Q/d and CALPUFF analyses. The MANEVU
mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate contribution results were reported
for the MANEVU Class I areas. (The Q/d summary report included results
for several non-MANEVU areas as well). If a state's contribution to
sulfate and nitrate concentrations at a particular Class I area was 2
percent or greater, MANEVU regarded that state as contributing to
visibility impairment in that area. According to MANEVU's analyses,
Rhode Island's highest percent mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate
contribution was estimated to be 0.5% at Acadia National Park in Maine,
with contributions ranging from 0.1% to 0.3% at the other Class I areas
in the MANEVU region.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ RI Regional Haze SIP Submittal at p. 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA concluded in the 1999 RHR that ``all [s]tates contain
sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
regional haze in a Class I area,'' 64 FR at 35721, and this
determination was not changed in the 2017 RHR. Critically, the statute
and regulation both require that the cause-or-contribute assessment
consider all emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants from a state,
as opposed to emissions of a particular pollutant or emissions from a
certain set of sources. The screening analyses on which MANEVU relied
are useful for certain purposes. MANEVU used information from its
technical analysis to rank the largest contributing states to sulfate
and nitrate impairment in the seven MANEVU Class I areas and three
additional, nearby Class I areas.\21\ The rankings were used to
determine upwind states that MANEVU deemed important to include in
state-to-state consultation based on an identified visibility impact
screening threshold. Additionally, large individual source impacts were
used to target MANEVU control analysis ``Asks'' \22\ of states and
sources both within and upwind of MANEVU.\23\ The EPA finds the nature
of the analyses generally appropriate to support decisions on states
with which to consult.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The Class I areas analyzed were Acadia National Park in
Maine, Brigantine Wilderness in New Jersey, Great Gulf Wilderness
and Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness in New Hampshire, Lye
Brook Wilderness in Vermont, Moosehorn Wilderness in Maine,
Roosevelt Campobello International Park in New Brunswick, Shenandoah
National Park in Virginia, James River Face Wilderness in Virginia,
and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek Wildernesses in West Virginia.
\22\ As explained more fully in Section IV.E.a, MANEVU refers to
each of the components of its overall strategy as an ``Ask ``of its
member states.
\23\ The MANEVU consultation report explains that ``[t]he
objective of this technical work was to identify states and sources
from which MANEVU will pursue further analysis. This screening was
intended to identify which states to invite to consultation, not a
definitive list of which states are contributing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the analysis and determinations regarding Rhode
Island's contribution to visibility impairment at out-of-state Class I
areas, the MANEVU technical work focuses on the magnitude of visibility
impacts from certain Rhode Island emissions on nearby Class I areas.
The MANEVU contribution screening results estimate Rhode Island's
highest percent mass-
[[Page 52276]]
weighted sulfate and nitrate contribution to be 0.5% at Acadia National
Park, with the Brigantine Wilderness Area being the next closest Class
I area impacted by Rhode Island emissions at 0.3%.\24\ However, the
MANEVU analyses did not account for all emissions and all components of
visibility impairment (e.g., primary PM emissions, and impairment from
fine PM, elemental carbon, and organic carbon). In addition, Q/d
analyses with a relatively simplistic accounting for wind trajectories
and CALPUFF applied to a very limited set of EGUs and major industrial
sources of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> are not scientifically
rigorous tools capable of evaluating contribution to visibility
impairment from all emissions in a state. The EPA acknowledges that the
contribution to visibility impairment from Rhode Island's emissions at
nearby out-of-state Class I areas is smaller than that from numerous
other MANEVU states.\25\ While some MANEVU states noted that the
contributions from several states outside the MANEVU region are
significantly larger than its own, we again clarify that each state is
obligated under the CAA and RHR to address regional haze visibility
impairment resulting from emissions from within the state, irrespective
of whether another state's contribution is greater. Additionally, we
note that the 2 percent or greater sulfate-plus-nitrate threshold used
to determine whether Rhode Island emissions contribute to visibility
impairment at a particular Class I area may be higher than what EPA
believes is an ``extremely low triggering threshold'' intended by the
statute and regulations. In sum, based on the information provided, it
is clear that emissions from Rhode Island have relatively small
contributions to Class I areas. However, due to the low triggering
threshold implied by the Rule and the lack of rigorous modeling
analyses, we do not necessarily agree with the level of the State's 2%
contribution threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Table 5-1 of the RI Regional Haze SIP submittal.
\25\ Because MANEVU did not include all Rhode Island's emissions
or contributions to visibility impairment in its analysis, we cannot
definitively state that Rhode Island's contribution to visibility
impairment is not the most significant. However, that is very likely
the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any event, pursuant to the regulatory requirements, Rhode Island
took part in the emission control strategy consultation process as a
member of MANEVU. As part of that process, MANEVU developed a set of
emissions reduction measures identified as being necessary to make
reasonable progress in the seven MANEVU Class I areas. This strategy
consists of six Asks for states within MANEVU and five Asks for states
outside the region that were found to impact visibility at Class I
areas within MANEVU.\26\ Rhode Island's submission discusses each of
the Asks and explains why or why not each is applicable and how it has
complied with the relevant components of the emissions control strategy
the MANEVU states laid out. Rhode Island worked with MANEVU to
determine potential reasonable measures that could be implemented by
2028, considering the cost of compliance, the time necessary for
compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and
the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources.\27\ As
discussed in further detail below, the EPA is proposing to find that
Rhode Island has submitted a regional haze plan that meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) related to the development of a
long-term strategy. Thus, we propose to find that Rhode Island has
satisfied the applicable requirements for making reasonable progress
towards natural visibility conditions in Class I areas that may be
affected by emissions from the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Section 6.2 of the RI Regional Haze SIP.
\27\ See 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1); 40 CFR 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to determine the following for
``each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State'':
baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
progress to date for the most impaired and clearest days, the
differences between current visibility conditions and natural
visibility conditions, and the URP. This section also provides the
option for states to propose adjustments to the URP line for a Class I
area to account for visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources
outside the United States and/or the impacts from wildland prescribed
fires that were conducted for certain, specified objectives. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
Rhode Island has no Class I areas. MANEVU Class I areas, as well as
other nearby Class I areas that MANEVU examined, are listed below.
MANEVU used certain areas (as noted below) to represent nearby Class I
areas where monitors do not exist.\28\ The MANEVU Class I Areas are Lye
Brook Wilderness Area (Vermont), Great Gulf Wilderness Area (New
Hampshire) (used to represent Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness
Area), Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness Area (New Hampshire),
Acadia National Park (Maine), Moosehorn Wilderness Area (Maine) (used
to represent Roosevelt Campobello International Park), Roosevelt
Campobello International Park (New Brunswick, Canada), and Brigantine
Wilderness Area (New Jersey). Nearby Class I Areas consist of Dolly
Sods Wilderness Area (West Virginia) (used to represent Otter Creek
Wilderness Area), Otter Creek Wilderness Area (West Virginia),
Shenandoah National Park (Virginia), and James River Face Wilderness
Area (Virginia).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See appendix 22 ``Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility
Data, 2004-2019 (2nd RH SIP Metrics) January 21, 2021, revision'' at
p. 2-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
a. Rhode Island's Response to the Six MANEVU Asks
Each state having a Class I area within its borders or emissions
that may affect visibility in a Class I area must develop a long-term
strategy for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility
goal. CAA Sec. 169A(b)(2)(B). After considering the four statutory
factors, all measures that are determined to be necessary to make
reasonable progress must be in the long-term strategy. In developing
its long-term strategy, 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)(i).
The following section summarizes how Rhode Island's SIP submission
addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i); specifically, it
describes MANEVU's development of the six Asks and how Rhode Island
addressed each. The regulations Rhode Island identifies as a result of
its responses to the six Asks comprise Rhode Island's long-term
strategy for the second planning period to address regional haze
visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I Federal area that may
be affected by emissions from Rhode Island. In Section IV.E.b. of the
NPRM, EPA evaluates
[[Page 52277]]
Rhode Island's compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i).
States may rely on technical information developed by the RPOs of
which they are members to select sources for four-factor analysis and
to conduct that analysis, as well as to satisfy the documentation
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f). Where an RPO has performed source
selection and/or four-factor analyses (or considered the five
additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member states,
those states may rely on the RPO's analyses for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the
states have a reasonable basis to do so and all state participants in
the RPO process have approved the technical analyses. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii). States may also satisfy the requirement of 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.
Rhode Island is a member of the MANEVU RPO and participated in the
RPO's regional approach to developing a strategy for making reasonable
progress towards the national visibility goal in the MANEVU Class I
areas. MANEVU's strategy includes a combination of: (1) measures for
certain source sectors and groups of sectors that the RPO determined
were reasonable for states to pursue, and (2) a request for member
states to conduct four-factor analyses for individual sources that it
identified as contributing to visibility impairment. MANEVU refers to
each of the components of its overall strategy as an ``Ask'' of its
member states. On August 25, 2017, the Executive Director of MANEVU, on
behalf of the MANEVU states and tribal nations, signed a statement that
identifies six emission reduction measures that comprise the Asks for
the second implementation period.\29\ The Asks were ``designed to
identify reasonable emission reduction strategies that must be
addressed by the states and tribal nations of MANEVU through their
regional haze SIP updates.'' \30\ The statement explains that ``[i]f
any State cannot agree with or complete a Class I State's Asks, the
State must describe the actions taken to resolve the disagreement in
the Regional Haze SIP.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See appendix 20 ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation.''
\30\ Id.
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANEVU's recommendations as to the appropriate control measures
were based on technical analyses documented in the RPO's reports and
included as appendices to, or referenced in, Rhode Island's regional
haze SIP submission. One of the initial steps of MANEVU's technical
analysis was to determine which visibility-impairing pollutants should
be the focus of its efforts for the second implementation period. In
the first implementation period, MANEVU determined that sulfates were
the most significant visibility impairing pollutant at the region's
Class I areas. To determine the impact of certain pollutants on
visibility at Class I areas for the purpose of second implementation
period planning, MANEVU conducted an analysis comparing the pollutant
contribution on the clearest and most impaired days in the baseline
period (2000-2004) to the most recent period (2012-2016) \32\ at MANEVU
and nearby Class I areas. MANEVU found that while SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions were decreasing and visibility was improving, sulfates still
made up the most significant contribution to visibility impairment at
MANEVU and nearby Class I areas. According to the analysis,
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions have begun to play a more significant role in
visibility impacts in recent years as SO<INF>2</INF> emissions have
decreased. The technical analyses used by Rhode Island are included in
its submission and are as follows: \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The period of 2012-2016 was the most recent period for
which data were available at the time of analysis. RI also included
2015-2019 data.
\33\ These documents can be found in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> 2016 Updates to the Assessment of Reasonable Progress for
Regional Haze in MANEVU Class I Areas (Appendix 6);
<bullet> Impact of Wintertime SCR/SNCR Optimization on Visibility
Impairing Nitrate Precursor Emissions. November 2017 (Appendix 17);
<bullet> High Electric Demand Days and Visibility Impairment in
MANEVU. December 2017 (Appendix 18);
<bullet> Benefits of Combined Heat and Power Systems for Reducing
Pollutant Emissions in MANEVU States. March 2016 (Appendix 7);
<bullet> 2016 MANEVU Source Contribution Modeling Report--CALPUFF
Modeling of Large Electrical Generating Units and Industrial Sources.
April 4, 2017 (Appendix 8);
<bullet> Contribution Assessment Preliminary Inventory Analysis.
October 10, 2016 (Appendix 11);
<bullet> Four-Factor Data Collection Memo. March 2017 (Appendix
14);
<bullet> Status of the Top 167 Stacks from the 2008 MANEVU Ask.
July 2016 (Appendix 10);
<bullet> Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility Data, 2004-2019
(2nd RH SIP Metrics) (Appendix 22);
<bullet> Selection of States for MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation
2018 (Appendix 16);
<bullet> Ozone Transport Commission/MANEVU 2011 Based Modeling
Platform Support Document October (2018 Update) (Appendix 21).
MANEVU gathered information on each of the four statutory factors
for six source sectors it determined, based on an examination of annual
emission inventories, ``had emissions [of SO<INF>2</INF> and/or
NO<INF>X</INF>] that were reasonably] anticipated to contribute to
visibility degradation in MANEVU:'' electric generating units (EGUs),
industrial/commercial/institutional boilers (ICI boilers), cement
kilns, heating oil, residential wood combustion, and outdoor wood
combustion.\34\ MANEVU also collected data on individual sources within
the EGU, ICI boiler, and cement kiln sectors.\35\ Information for the
six sectors included explanations of technically feasible control
options for SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X,</INF> illustrative cost-
effectiveness estimates for a range of model units and control options,
sector-wide cost considerations, potential time frames for compliance
with control options, potential energy and non-air-quality
environmental impacts of certain control options, and how the remaining
useful lives of sources might be considered in a control analysis.\36\
Source-specific data included SO<INF>2</INF> emissions \37\ and
existing controls \38\ for certain existing EGUs, ICI boilers, and
cement kilns. MANEVU considered this information on the four factors as
well as the analyses developed by the RPO's Technical Support Committee
when it determined specific emission reduction measures that were found
to be reasonable for certain sources within two of the sectors it had
examined--EGUs and ICI boilers.\39\ The Asks were based on this
analysis and looked to
[[Page 52278]]
either optimize the use of existing controls, have states conduct
further analysis on EGU or ICI boilers with considerable visibility
impacts, implement low sulfur fuel standards, or lock-in lower emission
rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See appendix 14, MANEVU ``Four-Factor Data Collection''
Memo.
\35\ See appendix 6 ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANEVU Class I Areas.''
\36\ Id.
\37\ See appendix 14, MANEVU ``Four-Factor Data Collection''
Memo.
\38\ See appendix 10 ``Status of the Top 167 EGUs that
Contributed to Visibility Impairment at MANEVU Class I Areas During
the 2008 Regional Haze Implementation Period.''
\39\ See appendix 14, MANEVU ``Four-Factor Data Collection''
Memo; appendix 6 ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of Reasonable
Progress for Regional Haze in MANEVU Class I Areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANEVU Ask 1 is ``ensuring the most effective use of control
technologies on a year-round basis'' at EGUs with a nameplate capacity
larger than or equal to 25 megawatts (MW) with already installed
NO<INF>X</INF> and/or SO<INF>2</INF> controls in order to consistently
minimize emissions of haze precursors or obtain equivalent alternative
emission reductions. MANEVU observed that EGUs often only run
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions controls to comply with ozone season trading
programs and consequently, NO<INF>X</INF> sources may be uncontrolled
during the winter and non-peak summer days. MANEVU found that: (1)
running existing installed controls [selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)] is one of the most
cost-effective ways to control NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from EGUs; and
(2) that running existing controls year-round could substantially
reduce the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in many of the states upwind of
Class I areas in MANEVU that lead to visibility impairment during the
winter from nitrates.\40\ MANEVU included this as an emission
management strategy because large EGUs had already been identified as
dominant contributors to visibility impairment and the low cost of
running already installed controls made it reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See appendix 17 ``Impact of Wintertime SCR/SNCR
Optimization on Visibility Impairing Nitrate Precursor Emissions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island identified 5 EGU units that meet the criteria of 25 MW
or larger with installed controls.\41\ All of the identified units are
natural gas-fired and use SCR to control nitrogen oxide emissions.
Rhode Island explained that all of the identified units are Title V
sources that were subject to prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) permitting requirements. The permits require these facilities to
operate their controls year-round except during start up. The
requirements and enforceability are reviewed at least once every five
years, the sources are inspected every two years, and the permits are
federally enforceable. Since these controls are already in effect and
are required to operate year-round, Rhode Island concluded that it has
therefore met the requirements of Ask 1. Rhode Island also noted that a
sixth natural gas-fired EGU--Pawtucket Power--permanently shut down in
2021 and that its title V permit was revoked.\42\ As of 2025, the
facility is completely decommissioned and demolished.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Table 6-1 of the RI Regional Haze submittal.
\42\ Documents related to the permanent cease of operations of
Pawtucket Power can be found in the docket of this rulemaking.
\43\ See photos related to the demolition of Pawtucket Power at
this link and click ``See more dates'': <a href="https://maps.app.goo.gl/Z4iV2i83bABW45G29">https://maps.app.goo.gl/Z4iV2i83bABW45G29</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANEVU Ask 2 consists of a request that states ``Emission sources
modeled by MANEVU that have the potential for 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> or
greater visibility impacts at any MANEVU Class I area, as identified by
MANEVU contribution analyses . . . perform a four-factor analysis for
reasonable installation or upgrade to emission controls.'' Based on an
examination of visibility impact modeling results, MANEVU concluded
that a 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> cutoff captured an appropriately-sized group
of sources contributing the largest percentage of visibility impairing
pollutants to Class I areas in the MANEVU states.\44\ For units
identified for the Ask 2 analysis, MANEVU requested that states
determine reasonable controls through the consideration of the four
factors on a state-by-state and unit-by-unit basis. MANEVU's analysis
for Ask 2 did not identify any units in Rhode Island with a potential
impact of at least 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>.\45\ In its submittal, Rhode
Island presents further information about the State's largest
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> sources and the controls each
employs. Based on 2017 emissions data, only four sources in the State
had SO<INF>2</INF> emissions greater than 10 tpy, with the smallest
source at about 15 tpy and the largest just under 69 tpy. Only eight
sources had NO<INF>X</INF> emissions greater than 50 tpy, with the
lowest at about 52 tpy and the largest at 244 tpy.\46\ Based on the
lack of sources at or above the 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> threshold, further
illustrated by the generally small size of its largest sources, Rhode
Island concluded that it satisfied Ask 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Units with smaller contributions of visibility-impairing
pollutants were captured by other Asks.
\45\ See appendix 15 ``MANEVU Concerning a Course of Action with
MANEVU toward Assuring Reasonable Progress for the 2nd Regional Haze
Implementation Period (2018-2028).''
\46\ RI Regional Haze SIP submittal at p. 80-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANEVU Ask 3 is: ``Each MANEVU State that has not yet fully adopted
an ultra-low sulfur fuel oil standard as requested by MANEVU in 2007--
pursue this standard as expeditiously as possible and before 2028,
depending on supply availability, where the standards are as follows:
a. distillate oil to 0.0015% sulfur by weight (15 ppm); b. #4 residual
oil within a range of 0.25 to 0.5% sulfur by weight; and c. #6 residual
oil within a range of 0.3 to 0.5% sulfur by weight.'' Effective June
24, 2014, RIDEM Office of Air Resources (OAR) finalized amendments to
250-RICR-120-05-8: Sulfur Content of Fuels. The first phase of
limitations lowered the allowable concentration of sulfur in distillate
oil and biodiesel to 0.05% (500 ppm) by weight, effective July 1, 2014.
In 2018, the beginning of the second implementation period, the second
phase of limitations further lowered the limit to 0.0015% (15 ppm) by
weight. In addition, the second phase also lowered the sulfur limit for
residual oil and alternative fuel to 0.5% (5000 ppm) by weight. EPA
approved 250-RICR-120-05-8: Sulfur Content of Fuels into Rhode Island's
SIP on August 13, 2018 [83 FR 39888]. Since Rhode Island has fully
implemented an ultra-low sulfur fuel oil standard, the State therefore
concluded that it met Ask 3.
MANEVU Ask 4 requests states to update permits to ``lock in'' lower
emissions rates for NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM at emissions
sources larger than 250 million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) per hour
heat input that have switched operations to lower emitting fuels. The
threshold of 250 MMBTU/hour was based on prior BART analysis. There
aren't any coal burning units or non-EGU units having a heat input
capacity larger than 250 MMBtu/hr in Rhode Island. While there are
three EGUs in Rhode Island above this threshold that continue to burn
both natural gas and oil, their oil use is generally limited to periods
when natural gas is not available. Rhode Island explains that these
sources are subject to Title V permitting requirements under 250-RICR-
120-05-29, which specify allowable operating scenarios, and fuels
fired. Rhode Island further explains that these sources are reviewed
every five years, and if a change in fuel type may increase emissions,
or is otherwise not allowed by the permit, it triggers requirements for
a new or modified preconstruction permit. Rhode Island concluded that
it therefore meets the requirements of Ask 4.
Ask 5 requests that MANEVU states ``control NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions for peaking combustion turbines that have the potential to
operate on high electric demand days'' by either: (1) Meeting
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions standards specified in the Ask for turbines
that run on natural gas and fuel oil, (2) performing a four-factor
analysis for reasonable installation of or upgrade to emission
controls, or (3) obtaining equivalent emission reductions on high
electric
[[Page 52279]]
demand days.\47\ The Ask requests states to strive for NO<INF>X</INF>
emission standards of no greater than 25 ppm for natural gas and 42 ppm
for fuel oil, or at a minimum, NO<INF>X</INF> emissions standards of no
greater than 42 ppm for natural gas and 96 ppm at for fuel oil. MANEVU
defined a ``peaking combustion turbine'' for this Ask to be ``a turbine
capable of generating 15 megawatts or more, that commenced operation
prior to May 1, 2007, is used to generate electricity all or part of
which is delivered to the electric power distribution grid for
commercial sale and that operated less than or equal to an average of
1752 hours (or 20%) per year during 2014 to 2016.'' After reviewing
permit files, air pollution inventory files, RI Office of Energy
Resources (OER) data, and Energy Information Administration (EIA) data,
RIDEM OAR did not identify any turbines in the State that met the
criteria of the Ask.\48\ Therefore, Rhode Island concluded that it
satisfies the requirements of Ask 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See appendix 20 ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation.''
\48\ RI Regional Haze SIP submittal at p. 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last Ask for states within MANEVU (Ask 6) requests states to
report in their regional haze SIPs about programs that decrease energy
demand and increase the use of combined heat and power (CHP) and other
distributed generation technologies such as fuel cells, wind and solar.
Rhode Island reports that its OER continuously develops, administers,
and monitors a variety of programs focused on energy efficiency,
renewable energy, alternative fuels and energy assurance. Based on 2021
data, Rhode Island's energy efficiency programming achieved savings of
1.8% of electricity consumption and 0.74% of natural gas consumption,
and in 2022, Rhode Island was ranked 7th most energy-efficient state in
the country.\49\ Rhode Island utilizes the ``Lead by Example''
initiative, which coordinates state-level efforts to reduce energy
consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For example, the Public
School Energy Equity Program has led to the energy improvement of 28
schools in Rhode Island, with a lifetime estimated energy savings of
43,238,884 kWh. Under Rhode Island General Law Chapter 46-12.24.2, The
Efficient Buildings Fund has provided approximately 70 million dollars
for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects as of 2022. Rhode
Island has also implemented programs which contribute to reductions in
transportation related emissions. For example, Electrify RI increases
the availability and accessibility of electric vehicle charging
stations. Additionally, the DRIVE EV program offers rebate incentives
for the purchase of electric vehicles and was recently expanded to
include electric bicycles via the Erika Niedowski Memorial Electric
Bicycle Rebate Program. Rhode Island is also part of the Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). MANEVU found that the RGGI
cooperative results in substantial reductions in emissions of
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> from the member states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See Id.; RI OER 2022 Annual Report at p. 7, which can be
found in the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continued growth is expected in both distributed generation and
combined heat and power plants in Rhode Island. Currently, there are
seven distributed generators in Rhode Island and several emergency
generators which have submitted permit applications to convert to
distributed generators. The units are subject to federal emissions
standards as required by permit and capped at 500 hours per year. There
are also four combined heat and power plants generating approximately
40 MW of electricity. Due to the initiatives described above,\50\ Rhode
Island concluded that it satisfies Ask 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ More information on the energy programs described can be
found in the RI Regional Haze SIP Submittal p. 97-101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, Rhode Island identified the following SIP-approved
programs as necessary for reasonable progress and therefore included in
the State's long term strategy: 250-RICR-120-05-8, fuel sulfur content
limitations; 250-RICR-120-05-27, control of nitrogen oxides emissions
from fuel-burning equipment at major stationary sources of nitrogen
oxides; the 2021 retirement of Pawtucket Power and the revocation of
its title V Permit.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Documents related to the permanent cease of operations of
Pawtucket Power can be found in the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. The EPA's Evaluation of Rhode Island's Response to the Six MANEVU
Asks and Compliance With 40 CFR51.308(f)(2)(i)
The EPA is proposing to find that Rhode Island has satisfied the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) related to evaluating sources
and determining the emission reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress by considering the four statutory factors. We
are proposing to find that Rhode Island has satisfied the requirement
to consider the four statutory factors through its analysis and actions
to address Ask 3. Additionally, in line with recent proposals from the
EPA,\52\ where visibility conditions for a Class I area impacted by a
state are below the URP and the state has considered the four statutory
factors, the state will have presumptively demonstrated reasonable
progress for the second planning period for that area. While Rhode
Island's regional haze plan is not relying on this policy, the current
visibility conditions of the Class I areas in or adjacent to the MANEVU
region are below their respective URP glidepaths, providing further
support for approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See proposed rulemakings published April 18, 2025 (90 FR
16478) and May 14, 2025 (90 FR 20425).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, Rhode Island relied on MANEVU's technical
analyses and framework (i.e., the Asks) to select sources and develop
its long-term strategy. MANEVU conducted an inventory analysis to
identify the source sectors that produced the greatest amount of
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in 2011; inventory data
were also projected to 2018. Based on this analysis, MANEVU identified
the top-emitting sectors for each of the two pollutants, which for
SO<INF>2</INF> include coal-fired EGUs, industrial boilers, oil-fired
EGUs, and oil-fired area sources including residential, commercial, and
industrial sources. The largest sources of NO<INF>X</INF> include
onroad vehicles, nonroad vehicles, and EGUs.\53\ The RPO's
documentation explains that ``[EGUs] emitting SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> and industrial point sources emitting SO<INF>2</INF>
were found to be sectors with high emissions that warranted further
scrutiny. Mobile sources were not considered in this analysis because
any ask concerning mobile sources would be made to EPA and not during
the intra-RPO and inter-RPO consultation process among the states and
tribes.'' \54\ EPA proposes to find that Rhode Island reasonably
evaluated the two pollutants--SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>--that
currently drive visibility impairment within the MANEVU region and that
it adequately explained and supported its decision to focus on these
two pollutants through its reliance on the MANEVU technical analyses
cited in its submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See ``Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic United States: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANEVU) Contribution Assessment. NESCAUM. August 2006.'' A copy of
this document can be found in the docket of this rulemaking.
\54\ See appendix 20 ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to evaluate sources or
groups of sources and determine the emission reduction measures that
are necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the
[[Page 52280]]
four statutory factors. As explained previously, the MANEVU Asks are a
mix of measures for sectors and groups of sources identified as
reasonable for states to address in their regional haze plans. Several
of the Asks include analyses of emissions control strategies, and Rhode
Island identified numerous existing controls that are in the SIP and
are included in the long-term strategy. For example, Rhode Island's
response to Ask 2 examines the state's largest emitters and their
current emissions limitations and control equipment. While MANEVU
formulated the Asks to be ``reasonable emission reduction strategies''
to control emissions of visibility impairing pollutants,\55\ Rhode
Island's response to Ask 3 (adoption of ultra-low sulfur fuel oil)
engages with the requirement that states determine the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress
through consideration of the four factors. As laid out in further
detail below, the EPA is proposing to find that MANEVU's analyses
conducted to support emission reduction measures, including Ask 3,
satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). The emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress must
be included in the long-term strategy, i.e., in Rhode Island's SIP. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island asserted that it satisfies Ask 1 because the state
permits for the five EGUs covered by this Ask include year-round
emission limits and require that controls (SCR in each case) be run at
all times the units are in operation and emitting air pollutants. As
each of these units are at Title V sources, the requirements are
federally enforceable, and Rhode Island renews the permits every five
years. EPA thus agrees that Rhode Island satisfied Ask 1.
Ask 2 addresses the sources MANEVU determined have the potential
for larger than, or equal to, 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> visibility impact at
any MANEVU Class I area; the Ask requests MANEVU states to conduct
four-factor analyses for the specified sources within their borders.
This Ask explicitly engages with the statutory and regulatory
requirement to determine the emissions reduction measures necessary to
make reasonable progress based on the four factors; MANEVU considered
it ``reasonable to have the greatest contributors to visibility
impairment conduct a four-factor analysis that would determine whether
emission control measures should be pursued and what would be
reasonable for each source.'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RHR recognizes that, due to the nature of regional haze
visibility impairment, numerous and sometimes relatively small sources
may need to be selected and evaluated for control measures in order to
make reasonable progress.\57\ In this case, applying the 3.0
Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> threshold did not identify any sources in Rhode Island
(and only 22 across the entire MANEVU region). We note, however, that
the 3.0 Mm-1 threshold used in this Ask is only one part of the MANEVU
source identification process and that being below this threshold did
not necessarily exclude a source from additional review in connection
with another Ask.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See 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 87-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the requirement to evaluate and determine the emissions
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress,
Rhode Island reviewed existing controls for the state's top emitting
sources. Using 2017 emissions data, Rhode Island evaluated its EGU and
non-EGU SO<INF>2</INF> sources with emissions greater than 10 tpy and
NO<INF>X</INF> sources with emissions greater than 50 tpy.\58\ Rhode
Island Hospital, the state's top SO<INF>2</INF> source (~69 tpy) and
also the state's seventh highest NO<INF>X</INF>-emitting source (~57
tpy), operates five boilers which are equipped with various control
measures.\59\ The next top three SO<INF>2</INF> sources collectively
accounted for less than 100 tons in 2017.\60\ Rhode Island's top
NO<INF>X</INF> emitter, Manchester Street Station, emitted 243.66 tons
of NO<INF>X</INF> in 2017.\61\ The facility operates three combustion
turbines, which are equipped with SCR. Rhode Island's next highest
NO<INF>X</INF> emitter, Ocean State Power, accounted for 156.55 tons in
2017.\62\ Ocean State Power operates four combustion turbines, which
are also equipped with SCR.\63\ Rhode Island's next top six
NO<INF>X</INF> emitters collectively accounted for 376 tons in
2017.\64\ Each facility identified in Rhode Island's review is a title
V source with an active operating permit that must be updated and
renewed every five years with public involvement.\65\ Each unit is
subject to all applicable Federal and State regulations as identified
in each source's enforceable permit. EPA is basing the proposed finding
on the state's examination of its largest operating sources at the time
of SIP submission, and on the emissions from and controls that apply to
those sources, as well as on Rhode Island's existing SIP-approved
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> rules that effectively control
emissions from the largest contributing stationary-source sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ RI Regional Haze SIP submission at p. 80-95.
\59\ Id. at 80 (Table 6-2).
\60\ Id. Value calculated from the addition of the tpy values of
the remaining three facilities.
\61\ Id.
\62\ Id.
\63\ Id. at 82.
\64\ Id. at 80 (Table 6-3). Value calculated from the addition
of the tpy values of the remaining six facilities.
\65\ The most recent Title V permit for each source can be found
at: <a href="https://dem.ri.gov/environmental-protection-bureau/air-resources/air-permits/operating-permits">https://dem.ri.gov/environmental-protection-bureau/air-resources/air-permits/operating-permits</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask 3, which addresses the sulfur content of heating oil used in
MANEVU states, is based on a four-factor analysis for the heating oil
sulfur reduction regulations contained in that Ask; \66\ specifically,
reducing the sulfur content of distillate oil to 15 ppm. The analysis
started with an assessment of the costs of retrofitting refineries to
produce 15 ppm heating oil in sufficient quantities to support
implementation of the standard, as well as the impacts of requiring a
reduction in sulfur content on consumer prices. The analysis noted
that, as a result of previous EPA rulemakings to reduce the sulfur
content of onroad and nonroad-fuels to 15 ppm, technologies are
currently available to achieve sulfur reductions and many refiners are
already meeting this standard, meaning that the capital investments for
further reductions in the sulfur content of heating oil are expected to
be relatively low compared to costs incurred in the past. The analysis
also examined, by way of example, the impacts of New York's existing 15
ppm sulfur requirements on heating oil prices and concluded that the
cost associated with reducing sulfur was relatively small in terms of
the absolute price of heating oil compared to the magnitude of
volatility in crude oil prices. It also noted that the slight price
premium is compensated by cost savings due to the benefits of lower-
sulfur fuels in terms of equipment life and maintenance and fuel
stability. Consideration of the time necessary for compliance with a
15-ppm sulfur standard was accomplished through a discussion of the
amount of time refiners had needed to comply with the EPA's onroad and
nonroad fuel 15 ppm requirement, and the implications existing refinery
capacity and distribution infrastructure may have for compliance times
with a 15-ppm heating oil standard. The analysis concluded that with
phased-in timing for states that have not yet adopted a 15 ppm heating
oil standard there ``appears
[[Page 52281]]
to be sufficient time to allow refiners to add any additional heating
oil capacity that may be required.'' \67\ The analysis further noted
the beneficial energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of a 15
ppm sulfur heating oil requirement and that reducing sulfur content may
also have a salutary impact on the remaining useful life of residential
furnaces and boilers.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See appendix 6, ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANEVU Class I Areas.''
\67\ Id. at 8-7.
\68\ Id. at 8-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA agrees that Rhode Island reasonably relied on MANEVU's
four-factor analysis for a low-sulfur fuel oil regulation, which
engaged with each of the statutory factors and explained how the
information supported a conclusion that a 15 ppm-sulfur fuel oil
standard for fuel oils is reasonable. As noted above, RIDEM OAR
finalized amendments to 250-RICR-120-05-8: Sulfur Content of Fuels,
effective June 24, 2014. The first phase of limitations lowered the
allowable concentration of sulfur in distillate oil and biodiesel to
0.05% (500 ppm) by weight, effective July 1, 2014. Beginning July 1,
2018, the limit was further lowered to 0.0015% (15 ppm) by weight. In
addition, the second phase also lowered the sulfur limit for residual
oil and alternative fuel to 0.5% (5000 ppm) by weight. EPA approved
250-RICR-120-05-8: Sulfur Content of Fuels into Rhode Island's SIP on
August 13, 2018. 83 FR 39888. Since Rhode Island has fully implemented
an ultra-low sulfur fuel oil standard consistent with Ask 3's sulfur
content standards for the three types of fuel oils (distillate oil, #4
residual oil, #6 residual oil), EPA therefore agrees that Rhode Island
satisfied Ask 3.
Rhode Island concluded that it satisfies the requirements of Ask 4,
which requests that MANEVU states pursue updating permits, enforceable
agreements, and/or rules to lock-in lower emission rates for
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and PM at EGUs and other sources larger
than 250 MMBtu per hour that have switched operations to lower emitting
fuels. Rhode Island does not have any large, coal-burning EGUs or non-
EGUs meeting the threshold of this Ask. While Rhode Island identified
three EGUs that have a heat input capacity greater than the 250 MMBtu/
hr threshold and that can burn both natural gas and oil, as noted
above, their oil use is generally limited by permit to periods when
natural gas is not available. In New England, this is generally limited
to cold weather periods when natural gas is diverted from EGUs for use
in residential heating.\69\ Rhode Island also explained that these
three EGUs are already subject to title V permitting requirements under
250-RICR-120-05-29, ``Operating Permits,'' which are renewed every five
years and specify allowable operating scenarios, which includes type of
fuels fired. Any change in fuel type that is not allowed by permit
would trigger requirements for a preconstruction permit. EPA
acknowledges Rhode Island's conclusion that it meets the requirements
of Ask 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See, e.g., ISO New England 2024/2025 Winter Outlook, ISO
New England (Nov. 7, 2024). A copy of this document can be found in
the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask 5 addresses NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from peaking combustion
turbines that have the potential to operate on high electric demand
days. RIDEM reviewed permit files, air pollution inventory files, RI
OER data, and U.S. EIA data, and did not identify any turbines that
meet the criteria of this Ask. That is, Rhode Island does not have any
units rated at 15MW or higher that were operational prior to 2007 that
sold electricity to the grid and operated less than an average of 1752
hours per year during 2014-2016. EPA agrees that Rhode Island
reasonably demonstrated that it meets Ask 5.
Finally, regarding Ask 6, Rhode Island pointed to various policy
efforts to increase energy efficiency and reduce reliance on fossil
fuels for energy. Rhode Island is nationally recognized as a leader in
energy efficiency. As discussed in Section IV.E.a., Rhode Island's OER
spearheads a multitude of major programs focused on energy efficiency,
renewable energy, alternative fuels and energy assurance. EPA agrees
that Rhode Island has satisfied the request of Ask 6 to consider and
report in its SIP measures or programs related to energy efficiency,
cogeneration, and other clean distributed generation technologies.
In sum, Rhode Island identified several mechanisms for controlling
pollutants that impair visibility--including its regulation limiting
sulfur content in fuels (which is in Rhode Island's SIP), as well as
the continued implementation of NO<INF>X</INF> RACT for point sources.
EPA proposes to find that Rhode Island has reasonably concluded that
these measures are necessary to make reasonable progress for the second
planning period.
In addition to these SIP-approved measures, Rhode Island also
identified other federally enforceable and permanent controls,
including its mobile source control measures, as key emission reduction
strategies. Onroad mobile emissions reductions are due in part to Rhode
Island's adoption of more stringent motor vehicle emission standard
regulations.\70\ These SIP-approved standards ensure that vehicles sold
in the state meet increasingly stringent emissions requirements through
time. Other efforts to reduce air pollution from onroad mobile sources
include adoption of inspection and maintenance of vehicle emissions
control systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See <a href="https://rules.sos.ri.gov/Regulations/Part/250-120-05-37">https://rules.sos.ri.gov/Regulations/Part/250-120-05-37</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is therefore proposing to find the state's approach meets the
statutory and regulatory requirements for several reasons.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to find--based on Rhode Island's
participation in the MANEVU planning process, how it has addressed the
Asks, and the EPA's assessment of Rhode Island's emissions and point
sources--that Rhode Island has complied with the requirements of
section 51.308(f)(2)(i). Rhode Island's application of MANEVU Ask 3
engages with the requirement that states evaluate and determine the
emission reduction measures necessary to make reasonable progress by
considering the four statutory factors.
In determining the emissions reduction measures necessary to make
reasonable progress, Rhode Island reasonably evaluated and explained
its decision to focus on SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> to address
visibility impairment within the MANEVU region. Rhode Island adequately
supported that decision through reasonable reliance on the MANEVU
technical analyses cited in its submission. EPA notes that MANEVU
concluded that sulfates from SO<INF>2</INF> emissions were still the
primary driver of visibility impairment in the second implementation
period and that MANEVU conducted a four-factor analysis to support Ask
3, which requests that states pursue ultra-low sulfur fuel oil
standards to address SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Rhode Island's SIP-
approved sulfur in fuel rule, 250-RICR-120-05-8: Sulfur Content of
Fuels, sets stringent limits for sulfur content and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions for fuels. Rhode Island's rule controls SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions from area and point sources by limiting the sulfur content of
distillate oil and biodiesel to 0.0015% and the sulfur content of
residual oils and alternative fuels to 0.5%. EPA previously approved
these requirements into Rhode Island's SIP, and they went into effect
in July 2018. Rhode Island's submittal also includes evaluations of the
state's largest SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> sources which
demonstrate that these facilities have relatively small emissions of
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> and are already subject to stringent
emission control measures. For instance, while
[[Page 52282]]
the state contains no ozone nonattainment areas, Rhode Island is
nonetheless required to apply NO<INF>X</INF> RACT to certain sources,
owing to its location within the Ozone Transport Region. EPA approved
Rhode Island's latest NO<INF>X</INF> RACT rule in 2020,\71\ which has
been employed on Rhode Island's highest NO<INF>X</INF> emitting point
source, Manchester Street Station, among others. As discussed
previously, continued implementation of federal mobile source programs
will provide further reductions in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from Rhode
Island. Moreover, the FLMs responsible for the Class I areas most
impacted by Rhode Island emissions sources (Acadia National Park, Lye
Brook, Brigantine Wilderness, etc.) \72\ did not identify any sources
in Rhode Island for four-factor analysis or request any revisions or
other analyses.\73\ In particular, the US Forest Service stated that it
had ``conducted a substantive review'' of Rhode Island's plan, was
``satisfied'' with it, and ``offer[ed] no suggestions for change.''
\74\ Similarly, the National Park Service commended Rhode Island on its
draft submission and stated it had no further conclusions or
recommendations.\75\ In short, Rhode Island's SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are already low, are controlled by EPA-
approved limits in the SIP (as a result of Regional Haze and other CAA
requirements), and have overall small contributions to visibility
impairment in Class I areas. The projected 2028 visibility conditions
for Class I areas influenced by emissions from Rhode Island sources are
all below the URP, and EPA proposes to find that Rhode Island's SIP
submittal satisfies the requirements that states determine the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress by
considering the four factors and that their long-term strategies
include the enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and
other measures necessary to make reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See 85 FR 54924.
\72\ RI Regional Haze SIP submission at p. 74 (Table 5-1).
\73\ See appendix 23 ``USDA Comment Letter RI Regional Haze
SIP'' and appendix 24 ``National Park Service Comment on Proposed RI
Regional Haze SIP.''
\74\ See appendix 23 ``USDA Comment Letter RI Regional Haze
SIP.''
\75\ See appendix 24 ``National Park Service Comment on Proposed
RI Regional Haze SIP.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
The consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide
that states must consult with other states that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinated emission management strategies containing the
emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) require states to
consider the emission reduction measures identified by other states as
necessary for reasonable progress and to include agreed upon measures
in their SIPs. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to what happens if
states cannot agree on what measures are necessary to make reasonable
progress.
Rhode Island participated in and provided documentation of the
MANEVU intra- and inter-RPO consultation processes, which included
consulting with both MANEVU and non-MANEVU states about emissions from
Rhode Island reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in Class I areas within the MANEVU area and in adjacent
areas. The consultations addressed developing coordinated emission
management strategies containing the emission reductions necessary to
make reasonable progress at the Class I areas impacted by emissions
from States within MANEVU. Rhode Island addressed impacts to the MANEVU
Class I areas by providing information on the enforceable measures it
has in place that satisfy each Ask.\76\ Rhode Island included in its
Regional Haze SIP submittal all measures agreed to during state-to-
state consultations and emission reduction measures identified by other
states. While Rhode Island did not receive any requests from non-MANEVU
states during its public comment period to consider additional measures
to address visibility impairment in Class I areas outside MANEVU,
MANEVU documented issues some non-MANEVU states raised about MANEVU's
analyses during consultation. For instance, MANEVU noted in its
Consultation Report that upwind states expressed concern regarding the
analyses the RPO utilized for the selection of states for the
consultation. MANEVU agreed that these tools, as all models, have their
limitations, but nonetheless deemed them appropriate. Additionally,
there were several comments regarding the choice of the 2011 modeling
base year. MANEVU agreed that the choice of base year is critical to
the outcome of the study. MANEVU acknowledged that there were newer
versions of the emission inventories and the need to use the best
available inventory for each analysis. MANEVU, however, concluded that
the selected inventories were appropriate for the analysis.\77\
Additionally, upwind states noted that they would not be able to
address the MANEVU Asks until they finalize their SIPs. MANEVU believed
the assumption of the implementation of the Asks from upwind states in
its 2028 control case modeling was reasonable, and Rhode Island
included both the 2028 base case and control case modeling results in
its SIP, representing visibility conditions at the Class 1 areas in the
MANU-VU States assuming upwind states do not and do implement the Asks,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ See appendix 20 ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation.''
\77\ Id. at p. 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, Rhode Island participated in the MANEVU intra- and inter-
RPO consultation and included in its SIP submittal the measures
identified and agreed to during those consultations, thereby satisfying
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B). Rhode Island satisfied 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) by participating in MANEVU's consultation process,
which documented the disagreements between the upwind states and MANEVU
and explained MANEVU's reasoning on each of the disputed issues. Based
on the entirety of MANEVU's intra- and inter-RPO consultation,
including the MANEVU responses to other states' concerns and various
technical analyses in the SIP submission, we propose to determine that
Rhode Island has satisfied the consultation requirements of section
51.308(f)(2)(ii).
The documentation requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides
that states may meet their obligations to document the technical bases
on which they are relying to determine the emission reductions measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress through an RPO, as long
as the process has been ``approved by all State participants.'' As
explained above, Rhode Island chose to rely on MANEVU's technical
information, modeling, and analysis to support development of its long-
term strategy. The MANEVU technical analyses on which Rhode Island
relied are listed in the state's SIP submission and include source
contribution assessments, information on each of the four factors and
visibility modeling information for certain EGUs, and evaluations of
emission reduction strategies for specific source categories. Rhode
Island also provided information to further demonstrate the technical
bases and emission information it relied on to determine the emission
reductions measures that are necessary to make
[[Page 52283]]
reasonable progress. Based on the documentation provided by the state,
we propose to find Rhode Island satisfies this requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that the emissions
information considered to determine the measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most
recent year for which the state has submitted triennial emissions data
to the EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period
for newly submitted data. Rhode Island drafted the plan using the 2017
NEI emission data for NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, PM, VOCs and
NH<INF>3</INF>. Additionally, Rhode Island included Air Markets Program
Data (AMPD) emissions for NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> until 2019.
The 2020 NEI indicates relatively minor increases in NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions from certain EGUs. Rhode Island, as indicated throughout this
notice, evaluated these facilities and in-place NO<INF>X</INF> control
measures. For example, while Ocean State Power experienced a small
increase in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions totaling around 10 tpy, this
facility is already equipped with SCR. Despite minor increases from
certain sources, NO<INF>X</INF> EGU emissions in Rhode Island
experienced a minor decline overall in 2020. A portion of this
reduction came from Rhode Island's largest NO<INF>X</INF> emitter,
Manchester Street Station, with NO<INF>X</INF> emissions falling nearly
40 tpy from 2017 to 2020.\78\ The 2020 NEI also shows a minor net
increase in EGU emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>. Rhode Island, however, as
previously discussed in the evaluation of Ask 3, continues to employ
the use of low sulfur fuel oil, which the state adopted based off
consideration of the four factors. It is likely, given the State's
overall relatively small emissions and the level of control through
existing programs, that consideration of the 2020 NEI would not have
affected Rhode Island's source selection and analysis. Based on Rhode
Island's consideration and analysis of the emission data in its SIP
submittal, the EPA proposes to find that Rhode Island has satisfied the
emissions information requirement in 40 CFR51.308(f)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See 2020 NEI Report <a href="https://awsedap.epa.gov/public/extensions/nei_report_2020/dashboard.html#point-db">https://awsedap.epa.gov/public/extensions/nei_report_2020/dashboard.html#point-db</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also propose to find that Rhode Island reasonably considered the
five additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing its
long-term strategy. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), Rhode
Island noted that existing and ongoing state and federal emission
control programs that contribute to emission reductions through 2028
would impact emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from point
and nonpoint sources in the second implementation period. RIDEM OAR
considered these reductions as part of the MANE-VU process that
generated emission inventories and projections that reflect ongoing
programs and were incorporated into the modeling for the RPGs (see
appendix 5 of the state's submittal for controls included in the
inventories and Section 2 of the state's submittal for the RPGs). These
also were considered in the emissions rates used in the CALPUFF and Q/d
screening models. Additionally, Rhode Island notes the state's
commitment to reduce mobile source emissions through numerous programs
and regulations that will have a positive visibility impact both in and
out of Rhode Island.
Rhode Island's consideration of measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B)
includes, in section 6.5 of its SIP submission, discussion of Rhode
Island regulation 250-RICR-120-05-5, ``Fugitive Dust,'' which regulates
dust from construction and demolition activities. The regulation
provides that ``No person shall cause or permit any materials,
including but not limited to sand, gravel, soil, aggregate and any
other organic or inorganic solid matter capable of releasing dust, to
be handled, transported, mined, quarried, stored or otherwise utilized
in any way so as to cause airborne particulate matter to travel beyond
the property line of the emission source without taking adequate
precautions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne.''
Rhode Island also considered this regulation's role in mitigating
impacts from construction activities when it developed its long-term
strategy for the first planning period. Rhode Island further notes that
MANEVU analysis for the second implementation period found that crustal
material does not play a major role in visibility impairment at Class I
areas.\79\ RIDEM OAR concluded that its regulations are sufficient to
mitigate the impacts of construction activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ See appendix 13, ``Regional Haze Metrics Trends and HYSPLIT
Trajectory Analyses,'' at p. 51 (May 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), source retirements and
replacement schedules are addressed in section 6.6 of Rhode Island's
submittal. Rhode Island considered source retirements and replacements
in developing the 2028 emission inventories described in Section 4 of
the submittal, as described in the Gamma Inventory technical support
documentation in appendix 19, and in RIDEM OAR's implementation of the
2017 MANE-VU Statement. The sources that were subsequently retired
after the 2011 base year and therefore not included in the 2028
inventory are listed in Table 6-7 of the Rhode Island submittal.
In considering smoke management as required in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), Rhode Island explained that Smoke Management
Programs (SMP) are only required when smoke impacts from fires managed
for resource benefits contribute significantly to regional haze.\80\
The 2017 NEI indicates that prescribed forest and agricultural fires
emissions in Rhode Island are very minor; the inventory estimates that
those emissions from those source categories totaled 34 tons of
PM<INF>10</INF>, 29 tons of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 4 tons of
SO<INF>2</INF> in 2017, which constitutes only a small portion of the
total Rhode Island PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, and
SO<INF>2</INF> inventories (0.84%, 0.47%, 0.51%, respectively).
Therefore, RIDEM OAR concludes that no substantial change has occurred
that would alter the conclusions of the previous SIP regarding the
sources of visibility impairment, and therefore no change is needed to
make reasonable progress. EPA agrees that Rhode Island adequately
considered smoke management practices as part of its submittal as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See section 6.7 of RI Regional Haze Submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island considered the anticipated net effect of projected
changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the LTS (i.e., 2018-2028) as required by 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E). Rhode Island considered the MANEVU-developed
inventory projections and modeling for visibility impact for 2028 that
incorporated the ``Asks'' for MANEVU states as well as the Asks
developed for upwind states and EPA/FLMs. These projections and
modeling incorporated the RIDEM OAR LTS from the first implementation
period with no additional regulatory action for the second
implementation period. The results of that modeling are shown as RPGs
in Section 2 of the submittal and are also detailed in the presentation
of RPGs in the MANE-VU visibility report.\81\ The 2028 inventory
projections
[[Page 52284]]
demonstrate a substantial reduction in emissions and the modeling
demonstrates a substantial improvement in visibility impairment through
2028.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See appendix 22 ``Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility
Data, 2004-2017 (2nd RH SIP Metrics).'' MANE-VU (prepared by Maine
Department of Environmental Protection). January 21, 2021, revision.
\82\ See section 4.9 of the RI Regional Haze SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Rhode Island has reasonably considered each of the five
additional factors, the EPA proposes to find that Rhode Island has
satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements pertaining to RPGs
for each Class I area. Because Rhode Island does not host a Class I
area, it is not subject to either 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) or
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A). Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that, if a
state contains sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area in another state and the RPG
for the most impaired days in that Class I area is above the URP
glidepath, the upwind state must demonstrate that there are no
additional emission reduction measures that may reasonably be
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I area
that would be reasonable to include in the long-term strategy.
None of the Class I areas in or adjacent to the MANEVU region have
RPGs above their respective URP glidepath. Table 2-1 of Rhode Island's
SIP submittal summarizes baseline, current, and reasonable progress
goal haze index levels for class I areas in or adjacent to the MANEVU
region. The table displays baseline (i.e., visibility conditions during
2000-2004), natural, and current (2015-2019) visibility conditions for
the most impaired and clearest days at each area. Additionally, Table
2-1 of the submittal shows the 2028 modeled visibility values with
projected controls for the most impaired days and how those values
compare to the URP glidepaths for 2028. The 2028 RPGs for each Class I
area are well below their respective URP glidepath. Therefore, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) is not applicable to Rhode Island.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each comprehensive revision of
a state's regional haze SIP must contain or provide for certain
elements, including monitoring strategies, emissions inventories, and
any reporting, recordkeeping and other measures needed to assess and
report on visibility. Since Rhode Island does not contain any Class I
areas, it is not required to submit the monitoring strategy referenced
in 51.308(f)(6), nor are the requirements in 51.308(f)(6)(i), (ii), and
(iv) applicable.
40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iii), however, applies to states with no Class
I areas (such as Rhode Island) and requires them to include in their
Regional Haze SIPs procedures by which monitoring data and other
information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from
within the state to visibility impairment at Class I areas in other
states. Visibility data analysis procedures are described in the MANEVU
visibility data report. Other procedures and data used for determining
Rhode Island's contribution to visibility impairment are described in
section 4 of the Rhode Island SIP and the MANEVU documents
referenced.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See appendix 22 ``Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility
Data, 2004-2017 (2nd RH SIP Metrics).'' MANE-VU (prepared by Maine
Department of Environmental Protection). January 21, 2021, revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for a statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for
the most recent year for which data are available and estimates of
future projected emissions. It also requires a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. Rhode Island provides for emissions inventories
and estimates for future projected emissions by participating in the
MANEVU RPO and complying with EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Rule
(AERR). In 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, the AERR requires states to
submit updated emissions inventories for criteria pollutants to EPA's
Emissions Inventory System (EIS) every three years. The emission
inventory data are used to develop the NEI, which provides for, among
other things, a triennial state-wide inventory of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment.
Section 4 of Rhode Island's submission includes tables of NEI data.
The source categories of the emissions inventories included are: (1)
Point sources, (2) nonpoint sources, (3) nonroad mobile sources, and
(4) onroad mobile sources. The point source category is further divided
into AMPD point sources and non-AMPD point sources. Rhode Island
included NEI emissions inventories for the following years: 2002 (one
of the regional haze program baseline years), 2008, 2011, 2014, and
2017; and for the following pollutants: SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>,
PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, VOCs, and NH<INF>3</INF>. Rhode
Island also provided a summary of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions for AMPD sources for the years 2002, 2008, 2011, 2014, and
2016-2019. Consideration of the 2020 NEI data shows small variability
in emissions. However, the more recent emission data would likely not
have affected Rhode Island's source selection or analysis of the
already well- controlled facilities.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires states to include estimates
of future projected emissions and include a commitment to update the
inventory periodically.\84\ Rhode Island relied on the MANEVU 2028
emissions projections for MANEVU states. MANEVU completed two 2028
projected emissions modeling cases--a 2028 base case that considers
only on-the-books controls and a 2028 control case that considers
implementation of the MANEVU Asks.\85\ The EPA proposes to find that
Rhode Island has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) as
described above, including through its continued participation in the
MANEVU RPO and its on-going compliance with the AERR, and that no
further elements are necessary at this time for Rhode Island to assess
and report on visibility pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ The CAA Amendments and the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (40
CFR part 51 Subpart A), requires that Rhode Island's Office of Air
Resources conduct annual inventories of air emissions from point
sources and periodic inventories every three years of emissions from
nonpoint (area) sources, nonroad mobile sources, and on-road mobile
sources. This data is electronically submitted to EPA and is part of
the triannual NEI. For further information, visit <a href="https://dem.ri.gov/environmental-protection-bureau/air-resources/emissions-inventory">https://dem.ri.gov/environmental-protection-bureau/air-resources/emissions-inventory</a>.
\85\ See appendix 21 ``OTC/MANEVU 2011 Based Modeling Platform
Support.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic comprehensive revisions
of states' Regional Haze plans also address the progress report
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The purpose of these
requirements is to evaluate progress towards the applicable RPGs for
any Class I area within the state and each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions from within that state.
Sections 51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all states and require a
description of the status of implementation of all measures included in
a state's first implementation period regional haze plan and a summary
of the emission reductions achieved through implementation of those
measures. Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to
[[Page 52285]]
states with Class I areas within their borders and requires such states
to assess current visibility conditions, changes in visibility relative
to baseline (2000-2004) visibility conditions, and changes in
visibility conditions relative to the period addressed in the first
implementation period progress report. Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to
all states and requires an analysis tracking changes in emissions of
pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and
sectors since the period addressed by the first implementation period
progress report. This provision further specifies the year or years
through which the analysis must extend depending on the type of source
and the platform through which its emission information is reported.
Finally, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), which also applies to all states,
requires an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions within or outside the state that have occurred since the
period addressed by the first implementation period progress report,
including whether such changes were anticipated and whether they have
limited or impeded expected progress towards reducing emissions and
improving visibility.
Rhode Island's submission describes the status of measures of the
long-term strategy from the first implementation period.\86\ As a
member of MANEVU, Rhode Island considered the MANEVU Asks and adopted
corresponding measures into its long-term strategy for the first
implementation period. The MANEVU Asks were: (1) Timely implementation
of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements; (2) EGU
controls including Controls at 167 Key Sources that most affect MANEVU
Class I areas; (3) Low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (4) Continued
evaluation of other control measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See Section 3 of the RI Regional Haze SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the first planning period for regional haze, programs that
were put in place focused on reducing SO<INF>2</INF> emissions.
Effective June 24, 2014, RIDEM OAR finalized amendments to 250-RICR-
120-05-8: Sulfur Content of Fuels to lower the sulfur content of fuel
oil. This rule was fully implemented by July 1, 2018, and Rhode Island
continues to enforce the requirements of this regulation. The other
MANEVU states implemented similar rules, and the reductions achieved
from these and other measures reduced sulfates formed from
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and led to vast improvements in visibility at
the MANEVU Federal Class I Areas. Lastly, Rhode Island committed to
continued evaluation of other possible control measures that would
reduce haze-causing emissions in consultation with other MANE-VU
states. Thus, Rhode Island met all the identified reasonable measures
requested during the first implementation period. The submittal also
includes periodic emission data that demonstrate a decrease in VOCs,
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions throughout the state.
The EPA proposes to find that Rhode Island has met the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) because its SIP submission describes the
measures included in the long-term strategy from the first
implementation period, as well as the status of their implementation
and the emission reductions achieved through such implementation.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), Rhode Island provides a summary of
emissions of NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>,
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, VOCs, and NH<INF>3</INF> from all sources and
activities, including from point, nonpoint, nonroad mobile, and onroad
mobile sources, for the time period from 2002 to 2017, based on
emission inventory information submitted pursuant to the AERR in 40 CFR
part 51, subpart A. With respect to sources that report directly to
EPA, Rhode Island also included AMPD state summary data for
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for 2016 through 2019. The
reductions achieved by Rhode Island emission control measures are seen
in the emissions inventory.
Based on Rhode Island's SIP submittal, the State experienced a 50%
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reduction from 2002 to 2017. These reductions
are largely from the nonroad and onroad mobile sectors which account
for 15,545 tons of NO<INF>X</INF> reduction. As a result of Federal
rules to reduce emissions from nonroad vehicles and equipment, new
engine standards for nonroad vehicles and equipment have driven these
reductions in the nonroad sector. Examples of regulatory programs that
have reduced, and/or will continue to reduce, emissions from nonroad
vehicles and equipment include Control of Emissions of Air Pollution
from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel,<SUP>87</SUP> Control of Emissions
from Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-
Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters Per Cylinder,<SUP>88</SUP> and
Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and
Equipment.<SUP>89</SUP> Onroad mobile emission reductions are due in
part to Rhode Island's adoption of more stringent motor vehicle
emission standard regulations.\90\ These SIP-approved standards ensure
that vehicles sold in the state meet increasingly stringent emissions
requirements through time, driving emissions reductions in the onroad
sector. Furthermore, NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are expected to continue
to decrease as fleet turnover occurs and the older more polluting
vehicles and equipment are replaced by newer, cleaner ones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See 69 FR 38958.
\88\ See 73 FR 37096.
\89\ See 73 FR 59034.
\90\ See <a href="https://rules.sos.ri.gov/Regulations/Part/250-120-05-37">https://rules.sos.ri.gov/Regulations/Part/250-120-05-37</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4-1 of Rhode Island's SIP submittal shows nonpoint emissions
doubling from 2008 to 2011. Starting in 2008, marine vessels and
underway rail emissions were included in the NEI nonpoint data category
instead of the nonroad data category. However, in more recent years
these nonroad sources are displaying decreases due to the above-
mentioned Federal rules for new engine standards for nonroad vehicles
and equipment. Most other nonpoint area source NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions, approximately 75 percent, are from residential and
commercial natural gas fuel combustion for heating purposes. Additional
area source NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are from distillate fuel
combustion, residential wood burning, prescribed burning and forest
fires. Increases in emissions from 2011 to 2014 are due to increases in
natural gas consumption and EPA methodology changes for fuel combustion
emissions from boilers and engines, and for wildfires and prescribed
burning.
Emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> have shown a significant decline of 90%
in Rhode Island over the period 2002 to 2017. The reduction in point
source emissions is primarily due to the revision to 250-RICR-120-05-8,
Sulfur Content of Fuels which, as described previously in this notice,
phased in an approach for requiring reduced sulfur content in fuel. The
emission decreases in the nonroad sector from 2002 to 2008 are partly
due to EPA moving the marine vessels and railroad emissions from the
nonroad sector to the nonpoint sector. Subsequently, decreases in
nonpoint sector emissions are mostly due to Federal rules that reduced
sulfur content in nonroad mobile diesel fuel and to increased use of
low sulfur distillate oil for heating. Since some components of the
MANEVU low sulfur fuel strategy were not implemented until 2018, and as
MANEVU states continue to adopt rules to implement the strategy,
additional SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions are expected to
continue.
Table 4-18 of Rhode Island's submittal shows VOC emissions from all
[[Page 52286]]
NEI data categories for the period 2002 to 2017 in Rhode Island. VOC
emissions decreased by 57%, 23,483 tons, across all NEI data categories
since 2002 to 2017. Much of the decrease in VOC emissions is due to
Federal and State rules for evaporative sources such as the following:
portable fuel containers; architectural, industrial, and maintenance
coatings; consumer products; and solvent degreasing. Evaporative VOC
emissions from these types of sources are expected to continue to
decline as more states adopt rules based on the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) Model Rules.\91\ Evaporative VOC emissions from onroad
mobile sources have decreased due to state motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance programs and the increasing prevalence of on-board
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) equipped vehicles in the fleet. VOC
emissions from nonroad and onroad mobile sources are expected to
continue to decrease as older, more polluting vehicles are replaced by
newer, cleaner ones. Other decreases are due to state VOC RACT rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See <a href="https://otcair.org/materials/model-rules-and-guidelines">https://otcair.org/materials/model-rules-and-guidelines</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Rhode Island's submittal, table 4-7 shows a summary of
PM<INF>10</INF> emissions from all NEI data categories for the period
from 2002 to 2017. In Rhode Island, PM<INF>10</INF> emissions steadily
decreased in the point, nonpoint, and nonroad categories for this
period. There was an overall reduction in PM<INF>10</INF> emissions of
21%. Most of this reduction came from the nonpoint category due to fuel
switching from oil to natural gas. The variation in emissions in the
nonpoint category is due to changes in calculation methodologies for
residential wood burning and fugitive dust categories, which have
varied significantly. The apparent increase in the onroad emissions is
due to changes in emission inventory calculation methodologies, which
resulted in higher particulate matter estimates.
Table 4-10 of Rhode Island's submittal shows a summary of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions from all NEI data categories for the period
from 2002 to 2017. Overall, PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions increased by
41%. However, much of this increase is due to Rhode Island not
submitting PM<INF>2.5</INF> data for point and nonpoint sources in
2002. Rhode Island submitted total particulate matter data in 2002
which was augmented by EPA for PM<INF>2.5</INF>. Additionally, the data
in Table 4-10 do not accurately reflect the reduction in
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions anticipated based on the large number of
point sources that would be in the nonpoint category for fuel
combustion switching from oil to natural gas. The variations in the
onroad and nonpoint category are due to changes in emission inventory
calculation methodologies, which resulted in higher particulate matter
estimates in some years. PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions steadily decreased
in the nonroad category for this period. This reduction can likely be
attributed to new Federal engine standards for nonroad vehicles and
equipment.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See <a href="https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/epa-emission-standards-nonroad-engines-and-vehicles">https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/epa-emission-standards-nonroad-engines-and-vehicles</a> for info on
EPA's nonroad engine programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4-21 of Rhode Island's submission shows ammonia
(NH<INF>3</INF>) emissions from all NEI data categories for the period
2002 to 2017. Though ammonia decreases were achieved in the onroad
sector due to Federal new engine standards for vehicles and equipment,
increases and decreases from 2002 to 2017 in the other categories are
due to reporting, grouping and methodology changes. There was a
reduction in the point source category and little change in the nonroad
category.
The EPA is proposing to find that Rhode Island has satisfied the
requirements of 40 CFR51.308(g)(4) by providing emissions information
for NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>,
VOC, and NH<INF>3</INF> broken down by type of source.
The emissions trend data in the SIP submission support Rhode
Island's assessment that no significant increase of haze-causing
pollutant emissions has occurred in the state during the reporting
period and that changes in emissions have not limited or impeded
progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility. The
EPA is proposing to find that Rhode Island has met the requirements of
40 CFR51.308(g)(5).
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Section 169A(d) of the Clean Air Act requires states to consult
with FLMs before holding the public hearing on a proposed regional haze
SIP, and to include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and
recommendations in the notice to the public. In addition, section
51.308(i)(2)'s FLM consultation provision requires a state to provide
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation that is early enough in the
state's policy analyses of its emission reduction obligation so that
information and recommendations provided by the FLMs can meaningfully
inform the state's decisions on its long-term strategy. If the
consultation has taken place at least 120 days before a public hearing
or public comment period, the opportunity for consultation will be
deemed early enough, but the opportunity for consultation must be
provided at least sixty days before a public hearing or public comment
period at the state level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also requires that the
consultation include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their
assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I area and their
recommendations on the development and implementation of strategies to
address visibility impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3) requires states, in
developing their implementation plans, to include a description of how
they addressed FLMs' comments.
The states in the MANEVU RPO conducted FLM consultation early in
the planning process concurrent with the state-to-state consultation
that formed the basis of the RPO's decision making process. As part of
the consultation, the FLMs were given the opportunity to review and
comment on the technical documents developed by MANE-VU. The FLMs were
invited to attend the intra- and inter-RPO consultations calls among
states and at least one FLM representative was documented to have
attended seven intra-RPO meetings and all inter-RPO meetings. Rhode
Island participated in these consultation meetings and calls.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See appendix 20 ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of this early engagement with the FLMs, on April 12, 2018,
the NPS sent letters to the MANEVU states requesting that they consider
specific individual sources in their long-term strategies.\94\ NPS used
an analysis of emissions divided by distance (Q/d) to estimate the
impact of MANEVU facilities. To select the facilities, NPS first summed
2014 NEI NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and
SO<INF>4</INF> emissions and divided by the distance to a specified NPS
mandatory Class I Federal area. NPS summed the Q/d values across all
MANEVU states relative to Acadia, Mammoth Cave, and Shenandoah National
Parks, ranked the Q/d values relative to each Class I area, created a
running total, and identified those facilities contributing to 80% of
the total impact at each NPS Class I area. NPS applied a similar
process to facilities in Maine but relative to just Acadia National
Park. NPS merged the resulting lists of facilities and sorted them by
their states. NPS suggested that a state consider those facilities
[[Page 52287]]
comprising 80% of the Q/d total, not to exceed the 25 top ranked
facilities. The NPS identified one facility in Rhode Island in this
letter; Dominion Energy Manchester Street, INC.\95\ As explained in the
discussion for Ask 1, Manchester Street facility operates three 119.05
MW combustion turbines capable of burning #2 fuel oil and natural gas
and is equipped with an SCR system. The operating permit of this
facility limits NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to 47.5 and 78.78 lb/hr for
natural gas and #2 fuel oil, respectively, and limits SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions to 73.13 and 63.8 lb/hr for natural gas and #2 fuel oil,
respectively.\96\ The units are required to comply with all applicable
Federal and State regulations as identified in the enforceable permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Id.
\95\ Id.
\96\ A copy of the operating permit for this facility can be
found in the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 30, 2024, RIDEM OAR sent its pre-proposal draft SIP
revision to representatives of the NPS, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS),
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a 60-day review and comment
period pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) before making it available for
public comment. Rhode Island received responses from the NPS and the
USFS. The NPS stated that it ``appreciate[d RIDEM's] work for clean air
and clear views across the region and d[id] not intend to provide
further conclusions and recommendations on the Rhode Island Regional
Haze SIP revision.'' The NPS further stated that ``emissions from Rhode
Island facilities have not been identified as impairing visibility at
any National Park Service managed Class I areas.'' \97\ The USFS also
responded by noting its satisfaction with the draft proposal and
acknowledging the opportunity to work closely with Rhode Island through
the initial evaluation, development, and subsequent review of this
plan.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ See appendix 24 ``National Park Service Comment on Proposed
RI Regional Haze SIP.''
\98\ See appendix 23 ``USDA Comment Letter RI Regional Haze
SIP.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island held a public comment period for this Regional Haze
SIP revision. On January 24, 2025, RIDEM issued a notice of public
hearing and comment and the availability of the draft Regional Haze SIP
revision for 2018-2028 on RIDEM's web page. The notice announced the
opportunity to submit written comments or requests for public hearing
until February 28, 2025. No comments or requests for a public hearing
were received.
For the reasons stated above, the EPA proposes to find that Rhode
Island has satisfied the requirements under CAA section 169A(d) and 40
CFR 51.308(i) to consult with the FLMs on its regional haze SIP for the
second implementation period.
J. Other Required Commitments
Rhode Island's March 7, 2025, SIP submission includes a commitment
to revise and submit a regional haze SIP in 2028, and every ten years
thereafter. The state's commitment includes submitting periodic
progress reports in accordance with 40 CFR51.308(f) and a commitment to
evaluate progress towards the reasonable progress goal for each
mandatory Class I Federal area located within the state and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the state that may be
affected by emissions from within the state in accordance with 40
CFR51.308(g).
V. EPA's Evaluation of Rhode Island's Infrastructure SIP for the 2015
Ozone Standard
A. Background and Purpose
On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone NAAQS
(2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and
secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm). Section 110(a)(1)
of the CAA requires states to submit, within 3 years after promulgation
of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable requirements
of section 110(a)(2). On September 23, 2020, RIDEM submitted a revision
to its SIP addressing the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Effective November 15, 2021, EPA approved Rhode Island's submittal
as adequately addressing the following CAA elements or portions
thereof: 110(a)(2)(A); (B); (C); (D) except (D)(i)(I) and (D)(i)(II)-
visibility protection; (E); (F); (G); (J); (K); (L); (M) and
disapproved for element (H)- future SIP revisions. This action did not
include three interstate transport provisions under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), namely the ``good neighbor'' provisions at section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (also known as the State's Transport SIP or ``prongs
1 and 2'') and the provision relating to visibility protection at
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (also known as ``prong 4'').
Shortly after, effective January 10, 2022, EPA approved Rhode
Island's submittal as adequately addressing the ``good neighbor''
provisions at section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). With the proposed approval of
Rhode Island's Regional Haze plan for the second implementation period,
today's action is proposing approval of the remaining element of Rhode
Island's September 2020 ISIP for addressing requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--visibility protection, also known as ``prong 4''.
B. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Visibility Protection
CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prong 4, requires SIPs to contain
adequate provisions to prohibit emissions in amounts that will
interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable
implementation plan for any other state under part C of the Act to
protect visibility. EPA issued guidance on infrastructure SIPs in a
September 13, 2013, memorandum titled ``Guidance on Infrastructure
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (``2013 Guidance''). The 2013 Guidance states
that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP
provisions that the EPA has found to adequately address any
contribution of that state's sources that impact the visibility program
requirements in other states.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ 2013 Guidance at 32-33. A copy of this guidance can be
found in the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP may
satisfy prong 4. In the second planning period, confirmation that the
state has a fully approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 will satisfy the requirements of prong
4.\100\ A fully approved regional haze SIP\101\ will ensure that
emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not
interfering with measures required to be included in other air
agencies' plans to protect visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ The EPA acknowledges that in the 2013 Guidance, we
indicated that the EPA may find it appropriate to supplement the
guidance regarding the relationship between regional haze SIPs and
prong 4 after second implementation period SIPs become due, which
occurred on July 31, 2021. After a review of the 2013 Guidance and
the second implementation period regional haze requirements, the EPA
maintains the interpretation that a fully approved regional haze SIP
satisfies prong 4 requirements in the second implementation period.
\101\ Since second implementation period SIPs became due, a
``fully approved regional haze SIP'' would necessarily include fully
approved first and second implementation period regional haze SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the second planning period, EPA's Regional Haze regulations
under 40 CFR 51.308(f) require that a State consider the emission
reduction measures identified by other States as being necessary to
make reasonable progress towards meeting the national visibility goal
in Class I Federal areas. Specifically, the regulations also require a
State to include in its Regional Haze SIP all measures agreed to during
that process or measures that will provide equivalent visibility
improvement. 40
[[Page 52288]]
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii). Thus, in meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f), an approved regional haze SIP meeting the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) will ensure that emissions from sources under an
air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to
be included in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility and
will, therefore, satisfy Prong 4.
As discussed above, Rhode Island is a member of the MANEVU RPO and
participated in the RPO's regional approach to identifying emission
reduction measures necessary to make reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal in the MANEVU Class I areas. That process also
included consultations with States in other RPOs, and Rhode Island did
not receive any requests from non-MANEVU States to consider additional
measures to address visibility impairment in Class I areas outside the
MANEVU States. In today's action, EPA has proposed to approve Rhode
Island's submittal as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f) for
the second planning period. See Section IV.E.c. Accordingly, EPA also
proposes that Rhode Island meets the visibility protection requirements
of CAA Sec. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
VI. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the ``Rhode Island Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan Revision for the Second Implementation Period
(2018-2028)'', final submittal dated March 2025 and submitted to EPA on
March 7, 2025, as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the
second implementation period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and
(i). Additionally, EPA is proposing approval of the remaining element
of Rhode Island's September 23, 2020, ISIP for addressing requirements
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--visibility protection, also known as
``prong 4''.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
<bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
<bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
<bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA.
In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, pertaining to Rhode
Island regional haze SIP submission for the second planning period, is
not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other
area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: October 29, 2025.
Mark Sanborn,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2025-20444 Filed 11-19-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 20, 2025.
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.