Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11827 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0144, FRL–9640–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Maryland; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the Maryland State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Maryland through the 

Maryland Department the Environment 

(MDE) on February 13, 2012, that 

addresses regional haze for the first 

implementation period. This revision 

addresses the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules that 

require states to prevent any future, and 

remedy any existing, anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas caused by emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Regional Haze plan submitted by 

Maryland satisfies the requirements of 

the CAA. EPA is taking this action 

pursuant to those provisions of the 

CAA. EPA is also proposing to approve 

this revision as meeting the 

infrastructure requirements relating to 

visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) and the 1997 and 

2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2012–0144 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0144, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2012– 

0144. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline Lewis, (215) 814–2037, or by 

email at lewis.jacqueline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 13, 2012, the MDE submitted 

a revision to its SIP to address Regional 

Haze for the first implementation 

period. Throughout this document, 

whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, 

we mean EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed 

action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Background Information 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility 

II. What are the requirements for the Regional 

Haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Maryland’s 

Regional Haze Submittal? 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. LTS/Strategies 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to 

Visibility Impairment 

4. RPG 

5. BART 

C. Consultation With States and FLMs 

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

PM2.5 (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic 

carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) 

and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in 

some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter, which impairs visibility by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11828 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 2Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 

69122, November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 

3Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

scattering and absorbing light. Visibility 

impairment reduces the clarity, color, 

and visible distance that one can see. 

PM2.5 can also cause serious health 

effects and mortality in humans and 

contributes to environmental effects 

such as acid deposition and 

eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range 1 in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions (64 FR 35714, July 1, 

1999). 

B. Background Information 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of 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 2 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ (45 FR 80084). These 

regulations represented the first phase 

in addressing visibility impairment. 

EPA deferred action on regional haze 

that emanates from a variety of sources 

until monitoring, modeling, and 

scientific knowledge about the 

relationships between pollutants and 

visibility impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35714), the RHR. The RHR 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate into the 

regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section II of this notice. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.3

Section 51.308(b) requires states to 

submit the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments, and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter (PM) and other 

pollutants leading to regional haze. 

The Mid-Atlantic Region Air 

Management Association (MARAMA), 

the Northeast States for Coordination 

Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and 

the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 

established the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 

Visibility Union (MANE–VU) regional 

planning organization. MANE–VU is a 

collaborative effort of state governments, 

tribal governments, and various federal 

agencies established to initiate and 

coordinate activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility, 

and other air quality issues in the MidAtlantic and Northeast corridor of the 

United States. Member states and tribal 

governments include: Connecticut, 

Delaware, the District of Columbia, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, 

Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, 

and Vermont. 

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require 

that within three years of promulgation 

of a NAAQS, a state must ensure that its 

SIP, among other requirements, 

‘‘contains adequate provisions 

prohibiting any source or other types of 

emission activity within the state from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

which will interfere with measures 

required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other State to protect visibility.’’ 

Similarly, section 110(a)(2)(J) requires 

that such SIP ‘‘meet the applicable 

requirements of part C of (Subchapter I) 

(relating to visibility protection).’’ 

EPA’s 2006 Guidance, entitled 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ recognized the possibility 

that a state could potentially meet the 

visibility portions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission 

of a Regional Haze SIP, as required by 

sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. 

EPA’s 2009 guidance, entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11829 

4The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725, 

July 1, 1999). 

(NAAQS),’’ recommended that a state 

could meet such visibility requirements 

through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA’s 

rationale supporting this 

recommendation was that the 

development of the regional haze SIPs 

was intended to occur in a collaborative 

environment among the states, and that 

through this process states would 

coordinate on emissions controls to 

protect visibility on an interstate basis. 

The common understanding was that, as 

a result of this collaborative 

environment, each state would take 

action to achieve the emissions 

reductions relied upon by other states in 

their reasonable progress 

demonstrations under the RHR. This 

interpretation is consistent with the 

requirement in the RHR that a state 

participating in a regional planning 

process must include ‘‘all measures 

needed to achieve its apportionment of 

emission reduction obligations agreed 

upon through that process.’’ 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

The regional haze program, as 

reflected in the RHR, recognizes the 

importance of addressing the long-range 

transport of pollutants for visibility and 

encourages states to work together to 

develop plans to address haze. The 

regulations explicitly require each state 

to address its ‘‘share’’ of the emission 

reductions needed to meet the 

reasonable progress goals for 

neighboring Class I areas. States 

working together through a regional 

planning process are required to address 

an agreed upon share of their 

contribution to visibility impairment in 

the Class I areas of their neighbors. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these 

requirements, appropriate regional haze 

SIPs will contain measures that will 

achieve these emissions reductions and 

will meet the applicable visibility 

related requirements of section 

110(a)(2). 

As a result of the regional planning 

efforts in the MANE–VU, all states in 

the MANE–VU region contributed 

information to a Technical Support 

System (TSS) which provides an 

analysis of the causes of haze, and the 

levels of contribution from all sources 

within each state to the visibility 

degradation of each Class I area. The 

MANE–VU states consulted in the 

development of reasonable progress 

goals, using the products of this 

technical consultation process to codevelop their reasonable progress goals 

for the MANE–VU Class I areas. The 

modeling done by MANE–VU relied on 

assumptions regarding emissions over 

the relevant planning period and 

embedded in these assumptions were 

anticipated emissions reductions in 

each of the states in MANE–VU, 

including reductions from BART and 

other measures to be adopted as part of 

the state’s long term strategy for 

addressing regional haze. The 

reasonable progress goals in the regional 

haze SIPs that have been prepared by 

the states in the MANE–VU region are 

based, in part, on the emissions 

reductions from nearby states that were 

agreed on through the MANE–VU 

process. 

Maryland submitted a Regional Haze 

SIP on February 13, 2012, to address the 

requirements of the RHR and the related 

visibility requirements set forth in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 

110(a)(2)(J). On July 27, 2007, Maryland 

submitted its original 1997 Ozone 

NAAQS infrastructure SIP and on April 

3, 2008, Maryland submitted its original 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. 

On July 21, 2010, Maryland submitted 

an infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. In its Regional Haze SIP, 

Maryland indicated that it will meet its 

obligations related to visibility pursuant 

to section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, 

including but not limited to, section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J). While 

these SIP submittals address the 

visibility requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), the 

February 13, 2012 submittal supersedes 

these previous submittals. EPA has 

reviewed Maryland’s Regional Haze SIP 

and, as explained in section IV of this 

action, proposes to find that Maryland’s 

Regional Haze submittal meets the 

portions of the requirements of the CAA 

section 110(a)(2) relating to visibility 

protection for the 1997 8–Hour Ozone 

NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

II. What are the requirements for the 

regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail in this notice. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview as 

the principal metric or unit for 

expressing visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility 

expressed in deciviews is determined by 

using air quality measurements to 

estimate light extinction and then 

transforming the value of light 

extinction using a logarithm function. 

The deciview is a more useful measure 

for tracking progress in improving 

visibility than light extinction itself 

because each deciview change is an 

equal incremental change in visibility 

perceived by the human eye. Most 

people can detect a change in visibility 

at one deciview.4

The deciview is used in expressing 

RPGs (which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources 

of air pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires states to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20% least impaired 

(‘‘best’’) and 20% most impaired 

(‘‘worst’’) visibility days over a specified 

time period at each of their Class I areas. 

In addition, states must also develop an 

estimate of natural visibility conditions 

for the purpose of comparing progress 

toward the national goal. Natural 

visibility is determined by estimating 

the natural concentrations of pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11830 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

then calculating total light extinction 

based on those estimates. EPA has 

provided guidance to states regarding 

how to calculate baseline, natural and 

current visibility conditions in 

documents titled, EPA’s Guidance for 

Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005 

located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/ 

t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 

Natural Visibility Guidance’’) and 

Guidance for Tracking Progress Under 

the Regional Haze Rule, September 

2003, (EPA–454/B–03–004 located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/ 

memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 

Tracking Progress Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20% least 

impaired days and 20% most impaired 

days for each calendar year from 2000 

to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 

through 2004, states are required to 

calculate the average degree of visibility 

impairment for each Class I area, based 

on the average of annual values over the 

five-year period. The comparison of 

initial baseline visibility conditions to 

natural visibility conditions indicates 

the amount of improvement necessary 

to attain natural visibility, while the 

future comparison of baseline 

conditions to the then current 

conditions will indicate the amount of 

progress made. In general, the 2000– 

2004 baseline period is considered the 

time from which improvement in 

visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two 

distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and 

one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class 

I area for each approximately 10-year 

implementation period. The RHR does 

not mandate specific milestones or rates 

of progress, but instead calls for states 

to establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

approximately 10-year period of the SIP, 

and ensure no degradation in visibility 

for the least impaired days over the 

same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 

2007, memorandum from William L. 

Wehrum, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA 

Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting 

the RPGs, states must also consider the 

rate of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to 

as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the 

‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the 10-year period of the 

SIP. Uniform progress towards 

achievement of natural conditions by 

the year 2064 represents a rate of 

progress which states are to use for 

analytical comparison to the amount of 

progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each state with one or 

more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must 

also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby 

states with emission sources that may be 

affecting visibility impairment at the 

Class I state’s areas. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 5 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the state. 

Under the RHR, states are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

determination for a fossil fuel-fired 

electric generating plant with a total 

generating capacity in excess of 750 

megawatts (MW), a state must use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART eligible source would not 

be expected to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

The state must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual sources’ 

impacts. Any exemption threshold set 

by the state should not be higher than 

0.5 deciview. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11831 

‘‘BART eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that 

states consider the following factors: (1) 

The costs of compliance; (2) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance; (3) any existing 

pollution control technology in use at 

the source; (4) the remaining useful life 

of the source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP. CAA section 

169(g)(4)). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 

addition to what is required by the RHR, 

general SIP requirements mandate that 

the SIP must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. 

As noted above, the RHR allows states 

to implement an alternative program in 

lieu of BART so long as the alternative 

program can be demonstrated to achieve 

greater reasonable progress toward the 

national visibility goal than would 

BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 

revising the regional haze program, EPA 

made just such a demonstration for the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 

39104, July 6, 2005). EPA’s regulations 

provide that states participating in the 

CAIR cap and trade program under 40 

CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPAapproved CAIR SIP or which remain 

subject to the CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR 

part 97, do not require affected BART 

eligible electric generating units (EGUs) 

to install, operate, and maintain BART 

for emissions of SO2 and NOX (40 CFR 

51.308(e)(4)). Since CAIR is not 

applicable to emissions of PM, states 

were still required to conduct a BART 

analysis for PM emissions from EGUs 

subject to BART for that pollutant. On 

December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to 

find that the trading programs in the 

Transport Rule would achieve greater 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal than would BART in the 

states in which the Transport Rule 

applies (76 FR 82219). EPA also 

proposed to revise the RHR to allow 

states to meet the requirements of an 

alternative program in lieu of BART by 

participation in the trading programs 

under the Transport Rule. EPA has not 

taken final action on that rule. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The 

LTS is the compilation of all control 

measures a state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals’’ for all Class I areas 

within, or affected by emissions from, 

the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 

contributing state must demonstrate that 

it has included, in its SIP, all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between states may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address Reasonably 

Attributable Visibility Impairment; (2) 

measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities; (3) emissions 

limitations and schedules for 

compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (5) smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes including plans 

as currently exist within the state for 

these purposes; (6) enforceability of 

emissions limitations and control 

measures; and (7) the anticipated net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

changes in point, area, and mobile 

source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). 

On or before this date, the state must 

revise its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze, and 

the state must submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE 

network, i.e., review and use of 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

regional haze SIP and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11832 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP 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. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Maryland’s Regional haze submittal? 

On February 13, 2012, the MDE 

submitted revisions to the Maryland SIP 

to address regional haze as required by 

EPA’s RHR. 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

Maryland has no Class I areas within 

its borders, but has been identified as 

influencing the visibility impairment of 

the following Class I areas: Acadia 

National Park, Brigantine National 

Wildlife Refuge, and Lye Brook 

Wilderness Area as well as the Dolly 

Sods Wilderness, Otter Creek 

Wilderness, and Shenandoah National 

Park. Maryland is responsible for 

developing a regional haze SIP that 

addresses these Class I areas, that 

describes its long-term emission 

strategy, its role in the consultation 

processes, and how the SIP meets the 

other requirements in EPA’s regional 

haze regulations. However, since 

Maryland has no Class I areas within its 

borders, Maryland is not required to 

address the following Regional Haze SIP 

elements: (a) Calculation of baseline and 

natural visibility conditions; (b) 

establishment of reasonable progress 

goals; (c) monitoring requirements, and 

(d) RAVI requirements. 

B. LTS/Strategies 

As described in section II.E of this 

action, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by 

the state to obtain its share of emission 

reductions to support the RPGs 

established by the impacted Class I area 

states. Maryland’s LTS for the first 

implementation period addresses the 

emissions reductions from federal, state, 

and local controls that take effect in the 

State from the baseline period starting 

in 2002 until 2018. Maryland 

participated in the MANE–VU regional 

strategy development process. As a 

participant, Maryland supported a 

regional approach towards deciding 

which control measures to pursue for 

regional haze, which was based on 

technical analyses documented in the 

following reports: (a) Contributions to 

Regional Haze in the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic United States; (b) 

Assessment of Reasonable Progress for 

Regional Haze in MANE–VU Class I 

Areas; (c) Five-Factor Analysis of BARTEligible Sources: Survey of Options for 

Conducting BART Determinations; and 

(d) Assessment of Control Technology 

Options for BART-Eligible Sources: 

Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial 

Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper, and 

Pulp Facilities. 

The LTS was developed by MANE– 

VU, in coordination with Maryland, 

identifying the emissions units within 

Maryland that likely have the largest 

impacts currently on visibility at the 

impacted Class I areas, estimating 

emissions reductions for 2018, based on 

all controls required under federal and 

state regulations for the 2002–2018 

period (including BART), and 

comparing projected visibility 

improvement with the uniform rate of 

progress for these impacted Class I 

areas. Maryland’s LTS includes 

measures needed to achieve its share of 

emissions reductions agreed upon 

through the consultation process with 

the impacted Class I area states and 

includes enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals established by 

these Class I area states. 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The emissions inventory used in the 

regional haze technical analyses was 

developed by MARAMA for MANE–VU 

with assistance from Maryland. The 

2018 emissions inventory was 

developed by projecting 2002 emissions, 

and assuming emissions growth due to 

projected increases in economic activity 

as well as applying reductions expected 

from federal and state regulations 

affecting the emissions of VOC and the 

visibility-impairing pollutants NOX, 

PM10, PM2.5, and SO2. The BART 

guidelines direct states to exercise 

judgment in deciding whether VOC and 

NH3 impair visibility in their Class I 

area(s). As discussed further in section 

III.B.3, of this notice. MANE–VU 

demonstrated that anthropogenic 

emissions of sulfates are the major 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. It 

was also determined that the total 

ammonia emissions in the MANE–VU 

region are extremely small. In addition, 

since VOC emissions are aggressively 

controlled through the Maryland SIP, 

the pollutants Maryland considered 

under BART are NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and 

SO2. 

MANE–VU developed emissions 

inventories for four inventory source 

classifications: (1) Stationary point 

sources; (2) area sources; (3) off-road 

mobile sources; and (4) on-road mobile 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11833 

6NRDC v. EPA, 489F.3d 1250. 

sources. The New York Department of 

Environmental Conservation also 

developed an inventory of biogenic 

emissions for the entire MANE–VU 

region. Stationary point sources are 

those sources that emit greater than a 

specified tonnage per year, depending 

on the pollutant, with data provided at 

the facility level. Stationary area sources 

are those sources whose individual 

emissions are relatively small, but due 

to the large number of these sources, the 

collective emissions from the source 

category could be significant. Off-road 

mobile sources are equipment that can 

move but do not use the roadways. Onroad mobile source emissions are 

automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles 

that use the roadway system. The 

emissions from these sources are 

estimated by vehicle type and road type. 

Biogenic sources are natural sources like 

trees, crops, grasses, and natural decay 

of plants. Stationary point sources 

emission data is tracked at the facility 

level. For all other source types 

emissions are summed on the county 

level. 

There are many federal and state 

control programs being implemented 

that MANE–VU and Maryland 

anticipate will reduce emissions 

between the baseline period and 2018. 

Emission reductions from these control 

programs were projected to achieve 

substantial visibility improvement by 

2018 in the impacted Class I areas. To 

assess emissions reductions from 

ongoing air pollution control programs, 

BART, and reasonable progress goals 

MANE–VU developed 2018 emissions 

projections called Best and Final. The 

emissions inventory provided by the 

State of Maryland for the Best and Final 

2018 projections is based on adopted 

and enforceable requirements. 

The ongoing air pollution control 

programs relied upon by Maryland for 

the Best and Final projections include: 

Maryland’s Healthy Air Act (HAA); the 

NOX SIP Call; NOX and/or VOC 

reductions from the control rules in the 

1-hour and 8-hour ozone SIPs for 

Maryland; NOX OTC 2001 Model Rule 

for Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional (ICI) Boilers; Federal 2007 

heavy duty diesel engine standards for 

non-road trucks and buses; Federal Tier 

2 tailpipe controls for the on-road 

vehicles; Federal large spark ignition 

and recreational vehicle controls; and 

EPA’s non-road diesel rules. Maryland 

also relied on emission reductions from 

various federal Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) rules in the 

development of the 2018 emission 

inventory projections. These MACT 

rules include the combustion turbine 

and reciprocating internal combustion 

engines MACT, the industrial boiler and 

process heaters MACT and the 2, 4, 7, 

and 10 year MACT standards. 

On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District 

Court of Appeals mandated the vacatur 

and remand of the Industrial Boiler 

MACT Rule.6 This MACT was vacated 

since it was directly affected by the 

vacatur and remand of the Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator 

(CISWI) Definition Rule. EPA proposed 

a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to 

address the vacatur on June 4, 2010 (75 

FR 32006), and issued a final rule on 

March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The 

MANE–VU modeling included emission 

reductions from the vacated Industrial 

Boiler MACT rule. Maryland did not 

redo its modeling analysis when the 

rule was re-issued. However, the 

expected reductions in SO2 and PM are 

small relative to the Maryland 

inventory. Therefore, EPA finds the 

expected reductions of the new rule 

acceptable since the final rule requires 

compliance by 2014, it provides 

Maryland time to assure the required 

controls are in place prior to the end of 

the first implementation period in 2018. 

In addition, the RHR requires that any 

resulting differences between emissions 

projections and actual emissions 

reductions that may occur will be 

addressed during the five-year review 

prior to the next 2018 regional haze SIP. 

Tables 1 and 2 are summaries of the 

2002 baseline and 2018 estimated 

emissions inventories for Maryland. The 

2018 estimated emissions include 

emission reductions due to ongoing 

emission control strategies, BART, and 

reasonable progress goals as well as 

emission growth. As seen in Table 2, the 

2018-point source emission estimates 

for PM and NH3 are larger than the 2002 

baseline, however, the affected Class I 

areas are still able to meet the 

reasonable progress goals. 

TABLE 1—2002 EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MARYLAND IN TONS PER YEAR

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ......................................................................................................... 6,184 95,328 5,054 12,752 305 290,927 

Area .......................................................................................................... 120,254 15,678 30,693 96,176 25,834 12,393 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................... 61,846 122,210 2,200 3,168 5,594 4,057 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................... 56,330 37,472 4,357 4,936 28 7,941 

Biogenic ................................................................................................... 210,104 2,934 ................ ................ ................ ................

Total .................................................................................................. 454,718 273,622 42,304 117,032 31,761 315,318 

TABLE 2—2018 EMISSION SUMMARY FOR MARYLAND ‘‘BEST AND FINAL’’ IN TONS PER YEAR

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ......................................................................................................... 6,854 33,597 9,934 14,080 845 82,650 

Area .......................................................................................................... 104,615 17,746 30,153 117,066 38,155 9,118 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................... 20,861 29,371 1,045 1,099 7,279 682 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................... 37,969 24,257 3,301 3,814 36 577 

Biogenic ................................................................................................... 210,104 2,934 ................ ................ ................ ................

Total .................................................................................................. 380,403 107,905 44,433 136,059 46,315 93,027 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11834 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

MANE–VU performed modeling for 

the regional haze LTS for the 11 MidAtlantic and Northeast states and the 

District of Columbia. The modeling 

analysis is a complex technical 

evaluation that began with selection of 

the modeling system. MANE–VU used 

the following modeling system: 

• Meteorological Model: The FifthGeneration Pennsylvania State 

University/National Center for 

Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) 

version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic, 

prognostic meteorological model 

routinely used for urban- and regionalscale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional 

haze regulatory modeling studies. 

• Emissions Model: The Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

(SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system 

is an emissions modeling system that 

generates hourly gridded speciated 

emission inputs of mobile, non-road 

mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic 

emission sources for photochemical grid 

models. 

• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s 

Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a 

photochemical grid model capable of 

addressing ozone, PM, visibility and 

acid deposition at a regional scale. 

• Air Quality Model: The Regional 

Model for Aerosols and Deposition 

(REMSAD), version 8, is a Eulerian grid 

model that was primarily used to 

determine the attribution of sulfate 

species in the Eastern U.S. via the 

species-tagging scheme. 

• Air Quality Model: The California 

Puff Model (CALPUFF), version 5 is a 

non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model 

used to access the contribution of 

individual states’ emissions to sulfate 

levels at selected Class I receptor sites. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in 

the MANE–VU region for 2002 and 2018 

was carried out on a grid of 12x12 

kilometer (km) cells that covers the 11 

MANE–VU states (Connecticut, 

Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont) and the District of 

Columbia and states adjacent to them. 

This grid is nested within a larger 

national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 

km grid cells that covers the continental 

United States, portions of Canada and 

Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and 

Pacific Oceans along the east and west 

coasts. Selection of a representative 

period of meteorology is crucial for 

evaluating baseline air quality 

conditions and projecting future 

changes in air quality due to changes in 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants. MANE–VU conducted an indepth analysis which resulted in the 

selection of the entire year of 2002 

(January 1–December 31) as the best 

period of meteorology available for 

conducting the CMAQ modeling. The 

MANE–VU states modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA’s 

Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5,Guidance and Regional 

Haze, located at http://www.epa.gov/ 

scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pmrh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-454/B-07-002), 

April 2007, and EPA document, 

Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

Regional Haze Regulations, located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/ 

eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001, 

August 2005, updated November 2005 

(‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance’’). 

MANE–VU examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. MANE–VU used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once MANE–VU determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

MANE–VU used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), the State of Maryland 

provided the appropriate supporting 

documentation for all required analyses 

used to determine the State’s LTS. The 

technical analyses and modeling used to 

develop the glidepath and to support 

the LTS are consistent with EPA’s RHR, 

and interim and final EPA Modeling 

Guidance. EPA accepts the MANE–VU 

technical modeling to support the LTS 

and determine visibility improvement 

for the uniform rate of progress because 

the modeling system was chosen and 

used according to EPA Modeling 

Guidance. EPA agrees with the MANE– 

VU model performance procedures and 

results, and that the CMAQ is an 

appropriate tool for the regional haze 

assessments for the Maryland LTS and 

regional haze SIP. 

3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants 

to Visibility Impairment 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, MANE–VU 

developed emission sensitivity model 

runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility 

and air quality impacts from various 

groups of emissions and pollutant 

scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20% 

worst visibility days. 

Regarding which pollutants are most 

significantly impacting visibility in the 

MANE–VU region, MANE–VU’s 

contribution assessment demonstrated 

that sulfate is the major contributor to 

PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at 

Class I areas in the Northeast and MidAtlantic Region. Sulfate particles 

commonly account for more than 50% 

of particle-related light extinction at 

northeastern Class I areas on the clearest 

days and for as much as or more than 

80% on the haziest days. In particular, 

for the Brigantine National Wildlife 

Refuge Class I area (the most impacted 

Class I area), sulfate accounted for 66% 

of the particle extinction on the 20% 

worst visibility days in 2000–2004. 

After sulfate, organic carbon (OC) 

consistently accounts for the next 

largest fraction of light extinction. 

Organic carbon accounted for 13% of 

light extinction on the 20% worst 

visibility days for Brigantine, followed 

by nitrate that accounts for 9% of light 

extinction. 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by MANE–VU predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 

MANE–VU region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. As a 

result of the dominant role of sulfate in 

the formation of regional haze in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region, 

MANE–VU concluded that an effective 

emissions management approach would 

rely heavily on broad-based regional 

SO2 control efforts in the eastern United 

States. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11835 

4. RPG 

Since the State of Maryland does not 

have a Class I area, it is not required to 

establish RPGs. However, Maryland has 

been identified as influencing the 

visibility impairment of the following 

Class I areas; Acadia National Park, 

Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, 

and Lye Brook Wilderness Area, as well 

as, the Dolly Sods Wilderness, Otter 

Creek Wilderness, and Shenandoah 

National Park. As such, Maryland 

participated in consultations to discuss 

the reasonable progress goals being 

considered by MANE–VU for the 

affected Class I areas. As a result, the 

MANE–VU Class I area states adopted 

four RPGs that will provide for 

reasonable progress towards achieving 

natural visibility: Timely 

implementation of BART requirements; 

a 90% reduction in SO2 emissions from 

each of the EGU stacks identified by 

MANE–VU comprising a total of 167 

stacks (12 are located in Maryland); 

adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy; and continued evaluation of 

other control measures to reduce SO2

and NOX emissions. 

In order to address a timely 

implementation of BART, as described 

in section III B.5. of this notice, the 

Maryland HAA was determined to be 

better than BART for NOX and SO2

emissions. The first phase of the 

emission limits became effective in 

2009/2010 timeframe and the second 

phase will become effective in the 2012/ 

2013 timeframe. The BART limitation 

became effective in calendar year 2010 

for the PM control strategies identified 

in section III.B.5. 

States were asked to reduce SO2

emissions from the highest emission 

stacks in the eastern United States by 

90% or if it was infeasible to achieve 

that level of reduction, an alternative 

had to be identified which could 

include other point sources. Maryland’s 

Brandon Shores Units 1 and 2, C.P. 

Crane Units 1 and 2, Chalk Point Units 

1 and 2, Dickerson Units 1, 2 and 3, 

Wagner Unit 3 and Morgantown Units 1 

and 2 are twelve of the 167 units 

identified by MANE–VU as having the 

highest emissions in the eastern United 

States. The 2002 base year SO2

emissions from these twelve units are 

235,435 tons per year. A 90% SO2

emission reduction from these twelve 

units would result in a reduction of 

211,892 tons per year. However, the SO2

emission reductions that have already 

resulted from the implementation of the 

Maryland HAA for these twelve units 

are 257,741 tons per year. These 

reductions are more than enough to 

satisfy the 90% emission reduction from 

the 2002 baseline requirements. In 

addition, the remaining EGU units 

subject to the HAA they provide an 

additional 11,703 of SO2 emission 

reductions. Maryland’s consideration of 

all of the emission reductions from the 

implementation of the HAA resulted in 

a surplus of 57,553 tons per year of SO2

emission reductions. 

The low sulfur fuel oil strategy has 

four requirements for the State of 

Maryland. These requirements are to 

reduce the distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur 

by weight (500 parts per million (ppm)) 

no later than 2014, #4 residual oil to 

0.25%–0.5% sulfur by weight no later 

than 2018, #6 residual oil to 0.5% sulfur 

by weight no later than 2018, and 

further reduce the sulfur content of 

distillate oil to 15 ppm by 2018. Table 

3 shows the SO2 emission reductions in 

tons per year (TPY) that would result 

from the implementation of a low sulfur 

fuel oil strategy in Maryland. 

TABLE 3—REASONABLE PROGRESS GOAL—LOW SULFUR FUEL OIL STRATEGY

Low sulfur fuel oil strategy 

2018 SO2 Emissions reductions (TPY) based on the low 

sulfur fuel oil strategy request 

Residual and #4 Fuel Oil (assumes 0.5% sulfur) ..................................................................................................... 1,344.1 

Distillate (15 ppm sulfur) ............................................................................................................................................ 6,129.3 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................... 7,473.4 

As noted in Table 3, since Maryland 

has not adopted a low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy, the state has a deficiency of 

7,473.4 TPY of SO2 emissions. However, 

as noted above, Maryland has a surplus 

of SO2 emission reductions of 57,552 

TPY resulting from the HAA. This 

surplus accounts for the SO2 emission 

reductions needed to meet the 

requirements of the low sulfur fuel 

strategy. 

5. BART 

BART is an element of Maryland’s 

LTS. The BART Regional Haze 

requirement consists of three 

components: (a) Identification of all the 

BART eligible sources; (b) an 

assessment of whether the BART 

eligible sources are subject to BART; 

and (c) the determination of the BART 

controls. 

The first component of a BART 

evaluation is to identify all the BART 

eligible sources. The BART eligible 

sources were identified by utilizing the 

criteria in the BART Guidelines as 

follows: 

• Determine whether one or more 

emissions units at the facility fit within 

one of the 26 categories listed in the 

BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158–39159); 

• Determine whether the emission 

unit(s) was in existence on August 7, 

1977 and begun operation after August 

6, 1962; 

• Determine whether potential 

emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM10 from 

subject units are 250 tons or more per 

year. 

The BART guidelines recommend 

addressing SO2, NOX, and PM10 as 

visibility-impairment pollutants and 

leave it up to the discretion of states to 

evaluate VOC or ammonia emissions. 

Because of the lack of tools available to 

estimate emissions and subsequently 

model VOC and ammonia effects on 

visibility, and because Maryland is 

aggressively addressing VOCs through 

its ozone SIPs, Maryland determined 

that SO2, NOX and PM10/2.5 are the only 

reasonable contributing visibility 

impairing pollutants to target under 

BART. 

Maryland identified seven BART 

eligible sources (consisting of ten 

emission units) as described in Table 4. 

However, it was later determined that 

Mettiki Coal Corporation should not be 

included in the BART eligible list since 

the source was not in existence by 

August 7, 1977. The source did not meet 

EPA’s definition of ‘‘in existence’’ (40 

CFR 51.301) since EPA did not grant 

approval of Mettiki Coal Corporation’s 

construction application until February 

23, 1978. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11836 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—MARYLAND’S BART ELIGIBLE SOURCES

Facility and unit Plant capacity in 

megawatts 

Unit capacity in 

megawatts Location 

1 ................. Mirant—Chalk Point Units 1, 2 and 3 .................. >750 .............................. 355, 355 and 640 ......... Prince George’s. 

2 ................. Mirant—Morgantown Units 1 and 2 ..................... >750 .............................. 630 and 630 .................. Charles. 

3 ................. CPSG—Crane Unit 2 ........................................... <750 .............................. 200 ................................ Baltimore. 

4 ................. CPSG—Wagner Unit 3 ........................................ >750 .............................. 350 ................................ Anne Arundel. 

5 ................. New Page/Westvaco/Luke Paper Unit 25 ............ NA ................................. NA ................................. Allegany. 

6 ................. Holcim (Independent/St. Lawrence Cement) Unit 

24.

NA ................................. NA ................................. Washington. 

7 ................. *Mettiki Coal Corporation Unit 1 .......................... NA ................................. NA ................................. Garrett. 

* This source is not BART eligible. 

The second component of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BART 

eligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area 

are subject to BART. As discussed in the 

BART guidelines, a state may choose to 

consider all BART eligible sources to be 

subject to BART (70 FR 39.161). 

Consistent with the MANE–VU Board’s 

decision in June 2004 that because of 

the collective importance of BART 

sources, BART determinations should 

be made by the MANE–VU states for 

each BART eligible source, unless the 

sources shutdown or caps-out by 

accepting a permit limitation restricting 

their emissions to less than 250 tons per 

year. 

The final component of a BART 

evaluation is making BART 

determinations for all BART subject 

sources. In making BART 

determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of 

the CAA requires that states consider 

the following factors: (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. Section 

(e)(2) of the RHR provides that a state 

may opt to implement an emissions 

trading program or other alternative 

measure rather than to require sources 

subject to BART to install, operate, and 

maintain BART. To do so, the state must 

demonstrate that the emissions trading 

program or other alternative measure 

will achieve greater reasonable progress 

than would be achieved through the 

installation and operation of BART. 

Four EGUs in Maryland, the State 

found to be subject to BART. As 

discussed below, Maryland chose to 

address the BART requirements for 

these sources through an alternative 

program regulated by COMAR 

26.11.27.02, the Maryland HAA (73 FR 

51599) that limits SO2, NOX and 

mercury emissions from fossil fuel fired 

generating units. Of the seven EGU 

facilities subject to the Maryland HAA, 

only four are facilities subject to BART, 

as seen in Table 5. Maryland required 

all of the BART subject facilities to 

complete full BART analysis, however, 

Maryland opted to rely on the emission 

limits from the HAA for NOX and SO2,

as an alternative measure for BART. 

TABLE 5—MARYLAND HAA SUBJECT

SOURCES AND MARYLAND BART 

SUBJECT SOURCES

Maryland’s HAA 

subject sources 

Maryland’s BART 

subject sources 

Brandon Shores Units 

1 and 2.

C.P. Crane Unit 2. 

C.P. Crane Units 1 

and 2.

Chalk Point Units 1, 

2 and 3. 

Chalk Point Units 1 

and 2.

Morgantown Units 1 

and 2. 

Dickerson Units 1, 2 

and 3.

H.A. Wagner Unit 3. 

H.A. Wagner Units 2 

and 3.

Morgantown Units 1 

and 2.

* R. Paul Smith Units 

3 and 4.

* This facility is not part of Maryland’s alternative measures for BART. 

Maryland’s HAA became effective on 

July 16, 2007, with the first phase 

requiring reductions in the 2009–2010 

timeframe and the second phase of 

emission control occurring in the 2012– 

2013 timeframe. The HAA affects 

Maryland’s largest coal-burning power 

plants, which accounts for 95% of the 

State’s power plant emissions and 

requires year-round emission controls. 

The HAA does not allow facilities to 

obtain out-of-state emissions allowances 

in lieu of adding pollution control 

locally. During the first phase of the 

HAA, NOX emissions were reduced by 

approximately 70% in 2009 and SO2

emissions were reduced by 

approximately 80% in 2010. At full 

implementation, the HAA will reduce 

NOX emissions by approximately 75% 

in 2012 from 2002 levels and SO2

emissions will be reduced by 

approximately 85% in 2013 from 2002 

levels. 

In order to determine appropriate 

NOX and SO2 emission limitations for 

inclusion in Maryland’s HAA, Maryland 

collected guidance and information 

from a number of sources to assist in its 

evaluation of appropriate emission 

limits. The methods Maryland used to 

develop the HAA incorporate many of 

the criteria used in the 5 factor analyses 

required by the RHR and included the 

following: (1) Control technology 

effectiveness; (2) costs; (3) complexity 

with regards to application on cycling 

units; (4) impact on plant operations 

and flexibility; (5) operation and 

maintenance costs; (6) size of the 

affected units; and (7) technical 

feasibility. 

Of the fifteen units subject to 

Maryland’s HAA, six have been 

identified as BART units. The HAA 

incorporates emissions limitations 

based on a suite of emission reduction 

technology capabilities. Tables 6 and 7 

show Maryland promulgated emission 

limitations for NOX and SO2 in COMAR 

26.11.27.02. for the thirteen units 

subject to the BART alternative plan. 

TABLE 6—HAA EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR NOX IN TPY 

Facility 2002 Baseline (TPY) 2012 (TPY) 

1 ................................. Brandon Shores Unit 1 ........................................................................................................... 6,329 2,414 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11837 

TABLE 6—HAA EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR NOX IN TPY—Continued 

Facility 2002 Baseline (TPY) 2012 (TPY) 

2 ................................. Brandon Shores Unit 2 ........................................................................................................... 6,034 2,519 

3 ................................. C.P. Crane Unit 1 ................................................................................................................... 6,245 686 

4 ................................. C.P. Crane Unit 2 ................................................................................................................... 4,285 737 

5 ................................. Chalk Point Unit 1 ................................................................................................................... 6,327 1,166 

6 ................................. Chalk Point Unit 2 ................................................................................................................... 6,773 1,223 

7 ................................. Dickerson Unit 1 ..................................................................................................................... 2,176 554 

8 ................................. Dickerson Unit 2 ..................................................................................................................... 2,358 607 

9 ................................. Dickerson Unit 3 ..................................................................................................................... 2,694 575 

10 ............................... H.A. Wagner Unit 2 ................................................................................................................. 1,718 555 

11 ............................... H.A. Wagner Unit 3 ................................................................................................................. 2,232 1,115 

12 ............................... Morgantown Unit 1 .................................................................................................................. 10,013 2,094 

13 ............................... Morgantown Unit 2 .................................................................................................................. 8,605 2,079 

Total .................... ................................................................................................................................................. 65,793 16,324 

TABLE 7—HAA EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR SO2 IN TPY 

Facility 2002 Baseline (TPY) 2013 (TPY) 

1 ................................. Brandon Shores Unit 1 ........................................................................................................... 20,476 5,392 

2 ................................. Brandon Shores Unit 2 ........................................................................................................... 19,498 5,627 

3 ................................. C.P. Crane Unit 1 ................................................................................................................... 17,971 1,532 

4 ................................. C.P. Crane Unit 2 ................................................................................................................... 14,415 1,646 

5 ................................. Chalk Point Unit 1 ................................................................................................................... 23,537 2,606 

6 ................................. Chalk Point Unit 2 ................................................................................................................... 25,194 2,733 

7 ................................. Dickerson Unit 1 ..................................................................................................................... 10,205 1,238 

8 ................................. Dickerson Unit 2 ..................................................................................................................... 11,061 1,355 

9 ................................. Dickerson Unit 3 ..................................................................................................................... 12,636 1,285 

10 ............................... H.A. Wagner Unit 2 ................................................................................................................. 10,095 1,239 

11 ............................... H.A. Wagner Unit 3 ................................................................................................................. 6,427 2,490 

12 ............................... Morgantown Unit 1 .................................................................................................................. 37,756 4,678 

13 ............................... Morgantown Unit 2 .................................................................................................................. 32,586 4,646 

Total .................... ................................................................................................................................................. 241,862 36,468 

Maryland did a comparison of the 

HAA emission limits for thirteen of the 

fifteen units regulated by this rule to the 

BART presumptive limits for the seven 

BART subject units. This comparison 

resulted in a surplus of 60,805 tons of 

SO2 and 16,184 tons of NOX, primarily 

because the HAA emission limits are 

applicable to more units than the 

Maryland BART subject units. The total 

emissions reductions achieved by the 

HAA, greatly exceed those which would 

be achieved through application of 

presumptive BART emissions rate limits 

on BART subject units only. 

For PM, Maryland required the BART 

facilities to conduct an analysis of 

potential BART control in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii). However, 

five of the units have already installed 

high efficiency electro-static precipitors 

(ESP) to control PM and one has already 

installed a fabric filter. The remaining 

unit has enforceable operational 

restriction requiring the burning of 

natural gas for 95% of the total heat 

input during ozone season. With this 

existing fuel restriction, it will reduce 

PM emissions by approximately 90% 

during ozone season. Mirant Chalk 

Point Unit 1 is a 355 MW walled fired, 

dry bottom, supercritical boiler with 

coal as the primary fuel. This unit is 

equipped with a cold side ESP to 

control PM emissions by over 99.5%. 

Mirant Chalk Point Unit 2 is also a 355 

MW walled fired, dry bottom, 

supercritical boiler with coal as the 

primary fuel. This unit is also equipped 

with a cold side ESP to control PM 

emissions by over 99.5%. Mirant Chalk 

Point Unit 3 is a 640 MW tangentially 

fired, sub-critical unit that fire residual 

fuel oil or natural gas. This cycling unit 

has operated at an average annual 

capacity factor of 5% from 2006 to 2009. 

A consent order requires this unit to 

operate 95% of the time using natural 

gas during ozone season (MaySeptember). Since this unit operates 

primarily during ozone season, the 

operational restriction on fuel use 

effectively limit PM emissions by 90%. 

Mirant Morgantown Unit 1 is a 630 MW 

tangentially fired, supercritical boiler 

with coal as the primary fuel. This unit 

is equipped with a cold side ESP to 

control PM emissions by over 99.5%. 

Mirant Morgantown Unit 2 is also a 630 

MW tangentially fired, supercritical 

boiler with coal as the primary fuel. 

This unit is also equipped with a cold 

side ESP to control PM emissions by 

over 99.5%. Crane Unit 2 is a 200 MW 

utility boiler fired by four cyclone 

burners with coal as the primary fuel. 

This unit is equipped with a fabric filter 

to control PM emissions by over 99%. 

Wagner Unit 3 is a 350 MW 

supercritical once-over coal fired boiler. 

This unit is equipped with a cold side 

ESP to control PM emissions by over 

99%. Maryland has determined that 

existing controls for PM meet the BART 

requirement for all of these units since 

they reduce PM emissions, are costefficient, and have no significant energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

benefit. EPA agrees with Maryland’s PM 

BART determination for all of BART 

subject EGUs. 

Maryland has two non-EGU BART 

sources that were required to conduct 

BART analyses to satisfy the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii). 

Holcim (Independent/St. Lawrence 

Cement) is a cement manufacturing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11838 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

plant located in Hagerstown, Maryland. 

The BART analysis was done for the 

long dry Portland cement kiln. Current 

controls for PM consist of multi-clones 

and an electrostatic precipitator. For 

NOX, the facility currently utilizes a 

mid-kiln tire firing system with mixing 

air technology and a low-NOX type 

burner. For SO2 the current controls 

consist of injection of mixing air and 

inherent dry scrubbing. For this unit, 

Maryland determined the addition of 

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) 

is BART for PM and NOX and current 

controls are BART for SO2. 

New Page/Westvaco/Luke Paper is a 

kraft pulp mill with two BART subject 

power boilers (Units 25 and 26) that 

share a common exhaust stream and has 

one recovery boiler (Unit 3). The power 

boilers are used as the primary and 

back-up systems for incineration of 

emissions from non-condensable gas 

and stripper off gas, the recovery boiler 

is used to recover chemicals from spent 

agent pulping liquors and to produce 

steam for the mill. Unit 25 burns coal as 

the primary fuel with natural gas used 

as a secondary fuel. Unit 26 originally 

burned oil as the primary fuel, but in 

1982 was converted to natural gas. Unit 

25 currently has a multi-cyclone 

mechanical collector in series with a 

baghouse for control of PM. The boiler 

is also equipped with an over-five air 

system, low-NOX burners and a SNCR, 

installed in 2006, for controlling NOX

emissions during ozone season. In a 

letter dated October 31, 2007, the 

facility committed to install either a 

spray dryer absorber or a circulating dry 

scrubber resulting in approximately 

90% emission reduction from the 2002 

baseline. Unit 26 currently has no 

controls. Unit 3 has a two level staged 

combustion air control system for the 

control of SO2 and NOX emissions and 

the three-chamber ESP for the control of 

PM. Maryland determined BART for 

Unit 25 to be the current controls for PM 

which consist of multi-cyclones, 

baghouse and year-round operation of 

the existing SNCR, low NOX burners, 

and overfire air for NOX controls and 

the addition of spray dryer absorber or 

a circulating dry scrubber for SO2. For 

Unit 26, the natural gas fired boiler, 

Maryland determined BART to be that 

no add-on controls were necessary since 

the use of natural gas results in very low 

emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM. For 

Unit 3, the recovery boiler, the current 

controls consist of two level staged 

combustion air control system for the 

control of SO2 and NOX emissions and 

the three-chamber ESP for the control of 

PM. EPA agrees with MDE’s analyses 

and conclusions for the non-EGU BART 

determinations. 

C. Consultation With States and FLMs 

On May 10, 2006, the MANE–VU Air 

Directors adopted the Inter-RPO State/ 

Tribal and FLM Consultation 

Framework that documented the 

consultation process within the context 

of regional haze planning and was 

intended to create greater certainty and 

understanding among RPOs. The 

MANE–VU states held ten consultation 

meetings and/or conference calls from 

March 1, 2007 through March 21, 2008. 

In addition to the MANE–VU members 

attending these meetings and conference 

calls, participants from VISTAS, 

Midwest RPO, and the relevant FLMs 

were also in attendance. In addition to 

the conference calls and meeting, the 

FLMs were given the opportunity to 

review and comment on each of the 

technical documents developed by 

MANE–VU. 

On September 22, 2008 and 

November 18, 2011, Maryland 

submitted a draft Regional Haze SIP to 

the relevant FLMs for review and 

comment pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(2). In a letter dated January 25, 

2012, the FLMs provided comments on 

the draft Regional Haze SIP in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). 

The comments received from the FLMs 

were addressed and included in 

Appendix C of the Maryland Regional 

Haze SIP submittal. 

On January 6, 2012, the MDE 

provided public notice of the 

opportunity to comment on the SIP 

revision and on February 9, 2012 held 

the public hearing. To address the 

requirement for continuing consultation 

procedures with the FLMs under 40 

CFR 51.308(i)(4), Maryland commits in 

their SIP to ongoing consultation with 

the FLMs on Regional Haze issues 

throughout the implementation. 

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

Consistent with the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(g), Maryland has 

committed to submitting a report on 

reasonable progress (in the form of a SIP 

revision) to the EPA every five years 

following the initial submittal of its 

regional haze SIP. The reasonable 

progress report will evaluate the 

progress made towards the RPGs for the 

impacted Class I areas. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Maryland SIP submitted 

by the State of Maryland through the 

MDE on February 13, 2012 that 

addresses regional haze for the first 

implementation period. EPA is 

proposing to make a determination that 

the Maryland Regional Haze SIP 

contains the emission reductions 

needed to achieve Maryland’s share of 

emission reductions agreed upon 

through the regional planning process. 

Furthermore, Maryland’s Regional Haze 

Plan ensures that emissions from the 

State will not interfere with the 

reasonable progress goals for 

neighboring states’ Class I areas. EPA 

has determined that the Regional Haze 

Plan submitted by the State of Maryland 

satisfies the requirements of the CAA. 

EPA is taking this action pursuant to 

those provisions of the CAA. 

Accordingly, EPA is also proposing to 

find that this revision meets the 

applicable visibility related 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) 

including but not limited to 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), 

relating to visibility protection for the 

1997 8–Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11839 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule 

approving Maryland’s Regional Haze 

Plan does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4663 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0510; FRL–9640–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Louisiana; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing a 

partial disapproval and a partial limited 

approval of a revision to the Louisiana 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Louisiana 

through the Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality (LDEQ) on June 

13, 2008, that addresses regional haze 

(RH) for the first implementation period. 

This revision was submitted to address 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) and the EPA’s rules that 

require states to prevent any future and 

remedy any existing man-made 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas caused by emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. In a separate 

action, the EPA has previously proposed 

a limited disapproval of the Louisiana 

regional haze SIP because of 

deficiencies in the state’s regional haze 

SIP submittal arising from the remand 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia (DC Circuit) to the 

EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). In today’s action, the EPA is 

proposing a partial disapproval because 

of deficiencies in Louisiana’s regional 

haze SIP submittal that go beyond the 

issues addressed in the EPA’s proposed 

limited disapproval. The EPA is also 

proposing a partial limited approval of 

those elements of this SIP revision not 

addressed by our partial disapproval. 

The partial limited approval of the RH 

requirements for Louisiana is based on 

the conclusion that the revisions, as a 

whole, strengthen the Louisiana SIP. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 and part C of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2008–0510, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R6AIR_LAHAZE@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such 

deliveries are accepted only between the 

hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, 

and not on legal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax 

number 214–665–6762. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0510. 

Our policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means we will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to us without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, we recommend 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If we cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

we may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253 to make an appointment. 

If possible, please make the 

appointment at least two working days 

in advance of your visit. There will be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS