[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58663-58685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15857]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0186; FRL-12105-01-R1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by Connecticut on January 5, 2022, as satisfying applicable
requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
for the program's second implementation period. Connecticut's SIP
submission addresses the requirement that states must periodically
revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress
towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any
existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional
haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also
addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation
period of the regional haze program. The EPA is taking this action
pursuant to the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 19, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2023-0186 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Rackauskas, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, Air Quality Branch, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, (Mail code 5-MI), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number:
(617) 918-1628, email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second
Implementation Period
A. Identification of Class I Areas
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan
Requirements
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's Regional Haze Submission
for the Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Connecticut's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
B. Connecticut's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and
the EPA's Evaluation
C. Identification of Class I Areas
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
a. Connecticut's Response to the Six MANEVU Asks
b. The EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's Response to the Six
MANEVU Asks and Compliance With Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i)
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
J. Other Required Commitments
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On January 5, 2022, the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted a revision to its SIP to
address regional haze for the second implementation period. CT DEEP
made this SIP submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's
regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR
51.308. The EPA is proposing to find that the Connecticut regional haze
SIP submission for the second implementation period meets the
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and thus proposes to
approve Connecticut's submission into its SIP.
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas,
which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.\1\ CAA
section 169A. The CAA establishes as a national goal
[[Page 58664]]
the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' CAA section
169A(a)(1). The CAA further directs the EPA to promulgate regulations
to assure reasonable progress toward meeting this national goal. CAA
section 169A(a)(4). On December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated
regulations to address visibility impairment in mandatory Class I
Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as ``Class I areas'') that is
``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group of
sources. (45 FR 80084, December 2, 1980). These regulations, codified
at 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.307, represented the first phase of the
EPA's efforts to address visibility impairment. In 1990, Congress added
section 169B to the CAA to further address visibility impairment,
specifically, impairment from regional haze. CAA section 169B. The EPA
promulgated the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), codified at 40 CFR 51.308,\2\
on July 1, 1999. (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999). These regional haze
regulations are a central component of the EPA's comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all
international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. CAA
section 162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of
areas to which the requirements of the visibility protection program
apply is in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
\2\ In addition to the generally applicable regional haze
provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, the EPA also promulgated regulations
specific to addressing regional haze visibility impairment in Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The latter
regulations are applicable only for specific jurisdictions' regional
haze plans submitted no later than December 17, 2007, and thus are
not relevant here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair
visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse
particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., sulfur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and, in
some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia
(NH3)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the perception of clarity and color, as well as visible
distance.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which
is the principal metric used by the RHR. Under many circumstances, a
change in one deciview will be perceived by the human eye to be the
same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview is unitless. It is
proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric extinction of
light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to its being
scattered and absorbed as it passes through the atmosphere.
Atmospheric light extinction (b\ext\) is a metric used to for
expressing visibility and is measured in inverse megameters (Mm-1).
The EPA's Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for
the Second Implementation Period (``2019 Guidance'') offers the
flexibility for the use of light extinction in certain cases. Light
extinction can be simpler to use in calculations than deciviews,
since it is not a logarithmic function. See, e.g., 2019 Guidance at
16, 19, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period, The EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (August
20, 2019). The formula for the deciview is 10 ln (b\ext\)/10 Mm-1).
40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR
established an iterative planning process that requires both states in
which Class I areas are located and states ``the emissions from which
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility'' in a Class I area to periodically submit SIP revisions
to address such impairment. CAA section 169A(b)(2); \4\ see also 40 CFR
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional
haze SIP revisions); (64 FR at 35768, July 1, 1999). Under the CAA,
each SIP submission must contain ``a long-term (ten to fifteen years)
strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national
goal,'' CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B); the initial round of SIP submissions
also had to address the statutory requirement that certain older,
larger sources of visibility impairing pollutants install and operate
the best available retrofit technology (BART). CAA section
169A(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR 51.308(d), (e). States' first regional haze SIPs
were due by December 17, 2007, 40 CFR 51.308(b), with subsequent SIP
submissions containing updated long-term strategies originally due July
31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter. (64 FR at 35768, July 1,
1999). The EPA established in the 1999 RHR that all states either have
Class I areas within their borders or ``contain sources whose emissions
are reasonably anticipated to contribute to regional haze in a Class I
area''; therefore, all states must submit regional haze SIPs.\5\ Id. at
35721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for states to
submit plans addressing out-of-state class I areas by providing that
states must address visibility impairment ``in each mandatory Class
I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions from within the State.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
\5\ In addition to each of the fifty states, the EPA also
concluded that the Virgin Islands and District of Columbia must also
submit regional haze SIPs because they either contain a Class I area
or contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.300(b),
(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the focus in the first implementation period of the
regional haze program, which ran from 2007 through 2018, was on
satisfying states' BART obligations. First implementation period SIPs
were additionally required to contain long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal, of which BART
is one component. The core required elements for the first
implementation period SIPs (other than BART) are laid out in 40 CFR
51.308(d). Those provisions required that states containing Class I
areas establish reasonable progress goals (RPGs) that are measured in
deciviews and reflect the anticipated visibility conditions at the end
of the implementation period including from implementation of states'
long-term strategies. The first planning period RPGs were required to
provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days
over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days over the same period. In
establishing the RPGs for any Class I area in a state, the state was
required to consider four statutory factors: the costs of compliance,
the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of
any potentially affected sources. CAA section 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1).
States were also required to calculate baseline (using the five-
year period of 2000-2004) and natural visibility conditions (i.e.,
visibility conditions without anthropogenic visibility impairment) for
each Class I area, and to calculate the linear rate of progress needed
to attain natural visibility conditions, assuming a starting point of
baseline visibility conditions in 2004 and ending with natural
conditions in 2064. This linear interpolation is known as the uniform
rate of progress (URP) and is used as a tracking metric to help states
assess the amount of progress they are making towards the national
visibility goal over time in each Class I area.\6\ 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(2).
[[Page 58665]]
The 1999 RHR also provided that States' long-term strategies must
include the ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance, schedules,
and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress
goals.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). In establishing their long-term
strategies, states are required to consult with other states that also
contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area and include
all measures necessary to obtain their shares of the emission
reductions needed to meet the RPGs. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), (ii).
Section 51.308(d) also contains seven additional factors states must
consider in formulating their long-term strategies, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v), as well as provisions governing monitoring and other
implementation plan requirements. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Finally, the
1999 RHR required states to submit periodic progress reports--SIP
revisions due every five years that contain information on states'
implementation of their regional haze plans and an assessment of
whether anything additional is needed to make reasonable progress, see
40 CFR 51.308(g), (h)--and to consult with the Federal Land Manager(s)
\7\ (FLMs) responsible for each Class I area according to the
requirements in CAA section 169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA established the URP framework in the 1999 RHR to provide
``an equitable analytical approach'' to assessing the rate of
visibility improvement at Class I areas across the country. The
start point for the URP analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was
calculated based on the amount of visibility improvement that was
anticipated to result from implementation of existing CAA programs
over the period from the mid-1990s to approximately 2005. Assuming
this rate of progress would continue into the future, EPA determined
that natural visibility conditions would be reached in 60 years, or
2064 (60 years from the baseline starting point of 2004). However,
EPA did not establish 2064 as the year by which the national goal
must be reached. 64 FR at 35731-32. That is, the URP and the 2064
date are not enforceable targets, but are rather tools that ``allow
for analytical comparisons between the rate of progress that would
be achieved by the state's chosen set of control measures and the
URP.'' (82 FR 3078, 3084, January 10, 2017).
\7\ The EPA's regulations define ``Federal Land Manager'' as
``the Secretary of the department with authority over the Federal
Class I area (or the Secretary designee) or, with respect to
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park, the Chairman of the
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 10, 2017, the EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR, (82
FR 3078, January 10, 2017), that apply for the second and subsequent
implementation periods. The 2017 rulemaking made several changes to the
requirements for regional haze SIPs to clarify States' obligations and
streamline certain regional haze requirements. The revisions to the
regional haze program for the second and subsequent implementation
periods focused on the requirement that States' SIPs contain long-term
strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national
visibility goal. The reasonable progress requirements as revised in the
2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the 2017 RHR Revisions) are
codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f). Among other changes, the 2017 RHR
Revisions adjusted the deadline for States to submit their second
implementation period SIPs from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021,
clarified the order of analysis and the relationship between RPGs and
the long-term strategy, and focused on making visibility improvements
on the days with the most anthropogenic visibility impairment, as
opposed to the days with the most visibility impairment overall. The
EPA also revised requirements of the visibility protection program
related to periodic progress reports and FLM consultation. The specific
requirements applicable to second implementation period regional haze
SIP submissions are addressed in detail below.
The EPA provided guidance to the states for their second
implementation period SIP submissions in the preamble to the 2017 RHR
Revisions as well as in subsequent, stand-alone guidance documents. In
August 2019, the EPA issued ``Guidance on Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2019
Guidance'').\8\ On July 8, 2021, the EPA issued a memorandum containing
``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for
the Second Implementation Period'' (``2021 Clarifications Memo'').\9\
Additionally, the EPA further clarified the recommended procedures for
processing ambient visibility data and optionally adjusting the URP to
account for international anthropogenic and prescribed fire impacts in
two technical guidance documents: the December 2018 ``Technical
Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for the Second Implementation
Period of the Regional Haze Program'' (``2018 Visibility Tracking
Guidance''),\10\ and the June 2020 ``Recommendation for the Use of
Patched and Substituted Data and Clarification of Data Completeness for
Tracking Visibility Progress for the Second Implementation Period of
the Regional Haze Program'' and associated Technical Addendum (``2020
Data Completeness Memo'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the
Second Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period. The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019).
\9\ Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans for the Second Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf. The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
\10\ Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for the
Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progress-second-implementation-period-regional. The EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park.
(December 20, 2018).
\11\ Recommendation for the Use of Patched and Substituted Data
and Clarification of Data Completeness for Tracking Visibility
Progress for the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze
Program. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program. The EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park
(June 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, EPA
intends the second implementation period of the regional haze program
to secure meaningful reductions in visibility impairing pollutants that
build on the significant progress states have achieved to date. The
Agency also recognizes that analyses regarding reasonable progress are
state-specific and that, based on states' and sources' individual
circumstances, what constitutes reasonable reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants will vary from state-to-state. While there exist
many opportunities for states to leverage both ongoing and upcoming
emission reductions under other CAA programs, the Agency expects states
to undertake rigorous reasonable progress analyses that identify
further opportunities to advance the national visibility goal
consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements. See
generally 2021 Clarifications Memo. This is consistent with Congress's
determination that a visibility protection program is needed in
addition to the CAA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration programs, as further emission
reductions may be necessary to adequately protect visibility in Class I
areas throughout the country.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95-294 at 205 (``In determining how
to best remedy the growing visibility problem in these areas of
great scenic importance, the committee realizes that as a matter of
equity, the national ambient air quality standards cannot be revised
to adequately protect visibility in all areas of the country.''),
(``the mandatory class I increments of [the PSD program] do not
adequately protect visibility in class I areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Because the air pollutants and pollution affecting visibility in
Class I areas can be transported over long distances, successful
implementation of the regional haze program requires long-term,
regional coordination among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that
have responsibility for Class I areas and the emissions that impact
visibility in those areas. In order to address regional haze, states
need to develop strategies in coordination with one another,
considering the effect of emissions from
[[Page 58666]]
one jurisdiction on the air quality in another. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs),\13\ which include representation from state and
tribal governments, the EPA, and FLMs, were developed in the lead-up to
the first implementation period to address regional haze. RPOs evaluate
technical information to better understand how emissions from State and
Tribal land impact Class I areas across the country, pursue the
development of regional strategies to reduce emissions of particulate
matter and other pollutants leading to regional haze, and help states
meet the consultation requirements of the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ``multi-
jurisdictional organizations,'' or MJOs. For the purposes of this
document, the terms RPO and MJO are synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU), one of the
five RPOs described above, is a collaborative effort of state
governments, tribal governments, and various Federal agencies
established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the
management of regional haze, visibility, and other air quality issues
in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast corridor of the United States. Member
states and tribal governments (listed alphabetically) include:
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and
Vermont. The Federal partner members of MANEVU are EPA, U.S. National
Parks Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S.
Forest Service (USFS).
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Implementation
Period
Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to submit regional
haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021.
Each state's SIP must contain a long-term strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any
existing and preventing any future anthropogenic visibility impairment
in Class I areas. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, Sec.
51.308(f) lays out the process by which states determine what
constitutes their long-term strategies, with the order of the
requirements in Sec. 51.308(f)(1) through (f)(3) generally mirroring
the order of the steps in the reasonable progress analysis \14\ and
(f)(4) through (f)(6) containing additional, related requirements.
Broadly speaking, a state first must identify the Class I areas within
the state and determine the Class I areas outside the state in which
visibility may be affected by emissions from the state. These are the
Class I areas that must be addressed in the state's long-term strategy.
See 40 CFR 51.308(f), (f)(2). For each Class I area within its borders,
a state must then calculate the baseline, current, and natural
visibility conditions for that area, as well as the visibility
improvement made to date and the URP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each
state having a Class I area and/or emissions that may affect visibility
in a Class I area must then develop a long-term strategy that includes
the enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress in such areas.
A reasonable progress determination is based on applying the four
factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) to sources of visibility-impairing
pollutants that the state has selected to assess for controls for the
second implementation period. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). Additionally, as
further explained below, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ``additional factors'' \15\ that states must consider in
developing their long-term strategies. A state evaluates potential
emission reduction measures for those selected sources and determines
which are necessary to make reasonable progress. Those measures are
then incorporated into the state's long-term strategy. After a state
has developed its long-term strategy, it then establishes RPGs for each
Class I area within its borders by modeling the visibility impacts of
all reasonable progress controls at the end of the second
implementation period, i.e., in 2028, as well as the impacts of other
requirements of the CAA. The RPGs include reasonable progress controls
not only for sources in the state in which the Class I area is located,
but also for sources in other states that contribute to visibility
impairment in that area. The RPGs are then compared to the baseline
visibility conditions and the URP to ensure that progress is being made
towards the statutory goal of preventing any future and remedying any
existing anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I areas. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that we were
adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike
the structure in 51.308(d), ``tracked the actual planning
sequence.'' (82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017).
\15\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must
consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to satisfying the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f)
related to reasonable progress, the regional haze SIP revisions for the
second implementation period must address the requirements in Sec.
51.308(g)(1) through (5) pertaining to periodic reports describing
progress towards the RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements
for FLM consultation that apply to all visibility protection SIPs and
SIP revisions. 40 CFR 51.308(i).
A state must submit its regional haze SIP and subsequent SIP
revisions to the EPA according to the requirements applicable to all
SIP revisions under the CAA and EPA's regulations. See CAA section
169(b)(2); CAA section 110(a). Upon EPA approval, a SIP is enforceable
by the Agency and the public under the CAA. If EPA finds that a state
fails to make a required SIP revision, or if the EPA finds that a
state's SIP is incomplete or if disapproves the SIP, the Agency must
promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) that satisfies the
applicable requirements. CAA section 110(c)(1).
A. Identification of Class I Areas
The first step in developing a regional haze SIP is for a state to
determine which Class I areas, in addition to those within its borders,
``may be affected'' by emissions from within the state. In the 1999
RHR, the EPA determined that all states contribute to visibility
impairment in at least one Class I area, 64 FR at 35720-22, and
explained that the statute and regulations lay out an ``extremely low
triggering threshold'' for determining ``whether States should be
required to engage in air quality planning and analysis as a
prerequisite to determining the need for control of emissions from
sources within their State.'' Id. at 35721.
A state must determine which Class I areas must be addressed by its
SIP by evaluating the total emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants from all sources within the state. While the RHR does not
require this evaluation to be conducted in any particular manner, EPA's
2019 Guidance provides recommendations for how such an assessment might
be accomplished, including by, where appropriate, using the
determinations previously made for the first implementation period.
2019 Guidance at 8-9. In addition, the determination of which Class I
areas may be affected by a state's emissions is subject to the
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ``document the
[[Page 58667]]
technical basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and
emissions information, on which the State is relying to determine the
emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress in each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects.''
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
As part of assessing whether a SIP submission for the second
implementation period is providing for reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal, the RHR contains requirements in Sec.
51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility improvement over time. The
requirements of this subsection apply only to states having Class I
areas within their borders; the required calculations must be made for
each such Class I area. EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance \16\
provides recommendations to assist states in satisfying their
obligations under Sec. 51.308(f)(1)--specifically, in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP to account for the
impacts of international anthropogenic emissions and prescribed fires.
See 82 FR at 3103-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance references and relies
on parts of the 2003 Tracking Guidance: ``Guidance for Tracking
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule,'' which can be found at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/visible/tracking.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RHR requires tracking of visibility conditions on two sets of
days: the clearest and the most impaired days. Visibility conditions
for both sets of days are expressed as the average deciview index for
the relevant five-year period (the period representing baseline or
current visibility conditions). The RHR provides that the relevant sets
of days for visibility tracking purposes are the 20% clearest (the 20%
of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest values of the
deciview index) and 20% most impaired days (the 20% of monitored days
in a calendar year with the highest amounts of anthropogenic visibility
impairment).\17\ 40 CFR 51.301. A state must calculate visibility
conditions for both the 20% clearest and 20% most impaired days for the
baseline period of 2000-2004 and the most recent five-year period for
which visibility monitoring data are available (representing current
visibility conditions). 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii). States must also
calculate natural visibility conditions for the clearest and most
impaired days,\18\ by estimating the conditions that would exist on
those two sets of days absent anthropogenic visibility impairment. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii). Using all these data, states must then calculate,
for each Class I area, the amount of progress made since the baseline
period (2000-2004) and how much improvement is left to achieve in order
to reach natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ This document also refers to the 20% clearest and 20% most
anthropogenically impaired days as the ``clearest'' and ``most
impaired'' or ``most anthropogenically impaired'' days,
respectively.
\18\ The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an error
related to the requirement for calculating two sets of natural
conditions values. The rule says ``most impaired days or the
clearest days'' where it should say ``most impaired days and
clearest days.'' This is an error that was intended to be corrected
in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected in the final
rule language. This is supported by the preamble text at 82 FR 3098:
``In the final version of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii), an occurrence of
``or'' has been corrected to ``and'' to indicate that natural
visibility conditions for both the most impaired days and the
clearest days must be based on available monitoring information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, states must
plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and
natural visibility conditions for each Class I area to determine the
URP--the amount of visibility improvement per year, measured in
deciviews, that would need to be achieved during each implementation
period in order to achieve natural visibility conditions by the end of
2064. The URP is used in later steps of the reasonable progress
analysis for informational purposes and to provide a non-enforceable
benchmark against which to assess a Class I area's rate of visibility
improvement.\19\ Additionally, in the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA
provided states the option of proposing to adjust the endpoint of the
URP to account for impacts of anthropogenic sources outside the United
States and/or impacts of certain types of wildland prescribed fires.
These adjustments, which must be approved by the EPA, are intended to
avoid any perception that states should compensate for impacts from
international anthropogenic sources and to give states the flexibility
to determine that limiting the use of wildland-prescribed fire is not
necessary for reasonable progress. 82 FR 3107 footnote 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Being on or below the URP is not a ``safe harbor''; i.e.,
achieving the URP does not mean that a Class I area is making
``reasonable progress'' and does not relieve a state from using the
four statutory factors to determine what level of control is needed
to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance can be used to help satisfy
the 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, including in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP. In addition, the 2020
Data Completeness Memo provides recommendations on the data
completeness language referenced in Sec. 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides
updated natural conditions estimates for each Class I area.
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
The core component of a regional haze SIP submission is a long-term
strategy that addresses regional haze in each Class I area within a
state's borders and each Class I area that may be affected by emissions
from the state. The long-term strategy ``must include the enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that
are necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to
(f)(2)(i) through (iv).'' 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of progress
that is ``reasonable progress'' is based on applying the four statutory
factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of potential control
options for sources of visibility impairing pollutants, which is
referred to as a ``four-factor'' analysis. The outcome of that analysis
is the emission reduction measures that a particular source or group of
sources needs to implement in order to make reasonable progress towards
the national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress may
be either new, additional control measures for a source, or they may be
the existing emission reduction measures that a source is already
implementing. See 2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 8-
10. Such measures must be represented by ``enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures'' (i.e., any
additional compliance tools) in a state's long-term strategy in its
SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements for the four-
factor analysis. The first step of this analysis entails selecting the
sources to be evaluated for emission reduction measures; to this end,
the RHR requires states to consider ``major and minor stationary
sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area sources'' of
visibility impairing pollutants for potential four-factor control
analysis. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A threshold question at this step is
which visibility impairing pollutants will be analyzed. As EPA
previously explained, consistent with the first implementation period,
EPA generally expects that each
[[Page 58668]]
state will analyze at least SO2 and NOX in
selecting sources and determining control measures. See 2019 Guidance
at 12, 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4. A state that chooses not to
consider at least these two pollutants should demonstrate why such
consideration would be unreasonable. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.
While states have the option to analyze all sources, the 2019
Guidance explains that ``an analysis of control measures is not
required for every source in each implementation period,'' and that
``[s]electing a set of sources for analysis of control measures in each
implementation period is . . . consistent with the Regional Haze Rule,
which sets up an iterative planning process and anticipates that a
state may not need to analyze control measures for all its sources in a
given SIP revision.'' 2019 Guidance at 9. However, given that source
selection is the basis of all subsequent control determinations, a
reasonable source selection process ``should be designed and conducted
to ensure that source selection results in a set of pollutants and
sources the evaluation of which has the potential to meaningfully
reduce their contributions to visibility impairment.'' 2021
Clarifications Memo at 3.
EPA explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo that each state has
an obligation to submit a long-term strategy that addresses the
regional haze visibility impairment that results from emissions from
within that state. Thus, source selection should focus on the in-state
contribution to visibility impairment and be designed to capture a
meaningful portion of the state's total contribution to visibility
impairment in Class I areas. A state should not decline to select its
largest in-state sources on the basis that there are even larger out-
of-state contributors. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Similarly, in responding to comments on the 2017 RHR
Revisions EPA explained that ``[a] state should not fail to address
its many relatively low-impact sources merely because it only has
such sources and another state has even more low-impact sources and/
or some high impact sources.'' Responses to Comments on Protection
of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) at 87-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, while states have discretion to choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that
a state's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.''
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a state has selected the set of sources, the next step is to
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation
period.\21\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements.'' CAA section 169A(g)(1). The EPA has explained that the
four-factor analysis is an assessment of potential emission reduction
measures (i.e., control options) for sources; ``use of the terms
`compliance' and `subject to such requirements' in CAA section
169A(g)(1) strongly indicates that Congress intended the relevant
determination to be the requirements with which sources would have to
comply in order to satisfy the CAA's reasonable progress mandate.'' 82
FR at 3091. Thus, for each source it has selected for four-factor
analysis,\22\ a state must consider a ``meaningful set'' of technically
feasible control options for reducing emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants. Id. at 3088. The 2019 Guidance provides that ``[a] state
must reasonably pick and justify the measures that it will consider,
recognizing that there is no statutory or regulatory requirement to
consider all technically feasible measures or any particular measures.
A range of technically feasible measures available to reduce emissions
would be one way to justify a reasonable set.'' 2019 Guidance at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The CAA provides that, ``[i]n determining reasonable
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four
statutory factors. CAA section 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to
four-factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or
source categories, a state may also consider additional emission
reduction measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g.,
from other newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and
measures for sources not selected for four-factor analysis for the
second planning period.
\22\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires states to
evaluate individual sources. Rather, states have ``the flexibility
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of
sources or even entire source categories, depending on state policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each state.'' 82 FR at
3088. However, not all approaches to grouping sources for four-
factor analysis are necessarily reasonable; the reasonableness of
grouping sources in any particular instance will depend on the
circumstances and the manner in which grouping is conducted. If it
is feasible to establish and enforce different requirements for
sources or subgroups of sources, and if relevant factors can be
quantified for those sources or subgroups, then states should make a
separate reasonable progress determination for each source or
subgroup. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further guidance on what
constitutes a reasonable set of control options for consideration: ``A
reasonable four-factor analysis will consider the full range of
potentially reasonable options for reducing emissions.'' 2021
Clarifications Memo at 7. In addition to add-on controls and other
retrofits (i.e., new emission reduction measures for sources), EPA
explained that states should generally analyze efficiency improvements
for sources' existing measures as control options in their four-factor
analyses, as in many cases such improvements are reasonable given that
they typically involve only additional operation and maintenance costs.
Additionally, the 2021 Clarifications Memo provides that states that
have assumed a higher emission rate than a source has achieved or could
potentially achieve using its existing measures should also consider
lower emission rates as potential control options. That is, a state
should consider a source's recent actual and projected emission rates
to determine if it could reasonably attain lower emission rates with
its existing measures. If so, the state should analyze the lower
emission rate as a control option for reducing emissions. 2021
Clarifications Memo at 7. The EPA's recommendations to analyze
potential efficiency improvements and achievable lower emission rates
apply to both sources that have been selected for four-factor analysis
and those that have forgone a four-factor analysis on the basis of
existing ``effective controls.'' See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 5, 10.
After identifying a reasonable set of potential control options for
the sources it has selected, a state then collects information on the
four factors with regard to each option identified. The EPA has also
explained that, in addition to the four statutory factors, states have
flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably consider visibility
benefits as an additional factor alongside the four statutory
factors.\23\ The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations for the types
of information that can be used to
[[Page 58669]]
characterize the four factors (with or without visibility), as well as
ways in which states might reasonably consider and balance that
information to determine which of the potential control options is
necessary to make reasonable progress. See 2019 Guidance at 30-36. The
2021 Clarifications Memo contains further guidance on how states can
reasonably consider modeled visibility impacts or benefits in the
context of a four-factor analysis. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 12-13,
14-15. Specifically, EPA explained that while visibility can reasonably
be used when comparing and choosing between multiple reasonable control
options, it should not be used to summarily reject controls that are
reasonable given the four statutory factors. 2021 Clarifications Memo
at 13. Ultimately, while states have discretion to reasonably weigh the
factors and to determine what level of control is needed, Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a state ``must include in its
implementation plan a description of . . . how the four factors were
taken into consideration in selecting the measure for inclusion in its
long-term strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016), Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0531,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186; 2019 Guidance at 36-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors.
Pursuant to Sec. 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal must be
included in a state's long-term strategy and in its SIP.\24\ If the
outcome of a four-factor analysis is a new, additional emission
reduction measure for a source, that new measure is necessary to make
reasonable progress towards remedying existing anthropogenic visibility
impairment and must be included in the SIP. If the outcome of a four-
factor analysis is that no new measures are reasonable for a source,
continued implementation of the source's existing measures is generally
necessary to prevent future emission increases and thus to make
reasonable progress towards the second part of the national visibility
goal: preventing future anthropogenic visibility impairment. See CAA
section 169A(a)(1). That is, when the result of a four-factor analysis
is that no new measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, the
source's existing measures are generally necessary to make reasonable
progress and must be included in the SIP. However, there may be
circumstances in which a state can demonstrate that a source's existing
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress. Specifically,
if a state can demonstrate that a source will continue to implement its
existing measures and will not increase its emission rate, it may not
be necessary to have those measures in the long-term strategy in order
to prevent future emission increases and future visibility impairment.
EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further explanation and
guidance on how states may demonstrate that a source's existing
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 8-10. If the state can make such a
demonstration, it need not include a source's existing measures in the
long-term strategy or its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ States may choose to, but are not required to, include
measures in their long-term strategies beyond just the emission
reduction measures that are necessary for reasonable progress. See
2021 Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with smoke
management programs may choose to submit their smoke management
plans to EPA for inclusion in their SIPs but are not required to do
so. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3108-09 (requirement to consider smoke
management practices and smoke management programs under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not require states to adopt such practices or
programs into their SIPs, although they may elect to do so).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with source selection, the characterization of information on
each of the factors is also subject to the documentation requirement in
Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress analysis, including
source selection, information gathering, characterization of the four
statutory factors (and potentially visibility), balancing of the four
factors, and selection of the emission reduction measures that
represent reasonable progress, is a technically complex exercise, but
also a flexible one that provides states with bounded discretion to
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances.
Given this flexibility, Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important
function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for its
decision making so that the public and the EPA can comprehend and
evaluate the information and analysis the state relied upon to
determine what emission reduction measures must be in place to make
reasonable progress. The technical documentation must include the
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on
which the state relied to determine the measures necessary to make
reasonable progress. This documentation requirement can be met through
the provision of and reliance on technical analyses developed through a
regional planning process, so long as that process and its output has
been approved by all state participants. In addition to the explicit
regulatory requirement to document the technical basis of their
reasonable progress determinations, states are also subject to the
general principle that those determinations must be reasonably moored
to the statute.\25\ That is, a state's decisions about the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress must
be consistent with the statutory goal of remedying existing and
preventing future visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531
(9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA, 812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir.
2016); North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013);
Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208-10 (10th Cir. 2013); cf.
also Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 485,
490 (2004); Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165
(3d Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The four statutory factors (and potentially visibility) are used to
determine what emission reduction measures for selected sources must be
included in a state's long-term strategy for making reasonable
progress. Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ``additional factors'' \26\ that states must consider in
developing their long-term strategies: (1) Emission reductions due to
ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address
reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (2) measures to reduce
the impacts of construction activities; (3) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (4) basic smoke management practices for
prescribed fire used for agricultural and wildland vegetation
management purposes and smoke management programs; and (5) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point,
area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the
long-term strategy. The 2019 Guidance provides that a state may satisfy
this requirement by considering these additional factors in the process
of selecting sources for four-factor analysis, when performing that
analysis, or both, and that not every one of the additional factors
needs to be considered at the same stage of the process. See 2019
Guidance at 21. EPA provided further guidance on the five additional
factors in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, explaining that a state should
generally not reject cost-effective and otherwise reasonable controls
merely because there have been emission reductions since the first
planning period owing to other ongoing air pollution control programs
or merely
[[Page 58670]]
because visibility is otherwise projected to improve at Class I areas.
Additionally, states generally should not rely on these additional
factors to summarily assert that the state has already made sufficient
progress and, therefore, no sources need to be selected or no new
controls are needed regardless of the outcome of four-factor analyses.
2021 Clarifications Memo at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must
consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses state
boundaries, Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to consult with
other states that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area.
Consultation allows for each state that impacts visibility in an area
to share whatever technical information, analyses, and control
determinations may be necessary to develop coordinated emission
management strategies. This coordination may be managed through inter-
and intra-RPO consultation and the development of regional emissions
strategies; additional consultations between states outside of RPO
processes may also occur. If a state, pursuant to consultation, agrees
that certain measures (e.g., a certain emission limitation) are
necessary to make reasonable progress at a Class I area, it must
include those measures in its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A).
Additionally, the RHR requires that states that contribute to
visibility impairment at the same Class I area consider the emission
reduction measures the other contributing states have identified as
being necessary to make reasonable progress for their own sources. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a state has been asked to consider or adopt
certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately determines those
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress, that state must
document in its SIP the actions taken to resolve the disagreement. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). The EPA will consider the technical
information and explanations presented by the submitting state and the
state with which it disagrees when considering whether to approve the
state's SIP. See id.; 2019 Guidance at 53. Under all circumstances, a
state must document in its SIP submission all substantive consultations
with other contributing states. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
Reasonable progress goals ``measure the progress that is projected
to be achieved by the control measures states have determined are
necessary to make reasonable progress based on a four-factor
analysis.'' 82 FR at 3091. Their primary purpose is to assist the
public and the EPA in assessing the reasonableness of states' long-term
strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national
visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii)-(iv). States in which
Class I areas are located must establish two RPGs, both in deciviews--
one representing visibility conditions on the clearest days and one
representing visibility on the most anthropogenically impaired days--
for each area within their borders. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). The two
RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts, on the two sets of
days, of the emission reduction measures the state with the Class I
area, as well as all other contributing states, have included in their
long-term strategies for the second implementation period.\27\ The RPGs
also account for the projected impacts of implementing other CAA
requirements, including non-SIP based requirements. Because RPGs are
the modeled result of the measures in states' long-term strategies (as
well as other measures required under the CAA), they cannot be
determined before states have conducted their four-factor analyses and
determined the control measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts of the
measures all contributing states include in their long-term
strategies. However, due to the timing of analyses and of control
determinations by other states, other on-going emissions changes, a
particular state's RPGs may not reflect all control measures and
emissions reductions that are expected to occur by the end of the
implementation period. The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations
for addressing the timing of RPG calculations when states are
developing their long-term strategies on disparate schedules, as
well as for adjusting RPGs using a post-modeling approach. 2019
Guidance at 47-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the second implementation period, the RPGs are set for 2028.
Reasonable progress goals are not enforceable targets, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they ``provide a way for the states to check
the projected outcome of the [long-term strategy] against the goals for
visibility improvement.'' 2019 Guidance at 46. While states are not
legally obligated to achieve the visibility conditions described in
their RPGs, Sec. 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ``[t]he long-term
strategy and the reasonable progress goals must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the baseline
period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the clearest days
since the baseline period.'' Thus, states are required to have emission
reduction measures in their long-term strategies that are projected to
achieve visibility conditions on the most impaired days that are better
than the baseline period and show no degradation on the clearest days
compared to the clearest days from the baseline period. The baseline
period for the purpose of this comparison is the baseline visibility
condition--the annual average visibility condition for the period 2000-
2004. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR at 3097-98.
So that RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of
progress a state is making towards the national visibility goal, the
RHR requires states with Class I areas to compare the 2028 RPG for the
most impaired days to the corresponding point on the URP line
(representing visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility were to
improve at a linear rate from conditions in the baseline period of
2000-2004 to natural visibility conditions in 2064). If the most
impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the URP (i.e., if visibility
conditions are improving more slowly than the rate described by the
URP), each state that contributes to visibility impairment in the Class
I area must demonstrate, based on the four-factor analysis required
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional emission reduction
measures would be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii) requires
that each state contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I area
that is projected to improve more slowly than the URP provide ``a
robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria used to
determine which sources or groups [of] sources were evaluated and how
the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken into
consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term
strategy.'' The 2019 Guidance provides suggestions about how such a
``robust demonstration'' might be conducted. See 2019 Guidance at 50-
51.
The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and 2021 Clarifications Memo also
explain that projecting an RPG that is on or below the URP based on
only on-the-books and/or on-the-way control measures (i.e., control
measures already required or anticipated before the four-factor
analysis is conducted) is not a ``safe harbor'' from the CAA's and
RHR's requirement that all states must conduct a four-factor analysis
to determine what emission reduction measures constitute reasonable
progress. The URP is a planning metric used to gauge the amount of
progress made thus far and the amount left before reaching natural
[[Page 58671]]
visibility conditions. However, the URP is not based on consideration
of the four statutory factors and therefore cannot answer the question
of whether the amount of progress being made in any particular
implementation period is ``reasonable progress.'' See 82 FR at 3093,
3099-3100; 2019 Guidance at 22; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 15-16.
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual
requirements under this subsection apply either to states with Class I
areas within their borders, states with no Class I areas but that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area, or both. A state with Class I areas within its
borders must submit with its SIP revision a monitoring strategy for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility
impairment that is representative of all Class I areas within the
state. SIP revisions for such states must also provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess visibility conditions in Class I areas, as well as reporting of
all visibility monitoring data to the EPA at least annually. Compliance
with the monitoring strategy requirement may be met through a state's
participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring network, which is used to measure
visibility impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i),
(f)(6)(iv). The IMPROVE monitoring data is used to determine the 20%
most anthropogenically impaired and 20% clearest sets of days every
year at each Class I area and tracks visibility impairment over time.
All states' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring
data and other information are used to determine the contribution of
emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment
in affected Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii). Section
51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires that all states' SIPs provide for a
statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area; the inventory must include emissions for the most recent
year for which data are available and estimates of future projected
emissions. States must also include commitments to update their
inventories periodically. The inventories themselves do not need to be
included as elements in the SIP and are not subject to EPA review as
part of the Agency's evaluation of a SIP revision.\28\ All states' SIPs
must also provide for any other elements, including reporting,
recordkeeping, and other measures, that are necessary for states to
assess and report on visibility. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). Per the 2019
Guidance, a state may note in its regional haze SIP that its compliance
with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) in 40 CFR part 51, subpart
A satisfies the requirement to provide for an emissions inventory for
the most recent year for which data are available. To satisfy the
requirement to provide estimates of future projected emissions, a state
may explain in its SIP how projected emissions were developed for use
in establishing RPGs for its own and nearby Class I areas.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See ``Step 8: Additional requirements for regional haze
SIPs'' in 2019 Regional Haze Guidance at 55.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate from the requirements related to monitoring for regional
haze purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the RHR also contains a
requirement at Sec. 51.308(f)(4) related to any additional monitoring
that may be needed to address visibility impairment in Class I areas
from a single source or a small group of sources. This is called
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment.'' \30\ Under this
provision, if the EPA or the FLM of an affected Class I area has
advised a state that additional monitoring is needed to assess
reasonably attributable visibility impairment, the state must include
in its SIP revision for the second implementation period an appropriate
strategy for evaluating such impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ EPA's visibility protection regulations define ``reasonably
attributable visibility impairment'' as ``visibility impairment that
is caused by the emission of air pollutants from one, or a small
number of sources.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report
for the first implementation period. The regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the public and the EPA about a
state's implementation of its existing long-term strategy and whether
such implementation is in fact resulting in the expected visibility
improvement. See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016), (82 FR at 3119,
January 10, 2017). To this end, every state's SIP revision for the
second implementation period is required to describe the status of
implementation of all measures included in the state's long-term
strategy, including BART and reasonable progress emission reduction
measures from the first implementation period, and the resulting
emissions reductions. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
A core component of the progress report requirements is an
assessment of changes in visibility conditions on the clearest and most
impaired days. For second implementation period progress reports, Sec.
51.308(g)(3) requires states with Class I areas within their borders to
first determine current visibility conditions for each area on the most
impaired and clearest days, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i)(B), and then to
calculate the difference between those current conditions and baseline
(2000-2004) visibility conditions in order to assess progress made to
date. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii)(B). States must also assess the
changes in visibility impairment for the most impaired and clearest
days since they submitted their first implementation period progress
reports. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(iii)(B), (f)(5). Since different
states submitted their first implementation period progress reports at
different times, the starting point for this assessment will vary state
by state.
Similarly, states must provide analyses tracking the change in
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all
sources and activities within the state over the period since they
submitted their first implementation period progress reports. See 40
CFR 51.308(g)(4), (f)(5). Changes in emissions should be identified by
the type of source or activity. Section 51.308(g)(5) also addresses
changes in emissions since the period addressed by the previous
progress report and requires states' SIP revisions to include an
assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within
or outside the state. This assessment must include an explanation of
whether these changes in emissions were anticipated and whether they
have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving
visibility relative to what the state projected based on its long-term
strategy for the first implementation period.
[[Page 58672]]
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
CAA section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a public
hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must consult with
the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that consultation, the state
must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in
the notice to the public. Consistent with this statutory requirement,
the RHR also requires that states ``provide the [FLM] with an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point early enough in
the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy emission
reduction obligation so that information and recommendations provided
by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on the long-
term strategy.'' 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). Consultation that occurs 120 days
prior to any public hearing or public comment opportunity will be
deemed ``early enough,'' but the RHR provides that in any event the
opportunity for consultation must be provided at least 60 days before a
public hearing or comment opportunity. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of visibility
impairment in any Class I area and their recommendations on the
development and implementation of strategies to address such
impairment. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In order for the EPA to evaluate
whether FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the RHR has
occurred, the SIP submission should include documentation of the timing
and content of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to the EPA
must also describe how the state addressed any comments provided by the
FLMs. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision must provide
procedures for continuing consultation between the state and FLMs
regarding the state's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4).
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's Regional Haze Submission for
the Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Connecticut's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
CT DEEP submitted its regional haze SIP for the first
implementation period to the EPA on November 18, 2009, and supplemented
it on February 24, 2012, and March 12, 2012. The EPA approved
Connecticut's first implementation period regional haze SIP submission
on July 10, 2014 (79 FR 39322). EPA's approval included, but was not
limited to, the portions of the plan that address the reasonable
progress requirements, Connecticut's maintenance of nitrogen oxide
emissions controls, as well as Connecticut's low sulfur fuel program.
The requirements for regional haze SIPs for the first implementation
period are contained in 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e). 40 CFR 51.308(b).
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g), Connecticut was also responsible for
submitting a five-year progress report as a SIP revision for the first
implementation period, which it did on June 30, 2015. The EPA approved
the progress report into the Connecticut SIP on November 26, 2019 (84
FR 65007).
B. Connecticut's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and the
EPA's Evaluation
In accordance with CAA sections 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(f), on January 5, 2022, Connecticut submitted a revision to the
Connecticut SIP to address its regional haze obligations for the second
implementation period, which runs through 2028. Connecticut made a
draft Regional Haze SIP submission available for public comment on
December 3, 2020. Connecticut has included the public comments and its
responses to those comments in the submission.
The following sections describe Connecticut's SIP submission,
including analyses conducted by MANEVU and Connecticut's determinations
based on those analyses, Connecticut's assessment of progress made
since the first implementation period in reducing emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants, and the visibility improvement
progress at nearby Class I areas. This document also contains EPA's
evaluation of Connecticut's submission against the requirements of the
CAA and RHR for the second implementation period of the regional haze
program.
C. Identification of Class I Areas
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each state in which any
Class I area is located or ``the emissions from which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility'' in
a Class I area to have a plan for making reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. The RHR implements this statutory requirement
at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which provides that each state's plan ``must
address regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within the
State,'' and (f)(2), which requires each state's plan to include a
long-term strategy that addresses regional haze in such Class I areas.
Connecticut has no mandatory Class I Federal area within its borders.
For the second implementation period, MANEVU performed technical
analyses \31\ to help assess source and state-level contributions to
visibility impairment and the need for interstate consultation. MANEVU
used the results of these analyses to determine which states' emissions
``have a high likelihood of affecting visibility in MANEVU's Class I
areas.'' \32\ Similar to metrics used in the first implementation
period,\33\ MANEVU used a greater than 2 percent of sulfate plus
nitrate emissions contribution criteria to determine whether emissions
from individual jurisdictions within the region affected visibility in
any Class I areas. The MANEVU analyses for the second implementation
period used a combination of data analysis techniques, including
emissions data, distance from Class I areas, wind trajectories, and
CALPUFF dispersion modeling. Although many of the analyses focused only
on SO2 emissions and resultant particulate sulfate
contributions to visibility impairment, some also incorporated
NOX emissions to estimate particulate nitrate contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The contribution assessment methodologies for MANEVU Class
I areas are summarized in CT RH SIP appendix ``Selection of States
for MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation (2018),'' MANEVU TSC.
September 5, 2017.
\32\ Id.
\33\ See docket EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0186 for MANEVU supporting
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One MANEVU analysis used for contribution assessment was CALPUFF
air dispersion modeling. The CALPUFF model was used to estimate sulfate
and nitrate formation and transport in MANEVU and nearby regions
originating from large electric generating unit (EGU) point sources and
other large industrial and institutional sources in the eastern and
central United States. Information from an initial round of CALPUFF
modeling was collated for the 444 EGUs that were determined to warrant
further scrutiny based on their emissions of SO2 and
NOX. The list of EGUs was based on an enhanced ``Q/d''
analysis \34\ that considered recent SO2
[[Page 58673]]
emissions in the eastern United States and an analysis that adjusted
previous 2002 MANEVU CALPUFF modeling by applying a ratio of 2011 to
2002 SO2 emissions. This list of sources was then enhanced
by including the top five SO2 and NOX emission
sources for 2011 for each state included in the modeling domain. A
total of 311 EGU stacks (as opposed to individual units) were included
in the CALPUFF modeling analysis. Initial information was also
collected on the 50 industrial and institutional sources that,
according to 2011 Q/d analysis, contributed the most to visibility
impact in each Class I area. The ultimate CALPUFF modeling run included
a total of 311 EGU stacks and 82 industrial facilities. The summary
report for the CALPUFF modeling included the top 10 most impacting EGUs
and the top 5 most impacting industrial/institutional sources for each
Class I area and compiled those results into a ranked list of the most
impacting EGUs and industrial sources at MANEVU Class I areas.\35\
Overall, MANEVU found that emission sources located close to Class I
areas typically show higher visibility impacts than similarly sized
facilities further away. However, visibility degradation appears to be
dominated by the more distant emission sources due to their larger
emissions. Connecticut had three EGUs identified in the CALPUFF
modeling as having a magnitude of emissions located close enough to a
Class I area that they could have the potential for visibility impacts:
Middletown Unit 4, Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3, and New Haven
Harbor Unit 1.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ ``Q/d'' is emissions (Q) in tons per year, typically of one
or a combination of visibility-impairing pollutants, divided by
distance to a class I area (d) in kilometers. The resulting ratio is
commonly used as a metric to assess a source's potential visibility
impacts on a particular class I area.
\35\ See ``2016 MANEVU Source Contribution Modeling Report--
CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical Generating Units and Industrial
Sources.'' MANEVU TSC. April 4, 2017.
\36\ Connecticut Regional Haze SIP Revision at 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, the EPA concluded in the 1999 RHR that ``all
[s]tates contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to regional haze in a Class I area,'' 64 FR at 35721, and
this determination was not changed in the 2017 RHR. Critically, the
statute and regulation both require that the cause-or-contribute
assessment consider all emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants
from a state, as opposed to emissions of a particular pollutant or
emissions from a certain set of sources. Consistent with these
requirements, the 2019 Guidance makes it clear that ``all types of
anthropogenic sources are to be included in the determination'' of
whether a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to result in any
visibility impairment. 2019 Guidance at 8.
The screening analyses on which MANEVU relied are useful for
certain purposes. MANEVU used information from its technical analysis
to rank the largest contributing states to sulfate and nitrate
impairment in the seven MANEVU Class I areas and three additional,
nearby Class I areas.\37\ The rankings were used to determine upwind
states that MANEVU deemed important to include in state-to-state
consultation based on an identified visibility impact screening
threshold. Additionally, large individual source impacts were used to
target MANEVU control analysis ``Asks'' \38\ of states and sources both
within and upwind of MANEVU.\39\ The EPA finds the nature of the
analyses generally appropriate to support decisions on states with
which to consult. However, we have cautioned that source selection
methodologies that target the largest regional contributors to
visibility impairment across multiple states may not be reasonable for
a particular state if it results in few or no sources being selected
for subsequent analysis. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The Class I areas analyzed were Acadia National Park in
Maine, Brigantine Wilderness in New Jersey, Great Gulf Wilderness
and Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness in New Hampshire, Lye
Brook Wilderness in Vermont, Moosehorn Wilderness in Maine,
Roosevelt Campobello International Park in New Brunswick, Shenandoah
National Park in Virginia, James River Face Wilderness in Virginia,
and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek Wildernesses in West Virginia.
\38\ As explained more fully in section IV.E.a., MANEVU refers
to each of the components of its overall strategy as an ``Ask ``of
its member states.
\39\ The MANEVU consultation report explains that ``[t]he
objective of this technical work was to identify states and sources
from which MANEVU will pursue further analysis. This screening was
intended to identify which states to invite to consultation, not a
definitive list of which states are contributing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the analysis and determinations regarding
Connecticut's contribution to visibility impairment at out-of-state
Class I areas, the MANEVU technical work focuses on the magnitude of
visibility impacts from certain Connecticut emissions on nearby Class I
areas. The MANEVU contribution screening results estimate Connecticut's
highest percent mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate contribution to be
1.4% at Moosehorn Wilderness and Roosevelt Campobello International
Park, with Acadia National Park and the Lye Brook Wilderness the next
closest Class I areas impacted by Connecticut emissions at 1.3% and
1.2%, respectively.\40\ However, the MANEVU analyses did not account
for all emissions and all components of visibility impairment (e.g.,
primary PM emissions, and impairment from fine PM, elemental carbon,
and organic carbon). In addition, Q/d analyses with a relatively
simplistic accounting for wind trajectories and CALPUFF applied to a
very limited set of EGUs and major industrial sources of SO2
and NOX are not scientifically rigorous tools capable of
evaluating contribution to visibility impairment from all emissions in
a state. The EPA acknowledges that the contribution to visibility
impairment from Connecticut's emissions at nearby out-of-state Class I
areas is smaller than that from numerous other states. While some
MANEVU states noted that the contributions from several states outside
the MANEVU region are significantly larger than its own, we again
clarify that each state is obligated under the CAA and RHR to address
regional haze visibility impairment resulting from emissions from
within the state, irrespective of whether another state's contribution
is greater. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 3. Additionally, we note
that the 2 percent or greater sulfate-plus-nitrate threshold used to
determine whether Connecticut emissions contribute to visibility
impairment at a particular Class I area may be higher than what EPA
believes is an ``extremely low triggering threshold'' intended by the
statute and regulations. In sum, based on the information provided, it
is clear that emissions from Connecticut have relatively small
contributions to Class I areas. However, due to the low triggering
threshold implied by the Rule and the lack of rigorous modeling
analyses, we do not necessarily agree with the level of the State's 2%
contribution threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See table 4-1 of the CT RH SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any event, pursuant to the regulatory requirements, Connecticut
took part in the emission control strategy consultation process as a
member of MANEVU. As part of that process, MANEVU developed a set of
emissions reduction measures identified as being necessary to make
reasonable progress in the seven MANEVU Class I areas. This strategy
consists of six Asks for states within MANEVU and five Asks for states
outside the region that were found to impact visibility at Class I
areas within MANEVU.\41\ Connecticut's submission discusses each of the
Asks and explains why or why not each is applicable and how it has
complied with the relevant components of the emissions control strategy
the MANEVU states laid out. Connecticut worked with MANEVU to determine
potential reasonable
[[Page 58674]]
measures that could be implemented by 2028, considering the cost of
compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts, and the remaining useful life of any
potentially affected sources.\42\ As discussed in further detail below,
the EPA is proposing to find that Connecticut has submitted a regional
haze plan that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) related to
the development of a long-term strategy. Thus, we propose to find that
Connecticut has satisfied the applicable requirements for making
reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas that may be affected by emissions from the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See section 5.1 of the CT RH SIP.
\42\ See 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to determine the following for
``each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State'':
baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
progress to date for the most impaired and clearest days, the
differences between current visibility conditions and natural
visibility conditions, and the URP. This section also provides the
option for states to propose adjustments to the URP line for a Class I
area to account for visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources
outside the United States and/or the impacts from wildland prescribed
fires that were conducted for certain, specified objectives. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
Connecticut has no Class I areas. MANEVU Class I areas, as well as
other nearby Class I areas that MANEVU examined, are listed below.
MANEVU used certain areas (as noted below) to represent nearby Class I
areas where monitors do not exist.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility Data, 2004-2017 (2nd
RH SIP Metrics). MANEVU (prepared by Maine Department of
Environmental Protection). December 18, 2018 revision. p.2-1
(appendix 22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MANEVU Class I Areas are Lye Brook Wilderness Area (Vermont),
Great Gulf Wilderness Area (New Hampshire) (used to represent
Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness Area), Presidential Range--Dry
River Wilderness Area (New Hampshire), Acadia National Park (Maine),
Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge (Maine) (used to represent Roosevelt
Campobello International Park), Roosevelt Campobello International Park
(New Brunswick, Canada), Brigantine Wildlife Refuge (New Jersey).
Nearby Class I Areas consist of Dolly Sods Wilderness Area (West
Virginia) (used to represent Otter Creek Wilderness Area), Otter Creek
Wilderness Area (West Virginia), Shenandoah National Park (Virginia),
and James River Face Wilderness Area (Virginia).
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
a. Connecticut's Response to the Six MANEVU Asks
Each state having a Class I area within its borders or emissions
that may affect visibility in a Class I area must develop a long-term
strategy for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility
goal. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in the Background section
of this document, reasonable progress is achieved when all states
contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I area are
implementing the measures determined--through application of the four
statutory factors to sources of visibility impairing pollutants--to be
necessary to make reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each
state's long-term strategy must include the enforceable emission
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). All new
(i.e., additional) measures that are the outcome of four-factor
analyses are necessary to make reasonable progress and must be in the
long-term strategy. If the outcome of a four-factor analysis and other
measures necessary to make reasonable progress is that no new measures
are reasonable for a source, that source's existing measures are
necessary to make reasonable progress, unless the state can demonstrate
that the source will continue to implement those measures and will not
increase its emission rate. Existing measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress must also be in the long-term strategy. In
developing its long-term strategies, a state must also consider the
five additional factors in Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its
reasonable progress determinations, the state must describe the
criteria used to determine which sources or group of sources were
evaluated (i.e., subjected to four-factor analysis) for the second
implementation period and how the four factors were taken into
consideration in selecting the emission reduction measures for
inclusion in the long-term strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
The following section summarizes how Connecticut's SIP submission
addressed the requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i); specifically, it
describes MANEVU's development of the six Asks and how Connecticut
addressed each. The regulations Connecticut identifies as a result of
its responses to the six Asks comprise Connecticut's long-term strategy
for the second planning period to address regional haze visibility
impairment for each mandatory Class I Federal area that may be affected
by emissions from Connecticut. When developing the Asks with the other
MANEVU states and applying them to sources in Connecticut, the State
considered the four statutory factors and the additional regulatory
factors and identified emissions control measures necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the goal of preventing of any future, and
remedying any existing, anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I
areas that may be affected by emissions from Connecticut. Connecticut's
SIP submission describes how it plans to meet the long-term strategy
requirements defined by the State and MANEVU via its responses to the
``Asks.'' The EPA's evaluation of Connecticut's long-term strategy is
contained in section IV.E.b.
States may rely on technical information developed by the RPOs of
which they are members to select sources for four-factor analysis and
to conduct that analysis, as well as to satisfy the documentation
requirements under Sec. 51.308(f). Where an RPO has performed source
selection and/or four-factor analyses (or considered the five
additional factors in Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member states,
those states may rely on the RPO's analyses for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the
states have a reasonable basis to do so and all state participants in
the RPO process have approved the technical analyses. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii). States may also satisfy the requirement of Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(ii) to engage in interstate consultation with other states
that have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a given Class I area under the auspices of
intra- and inter-RPO engagement.
Connecticut is a member of the MANEVU RPO and participated in the
RPO's regional approach to developing a strategy for making reasonable
progress towards the national visibility goal in the MANEVU Class I
areas. MANEVU's strategy includes a combination of: (1) measures for
certain source sectors and groups of sectors that the RPO determined
were reasonable for
[[Page 58675]]
states to pursue, and (2) a request for member states to conduct four-
factor analyses for individual sources that it identified as
contributing to visibility impairment. MANEVU refers to each of the
components of its overall strategy as an ``Ask'' of its member states.
On August 25, 2017, the Executive Director of MANEVU, on behalf of the
MANEVU states and tribal nations, signed a statement that identifies
six emission reduction measures that comprise the Asks for the second
implementation period.\44\ The Asks were ``designed to identify
reasonable emission reduction strategies that must be addressed by the
states and tribal nations of MANEVU through their regional haze SIP
updates.'' \45\ The statement explains that ``[i]f any State cannot
agree with or complete a Class I State's Asks, the State must describe
the actions taken to resolve the disagreement in the Regional Haze
SIP.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report and
Consultation Documentation--Final.''
\45\ Id.
\46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANEVU's recommendations as to the appropriate control measures
were based on technical analyses documented in the RPO's reports and
included as appendices to, or referenced in, Connecticut's regional
haze SIP submission. One of the initial steps of MANEVU's technical
analysis was to determine which visibility-impairing pollutants should
be the focus of its efforts for the second implementation period. In
the first implementation period, MANEVU determined that sulfates were
the most significant visibility impairing pollutant at the region's
Class I areas. To determine the impact of certain pollutants on
visibility at Class I areas for the purpose of second implementation
period planning, MANEVU conducted an analysis comparing the pollutant
contribution on the clearest and most impaired days in the baseline
period (2000-2004) to the most recent period (2012-2016) \47\ at MANEVU
and nearby Class I areas. MANEVU found that while SO2
emissions were decreasing and visibility was improving, sulfates still
made up the most significant contribution to visibility impairment at
MANEVU and nearby Class I areas. According to the analysis,
NOX emissions have begun to play a more significant role in
visibility impacts in recent years as SO2 emissions have
decreased. The technical analyses used by Connecticut are included in
its submission and are as follows: \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ The period of 2012-2016 was the most recent period for
which data were available at the time of analysis.
\48\ These documents can be found in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Updates to the Assessment of Reasonable Progress for
Regional Haze in MANEVU Class I Areas;
Impact of Wintertime SCR/SNCR Optimization on Visibility
Impairing Nitrate Precursor Emissions. November 2017;
High Electric Demand Days and Visibility Impairment in
MANEVU. December 2017;
Benefits of Combined Heat and Power Systems for Reducing
Pollutant Emissions in MANEVU States. March 2016;
2016 MANEVU Source Contribution Modeling Report--CALPUFF
Modeling of Large Electrical Generating Units and Industrial Sources.
April 4, 2017;
Contribution Assessment Preliminary Inventory Analysis.
October 10, 2016;
Four-Factor Data Collection Memo. March 2017;
Status of the Top 167 Stacks from the 2008 MANEVU Ask.
July 2016;
Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility Data, 2004-2019
(2nd RH SIP Metrics);
Selection of States for MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation
2018;
Ozone Transport Commission/MANEVU 2011 Based Modeling
Platform Support Document October (2018 Update).
MANEVU gathered information on each of the four statutory factors
for six source sectors it determined, based on an examination of annual
emission inventories, ``had emissions [of SO2 and/or
NOX] that were reasonabl[y] anticipated to contribute to
visibility degradation in MANEVU:'' electric generating units (EGUs),
industrial/commercial/institutional boilers (ICI boilers), cement
kilns, heating oil, residential wood combustion, and outdoor wood
combustion.\49\ MANEVU also collected data on individual sources within
the EGU, ICI boiler, and cement kiln sectors.\50\ Information for the
six sectors included explanations of technically feasible control
options for SO2 or NOX, illustrative cost-
effectiveness estimates for a range of model units and control options,
sector-wide cost considerations, potential time frames for compliance
with control options, potential energy and non-air-quality
environmental impacts of certain control options, and how the remaining
useful lives of sources might be considered in a control analysis.\51\
Source-specific data included SO2 emissions \52\ and
existing controls \53\ for certain existing EGUs, ICI boilers, and
cement kilns. MANEVU considered this information on the four factors as
well as the analyses developed by the RPO's Technical Support Committee
when it determined specific emission reduction measures that were found
to be reasonable for certain sources within two of the sectors it had
examined--EGUs and ICI boilers.\54\ The Asks were based on this
analysis and looked to either optimize the use of existing controls,
have states conduct further analysis on EGU or ICI boilers with
considerable visibility impacts, implement low sulfur fuel standards,
or lock-in lower emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See ``MANEVU Four Factor Data Collection Memo,'' at 1,
March 30, 2017.
\50\ See ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of Reasonable Progress
for Regional Haze in MANEVU Class I Areas,'' Jan. 31, 2016.
\51\ Id.
\52\ See ``Four Factor Data Collection Memo.''
\53\ See ``Status of the Top 167 Stacks from the 2008 MANEVU
Ask. July 2016.''
\54\ See ``Four Factor Data Collection Memo''; 2016 Updates to
the Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANEVU
Class I Areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANEVU Ask 1 is ``Electric Generating Units (EGUs) with a nameplate
capacity larger than or equal to 25 MW with already installed
NOX and/or SO2 controls--ensure the most
effective use of control technologies on a year-round basis to
consistently minimize emissions of haze precursors or obtain equivalent
alternative emission reductions.'' MANEVU observed that EGUs often only
run NOX emissions controls to comply with ozone season
trading programs and consequently, NOX sources may be
uncontrolled during the winter and non-peak summer days. MANEVU found
that: (1) running existing installed controls [selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)] is one of
the most cost-effective ways to control NOX emissions from
EGUs; and (2) that running existing controls year-round could
substantially reduce the NOX emissions in many of the states
upwind of Class I areas in MANEVU that lead to visibility impairment
during the winter from nitrates.\55\ MANEVU included this as an
emission management strategy because large EGUs had already been
identified as dominant contributors to visibility impairment and the
low cost of running already installed controls made it reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See ``Impact of Wintertime SCR/SNCR Optimization on
Visibility Impairing Nitrate Precursor Emissions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut identified 33 EGU units that meet the criteria of 25 MW
or larger
[[Page 58676]]
with installed controls.\56\ Connecticut explained that all of these
units identified are turbines with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
to control nitrogen oxides with the exception of Middletown Unit 3,
which is a boiler controlled by Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
(SNCR) to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides. Connecticut further
explained that these sources are subject to requirements to maintain
and operate the control equipment to minimize emissions and are made
enforceable through record keeping and reporting requirements contained
in Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-7
and the indicated new source review permits. These units are all Title
V sources, and the requirements and enforceability are reviewed at
least once every five years and are federally enforceable as well.
Connecticut also noted that are no electric generating units of 25 MW
or more with control devices to treat emissions of sulfur oxides and
that Connecticut generally addresses sulfur emissions ``on the front
end'' via sulfur-in-fuel restrictions.\57\ Connecticut concluded that
it has therefore met the requirements of Ask 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See table 5-1 of the Connecticut submittal.
\57\ See, for example, the discussion of Ask 3 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANEVU Ask 2 consists of a request that states ``Emission sources
modeled by MANEVU that have the potential for 3.0 Mm-1 or
greater visibility impacts at any MANEVU Class I area, as identified by
MANEVU contribution analyses . . . perform a four-factor analysis for
reasonable installation or upgrade to emission controls.'' Based on an
examination of visibility impact modeling results, MANEVU concluded
that a 3.0 Mm-1 cutoff captured an appropriately-sized group
of sources contributing the largest percentage of visibility impairing
pollutants to Class I areas in the MANEVU states.\58\ For units
identified for the Ask 2 analysis, MANEVU requested that states
determine reasonable controls through the consideration of the four
factors on a state-by-state and unit-by-unit basis. MANEVU's analysis
for Ask 2 did not identify any units in Connecticut with a potential
impact of at least 3.0 Mm-1.\59\ Connecticut notes that the
highest estimated impact from any Connecticut source to any Class I
area is just over 1.0 Mm-1. Furthermore, this particular
source--Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3--shuttered in 2021.\60\ Based
on the lack of identified sources at or above the 3.0 Mm-1
threshold, Connecticut concluded that it met Ask 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Units with smaller contributions of visibility-impairing
pollutants were captured by other Asks.
\59\ See MANEVU Intra-Regional Ask Final August 25, 2017.
\60\ CT DEEP revoked the operating permit for Bridgeport Harbor
Station Unit 3 on October 28, 2021. See ``Combined NSR &
Registration Revocation Letter'' in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANEVU Ask 3 is: ``Each MANEVU State that has not yet fully adopted
an ultra-low sulfur fuel oil standard as requested by MANEVU in 2007--
pursue this standard as expeditiously as possible and before 2028,
depending on supply availability, where the standards are as follows:
a. distillate oil to 0.0015% sulfur by weight (15 ppm); b. #4 residual
oil within a range of 0.25 to 0.5% sulfur by weight; and c. #6 residual
oil within a range of 0.3 to 0.5% sulfur by weight.'' Connecticut
explained that the State has an ultra-low sulfur fuel program, with the
most recent sulfur content limitations effective as of July 1, 2018.
Connecticut's ultra-low sulfur fuel program consists of Connecticut
General Statutes (CGS) section 16a-21a and RCSA sections 22a-174-19a
and 22a-174-19b. CGS 16a-21a and RCSA 22a-174-19a limit the sulfur
content of home heating oil to 15ppm and the sulfur content of off-road
diesel to 3000 ppm (0.3%S). RCSA 22a-174-19b further limits sulfur
content of fuel oil sold in Connecticut for use in stationary sources
to 15 ppm for distillate and 3000 ppm (0.3%S) for aviation and residual
fuels. EPA approved the latest revisions of these rules into
Connecticut's SIP on May 25, 2016 (81 FR 33134). Based on the above,
Connecticut concluded that the State's low sulfur fuel program meets
Ask 3.
MANEVU Ask 4 requests states to update permits to ``lock in'' lower
emissions rates for NOX, SO2, and PM at emissions
sources larger than 250 million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) per hour
heat input that have switched operations to lower emitting fuels.
Connecticut explained that EGUs and large sources in the State are
subject to Title V permitting requirements under RCSA section 22a-174-
33, and that the permits for these sources are reviewed every five
years and specify allowable operating scenarios, including the type of
fuels fired. Connecticut further explained that Title V permit
conditions for these sources related to lower emitting fuels stem from
Connecticut's sulfur-in-fuel regulations (RCSA sections 22a-174-19a and
-19b), New Source Review (NSR) permits, and trading orders that
restrict oil firing in favor of natural gas. A change in fuel type not
allowed by permit would trigger requirements for a new or modified
permit under RCSA section 22a-174-3a and -33. Connecticut concluded
that it therefore met the requirements of Ask 4.
Ask 5 requests that MANEVU states ``control NOX
emissions for peaking combustion turbines that have the potential to
operate on high electric demand days'' by either: (1) Meeting
NOX emissions standards specified in the Ask for turbines
that run on natural gas and fuel oil, (2) performing a four-factor
analysis for reasonable installation of or upgrade to emission
controls, or (3) obtaining equivalent emission reductions on high
electric demand days.\61\ The Ask requests states to strive for
NOX emission standards of no greater than 25 ppm for natural
gas and 42 ppm for fuel oil, or at a minimum, NOX emissions
standards of no greater than 42 ppm for natural gas and 96 ppm at for
fuel oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report and
Consultation Documentation--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut identified two state regulations EPA previously
approved into Connecticut's SIP that limit NOX emissions
from electric generating units and other stationary sources. RCSA
section 22a-174-22e (86 FR 37053) prescribes averaging times and
emission limits for units at major sources of NOX. RCSA
section 22a-174-22f (82 FR 35454) applies to generators at non-major
facilities during the summer season, and section 22a-174-22f(e)(4)
requires that any affected unit that exceeds the allowable daily
thresholds is to be subject to the same limits that apply to sources in
RCSA section 22a-174-22e. The requirements of RCSA section 22a-174-22e
were phased-in over two implementation periods. The first phase became
effective June 1, 2018, and the second phase became effective June 1,
2023. Under Phase 2, daily NOX limits for combined cycle
turbines are set at 25 ppm for natural gas and 42 ppm for fuel oil,
RCSA section 22a-174-22e(d)(5)(C), and daily NOX limits for
simple cycle turbines are set at 40 ppm for natural gas and 50 ppm for
fuel oil, id. section 22a-174-22e(d)(4)(C). Connecticut noted that
these already adopted rules to control nitrogen oxide emissions from
peaking turbines are at least as stringent as the limits in Ask 5.\62\
Therefore, Connecticut concluded that it fully addressed Ask 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See table 5-2 of the CT RH SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last Ask for states within MANEVU (Ask 6) requests states to
report in their regional haze SIPs about programs that decrease energy
demand
[[Page 58677]]
and increase the use of combined heat and power (CHP) and other
distributed generation technologies such as fuel cells, wind and solar.
Connecticut asserted that the state continues to support programs to
increase energy efficiency, CHP, and other clean energy technologies.
The submittal provides as an example Energize Connecticut\SM\, which it
describes as an initiative of the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund,
the Connecticut Green Bank, the State, and local utilities dedicated to
saving energy and building a clean energy future for everyone in the
state. The initiative has funding support from a charge on customer
energy bills. Connecticut reports that energy savings efforts through
2018 have resulted in emissions avoidance of the equivalent of one 130
MW power plant. Connecticut also identified off-shore wind programs,
State Executive Order No. 3 (which commits the CT DEEP, in consultation
with the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority to analyze
and recommend strategies for achieving a carbon emissions free goal for
the electricity-generating sector by 2040), and the state's membership
in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) as programs that
provide air quality benefits. Connecticut therefore concluded that it
satisfies Ask 6.
In summary, Connecticut identified the following SIP-approved
programs as necessary for reasonable progress and therefore included in
the State's long term strategy: RCSA 22a-174-19a, Control of sulfur
dioxide emissions from power plants and other large stationary sources
of air pollution; RCSA 22a-174-19b, Fuel sulfur content limitations for
stationary sources; RCSA 22a-174-22e, Control of nitrogen oxides
emissions from fuel-burning equipment at major stationary sources of
nitrogen oxides; RCSA 22a-174-22f, High daily NOX emitting
units at non-major sources of NOX; and RCSA 22a-174-38,
Municipal Waste Combustors.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See CT RH Submittal at 75, 78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. The EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's Response to the Six MANEVU
Asks and Compliance With Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i)
The EPA is proposing to find that Connecticut has satisfied the
requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i) related to evaluating sources and
determining the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress by considering the four statutory factors. We are
proposing to find that Connecticut has satisfied the four-factor
analysis requirement through its analysis and actions to address MANEVU
Ask 3.
As explained above, Connecticut relied on MANEVU's technical
analyses and framework (i.e., the Asks) to select sources and develop
its long-term strategy. MANEVU conducted an inventory analysis to
identify the source sectors that produced the greatest amount of
SO2 and NOX emissions in 2011; inventory data
were also projected to 2018. Based on this analysis, MANEVU identified
the top-emitting sectors for each of the two pollutants, which for
SO2 include coal-fired EGUs, industrial boilers, oil-fired
EGUs, and oil-fired area sources including residential, commercial, and
industrial sources. Major-emitting sources of NOX include
on-road vehicles, non-road vehicles, and EGUs.\64\ The RPO's
documentation explains that ``[EGUs] emitting SO2 and
NOX and industrial point sources emitting SO2
were found to be sectors with high emissions that warranted further
scrutiny. Mobile sources were not considered in this analysis because
any ask concerning mobile sources would be made to EPA and not during
the intra-RPO and inter-RPO consultation process among the states and
tribes.'' \65\ EPA proposes to find that Connecticut reasonably
evaluated the two pollutants--SO2 and NOX--that
currently drive visibility impairment within the MANEVU region and that
it adequately explained and supported its decision to focus on these
two pollutants through its reliance on the MANEVU technical analyses
cited in its submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See ``Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic United States: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANEVU) Contribution Assessment. NESCAUM. August 2006.''
\65\ See ``Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility Data, 2004-
2019 (2nd RH SIP Metrics). MANEVU (prepared by Maine Department of
Environmental Protection). January 21, 2021, revision.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to evaluate and determine
the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress by applying the four statutory factors to sources in a control
analysis. As explained previously, the MANEVU Asks are a mix of
measures for sectors and groups of sources identified as reasonable for
states to address in their regional haze plans. Several of the Asks
include analyses of emissions controls, and Connecticut identifies
numerous existing controls that are in the SIP and are included in the
long-term strategy. While MANEVU formulated the Asks to be ``reasonable
emission reduction strategies'' to control emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants,\66\ Ask 3 (adoption of ultra-low sulfur fuel oil)
engages with the requirement that states determine the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress
through consideration of the four factors. As laid out in further
detail below, the EPA is proposing to find that MANEVU's four-factor
analysis conducted to support the emission reduction measures in Ask 3,
satisfies the requirement of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i). The emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress must
be included in the long-term strategy, i.e., in Connecticut's SIP. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut asserted that it satisfies Ask 1 because the state
permits for the EGUs covered by this Ask include year-round emission
limits and require that controls be run at all times the units are in
operation and emitting air pollutants. Furthermore, the requirements to
maintain and operate the control equipment to minimize emissions are
made enforceable through record keeping and reporting requirements
contained in previously SIP-approved RCSA section 22a-174-7 (79 FR
41427) and New Source Review permits. As each of these units are at
Title V sources, the requirements are federally enforceable, and
Connecticut renews the permits every five years. EPA thus agrees that
Connecticut satisfied Ask 1.
Ask 2 addresses the sources MANEVU determined have the potential
for larger than, or equal to, 3.0 Mm-1 visibility impact at
any MANEVU Class I area; the Ask requests MANEVU states to conduct
four-factor analyses for the specified sources within their borders.
This Ask explicitly engages with the statutory and regulatory
requirement to determine reasonable progress based on the four factors;
MANEVU considered it ``reasonable to have the greatest contributors to
visibility impairment conduct a four-factor analysis that would
determine whether emission control measures should be pursued and what
would be reasonable for each source.'' \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report and
Consultation Documentation--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an initial matter, EPA does not generally agree that 3.0
Mm-1 visibility impact is a reasonable threshold for source
selection. The RHR recognizes that, due to the nature of regional haze
visibility impairment, numerous and sometimes relatively small sources
may need to be selected and evaluated for control measures in order to
make reasonable progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4. As
explained
[[Page 58678]]
in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, while states have discretion to choose
any source selection threshold that is reasonable, ``[a] state that
relies on a visibility (or proxy for visibility impact) threshold to
select sources for four-factor analysis should set the threshold at a
level that captures a meaningful portion of the state's total
contribution to visibility impairment to Class I areas.'' 2021 Memo at
3. In this case, the 3.0 Mm-1 threshold did not identify any
sources in Connecticut (and identified only 22 across the entire MANEVU
region), indicating that it may be unreasonably high. We also note,
however, that the 3.0 Mm-1 threshold used in this Ask is
only one part of the MANEVU source identification process and that
being below this threshold did not necessarily exclude a source from
additional review in connection with another Ask.
The EPA agrees that Connecticut reasonably determined it has
satisfied Ask 2. As explained above, while we do not generally agree
that a 3.0 Mm-1 threshold for selecting sources for four-
factor analysis results in a set of sources the evaluation of which has
the potential to meaningfully reduce the state's contribution to
visibility impairment, the MANEVU analysis did not identify any sources
in Connecticut with an impact at or above 3.0 Mm-1. EPA
notes that the MANEVU analysis also did not identify any sources in
Connecticut above 2.0 Mm-1 and only once source above 1
Mm-1: Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3 (at 1.22
Mm-1),\68\ which permanently retired on May 31, 2021. The
State of Connecticut has revoked the permit for this unit \69\ and has
committed funding to assist in demolishing the facility and
redeveloping the site.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See 2016 MANEVU CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical
Generating Units and Industrial Sources.
\69\ See ``Combined NSR & Registration Revocation Letter'' in
the docket for this rulemaking.
\70\ See https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/ct-bridgeport-pseg-power-plant-demolition-18388093.php (also in docket for this
rulemaking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask 3, which addresses the sulfur content of heating oil used in
MANEVU states, is based on a four-factor analysis for the heating oil
sulfur reduction regulations contained in that Ask; \71\ specifically,
for the control strategy of reducing the sulfur content of distillate
oil to 15 ppm. The analysis started with an assessment of the costs of
retrofitting refineries to produce 15 ppm heating oil in sufficient
quantities to support implementation of the standard, as well as the
impacts of requiring a reduction in sulfur content on consumer prices.
The analysis noted that, as a result of previous EPA rulemakings to
reduce the sulfur content of on-road and non-road-fuels to 15 ppm,
technologies are currently available to achieve sulfur reductions and
many refiners are already meeting this standard, meaning that the
capital investments for further reductions in the sulfur content of
heating oil are expected to be relatively low compared to costs
incurred in the past. The analysis also examined, by way of example,
the impacts of New York's existing 15 ppm sulfur requirements on
heating oil prices and concluded that the cost associated with reducing
sulfur was relatively small in terms of the absolute price of heating
oil compared to the magnitude of volatility in crude oil prices. It
also noted that the slight price premium is compensated by cost savings
due to the benefits of lower-sulfur fuels in terms of equipment life
and maintenance and fuel stability. Consideration of the time necessary
for compliance with a 15 ppm sulfur standard was accomplished through a
discussion of the amount of time refiners had needed to comply with the
EPA's on-road and non-road fuel 15 ppm requirement, and the
implications existing refinery capacity and distribution infrastructure
may have for compliance times with a 15 ppm heating oil standard. The
analysis concluded that with phased-in timing for states that have not
yet adopted a 15 ppm heating oil standard there ``appears to be
sufficient time to allow refiners to add any additional heating oil
capacity that may be required.'' \72\ The analysis further noted the
beneficial energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of a 15 ppm
sulfur heating oil requirement and that reducing sulfur content may
also have a salutary impact on the remaining useful life of residential
furnaces and boilers.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See 2016 Updates to the Assessment of Reasonable Progress
For Regional Haze In MANEVU Class I Areas.
\72\ Id. at 8-7.
\73\ Id. at 8-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA agrees that Connecticut reasonably relied on MANEVU's four-
factor analysis for a low-sulfur fuel oil regulation, which engaged
with each of the statutory factors and explained how the information
supported a conclusion that a 15 ppm sulfur fuel oil standard for fuel
oils is reasonable. As noted above, RCSA 22a-174-19a limits the sulfur
content of home heating oil to 15 ppm and the sulfur content of off-
road diesel to 3000 ppm (0.3%S). RCSA 22a-174-19b further limits sulfur
content of fuel oil sold in Connecticut for use in stationary sources
to 15 ppm for distillate and 3000 ppm (0.3%S) for aviation and residual
fuels. EPA approved the latest revisions of these rules into
Connecticut's SIP on May 25, 2016,\74\ and Connecticut includes both in
its long-term strategy for the second planning period.\75\
Connecticut's SIP-approved ultra-low sulfur fuel oil rule is consistent
with Ask 3's sulfur content standards for the three types of fuel oils
(distillate oil, #4 residual oil, #6 residual oil). EPA therefore
agrees that Connecticut satisfied Ask 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ 81 FR 33134.
\75\ See CT RH SIP Submittal at 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut concluded that no additional updates were needed to
meet Ask 4, which requests that MANEVU states pursue updating permits,
enforceable agreements, and/or rules to lock-in lower emission rates
for SO2, NOX and PM at EGUs and other sources
larger than 250 MMBtu per hour that have switched operations to lower
emitting fuels. As noted above, Connecticut has asserted that EGUs and
large sources are already subject to Title V permitting requirements
under RCSA section 22a-174-33 and that permits for these sources are
renewed every five years and specify allowable operating scenarios,
which includes type of fuels fired. Any change in fuel type that is not
allowed by permit would trigger requirements for a new or modified
permit under RCSA sections 22a-174-3a and -33, which are in the SIP.
While requirements for lower emitting fuels contained in state fuel
sulfur regulations at RCSA sections 22a-174-19a may be a means to
achieve SO2 reductions at sources covered by this Ask that
have switched to a lower emitting fuel oil, it is not clear from the
discussion in Connecticut's submittal what actions the State has
``pursued'' under this Ask to ``lock-in lower emission rates'' of
SO2, NOX and PM at other sources covered by the
Ask (i.e., sources that have switched to other lower emitting fuel
types). The submittal does not provide specific examples of sources
previously authorized to burn more than one fuel type that have been
``locked-in'' to the lower-emitting fuel under this Ask. Satisfaction
of Ask 4 is not necessarily a required element of a Regional Haze SIP,
however. In addition, as Connecticut notes, any sources that wish to
make a future switch to higher emitting fuels not currently authorized
by permit are required to revise their permits to reflect the change,
and state rules favor lower-emitting fuels and make any permit revision
subject to additional analyses, including NSR.
Ask 5 addresses NOX emissions from peaking combustion
turbines that have
[[Page 58679]]
the potential to operate on high electric demand days. The Ask requests
states to ``strive'' for NOX emission standards of no
greater than 25 ppm for natural gas and 42 ppm for fuel oil but at a
minimum, meet NOX emissions standards of no greater than 42
ppm for natural gas and 96 ppm for fuel oil.
As discussed above, Connecticut identified two recently approved
regulations in the SIP that address NOX emissions from
electric generating units and other stationary sources. RCSA section
22a-174-22e prescribes averaging times and emission limits for units at
major sources of NOX. As of June 1, 2023, the state
regulations set limits of 25 ppm for natural gas and 42 ppm for fuel
oil at combined cycle turbines and 40 ppm for natural gas and 50 ppm
for fuel oil at simple cycle turbines. The combined cycle limits match
the ``strive for'' limits in the Ask. And while the simple cycle limits
do not, they are more stringent than the ``minimum'' limits in the
Ask.\76\ In addition, RCSA section 22a-174-22f applies to combustion
turbines at facilities that are not major sources of NOX and
provides that combustion turbines that meet the generating criterion of
the Ask (i.e., capable of generating 15 MW or more) are also subject to
the limits in RCSA section 22a-174-22e. See RCSA section 22a-174-
22f(a)(1), (e)(4). Connecticut includes both regulations in its long-
term strategy for the second planning period,\77\ and both are in the
SIP. EPA agrees that Connecticut reasonably demonstrated that it meets
Ask 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ See CT RH SIP Submittal, table 5-2.
\77\ See id. at 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, regarding Ask 6, Connecticut pointed to various state
regulations, State Executive Orders, participation in offshore wind
projects, and membership in RGGI as policy efforts to increase energy
efficiency and reduce reliance on fossil fuels for energy.
Additionally, as discussed in the previous section, Connecticut
reported energy savings efforts through 2018 have resulted in avoidance
of the equivalent of one 130 MW power plant. The EPA agrees that
Connecticut has satisfied Ask 6's request to consider and report in its
SIP measures or programs related to energy efficiency, cogeneration,
and other clean distributed generation technologies.
In sum, the EPA is proposing to find--based on Connecticut's
participation in the MANEVU planning process, how it has addressed the
Asks, and the EPA's assessment of Connecticut's emissions and point
sources--that Connecticut has complied with the requirements of Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(i). Specifically, Connecticut's application of MANEVU Ask
3 engages with the requirement that states evaluate and determine the
emission reduction measures necessary to make reasonable progress by
considering the four statutory factors.
The EPA is proposing to find the state's approach meets the
statutory and regulatory requirements for several reasons. Connecticut
reasonably evaluated and explained its decision to focus on
SO2 and NOX to address visibility impairment
within the MANEVU region. Connecticut adequately supported that
decision through reasonable reliance on the MANEVU technical analyses
cited in its submission. In addition, as the EPA discusses in more
detail in section IV.I. below, Connecticut adequately responded to
comments to consider sources identified by the FLMs through the
consultation process. The Agency notes that MANE-VU concluded that
sulfates from SO2 emissions were still the primary driver of
visibility impairment in the second implementation period and that
MANEVU conducted a four-factor analysis to support Ask 3, which
requests that states pursue ultra-low sulfur fuel oil standards to
address SO2 emissions. Connecticut's SIP-approved sulfur in
fuel rule sets stringent limits for sulfur content and SO2
emissions for fuels. Additionally, Connecticut's SIP submittal
identifies a long-term strategy that includes five state regulations
previously approved into its SIP. The provisions at RCSA 22a-174-19a
control SO2 emissions by limiting the sulfur content of home
heating oil to 15 ppm and the sulfur content of off-road diesel to 3000
ppm (0.3%S). RCSA 22a-174-19b further controls SO2 emissions
by limiting sulfur content of fuel oil sold in Connecticut for use in
stationary sources to 15 ppm for distillate and 3000 ppm (0.3%S) for
aviation and residual fuels. EPA approved the latest revisions of these
rules into Connecticut's SIP on May 25, 2016.\78\ Connecticut's
regulations at RCSA 22a-174-22e and RCSA 22a-174-22f prescribe
averaging times and set emission limits for sources of NOX
at 25 ppm for natural gas and 42 ppm for fuel oil at combined cycle
turbines and at 40 ppm for natural gas and 50 ppm for fuel oil at
simple cycle turbines. EPA most recently approved these regulations
into Connecticut's SIP on July 14, 2021, and July 31, 2017,
respectively.\79\ Further, RCSA 22a-174-38, most recently approved into
Connecticut's SIP on July 31, 2017,\80\ regulates NOX
emissions from municipal waste combustors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 81 FR 33134.
\79\ 86 FR 37053; 82 FR 35454.
\80\ 82 FR 35454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also notes the relatively low impact Connecticut's
emissions have on the visibility impairment in nearby Class 1 areas.
While, as discussed earlier, we do not necessarily agree with the level
of the State's chosen 2% contribution threshold, it appears that
emissions from Connecticut have relatively small contributions to Class
I areas.\81\ Further, Connecticut is in the Ozone Transport Region and
is currently designated nonattainment statewide for both the 2008 and
2015 ozone standards. As a result, Connecticut already imposes
stringent controls on its sources, including through statewide
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements, to limit
emissions of the ozone precursors NOX and VOCs. In addition,
Connecticut must continue to control emissions of these precursors to
attain, and then maintain, the ozone standards. As NOX and
VOCs are also contributors to visibility impairment, these requirements
have had the additional effect of controlling haze-forming emissions
from sources throughout the State and are generally reflected in the
MANEVU contribution screening results. Based on the MANEVU contribution
screening analysis, Connecticut's highest percent mass-weighted sulfate
and nitrate contribution to any Class I area is estimated to be 1.4% at
Moosehorn Wilderness and Roosevelt Campobello International Park, and
1.3% and 1.2% to Acadia National Park and the Lye Brook Wilderness
Area, respectively.\82\ Slightly lower percent contributions are
estimated from Connecticut's emissions to the other Class I areas in
the MANEVU states: 1.0% to the Brigantine Wilderness Area and 0.7% to
the two New Hampshire Wilderness Areas.\83\ As discussed earlier,
Connecticut's submittal includes and adopts a four-factor analysis
conducted by the MANEVU states to support low-sulfur fuel restrictions
that Connecticut has included in its long-term strategy. EPA believes
it was reasonable for Connecticut not to conduct additional four-factor
analyses in this case because haze-forming emissions from the State are
already limited by EPA-approved emissions limits in the SIP (as a
result of other CAA requirements), there are no other large visibility
impairing point sources of SO2 or NOX in the
State, and the State's overall small contributions to
[[Page 58680]]
visibility impairment in nearby Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See CT RH Submittal at 19-27, 46.
\82\ See table 4-1 of the CT RH SIP.
\83\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the above reasons, the EPA proposes to find that Connecticut's
SIP submittal satisfies the requirements that a State submit a long-
term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for
each mandatory Class I Federal area that may be affected by emissions
from the State and that the long-term strategy include the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress
determined by considering the four factors.
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
The consultation requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide
that states must consult with other states that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinated emission management strategies containing the
emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) require states to
consider the emission reduction measures identified by other states as
necessary for reasonable progress and to include agreed upon measures
in their SIPs, respectively. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to what
happens if states cannot agree on what measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress.
Connecticut participated in and provided documentation of the
MANEVU intra- and inter-RPO consultation processes, which included
consulting with both MANEVU and non-MANEVU states about emissions from
Connecticut reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in Class I areas within the MANEVU area and in adjacent
areas. The consultations addressed developing coordinated emission
management strategies containing the emission reductions necessary to
make reasonable progress at the Class I areas impacted by emissions
from States within MANEVU. Connecticut addressed the MANEVU Asks by
providing information on the enforceable measures it has in place that
satisfy each Ask.\84\ While Connecticut did not receive any requests
from non-MANEVU states to consider additional measures to address
visibility impairment in Class I areas outside MANEVU, MANEVU
documented disagreements that occurred during consultation. For
instance, MANEVU noted in its Consultation Report that upwind states
expressed concern regarding the analyses the RPO utilized for the
selection of states for the consultation. MANEVU agreed that these
tools, as all models, have their limitations, but nonetheless deemed
them appropriate. Additionally, there were several comments regarding
the choice of the 2011 modeling base year. MANEVU agreed that the
choice of base year is critical to the outcome of the study. MANEVU
acknowledged that there were newer versions of the emission inventories
and the need to use the best available inventory for each analysis.
MANEVU, however, concluded that the selected inventories were
appropriate for the analysis. Additionally, upwind states noted that
they would not be able to address the MANEVU Asks until they finalize
their SIPs. MANEVU believed the assumption of the implementation of the
Asks from upwind states in its 2028 control case modeling was
reasonable, and Connecticut included both the 2028 base case and
control case modeling results in its SIP, representing visibility
conditions at the Class 1 areas in the MANU-VU States assuming upwind
states do not and do implement the Asks, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, Connecticut participated in the MANEVU intra- and inter-RPO
consultation and included in its SIP submittal the measures identified
and agreed to during those consultations, thereby satisfying Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B). Connecticut satisfied Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) by participating in MANEVU's consultation process,
which documented the disagreements between the upwind states and MANEVU
and explained MANEVU's reasoning on each of the disputed issues. Based
on the entirety of MANEVU's intra- and inter-RPO consultation and
MANEVU's and Connecticut's responses to comments on the SIP submission
and various technical analyses therein, we propose to determine that
Connecticut has satisfied the consultation requirements of Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(ii).
The documentation requirement of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides
that states may meet their obligations to document the technical bases
on which they are relying to determine the emission reductions measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress through an RPO, as long
as the process has been ``approved by all State participants.'' As
explained above, Connecticut chose to rely on MANEVU's technical
information, modeling, and analysis to support development of its long-
term strategy. The MANEVU technical analyses on which Connecticut
relied are listed in the state's SIP submission and include source
contribution assessments, information on each of the four factors and
visibility modeling information for certain EGUs, and evaluations of
emission reduction strategies for specific source categories.
Connecticut also provided additional information to further demonstrate
the technical bases and emission information it relied on to determine
the emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. Based on the documentation provided by the state, we propose
to find Connecticut satisfies this requirement of Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that the emissions
information considered to determine the measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most
recent year for which the state has submitted triennial emissions data
to the EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period
for newly submitted data. Connecticut's SIP submission included 2017
NEI emission data for NOX, SO2, PM, VOCs and
NH3 and 2017 Air Markets Program Data (AMPD) emissions for
NOX and SO2. Based on Connecticut's consideration
and analysis of the 2017 and 2019 emission data in its SIP submittal,
the EPA proposes to find that Connecticut has satisfied the emissions
information requirement in Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
We also propose to find that Connecticut reasonably considered the
five additional factors in Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing its
long-term strategy. Pursuant to Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), Connecticut
noted that existing and ongoing state and federal emission control
programs that contribute to emission reductions through 2028 would
impact emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from point and
nonpoint sources in the second implementation period. Connecticut
included in its SIP a comprehensive lists of control measures and other
requirements that will continue to reduce emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants, identifying the source category and corresponding
Connecticut regulatory provisions. These measures include SIP approved
revisions to RCSA section 22a-174-38 (82 FR 35454) to obtain
NOX emission reductions from municipal waste combustors;
implementation of RCSA sections 22a-174-22e (86 FR 37053) and 22a-174-
22f (82 FR 35454) to obtain NOX emissions from major and
minor sources of NOX; and implementation of the last phase
of RCSA section 22a-174-19b (81 FR 33134) to reduce sulfur oxide
emissions from fuel burning sources.
[[Page 58681]]
Connecticut's consideration of measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities as required by Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B)
includes, in section 8.2 of its SIP submission, measures that
Connecticut has implemented to mitigate the impacts from such
activities. Connecticut has implemented standards that reduce fugitive
dust emissions from construction, rules to address exhaust emissions
including rules to limit the idling of vehicles and equipment, rules to
reduce allowable smoke from on-road diesel engines, and general
conformity rules.
Pursuant to Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), source retirements and
replacement schedules are addressed in section 8.3 of Connecticut's
submission. Source retirements and replacements were considered in
developing the 2028 emission projections, with on the books/on the way
retirements and replacements included in the 2028 projections. The EGU
point sources included in the inventories used in the MANEVU
contribution assessment and that were subsequently retired are
described in section 8.3 of the Connecticut submission. Connecticut
calculated a net reduction of approximately 8,990 tons per year (tpy)
of allowable NOX emissions and 17,350 tpy of allowable
SO2 emissions between the 2011 base year and the 2028
projected year based on EGU retirements (including retirement of the
last coal-fired unit in the state) and replacement during that time
with lower emitting units.
In considering smoke management as required in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), Connecticut explained, in section 8.4 of its
submission, that it addresses smoke management through a program under
state law at CGS section 22a-174(f) that authorizes open burning
(including prescribed burns for agriculture and wildland vegetation
management purposes) through permits issued by municipal officials but
limits it on poor air quality days, thereby reducing the impacts of
prescribed burns on visibility. EPA approved this program into
Connecticut's SIP on September 1, 2016. 81 FR 60274. Connecticut
considers these efforts to be sufficient to protect visibility in Class
I areas, including from agriculture- and forestry-related smoke. The
EPA agrees that Connecticut adequately considered smoke management
practices as part of its submittal as required by Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D).
Connecticut considered the anticipated net effect of projected
changes in emissions as required by Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E) by
discussing, in section 8.1 of its submission, various programs and
state regulations that control emissions from the State's point, area,
and mobile sources. Connecticut, through its nonattainment status for
the 2008 and 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, is
required to implement programs to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMTs),
which will reduce emissions in the mobile source sector. This sector
also contributes to regional haze, so any reductions would have the
added benefit of helping to improve visibility. Additionally, section 6
of the Connecticut submittal contains emissions projections for 2028,
modeled in collaboration with MANEVU. These projected emissions
incorporate the impact of strategies that are on-the-books, anticipated
growth in the respective sector, and anticipated unit closures and the
MANEVU ``Ask.'' The 2028 inventory projections demonstrate an overall
reduction in emissions between the 2011 base year and 2028 modeled year
thus, satisfying (f)(2)(iv)(e).
Because Connecticut has reasonably considered each of the five
additional factors, the EPA proposes to find that Connecticut has
satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements pertaining to RPGs
for each Class I area. Because Connecticut does not host a Class I
area, it is not subject to either Sec. 51.308(f)(3)(i) or
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A). Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that, if a
state contains sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area in another state and the RPG
for the most impaired days in that Class I area is above the URP
glidepath, the upwind state must provide the same demonstration.
None of the Class I areas in or adjacent to the MANEVU region have
RPGs above their respective URP glidepath. Table 2-1 of Connecticut's
SIP submittal summarizes baseline visibility conditions (i.e.,
visibility conditions during 2000-2004) for the most impaired and
clearest days at each area as well as information on natural visibility
conditions. Table 2-3 of the submittal shows the values on the URP
glidepaths for 2028. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 summarize the 2028 RPG for the
most impaired days for each area, as well as the modeled 2028 base case
(representing visibility conditions in 2028 with existing controls),
respectively. These visibility conditions, as well as the 2028
reasonable progress goals for the clearest days, are also included. The
2028 RPGs for each Class I area are well below their respective URP
glidepaths. Therefore, Sec. 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) is not applicable to
Connecticut.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each comprehensive revision of
a state's regional haze SIP must contain or provide for certain
elements, including monitoring strategies, emissions inventories, and
any reporting, recordkeeping and other measures needed to assess and
report on visibility. Since Connecticut does not contain any Class I
areas, it is not required to submit the monitoring strategy referenced
in Sec. 51.308(f)(6), nor are the requirements in Sec.
51.308(f)(6)(i), (ii), and (iv) applicable.
40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iii), however, applies to states with no Class
I areas (such as Connecticut) and requires them to include in their
Regional Haze SIPs procedures by which monitoring data and other
information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from
within the state to visibility impairment at Class I areas in other
states. Monitoring in Connecticut that contributes data for assessing
visibility is described in section 2.1 of the Connecticut SIP
submission.\85\ Visibility data analysis procedures are described in
the MANEVU visibility data report. Other procedures and data used for
determining Connecticut contribution to visibility impairment are
described in section 4 of the Connecticut SIP and the MANEVU documents
referenced.\86\ An IMPROVE monitor at the Mohawk Mountain site in
Connecticut provides data to assess current visibility, track changes
in visibility, and help determine the causes of visibility impairment
in Class I areas in the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Connecticut's submission contains two sections identified
as 2.1. The first one discusses the IMPROVE monitoring network.
\86\ Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility Data, 2004-2019 (2nd
RH SIP Metrics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for a statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for
the most recent year for which data are available and estimates of
future projected emissions. It also requires a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. Connecticut provides for emissions inventories
and estimates for future projected emissions by participating in the
MANEVU RPO and complying with EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Rule
(AERR). In 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, the AERR requires states to
submit updated
[[Page 58682]]
emissions inventories for criteria pollutants to EPA's Emissions
Inventory System (EIS) every three years. The emission inventory data
are used to develop the NEI, which provides for, among other things, a
triennial state-wide inventory of pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment.
Section 3 of Connecticut's submission includes tables of NEI data.
The source categories of the emissions inventories included are: (1)
Point sources, (2) nonpoint sources, (3) non-road mobile sources, and
(4) on-road mobile sources. The point source category is further
divided into AMPD point sources and non-AMPD point sources. Connecticut
included NEI emissions inventories for the following years: 2002 (one
of the regional haze program baseline years), 2008, 2011, 2014, and
2017; and for the following pollutants: SO2, NOX,
PM10, PM2.5, VOCs, and NH3.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires states to include estimates
of future projected emissions and include a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. Connecticut relied on the MANEVU 2028 emissions
projections for MANEVU states. MANEVU completed two 2028 projected
emissions modeling cases--a 2028 base case that considers only on-the-
books controls and a 2028 control case that considers implementation of
the MANEVU Asks.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See ``OTC MANEVU 2011 Based Modeling Platform Support
Document October 2018--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Connecticut has met the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) as described above, including through its
continued participation in the MANEVU RPO and its on-going compliance
with the AERR, and that no further elements are necessary at this time
for Connecticut to assess and report on visibility pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(vi). Connecticut's SIP submittal also includes a
commitment to update the statewide emissions inventory periodically.
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic comprehensive revisions
of states' Regional Haze plans also address the progress report
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The purpose of these
requirements is to evaluate progress towards the applicable RPGs for
any Class I area within the state and each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions from within that state.
Sections 51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all states and require a
description of the status of implementation of all measures included in
a state's first implementation period regional haze plan and a summary
of the emission reductions achieved through implementation of those
measures. Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to states with Class I
areas within their borders and requires such states to assess current
visibility conditions, changes in visibility relative to baseline
(2000-2004) visibility conditions, and changes in visibility conditions
relative to the period addressed in the first implementation period
progress report. Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all states and
requires an analysis tracking changes in emissions of pollutants
contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and sectors
since the period addressed by the first implementation period progress
report. This provision further specifies the year or years through
which the analysis must extend depending on the type of source and the
platform through which its emission information is reported. Finally,
Sec. 51.308(g)(5), which also applies to all states, requires an
assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within
or outside the state that have occurred since the period addressed by
the first implementation period progress report, including whether such
changes were anticipated and whether they have limited or impeded
expected progress towards reducing emissions and improving visibility.
Connecticut's submission describes the status of measures of the
long-term strategy from the first implementation period.\88\ As a
member of MANEVU, Connecticut considered the MANEVU Asks and adopted
corresponding measures into its long-term strategy for the first
implementation period. The MANEVU Asks were: (1) Timely implementation
of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements; (2) EGU
controls including Controls at 167 Key Sources that most affect MANEVU
Class I areas; (3) Low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (4) Continued
evaluation of other control measures. Connecticut met all the
identified reasonable measures requested during the first
implementation period. During the first planning period for regional
haze, programs that were put in place focused on reducing
SO2 emissions. The reductions achieved led to vast
improvements in visibility at the MANEVU Federal Class I Areas due to
reduced sulfates formed from SO2 emissions. Connecticut
describes the control measures that help control the emissions of VOCs,
NOX, PM and SO2 from a wide range of sources in
the SIP submission and identifies BART and Alternative to BART
requirements in section 5.5. The submission also includes periodic
emission data that demonstrate a decrease in VOCs, NOX, PM
and SO2 emissions throughout the state.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See section 5.5 of the CT RH SIP.
\89\ See section 3 of the CT RH SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Connecticut has met the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) because its SIP submission describes the
measures included in the long-term strategy from the first
implementation period, as well as the status of their implementation
and the emission reductions achieved through such implementation.
Pursuant to Sec. 51.308(g)(4), in section 3 of its submittal,
Connecticut provided a summary of emissions of NOX,
SO2, PM10, PM2.5, VOCs, and
NH3 from all sources and activities, including from point,
nonpoint, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile sources, for the time
period from 2002 to 2017. With respect to sources that report directly
to the EPA, Connecticut also included AMPD state summary data for
SO2 and NOX emissions for 2018 and 2019.
The reductions achieved by Connecticut emission control measures
are seen in the emissions inventory. Based on Connecticut's SIP
submission, NOX emissions have steadily declined in
Connecticut from 2002 through 2017, especially in the point, nonroad
and onroad mobile sectors. NOX emissions are expected to
continue to decrease as fleet turnover occurs and the older more
polluting vehicles and equipment are replaced by newer, cleaner ones.
Emissions of SO2 have shown a decline of 93% in Connecticut
over the period 2002 to 2017. Connecticut attributes the reductions in
point emissions to fuel switching from coal and oil to natural gas,
federal and state low sulfur fuel regulations, NOX budget
and successor programs for power plants and the retirement of older
units as well as improved controls on new units. Since some components
of the MANEVU low sulfur fuel strategy were not implemented until 2018,
and as MANEVU states continue to adopt rules to implement the strategy,
additional SO2 emissions reductions are expected to continue
into the future.
Table 3-11 of Connecticut's submission shows VOC emissions from all
NEI data categories for the period 2002 to 2017 in Connecticut. VOC
emissions have shown a steady decline in Connecticut over this period.
VOC
[[Page 58683]]
decreases were achieved in all sectors due to Federal new engine
standards for onroad and nonroad vehicles and equipment, the National
and State low emission vehicle programs, SIP-approved area source rules
such as consumer products, portable fuel containers, paints, autobody
refinishing, asphalt paving applications, and solvent cleaning
operations, and VOC storage tank rules.
In Connecticut's submission, table 3-14 shows a summary of
PM10 emissions from all NEI data categories point, nonpoint,
non-road, and onroad for the period from 2002 to 2017 in Connecticut.
In Connecticut, PM10 emissions steadily decreased in the
point, nonpoint, and nonroad categories for the period from 2002 to
2017. The apparent increase in the onroad emissions is due to changes
in emission inventory calculation methodologies, which resulted in
higher particulate matter estimates. The variation in emissions in the
nonpoint category is due to changes in calculation methodologies for
residential wood burning and fugitive dust categories, which have
varied significantly.
Table 3-17 of Connecticut's submission shows a summary of
PM2.5 emissions from all NEI data categories for the period
from 2002 to 2017 in Connecticut. PM2.5 emissions steadily
decreased in the nonroad category for the period from 2002 to 2014.
Most reductions came from the nonpoint category, which experienced
periodic variation in emissions due to changes in calculation
methodologies for residential wood burning and fugitive dust
categories. The decrease in nonroad PM2.5 emissions can
likely be attributed to new Federal engine standards for nonroad
vehicles and equipment.\90\ Similarly, an overall decrease in onroad
emissions can be attributed to Federal and State vehicle regulations
and standards, which impose increasingly tighter emissions limits with
incremental model year vehicles.\91\ The increase in emissions in the
onroad category from 2002 to 2008 is due to changes in emission
inventory calculation methodologies and a model change, as previously
explained, which resulted in higher fine particulate matter estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/epa-emission-standards-nonroad-engines-and-vehicles for info on the
EPA's nonroad engine programs.
\91\ See 80 FR 13768.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3-20 of Connecticut's submission shows ammonia
(NH3) emissions from all NEI data categories for the period
2002 to 2017 in Connecticut. Though ammonia decreases were achieved in
the onroad sector due to Federal new engine standards for vehicles and
equipment, increases and decreases from 2002 to 2017 in the other
categories are due to reporting, grouping and methodology changes.
There was little change to nonroad ammonia emissions. Overall, ammonia
emissions have decreased from 2008 to 2017.
The EPA is proposing to find that Connecticut has satisfied the
requirements of Sec. 51.308(g)(4) by providing emissions information
for NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5,
VOCs, and NH3 broken down by type of source.
Connecticut uses the emissions trend data in the SIP submission to
support the assessment that anthropogenic haze-causing pollutant
emissions in Connecticut have decreased during the reporting period and
that changes in emissions have not limited or impeded progress in
reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility. The data
Connecticut presents for NOX, SO2, VOCs,
PM10, PM2.5, and NH3 show consistently
declining emissions of those pollutants. The EPA is proposing to find
that Connecticut has met the requirements of Sec. 51.308(g)(5).
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Section 169A(d) of the CAA requires states to consult with FLMs
before holding the public hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP, and
to include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in
the notice to the public. In addition, Sec. 51.308(i)(2)'s FLM
consultation provision requires a state to provide FLMs with an
opportunity for consultation that is early enough in the state's policy
analyses of its emission reduction obligation so that information and
recommendations provided by the FLMs can meaningfully inform the
state's decisions on its long-term strategy. If the consultation has
taken place at least 120 days before a public hearing or public comment
period, the opportunity for consultation will be deemed early enough,
but the opportunity for consultation must be provided at least sixty
days before a public hearing or public comment period at the state
level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also requires that the consultation include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of visibility
impairment in any Class I area and their recommendations on the
development and implementation of strategies to address visibility
impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3) requires states, in developing their
implementation plans, to include a description of how they addressed
FLMs' comments.
The states in the MANEVU RPO conducted FLM consultation early in
the planning process concurrent with the state-to-state consultation
that formed the basis of the RPO's decision making process. As part of
the consultation, the FLMs were given the opportunity to review and
comment on the technical documents developed by MANE-VU. The FLMs were
invited to attend the intra- and inter-RPO consultations calls among
states and at least one FLM representative was documented to have
attended seven intra-RPO meetings and all inter-RPO meetings.
Connecticut participated in these consultation meetings and calls.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See ``MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report and
Consultation Documentation--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of this early engagement with the FLMs, on April 12, 2018,
the NPS sent letters to the MANEVU states requesting that they consider
specific individual sources in their long-term strategies.\93\ NPS used
an analysis of emissions divided by distance (Q/d) to estimate the
impact of MANEVU facilities. To select the facilities, NPS first summed
2014 NEI NOX, PM10, SO2, and
SO4 emissions and divided by the distance to a specified NPS
mandatory Class I Federal area. NPS summed the Q/d values across all
MANEVU states relative to Acadia, Mammoth Cave, and Shenandoah National
Parks, ranked the Q/d values relative to each Class I area, created a
running total, and identified those facilities contributing to 80% of
the total impact at each NPS Class I area. NPS applied a similar
process to facilities in Maine but relative to just Acadia National
Park. NPS merged the resulting lists of facilities and sorted them by
their states. NPS suggested that a state consider those facilities
comprising 80% of the Q/d total, not to exceed the 25 top ranked
facilities. The NPS identified nine facilities in Connecticut in this
letter.\94\ Connecticut addressed the NPS initial letter in section 5.4
of its proposed SIP. Connecticut explained that five of the facilities
are municipal waste combustors that became subject to more stringent
NOX and ammonia limits in 2017 through the implementation of
SIP-approved RCSA 22a-174-38 (82 FR 35454) and whose emissions have, as
a result, been reduced from the levels the NPS noted in its initial
letter.\95\ In addition, units at four of the other facilities became
subject to more
[[Page 58684]]
stringent NOX limits in 2023 through the implementation of
RCSA 22a-174-22e, which is also in Connecticut's SIP (86 FR 37053).\96\
Further, the coal-burning unit at one of these latter facilities
retired in 2021 (that is, Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3),\97\ and, as noted
earlier, DEEP revoked the permit. Finally, DEEP explained that the
Cromwell compressor station has also reduced its emissions from those
noted by the NPS for this facility.\98\ In 2019, the facility replaced
several engines with more efficient and lower-emitting turbines that
are subject to the NOX emission limits in RCSA 22a-174-22e
that meet the ``strive for'' limits in Ask 5 (i.e., 25
ppmvd).99 100 This facility is located in a severe
nonattainment area and was issued a New Source Review permit for the
new turbines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Id.
\94\ Id.
\95\ Connecticut RH Submittal at 53-55.
\96\ Id.
\97\ Id. at 54-55.
\98\ Id. at 55 (table 5-3).
\99\ Id.
\100\ The permit restricts these turbines to a ppmvd
NOX emission limit, well below the ``strive for'' limits
of Ask 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 15, 2020, Connecticut sent the proposed SIP, including
the above explanations of how it addressed the FLM comments, to
representatives of the NPS, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a 60-day review and comment period
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) before making it available for public
comment. Connecticut received comments from the NPS and the USFS.
Connecticut included responses to the comments in appendix A of its
submission to EPA, in accordance with Sec. 51.308(i)(3). In its
comments, the NPS requested that the State consider 4 municipal waste
combustors (MWCs) for four-factor analysis. In response to NPS's
request, Connecticut again noted that MWCs in the State are already
subject to SIP approved 22a-174-38. Connecticut also noted that the
state is currently in nonattainment for both the 2008 and 2015 ozone
standards and is required to impose RACT and obtain emission reductions
of ozone precursors of not less than 3% per year in order to attain the
ozone standards. Related to the RACT requirement, CT DEEP explained
that it actively participates in an Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
workgroup to evaluate and compare emissions from MWCs and pursue more
stringent regulation of their NOX emissions. CT DEEP
explained that the State has already committed in its RACT SIP to act
on the information compiled by this workgroup and adhere to the
resultant OTC recommendations for MWC emission limits.\101\ CT DEEP
also responded to comments from the USFS regarding three EGUs.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ See Appendix A--Summary of Comments from U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
with Responses from the Department.
\102\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 3, 2020, CT DEEP issued a notice of public hearing and
comment and the availability of the draft Regional Haze SIP revision
for 2018-2028 on CT DEEP's Public Notices and Hearings web page. The
document announced the opportunity to submit written comments until
January 29, 2021, as well as a public hearing proposed for January 29,
2021, provided such hearing was requested. No such request was
received, and the hearing was cancelled. The Connecticut SIP submittal
contains the public comments received and CT DEEP's responses,
including responses to additional comments received from the NPS during
the public comment period.
For the reasons stated above, the EPA proposes to find that
Connecticut has satisfied the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(i) to
consult with the FLMs on its regional haze SIP for the second
implementation period.
J. Other Required Commitments
Connecticut's January 5, 2022, SIP submission includes a commitment
to revise and submit a regional haze SIP in 2028, and every ten years
thereafter. The state's commitment includes submitting periodic
progress reports in accordance with Sec. 51.308(f) and a commitment to
evaluate progress towards the reasonable progress goal for each
mandatory Class I Federal area located within the state and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the state that may be
affected by emissions from within the state in accordance with Sec.
51.308(g).
V. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the ``Connecticut Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan Revision Second Planning Period (2018-
2028)'', Final Submittal dated November 2021 and submitted to EPA on
January 5, 2022, as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the
second implementation period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and
(i).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
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 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); and
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA.
In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, pertaining to
Connecticut regional haze SIP submission for the second planning
period, is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in
any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations
[[Page 58685]]
and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race,
color, national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' The air agency did
not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is
not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the
record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: July 15, 2024.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2024-15857 Filed 7-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P