[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11827-11839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4663]



[[Page 11827]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0144, FRL-9640-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Maryland; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Maryland State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Maryland through 
the Maryland Department the Environment (MDE) on February 13, 2012, 
that addresses regional haze for the first implementation period. This 
revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 
EPA's rules that require states to prevent any future, and remedy any 
existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I 
areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources 
located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional 
haze program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress 
toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in 
Class I areas. EPA is proposing to determine that the Regional Haze 
plan submitted by Maryland satisfies the requirements of the CAA. EPA 
is taking this action pursuant to those provisions of the CAA. EPA is 
also proposing to approve this revision as meeting the infrastructure 
requirements relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour 
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the 1997 and 
2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0144 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. Email: [email protected].
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0144, Cristina Fernandez, Associate 
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0144. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online 
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal 
are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 
Washington Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Lewis, (215) 814-2037, or 
by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 13, 2012, the MDE submitted a 
revision to its SIP to address Regional Haze for the first 
implementation period. Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Background Information
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
    D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
II. What are the requirements for the Regional Haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
III. What is EPA's analysis of Maryland's Regional Haze Submittal?
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. LTS/Strategies
    1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility 
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
    3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
    4. RPG
    5. BART
    C. Consultation With States and FLMs
    D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad 
geographic area and emit PM2.5 (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors 
(e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and 
volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in 
the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter, which impairs 
visibility by

[[Page 11828]]

scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the 
clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM2.5 
can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and 
contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and 
eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range \1\ in many Class I areas 
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers or about one-half to two-thirds of 
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. 
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average 
visual range is less than 30 kilometers or about one-fifth of the 
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions (64 FR 
35714, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Background Information

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \2\ which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, 
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment'' (45 FR 80084). These regulations represented the first 
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on 
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, 
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between 
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved. Congress added 
section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA 
promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 
35714), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to 
integrate into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze 
impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection 
program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 
40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection 
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the 
regional haze requirements are summarized in section II of this notice. 
The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, 
the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.\3\ Section 51.308(b) 
requires states to submit the first implementation plan addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas 
where visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 69122, 
November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
    \3\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit 
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico 
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and 
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air 
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even 
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem 
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop 
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the 
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in 
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate 
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged 
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility 
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning 
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and 
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to 
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas 
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional 
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other 
pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Mid-Atlantic Region Air Management Association (MARAMA), the 
Northeast States for Coordination Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and the 
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) established the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) regional planning organization. MANE-VU is a 
collaborative effort of state governments, tribal governments, and 
various federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate 
activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility, 
and other air quality issues in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast corridor 
of the United States. Member states and tribal governments include: 
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, 
Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and 
Vermont.

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility

    Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require that 
within three years of promulgation of a NAAQS, a state must ensure that 
its SIP, among other requirements, ``contains adequate provisions 
prohibiting any source or other types of emission activity within the 
state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will interfere 
with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation 
plan for any other State to protect visibility.'' Similarly, section 
110(a)(2)(J) requires that such SIP ``meet the applicable requirements 
of part C of (Subchapter I) (relating to visibility protection).''
    EPA's 2006 Guidance, entitled ``Guidance for State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' recognized the possibility 
that a state could potentially meet the visibility portions of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission of a Regional Haze SIP, as 
required by sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. EPA's 2009 guidance, 
entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) 
and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards

[[Page 11829]]

(NAAQS),'' recommended that a state could meet such visibility 
requirements through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA's rationale supporting 
this recommendation was that the development of the regional haze SIPs 
was intended to occur in a collaborative environment among the states, 
and that through this process states would coordinate on emissions 
controls to protect visibility on an interstate basis. The common 
understanding was that, as a result of this collaborative environment, 
each state would take action to achieve the emissions reductions relied 
upon by other states in their reasonable progress demonstrations under 
the RHR. This interpretation is consistent with the requirement in the 
RHR that a state participating in a regional planning process must 
include ``all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission 
reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.'' 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
    The regional haze program, as reflected in the RHR, recognizes the 
importance of addressing the long-range transport of pollutants for 
visibility and encourages states to work together to develop plans to 
address haze. The regulations explicitly require each state to address 
its ``share'' of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable 
progress goals for neighboring Class I areas. States working together 
through a regional planning process are required to address an agreed 
upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment in the Class 
I areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these 
requirements, appropriate regional haze SIPs will contain measures that 
will achieve these emissions reductions and will meet the applicable 
visibility related requirements of section 110(a)(2).
    As a result of the regional planning efforts in the MANE-VU, all 
states in the MANE-VU region contributed information to a Technical 
Support System (TSS) which provides an analysis of the causes of haze, 
and the levels of contribution from all sources within each state to 
the visibility degradation of each Class I area. The MANE-VU states 
consulted in the development of reasonable progress goals, using the 
products of this technical consultation process to co-develop their 
reasonable progress goals for the MANE-VU Class I areas. The modeling 
done by MANE-VU relied on assumptions regarding emissions over the 
relevant planning period and embedded in these assumptions were 
anticipated emissions reductions in each of the states in MANE-VU, 
including reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part 
of the state's long term strategy for addressing regional haze. The 
reasonable progress goals in the regional haze SIPs that have been 
prepared by the states in the MANE-VU region are based, in part, on the 
emissions reductions from nearby states that were agreed on through the 
MANE-VU process.
    Maryland submitted a Regional Haze SIP on February 13, 2012, to 
address the requirements of the RHR and the related visibility 
requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J). 
On July 27, 2007, Maryland submitted its original 1997 Ozone NAAQS 
infrastructure SIP and on April 3, 2008, Maryland submitted its 
original 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. On July 21, 
2010, Maryland submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS. In its Regional Haze SIP, Maryland indicated 
that it will meet its obligations related to visibility pursuant to 
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, including but not limited to, section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J). While these SIP submittals 
address the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 
110(a)(2)(J), the February 13, 2012 submittal supersedes these previous 
submittals. EPA has reviewed Maryland's Regional Haze SIP and, as 
explained in section IV of this action, proposes to find that 
Maryland's Regional Haze submittal meets the portions of the 
requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2) relating to visibility 
protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations 
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give 
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence 
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and 
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for 
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The 
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail 
in this notice.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit 
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform 
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire 
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy 
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using 
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then 
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function. 
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in 
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview 
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the 
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one 
deciview.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim 
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), 
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking 
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures 
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of 
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused 
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that 
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural 
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no 
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as 
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must 
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I 
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically 
review progress every five years midway through each 10-year 
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine 
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20% 
least impaired (``best'') and 20% most impaired (``worst'') visibility 
days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In 
addition, states must also develop an estimate of natural visibility 
conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national 
goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural 
concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and

[[Page 11830]]

then calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. EPA 
has provided guidance to states regarding how to calculate baseline, 
natural and current visibility conditions in documents titled, EPA's 
Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the 
Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter 
referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance'') and Guidance 
for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, 
(EPA-454/B-03-004 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Tracking 
Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for 
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20% 
least impaired days and 20% most impaired days for each calendar year 
from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states 
are required to calculate the average degree of visibility impairment 
for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values over the 
five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline visibility 
conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the amount of 
improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the future 
comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions will 
indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004 
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in 
visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, 
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I 
area for each approximately 10-year implementation period. The RHR does 
not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls 
for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' 
toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility conditions. 
In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in visibility 
for the most impaired days over the approximately 10-year period of the 
SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired 
days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs 
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the 
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take 
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for 
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, 
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from 
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 
5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'') 
and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of 
progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards 
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of 
progress which states are to use for analytical comparison to the 
amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state 
with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult 
with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states 
with emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at 
the Class I state's areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \5\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. 
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress 
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist 
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the 
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for 
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil 
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity 
in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set 
forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, 
to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other 
types of sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and 
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in 
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility 
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold 
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART eligible source would 
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any 
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge 
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should 
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any 
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 
deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 
described as

[[Page 11831]]

``BART eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their BART control 
determination analyses. In making BART determinations, section 
169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the following 
factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air 
quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution 
control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life 
of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which 
may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such 
technology. States are free to determine the weight and significance to 
be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a 
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be 
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional 
haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4)). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition 
to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that 
the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the 
source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative 
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be 
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration 
for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005). 
EPA's regulations provide that states participating in the CAIR cap and 
trade program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP 
or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 
in 40 CFR part 97, do not require affected BART eligible electric 
generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART for 
emissions of SO2 and NOX (40 CFR 51.308(e)(4)). 
Since CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM, states were still 
required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject 
to BART for that pollutant. On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find 
that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater 
reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART in the 
states in which the Transport Rule applies (76 FR 82219). EPA also 
proposed to revise the RHR to allow states to meet the requirements of 
an alternative program in lieu of BART by participation in the trading 
programs under the Transport Rule. EPA has not taken final action on 
that rule.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the 
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable 
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the 
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected 
by emissions from, the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions 
management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, 
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions 
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided 
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional 
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address 
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states 
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how 
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account 
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs, including measures to address Reasonably 
Attributable Visibility Impairment; (2) measures to mitigate the 
impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and 
schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and 
replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural 
and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist 
within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions 
limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on 
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source 
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment (RAVI) LTS

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS 
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic 
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years 
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007, 
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c).
    On or before this date, the state must revise its plan to provide 
for review and revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and 
regional haze, and the state must submit the first such coordinated LTS 
with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and 
periodic progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs, must be 
submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and periodic 
progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), 
respectively. The periodic review of a state's LTS must report on both 
regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be submitted to EPA as a SIP 
revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of 
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all 
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be 
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for 
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through 
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of 
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with 
the first regional haze SIP and it must be reviewed every five years. 
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring 
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether 
RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to regional haze

[[Page 11832]]

visibility impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the 
state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and 
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include 
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for 
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. 
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory 
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The 
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first 
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply 
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic 
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable 
progress will continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and 
submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an 
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to 
holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include 
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment 
of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the 
development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of 
strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must 
include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments 
provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for 
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the 
state's visibility protection program, including development and review 
of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of 
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of 
visibility in Class I areas.

III. What is EPA's analysis of Maryland's Regional haze submittal?

    On February 13, 2012, the MDE submitted revisions to the Maryland 
SIP to address regional haze as required by EPA's RHR.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    Maryland has no Class I areas within its borders, but has been 
identified as influencing the visibility impairment of the following 
Class I areas: Acadia National Park, Brigantine National Wildlife 
Refuge, and Lye Brook Wilderness Area as well as the Dolly Sods 
Wilderness, Otter Creek Wilderness, and Shenandoah National Park. 
Maryland is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that 
addresses these Class I areas, that describes its long-term emission 
strategy, its role in the consultation processes, and how the SIP meets 
the other requirements in EPA's regional haze regulations. However, 
since Maryland has no Class I areas within its borders, Maryland is not 
required to address the following Regional Haze SIP elements: (a) 
Calculation of baseline and natural visibility conditions; (b) 
establishment of reasonable progress goals; (c) monitoring 
requirements, and (d) RAVI requirements.

B. LTS/Strategies

    As described in section II.E of this action, the LTS is a 
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by the state 
to obtain its share of emission reductions to support the RPGs 
established by the impacted Class I area states. Maryland's LTS for the 
first implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from 
federal, state, and local controls that take effect in the State from 
the baseline period starting in 2002 until 2018. Maryland participated 
in the MANE-VU regional strategy development process. As a participant, 
Maryland supported a regional approach towards deciding which control 
measures to pursue for regional haze, which was based on technical 
analyses documented in the following reports: (a) Contributions to 
Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States; (b) 
Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I 
Areas; (c) Five-Factor Analysis of BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of 
Options for Conducting BART Determinations; and (d) Assessment of 
Control Technology Options for BART-Eligible Sources: Steam Electric 
Boilers, Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper, and Pulp 
Facilities.
    The LTS was developed by MANE-VU, in coordination with Maryland, 
identifying the emissions units within Maryland that likely have the 
largest impacts currently on visibility at the impacted Class I areas, 
estimating emissions reductions for 2018, based on all controls 
required under federal and state regulations for the 2002-2018 period 
(including BART), and comparing projected visibility improvement with 
the uniform rate of progress for these impacted Class I areas. 
Maryland's LTS includes measures needed to achieve its share of 
emissions reductions agreed upon through the consultation process with 
the impacted Class I area states and includes enforceable emissions 
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures necessary to 
achieve the reasonable progress goals established by these Class I area 
states.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical 
analyses was developed by MARAMA for MANE-VU with assistance from 
Maryland. The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 
emissions, and assuming emissions growth due to projected increases in 
economic activity as well as applying reductions expected from federal 
and state regulations affecting the emissions of VOC and the 
visibility-impairing pollutants NOX, PM10, 
PM2.5, and SO2. The BART guidelines direct states 
to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3 impair 
visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in section 
III.B.3, of this notice. MANE-VU demonstrated that anthropogenic 
emissions of sulfates are the major contributor to PM2.5 
mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and 
Mid-Atlantic region. It was also determined that the total ammonia 
emissions in the MANE-VU region are extremely small. In addition, since 
VOC emissions are aggressively controlled through the Maryland SIP, the 
pollutants Maryland considered under BART are NOX, 
PM10, PM2.5, and SO2.
    MANE-VU developed emissions inventories for four inventory source 
classifications: (1) Stationary point sources; (2) area sources; (3) 
off-road mobile sources; and (4) on-road mobile

[[Page 11833]]

sources. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation also 
developed an inventory of biogenic emissions for the entire MANE-VU 
region. Stationary point sources are those sources that emit greater 
than a specified tonnage per year, depending on the pollutant, with 
data provided at the facility level. Stationary area sources are those 
sources whose individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the 
large number of these sources, the collective emissions from the source 
category could be significant. Off-road mobile sources are equipment 
that can move but do not use the roadways. On-road mobile source 
emissions are automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway 
system. The emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type 
and road type. Biogenic sources are natural sources like trees, crops, 
grasses, and natural decay of plants. Stationary point sources emission 
data is tracked at the facility level. For all other source types 
emissions are summed on the county level.
    There are many federal and state control programs being implemented 
that MANE-VU and Maryland anticipate will reduce emissions between the 
baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these control 
programs were projected to achieve substantial visibility improvement 
by 2018 in the impacted Class I areas. To assess emissions reductions 
from ongoing air pollution control programs, BART, and reasonable 
progress goals MANE-VU developed 2018 emissions projections called Best 
and Final. The emissions inventory provided by the State of Maryland 
for the Best and Final 2018 projections is based on adopted and 
enforceable requirements.
    The ongoing air pollution control programs relied upon by Maryland 
for the Best and Final projections include: Maryland's Healthy Air Act 
(HAA); the NOX SIP Call; NOX and/or VOC 
reductions from the control rules in the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone SIPs 
for Maryland; NOX OTC 2001 Model Rule for Industrial, 
Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Boilers; Federal 2007 heavy duty 
diesel engine standards for non-road trucks and buses; Federal Tier 2 
tailpipe controls for the on-road vehicles; Federal large spark 
ignition and recreational vehicle controls; and EPA's non-road diesel 
rules. Maryland also relied on emission reductions from various federal 
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules in the development 
of the 2018 emission inventory projections. These MACT rules include 
the combustion turbine and reciprocating internal combustion engines 
MACT, the industrial boiler and process heaters MACT and the 2, 4, 7, 
and 10 year MACT standards.
    On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court of Appeals mandated the 
vacatur and remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\6\ This MACT was 
vacated since it was directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the 
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Definition 
Rule. EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the 
vacatur on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006), and issued a final rule on March 
21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The MANE-VU modeling included emission 
reductions from the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule. Maryland did 
not redo its modeling analysis when the rule was re-issued. However, 
the expected reductions in SO2 and PM are small relative to 
the Maryland inventory. Therefore, EPA finds the expected reductions of 
the new rule acceptable since the final rule requires compliance by 
2014, it provides Maryland time to assure the required controls are in 
place prior to the end of the first implementation period in 2018. In 
addition, the RHR requires that any resulting differences between 
emissions projections and actual emissions reductions that may occur 
will be addressed during the five-year review prior to the next 2018 
regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Tables 1 and 2 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018 
estimated emissions inventories for Maryland. The 2018 estimated 
emissions include emission reductions due to ongoing emission control 
strategies, BART, and reasonable progress goals as well as emission 
growth. As seen in Table 2, the 2018-point source emission estimates 
for PM and NH3 are larger than the 2002 baseline, however, 
the affected Class I areas are still able to meet the reasonable 
progress goals.

                     Table 1--2002 Emission Inventory Summary for Maryland in Tons per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   VOC        NOX       PM2.5       PM10       NH3        SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................      6,184     95,328      5,054     12,752        305    290,927
Area..........................................    120,254     15,678     30,693     96,176     25,834     12,393
On-Road Mobile................................     61,846    122,210      2,200      3,168      5,594      4,057
Off-Road Mobile...............................     56,330     37,472      4,357      4,936         28      7,941
Biogenic......................................    210,104      2,934  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................    454,718    273,622     42,304    117,032     31,761    315,318
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 Table 2--2018 Emission Summary for Maryland ``Best and Final'' in Tons per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   VOC        NOX       PM2.5       PM10       NH3        SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................      6,854     33,597      9,934     14,080        845     82,650
Area..........................................    104,615     17,746     30,153    117,066     38,155      9,118
On-Road Mobile................................     20,861     29,371      1,045      1,099      7,279        682
Off-Road Mobile...............................     37,969     24,257      3,301      3,814         36        577
Biogenic......................................    210,104      2,934  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................    380,403    107,905     44,433    136,059     46,315     93,027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 11834]]

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for 
Uniform Rate of Progress
    MANE-VU performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 11 
Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states and the District of Columbia. The 
modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with 
selection of the modeling system. MANE-VU used the following modeling 
system:
     Meteorological Model: The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania 
State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 
Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic, 
prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional-
scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze regulatory 
modeling studies.
     Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 
Emissions (SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system is an emissions modeling 
system that generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of 
mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission 
sources for photochemical grid models.
     Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale 
Air Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model capable 
of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a regional 
scale.
     Air Quality Model: The Regional Model for Aerosols and 
Deposition (REMSAD), version 8, is a Eulerian grid model that was 
primarily used to determine the attribution of sulfate species in the 
Eastern U.S. via the species-tagging scheme.
     Air Quality Model: The California Puff Model (CALPUFF), 
version 5 is a non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model used to access 
the contribution of individual states' emissions to sulfate levels at 
selected Class I receptor sites.
    CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the MANE-VU region for 2002 and 
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer (km) cells that 
covers the 11 MANE-VU states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia and states adjacent 
to them. This grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling 
grid of 36x36 km grid cells that covers the continental United States, 
portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific 
Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection of a representative 
period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline air quality 
conditions and projecting future changes in air quality due to changes 
in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. MANE-VU conducted an 
in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection of the entire year of 
2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of meteorology 
available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The MANE-VU states modeling 
was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use of Models and 
Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 
Ozone, PM2.5,Guidance and Regional Haze, located at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-454/B-07-
002), April 2007, and EPA document, Emissions Inventory Guidance for 
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, located at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001, 
August 2005, updated November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling Guidance'').
    MANE-VU examined the model performance of the regional modeling for 
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results 
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and 
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts 
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support 
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those 
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the 
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated 
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone, 
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks 
and databases for the 2002 base year. MANE-VU used a diverse set of 
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and 
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once MANE-VU determined the 
model performance to be acceptable, MANE-VU used the model to assess 
the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling 
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the State of Maryland 
provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required 
analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and 
modeling used to develop the glidepath and to support the LTS are 
consistent with EPA's RHR, and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance. 
EPA accepts the MANE-VU technical modeling to support the LTS and 
determine visibility improvement for the uniform rate of progress 
because the modeling system was chosen and used according to EPA 
Modeling Guidance. EPA agrees with the MANE-VU model performance 
procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is an appropriate tool for 
the regional haze assessments for the Maryland LTS and regional haze 
SIP.
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
    An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures 
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment 
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further 
reducing emissions from different pollutants, MANE-VU developed 
emission sensitivity model runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and 
air quality impacts from various groups of emissions and pollutant 
scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20% worst visibility days.
    Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting 
visibility in the MANE-VU region, MANE-VU's contribution assessment 
demonstrated that sulfate is the major contributor to PM2.5 
mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and 
Mid-Atlantic Region. Sulfate particles commonly account for more than 
50% of particle-related light extinction at northeastern Class I areas 
on the clearest days and for as much as or more than 80% on the haziest 
days. In particular, for the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge Class 
I area (the most impacted Class I area), sulfate accounted for 66% of 
the particle extinction on the 20% worst visibility days in 2000-2004. 
After sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently accounts for the next 
largest fraction of light extinction. Organic carbon accounted for 13% 
of light extinction on the 20% worst visibility days for Brigantine, 
followed by nitrate that accounts for 9% of light extinction.
    The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by MANE-VU predict 
that reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU 
industrial point sources will result in the greatest improvements in 
visibility in the Class I areas in the MANE-VU region, more than any 
other visibility-impairing pollutant. As a result of the dominant role 
of sulfate in the formation of regional haze in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic Region, MANE-VU concluded that an effective emissions 
management approach would rely heavily on broad-based regional 
SO2 control efforts in the eastern United States.

[[Page 11835]]

4. RPG
    Since the State of Maryland does not have a Class I area, it is not 
required to establish RPGs. However, Maryland has been identified as 
influencing the visibility impairment of the following Class I areas; 
Acadia National Park, Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, and Lye 
Brook Wilderness Area, as well as, the Dolly Sods Wilderness, Otter 
Creek Wilderness, and Shenandoah National Park. As such, Maryland 
participated in consultations to discuss the reasonable progress goals 
being considered by MANE-VU for the affected Class I areas. As a 
result, the MANE-VU Class I area states adopted four RPGs that will 
provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility: 
Timely implementation of BART requirements; a 90% reduction in 
SO2 emissions from each of the EGU stacks identified by 
MANE-VU comprising a total of 167 stacks (12 are located in Maryland); 
adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and continued evaluation of 
other control measures to reduce SO2 and NOX 
emissions.
    In order to address a timely implementation of BART, as described 
in section III B.5. of this notice, the Maryland HAA was determined to 
be better than BART for NOX and SO2 emissions. 
The first phase of the emission limits became effective in 2009/2010 
timeframe and the second phase will become effective in the 2012/2013 
timeframe. The BART limitation became effective in calendar year 2010 
for the PM control strategies identified in section III.B.5.
    States were asked to reduce SO2 emissions from the 
highest emission stacks in the eastern United States by 90% or if it 
was infeasible to achieve that level of reduction, an alternative had 
to be identified which could include other point sources. Maryland's 
Brandon Shores Units 1 and 2, C.P. Crane Units 1 and 2, Chalk Point 
Units 1 and 2, Dickerson Units 1, 2 and 3, Wagner Unit 3 and Morgantown 
Units 1 and 2 are twelve of the 167 units identified by MANE-VU as 
having the highest emissions in the eastern United States. The 2002 
base year SO2 emissions from these twelve units are 235,435 
tons per year. A 90% SO2 emission reduction from these 
twelve units would result in a reduction of 211,892 tons per year. 
However, the SO2 emission reductions that have already 
resulted from the implementation of the Maryland HAA for these twelve 
units are 257,741 tons per year. These reductions are more than enough 
to satisfy the 90% emission reduction from the 2002 baseline 
requirements. In addition, the remaining EGU units subject to the HAA 
they provide an additional 11,703 of SO2 emission 
reductions. Maryland's consideration of all of the emission reductions 
from the implementation of the HAA resulted in a surplus of 57,553 tons 
per year of SO2 emission reductions.
    The low sulfur fuel oil strategy has four requirements for the 
State of Maryland. These requirements are to reduce the distillate oil 
to 0.05% sulfur by weight (500 parts per million (ppm)) no later than 
2014, 4 residual oil to 0.25%-0.5% sulfur by weight no later 
than 2018, 6 residual oil to 0.5% sulfur by weight no later 
than 2018, and further reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 
15 ppm by 2018. Table 3 shows the SO2 emission reductions in 
tons per year (TPY) that would result from the implementation of a low 
sulfur fuel oil strategy in Maryland.

     Table 3--Reasonable Progress Goal--Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           2018 SO2 Emissions reductions
       Low sulfur fuel oil strategy        (TPY) based on the low sulfur
                                             fuel oil strategy request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residual and 4 Fuel Oil (assumes                       1,344.1
 0.5% sulfur)............................
Distillate (15 ppm sulfur)...............                       6,129.3
                                          ------------------------------
    Total................................                       7,473.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in Table 3, since Maryland has not adopted a low sulfur 
fuel oil strategy, the state has a deficiency of 7,473.4 TPY of 
SO2 emissions. However, as noted above, Maryland has a 
surplus of SO2 emission reductions of 57,552 TPY resulting 
from the HAA. This surplus accounts for the SO2 emission 
reductions needed to meet the requirements of the low sulfur fuel 
strategy.
5. BART
    BART is an element of Maryland's LTS. The BART Regional Haze 
requirement consists of three components: (a) Identification of all the 
BART eligible sources; (b) an assessment of whether the BART eligible 
sources are subject to BART; and (c) the determination of the BART 
controls.
    The first component of a BART evaluation is to identify all the 
BART eligible sources. The BART eligible sources were identified by 
utilizing the criteria in the BART Guidelines as follows:
     Determine whether one or more emissions units at the 
facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART 
Guidelines (70 FR 39158-39159);
     Determine whether the emission unit(s) was in existence on 
August 7, 1977 and begun operation after August 6, 1962;
     Determine whether potential emissions of SO2, 
NOX, and PM10 from subject units are 250 tons or 
more per year.
    The BART guidelines recommend addressing SO2, 
NOX, and PM10 as visibility-impairment pollutants 
and leave it up to the discretion of states to evaluate VOC or ammonia 
emissions. Because of the lack of tools available to estimate emissions 
and subsequently model VOC and ammonia effects on visibility, and 
because Maryland is aggressively addressing VOCs through its ozone 
SIPs, Maryland determined that SO2, NOX and 
PM10/2.5 are the only reasonable contributing visibility 
impairing pollutants to target under BART.
    Maryland identified seven BART eligible sources (consisting of ten 
emission units) as described in Table 4. However, it was later 
determined that Mettiki Coal Corporation should not be included in the 
BART eligible list since the source was not in existence by August 7, 
1977. The source did not meet EPA's definition of ``in existence'' (40 
CFR 51.301) since EPA did not grant approval of Mettiki Coal 
Corporation's construction application until February 23, 1978.

[[Page 11836]]



                                    Table 4--Maryland's BART Eligible Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Plant capacity in   Unit capacity in
                                    Facility and unit        megawatts          megawatts           Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................  Mirant--Chalk Point     >750.............  355, 355 and 640.  Prince George's.
                                  Units 1, 2 and 3.
2..............................  Mirant--Morgantown      >750.............  630 and 630......  Charles.
                                  Units 1 and 2.
3..............................  CPSG--Crane Unit 2....  <750.............  200..............  Baltimore.
4..............................  CPSG--Wagner Unit 3...  >750.............  350..............  Anne Arundel.
5..............................  New Page/Westvaco/Luke  NA...............  NA...............  Allegany.
                                  Paper Unit 25.
6..............................  Holcim (Independent/    NA...............  NA...............  Washington.
                                  St. Lawrence Cement)
                                  Unit 24.
7..............................  *Mettiki Coal           NA...............  NA...............  Garrett.
                                  Corporation Unit 1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This source is not BART eligible.

    The second component of the BART evaluation is to identify those 
BART eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area are subject to 
BART. As discussed in the BART guidelines, a state may choose to 
consider all BART eligible sources to be subject to BART (70 FR 
39.161). Consistent with the MANE-VU Board's decision in June 2004 that 
because of the collective importance of BART sources, BART 
determinations should be made by the MANE-VU states for each BART 
eligible source, unless the sources shutdown or caps-out by accepting a 
permit limitation restricting their emissions to less than 250 tons per 
year.
    The final component of a BART evaluation is making BART 
determinations for all BART subject sources. In making BART 
determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states 
consider the following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the 
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any 
existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the 
remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement 
in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the 
use of such technology. Section (e)(2) of the RHR provides that a state 
may opt to implement an emissions trading program or other alternative 
measure rather than to require sources subject to BART to install, 
operate, and maintain BART. To do so, the state must demonstrate that 
the emissions trading program or other alternative measure will achieve 
greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the 
installation and operation of BART.
    Four EGUs in Maryland, the State found to be subject to BART. As 
discussed below, Maryland chose to address the BART requirements for 
these sources through an alternative program regulated by COMAR 
26.11.27.02, the Maryland HAA (73 FR 51599) that limits SO2, 
NOX and mercury emissions from fossil fuel fired generating 
units. Of the seven EGU facilities subject to the Maryland HAA, only 
four are facilities subject to BART, as seen in Table 5. Maryland 
required all of the BART subject facilities to complete full BART 
analysis, however, Maryland opted to rely on the emission limits from 
the HAA for NOX and SO2, as an alternative 
measure for BART.

 Table 5--Maryland HAA Subject Sources and Maryland BART Subject Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Maryland's BART  subject
      Maryland's HAA  subject sources                  sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Shores Units 1 and 2..............  C.P. Crane Unit 2.
C.P. Crane Units 1 and 2..................  Chalk Point Units 1, 2 and
                                             3.
Chalk Point Units 1 and 2.................  Morgantown Units 1 and 2.
Dickerson Units 1, 2 and 3................  H.A. Wagner Unit 3.
H.A. Wagner Units 2 and 3.................  ............................
Morgantown Units 1 and 2..................  ............................
* R. Paul Smith Units 3 and 4.............  ............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This facility is not part of Maryland's alternative measures for BART.

    Maryland's HAA became effective on July 16, 2007, with the first 
phase requiring reductions in the 2009-2010 timeframe and the second 
phase of emission control occurring in the 2012-2013 timeframe. The HAA 
affects Maryland's largest coal-burning power plants, which accounts 
for 95% of the State's power plant emissions and requires year-round 
emission controls. The HAA does not allow facilities to obtain out-of-
state emissions allowances in lieu of adding pollution control locally. 
During the first phase of the HAA, NOX emissions were 
reduced by approximately 70% in 2009 and SO2 emissions were 
reduced by approximately 80% in 2010. At full implementation, the HAA 
will reduce NOX emissions by approximately 75% in 2012 from 
2002 levels and SO2 emissions will be reduced by 
approximately 85% in 2013 from 2002 levels.
    In order to determine appropriate NOX and SO2 
emission limitations for inclusion in Maryland's HAA, Maryland 
collected guidance and information from a number of sources to assist 
in its evaluation of appropriate emission limits. The methods Maryland 
used to develop the HAA incorporate many of the criteria used in the 5 
factor analyses required by the RHR and included the following: (1) 
Control technology effectiveness; (2) costs; (3) complexity with 
regards to application on cycling units; (4) impact on plant operations 
and flexibility; (5) operation and maintenance costs; (6) size of the 
affected units; and (7) technical feasibility.
    Of the fifteen units subject to Maryland's HAA, six have been 
identified as BART units. The HAA incorporates emissions limitations 
based on a suite of emission reduction technology capabilities. Tables 
6 and 7 show Maryland promulgated emission limitations for 
NOX and SO2 in COMAR 26.11.27.02. for the 
thirteen units subject to the BART alternative plan.

                                Table 6--HAA Emission Limitations for NOX in TPY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            2002
                                                               Facility                   Baseline    2012 (TPY)
                                                                                           (TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................  Brandon Shores Unit 1.................        6,329        2,414

[[Page 11837]]

 
2.............................................  Brandon Shores Unit 2.................        6,034        2,519
3.............................................  C.P. Crane Unit 1.....................        6,245          686
4.............................................  C.P. Crane Unit 2.....................        4,285          737
5.............................................  Chalk Point Unit 1....................        6,327        1,166
6.............................................  Chalk Point Unit 2....................        6,773        1,223
7.............................................  Dickerson Unit 1......................        2,176          554
8.............................................  Dickerson Unit 2......................        2,358          607
9.............................................  Dickerson Unit 3......................        2,694          575
10............................................  H.A. Wagner Unit 2....................        1,718          555
11............................................  H.A. Wagner Unit 3....................        2,232        1,115
12............................................  Morgantown Unit 1.....................       10,013        2,094
13............................................  Morgantown Unit 2.....................        8,605        2,079
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................  ......................................       65,793       16,324
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Table 7--HAA Emission Limitations for SO2 in TPY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            2002
                                                               Facility                   Baseline    2013 (TPY)
                                                                                           (TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................  Brandon Shores Unit 1.................       20,476        5,392
2.............................................  Brandon Shores Unit 2.................       19,498        5,627
3.............................................  C.P. Crane Unit 1.....................       17,971        1,532
4.............................................  C.P. Crane Unit 2.....................       14,415        1,646
5.............................................  Chalk Point Unit 1....................       23,537        2,606
6.............................................  Chalk Point Unit 2....................       25,194        2,733
7.............................................  Dickerson Unit 1......................       10,205        1,238
8.............................................  Dickerson Unit 2......................       11,061        1,355
9.............................................  Dickerson Unit 3......................       12,636        1,285
10............................................  H.A. Wagner Unit 2....................       10,095        1,239
11............................................  H.A. Wagner Unit 3....................        6,427        2,490
12............................................  Morgantown Unit 1.....................       37,756        4,678
13............................................  Morgantown Unit 2.....................       32,586        4,646
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................  ......................................      241,862       36,468
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maryland did a comparison of the HAA emission limits for thirteen 
of the fifteen units regulated by this rule to the BART presumptive 
limits for the seven BART subject units. This comparison resulted in a 
surplus of 60,805 tons of SO2 and 16,184 tons of 
NOX, primarily because the HAA emission limits are 
applicable to more units than the Maryland BART subject units. The 
total emissions reductions achieved by the HAA, greatly exceed those 
which would be achieved through application of presumptive BART 
emissions rate limits on BART subject units only.
    For PM, Maryland required the BART facilities to conduct an 
analysis of potential BART control in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(ii). However, five of the units have already installed 
high efficiency electro-static precipitors (ESP) to control PM and one 
has already installed a fabric filter. The remaining unit has 
enforceable operational restriction requiring the burning of natural 
gas for 95% of the total heat input during ozone season. With this 
existing fuel restriction, it will reduce PM emissions by approximately 
90% during ozone season. Mirant Chalk Point Unit 1 is a 355 MW walled 
fired, dry bottom, supercritical boiler with coal as the primary fuel. 
This unit is equipped with a cold side ESP to control PM emissions by 
over 99.5%. Mirant Chalk Point Unit 2 is also a 355 MW walled fired, 
dry bottom, supercritical boiler with coal as the primary fuel. This 
unit is also equipped with a cold side ESP to control PM emissions by 
over 99.5%. Mirant Chalk Point Unit 3 is a 640 MW tangentially fired, 
sub-critical unit that fire residual fuel oil or natural gas. This 
cycling unit has operated at an average annual capacity factor of 5% 
from 2006 to 2009. A consent order requires this unit to operate 95% of 
the time using natural gas during ozone season (May-September). Since 
this unit operates primarily during ozone season, the operational 
restriction on fuel use effectively limit PM emissions by 90%. Mirant 
Morgantown Unit 1 is a 630 MW tangentially fired, supercritical boiler 
with coal as the primary fuel. This unit is equipped with a cold side 
ESP to control PM emissions by over 99.5%. Mirant Morgantown Unit 2 is 
also a 630 MW tangentially fired, supercritical boiler with coal as the 
primary fuel. This unit is also equipped with a cold side ESP to 
control PM emissions by over 99.5%. Crane Unit 2 is a 200 MW utility 
boiler fired by four cyclone burners with coal as the primary fuel. 
This unit is equipped with a fabric filter to control PM emissions by 
over 99%. Wagner Unit 3 is a 350 MW supercritical once-over coal fired 
boiler. This unit is equipped with a cold side ESP to control PM 
emissions by over 99%. Maryland has determined that existing controls 
for PM meet the BART requirement for all of these units since they 
reduce PM emissions, are cost-efficient, and have no significant energy 
or non-air quality environmental benefit. EPA agrees with Maryland's PM 
BART determination for all of BART subject EGUs.
    Maryland has two non-EGU BART sources that were required to conduct 
BART analyses to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii). 
Holcim (Independent/St. Lawrence Cement) is a cement manufacturing

[[Page 11838]]

plant located in Hagerstown, Maryland. The BART analysis was done for 
the long dry Portland cement kiln. Current controls for PM consist of 
multi-clones and an electrostatic precipitator. For NOX, the 
facility currently utilizes a mid-kiln tire firing system with mixing 
air technology and a low-NOX type burner. For SO2 
the current controls consist of injection of mixing air and inherent 
dry scrubbing. For this unit, Maryland determined the addition of 
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) is BART for PM and 
NOX and current controls are BART for SO2.
    New Page/Westvaco/Luke Paper is a kraft pulp mill with two BART 
subject power boilers (Units 25 and 26) that share a common exhaust 
stream and has one recovery boiler (Unit 3). The power boilers are used 
as the primary and back-up systems for incineration of emissions from 
non-condensable gas and stripper off gas, the recovery boiler is used 
to recover chemicals from spent agent pulping liquors and to produce 
steam for the mill. Unit 25 burns coal as the primary fuel with natural 
gas used as a secondary fuel. Unit 26 originally burned oil as the 
primary fuel, but in 1982 was converted to natural gas. Unit 25 
currently has a multi-cyclone mechanical collector in series with a 
baghouse for control of PM. The boiler is also equipped with an over-
five air system, low-NOX burners and a SNCR, installed in 
2006, for controlling NOX emissions during ozone season. In 
a letter dated October 31, 2007, the facility committed to install 
either a spray dryer absorber or a circulating dry scrubber resulting 
in approximately 90% emission reduction from the 2002 baseline. Unit 26 
currently has no controls. Unit 3 has a two level staged combustion air 
control system for the control of SO2 and NOX 
emissions and the three-chamber ESP for the control of PM. Maryland 
determined BART for Unit 25 to be the current controls for PM which 
consist of multi-cyclones, baghouse and year-round operation of the 
existing SNCR, low NOX burners, and overfire air for 
NOX controls and the addition of spray dryer absorber or a 
circulating dry scrubber for SO2. For Unit 26, the natural 
gas fired boiler, Maryland determined BART to be that no add-on 
controls were necessary since the use of natural gas results in very 
low emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM. For Unit 3, 
the recovery boiler, the current controls consist of two level staged 
combustion air control system for the control of SO2 and 
NOX emissions and the three-chamber ESP for the control of 
PM. EPA agrees with MDE's analyses and conclusions for the non-EGU BART 
determinations.

C. Consultation With States and FLMs

    On May 10, 2006, the MANE-VU Air Directors adopted the Inter-RPO 
State/Tribal and FLM Consultation Framework that documented the 
consultation process within the context of regional haze planning and 
was intended to create greater certainty and understanding among RPOs. 
The MANE-VU states held ten consultation meetings and/or conference 
calls from March 1, 2007 through March 21, 2008. In addition to the 
MANE-VU members attending these meetings and conference calls, 
participants from VISTAS, Midwest RPO, and the relevant FLMs were also 
in attendance. In addition to the conference calls and meeting, the 
FLMs were given the opportunity to review and comment on each of the 
technical documents developed by MANE-VU.
    On September 22, 2008 and November 18, 2011, Maryland submitted a 
draft Regional Haze SIP to the relevant FLMs for review and comment 
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In a letter dated January 25, 2012, 
the FLMs provided comments on the draft Regional Haze SIP in accordance 
with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). The comments received from the FLMs were 
addressed and included in Appendix C of the Maryland Regional Haze SIP 
submittal.
    On January 6, 2012, the MDE provided public notice of the 
opportunity to comment on the SIP revision and on February 9, 2012 held 
the public hearing. To address the requirement for continuing 
consultation procedures with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), 
Maryland commits in their SIP to ongoing consultation with the FLMs on 
Regional Haze issues throughout the implementation.

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g), Maryland has 
committed to submitting a report on reasonable progress (in the form of 
a SIP revision) to the EPA every five years following the initial 
submittal of its regional haze SIP. The reasonable progress report will 
evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the impacted Class I 
areas.

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Maryland SIP 
submitted by the State of Maryland through the MDE on February 13, 2012 
that addresses regional haze for the first implementation period. EPA 
is proposing to make a determination that the Maryland Regional Haze 
SIP contains the emission reductions needed to achieve Maryland's share 
of emission reductions agreed upon through the regional planning 
process. Furthermore, Maryland's Regional Haze Plan ensures that 
emissions from the State will not interfere with the reasonable 
progress goals for neighboring states' Class I areas. EPA has 
determined that the Regional Haze Plan submitted by the State of 
Maryland satisfies the requirements of the CAA. EPA is taking this 
action pursuant to those provisions of the CAA. Accordingly, EPA is 
also proposing to find that this revision meets the applicable 
visibility related requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) including but 
not limited to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), relating to 
visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on the 
issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered 
before taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive

[[Page 11839]]

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule approving Maryland's Regional Haze 
Plan does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved 
to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 15, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-4663 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P