[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 63 (Monday, April 1, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22337-22342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06415]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0912; FRL-11269-02-R3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan; 
Maryland; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second 
Implementation Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the 
regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by 
Maryland on February 8, 2022, as satisfying applicable requirements 
under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 
for the program's second implementation period. Maryland'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.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 1, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0912. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential 
business information (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 through www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person 
identified in the For Further Information Contact section for 
additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Yarina, Planning & Implementation 
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 3, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania 19103-2852. The telephone number is (215) 814-2108. Mr. 
Yarina can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On February 8, 2022, the Maryland Department of the Environment 
(MDE) submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional haze for the 
second implementation period. MDE made this SIP submission to satisfy 
the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to CAA 
sections 169A and 169B and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.308.
    On August 25, 2023 (88 FR 58178), EPA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing approval of Maryland's February 8, 
2022, SIP submission as satisfying the regional haze requirements for 
the second implementation period contained in the CAA and 40 CFR 
51.308. EPA is now determining that the Maryland regional haze SIP 
submission for the second implementation period meets the applicable 
statutory and regulatory requirements and is thus approving Maryland's 
submission into its SIP.

II. EPA's Response to Comments Received

    EPA received two sets of comments in response to the NPRM. One set 
of comments originated from three Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) 
conservation groups writing as a

[[Page 22338]]

coalition (i.e., the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), 
Sierra Club, and the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks), 
and one set of comments from an individual. These comments are 
available in the docket for this action via Docket ID Number EPA-R03-
OAR-2022-0912 on the www.regulations.gov website. EPA's summary of and 
response to those comments is provided below.
    Comment: NGO commenters praised Maryland's submittal, stating that 
``the MDE has engaged with many of the worst haze-polluting 
facilities'' for the second implementation period, that ``Maryland's 
SIP should be a model for all of EPA Region 3'', and that ``the MDE 
engaged early with the National Park Service (``NPS'') as part of the 
Federal Land Manager (FLM) consultation period and provided in-depth 
information regarding control technologies, emissions limits, and 
retirement plans for the majority of sources identified by NPS.'' NGO 
commenters also provided additional feedback as to how Maryland's 
submittal could be further improved, which is described in more detail 
below.
    Response: EPA appreciates and agrees with this comment.
    Comment: NGO commenters also stated that SIP measures, including 
stationary source emission limitations, must be practically enforceable 
and approved into the SIP. NGO commenters express their belief that MDE 
improperly excluded certain facilities, including Brandon Shores 
Generating Station and the AES Warrior Run Facility, from a four-factor 
analysis. Specifically, NGO commenters express concern that MDE 
excluded the Brandon Shores Generating Station from being selected for 
a four-factor analysis based on an agreement between Brandon Shores 
Generating Station's owner and Sierra Club to cease coal combustion at 
the site by December 31, 2025, because the plans to cease fuel 
combustion or shutdown the facility are not a federally enforceable 
part of the revised SIP. NGO commenters therefore request that EPA 
require MDE to ``amend its Revised SIP to either (1) make Brandon 
Shores' plans to cease coal combustion or retire a federally 
enforceable part of the State's Revised SIP or (2) conduct a four-
factor analysis for Brandon Shores to ensure the facility is supporting 
the MDE long-term strategy and reasonable progress goals.'' Regarding 
the AES Warrior Run Facility, which MDE did not select for a four-
factor analysis, NGO commenters request that EPA require MDE to conduct 
a four-factor analysis for this facility per FLM recommendations.
    Response: As explained in the NPRM, the RHR does not require states 
to consider controls for all sources, all source categories, or any or 
all sources in a particular source category. Rather, states have 
discretion to choose any source selection methodology or threshold that 
is reasonable, provided that the choices they make are reasonably 
explained.1 2 To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires 
that a state's SIP submission must include ``a description of the 
criteria it used to determine which sources or groups of sources it 
evaluated.'' The technical basis for source selection must also be 
appropriately documented, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). In 
this particular instance, EPA proposed to find that Maryland's 
information and explanation included in its SIP submittal indicated 
that the State had in fact examined a reasonable set of sources, 
including sources identified by the FLMs. Furthermore, EPA proposed 
that Maryland had reasonably concluded that four-factor analyses were 
not necessary for all identified sources because the outcome would be 
that no further emission reductions would be reasonable for this 
planning period. EPA based the proposed finding on the State's 
examination of its largest operating electric generating units (EGUs) 
and its industrial commercial institutional (ICI) boilers, at the time 
of SIP submission, and on the emissions from and controls that apply to 
those sources, as well as on Maryland's existing SIP-approved nitrogen 
oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) rules that 
effectively control emissions from the largest contributing stationary-
source sectors. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that selecting 
additional sources from the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast-Visibility Union 
(MANE-VU's) or FLMs' lists for four-factor analysis would not have 
resulted in additional emission reduction measures being determined to 
be necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 88 FR 58178, 58194 (August 25, 2023).
    \2\ See Sections 2 and 2.1 of Clarifications Regarding Regional 
Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation 
Period. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Brandon Shores Generating Station, EPA notes that based 
on an existing consent agreement between the owner/operator of Brandon 
Shores and Sierra Club, the facility is scheduled to shut down by June 
1, 2025. As noted by the NGO commenters, it is possible that the 
shutdown date could be extended as far as 2028. However, EPA notes 
that, even if the owner/operator of this facility were to extend or 
delay its currently scheduled shutdown date of June 1, 2025, to 2028, 
which is the date anticipated by NGO commenters,\3\ this would be 
unlikely to affect Maryland's conclusion for this facility (i.e., that 
no additional controls are reasonable based on installing controls 
during the short remaining useful life of the source).\4\ Regarding the 
AES Warrior Run facility, EPA notes that the facility recently filed a 
deactivation notice with its Regional Transmission Organization (RTO), 
PJM Interconnection LLC, to retire by June 1, 2024,\5\ and PJM's 
response to that notice indicated that the facility could deactivate as 
desired.\6\ Thus, any assessment of additional emissions controls for 
this facility would also likely conclude that no additional controls 
are reasonable based on the short remaining useful life of the source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See docket document, ``2023-11-13--Sierra Club ex parte 
letter to PJM re Brandon Shores, AES Warrior Run'' dated November 
13, 2023; and Sierra Club press release dated November 15, 2023, 
``Maryland On Track To Be Coal-Free by 2025 with Announced 
Retirement of Warrior Run Plant,'' at www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2023/11/maryland-track-be-coal-free-2025-announced-retirement-warrior-run-plant.
    \4\ In addition, whether such an extension or delay occurs 
appears to be dependent on whether one NGO commenter, Sierra Club, 
will agree to a revision of the consent agreement with the owner/
operator of Brandon Shores. See docket documents, ``2023-12-05--PJM 
Letter to Sierra Club re Brandon Shores Consent Decree'' dated 
December 5, 2023, and ``2023-12-07--Talen Energy response to PJM re 
Brandon Shores'', dated December 7, 2023.
    \5\ See docket document, ``2023-09-30--AES Warrior Run 
Deactivation Notice to PJM'', dated September 30, 2023.
    \6\ See docket document, ``2023-11-30--PJM Response Letter to 
AES Warrior Run Deactivation Notice'', dated November 30, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore likely that both Brandon Shores and AES Warrior Run 
will be shut down by 2025 or 2028 at the latest, and EPA notes that 
either of these dates would still fall within the second implementation 
period. However, Maryland was not obligated to select these facilities 
for a four-factor analysis in order to make reasonable progress and 
fulfill its RHR obligations for the second implementation period, and 
EPA's proposed approval of Maryland's SIP submission was not dependent 
on Maryland selecting those facilities for a four-factor analysis.
    Therefore, regardless of the ultimate outcome for those facilities, 
Maryland satisfied its RHR obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and 
considered and reasonably explained the methodology

[[Page 22339]]

by which it selected and analyzed the particular sources that have the 
largest contribution to visibility impairment in Class I areas.
    Comment: NGO commenters also state that EPA must thoroughly 
consider environmental justice concerns, and state that the Maryland 
SIP revision fails to adequately account for these concerns. The 
commenters go on to state that the energy and non-air quality 
environmental impacts of compliance factor directs states to consider 
the broader environmental implications of their regional haze plans, by 
requiring an analysis of the ``non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance,'' including environmental justice. In addition, the 
commenters assert that EPA failed to consider environmental justice 
concerns in several Maryland communities around AES Warrior Run, NRG 
Morgantown Generating Station, and Wheelabrator Baltimore, identified 
as having high percentiles of low-income populations and unemployment 
rates, which are two of the Socioeconomic Indicators in the Database. 
The commenters also assert that, according to EPA's EJ Screen, the 
community near the Wheelabrator Baltimore facility ranks above the 80th 
percentile for State environmental justice indexes for fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5) and ozone.
    Response: The regional haze statutory provisions do not explicitly 
address considerations of environmental justice, and neither do the 
regulatory requirements of the second planning period in 40 CFR 
51.308(f), (g), and (i). As explained in ``EPA Legal Tools to Advance 
Environmental Justice,'' \7\ the CAA provides states with the 
discretion to consider environmental justice in developing rules and 
measures related to regional haze. While a State may consider 
environmental justice under the reasonable progress factors, neither 
the statute nor the regulation requires states to conduct an 
environmental justice analysis for EPA to approve a SIP submission. 
Furthermore, the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither 
prohibit nor require such an evaluation of environmental justice with 
regard to a regional haze SIP. In this instance, Maryland concluded 
that it ``has documented its long-term strategy to assure reasonable 
progress toward visibility goals in nearby Class I areas and assessed 
its progress in reducing emissions of visibility impairing 
pollutants.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice, May 
2022, available at www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/EJ%20Legal%20Tools%20May%202022%20FINAL.pdf at 35-36.
    \8\ See Section 3 of the MD Regional Haze SIP for the Second 
Implementation Period 2018-2028 (February 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NGO commenters provided additional information from an EJ 
Screen analysis. Without agreeing with the particular relevance or 
accuracy of this information, EPA acknowledges the EJ Screen 
information provided as part of the comment, which identifies certain 
demographic and environmental information regarding communities near 
AES Warrior Run, NRG Morgantown Generating Solution, and Wheelabrator 
Baltimore. The focus of the SIP at issue here, the regional haze SIP 
for Maryland, is SO2 and NOX emissions as they 
impact visibility in Class I areas. This action addresses ten EGU 
sources and six industrial/institutional sources of air pollution 
impacting Class I areas. As discussed in the NPRM and in this final 
rule, EPA has evaluated Maryland's SIP submission against the statutory 
and regulatory regional haze requirements and determined that it 
satisfies those minimum requirements.
    Comment: NGO commenters also alleged that the timing and nature of 
MDE's state public comment period for this SIP submission hindered 
stakeholder participation, due to alleged insufficient notification of 
Maryland's comment period on the revised SIP, and the fact that the 
state's public comment period encompassed two Federal holidays. The 
commenters state that, as a result, they were unable to engage directly 
with MDE during its public comment period for this SIP submittal. The 
commenters also state that they want ``to ensure that EPA is aware of 
the lack of public communication related to the State's public comment 
period on the Revised SIP.''
    Response: In reviewing Maryland's February 8, 2022, regional haze 
SIP revision, EPA found that MDE satisfied the public notice and 
comment requirements for SIP revisions.\9\ Maryland provided an 
opportunity to submit written comments and request a public hearing. 
MDE published Maryland's revised SIP on the MDE website for public 
comment from December 1, 2021 to January 4, 2022. The publication 
included notification of the 30-day notice period and information about 
the date, place, and time of the public hearing, as required under 40 
CFR 51.102(a). After reasonable notice, the public hearing was held 
online on January 4, 2022, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. See 40 CFR 
51.102(d). The 30-day notice period is not limited to business days. 
Id. Finally, Maryland's revised SIP submittal includes a certification 
that the state satisfied the requirements in 40 CFR 51.102(a) and (d). 
See 40 CFR 51.102(f). EPA notes that the commenters do not allege that 
MDE failed to fulfill its public notice and comment obligations, nor is 
there any indication that the commenters requested an extension to the 
state's public comment period to allow for more time. EPA has seen no 
evidence that Maryland did not fulfill its public notice requirements. 
In this instance, the State's public comment process meets the minimum 
requirements in the 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V for SIP submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 40 CFR 51.102; 40 CFR 51.104; and 40 CFR part 51, 
appendix V, section 2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One individual commenter, requested that the EPA 
``reconsider'' Maryland's SIP revision'' and require that Maryland 
examine several source categories, including power plants (i.e., 
electric generating units), industrial boilers, cement kilns, glass 
plants, landfills, and legacy diesel vehicles and equipment, and that 
EPA require additional emissions control technologies for these source 
categories as part of Maryland's Regional Haze SIP (e.g., selective 
catalytic reduction, flue gas desulfurization, diesel oxidation 
catalysts, etc), and that it implement measures to ``deter and punish'' 
owners and operators of legacy diesel vehicles and equipment owners in 
con-compliance with the emission reduction measures. The commenter also 
expressed concern that Maryland would not be able to achieve the 
Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for the second implementation period 
if these emissions controls were not implemented.
    Finally, the commenter commended Maryland's efforts to increase its 
renewable energy production and reduce its reliance on fossil fuel and 
encouraged the state to install wind and solar power and consider small 
modular nuclear power as ``a clean reliable and safe source of 
electricity.''
    Response: As explained in the NPRM, the 2021 Clarifications Memo 
for the RHR, and in the response to NGO commenters above, the RHR does 
not require states to consider controls for all sources, all source 
categories, or any or all sources in a particular source category. 
Rather, the states have discretion to choose any source selection 
methodology or threshold that is reasonable, provided that the choices 
they make are reasonably explained and result in a set of sources which 
capture a meaningful portion of the state's total contribution to 
visibility

[[Page 22340]]

impairment.10 11 To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) 
requires that a state's SIP submission must 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). In 
this particular instance, EPA proposed to find that Maryland's 
information and explanation included in its SIP submittal indicated 
that the State had in fact examined a reasonable set of sources, 
including sources identified by the FLMs. Furthermore, EPA proposed 
that Maryland had reasonably concluded that four-factor analyses for 
all identified sources were not necessary because the outcome would be 
that no further emission reductions would be reasonable for this 
planning period. EPA based the proposed finding on the State's 
examination of its largest operating EGUs and ICI boilers at the time 
of SIP submission, and on the emissions from and controls that apply to 
those sources, as well as on Maryland's existing SIP-approved 
NOX and SO2 rules that effectively control 
emissions from the largest contributing stationary-source sectors. In 
short, even though Maryland did not consider controls for every type of 
source and source category listed by the commenter, Maryland did 
consider and reasonably explain the methodology by which it considered 
the particular sources that capture a meaningful portion of the state's 
total contribution to visibility impairment, consistent with EPA 
guidance and with Maryland's obligations under the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 88 FR 58178, 58194 (August 25, 2023).
    \11\ See Sections 2 and 2.1 of Clarifications Regarding Regional 
Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation 
Period. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also asserts, without supporting documentation, that 
because the Maryland plan ``relies heavily on existing measures and 
technologies that have already been implemented or required by other 
Federal or state regulations,'' that the plan may not be able to meet 
the reasonable progress goals (RPGs). The comment appears to 
misunderstand the relationship between the RPGs and long-term 
strategies established by the four-factor analysis for reasonable 
progress, as well as the difference between RPGs and the reasonable 
progress necessary to be achieved via the long-term strategies. EPA 
explained at length in the NPRM, in particular in section E. Long-Term 
Strategy for Regional Haze, that Maryland's long-term strategy includes 
the enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other 
measures necessary to make reasonable progress.
    EPA reiterates that the process for establishing RPGs for each 
Class I area is prescribed in the Regional Haze Rule and its amendments 
and related guidance.12 13 14 The reasonable progress goals 
established by the states with Class I areas are not directly 
enforceable but will be considered by the Administrator in evaluating 
the adequacy of the measures in the implementation plan in providing 
for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions 
at that area'' 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii). EPA notes that only states 
with Class I areas within their borders are required to set RPGs for 
those areas. Maryland does not have any Class I areas within its 
borders and thus is not required to set RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 40 CFR 51.308; 64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999; and 82 FR 
3078, January 10, 2017.
    \13\ See Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans 
for the Second Implementation Period. 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).
    \14\ See Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period. 
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All States, regardless of whether they have Class I areas within 
their borders are, however, instructed to establish criteria for 
selecting sources that emit visibility impairing pollutants that impact 
visibility at downwind Class I Areas for further evaluation of 
potential emissions controls as part of a four-factor analysis, in 
keeping with the state's long-term strategy for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting the national visibility goal. To that end, 
states have discretion in establishing source selection processes and 
criteria, provided that such processes and criteria: are adequately 
justified and supported; select a reasonable number of sources that 
emit visibility impairing pollutants affecting downwind Class I Areas; 
and put the state on target for remedying any existing and preventing 
any future anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I areas.\15\ To 
this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f) lays out the process by which states 
determine what constitutes their long-term strategies, and 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See CAA 169A(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the NPRM, 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).\16\ 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.\17\ 
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 measures that a source is already 
implementing.\18\ 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.\19\ The 2021 Clarifications Memo to the RHR explains that 
RPGs cannot be determined before states have conducted their four-
factor analyses and determined the control measures that are necessary 
to make reasonable progress and that RPGs for states with Class I areas 
are the modeled result of the measures in states' long-term strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
    \17\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
    \18\ See 2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 8-10.
    \19\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the outcome of a state's source selection process and 
subsequent evaluation of technically feasible and cost-effective 
emissions controls as part

[[Page 22341]]

of four-factor analyses determine what constitutes the state's long-
term strategy for that particular implementation period. If a state's 
source selection process and evaluation of technically feasible and 
cost-effective controls results in a long-term strategy that includes 
the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules and other 
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, then the 
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule are satisfied for that 
Implementation Period.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving, as a SIP revision, the State of Maryland's 
February 8, 2022, SIP submission as satisfying the regional haze 
requirements for the second implementation period contained in 40 CFR 
51.308(f).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the consent 
order, effective July 6, 2021, between MDE and Raven Power Fort 
Smallwood LLC, for H.A. Wagner Generating Station to permanently cease 
the combustion of coal by January 1, 2026 as discussed in section II of 
this preamble. The consent order is contained in Appendix 19 of MDE's 
February 8, 2022 Regional Haze SIP for the Second Implementation Period 
2018-2028 submitted on behalf of the State of Maryland. EPA has made, 
and will continue to make, these materials generally available through 
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 3 Office (please contact the 
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have 
been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated 
by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable 
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the 
final rule of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in 
the next update to the SIP compilation.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this 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);
     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
    In addition, this rule 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.
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations 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.''
    MDE 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. Due to the nature 
of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a 
neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. 
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 
Executive Order 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of 
color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by May 31, 2024. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not

[[Page 22342]]

be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (See 
section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070:
0
a. Amend the table in paragraph (d) by adding an entry for ``Raven 
Power Fort Smallwood, LLC--H.A. Wagner Generating Station'' at the end 
of the table; and
0
b. Amend the table in paragraph (e) by adding an entry for ``Regional 
Haze Plan from 2018-2028'' at the end of the table.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
         Name of source              Permit No./type       effective   EPA approval date  Additional explanation
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Raven Power Fort Smallwood,      Consent Order.........     7/6/2021   4/1/24, [INSERT    Consent Order approved
 LLC--H.A. Wagner Generating                                            Federal Register   via Docket EPA-R03-
 Station.                                                               CITATION].         OAR-2022-0912, as an
                                                                                           element of Maryland's
                                                                                           February 8, 2022
                                                                                           Regional Haze Plan
                                                                                           from 2018-2028,
                                                                                           Appendix 19.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
   Name of non-regulatory SIP     Applicable geographic    submittal   EPA approval date  Additional explanation
            revision                      area               date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan from 2018-    State-wide............     2/8/2022   4/1/24, [INSERT
 2028.                                                                  Federal Register
                                                                        CITATION].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. 2024-06415 Filed 3-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P