[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 160 (Friday, August 19, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51006-51016]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17341]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0325; FRL-10118-01-R3]

Air Plan Approval; Maryland; Clean Data Determination and
Approval of Select Attainment Plan Elements for the Anne Arundel County
and Baltimore County, Maryland Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County, Maryland
sulfur dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area has attained the
2010 primary SO2 national ambient air quality standard (2010
SO2 NAAQS). In designated nonattainment areas where air
quality data demonstrate that the NAAQS have been attained, EPA
interprets certain requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as no longer
applicable for so long as air quality continues to meet the standard.
Under this Clean Data Policy, EPA may issue a determination of
attainment, known as a clean data determination (CDD), that

a nonattainment area is attaining the relevant NAAQS. If finalized,
this proposed CDD would suspend the obligation to submit certain
attainment planning requirements for the nonattainment area for as long
as the area continues to attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    EPA is also simultaneously proposing to approve certain elements of
the attainment plan contained in Maryland's state implementation plan
(SIP) revision for the Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County
SO2 nonattainment area (referred to hereafter as the Anne
Arundel-Baltimore County Area, or simply the Area), submitted to EPA on
January 31, 2020. The requirement to submit the elements that EPA is
proposing to approve would not be suspended under this proposed CDD, as
set forth in EPA's Clean Data Policy, because EPA considers them to be
independent of attaining the NAAQS under the CAA. Finally, EPA is
approving as SIP strengthening measures certain emission limit
requirements on large SO2 emission sources that were
submitted as part of Maryland's attainment plan for the nonattainment
area. This determination of attainment and approval of certain elements
and emissions limitations into the SIP does not redesignate the Area to
attainment or constitute a full approval of the submitted attainment
plan or of a maintenance plan. This action is being taken under the
CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 19,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0325 at www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn, Planning & Implementation
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, Four Penn Center, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2176. Mr. Rehn can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we refer to EPA.

I. Background

    On June 22, 2010, EPA published in the Federal Register a
strengthened, primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, establishing a new
standard at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on the 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations of SO2.\1\ Following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, EPA is required to designate all areas of the country
area as either ``attainment,'' ``nonattainment,'' or
``unclassifiable.'' CAA section 107(d)(1). On July 12, 2016, EPA
published a final rule designating the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County
Area as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, based on air
quality modeling and ambient air monitoring data. 81 FR 45039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 2, 2010, EPA signed the final rule titled, ``Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide,'' 75 FR
35520 (June 22, 2010), codified at 40 CFR part 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The major SO2-emitting facilities in this Area at that
time were three electrical generating units (EGUs)--Herbert A. Wagner
(Wagner), with two coal-fired units, one #6 fuel oil-fired unit and one
dual fuel (natural gas and fuel oil) unit; the Brandon Shores
Generating Station (Brandon Shores), with two coal-fired units; and the
Charles P. Crane Generating Station (Crane), with its two coal-fired
units. The other major SO2 source in the Area is the
Wheelabrator Baltimore waste-to-energy incinerator. The nonattainment
area is comprised of portions of Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties
that are within 26.8 kilometers of Wagner's Unit 3 stack, which is
located at 39.17765 North latitude, 76.52752 West longitude.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the area's complete boundary description at 40 CFR
81.321. Note that the nonattainment area excludes any portion of
Baltimore City that falls within the 26.8-kilometer radius of
Herbert A. Wagner Generating Station's Unit 3 stack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA directs states containing an area designated nonattainment
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS to develop and submit a nonattainment
area (NAA) SIP to EPA within 18 months of the effective date of an
area's designation as nonattainment. The NAA SIP (also referred to as
an attainment plan) must meet the requirements of subparts l and 5 of
part D, of Title 1 of the CAA, and provide for attainment of the NAAQS
by the applicable statutory attainment date.\3\ To be approved by the
EPA under section 192(a), these NAA SIPs must provide for attainment of
the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years
from the effective date of designation. The Maryland Department of
Environment (MDE) was required to prepare and submit to EPA a NAA SIP
by March 12, 2018 to bring the Area into attainment by the attainment
date of September 12, 2021. However, Maryland failed to submit a
complete attainment plan for the Area by the March 12, 2018 deadline.
On September 20, 2019, EPA issued a finding of failure to submit (FFS)
regarding the required attainment plan SIP.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See sections 172 and 191-192 of the CAA.
    \4\ 84 FR 49462 (September 20, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The September 20, 2019 FFS resulted in the initiation of an 18-
month clock toward imposition of sanctions upon the state under CAA
section 179, unless by that date the state has submitted to EPA an
SO2 SIP and EPA has determined it to be complete and
notified the state it has corrected the deficiency that gave rise to
the FFS.\5\ The FFS action also started a two-year clock by which EPA
is required under CAA section 110(c) to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for the area, unless the state submits, and
EPA approves, a SIP for the area before that date. Maryland submitted
an attainment plan SIP for the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area on
January 31, 2020. On March 30, 2020, EPA determined Maryland's
attainment plan SIP complete under the requirements for completeness
under CAA section 110(k), terminating the sanctions clock started by
the FFS action. If finalized, this CDD would have the effect of
suspending EPA's obligation to promulgate a FIP for the outstanding
attainment plan elements that are not being acted on in this document,
for so long as the CDD remains in place. The requirement for

outstanding attainment plan elements and the FIP clock will terminate
if EPA redesignates the area to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 40 CFR 52.31(d)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding Maryland's submission of a complete attainment
plan, EPA proposes to determine, based on evaluation of updated
emissions data for the major SO2 sources in the Area and on
more recently available air quality monitoring and supporting air
quality modeling data, that the Area is attaining the 2010
SO2 NAAQS and qualifies for a CDD under EPA's Clean Data
Policy.

II. EPA Clean Data Policy and Clean Data Determinations

    Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA discussed
its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in
the ``General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990'' (General Preamble).\6\ In 1995, based on the
interpretation of CAA sections 171, 172, and 182 in the General
Preamble, EPA set forth what has become known as its ``Clean Data
Policy'' for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\7\ Under the Clean Data Policy,
for a nonattainment area that can demonstrate attainment of the
standard before implementing CAA nonattainment measures, EPA interprets
the requirements of the CAA that are specifically designed to help an
area achieve attainment, including attainment demonstrations,
implementation of reasonably available control measures, including
reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT), reasonable further
progress (RFP) demonstrations, emissions limitations and control
measures as necessary to provide for attainment, and contingency
measures, to be suspended for so long as air quality continues to meet
the standard.\8\ EPA's ``2014 Guidance for 1-hour SO2 Area
SIP Submissions'' (2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance)
provides guidance and EPA's rationale for the application of the
existing Clean Data Policy to the 2010 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).
    \7\ EPA's statutory interpretation of the Clean Data Policy is
further described in the ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2 (referred to as the
Phase 2 Final Rule)'', (70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005). The Tenth,
Seventh, and Ninth Circuit U.S. District Courts have upheld EPA
rulemakings applying the Clean Data Policy. See Sierra Club v. EPA,
99 F. 3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004); Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-
73032 (9th Cir., June 28, 2005) memorandum opinion.
    \8\ See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, entitled, ``Reasonable Further
Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for
Ozone Nonattainment areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard,'' dated May 10, 1995.
    \9\ Memorandum from Steve Page, Director of the EPA's Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, to the EPA Air Division
Directors entitled, ``Guidance for 1-hr SO2 Nonattainment
Area SIP Submissions,'' dated April 23, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA may issue a CDD under our Clean Data Policy when a
nonattainment area is attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS based on
the most recent available data. EPA will determine whether the area has
attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS based on available information,
including air quality monitoring data and air quality dispersion
modeling information for the affected area. If the determination of
attainment is issued, then certain attainment plan requirements for the
area are suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the
NAAQS.
    However, the suspension of the obligation to submit an attainment
plan is only appropriate where the area remains in attainment of the
NAAQS. EPA is proposing to require Maryland to submit annual statements
to EPA (due by July 1 of each year after the final CDD), to address
whether the Area has continued to attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
EPA expects that these statements would include at least available air
quality monitoring data, an assessment of changes in SO2
emissions from existing or new sources, and discussion of whether these
changes warrant updated modeling. If EPA does not receive credible
information indicating that the area continues to attain the
SO2 NAAQS, EPA will propose to rescind the Anne Arundel-
Baltimore County Area's CDD, the finalization of which would reinstate
all outstanding attainment planning requirements that were suspended by
the CDD. Therefore, if the area violates the NAAQS in the future and
EPA rescinds the CDD, there would no longer be a basis for suspending
EPA's FIP obligation, and EPA would have an immediate obligation to
promulgate a FIP addressing the outstanding SIP requirements for the
Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area for the SO2 NAAQS that
were the subject of the September 20, 2019 FFS.
    A determination of attainment under the Clean Data Policy does not
serve to alter the Area's nonattainment designation. CDDs are not
redesignations to attainment. For EPA to redesignate an area to
attainment the state must submit, and EPA must approve, a redesignation
request for the Area that meets the requirements of CAA section
107(d)(3).

III. EPA's Analysis Supporting a Clean Data Determination for the Anne
Arundel-Baltimore County Area

    EPA may make a CDD for an SO2 nonattainment area if the
most recent three years of air quality monitoring data from a monitor
sited in the area of peak ambient SO2 concentrations show
attainment of the NAAQS and any other relevant information, such as
dispersion modeling, show the area is meeting the NAAQS. Initial
designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS were based on EPA's
technical assessment of, and conclusions regarding the weight of
evidence for, each area, including but not limited to available air
quality monitoring data (for the three most recent calendar years) and/
or air quality modeling. In the case of the Anne Arundel-Baltimore
County Area, the monitor recording SO2 concentrations for
the most recent 3-year period is not located in the area of peak
ambient SO2 concentrations. Because the monitor is not
located in the area of peak expected SO2 concentrations,
both monitoring and modeling would need to show that the 3-year average
of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations (which yields the ``design value'') would not violate
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS level of 75 parts per billion
(ppb).
    For a CDD where monitors are not located in the area of peak
expected SO2 concentrations, air quality dispersion modeling
based upon the most recent three years of actual emissions or based on
permitted allowable emissions should show attainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. In the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area, the
nearest certified ambient monitors to the primary SO2
sources are over 15 kilometers (km) from Brandon Shores and Wagner and
approximately 9 km from Crane, and neither monitor is close to the
expected area of SO2 peak concentrations resulting from
these sources. Similar to the original designation modeling, a more
current characterization of emissions using a regulatory dispersion
model provides the necessary estimation of source concentrations near
the primary SO2 sources identified in the Anne Arundel-
Baltimore County Area.

A. EPA's Analysis of Recent SO2 Monitoring for the Anne
Arundel-Baltimore County Area

    EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance states that
ambient monitoring data in support of a CDD should comport with EPA's
``SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented Monitoring
Technical Assistance

Document'' (SO2 Monitoring TAD).\10\ The SO2
Monitoring TAD was provided by EPA to assist states in siting monitors
to characterize ambient air quality impacted by significant
SO2 sources, with the goal of identifying peak
SO2 concentrations attributable to those sources. For a CDD,
EPA must determine whether the Area has attained the NAAQS based upon a
showing that the three most recent years of ambient monitoring data
show attainment, along with ``additional information'' as necessary to
determine the area is in attainment. The State and Local Air Monitoring
Stations (SLAMS) network (and any other industrial or special purpose
monitors used for this purpose) must meet applicable criteria in 40 CFR
part 58, appendices A, C, and E and report their data to the Air
Quality Subsystem (AQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented
Monitoring Technical Assistance Document,'' EPA
    Office of Air and Radiation Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards Air Quality Assessment Division (February 2016, DRAFT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two SO2 monitors in the Anne Arundel-Baltimore
County Area. The Essex Monitor, a SLAMS monitor, has not had any 1-hour
SO2 design values exceeding the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
over the last decade.\11\ The Essex Monitor therefore does not show a
violation of the NAAQS, with a design concentration higher than 75 ppb
not recorded since the period 2007 through 2009. Since then, this
monitor has a complete record showing no design values exceeding the
NAAQS. Though the Essex Monitor does not show a violation of the NAAQS,
it is not sited in the area of peak modeled values for the Area. Table
1 in this document shows the 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour
SO2 concentrations from 2014 through 2021 at this monitor,
along with the calculated design values for each 3-year period and the
number of hourly SO2 concentrations above 75 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Essex Monitor is a State and Local Air Monitoring
Station (or SLAMS). The design concentration for the Essex Monitor
for the three-year period (2018-2020) is 9 ppb and the 2019-2021
design concentration is 7 ppb, far under the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.

             Table 1--2014-2021 Essex Monitor SO2 Values for the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       99th                          Number of
                                                    Percentile                      hourly SO2
                      Year                         daily 1-hour    Design value    values above   Valid  monitor
                                                   maximum value       (ppb)        75 ppb  (by   days (by year)
                                                       (ppb)                           year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014............................................            26.4              22               0             360
2015............................................            17.7              22               0             357
2016............................................            12.9              19               0             355
2017............................................             8.5              13               0             323
2018............................................            12.3              11               0             318
2019............................................            10.5              10               0             351
2020............................................             4.7               9               0             352
2021............................................             5.4               7               0             354
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Essex Monitor design value has been below the 2010 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS since 2012, which was the first year of the 3-year
model simulation period used to designate the area, and the Essex
Monitor has also had no hourly SO2 values exceeding the 75
ppb 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Over the last three years of
available data, 2019 through 2021, the 99th percentile hourly values at
the Essex Monitor have fallen to the 5-12 ppb range, with design values
of approximately 10 ppb. This shows significant improvement in air
quality since 2012 within this portion of the Anne Arundel-Baltimore
County Area.
    The other monitor in the area is the special purpose Riviera Beach
Monitor located in northern Anne Arundel County near the Fort Smallwood
Complex. This monitor has a current design value well below the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, but the monitor's design value data is
incomplete.\12\ Though only in operation since January 2018, the
Riviera Beach Special Purpose Monitor has experienced significant
periods of invalid or missing measurements during that time and was
discontinued in mid-2022.\13\ The Riviera Beach Monitor data is
incomplete for 2018, 2019, and 2020, and therefore its data is invalid
for the purpose of a CDD.\14\ The Essex Monitor's 2019-2021 1-hr
SO2 design value is 7 ppb and Riviera Beach's 2018-2020 1-hr
SO2 design value is 24 ppb, though the Riviera Beach design
value is flagged as incomplete.\15\ Because the Riviera Beach Monitor
has now been discontinued, a more recent design value is not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A special purpose monitor is defined in 40 CFR 58.20 and is
limited to 24 months of operation. This monitor has exceeded the
operations limits under the special purpose definition because it
operated past January 18, 2020. The 2018-20 design concentration for
the Riviera Beach Monitor is 24 ppb, well below the 75 ppb 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
    \13\ See Maryland Department of the Environment Ambient Air
Monitoring Network Plan
    for Calendar Year 2022 (https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Air/AirQualityMonitoring/Pages/Network.aspx).
    \14\ From MDE's 2022 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan (page
15) concerning this monitor: ``[I]n 2016, the EPA designated
portions of Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County as non-
attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. This
designation was based on modeled, not monitored, SO2
concentrations. In order to better evaluate actual ambient
SO2 concentrations, a source oriented SO2
monitor was established at Riviera Beach Elementary School as a
Special Purpose Monitor on January 12, 2018.''
    \15\ See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix T, section 3(b) for monitoring
data completeness criteria for design value determination for the
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The technical support document (TSD) prepared by EPA for this
action contains an analysis of historical 1-hour monitored
SO2 concentrations at the Essex Monitor for the period 2009-
2021 and the Riviera Beach Monitor for the period between 2018-2021.
The Essex Monitor is shown to have marked reductions in peak 1-hour
SO2 concentrations over time. The Riviera Beach Monitor,
which has data over a much smaller time period and significant gaps in
data collection, nevertheless had a peak hourly monitored 1-hour value
of 63.9 ppb in 2018, and no peak values over 50 ppb since that time.
    One potential explanation for recent decreases in the monitored
hourly SO2 concentrations in the Anne Arundel-Baltimore
County Area is that the operations of the coal-fired EGUs in the Area
are very different now than at the time of EPA's nonattainment
designation. Under a consent order between Raven Power and MDE, one of
the area's primary SO2 emission sources (Wagner Unit #2) was
permanently

required to cease burning coal and switched to natural gas as of July
1, 2020.\16\ In addition, under that same consent order, the remaining
coal-fired sources at Brandon Shores and Wagner have operated much less
frequently than when EPA designated the Area as nonattainment in 2016.
This may explain why there have been no recent exceedances of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS at the Riviera Beach Monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Consent Order between Raven Power Fort Smallwood LLC
and the Maryland Department of the Environment regarding emissions
at the Fort Smallwood electric generating complex, entered December
4, 2019, (Appendix B-1 of Maryland's January 31, 2020 SIP revision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Overview of EPA Modeling Analysis for the Anne Arundel-Baltimore
County Area

    EPA's SO2 Modeling TAD outlines modeling approaches for
SO2 NAAQS attainment status designations to assist state,
local, and tribal air agencies in the characterization of ambient air
quality in areas with significant SO2 emission sources.\17\
EPA's SO2 Modeling TAD outlines recommended modeling
approaches and provides recommendations on several aspects of
dispersion modeling in this context, including the use of temporally
varying actual emissions, source characterization, meteorological data,
model selection, and background concentrations. Consistent with the
approach set forth in the SO2 Modeling TAD, EPA conducted a
dispersion modeling analysis for the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County
nonattainment area to show the impact on air quality of all large
SO2 emissions sources. For this Area, the primary sources of
SO2 emissions include three coal-fired EGUs located in the
nonattainment area--Brandon Shores, C.P. Crane, and H.A. Wagner
electric generating facilities. Brandon Shores and Wagner are located
adjacent to one another in northern Anne Arundel County, residing
within the Fort Smallwood Complex. The Crane facility is located
approximately 22 kilometers northeast of Brandon Shores and Wagner in
Baltimore County. The only other significant source of SO2
emissions in the Area is the Wheelabrator-Baltimore facility, which is
a waste-to-energy facility that combusts up to 2,250 tons per day of
post-recycled waste to generate electricity and steam. Wheelabrator-
Baltimore is located in the City of Baltimore, approximately 13
kilometers northwest of the Brandon Shores and Wagner facilities. EPA
modeled Wheelabrator using its allowable permitted emission limit for
SO2 rather than actual emissions. The allowable permitted
emission limit was much higher than actual emissions, based on annual
reported emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ ``SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical
Assistance Document,'' U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards Air Quality Assessment
Division (August 2016, DRAFT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's modeled actual emissions from these sources for the Area for
the period between 2019-2021 (with the exception of Wheelabrator-
Baltimore, for which we relied on allowable permitted emissions). Our
review shows that recent actual, annual SO2 emissions are
much lower compared to the emissions for the time periods used for the
initial nonattainment designation (i.e., 2012-2014 and 2013-2015 actual
emissions). As a result of the closure of Crane's coal units by June
2018, there were no emissions from those units to include in this
analysis. The conversion of Wagner Unit 2 from coal to natural gas in
2020, and the installation of a dry sorbent injection emission control
for SO2 on Wagner Unit 3 in 2018, also contributed to
significant emission reductions in the Area over the last five years.
Both coal units at Brandon Shores have flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
SO2 emissions controls. The remaining Fort Smallwood Complex
coal units have also reduced their total annual operating hours,
directly contributing to reductions in annual SO2 emissions
over the last five years, under enforceable consent orders between the
source owners and the MDE, establishing reduced emission limits and
allowable hours of operation. The decline in actual SO2
emissions from these sources between the time of designation of the
Area as nonattainment (based on the period 2012-2014) and the most
recent 3-year period on which EPA is evaluating the Area for a clean
data determination (2019-2021) can be found in Table 2 in this
document. Emissions from the EGU sources presented in Table 2 in this
document are as reported to EPA's CAMD (Clean Air Markets Division),
while those for the non-EGU Wheelabrator were provided to EPA by MDE.

               Table 2--Annual Emissions From Major Stationary SO2 Sources in the Anne Arundel-Baltimore Nonattainment Area for 2012-2021
                                                                 [Tons of SO2 per Year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Brandon Shores                  H.A. Wagner                   C.P. Crane
                          Year                           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Wheelabrator-
                                                           Unit 1    Unit 2    Unit 1    Unit 2    Unit 3    Unit 4    Unit 1    Unit 2      Baltimore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012....................................................     1,547     1,301       0.2     2,513     4,964      41.1     1,214       962             194
2013....................................................     1,389     1,482       0.2     1,555     8,557      72.7       719     2,143             321
2014....................................................     1,670     1,475      72.6     1,940     7,277       323       574     1,316             310
2015....................................................     1,311     1,643      65.0     1,188     8,754       185       382       946             (*)
2016....................................................     1,450     1,270      26.5       163     7,575      74.8       412       638             259
2017....................................................     1,098     1,418       2.5       117     1,245      60.8       379       449             308
2018....................................................     1,747     1,785       6.1       230     2,733       197       392       475             346
2019....................................................       547       954      15.3      88.8     1,124      39.9         0         0             329
2020....................................................       420       267         0         0       605      13.5         0         0             (*)
2021....................................................       759       720       5.7         0       645      17.4         0         0             (*)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Wheelabrator-Baltimore state-reported emissions for 2015 were not available. Annual emissions for Wheelabrator for 2020 and 2021 were not yet
  available at the time of EPA's clean data determination analysis.

    Based on the source-specific annual SO2 emissions in
Table 2 in this document, emissions from Brandon Shores have been
reduced by about 70 percent between the designation and CDD modeling
periods, while emissions from Wagner have been reduced by about 90
percent during that same period. Emissions from Crane have been
entirely eliminated in the time between the designation and more recent
CDD modeling periods, while actual

emissions from Wheelabrator during that same period have remained
relatively unchanged. For further information on actual hourly emission
rate historic data, refer to Appendix B of EPA's TSD for hourly
emissions values for the large EGUs in the Area.
    EPA's modeling analysis modeled the emissions impacts from the
Wagner, Brandon Shores, and Wheelabrator facilities described above in
the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area. EPA used actual 2019-2021
hourly SO2 emissions from EGUs in the Area, as measured by
continuous emissions monitor (CEM) data and used permitted allowable
emissions for the non-EGU source, Wheelabrator-Baltimore. EPA's
analysis uses the American Meteorological Society/Environmental
Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD), with pre-processing input
data from EPA's Regulatory Model Terrain Pre-processor (AERMAP) and
EPA's AERMOD Meteorological Preprocessor (AERMET) models. AERMOD is a
steady-state plume model that incorporates air dispersion based on
planetary boundary layer (PBL) turbulence structure and scaling
concepts, including treatment of both surface and elevated sources, and
both simple and complex terrain. AERMAP is a stand-alone terrain pre-
processor, which is used to both characterize terrain and generate
receptor grids for use in AERMOD. AERMET is a stand-alone program which
provides AERMOD with the information it needs to characterize the state
of the surface and mixed layer, and the vertical structure of the PBL.
EPA's modeling comports with EPA's SO2 Modeling TAD, with
additional guidance provided by EPA's AERMOD Implementation Guide along
with appropriate sections of Appendix W and AERMOD, AERMAP, and AERMET
user guides.
    EPA developed its receptor grid modeling protocol on a modeling
protocol developed by MDE for use in their attainment planning
modeling. For purposes of a CDD, EPA refined Maryland's original
receptor grid. Maryland's original model receptor grid placed nested
Cartesian grids centered on the Fort Smallwood Complex (Brandon Shores
and Wagner) and Crane and spaced: every 25 meters along the ambient
boundary; every 100 meters out to a distance of 15 km; and every 500
meters between 15 and 25 km. EPA's final model receptor grid included
all of the Maryland SIP modeling protocol-based receptors within 10 km
of the Crane and Fort Smallwood EGUs and within 5 km of the
Wheelabrator-Baltimore facility. However, EPA limited the model
receptor grid to areas nearby to the primary coal-fired EGUs based on
modeling done in support of our original designation action for the
Anne Arundel-Baltimore 2010 SO2 NAAQS nonattainment area.
That designation modeling showed peak model SO2
concentrations were confined to within a few kilometers of the coal-
fired EGUs at the Fort Smallwood complex. The final CDD model grid
(after filtering and pre-processing for use in AERMAP) is composed of
56,883 model receptors. Supplemental model receptor grids were based on
those of MDE's modeling protocol, covering the areas within the
boundaries of the Crane and the Fort Smallwood facilities. EPA's
selected modeling domain for the CDD analysis captures the maximum
modeled concentration from the primary emission sources in the
nonattainment area, per the Appendix W modeling guidance. For further
information on the receptor grid utilized for EPA's modeling analysis,
refer to the AERMAP/Model Receptor Development section of EPA's TSD
prepared in support of this action.
    Meteorological data utilized in the modeling analysis was developed
using EPA's AERMET (version 22112) preprocessor. AERMET processes three
types of data: (1) hourly surface observations that are typically, but
not exclusively, collected at airports by the National Weather Service
(NWS) and/or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); (2) twice-daily
upper air soundings collected by the NWS; and (3) data collected from
an on-site or site-specific measurement program or prognostic
meteorological data. Surface meteorological measurements for the Area
were taken from the Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI)
Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS) Monitor. Upper air soundings
were taken from the Sterling, Virginia site near Dulles Airport in
Virginia just west of Washington, DC. These are the closest available
sites to the primary SO2 sources in the Anne Arundel-
Baltimore County Area. EPA's analysis indicates the meteorological
collection sites and the modeled SO2 emissions sources have
similar elevations and topographical settings.
    In accordance with EPA's SO2 Modeling TAD, EPA's
modeling analysis uses surface meteorological data from BWI and upper-
air measurements from Dulles Airport for the 2019-2021 period. Local
input information for the Area was used to analyze surface conditions
using EPA's AERSURFACE tool for AERMET meteorological pre-processor
model for input to AERMOD. AERSURFACE is a tool that processes land
cover data to determine the surface characteristics for use in AERMET
for processing for use in AERMOD.
    AERMOD currently cannot simulate dispersion under calm or missing
wind conditions. To reduce the number of calms and missing winds in the
surface data, EPA used the AERMINUTE tool to more accurately translate
1-minute ASOS wind data to generate hourly average wind data for input
to AERMET.
    Section 8.3 of EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models provides
additional discussion on background monitoring concentrations for air
quality analyses. Additional guidance points regarding the
determination of background concentrations for the 1-hr SO2
NAAQS are outlined in EPA's March 1, 2011, 1-hour NO2
clarification memo.\18\ It includes a procedure to use temporally
varying background concentrations. Background concentrations are
essential in constructing the design concentration, or total air
quality concentration, as part of any NAAQS analysis. EPA utilized a
seasonal by hour of day background concentration derived from 2019-2021
monitoring data collected at the Essex, MD SO2 Monitor (Site
# 24-005-3001), as described in EPA's March 1, 2011, 1-hour
NO2 clarification memo. The Essex Monitor is located in
Baltimore County, within the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area,
approximately 16 km north of the Fort Smallwood Complex and 10 km west
of Crane. EPA believes the Essex Monitor, since it is actually in the
Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area, provides a representative
background concentration for its CDD modeling analysis. Given the
monitor's most recent 1-hr SO2 design value (7 ppb), the
impacts of these sources are probably small and would provide a
conservative estimate of background concentrations for EPA's CDD
modeling analysis. The Essex Monitor is likely also impacted by the
major SO2 emission sources in the Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See EPA's ``Additional Clarification Regarding Application
of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour N02 National Ambient
Air Quality Standard'' memo from Tyler Fox to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated March 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA modeled hourly emissions over a 3-year period between 2019
through 2021. Choice of this time period excluded emissions from both
coal-fired units at Crane, which ceased burning coal in June 2018.
Selection of these years simplified the process of obtaining source
emissions data and stack information since only Brandon Shores, Wagner
and Wheelabrator-Baltimore

operated over the timeframe of EPA's CDD analysis.
    To capture the CDD model impacts, the physical stack parameters and
hourly, actual SO2 emission rates must be properly
constructed. The CDD modeling analysis utilized stack (and building)
information and is described in detail in the Building Downwash and
Stack Good Engineering Practice (GEP) section of the TSD prepared by
EPA in support of this action.
1. Results of EPA's Air Quality Modeling Analysis
    EPA's CDD modeling utilized meteorological data, actual and
allowable hourly SO2 emissions, and corresponding hourly
stack velocities and stack temperatures to simulate SO2
concentrations over portions of the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area.
This modeling analysis shows that the Area is not violating the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS based on actual and allowable SO2
emissions from sources within or near the area. No air quality monitor
within the Area (which was designated in Round 2 of EPA's designations
under the 2010 SO2 NAAQS) is currently violating the 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS, although we recognize that the current SLAMS
monitor in Essex, MD is not located at the point of peak modeled values
used by EPA for area designation.
    EPA's modeling analysis (based on 2019-2021 SO2
emissions) showed a peak design value (i.e., the 3-year average of the
99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour concentrations, or the 99th
percentile concentrations) of 53.1 ppb. Table 3 in this document
summarizes the peak model receptor design value and the 99th percentile
model concentrations that contributed to that receptor's modeled design
concentration.

 Table 3--Summary of 2019-2021 Peak Modeled Receptor 1-Hour SO2 Design Values and 99th Percentile Values for the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County, MD Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Year 1                                 Year 2                                 Year 3
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Design value  (ppb)                                     SO2 99th                               SO2 99th                               SO2 99th
                                         Date       Hour of    percentile       Date       Hour of    percentile       Date       Hour of    percentile
                                                      day         (ppb)                      day         (ppb)                      day         (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53.1...............................   10-02-2019         14          69.3     7-27-2020         12          52.3     1-20-2021         09          37.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This modeled value is approximately 71 percent of the level of the
75 ppb 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The peak model design value occurred
about one km east of the Fort Smallwood Complex, near the southern
shoreline of the Patapsco River east of the Fort Smallwood Complex. We
note that the 99th percentile values declined over the 3-year modeled
period. This trend is similar to the trends observed at the Riviera
Beach Monitor, which is the closest SO2 monitor to the
location of the peak model receptor.
    Our analysis shows the remaining coal-fired units within the Fort
Smallwood Complex (i.e., Brandon Shores Units 1 and 2 and Wagner Unit
3) are the primary contributors to the peak model design value,
combining to contributing over 94 percent of the peak receptor's
modeled 1-hour SO2 design concentration. However, FGD
emission controls have been installed on the coal-fired units at
Brandon Shores and dry sorbent injection was installed on Wagner Unit 3
in 2018. Wagner Unit 2 remains operational but since 2021 is fired with
natural gas and is no longer a significant source of SO2
emissions. Wagner Units 1 and 4 are now fired with natural gas or oil
and are less significant SO2 emitters compared to the
remaining coal-fired units. Though the 2019 design value is higher than
those in 2020 and 2021, the additional emissions controls on EGUs in
the Area and tighter emissions limits and annual operating hours
limitations imposed by the consent decree likely contribute to lower
design values in more recent years.

C. Conclusion of EPA's Modeling and Monitoring Analysis

    EPA conducted a modeling analysis using three years of actual and
allowable SO2 source emissions coupled with representative
meteorological data for use in modeling. Hourly SO2
emissions from the sources that were included in Maryland's SIP were
constructed along with corresponding stack velocities and temperatures.
This primary emissions source information was processed for inclusion
in EPA's AERMOD air-dispersion model to estimate 1-hour SO2
design values within the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County, MD
nonattainment area.
    Final peak model concentrations from EPA's modeling analysis were
53.1 ppb, occuring over the Patapsco River east of the Fort Smallwood
Complex. Large SO2 emission sources, including coal fired
units at Brandon Shores and Wagner, are the largest contributors to the
peak modeled SO2 design concentration in our modeling
analysis. EPA also gauged impacts from other nearby sources to the
primary sources. Modeled design concentrations in these nearby areas
were much lower that the peak modeled design concentrations found in
the main modeling domain.
    Ambient air monitoring of the area does not show any violations of
the NAAQS based on the most recently available data for the period
between 2019-2021, though the area of modeled peak concentration is at
a location other than the monitor locations. Recent trend data has
shown both declining emissions and declining monitor 99th percentile
and peak 1-hour monitor values. Based on this available monitoring data
and the accompanying modeling analysis, we have demonstrated that the
Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area is attaining the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, based on actual meteorology and emissions during
the 2019-2021 time period. As a result, we have shown that the Anne
Arundel-Baltimore County Area for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS meets
EPA criteria for the area to qualify for a CDD.

D. EPA Review of Select Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area Attainment
Plan Elements From Maryland's January 31, 2020 SO2 SIP
Revision Request

    In the event EPA issues a final CDD, certain nonattainment planning
requirements under CAA section 172(c) are still required for the Area.
Specifically, these elements include an emissions inventory (EI),
required by CAA section 172(c)(3), and a nonattainment new source
review (NNSR) program required by CAA section 172(c)(5). Maryland
submitted these required attainment plan elements to EPA as part of its
attainment plan SIP revision dated January 31, 2020.
1. Maryland's Base Year Emissions Inventory for the Anne Arundel-
Baltimore County Area
    EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance describes the
statutory elements comprising an SO2 attainment

plan. These requirements include submission of a comprehensive,
accurate and current base year emissions inventory of all sources of
SO2 within the nonattainment area, per CAA section
172(c)(3).\19\ EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance
requires that the base year emissions inventory should be consistent
with the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) at Subpart A to 40
CFR part 51.\20\ This base year inventory can be represented by a year
that contributed to the three-year design value used for the original
nonattainment designation and should include all sources of
SO2 in the nonattainment area and any sources located
outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area
SIP Submissions'' (April 23, 2014).
    \20\ The AERR at Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51 cover overarching
Federal reporting requirements for the states to submit emissions
inventories for criteria pollutants to EPA's Emissions Inventory
System. EPA uses these submittals, along with other data sources, to
build the National Emissions Inventory.
    \21\ See pp. 46-47 of EPA's ``Guidance for 1[hyphen]Hour
SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,'' dated April 23,
2014.
    \22\ MDE issued a title V permit for Raven Power's Brandon
Shores and Wagner generating stations (which MDE considers a single
source for title V and NSR purposes). The Title V permit is
available at MDE's website, at: https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/permits/AirManagementPermits/Test/Raven%20Power%20Ft.%20Smallwood,%20LLC.pdf. EPA does not intend to
add the Title V permit to the SIP but is referencing it here for
purposes of showing declining emissions.
    \23\ See Consent Order between Raven Power Fort Smallwood LLC
and the Maryland Department of the Environment relating to
operations at the Herbert A. Wagner electric generating station, as
it relates to regional haze formation, entered June 24, 2021. The
consent order is available for review in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maryland selected 2014 for the base year emission inventory for the
Area, which is appropriate because the nonattainment designation of the
Area was based on data from 2013-2015. Actual emissions from all the
sources of SO2 in the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area
were reviewed and compiled for the base year emissions inventory
requirement. Maryland's 2014 base year SO2 emission
inventory meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and comports
with EPA's 2014 SO2 SIP Guidance.\21\ Maryland's 2014 base
year SO2 emissions inventory for the Area, by emission
source category, is contained in Table 4 in this document.

  Table 4--2014 SO2 Emission Base Year Inventory for the Anne Arundel-
                          Baltimore County Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           SO2 annual
              Emissions source category                 emissions (tons
                                                           per year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point (and Quasi-point) Sources...........          14,797.46
Area Sources.........................................             960.59
Onroad Mobile Sources................................              96.55
Nonroad Mobile Sources...............................             238.71
                                                      ------------------
    Total............................................          16,093.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2014 base year, point source emissions accounted for 91
percent of all SO2 emissions in the Area. The primary
SO2 point sources were the Brandon Shores, Wagner, and Crane
EGUs, and to a lesser extent the Wheelabrator Baltimore waste-to-energy
incinerator. Table 5 in this document shows the 2014 SO2
emissions of point source facilities in the Area that reported annual
emissions of greater than six tons. As noted previously, emissions for
all of these sources have declined dramatically since 2014, with
additional limits enacted for Wagner and Brandon Shores through more
recent 40 CFR part 70 permits, as well as more stringent emission
limits and operational restrictions placed upon those facilities
through consent orders between MDE and the facility owners, as
described in more detail in sections B and C, in this document.\22\
Further, the Crane facility ceased operation in 2018, Wagner's coal-
fired Unit 2 ceased coal combustion in June 2020, and the remaining
Wagner coal-fired unit (Unit 3) is to cease coal combustion by January
1, 2026.\23\

 Table 5--Point Source Contribution to the 2014 SO2 Base Year Emissions
   Inventory for the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Nonattainment Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        2014 SO2 annual
                       Facility                         emissions (tons
                                                           per year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Shores.......................................           3,145.09
Wagner...............................................           9,610.26
C.P. Crane...........................................           1,887.16
All Other Point Sources Combined.....................              33.26
                                                      ------------------
    Total Point Source Emissions.....................          14,675.76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has evaluated Maryland's 2014 base year emissions inventory for the
  Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area and has determined that it was
  developed in a manner consistent with CAA section 172(c)(3) and with
  applicable EPA guidance.

2. Maryland's New Source Review Program
    Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA establishes an attainment plan element
requirement that the state have in place a permitting program for the
construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources
in a nonattainment area, in accordance with section 173 of the CAA.\24\
Maryland has a fully implemented nonattainment new source review (NNSR)
program under the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR), COMAR 26.11.17
``Nonattainment Provisions for Major New Sources and Major
Modifications,'' addressing the criteria pollutants. EPA has approved
this chapter into the Maryland SIP (77 FR 45949, August 2, 2012; as
updated by 80 FR 39969, July 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The CAA NSR program is composed of three separate programs:
Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), NNSR, and Minor NSR.
PSD is established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in
undesignated areas and in areas that meet the NAAQS--designated
``attainment areas''--as well as areas where there is insufficient
information to determine if the area meets the NAAQS--designated
``unclassifiable areas.'' The NNSR program is established in part D
of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that are not in
attainment of the NAAQS--designated ``nonattainment areas.'' The
Minor NSR program addresses construction or modification activities
that do not qualify as ``major'' and applies regardless of the
designation of the area in which a source is located. Together,
these programs are referred to as the NSR programs. Section 173 of
the CAA lays out the NNSR program for preconstruction review of new
major sources or major modifications to existing sources, as
required by CAA section 172(c)(5). The programmatic elements for
NNSR include, among other things, compliance with the lowest
achievable emissions rate and the requirement to obtain emissions
offsets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maryland's NNSR program meets the SO2 applicable
requirements of CAA section 173 as COMAR 26.11.17 applies to any new or
modified major stationary source in an area that has been designated
``nonattainment'' under CAA section 107(d)(1)(A)(i).\25\ The SIP-
approved NNSR program covers the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County
SO2 Area and includes SO2 as a ``regulated NSR
pollutant.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>A(3).
    \26\ See COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>B(24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maryland's NNSR program rule, as codified at COMAR 26.11.17,
defines ``major stationary source'' as ``any stationary source of air
pollution which emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons or more of
any regulated NSR pollutant,'' which by definition includes
SO2.\27\ A ``significant'' net increase in SO2
emissions is defined as 40 tons per year. ``Best Available Control
Technology'' is defined as an emissions limitation ``based on the
maximum degree of [emissions] reduction for each regulated NSR
pollutant which would be emitted from any proposed major stationary
source or major modification.'' All permits and approvals required by
Maryland's NNSR permitting program, under COMAR 26.11, must be obtained
before construction or modification of a subject emissions source.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>B(17).
    \28\ See COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed Maryland's NNSR program and determined that its
SIP-approved NNSR program under COMAR 26.11 meets the requirements for
NSR under CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 and 40 CFR 51.165 for
SO2 sources undergoing construction or major modification in
the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area without need for modification of
the SIP-approved NNSR program. Therefore, EPA concludes that the
Maryland SIP meets the NNSR requirements of CAA section 172(c)(5)
applicable to attainment plan requirements for the Area.
3. Maryland Limits on Stationary SO2 Sources
    Although EPA is not taking action upon Maryland's attainment
demonstration submitted as part of the January 31, 2020 attainment
plan, EPA has reviewed Maryland's submitted emission limits and
emissions control requirements for large SO2 sources in the
Area. EPA proposes to add to the Maryland SIP as a SIP strengthening
measure a consent order between MDE and Raven Power Fort Smallwood LLC
and a consent order between MDE and C.P. Crane LLC that require
enforceable SO2 limits and operational limitations at the
Fort Smallwood Complex and at the Crane facility.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Appendix B of Maryland's January 30, 2020 attainment
plan SIP revision request to EPA. Specifically, Appendix B1--Consent
Order--Brandon Shores and Wagner Generating Stations, dated December
4, 2019; and Appendix B-2: Consent Order--C.P. Crane Generating
Station, dated October 9, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These consent orders establish SO2 emission limits for
these facilities (beginning in January 2019 and additional limits
beginning in 2021), as summarized herein. Effective October 2019, Crane
Units 1 and 2 are limited to combined SO2 emissions of 2,900
pounds per hour (lbs/hr SO2). Beginning January 2021,
Brandon Shores Units 1 and 2 and Wagner Unit 3 combined (whether
operating individually or in tandem) are limited to 3,860 lb/hr
SO2, on a 30-day rolling average basis. Beginning January
2021, Brandon Shores Units 1 and 2 (operating either individually or in
tandem) shall not exceed a cumulative total of 435 hours per calendar
year when the applicable units are operating at a combined
SO2 emissions rate greater than 2,851 pounds per hour.
Beginning January 2021, Brandon Shores Units 1 and 2 cannot exceed
9,980 lbs/hr SO2, on a 3-hour rolling average basis.
Beginning January 2021, Brandon Shores Units 1 and 2 combined are
limited to three hours per calendar year with combined emissions
greater than 5,150 lbs/hr SO2 (on a 1-hour average basis)
when Wagner Unit 3 is not operating; and are limited to 435 hours per
calendar year of combined emissions greater than 2,851 lbs/hr
SO2 when Wagner Unit 3 is also operating.
    Wagner Unit 3 alone cannot emit more than 3,289 lbs/hr
SO2 (on a 1-hour averaging basis); is limited to emitting
1,904 lbs/hr SO2 (on a 30-day rolling average); and is
limited to 336 hours per calendar year of emissions greater than 2,299
lbs/hr SO2 (on a 1-hour averaging basis).
    Beginning January 2021, Wagner Unit 1 alone shall not emit more
than 480 lbs/hour SO2 (on a 1-hour averaging basis); and is
limited to operating 438 hours per calendar year burning fuel oil.
Beginning January 2021, at all times when operating, Wagner Unit 3
shall not exceed 1,904 lbs/hr SO2 (as measured on a 30-day
rolling average); and Unit 3 shall not exceed a maximum rate of 3,289
lbs/hr SO2 at all times when operating (on a 1-hour average
basis). Beginning January 2021, at all times when operating, Wagner
Unit 3 shall not exceed a cumulative total operation of 336 hours per
calendar year when the Unit's SO2 emissions rate is greater
than 2,299 lbs/hr SO2 (on a one-hour average basis).
Beginning January 2021, Wagner Unit 4 alone cannot emit more than 1,350
lbs/hr SO2 (on a 1-hour average basis); and is limited to
operating 438 hours per calendar year using fuel oil--though both Units
1 and 4 can operate additional hours each year using natural gas. By
July 2020, Wagner Unit 2 was required to cease operation or to convert
from burning coal to burning natural gas. Annual Emissions reported to
EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) database and to MDE for the
Crane facility dropped to zero for 2019-2021.
    By incorporating these consent decrees between MDE and Raven Power
into the Maryland SIP, EPA is strengthening the SIP and making these
additional permitted limits and operating conditions federally
enforceable.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to issue a CDD for the Anne Arundel-Baltimore
County Area. Finalizing this CDD would

suspend the requirements for Maryland to submit an attainment
demonstration and certain other associated nonattainment planning
requirements for so long as the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County
nonattainment area continues to attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
and would suspend EPA's obligation to promulgate a FIP associated with
the FFS issued on September 20, 2019. This proposed action is
consistent with EPA's long-held interpretation of CAA requirements.
    Finalizing this action would not constitute a redesignation of the
Anne Arundel-Baltimore County nonattainment area to attainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The Anne
Arundel-Baltimore County Area will remain designated nonattainment for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that
the area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment and
takes action to redesignate the area.
    EPA is simultaneously proposing to approve select elements of the
SO2 attainment plan SIP revision for the Area submitted by
Maryland to EPA on January 31, 2020. EPA is approving select elements
of the attainment plan that would not be suspended under a final CDD--a
base year emission inventory and a showing that the area is covered by
an EPA-approved NNSR program. EPA has determined that Maryland's 2014
base year emissions inventory for the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County
Area comports with relevant EPA emissions inventory guidance, and
therefore pursuant to section 172(c)(3), EPA proposes to approve
Maryland's 2014 base year emissions inventory for the Area. EPA has
also determined that Maryland's NNSR program meets applicable
requirements for NSR under CAA section 173 for SO2 sources
undergoing construction or major modification in the Area. EPA
therefore proposes to approve Maryland's NNSR element of its attainment
plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(5). If EPA's
approval of these elements is finalized, EPA's obligation to promulgate
a FIP as to those elements will be terminated.
    Finally, EPA is approving as SIP strengthening measures certain
SO2 emission limit requirements on large SO2
emission sources that were submitted as part of Maryland's attainment
plan for the nonattainment area.
    EPA proposes to incorporate by reference several consent orders
between MDE and Raven Power with the January 30, 2020 attainment plan
as SIP strengthening measures to provide federally enforceable limits
on the major SO2 emissions sources in the Anne Arundel-
Baltimore County Area, which are contained in Appendix B of Maryland's
January 30, 2020 SO2 attainment plan SIP revision to
EPA.\30\ EPA proposes to approve this portion of the Maryland's January
2020 submitted plan as a SIP strengthening measure and these consent
orders are available for review in the docket for this action. However,
EPA is not proposing to approve in this action the CAA section
172(c)(1) attainment modeling demonstration submitted as part of the
January 30, 2020 plan revision, nor is EPA proposing to approve the
state's submitted CAA section 172(c)(1) RACM/RACT, CAA section
172(c)(2) RFP, CAA section 172(c)(6) emission limits necessary to
provide for attainment, or CAA section 172(c)(9) contingency measures
elements. As noted, EPA's obligation to promulgate a FIP as to these
elements would be suspended by a CDD, for as long as the CDD remains in
place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Appendix B of the January 30, 2020 attainment plan SIP
Revision. Specifically, Appendix B1--Consent Order--Brandon Shores
and Wagner Generating Stations, dated December 4, 2019; and Appendix
B-2: Consent Order--C.P. Crane Generating Station, dated October 9,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference (as described in Section IV of this preamble) two consent
orders between MDE and Raven Power governing SO2 emissions
limitations and operating limitations at the Fort Smallwood Complex
facilities and the Crane facility, as contained in Appendix B of
Maryland's January 30, 2020 SO2 attainment plan SIP revision
to EPA. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region
III Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further
Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a CDD for the Anne Arundel-Baltimore
County Area for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS based on air quality data
which would result in the suspension of the requirement to submit
certain Federal requirements and does not impose any additional
regulatory requirements on sources beyond those required by state law
or existing Federal law. Moreover, the Administrator is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
In this case, EPA is proposing approval of two elements of a larger SIP
revision (the 2020 SO2 attainment plan) and is also
proposing approval of two SIP-strengthening consent orders between MDE
and the owner of two major SO2 emitting sources that tighten
SO2 emission limits and impose specific operating conditions
and hours. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action pertaining to the approval of two elements of the SIP
submission merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For these reasons, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action as defined
by Executive Order 12866;
     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 CDD and accompanying approval of
selected elements of Maryland's January 30, 2020 SO2
attainment plan do 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2022-17341 Filed 8-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9859-9861]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05001]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No: FAA-2019-0170]

Notice of Opportunity: Criteria and Application Procedures for
the Military Airport Program (MAP) for Fiscal Year 2019

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is announcing the criteria, application procedures,
and schedule for the Military Airport Program (MAP), to enable the
Secretary of Transportation to designate a maximum of 15 joint-use, or
former military airports, to participate in the MAP for the purposes of
capital development funding assistance.

DATES: Applications must be received on or before May 2, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Airport sponsors must submit applications for the Fiscal
Year (FY) 2019 MAP to the appropriate Airports District Office (ADO) or
Regional Office (RO) if there is no ADO. Applicants can find the
address for their local office on the FAA website.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www.faa.gov/airports/news_information/contact_info/regional/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Terri A.R. Kett, Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
Branch; Airports Financial Assistance Division; Office of Airport
Planning and Programming. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
_____________________________________-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Description of the Program

    49 U.S.C. 47117 designates a 4% set-aside of AIP discretionary
funds that the FAA may use toward specific projects at

MAP designated airports to successfully transition from military to
civilian use. For FY19, approximately $8 million will be available to
the MAP program. The MAP is open to civil airport sponsors of joint-use
military airfields or former military airports that are included in the
FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The FAA
administers the AIP, including MAP, in accordance with FAA Order
5100.38D Change 1, Airport Improvement Program Handbook.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Available online at: https://www.faa.gov/airporfts/aip/aip_handbook/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 47118(c), the Secretary may consider only
current or former military airports for designation if a grant will:
    1. Reduce delays at an airport with more than 20,000 hours of
annual delays in commercial passenger aircraft takeoffs and landings;
    2. Enhance airport and air traffic control system capacity in a
metropolitan area or reduce current and projected flight delays; or
    3. Preserve or enhance minimum airfield infrastructure facilities
at former military airports to support emergency diversionary
operations for transoceanic flights in locations--
     within U.S. jurisdiction or control; and
     where there is a demonstrable lack of diversionary
airports within the distance or flight-time required by regulations
governing transoceanic flights.

Designation Authority

    Under 49 U.S.C. 47118, the FAA may designate up to 15 current of
former military airports to participate in the MAP in a fiscal year.
Three of the 15 airports may be general aviation (GA) airports and the
remaining 12 must be commercial service or reliever airports. In FY
2019, there are two GA slots and 10 commercial service/reliever slots
available in the program.

Designation Duration

    The FAA has the option to designate an airport in the MAP for one
to five fiscal years. The FAA will evaluate the conversion needs of the
airport, in the sponsor's capital development plan, to determine the
appropriate length of designation.

Redesignation

    Previously designated airports may apply for redesignation for
subsequent terms not to exceed five fiscal years. Airports must still
meet MAP eligibility requirements and have remaining MAP eligible
projects not previously funded by the FAA. Applications a evaluated in
terms of the remaining projects, specifically fundable only under the
MAP, because redesignated airports generally have fewer conversion
needs than new candidates do. The FAA's goal is to graduate MAP
airports to regular AIP participation by successfully converting
participating airports to civilian airport operations.

MAP Funding Limitations

    The amount of annual funding is limited to the 4% set-aside of AIP
discretionary funds. Designated airports may receive up to $7 million
per fiscal year for terminal building projects and up to $7 million to
preserve or enhance minimum airfield infrastructure or, construct
parking lots, fuel farms, utilities, hangars, and air cargo terminals.
Hangars and air cargo terminals may not be larger than 50,000 square
feet. MAP designated airport projects are not limited to MAP funding;
they may also qualify for other AIP funding if all AIP associated
project eligibility and justification requirements are met.

Designation Requirements

    Current of former military airports are eligible for designation if
they meet the following statutory requirements:
    1. The airport is a former military installation closed or
realigned under--
     10 U.S.C 2687 as excess property. These are bases
announced for closure by the Department of Defense after September 30,
1977;
     Section 201 of the Defense Authorization Amendments and
Base Closure and Realignment Act; or
     Section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687, note);
    2. The airport is a military installation with both military and
civil aircraft operations as a commercial service or reliever airport
(also called a joint-use airport); or
    3. The airport is a former military installation that, at any time
after December 31, 1965, was owned and operated by the Department of
Defense and is a nonhub primary airport.
    General aviation airports can only qualify under requirement 1 of
this section.

Candidate Evaluation Criteria

    The airport must meet all of the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 47118 as
well as the MAP requirements listed in FAA Order 5100.38D Change 1,
Airport Improvement Program (Table 6-14, MAP Requirements).
    The FAA will evaluate applications based on (but not limited to)
the following criteria:
     The potential of the airport to become a viable civilian
airport that will enhance system capacity or reduce delays.
     Compatibility of airport roles and the ability of the
airport to provide an adequate airport facility;
     Level of operations at the congested airport and the
candidate airport;
     The capability of the airport to serve aircraft that
otherwise must use a congested airport;
     Landside surface access;
     Airport operational capability, including peak hour and
annual capacities;
     Potential of other metropolitan area airports to relieve
the congested airport;
     Ability to satisfy, relieve, or meet air cargo demand
within the metropolitan area;
     Forecast aircraft and passenger levels, type of commercial
service anticipated, i.e., scheduled or chartered commercial service;
     Type and capacity of aircraft projected to serve the
airport ;
     The potential for the airport to be served by aircraft or
users, including the airlines serving the congested airport;
     Ability to replace an existing commercial service or
reliever airport serving the area; and

Application Procedures and Required Documentation

     Airport sponsors applying for designation, or
redesignation, must complete and submit a Standard Form (SF) 424,
``Application for Federal Assistance'',\3\ along with any supporting
documentation. A fillable SF 424 form can be downloaded at https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/forms/?sect=aip,-payments. The SF 424
form must be filled out completely and include the following: Item 1.
Type of Submission--Mark as a ``Preapplication'';
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Available online at: https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/forms/?sect=aip,payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Item 2. Type of Application--Mark as ``New'';
     Item 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project--Enter
``Designation (or Redesignation) to the Military Airport Program''; and
     Item 18. Estimated Funding--Enter the total amount of MAP
funding requests anticipated over the entire term in the application.

Supporting Documentation

    1. Identification as a joint-use or former military airport. The
application

must identify the airport as either a joint-use or former military
airport. For former military airports, indicate which designation
requirement the airport meets under 49 U.S.C. 47118(a).
    2. Qualifications for the MAP. The application must answer the
following questions:
    a. Does the airport meet the definition of a ``public airport'' as
defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102(21)?
    b. Is the airport sponsor an eligible airport ``sponsor,'' as
defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102(26)?
    c. Is the required environmental review for civil reuse or joint-
use of the military airfield completed?
     The environmental review is necessary to convey the
property, enter into a long-term lease, or finalize a joint-use
agreement.
     The military department conveying or leasing the property,
or entering into a joint-use agreement, has the lead responsibility for
this environmental review.
     Environmental reviews for each specific MAP project are
separate processes. These environmental reviews must meet the normal
AIP requirements and timeframes.
     Does the sponsor have good title? For former military
airports, the sponsor must hold or will hold satisfactory title, a
long-term lease in furtherance of conveyance of property for airport
purposes, or a long-term interim lease more than 20 years or longer.
     Documentation that the Federal government has accepted an
application for surplus or BRAC airport property is sufficient to meet
this requirement.
    d. For current military airports, does the sponsor have an existing
joint-use agreement with the military department having jurisdiction
over the airport?
     A copy of the existing joint-use agreement must be
submitted with the application.
    e. Does the sponsor have a five-year capital improvement plan that
includes all AIP eligible projects that can be funded with MAP or AIP?
    f. Does the airport have an FAA-approved airport layout plan (ALP)?
    g. For commercial service airports, does the sponsor have a current
business/marketing plan or strategy report?
    3. Other Factors. The application should include information on the
items below:
    a. Identify the existing and potential levels of visual or extra
instrument operations and aeronautical activity at the current or
former military airport and, if applicable, the congested airport.
    b. Explain how the airport contributes to the air traffic system or
airport system capacity.
    c. Provide the revenue passenger and air cargo levels (if
commercial air carriers serve the airport).
    d. Describe the airport's projected role and development needs for
transitioning from military to civilian use. Explain how development
projects would either reduce delays at an airport with more than 20,000
hours of annual delays in commercial passenger aircraft takeoffs and
landings; enhance capacity in a metropolitan area, or reduce current
and projected flight delays.
    e. Describe the existing airspace capacity. Explain how anticipated
new operations would affect the surrounding airspace, congestion, and
air traffic flow patterns in the metropolitan area in or near the
airport.
    f. Describe the airport sponsor's 5-year CIP. The CIP must identify
the safety, capacity, and conversion related projects, estimated costs,
and projected construction schedule.
    g. Describe projects that are consistent with the role of the
airport and effectively contribute to the joint-use or civil conversion
of the airfield. The projects (e.g., safety-related, conversion-
related, and/or capacity-related) must be identified and fully
explained based on the sponsor's planned airport use. Each project that
may be eligible under MAP must be clearly indicated and include the
following information:

Airside

     Planned safety modifications including pavement, marking,
lighting, drainage, or other structures or features to meet civil
standards for approach, departure, and other protected airport surfaces
as described in title 14 CFR part 77, or airport design standards set
forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A;
     Planned construction of facilities, such as passenger
terminal gates, aprons for passenger terminals, taxiways to new
terminal facilities, aircraft parking, and cargo facilities to
accommodate civil use;
     Planned utility upgrades serving the civilian function and
independent operation including: Electrical, mechanical, communications
lines, water, gas, sewer, storm drainage;
     Planned acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, or
modification of facilities and equipment including: Snow removal
equipment, aircraft rescue and fire fighting buildings and equipment,
security equipment, lighting vaults, and reconfiguration or relocation
of eligible buildings for more efficient civil airport operations;
     Planned modifications of fuel farms to accommodate civil
aviation use;
     Planned land acquisition for runway protection zones,
other approach protection, or airport development; and
     Planned modifications, which will permit the airfield to
accommodate GA users.

Landside

     Planned construction, improvement, or repair of surface
parking areas;
     Planned construction, improvement, or repair of access
roads;
     Planned construction, improvement, or repair of
facilities, such as passenger and/or cargo terminals buildings and
hangars.
    h. Evaluate the ability of surface transportation facilities (e.g.,
road, rail, high-speed rail, and/or maritime) to provide intermodal
connections.
    i. Describe the type and level of aviation (and community) interest
in the civil use of the current or former military airport.
    j. Provide one copy of the FAA-approved ALP with each application.
The ALP must clearly describe capacity and conversion-related projects.
Airport sponsors should also include other information, such as project
cost(s), schedule, project justification(s), other project related maps
and drawings showing the project location(s), and any other supporting
documentation that would make the airport sponsor's application easier
to understand. Airport sponsors may also include photos that further
describe the airport, projects, and otherwise clarify certain aspects
of the application. These maps and ALPs should be cross-referenced with
the project costs and descriptions noted elsewhere in the application.

Redesignation Applications

    Airport sponsors applying for redesignation to the MAP must submit
the same information required of new candidates and must answer the
following questions:
    1. Why is redesignation needed to accomplish the transition from
military to civilian use?
    2. Why funding of eligible projects under other categories of AIP,
or other sources of funding, would not accomplish the development needs
of the airport?

    This notice is issued pursuant to title 49 U.S.C. 47118. Issued
from Washington, DC, on March 13, 2019.
James A. Johnson,
Acting Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2019-05001 Filed 3-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P