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

<RULE> ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY <CFR>40 CFR Part 52</CFR> <DEPDOC>[EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0455; FRL-11807-02-R2]</DEPDOC> <SUBJECT>Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New York; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period</SUBJECT> <HD SOURCE="HED">AGENCY:</HD> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). <HD SOURCE="HED">ACTION:</HD> Final rule. <SUM> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUMMARY:</HD> The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New York through the Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC or New York) on May 12, 2020, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second implementation period. New York's SIP submission addresses the requirement that States must periodically revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze program. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to the CAA. </SUM> <EFFDATE> <HD SOURCE="HED">DATES:</HD> This final rule is effective on September 16, 2024. </EFFDATE> <HD SOURCE="HED">ADDRESSES:</HD> The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0455. All documents in the docket are listed on the <E T="03">https://www.regulations.gov</E> website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, <E T="03">e.g.,</E> Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) (formally referred to as 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 electronically through <E T="03">https://www.regulations.gov.</E> <FURINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:</HD> Robert Rutherford, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, at (212) 637-3712, or by email at <E T="03">Rutherford.Robert@epa.gov</E> . </FURINF> <SUPLINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:</HD> Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Table of Contents</HD> <EXTRACT> <FP SOURCE="FP-2">I. Background</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-2">II. Evaluation of Comments</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-2">III. Final Action</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-2">IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews</FP> </EXTRACT> <HD SOURCE="HD1">I. Background</HD> On May 12, 2020, the State of New York through the Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC or New York) submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional haze for the second implementation period. NYSDEC made this SIP submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. On March 22, 2024, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in which the EPA proposed to approve New York's May 12, 2020, SIP submission as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second implementation period contained in the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308. 89 FR 20384. The EPA is now determining that the New York regional haze SIP submission for the second implementation period meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and is thus approving New York's submission into its SIP. The specific details of New York's SIP submittals and the rationale for the EPA's approval action are explained in the EPA's proposed rulemaking and are not restated in this final action. For this detailed information, the reader is referred to the EPA's March 22, 2024, NPRM (89 FR 20384). <HD SOURCE="HD1">II. Evaluation of Comments</HD> In response to the EPA's March 22, 2024, NPRM, the EPA received four distinct comments during the 30-day public comment period. One of the comments was submitted in the form of a letter and was signed by three Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) conservation groups writing as a coalition ( <E T="03">i.e.,</E> the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), Sierra Club, and the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks). The NGO commenters state in their comment letter that they “do not oppose EPA's proposal to approve New York's [Regional Haze] SIP Revision,” but rather “urge EPA to address the issues raised [in the comment letter] before finalizing” the approval. Two comments received were submitted by individuals. The final comment was submitted by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) in support of the EPA's proposed action. The specific comments may be viewed in Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0455 on the <E T="03">www.regulations.gov</E> website. The EPA's summary of and response to those comments is provided below. <E T="03">Comment:</E> The individual commenter provides various reference materials. Among the reference materials are various links to websites providing general information related to regional haze and other matters, none of which specifically relate to this action. <E T="03">Response:</E> The EPA acknowledges receipt of the additional information shared by the commenter. <E T="03">Comment:</E> The individual commenter states that air quality in the average New York City neighborhood is most severely compromised by motor vehicle emissions and hazards created because of climate change. To address this, the commenter promotes the increased availability of public transportation to reduce the need for individual car use, as well as the regulation of motor vehicle emissions. The commenter then suggests the maintenance of electrical power lines should be considered due to their potential to cause wildfires when the states address energy efficiency under Ask 6. Finally, the commenter expresses that they do not support the EPA's approval of New York's SIP until the commenter's concerns are addressed. <E T="03">Response:</E> The EPA acknowledges the commenter's concerns regarding the impact that motor vehicle emissions and climate change induced hazards have on air quality. Regarding the commenter's promotion of public transportation to reduce the need for individual car use, the EPA has determined that this outside the scope of our proposed action and the EPA will not be providing a specific response to this portion of the comment. As for the commenter's recommendation relating to the regulation of motor vehicle emissions, as provided within the NPRM, New York identified in its submission to the EPA, its consideration of the Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standard, Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Standards, Light Duty Vehicle GHG Rule for Model-Year 2017-2025, and SIP-approved part 217, “Motor Vehicle Emissions,” when developing its Long-Term Strategy to address emissions of on-road sources. <SU>1</SU> <FTREF/> <FTNT> <SU>1</SU>   <E T="03">See</E> 89 FR 20384, 20405 (March 22, 2024). </FTNT> While the commenter expresses concern over the maintenance of electrical power lines to prevent wildfires and claims this should be addressed when States consider energy efficiency under Ask 6, the EPA finds the SIP submission sufficiently addresses the applicable requirements of the CAA and the RHR for the second planning period. <E T="03">Comment:</E> The NGO commenters express concern with the EPA's suggestion that part of the basis for its approval of New York's SIP revision was the fact that the uniform rate of progress (URP) for several impacted Class I areas is well below the respective 2028 glidepath and stated that the EPA has made it clear that the glidepath is not a safe harbor to avoid requiring additional reasonable progress measures for Class I areas. The NGO commenters posit that the EPA could not rely on the fact that the Class I areas impacted by New York sources were well below their respective URP glidepaths to excuse New York from conducting rigorous Four-Factor Analyses (FFA) to determine whether additional control measures are necessary for reasonable progress. <E T="03">Response:</E> The EPA has stated that being below the URP glidepath is not a safe harbor ( <E T="03">i.e.,</E> not a basis for not evaluating sources, considering the four statutory factors, and potentially requiring control measures), and in evaluating the State's source selection and control measure determinations, the EPA did not rely on the fact that the Class I areas impacted by New York sources are below their respective URP glidepaths. Rather, the EPA factually stated that the 2028 projections for the Class I areas that New York contributes to are all well below their respective glidepaths. This factual statement is necessary to support the determination that New York satisfied the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3), relating to reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for each Class I area. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), which applies to all States, is satisfied by the analyses the State provided within its long-term strategy, as detailed under Section 10 of the State's submittal, and by the estimated combined visibility benefits of strategies detailed in section 9.5 of the State's submittal. The EPA determined that because the Class I areas that New York contributes to are all well below their respective glidepaths, New York was not required to conduct the “robust demonstration” detailed under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B). <E T="03">Comment:</E> The NGO commenters express concern with the EPA's endorsement o ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Preview showing 10k of 51k characters. Full document text is stored and available for version comparison. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━