Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Regional Haze 5-Year Report, 46866-46870 [2016-17063]
Download as PDF
46866
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA
Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’
section of this Federal Register, the EPA
is approving the State’s SIP revision as
a direct final rule without prior proposal
because the agency views this as a
noncontroversial SIP revision and
anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the preamble to the direct final
rule.
If the EPA receives no adverse
comments, the EPA will not take further
action on this proposed rule. If the EPA
receives adverse comments, the EPA
will withdraw the direct final rule and
it will not take effect. The EPA will
address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule.
The EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting must
do so at this time. For further
information, please see the ADDRESSES
section of this notice.
Please note that if the EPA receives
adverse comment on a distinct
provision of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, the EPA may
adopt as final those provisions of the
rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment. See the information
provided in the Direct Final action of
the same title which is located in the
Rules and Regulations Section of this
Federal Register.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 22, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016–16960 Filed 7–18–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0909; FRL–9949–15–
Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire;
Regional Haze 5-Year Report
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:34 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of New
Hampshire on December 16, 2014. New
Hampshire’s SIP revision addresses
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and EPA’s rules that require states to
submit periodic reports describing
progress toward reasonable progress
goals (RPGs) established for regional
haze and a determination of the
adequacy of the State’s existing Regional
Haze SIP. In addition, the December 16,
2014 submittal includes a revised
regulation that reduces the total
suspended particulate (TSP) emission
limit for the State’s sole TangentialFiring, Dry-Bottom Boiler.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 18, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R01–OAR–2014–0909 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
arnold.anne@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the ‘‘For
Further Information Contact’’ section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA New England Regional Office, 5
Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail
Code OEP05–02), Boston, MA 02109—
3912, telephone number (617) 918–
1697, fax number (617) 918–0697, email
mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Organization of this document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
I. Background
II. Requirements for Regional Haze 5-Year
Progress Report SIPs and Adequacy
Determinations
III. EPA’s Evaluation of New Hampshire’s SIP
Revision
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing
Regional Haze Plan
C. Revised Env–A 2302.02 Emission
Standards Applicable to TangentialFiring, Dry-Bottom Boilers
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
States are required to submit a
progress report in the form of a SIP
revision every five years that evaluates
progress towards the RPGs for each
mandatory Class I Federal area 1 (Class
I area) within the state and in each Class
I area outside the state which may be
affected by emissions from within the
state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition,
the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h)
require states to submit, at the same
time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress
report, a determination of the adequacy
of the state’s existing Regional Haze SIP.
The first progress report SIP is due five
years after submittal of the initial
Regional Haze SIP. On January 29, 2010,
the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (NH DES)
submitted the State’s first Regional Haze
SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308.2
On December 16, 2014, NH DES
submitted a revision to the New
Hampshire SIP detailing the progress
made in the first planning period
toward implementation of the Long
Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in the
2010 Regional Haze SIP submittal, the
visibility improvement measured at the
State’s Class I areas, and a
determination of the adequacy of the
State’s existing Regional Haze SIP. EPA
is proposing to approve New
Hampshire’s December 16, 2014 SIP
revision on the basis that it satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and
(h).
1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)).
2 On August 22, 2012, EPA approved New
Hampshire’s Regional Haze SIP submittal
addressing the requirements of the first
implementation period for regional haze. See 77 FR
50602.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Requirements for Regional Haze 5Year Progress Report SIPs and
Adequacy Determinations
Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), States must
submit a regional haze progress report
as a SIP revision every five years and
must address the seven elements found
in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in
further detail in section III of this
proposed rulemaking, 40 CFR 51.308(g)
requires: (1) A description of the status
of measures in the approved Regional
Haze SIP; (2) a summary of emissions
reductions achieved; (3) an assessment
of visibility conditions for each Class I
area in the state; (4) an analysis of
changes in emissions from sources and
activities within the state; (5) an
assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the state that have limited or
impeded progress in Class I areas
impacted by the state’s sources; (6) an
assessment of the sufficiency of the
approved Regional Haze SIP; and (7) a
review of the state’s visibility
monitoring strategy.
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are
required to submit, at the same time as
the progress report SIP, a determination
of the adequacy of their existing
Regional Haze SIP and to take one of the
following four possible actions based on
information in the progress report: (1)
Submit a negative declaration to EPA
that no further substantive revision to
the state’s existing Regional Haze SIP is
needed; (2) provide notification to EPA
(and other state(s) that participated in
the regional planning process) if the
state determines that the existing
Regional Haze SIP is, or may be,
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress at one or more Class I areas due
to emissions from sources in other
state(s) that participated in the regional
haze planning process, and collaborated
with these other state(s) to develop
additional strategies to address
deficiencies; (3) provide notification
with supporting information to EPA if
the state determines that its existing
Regional Haze SIP is, or may be,
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress at one or more Class I areas due
to emissions from sources in another
county; or (4) revise its Regional Haze
SIP to address deficiencies within one
year if the state determines that its
existing Regional Haze SIP is or may be
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress in one or more Class I areas
due to emission from sources within the
state.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:34 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
III. EPA’s Evaluation of New
Hampshire’s SIP Revision
On December 14, 2014, New
Hampshire submitted the ‘‘Regional
Haze 5-Year Progress Report’’ (Progress
Report) to EPA as a SIP revision.
New Hampshire has two Class I areas
within its borders: Great Gulf
Wilderness Area (Great Gulf) and
Presidential Range-Dry River
Wilderness Area (Dry River), both
located within the White Mountains
National Forest. Emissions from New
Hampshire’s sources were also found to
impact visibility at one nearby Class I
area, Acadia National Park in Maine
(Acadia). See 77 FR 11809 (February 28,
2012).
Through the consultation process,
New Hampshire agreed to pursue the
coordinated course of action agreed to
by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility
Union (MANE–VU) 3 to assure
reasonable progress toward preventing
any future, and remedying any existing,
impairment of visibility in the
mandatory Class I areas within the
MANE–VU region. These measures are:
Implementation of best available retrofit
technology (BART) requirements; a lowsulfur fuel oil strategy; a targeted
electricity generating unit (EGU)
strategy; and continued evaluation of
other control measures.4 While New
Hampshire did not adopt a low-sulfur
fuel oil strategy for implementation
during the first regional haze planning
period, the State showed in its 2010
Regional Haze SIP that equivalent
emission reductions were achieved
through alternate measures such as
recent fuel switching at a coal-fired
power plant in the state (i.e., Schiller
Station) and facility shutdowns.
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section summarizes each of the
seven elements that must be addressed
by the progress report under 40 CFR
51.308(g), and describes how New
Hampshire’s progress report SIP
addresses each element. This section
also includes EPA’s analysis of New
3 MANE–VU is a collaborative effort of State
governments, Tribal governments, and various
federal agencies established to initiate and
coordinate activities associated with the
management of regional haze, visibility and other
air quality issues in the Northeastern United States.
Member State and Tribal governments include:
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Penobscot
Indian Nation, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
4 The MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ was structured around
the finding that SO2 emissions were the dominate
visibility impairing pollutant at the Northeastern
Class I areas and electrical generating units
comprised the largest SO2 emission sector. See
‘‘Regional Haze and Visibility in the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic States,’’ January 31, 2001.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
46867
Hampshire’s SIP, and our proposed
determination as to whether the State
satisfied each element.
The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1)
require a description of the status of
implementation of all measures
included in the Regional Haze SIP for
achieving RPGs for Class I areas both
within and outside the state. New
Hampshire’s 2010 Regional Haze SIP
RPGs are based on: Control measures for
the State’s two subject-to-BART sources;
control measures for one additional
EGU stack; and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emission reductions from States found
to be contributing to the visibility
impairment at the New Hampshire Class
I areas. New Hampshire’s two subjectto-BART sources are Eversource Energy
(formally Public Service of New
Hampshire (PSNH)) Merrimack Station
Unit MK2 and Eversource Energy
(formally PSNH) Newington Unit NT1.
Along with the two subject-to-BART
units, Eversource Energy Merrimack
Station Unit MK1 was identified as
among the top 167 EGUs contributing to
visibility impairment. New Hampshire’s
2010 Regional Haze SIP included
control measures for these three units.
The 2014 Progress Report confirms the
installation and use of flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) for Merrimack
Station Units MK1 and MK2; the
implementation of a more stringent SO2
emission limit for Newington Station;
and the implementation of more
stringent emission limits for the existing
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and particulate
emission control technologies in use at
Merrimack and Newington Stations.
In addition, the New Hampshire 2014
Progress Report also includes the status
of SO2 emission reductions from the
identified top 167 EGUs outside of New
Hampshire.5 The MANE–VU targeted
EGU strategy called for a 90% SO2
reduction from the top contributing
stacks by 2018. New Hampshire reports
SO2 scrubbers have already been placed
on many of the 167 targeted EGUs,
while other units have seen lower
utilization or have been shut down
entirely.
EPA proposes that New Hampshire’s
analysis adequately addresses the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1).
The State demonstrates the
implementation of measures within the
State, including BART and targeted SO2
reductions from New Hampshire’s three
in-state units that were part of the
contributing 167 stacks. In addition, the
Progress Report documents the status of
5 Memorandum from NESCAUM to MANE–VU
‘‘Overview of State and Federal Actions Relative to
MANE–VU Asks’’ dated March 28, 2013. https://
www.nescaum.org/documents/summary-memomane-vu-asks-20130328-final.pdf/.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
46868
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
requested SO2 reductions from the
remaining top 167 stacks outside of New
Hampshire.
The provision under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(2) requires a summary of the
emission reductions achieved in the
state through the measures subject to the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1).
During the development of the Regional
Haze SIP for the first planning period,
MANE–VU and New Hampshire
determined that SO2 was the greatest
contributor to anthropogenic visibility
impairment at the State’s Class I areas.
Therefore, the bulk of visibility
improvement achieved in the first
planning period was expected to result
from reductions in SO2 emissions from
sources inside and outside of the State.
Table 6–1 of the 2014 Progress Report
details the SO2 emission reduction from
the 2002 New Hampshire Regional Haze
SIP baseline to 2013 for not only the
targeted Merrimack Station Units MK1
and MK2 and Newington Unit NT1, but
all New Hampshire EGUs.6 The targeted
EGU units subject to control through the
installation of BART and New
Hampshire’s LTS show an emission
reduction from 35,882 tons SO2 in 2002
to 1,729 tons SO2 in 2013, a reduction
of 95%. NOX emissions from these same
sources were reduced from 4,776 tons in
2002 to 2,230 tons in 2013, a reduction
of 57%. All New Hampshire EGUs
combined showed a 92.8% reduction in
SO2 emissions and a 61.3% reduction in
NOXemissions for the same time period.
EPA proposes to find that New
Hampshire has adequately addressed
the provision under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(2). New Hampshire has
detailed the SO2 and NOX reduction
from the 2002 Regional Haze baseline to
the most recently available year of data
at the time of the development of New
Hampshire’s Progress Report, 2013. In
addition, NH DES highlighted SO2 and
NOX emissions reductions from all New
Hampshire EGUs during this same time
period.
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3) require that states with
Class I areas within their borders
provide the following information for
the most impaired and least impaired
days 7 for each area, with values
expressed in terms of five-year averages
of these annual values: (1) Current
visibility conditions; (2) the difference
between current visibility conditions
and baseline visibility conditions; and
(3) the change in visibility impairment
over the past five years.
New Hampshire is home to two Class
I areas, Great Gulf and Dry River. The
Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments program
(IMPROVE) monitor within Great Gulf is
representative of both New Hampshire
Class I areas. In the Progress Report, NH
DES provides the data for the baseline
2000–2004 5-Year Average visibility, the
most recent 2009–2013 5-Year Average
visibility, the 2018 RPG from the 2010
Regional Haze SIP, and the calculated
visibility improvement. See Table 1.
TABLE 1—OBSERVED VISIBILITY VS. ESTABLISHED VISIBILITY GOALS (DECIVIEWS) FOR GREAT GULF WILDERNESS AREA
Baseline
2000–2004
5-year
average
visibility
20% Most Impaired Days ....................................................
20% Least Impaired Days ...................................................
Most recent
2009–2013
5-year
average
visibility
22.8 dv
7.7 dv
Visibility
mprovement
16.7 dv
5.9 dv
6.1 dv
1.8 dv
2018
Reasonable
progress
goal
19.1 dv
7.2 dv
2064 Goal
(natural
visibility)
12.0 dv
3.7 dv
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
The baseline visibility for Great Gulf
was 22.8 dv on the 20% most impaired
days and 7.7 dv on the least impaired
days. The most recent five-year average
visibility data shows an improvement of
6.1 dv on the 20% most impaired days
and 1.8 dv improvement on the 20%
least impaired days. The 2014 Progress
Report also demonstrates that the State
has already achieved and surpassed the
2018 RPG for the 20% most impaired
days and ensured no visibility
degradation for the 20% least impaired
days for the first planning period.
EPA is proposing to find that New
Hampshire provided the required
information regarding visibility
conditions to meet the requirements
under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3), specifically
providing baseline visibility conditions
(2000–2004), current conditions based
on the most recently available
IMPROVE monitoring data (2009–2013),
and the difference between current
visibility conditions and baseline
visibility conditions.
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(4) require an analysis tracking
emissions changes of visibilityimpairing pollutants from the state’s
sources by type or category over the past
five years based on the most recent
updated emissions inventory. In its
progress report SIP to address the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4),
New Hampshire presents data from
statewide emissions inventories
developed for the years 2002, 2007,
2013 (EGUs only), and projected
inventories for 2018 for SO2, NOX, PM2.5
and Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC).8 9 New Hampshire’s emissions
inventories include the following source
classifications: Point EGUs, Point Non-
EGUs, Area, On-road Mobile, and Nonroad Mobile. From 2002 through 2013,
New Hampshire’s overall EGU (the
largest SO2 sector) emissions were
reduced from 43,962 tons per year (tpy)
SO2 to 3,167 tpy, surpassing the 2018
projected goal of 10,766 tpy SO2. For
NOX, from 2002 to 2007, the State
achieved an overall 13% reduction from
64,625 tpy to 56,110 tpy. NH DES is
projecting an additional 25,000 tpy
reduction in NOX by 2018, mostly from
the on-road mobile sector, which would
result in approximately 31,110 tpy NOX
in 2018. This estimate compares well
with the 2018 projected goal of 30,369
tpy. Finally, NH DES indicates that
based on the 2007 emission data, the
State has already exceeded the 2018
emission reduction goals for direct
PM2.5 (55% reduction) and VOCs (53%
reduction).
6 New Hampshire’s progress report SIP includes
annual unit-level emissions data for SO2 and NOX
from EGUs from EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division
(CAMD) for the years 2002 and 2013.
7 The ‘‘most impaired days’’ and ‘‘least impaired
days’’ in the regional haze rule refer to the average
visibility impairment (measured in deciviews (dv))
for the twenty percent monitored days in the
calendar year with the highest and lowest amount
of visibility impairment, respectively, averaged over
a five-year period. See 40 CFR 51.301. The lower
the dv, the better the visibility in an area.
8 The 2002 inventory is the MANE–VU V3.3
which is projected to 2018. The 2007 inventory is
the MARAMA V3 inventory based on the 2007
National Emission Inventory (NEI). The 2013
inventory was the most recent year of Clean Air
Markets Division (CAMD) inventory data as
reported to EPA.
9 Mid-Atlantic Air Management Association
(MARAMA) ‘‘Regional Emissions Trends Analysis
for the MANE–VU States Technical Support
Document Revision 3’’ dated March 22, 2013.
Attachment D of the New Hampshire 2014 Progress
Report.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:34 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
EPA is proposing that New
Hampshire has adequately addressed
the provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(4). NH DES compared the
most recent updated emission inventory
data available at the time of the
development of the Progress Report
with the baseline emissions for the
Regional Haze SIP. The progress report
appropriately details the 2007 SO2,
NOX, PM2.5 and VOC reductions
achieved, by sector, thus far in the
regional haze planning period. In
addition, the State provided the most
recent annual EGU SO2 emission data,
the sector determined to be the greatest
contributor to visibility impairment at
the Class I areas in New Hampshire and
Maine.
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(5) require an assessment of
any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the state that have occurred over
the past five years that have limited or
impeded progress in reducing pollutant
emissions and improving visibility in
Class I areas impacted by the state’s
sources. In its progress report SIP, New
Hampshire states that sulfates continue
to be the biggest single contributor to
regional haze at Great Gulf, Dry River,
and Acadia. While New Hampshire
mainly focused its analysis on
addressing large SO2 emissions from
point sources, the State did not find any
significant changes in NOX and PM2.5
which might impede or limit progress
during the first planning period. In
addition, NH DES cited the 2013
Northeast States for Coordinated Air
Use Management (NESCAUM) report,
discussed below, which indicates that
all of the MANE–VU Class I areas are on
track to meet the 2018 visibility goals
established by the states in their
Regional Haze SIPs.10
EPA proposes to conclude that New
Hampshire has adequately addressed
the provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(5). The State adequately
demonstrated that there are no
significant changes in emissions of SO2,
PM2.5, or NOX within the state which
have impeded progress in reducing
emissions and improving visibility in
the Class I areas impacted by New
Hampshire sources.
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(6) require an assessment of
whether the current Regional Haze SIP
is sufficient to enable the state, or other
states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas
affected by emissions from the state. In
10 NESCAUM for MANE–VU, ‘‘Tracking Visibility
Progress 2004–2011,’’ revised May 24, 2013. https://
www.nescaum.org/documents/manevu-trends2004-2011-report-final-20130430.pdf/view.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:34 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
its progress report SIP, NH DES states
that it believes that the elements and
strategies relied on in its original
Regional Haze SIP are sufficient to
enable New Hampshire and neighboring
states to meet all established RPGs. To
support this conclusion, NH DES notes
that 2013 EGU SO2 emissions for the
entire MANE–VU area are already less
than the 2018 projection (315,675 tpy
versus 365,024 tpy). In addition, New
Hampshire discusses visibility data
from Tracking Visibility Progress, 2004–
2011, prepared by NESCAUM, which
updated the progress at MANE–VU
Class I areas during the five-year period
ending in 2011, including information
for the New Hampshire Class I areas,
between 2000 and 2011 in the context
of short- and long-term visibility goals.
The report indicates that visibility
impairment on the best and worst days
from 2000 through 2011 have dropped
at Great Gulf. New Hampshire notes the
NESCAUM report indicates that all the
MANE–VU Class I states continue to be
on track to meet their 2018 RPGs for
improved visibility and that further
progress may occur through recently
adopted or proposed regulatory
programs. Based upon the NESCAUM
report and visibility data, New
Hampshire states in its Progress Report
that visibility improvement at Great
Gulf, Dry River, and Acadia has
occurred for the most impaired days and
no degradation of visibility has occurred
for the least impaired days. Therefore,
New Hampshire finds that Great Gulf,
Dry River, and Acadia are on track to
meet the RPGs for 2018 based on the
observed visibility improvement.
EPA proposes to conclude that New
Hampshire has adequately addressed
the provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(6). EPA views this
requirement as an assessment that
should evaluate emissions and visibility
trends and other readily available
information. In its Progress Report, New
Hampshire described the improving
visibility trends detailed in the
NESCAUM report and the downward
emissions trends in key pollutants in
the State and the MANE–VU region.
With a focus on SO2 emissions from
New Hampshire EGUs, New Hampshire
determined that the State’s Regional
Haze SIP is sufficient for the two Class
I areas within the state and the Class I
area outside the state impacted by the
state’s emissions (Acadia) to meet their
RPGs.
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(7) require a review of the
state’s visibility monitoring strategy and
an assessment of whether any
modifications to the monitoring strategy
are necessary. New Hampshire’s
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
46869
visibility monitoring strategy relies
upon participation in the IMPROVE
network. The IMPROVE monitor at the
Great Gulf area is located approximately
1 mile east of the wilderness boundary
and also serves as the monitor for the
Dry River area whose northern most
limit lies only 5 miles southwest of the
monitor location. NH DES finds that
there is no indication of a need for
additional monitoring sites or
equipment.
EPA proposes to find that New
Hampshire has adequately addressed
the provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(7) by reviewing the state’s
visibility monitoring strategy and
assessing whether any modifications to
the monitoring strategy are necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of
Existing Regional Haze Plan
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are
required to take one of four possible
actions based on the information
gathered and conclusions made in the
progress report SIP. In its progress
report SIP, New Hampshire took the
action provided for by the provisions
under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), which allow
a state to submit a negative declaration
to EPA.
In the 2014 SIP submittal, New
Hampshire determined that the existing
Regional Haze SIP requires no further
substantive revision at this time to
achieve the RPGs for Class I areas
affected by the state’s sources. The basis
for the State’s negative declaration is the
finding that visibility has improved at
all Class I areas in the MANE–VU
region. In addition, SO2 emissions from
the State’s EGUs have decreased beyond
the original 2018 projections. While
NOX reductions have yet to fully meet
the 2018 projections, additional
substantial NOX emission reductions are
expected from the mobile sector over
the next several years. Finally, New
Hampshire expects the downward trend
in SO2 emissions from EGUs in the
other MANE–VU states to continue
through 2018.
EPA proposes to conclude that New
Hampshire has adequately addressed
the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h)
because the visibility and emission
trends indicate that the Great Gulf and
Dry River Areas, in addition to Acadia
which is the Class I area impacted by
New Hampshire sources, will be able to
meet or exceed the RPGs for 2018.
C. Revised Env-A 2302.02 Emission
Standards Applicable to TangentialFiring, Dry-Bottom Boilers
On August 22, 2012, EPA approved
New Hampshire’s Env-A 2300
Mitigation of Regional Haze into New
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
46870
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Hampshire’s SIP. See 77 FR 50602. EnvA 2300 is the New Hampshire
regulation which establishes the
emission limits associated with control
measures adopted through the Regional
Haze process. In the New Hampshire
2010 Regional Haze SIP, the current use
of an Electrostatic Precipitator on
Newington Station Unit NT1 11
represented BART for particulate
control. At the time of EPA’s approval,
a single available stack test yielded a
controlled TSP rate in the vicinity of
0.06 pounds TSP per million British
thermal units (lb TSP/MMBtu) and was
used to establish the TSP limit for NT1.
However, the facility’s Title V operating
permit required that a compliance stack
test for particulate matter be performed
and the permit limit be amended, as
appropriate, based on the results of the
test. Subsequent stack testing
demonstrated that 0.04 lb TSP/MMbtu
is a more appropriate emission limit.
Revised Env-A 2302.02, which was
included in New Hampshire’s December
16, 2014 SIP submittal, reduces the TSP
emission limit for Newington NT1 from
0.06 lb TSP/MMbtu to 0.04 lb TSP/
MMbtu.
EPA is proposing to find that New
Hampshire’s revised Env-A 2302.02
strengthens the existing SIP and is
therefore proposing to approve, and
incorporate into the New Hampshire
SIP, revised Env-A 2302.02.
EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this notice or on
other relevant matters. These comments
will be considered before taking final
action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking
procedure by submitting written
comments to the EPA New England
Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve New
Hampshire’s December 16, 2014
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report as
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g) and (h). In addition, EPA is
proposing to approve, and incorporate
into the New Hampshire SIP, New
Hampshire’s revised section Env-A
2302.02 Emission Standards Applicable
to Tangential-Firing, Dry Bottom
Boilers.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rulemaking, the EPA is
proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
11 PSNH Newington Station Unit NT1 is the only
Tangential-Firing, Dry-Bottom Boiler in New
Hampshire.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:34 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference New
Hampshire’s revised Env-A 2302.02
Emission Standards Applicable to
Tangential-Firing, Dry-Bottom Boilers,
effective November 22, 2014. The EPA
has made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble
for more information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, 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). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
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, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Regional Haze, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: July 6, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2016–17063 Filed 7–18–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 0, 1, and 63
[IB Docket No. 16–155, FCC 16–79]
Process Reform for Executive Branch
Review of Certain FCC Applications
and Petitions Involving Foreign
Ownership
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) proposes changes to our
rules and procedures related to certain
applications and petitions for
declaratory ruling involving foreign
ownership (together, ‘‘applications’’).
The Commission refers certain
applications to the relevant Executive
Branch agencies for their input on any
national security, law enforcement,
foreign policy, and trade policy
concerns that may arise from the foreign
ownership interests held in the
applicants and petitioners (together,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46866-46870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17063]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0909; FRL-9949-15-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Regional Haze 5-Year Report
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of New Hampshire on December 16, 2014. New Hampshire's SIP
revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's
rules that require states to submit periodic reports describing
progress toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for
regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the State's
existing Regional Haze SIP. In addition, the December 16, 2014
submittal includes a revised regulation that reduces the total
suspended particulate (TSP) emission limit for the State's sole
Tangential-Firing, Dry-Bottom Boiler.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 18, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2014-0909 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
arnold.anne@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA
02109--3912, telephone number (617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-
0697, email mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. Background
II. Requirements for Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report SIPs and
Adequacy Determinations
III. EPA's Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Revision
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
C. Revised Env-A 2302.02 Emission Standards Applicable to
Tangential-Firing, Dry-Bottom Boilers
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a
SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs
for each mandatory Class I Federal area \1\ (Class I area) within the
state and in each Class I area outside the state which may be affected
by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition,
the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the
same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of
the adequacy of the state's existing Regional Haze SIP. The first
progress report SIP is due five years after submittal of the initial
Regional Haze SIP. On January 29, 2010, the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (NH DES) submitted the State's first Regional
Haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
\2\ On August 22, 2012, EPA approved New Hampshire's Regional
Haze SIP submittal addressing the requirements of the first
implementation period for regional haze. See 77 FR 50602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 16, 2014, NH DES submitted a revision to the New
Hampshire SIP detailing the progress made in the first planning period
toward implementation of the Long Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in the
2010 Regional Haze SIP submittal, the visibility improvement measured
at the State's Class I areas, and a determination of the adequacy of
the State's existing Regional Haze SIP. EPA is proposing to approve New
Hampshire's December 16, 2014 SIP revision on the basis that it
satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
[[Page 46867]]
II. Requirements for Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report SIPs and
Adequacy Determinations
Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), States must submit a regional haze progress
report as a SIP revision every five years and must address the seven
elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in further detail in
section III of this proposed rulemaking, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires: (1)
A description of the status of measures in the approved Regional Haze
SIP; (2) a summary of emissions reductions achieved; (3) an assessment
of visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state; (4) an
analysis of changes in emissions from sources and activities within the
state; (5) an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions within or outside the state that have limited or impeded
progress in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; (6) an
assessment of the sufficiency of the approved Regional Haze SIP; and
(7) a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy.
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same
time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of
their existing Regional Haze SIP and to take one of the following four
possible actions based on information in the progress report: (1)
Submit a negative declaration to EPA that no further substantive
revision to the state's existing Regional Haze SIP is needed; (2)
provide notification to EPA (and other state(s) that participated in
the regional planning process) if the state determines that the
existing Regional Haze SIP is, or may be, inadequate to ensure
reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from
sources in other state(s) that participated in the regional haze
planning process, and collaborated with these other state(s) to develop
additional strategies to address deficiencies; (3) provide notification
with supporting information to EPA if the state determines that its
existing Regional Haze SIP is, or may be, inadequate to ensure
reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from
sources in another county; or (4) revise its Regional Haze SIP to
address deficiencies within one year if the state determines that its
existing Regional Haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress in one or more Class I areas due to emission from sources
within the state.
III. EPA's Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Revision
On December 14, 2014, New Hampshire submitted the ``Regional Haze
5-Year Progress Report'' (Progress Report) to EPA as a SIP revision.
New Hampshire has two Class I areas within its borders: Great Gulf
Wilderness Area (Great Gulf) and Presidential Range-Dry River
Wilderness Area (Dry River), both located within the White Mountains
National Forest. Emissions from New Hampshire's sources were also found
to impact visibility at one nearby Class I area, Acadia National Park
in Maine (Acadia). See 77 FR 11809 (February 28, 2012).
Through the consultation process, New Hampshire agreed to pursue
the coordinated course of action agreed to by the Mid-Atlantic/
Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) \3\ to assure reasonable progress
toward preventing any future, and remedying any existing, impairment of
visibility in the mandatory Class I areas within the MANE-VU region.
These measures are: Implementation of best available retrofit
technology (BART) requirements; a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy; a
targeted electricity generating unit (EGU) strategy; and continued
evaluation of other control measures.\4\ While New Hampshire did not
adopt a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy for implementation during the
first regional haze planning period, the State showed in its 2010
Regional Haze SIP that equivalent emission reductions were achieved
through alternate measures such as recent fuel switching at a coal-
fired power plant in the state (i.e., Schiller Station) and facility
shutdowns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ MANE-VU is a collaborative effort of State governments,
Tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the
Northeastern United States. Member State and Tribal governments
include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
\4\ The MANE-VU ``Ask'' was structured around the finding that
SO2 emissions were the dominate visibility impairing
pollutant at the Northeastern Class I areas and electrical
generating units comprised the largest SO2 emission
sector. See ``Regional Haze and Visibility in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic States,'' January 31, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section summarizes each of the seven elements that must be
addressed by the progress report under 40 CFR 51.308(g), and describes
how New Hampshire's progress report SIP addresses each element. This
section also includes EPA's analysis of New Hampshire's SIP, and our
proposed determination as to whether the State satisfied each element.
The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) require a description of the
status of implementation of all measures included in the Regional Haze
SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the
state. New Hampshire's 2010 Regional Haze SIP RPGs are based on:
Control measures for the State's two subject-to-BART sources; control
measures for one additional EGU stack; and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emission reductions from States found to be
contributing to the visibility impairment at the New Hampshire Class I
areas. New Hampshire's two subject-to-BART sources are Eversource
Energy (formally Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH)) Merrimack
Station Unit MK2 and Eversource Energy (formally PSNH) Newington Unit
NT1. Along with the two subject-to-BART units, Eversource Energy
Merrimack Station Unit MK1 was identified as among the top 167 EGUs
contributing to visibility impairment. New Hampshire's 2010 Regional
Haze SIP included control measures for these three units. The 2014
Progress Report confirms the installation and use of flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) for Merrimack Station Units MK1 and MK2; the
implementation of a more stringent SO2 emission limit for
Newington Station; and the implementation of more stringent emission
limits for the existing oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and
particulate emission control technologies in use at Merrimack and
Newington Stations.
In addition, the New Hampshire 2014 Progress Report also includes
the status of SO2 emission reductions from the identified
top 167 EGUs outside of New Hampshire.\5\ The MANE-VU targeted EGU
strategy called for a 90% SO2 reduction from the top
contributing stacks by 2018. New Hampshire reports SO2
scrubbers have already been placed on many of the 167 targeted EGUs,
while other units have seen lower utilization or have been shut down
entirely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Memorandum from NESCAUM to MANE-VU ``Overview of State and
Federal Actions Relative to MANE-VU Asks'' dated March 28, 2013.
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/summary-memo-mane-vu-asks-20130328-final.pdf/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes that New Hampshire's analysis adequately addresses the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The State demonstrates the
implementation of measures within the State, including BART and
targeted SO2 reductions from New Hampshire's three in-state
units that were part of the contributing 167 stacks. In addition, the
Progress Report documents the status of
[[Page 46868]]
requested SO2 reductions from the remaining top 167 stacks
outside of New Hampshire.
The provision under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a summary of the
emission reductions achieved in the state through the measures subject
to the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). During the development
of the Regional Haze SIP for the first planning period, MANE-VU and New
Hampshire determined that SO2 was the greatest contributor
to anthropogenic visibility impairment at the State's Class I areas.
Therefore, the bulk of visibility improvement achieved in the first
planning period was expected to result from reductions in
SO2 emissions from sources inside and outside of the State.
Table 6-1 of the 2014 Progress Report details the SO2
emission reduction from the 2002 New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP
baseline to 2013 for not only the targeted Merrimack Station Units MK1
and MK2 and Newington Unit NT1, but all New Hampshire EGUs.\6\ The
targeted EGU units subject to control through the installation of BART
and New Hampshire's LTS show an emission reduction from 35,882 tons
SO2 in 2002 to 1,729 tons SO2 in 2013, a
reduction of 95%. NOX emissions from these same sources were
reduced from 4,776 tons in 2002 to 2,230 tons in 2013, a reduction of
57%. All New Hampshire EGUs combined showed a 92.8% reduction in
SO2 emissions and a 61.3% reduction in
NOXemissions for the same time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ New Hampshire's progress report SIP includes annual unit-
level emissions data for SO2 and NOX from EGUs
from EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) for the years 2002 and
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that New Hampshire has adequately addressed
the provision under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2). New Hampshire has detailed the
SO2 and NOX reduction from the 2002 Regional Haze
baseline to the most recently available year of data at the time of the
development of New Hampshire's Progress Report, 2013. In addition, NH
DES highlighted SO2 and NOX emissions reductions
from all New Hampshire EGUs during this same time period.
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) require that states with
Class I areas within their borders provide the following information
for the most impaired and least impaired days \7\ for each area, with
values expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values:
(1) Current visibility conditions; (2) the difference between current
visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions; and (3) the
change in visibility impairment over the past five years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in
the regional haze rule refer to the average visibility impairment
(measured in deciviews (dv)) for the twenty percent monitored days
in the calendar year with the highest and lowest amount of
visibility impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year
period. See 40 CFR 51.301. The lower the dv, the better the
visibility in an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire is home to two Class I areas, Great Gulf and Dry
River. The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
program (IMPROVE) monitor within Great Gulf is representative of both
New Hampshire Class I areas. In the Progress Report, NH DES provides
the data for the baseline 2000-2004 5-Year Average visibility, the most
recent 2009-2013 5-Year Average visibility, the 2018 RPG from the 2010
Regional Haze SIP, and the calculated visibility improvement. See Table
1.
Table 1--Observed Visibility vs. Established Visibility Goals (Deciviews) for Great Gulf Wilderness Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 2000- Most recent
2004 5-year 2009-2013 5- Visibility 2018 2064 Goal
average year average mprovement Reasonable (natural
visibility visibility progress goal visibility)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Most Impaired Days.......... 22.8 dv 16.7 dv 6.1 dv 19.1 dv 12.0 dv
20% Least Impaired Days......... 7.7 dv 5.9 dv 1.8 dv 7.2 dv 3.7 dv
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The baseline visibility for Great Gulf was 22.8 dv on the 20% most
impaired days and 7.7 dv on the least impaired days. The most recent
five-year average visibility data shows an improvement of 6.1 dv on the
20% most impaired days and 1.8 dv improvement on the 20% least impaired
days. The 2014 Progress Report also demonstrates that the State has
already achieved and surpassed the 2018 RPG for the 20% most impaired
days and ensured no visibility degradation for the 20% least impaired
days for the first planning period.
EPA is proposing to find that New Hampshire provided the required
information regarding visibility conditions to meet the requirements
under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3), specifically providing baseline visibility
conditions (2000-2004), current conditions based on the most recently
available IMPROVE monitoring data (2009-2013), and the difference
between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility
conditions.
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) require an analysis
tracking emissions changes of visibility-impairing pollutants from the
state's sources by type or category over the past five years based on
the most recent updated emissions inventory. In its progress report SIP
to address the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), New Hampshire
presents data from statewide emissions inventories developed for the
years 2002, 2007, 2013 (EGUs only), and projected inventories for 2018
for SO2, NOX, PM2.5 and Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC).8 9 New Hampshire's emissions
inventories include the following source classifications: Point EGUs,
Point Non-EGUs, Area, On-road Mobile, and Non-road Mobile. From 2002
through 2013, New Hampshire's overall EGU (the largest SO2
sector) emissions were reduced from 43,962 tons per year (tpy)
SO2 to 3,167 tpy, surpassing the 2018 projected goal of
10,766 tpy SO2. For NOX, from 2002 to 2007, the
State achieved an overall 13% reduction from 64,625 tpy to 56,110 tpy.
NH DES is projecting an additional 25,000 tpy reduction in
NOX by 2018, mostly from the on-road mobile sector, which
would result in approximately 31,110 tpy NOX in 2018. This
estimate compares well with the 2018 projected goal of 30,369 tpy.
Finally, NH DES indicates that based on the 2007 emission data, the
State has already exceeded the 2018 emission reduction goals for direct
PM2.5 (55% reduction) and VOCs (53% reduction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The 2002 inventory is the MANE-VU V3.3 which is projected to
2018. The 2007 inventory is the MARAMA V3 inventory based on the
2007 National Emission Inventory (NEI). The 2013 inventory was the
most recent year of Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) inventory data
as reported to EPA.
\9\ Mid-Atlantic Air Management Association (MARAMA) ``Regional
Emissions Trends Analysis for the MANE-VU States Technical Support
Document Revision 3'' dated March 22, 2013. Attachment D of the New
Hampshire 2014 Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46869]]
EPA is proposing that New Hampshire has adequately addressed the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). NH DES compared the most recent
updated emission inventory data available at the time of the
development of the Progress Report with the baseline emissions for the
Regional Haze SIP. The progress report appropriately details the 2007
SO2, NOX, PM2.5 and VOC reductions
achieved, by sector, thus far in the regional haze planning period. In
addition, the State provided the most recent annual EGU SO2
emission data, the sector determined to be the greatest contributor to
visibility impairment at the Class I areas in New Hampshire and Maine.
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) require an assessment of
any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside
the state that have occurred over the past five years that have limited
or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving
visibility in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources. In its
progress report SIP, New Hampshire states that sulfates continue to be
the biggest single contributor to regional haze at Great Gulf, Dry
River, and Acadia. While New Hampshire mainly focused its analysis on
addressing large SO2 emissions from point sources, the State
did not find any significant changes in NOX and
PM2.5 which might impede or limit progress during the first
planning period. In addition, NH DES cited the 2013 Northeast States
for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) report, discussed below,
which indicates that all of the MANE-VU Class I areas are on track to
meet the 2018 visibility goals established by the states in their
Regional Haze SIPs.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ NESCAUM for MANE-VU, ``Tracking Visibility Progress 2004-
2011,'' revised May 24, 2013. https://www.nescaum.org/documents/manevu-trends-2004-2011-report-final-20130430.pdf/view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to conclude that New Hampshire has adequately
addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5). The State
adequately demonstrated that there are no significant changes in
emissions of SO2, PM2.5, or NOX within
the state which have impeded progress in reducing emissions and
improving visibility in the Class I areas impacted by New Hampshire
sources.
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) require an assessment of
whether the current Regional Haze SIP is sufficient to enable the
state, or other states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by
emissions from the state. In its progress report SIP, NH DES states
that it believes that the elements and strategies relied on in its
original Regional Haze SIP are sufficient to enable New Hampshire and
neighboring states to meet all established RPGs. To support this
conclusion, NH DES notes that 2013 EGU SO2 emissions for the
entire MANE-VU area are already less than the 2018 projection (315,675
tpy versus 365,024 tpy). In addition, New Hampshire discusses
visibility data from Tracking Visibility Progress, 2004-2011, prepared
by NESCAUM, which updated the progress at MANE-VU Class I areas during
the five-year period ending in 2011, including information for the New
Hampshire Class I areas, between 2000 and 2011 in the context of short-
and long-term visibility goals. The report indicates that visibility
impairment on the best and worst days from 2000 through 2011 have
dropped at Great Gulf. New Hampshire notes the NESCAUM report indicates
that all the MANE-VU Class I states continue to be on track to meet
their 2018 RPGs for improved visibility and that further progress may
occur through recently adopted or proposed regulatory programs. Based
upon the NESCAUM report and visibility data, New Hampshire states in
its Progress Report that visibility improvement at Great Gulf, Dry
River, and Acadia has occurred for the most impaired days and no
degradation of visibility has occurred for the least impaired days.
Therefore, New Hampshire finds that Great Gulf, Dry River, and Acadia
are on track to meet the RPGs for 2018 based on the observed visibility
improvement.
EPA proposes to conclude that New Hampshire has adequately
addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this
requirement as an assessment that should evaluate emissions and
visibility trends and other readily available information. In its
Progress Report, New Hampshire described the improving visibility
trends detailed in the NESCAUM report and the downward emissions trends
in key pollutants in the State and the MANE-VU region. With a focus on
SO2 emissions from New Hampshire EGUs, New Hampshire
determined that the State's Regional Haze SIP is sufficient for the two
Class I areas within the state and the Class I area outside the state
impacted by the state's emissions (Acadia) to meet their RPGs.
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) require a review of the
state's visibility monitoring strategy and an assessment of whether any
modifications to the monitoring strategy are necessary. New Hampshire's
visibility monitoring strategy relies upon participation in the IMPROVE
network. The IMPROVE monitor at the Great Gulf area is located
approximately 1 mile east of the wilderness boundary and also serves as
the monitor for the Dry River area whose northern most limit lies only
5 miles southwest of the monitor location. NH DES finds that there is
no indication of a need for additional monitoring sites or equipment.
EPA proposes to find that New Hampshire has adequately addressed
the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) by reviewing the state's
visibility monitoring strategy and assessing whether any modifications
to the monitoring strategy are necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four
possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made
in the progress report SIP. In its progress report SIP, New Hampshire
took the action provided for by the provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(h)(1), which allow a state to submit a negative declaration to
EPA.
In the 2014 SIP submittal, New Hampshire determined that the
existing Regional Haze SIP requires no further substantive revision at
this time to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas affected by the state's
sources. The basis for the State's negative declaration is the finding
that visibility has improved at all Class I areas in the MANE-VU
region. In addition, SO2 emissions from the State's EGUs
have decreased beyond the original 2018 projections. While
NOX reductions have yet to fully meet the 2018 projections,
additional substantial NOX emission reductions are expected
from the mobile sector over the next several years. Finally, New
Hampshire expects the downward trend in SO2 emissions from
EGUs in the other MANE-VU states to continue through 2018.
EPA proposes to conclude that New Hampshire has adequately
addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility
and emission trends indicate that the Great Gulf and Dry River Areas,
in addition to Acadia which is the Class I area impacted by New
Hampshire sources, will be able to meet or exceed the RPGs for 2018.
C. Revised Env-A 2302.02 Emission Standards Applicable to Tangential-
Firing, Dry-Bottom Boilers
On August 22, 2012, EPA approved New Hampshire's Env-A 2300
Mitigation of Regional Haze into New
[[Page 46870]]
Hampshire's SIP. See 77 FR 50602. Env-A 2300 is the New Hampshire
regulation which establishes the emission limits associated with
control measures adopted through the Regional Haze process. In the New
Hampshire 2010 Regional Haze SIP, the current use of an Electrostatic
Precipitator on Newington Station Unit NT1 \11\ represented BART for
particulate control. At the time of EPA's approval, a single available
stack test yielded a controlled TSP rate in the vicinity of 0.06 pounds
TSP per million British thermal units (lb TSP/MMBtu) and was used to
establish the TSP limit for NT1. However, the facility's Title V
operating permit required that a compliance stack test for particulate
matter be performed and the permit limit be amended, as appropriate,
based on the results of the test. Subsequent stack testing demonstrated
that 0.04 lb TSP/MMbtu is a more appropriate emission limit. Revised
Env-A 2302.02, which was included in New Hampshire's December 16, 2014
SIP submittal, reduces the TSP emission limit for Newington NT1 from
0.06 lb TSP/MMbtu to 0.04 lb TSP/MMbtu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ PSNH Newington Station Unit NT1 is the only Tangential-
Firing, Dry-Bottom Boiler in New Hampshire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to find that New Hampshire's revised Env-A 2302.02
strengthens the existing SIP and is therefore proposing to approve, and
incorporate into the New Hampshire SIP, revised Env-A 2302.02.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA
New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
Federal Register.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's December 16, 2014
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report as meeting the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g) and (h). In addition, EPA is proposing to approve, and
incorporate into the New Hampshire SIP, New Hampshire's revised section
Env-A 2302.02 Emission Standards Applicable to Tangential-Firing, Dry
Bottom Boilers.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rulemaking, the 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, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference New Hampshire's revised Env-A 2302.02 Emission
Standards Applicable to Tangential-Firing, Dry-Bottom Boilers,
effective November 22, 2014. The EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these documents generally available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, 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).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional Haze, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: July 6, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2016-17063 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P