Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Hampshire; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period, 80655-80680 [2023-25336]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
fees, penalties or fines) the provider
pays to the Postal Service in connection
with the customer’s returned payment.
(2) Responsibility to comply with
NACHA rules. The provider is required
to comply with the latest NACHA rules
published by the North American
Clearing House Association. Each
provider must provide a written
statement signed by an executive officer
of the company attesting to that
compliance at least annually. If the
provider cannot provide that written
statement attesting to compliance due to
identified areas of non-compliance, the
PC provider must provide to the Postal
Service within 30 days a written plan
describing its prioritized approach,
including milestone dates, toward
achieving compliance within a mutually
agreed period. The Postal Service will
provide specific written guidance
separately if requested. Failure to
comply may result in revocation of
access to applicable Postal Service ACH
programs.
(3) Responsibility to maintain
customer ACH agreements. The
provider must obtain and store an
agreement with each and every
customer utilizing ACH debit as a
payment method. The customer
agreement must authorize the provider
to debit the designated bank account
identified to pay for postage through the
Postal Service account of its choice. The
agreement must have at least the
following elements: Company Name (if
applicable), Name and Title and
Address of the person entering into the
agreement, Contact Information (Phone
Number, Fax Number and eMail
Address as applicable), Date and
Signature (or appropriate electronic
signature evidence) of Agreement,
Customer’s Bank Name and Address,
Bank Routing Number, Account Number
and Account Type (Checking or
Savings, Business or Personal) being
agreed to transact upon, an Attestation
that the person submitting the form is
authorized to act on behalf of the
account, and Termination Date and
Signature (or appropriate electronic
signature evidence) of the Agreement (if
applicable). The agreement must be
stored for at least two years after
termination of the agreement, must be
easily reproducible, and must be
provided electronically to the Postal
Service within three business days of
electronic written request by the Postal
Service in a format that can be easily
and readily used for all NACHA and
ACH related purposes including,
without limitation, audit and defense of
claims. The Postal Service will provide
specific written guidance separately if
requested. Failure to comply may result
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
in revocation of access to applicable
Postal Service ACH programs.
(4) Credit cards. Unless otherwise
established in a written agreement
between the Postal Service and the
provider, the provider is fully
responsible for its own credit card
compliance.
*
*
*
*
*
Sarah Sullivan,
Attorney, Ethics & Legal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2023–25628 Filed 11–17–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2023–0187; FRL–11554–
03–R1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; New
Hampshire; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by New
Hampshire on May 5, 2022, as satisfying
applicable requirements under the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule for the program’s
second implementation period. New
Hampshire’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 sections 110 and
169A of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before December 20,
2023.
SUMMARY:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA- at
https://www.regulations.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
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
80655
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://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Rackauskas, Air Quality Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite
100, (Mail code 5–MI), Boston, MA
02109–3912, tel. (617) 918–1628, email
rackauskas.eric@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for
Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for
the Second Implementation Period
A. Identification of Class I Areas
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and
Natural Visibility Conditions; Progress to
Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State
Implementation Plan Requirements
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports
Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Requirements for State and Federal
Land Manager Coordination
IV. The EPA’s Evaluation of New
Hampshire’s Regional Haze Submission
for the Second Implementation Period
A. Background on New Hampshire’s First
Implementation Period SIP Submission
B. New Hampshire’s Second
Implementation Period SIP Submission
and the EPA’s Evaluation
C. Identification of Class I Areas
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and
Natural Visibility Conditions; Progress to
Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
a. New Hampshire’s Response to the Six
MANE–VU Asks
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
80656
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
b. The EPA’s Evaluation of New
Hampshire’s Response to the Six MANE–
VU Asks and Compliance With
§ 51.308(f)(2)(i)
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy
Requirements
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports
Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land
Manager Coordination
V. Proposed Action
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On May 5, 2022, supplemented on
September 21, 2023,1 the New
Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (NHDES)
submitted a revision to its SIP to
address regional haze for the second
implementation period. NHDES 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. The EPA
is proposing to find that the New
Hampshire regional haze SIP
submission for the second
implementation period meets the
applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements and thus proposes to
approve New Hampshire’s submission
into its SIP.
II. Background and Requirements for
Regional Haze Plans
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
A. Regional Haze Background
In the 1977 CAA Amendments,
Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation’s
mandatory Class I Federal areas, which
include certain national parks and
wilderness areas.2 CAA 169A. The CAA
establishes as a national goal the
‘‘prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment
of visibility in mandatory class I Federal
areas which impairment results from
manmade air pollution.’’ CAA
169A(a)(1). The CAA further directs the
EPA to promulgate regulations to assure
reasonable progress toward meeting this
national goal. CAA 169A(a)(4). On
December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated
regulations to address visibility
1 NH included a corrected Appendix W in a
supplemental submission on September 21, 2023.
2 Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class
I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding
6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial
parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977.
CAA 162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas.
The list of areas to which the requirements of the
visibility protection program apply is in 40 CFR
part 81, subpart D.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
impairment in mandatory Class I
Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as
‘‘Class I areas’’) that is ‘‘reasonably
attributable’’ to a single source or small
group of sources. (45 FR 80084,
December 2, 1980). These regulations,
codified at 40 CFR 51.300 through
51.307, represented the first phase of the
EPA’s efforts to address visibility
impairment. In 1990, Congress added
section 169B to the CAA to further
address visibility impairment,
specifically, impairment from regional
haze. CAA 169B. The EPA promulgated
the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), codified
at 40 CFR 51.308,3 on July 1, 1999. (64
FR 35714, July 1, 1999). These regional
haze regulations are a central
component of the EPA’s comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I
areas.
Regional haze is visibility impairment
that is produced by a multitude of
anthropogenic sources and activities
which are located across a broad
geographic area and that emit pollutants
that impair visibility. Visibility
impairing pollutants include fine and
coarse particulate matter (PM) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust) and
their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and, in
some cases, volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and ammonia (NH3)). Fine
particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form fine particulate
matter (PM2.5), which impairs visibility
by scattering and absorbing light.
Visibility impairment reduces the
perception of clarity and color, as well
as visible distance.4
3 In addition to the generally applicable regional
haze provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, the EPA also
promulgated regulations specific to addressing
regional haze visibility impairment in Class I areas
on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The
latter regulations are applicable only for specific
jurisdictions’ regional haze plans submitted no later
than December 17, 2007, and thus are not relevant
here.
4 There are several ways to measure the amount
of visibility impairment, i.e., haze. One such
measurement is the deciview, which is the
principal metric used by the RHR. Under many
circumstances, a change in one deciview will be
perceived by the human eye to be the same on both
clear and hazy days. The deciview is unitless. It is
proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric
extinction of light, which is the perceived dimming
of light due to its being scattered and absorbed as
it passes through the atmosphere. Atmospheric light
extinction (bext) is a metric used to for expressing
visibility and is measured in inverse megameters
(Mm¥1). The EPA’s Guidance on Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans for the Second
Implementation Period (‘‘2019 Guidance’’) offers
the flexibility for the use of light extinction in
certain cases. Light extinction can be simpler to use
in calculations than deciviews, since it is not a
logarithmic function. See, e.g., 2019 Guidance at 16,
19, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidanceregional-haze-state-implementation-plans-secondimplementation-period, The EPA Office of Air
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
To address regional haze visibility
impairment, the 1999 RHR established
an iterative planning process that
requires both states in which Class I
areas are located and states ‘‘the
emissions from which may reasonably
be anticipated to cause or contribute to
any impairment of visibility’’ in a Class
I area to periodically submit SIP
revisions to address such impairment.
CAA 169A(b)(2); 5 see also 40 CFR
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission
dates for iterative regional haze SIP
revisions); (64 FR at 35768, July 1,
1999). Under the CAA, each SIP
submission must contain ‘‘a long-term
(ten to fifteen years) strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the
national goal,’’ CAA 169A(b)(2)(B); the
initial round of SIP submissions also
had to address the statutory requirement
that certain older, larger sources of
visibility impairing pollutants install
and operate the best available retrofit
technology (BART). CAA 169A(b)(2)(A);
40 CFR 51.308(d), (e). States’ first
regional haze SIPs were due by
December 17, 2007, 40 CFR 51.308(b),
with subsequent SIP submissions
containing updated long-term strategies
originally due July 31, 2018, and every
ten years thereafter. (64 FR at 35768,
July 1, 1999). The EPA established in
the 1999 RHR that all states either have
Class I areas within their borders or
‘‘contain sources whose emissions are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to
regional haze in a Class I area’’;
therefore, all states must submit regional
haze SIPs.6 Id. at 35721.
Much of the focus in the first
implementation period of the regional
haze program, which ran from 2007
through 2018, was on satisfying states’
BART obligations. First implementation
period SIPs were additionally required
to contain long-term strategies for
making reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal, of which BART
is one component. The core required
elements for the first implementation
period SIPs (other than BART) are laid
out in 40 CFR 51.308(d). Those
provisions required that states
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park (August 20, 2019). The formula for the
deciview is 10 ln (bext)/10 Mm¥1). 40 CFR 51.301.
5 The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for
states to submit plans addressing out-of-state class
I areas by providing that states must address
visibility impairment ‘‘in each mandatory Class I
Federal area located outside the State that may be
affected by emissions from within the State.’’ 40
CFR 51.308(d), (f).
6 In addition to each of the fifty states, the EPA
also concluded that the Virgin Islands and District
of Columbia must also submit regional haze SIPs
because they either contain a Class I area or contain
sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated
to contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40
CFR 51.300(b), (d)(3).
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
containing Class I areas establish
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) that
are measured in deciviews and reflect
the anticipated visibility conditions at
the end of the implementation period
including from implementation of
states’ long-term strategies. The first
planning period RPGs were required to
provide for an improvement in visibility
for the most impaired days over the
period of the implementation plan and
ensure no degradation in visibility for
the least impaired days over the same
period. In establishing the RPGs for any
Class I area in a state, the state was
required to consider four statutory
factors: the costs of compliance, the
time necessary for compliance, the
energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance,
and the remaining useful life of any
potentially affected sources. CAA
169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
States were also required to calculate
baseline (using the five-year period of
2000–2004) and natural visibility
conditions (i.e., visibility conditions
without anthropogenic visibility
impairment) for each Class I area, and
to calculate the linear rate of progress
needed to attain natural visibility
conditions, assuming a starting point of
baseline visibility conditions in 2004
and ending with natural conditions in
2064. This linear interpolation is known
as the uniform rate of progress (URP)
and is used as a tracking metric to help
states assess the amount of progress they
are making towards the national
visibility goal over time in each Class I
area.7 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(2).
The 1999 RHR also provided that States’
long-term strategies must include the
‘‘enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance, schedules, and other
measures as necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals.’’ 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3). In establishing their longterm strategies, states are required to
consult with other states that also
contribute to visibility impairment in a
7 EPA established the URP framework in the 1999
RHR to provide ‘‘an equitable analytical approach’’
to assessing the rate of visibility improvement at
Class I areas across the country. The start point for
the URP analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was
calculated based on the amount of visibility
improvement that was anticipated to result from
implementation of existing CAA programs over the
period from the mid-1990s to approximately 2005.
Assuming this rate of progress would continue into
the future, EPA determined that natural visibility
conditions would be reached in 60 years, or 2064
(60 years from the baseline starting point of 2004).
However, EPA did not establish 2064 as the year
by which the national goal must be reached. 64 FR
at 35731–32. That is, the URP and the 2064 date are
not enforceable targets, but are rather tools that
‘‘allow for analytical comparisons between the rate
of progress that would be achieved by the state’s
chosen set of control measures and the URP.’’ (82
FR 3078, 3084, January 10, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
given Class I area and include all
measures necessary to obtain their
shares of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(i), (ii). Section 51.308(d)
also contains seven additional factors
states must consider in formulating their
long-term strategies, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v), as well as provisions
governing monitoring and other
implementation plan requirements. 40
CFR 51.308(d)(4). Finally, the 1999 RHR
required states to submit periodic
progress reports—SIP revisions due
every five years that contain information
on states’ implementation of their
regional haze plans and an assessment
of whether anything additional is
needed to make reasonable progress, see
40 CFR 51.308(g), (h)—and to consult
with the Federal Land Manager(s) 8
(FLMs) responsible for each Class I area
according to the requirements in CAA
169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i).
On January 10, 2017, the EPA
promulgated revisions to the RHR, (82
FR 3078, January 10, 2017), that apply
for the second and subsequent
implementation periods. The 2017
rulemaking made several changes to the
requirements for regional haze SIPs to
clarify States’ obligations and streamline
certain regional haze requirements. The
revisions to the regional haze program
for the second and subsequent
implementation periods focused on the
requirement that States’ SIPs contain
long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal. The reasonable
progress requirements as revised in the
2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the
2017 RHR Revisions) are codified at 40
CFR 51.308(f). Among other changes,
the 2017 RHR Revisions adjusted the
deadline for States to submit their
second implementation period SIPs
from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021,
clarified the order of analysis and the
relationship between RPGs and the
long-term strategy, and focused on
making visibility improvements on the
days with the most anthropogenic
visibility impairment, as opposed to the
days with the most visibility
impairment overall. The EPA also
revised requirements of the visibility
protection program related to periodic
progress reports and FLM consultation.
The specific requirements applicable to
second implementation period regional
8 The EPA’s regulations define ‘‘Federal Land
Manager’’ as ‘‘the Secretary of the department with
authority over the Federal Class I area (or the
Secretary’s designee) or, with respect to RooseveltCampobello International Park, the Chairman of the
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park
Commission.’’ 40 CFR 51.301.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
80657
haze SIP submissions are addressed in
detail below.
The EPA provided guidance to the
states for their second implementation
period SIP submissions in the preamble
to the 2017 RHR Revisions as well as in
subsequent, stand-alone guidance
documents. In August 2019, the EPA
issued ‘‘Guidance on Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans for the
Second Implementation Period’’ (‘‘2019
Guidance’’).9 On July 8, 2021, the EPA
issued a memorandum containing
‘‘Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans for the
Second Implementation Period’’ (‘‘2021
Clarifications Memo’’).10 Additionally,
the EPA further clarified the
recommended procedures for processing
ambient visibility data and optionally
adjusting the URP to account for
international anthropogenic and
prescribed fire impacts in two technical
guidance documents: the December
2018 ‘‘Technical Guidance on Tracking
Visibility Progress for the Second
Implementation Period of the Regional
Haze Program’’ (‘‘2018 Visibility
Tracking Guidance’’),11 and the June
2020 ‘‘Recommendation for the Use of
Patched and Substituted Data and
Clarification of Data Completeness for
Tracking Visibility Progress for the
Second Implementation Period of the
Regional Haze Program’’ and associated
Technical Addendum (‘‘2020 Data
Completeness Memo’’).12
As previously explained in the 2021
Clarifications Memo, EPA intends the
second implementation period of the
regional haze program to secure
9 Guidance on Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second
Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/
visibility/guidance-regional-haze-stateimplementation-plans-second-implementationperiod The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20,
2019).
10 Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second
Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/
system/files/documents/2021-07/clarificationsregarding-regional-haze-state-implementationplans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf.
The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
11 Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility
Progress for the Second Implementation Period of
the Regional Haze Program. https://www.epa.gov/
visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibilityprogress-second-implementation-period-regional
The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park. (December 20,
2018).
12 Recommendation for the Use of Patched and
Substituted Data and Clarification of Data
Completeness for Tracking Visibility Progress for
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional
Haze Program. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/
memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-datausage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program
The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park (June 3, 2020).
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
80658
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
meaningful reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants that build on the
significant progress states have achieved
to date. The Agency also recognizes that
analyses regarding reasonable progress
are state-specific and that, based on
states’ and sources’ individual
circumstances, what constitutes
reasonable reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants will vary from
state-to-state. While there exist many
opportunities for states to leverage both
ongoing and upcoming emission
reductions under other CAA programs,
the Agency expects states to undertake
rigorous reasonable progress analyses
that identify further opportunities to
advance the national visibility goal
consistent with the statutory and
regulatory requirements. See generally
2021 Clarifications Memo. This is
consistent with Congress’s
determination that a visibility
protection program is needed in
addition to the CAA’s National Ambient
Air Quality Standards and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration programs, as
further emission reductions may be
necessary to adequately protect
visibility in Class I areas throughout the
country.13
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
Because the air pollutants and
pollution affecting visibility in Class I
areas can be transported over long
distances, successful implementation of
the regional haze program requires longterm, regional coordination among
multiple jurisdictions and agencies that
have responsibility for Class I areas and
the emissions that impact visibility in
those areas. In order to address regional
haze, states need to develop strategies in
coordination with one another,
considering the effect of emissions from
one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs),14 which include
representation from state and tribal
governments, the EPA, and FLMs, were
developed in the lead-up to the first
implementation period to address
regional haze. RPOs evaluate technical
information to better understand how
emissions from State and Tribal land
13 See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95–294 at 205 (‘‘In
determining how to best remedy the growing
visibility problem in these areas of great scenic
importance, the committee realizes that as a matter
of equity, the national ambient air quality standards
cannot be revised to adequately protect visibility in
all areas of the country.’’), (‘‘the mandatory class I
increments of [the PSD program] do not adequately
protect visibility in class I areas’’).
14 RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ‘‘multijurisdictional organizations,’’ or MJOs. For the
purposes of this notice, the terms RPO and MJO are
synonymous.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
impact Class I areas across the country,
pursue the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of
particulate matter and other pollutants
leading to regional haze, and help states
meet the consultation requirements of
the RHR.
The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility
Union (MANE–VU), one of the five
RPOs described above, 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 MidAtlantic and Northeast corridor of the
United States. Member states and tribal
governments (listed alphabetically)
include: Connecticut, Delaware, the
District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island,
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and Vermont.
The Federal partner members of MANE–
VU are EPA, U.S. National Parks Service
(NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
III. Requirements for Regional Haze
Plans for the Second Implementation
Period
Under the CAA and EPA’s
regulations, all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
are required to submit regional haze
SIPs satisfying the applicable
requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional
haze program by July 31, 2021. Each
state’s SIP must contain a long-term
strategy for making reasonable progress
toward meeting the national goal of
remedying any existing and preventing
any future anthropogenic visibility
impairment in Class I areas. CAA
169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, § 51.308(f)
lays out the process by which states
determine what constitutes their longterm strategies, with the order of the
requirements in § 51.308(f)(1) through
(f)(3) generally mirroring the order of
the steps in the reasonable progress
analysis 15 and (f)(4) through (f)(6)
containing additional, related
requirements. Broadly speaking, a state
first must identify the Class I areas
within the state and determine the Class
I areas outside the state in which
visibility may be affected by emissions
from the state. These are the Class I
areas that must be addressed in the
state’s long-term strategy. See 40 CFR
15 EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that
we were adopting new regulatory language in 40
CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike the structure in
51.308(d), ‘‘tracked the actual planning sequence.’’
(82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51.308(f), (f)(2). For each Class I area
within its borders, a state must then
calculate the baseline, current, and
natural visibility conditions for that
area, as well as the visibility
improvement made to date and the URP.
See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each state
having a Class I area and/or emissions
that may affect visibility in a Class I area
must then develop a long-term strategy
that includes the enforceable emission
limitations, compliance schedules, and
other measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress in such areas.
A reasonable progress determination is
based on applying the four factors in
CAA section 169A(g)(1) to sources of
visibility-impairing pollutants that the
state has selected to assess for controls
for the second implementation period.
See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). Additionally,
as further explained below, the RHR at
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ‘‘additional factors’’ 16 that
states must consider in developing their
long-term strategies. A state evaluates
potential emission reduction measures
for those selected sources and
determines which are necessary to make
reasonable progress. Those measures are
then incorporated into the state’s longterm strategy. After a state has
developed its long-term strategy, it then
establishes RPGs for each Class I area
within its borders by modeling the
visibility impacts of all reasonable
progress controls at the end of the
second implementation period, i.e., in
2028, as well as the impacts of other
requirements of the CAA. The RPGs
include reasonable progress controls not
only for sources in the state in which
the Class I area is located, but also for
sources in other states that contribute to
visibility impairment in that area. The
RPGs are then compared to the baseline
visibility conditions and the URP to
ensure that progress is being made
towards the statutory goal of preventing
any future and remedying any existing
anthropogenic visibility impairment in
Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)–(3).
In addition to satisfying the
requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f) related
to reasonable progress, the regional haze
SIP revisions for the second
implementation period must address the
requirements in § 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) pertaining to periodic reports
describing progress towards the RPGs,
40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), as well as
requirements for FLM consultation that
16 The five ‘‘additional factors’’ for consideration
in section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four
factors listed in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must consider and apply
to sources in determining reasonable progress.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
apply to all visibility protection SIPs
and SIP revisions. 40 CFR 51.308(i).
A state must submit its regional haze
SIP and subsequent SIP revisions to the
EPA according to the requirements
applicable to all SIP revisions under the
CAA and EPA’s regulations. See CAA
169(b)(2); CAA 110(a). Upon EPA
approval, a SIP is enforceable by the
Agency and the public under the CAA.
If EPA finds that a state fails to make a
required SIP revision, or if the EPA
finds that a state’s SIP is incomplete or
if disapproves the SIP, the Agency must
promulgate a federal implementation
plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable
requirements. CAA 110(c)(1).
A. Identification of Class I Areas
The first step in developing a regional
haze SIP is for a state to determine
which Class I areas, in addition to those
within its borders, ‘‘may be affected’’ by
emissions from within the state. In the
1999 RHR, the EPA determined that all
states contribute to visibility
impairment in at least one Class I area,
64 FR at 35720–22, and explained that
the statute and regulations lay out an
‘‘extremely low triggering threshold’’ for
determining ‘‘whether States should be
required to engage in air quality
planning and analysis as a prerequisite
to determining the need for control of
emissions from sources within their
State.’’ Id. at 35721.
A state must determine which Class I
areas must be addressed by its SIP by
evaluating the total emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants from all
sources within the state. While the RHR
does not require this evaluation to be
conducted in any particular manner,
EPA’s 2019 Guidance provides
recommendations for how such an
assessment might be accomplished,
including by, where appropriate, using
the determinations previously made for
the first implementation period. 2019
Guidance at 8–9. In addition, the
determination of which Class I areas
may be affected by a state’s emissions is
subject to the requirement in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ‘‘document the
technical basis, including modeling,
monitoring, cost, engineering, and
emissions information, on which the
State is relying to determine the
emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress
in each mandatory Class I Federal area
it affects.’’
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current,
and Natural Visibility Conditions;
Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate
of Progress
As part of assessing whether a SIP
submission for the second
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
implementation period is providing for
reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal, the RHR
contains requirements in § 51.308(f)(1)
related to tracking visibility
improvement over time. The
requirements of this subsection apply
only to states having Class I areas within
their borders; the required calculations
must be made for each such Class I area.
EPA’s 2018 Visibility Tracking
Guidance 17 provides recommendations
to assist states in satisfying their
obligations under § 51.308(f)(1);
specifically, in developing information
on baseline, current, and natural
visibility conditions, and in making
optional adjustments to the URP to
account for the impacts of international
anthropogenic emissions and prescribed
fires. See 82 FR at 3103–05.
The RHR requires tracking of
visibility conditions on two sets of days:
the clearest and the most impaired days.
Visibility conditions for both sets of
days are expressed as the average
deciview index for the relevant five-year
period (the period representing baseline
or current visibility conditions). The
RHR provides that the relevant sets of
days for visibility tracking purposes are
the 20% clearest (the 20% of monitored
days in a calendar year with the lowest
values of the deciview index) and 20%
most impaired days (the 20% of
monitored days in a calendar year with
the highest amounts of anthropogenic
visibility impairment).18 40 CFR 51.301.
A state must calculate visibility
conditions for both the 20% clearest and
20% most impaired days for the
baseline period of 2000–2004 and the
most recent five-year period for which
visibility monitoring data are available
(representing current visibility
conditions). 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii).
States must also calculate natural
visibility conditions for the clearest and
most impaired days,19 by estimating the
17 The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance
references and relies on parts of the 2003 Tracking
Guidance: ‘‘Guidance for Tracking Progress Under
the Regional Haze Rule,’’ which can be found at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/
visible/tracking.pdf.
18 This notice also refers to the 20% clearest and
20% most anthropogenically impaired days as the
‘‘clearest’’ and ‘‘most impaired’’ or ‘‘most
anthropogenically impaired’’ days, respectively.
19 The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an
error related to the requirement for calculating two
sets of natural conditions values. The rule says
‘‘most impaired days or the clearest days’’ where it
should say ‘‘most impaired days and clearest days.’’
This is an error that was intended to be corrected
in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected
in the final rule language. This is supported by the
preamble text at 82 FR 3098: ‘‘In the final version
of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii), an occurrence of ‘‘or’’ has
been corrected to ‘‘and’’ to indicate that natural
visibility conditions for both the most impaired
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
80659
conditions that would exist on those
two sets of days absent anthropogenic
visibility impairment. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(ii). Using all these data,
states must then calculate, for each
Class I area, the amount of progress
made since the baseline period (2000–
2004) and how much improvement is
left to achieve in order to reach natural
visibility conditions.
Using the data for the set of most
impaired days only, states must plot a
line between visibility conditions in the
baseline period and natural visibility
conditions for each Class I area to
determine the URP—the amount of
visibility improvement, measured in
deciviews, that would need to be
achieved during each implementation
period in order to achieve natural
visibility conditions by the end of 2064.
The URP is used in later steps of the
reasonable progress analysis for
informational purposes and to provide a
non-enforceable benchmark against
which to assess a Class I area’s rate of
visibility improvement.20 Additionally,
in the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA
provided states the option of proposing
to adjust the endpoint of the URP to
account for impacts of anthropogenic
sources outside the United States and/
or impacts of certain types of wildland
prescribed fires. These adjustments,
which must be approved by the EPA,
are intended to avoid any perception
that states should compensate for
impacts from international
anthropogenic sources and to give states
the flexibility to determine that limiting
the use of wildland-prescribed fire is
not necessary for reasonable progress.
82 FR 3107 footnote 116.
EPA’s 2018 Visibility Tracking
Guidance can be used to help satisfy the
40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements,
including in developing information on
baseline, current, and natural visibility
conditions, and in making optional
adjustments to the URP. In addition, the
2020 Data Completeness Memo provides
recommendations on the data
completeness language referenced in
§ 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides updated
natural conditions estimates for each
Class I area.
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional
Haze
The core component of a regional
haze SIP submission is a long-term
days and the clearest days must be based on
available monitoring information.’’
20 Being on or below the URP is not a ‘‘safe
harbor’’; i.e., achieving the URP does not mean that
a Class I area is making ‘‘reasonable progress’’ and
does not relieve a state from using the four statutory
factors to determine what level of control is needed
to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3093.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80660
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
strategy that addresses regional haze in
each Class I area within a state’s borders
and each Class I area that may be
affected by emissions from the state.
The long-term strategy ‘‘must include
the enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress, as determined
pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through (iv).’’ 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of
progress that is ‘‘reasonable progress’’ is
based on applying the four statutory
factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an
evaluation of potential control options
for sources of visibility impairing
pollutants, which is referred to as a
‘‘four-factor’’ analysis. The outcome of
that analysis is the emission reduction
measures that a particular source or
group of sources needs to implement in
order to make reasonable progress
towards the national visibility goal. See
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission
reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress may be either
new, additional control measures for a
source, or they may be the existing
emission reduction measures that a
source is already implementing. See
2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications
Memo at 8–10. Such measures must be
represented by ‘‘enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and
other measures’’ (i.e., any additional
compliance tools) in a state’s long-term
strategy in its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the
requirements for the four-factor
analysis. The first step of this analysis
entails selecting the sources to be
evaluated for emission reduction
measures; to this end, the RHR requires
states to consider ‘‘major and minor
stationary sources or groups of sources,
mobile sources, and area sources’’ of
visibility impairing pollutants for
potential four-factor control analysis. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A threshold
question at this step is which visibility
impairing pollutants will be analyzed.
As EPA previously explained,
consistent with the first implementation
period, EPA generally expects that each
state will analyze at least SO2 and NOX
in selecting sources and determining
control measures. See 2019 Guidance at
12, 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4. A
state that chooses not to consider at
least these two pollutants should
demonstrate why such consideration
would be unreasonable. 2021
Clarifications Memo at 4.
While states have the option to
analyze all sources, the 2019 Guidance
explains that ‘‘an analysis of control
measures is not required for every
source in each implementation period,’’
and that ‘‘[s]electing a set of sources for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
analysis of control measures in each
implementation period is . . .
consistent with the Regional Haze Rule,
which sets up an iterative planning
process and anticipates that a state may
not need to analyze control measures for
all its sources in a given SIP revision.’’
2019 Guidance at 9. However, given that
source selection is the basis of all
subsequent control determinations, a
reasonable source selection process
‘‘should be designed and conducted to
ensure that source selection results in a
set of pollutants and sources the
evaluation of which has the potential to
meaningfully reduce their contributions
to visibility impairment.’’ 2021
Clarifications Memo at 3.
EPA explained in the 2021
Clarifications Memo that each state has
an obligation to submit a long-term
strategy that addresses the regional haze
visibility impairment that results from
emissions from within that state. Thus,
source selection should focus on the instate contribution to visibility
impairment and be designed to capture
a meaningful portion of the state’s total
contribution to visibility impairment in
Class I areas. A state should not decline
to select its largest in-state sources on
the basis that there are even larger outof-state contributors. 2021 Clarifications
Memo at 4.21
Thus, while states have discretion to
choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable,
whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that a state’s
SIP submission include ‘‘a description
of the criteria it used to determine
which sources or groups of sources it
evaluated.’’ The technical basis for
source selection, which may include
methods for quantifying potential
visibility impacts such as emissions
divided by distance metrics, trajectory
analyses, residence time analyses, and/
or photochemical modeling, must also
be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a state has selected the set of
sources, the next step is to determine
the emissions reduction measures for
those sources that are necessary to make
reasonable progress for the second
implementation period.22 This is
21 Similarly, in responding to comments on the
2017 RHR Revisions EPA explained that ‘‘[a] state
should not fail to address its many relatively lowimpact sources merely because it only has such
sources and another state has even more low-impact
sources and/or some high impact sources.’’
Responses to Comments on Protection of Visibility:
Amendments to Requirements for State Plans;
Proposed Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) at 87–
88.
22 The CAA provides that, ‘‘[i]n determining
reasonable progress there shall be taken into
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
accomplished by considering the four
factors—‘‘the costs of compliance, the
time necessary for compliance, and the
energy and nonair quality
environmental impacts of compliance,
and the remaining useful life of any
existing source subject to such
requirements.’’ CAA 169A(g)(1). The
EPA has explained that the four-factor
analysis is an assessment of potential
emission reduction measures (i.e.,
control options) for sources; ‘‘use of the
terms ‘compliance’ and ‘subject to such
requirements’ in section 169A(g)(1)
strongly indicates that Congress
intended the relevant determination to
be the requirements with which sources
would have to comply in order to satisfy
the CAA’s reasonable progress
mandate.’’ 82 FR at 3091. Thus, for each
source it has selected for four-factor
analysis,23 a state must consider a
‘‘meaningful set’’ of technically feasible
control options for reducing emissions
of visibility impairing pollutants. Id. at
3088. The 2019 Guidance provides that
‘‘[a] state must reasonably pick and
justify the measures that it will
consider, recognizing that there is no
statutory or regulatory requirement to
consider all technically feasible
measures or any particular measures. A
range of technically feasible measures
available to reduce emissions would be
one way to justify a reasonable set.’’
2019 Guidance at 29.
EPA’s 2021 Clarifications Memo
provides further guidance on what
constitutes a reasonable set of control
options for consideration: ‘‘A reasonable
four-factor analysis will consider the
full range of potentially reasonable
options for reducing emissions.’’ 2021
consideration’’ the four statutory factors. CAA
169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-factor
analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or
source categories, a state may also consider
additional emission reduction measures for
inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g., from other
newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules
and measures for sources not selected for four-factor
analysis for the second planning period.
23 ‘‘Each source’’ or ‘‘particular source’’ is used
here as shorthand. While a source-specific analysis
is one way of applying the four factors, neither the
statute nor the RHR requires states to evaluate
individual sources. Rather, states have ‘‘the
flexibility to conduct four-factor analyses for
specific sources, groups of sources or even entire
source categories, depending on state policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each
state.’’ 82 FR at 3088. However, not all approaches
to grouping sources for four-factor analysis are
necessarily reasonable; the reasonableness of
grouping sources in any particular instance will
depend on the circumstances and the manner in
which grouping is conducted. If it is feasible to
establish and enforce different requirements for
sources or subgroups of sources, and if relevant
factors can be quantified for those sources or
subgroups, then states should make a separate
reasonable progress determination for each source
or subgroup. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7–8.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Clarifications Memo at 7. In addition to
add-on controls and other retrofits (i.e.,
new emission reduction measures for
sources), EPA explained that states
should generally analyze efficiency
improvements for sources’ existing
measures as control options in their
four-factor analyses, as in many cases
such improvements are reasonable given
that they typically involve only
additional operation and maintenance
costs. Additionally, the 2021
Clarifications Memo provides that states
that have assumed a higher emission
rate than a source has achieved or could
potentially achieve using its existing
measures should also consider lower
emission rates as potential control
options. That is, a state should consider
a source’s recent actual and projected
emission rates to determine if it could
reasonably attain lower emission rates
with its existing measures. If so, the
state should analyze the lower emission
rate as a control option for reducing
emissions. 2021 Clarifications Memo at
7. The EPA’s recommendations to
analyze potential efficiency
improvements and achievable lower
emission rates apply to both sources
that have been selected for four-factor
analysis and those that have forgone a
four-factor analysis on the basis of
existing ‘‘effective controls.’’ See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 5, 10.
After identifying a reasonable set of
potential control options for the sources
it has selected, a state then collects
information on the four factors with
regard to each option identified. The
EPA has also explained that, in addition
to the four statutory factors, states have
flexibility under the CAA and RHR to
reasonably consider visibility benefits as
an additional factor alongside the four
statutory factors.24 The 2019 Guidance
provides recommendations for the types
of information that can be used to
characterize the four factors (with or
without visibility), as well as ways in
which states might reasonably consider
and balance that information to
determine which of the potential control
options is necessary to make reasonable
progress. See 2019 Guidance at 30–36.
The 2021 Clarifications Memo contains
further guidance on how states can
reasonably consider modeled visibility
impacts or benefits in the context of a
four-factor analysis. 2021 Clarifications
Memo at 12–13, 14–15. Specifically,
EPA explained that while visibility can
reasonably be used when comparing
24 See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection
of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for
State Plans; Proposed Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4,
2016), Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0531,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186; 2019
Guidance at 36–37.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
and choosing between multiple
reasonable control options, it should not
be used to summarily reject controls
that are reasonable given the four
statutory factors. 2021 Clarifications
Memo at 13. Ultimately, while states
have discretion to reasonably weigh the
factors and to determine what level of
control is needed, § 51.308(f)(2)(i)
provides that a state ‘‘must include in
its implementation plan a description of
. . . how the four factors were taken
into consideration in selecting the
measure for inclusion in its long-term
strategy.’’
As explained above, § 51.308(f)(2)(i)
requires states to determine the
emission reduction measures for sources
that are necessary to make reasonable
progress by considering the four factors.
Pursuant to § 51.308(f)(2), measures that
are necessary to make reasonable
progress towards the national visibility
goal must be included in a state’s longterm strategy and in its SIP.25 If the
outcome of a four-factor analysis is a
new, additional emission reduction
measure for a source, that new measure
is necessary to make reasonable progress
towards remedying existing
anthropogenic visibility impairment and
must be included in the SIP. If the
outcome of a four-factor analysis is that
no new measures are reasonable for a
source, continued implementation of
the source’s existing measures is
generally necessary to prevent future
emission increases and thus to make
reasonable progress towards the second
part of the national visibility goal:
preventing future anthropogenic
visibility impairment. See CAA
169A(a)(1). That is, when the result of
a four-factor analysis is that no new
measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress, the source’s
existing measures are generally
necessary to make reasonable progress
and must be included in the SIP.
However, there may be circumstances in
which a state can demonstrate that a
source’s existing measures are not
necessary to make reasonable progress.
Specifically, if a state can demonstrate
that a source will continue to
implement its existing measures and
will not increase its emission rate, it
25 States may choose to, but are not required to,
include measures in their long-term strategies
beyond just the emission reduction measures that
are necessary for reasonable progress. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with
smoke management programs may choose to submit
their smoke management plans to EPA for inclusion
in their SIPs but are not required to do so. See, e.g.,
82 FR at 3108–09 (requirement to consider smoke
management practices and smoke management
programs under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not
require states to adopt such practices or programs
into their SIPs, although they may elect to do so).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
80661
may not be necessary to have those
measures in the long-term strategy in
order to prevent future emission
increases and future visibility
impairment. EPA’s 2021 Clarifications
Memo provides further explanation and
guidance on how states may
demonstrate that a source’s existing
measures are not necessary to make
reasonable progress. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 8–10. If the state
can make such a demonstration, it need
not include a source’s existing measures
in the long-term strategy or its SIP.
As with source selection, the
characterization of information on each
of the factors is also subject to the
documentation requirement in
§ 51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable
progress analysis, including source
selection, information gathering,
characterization of the four statutory
factors (and potentially visibility),
balancing of the four factors, and
selection of the emission reduction
measures that represent reasonable
progress, is a technically complex
exercise, but also a flexible one that
provides states with bounded discretion
to design and implement approaches
appropriate to their circumstances.
Given this flexibility, § 51.308(f)(2)(iii)
plays an important function in requiring
a state to document the technical basis
for its decision making so that the
public and the EPA can comprehend
and evaluate the information and
analysis the state relied upon to
determine what emission reduction
measures must be in place to make
reasonable progress. The technical
documentation must include the
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering,
and emissions information on which the
state relied to determine the measures
necessary to make reasonable progress.
This documentation requirement can be
met through the provision of and
reliance on technical analyses
developed through a regional planning
process, so long as that process and its
output has been approved by all state
participants. In addition to the explicit
regulatory requirement to document the
technical basis of their reasonable
progress determinations, states are also
subject to the general principle that
those determinations must be
reasonably moored to the statute.26 That
is, a state’s decisions about the emission
26 See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815
F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA,
812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir. 2016); North Dakota v.
EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013); Oklahoma
v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208–10 (10th Cir.
2013); cf. also Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation
v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 485, 490 (2004); Nat’l Parks
Conservation Ass’n v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165 (3d
Cir. 2015);.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80662
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress must be
consistent with the statutory goal of
remedying existing and preventing
future visibility impairment.
The four statutory factors (and
potentially visibility) are used to
determine what emission reduction
measures for selected sources must be
included in a state’s long-term strategy
for making reasonable progress.
Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR
51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five
‘‘additional factors’’ 27 that states must
consider in developing their long-term
strategies: (1) Emission reductions due
to ongoing air pollution control
programs, including measures to
address reasonably attributable visibility
impairment; (2) measures to reduce the
impacts of construction activities; (3)
source retirement and replacement
schedules; (4) basic smoke management
practices for prescribed fire used for
agricultural and wildland vegetation
management purposes and smoke
management programs; and (5) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and
mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the long-term strategy. The
2019 Guidance provides that a state may
satisfy this requirement by considering
these additional factors in the process of
selecting sources for four-factor
analysis, when performing that analysis,
or both, and that not every one of the
additional factors needs to be
considered at the same stage of the
process. See 2019 Guidance at 21. EPA
provided further guidance on the five
additional factors in the 2021
Clarifications Memo, explaining that a
state should generally not reject costeffective and otherwise reasonable
controls merely because there have been
emission reductions since the first
planning period owing to other ongoing
air pollution control programs or merely
because visibility is otherwise projected
to improve at Class I areas.
Additionally, states generally should
not rely on these additional factors to
summarily assert that the state has
already made sufficient progress and,
therefore, no sources need to be selected
or no new controls are needed
regardless of the outcome of four-factor
analyses. 2021 Clarifications Memo at
13.
Because the air pollution that causes
regional haze crosses state boundaries,
§ 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to
consult with other states that also have
27 The five ‘‘additional factors’’ for consideration
in section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four
factors listed in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must consider and apply
to sources in determining reasonable progress.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
emissions that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in a given Class I area.
Consultation allows for each state that
impacts visibility in an area to share
whatever technical information,
analyses, and control determinations
may be necessary to develop
coordinated emission management
strategies. This coordination may be
managed through inter- and intra-RPO
consultation and the development of
regional emissions strategies; additional
consultations between states outside of
RPO processes may also occur. If a state,
pursuant to consultation, agrees that
certain measures (e.g., a certain
emission limitation) are necessary to
make reasonable progress at a Class I
area, it must include those measures in
its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A).
Additionally, the RHR requires that
states that contribute to visibility
impairment at the same Class I area
consider the emission reduction
measures the other contributing states
have identified as being necessary to
make reasonable progress for their own
sources. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a
state has been asked to consider or
adopt certain emission reduction
measures, but ultimately determines
those measures are not necessary to
make reasonable progress, that state
must document in its SIP the actions
taken to resolve the disagreement. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). The EPA will
consider the technical information and
explanations presented by the
submitting state and the state with
which it disagrees when considering
whether to approve the state’s SIP. See
id.; 2019 Guidance at 53. Under all
circumstances, a state must document in
its SIP submission all substantive
consultations with other contributing
states. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
Reasonable progress goals ‘‘measure
the progress that is projected to be
achieved by the control measures states
have determined are necessary to make
reasonable progress based on a fourfactor analysis.’’ 82 FR at 3091. Their
primary purpose is to assist the public
and the EPA in assessing the
reasonableness of states’ long-term
strategies for making reasonable
progress towards the national visibility
goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii)–(iv).
States in which Class I areas are located
must establish two RPGs, both in
deciviews—one representing visibility
conditions on the clearest days and one
representing visibility on the most
anthropogenically impaired days—for
each area within their borders. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(i). The two RPGs are
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
intended to reflect the projected
impacts, on the two sets of days, of the
emission reduction measures the state
with the Class I area, as well as all other
contributing states, have included in
their long-term strategies for the second
implementation period.28 The RPGs also
account for the projected impacts of
implementing other CAA requirements,
including non-SIP based requirements.
Because RPGs are the modeled result of
the measures in states’ long-term
strategies (as well as other measures
required under the CAA), they cannot
be determined before states have
conducted their four-factor analyses and
determined the control measures that
are necessary to make reasonable
progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo
at 6.
For the second implementation
period, the RPGs are set for 2028.
Reasonable progress goals are not
enforceable targets, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they ‘‘provide a
way for the states to check the projected
outcome of the [long-term strategy]
against the goals for visibility
improvement.’’ 2019 Guidance at 46.
While states are not legally obligated to
achieve the visibility conditions
described in their RPGs, § 51.308(f)(3)(i)
requires that ‘‘[t]he long-term strategy
and the reasonable progress goals must
provide for an improvement in visibility
for the most impaired days since the
baseline period and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the clearest
days since the baseline period.’’ Thus,
states are required to have emission
reduction measures in their long-term
strategies that are projected to achieve
visibility conditions on the most
impaired days that are better than the
baseline period and show no
degradation on the clearest days
compared to the clearest days from the
baseline period. The baseline period for
the purpose of this comparison is the
baseline visibility condition—the
annual average visibility condition for
the period 2000–2004. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR at 3097–98.
So that RPGs may also serve as a
metric for assessing the amount of
progress a state is making towards the
28 RPGs are intended to reflect the projected
impacts of the measures all contributing states
include in their long-term strategies. However, due
to the timing of analyses and of control
determinations by other states, other on-going
emissions changes, a particular state’s RPGs may
not reflect all control measures and emissions
reductions that are expected to occur by the end of
the implementation period. The 2019 Guidance
provides recommendations for addressing the
timing of RPG calculations when states are
developing their long-term strategies on disparate
schedules, as well as for adjusting RPGs using a
post-modeling approach. 2019 Guidance at 47–48.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
national visibility goal, the RHR
requires states with Class I areas to
compare the 2028 RPG for the most
impaired days to the corresponding
point on the URP line (representing
visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility
were to improve at a linear rate from
conditions in the baseline period of
2000–2004 to natural visibility
conditions in 2064). If the most
impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the
URP (i.e., if visibility conditions are
improving more slowly than the rate
described by the URP), each state that
contributes to visibility impairment in
the Class I area must demonstrate, based
on the four-factor analysis required
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no
additional emission reduction measures
would be reasonable to include in its
long-term strategy. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii) requires that each state
contributing to visibility impairment in
a Class I area that is projected to
improve more slowly than the URP
provide ‘‘a robust demonstration,
including documenting the criteria used
to determine which sources or groups
[of] sources were evaluated and how the
four factors required by paragraph
(f)(2)(i) were taken into consideration in
selecting the measures for inclusion in
its long-term strategy.’’ The 2019
Guidance provides suggestions about
how such a ‘‘robust demonstration’’
might be conducted. See 2019 Guidance
at 50–51.
The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and
2021 Clarifications Memo also explain
that projecting an RPG that is on or
below the URP based on only on-thebooks and/or on-the-way control
measures (i.e., control measures already
required or anticipated before the fourfactor analysis is conducted) is not a
‘‘safe harbor’’ from the CAA’s and RHR’s
requirement that all states must conduct
a four-factor analysis to determine what
emission reduction measures constitute
reasonable progress. The URP is a
planning metric used to gauge the
amount of progress made thus far and
the amount left before reaching natural
visibility conditions. However, the URP
is not based on consideration of the four
statutory factors and therefore cannot
answer the question of whether the
amount of progress being made in any
particular implementation period is
‘‘reasonable progress.’’ See 82 FR at
3093, 3099–3100; 2019 Guidance at 22;
2021 Clarifications Memo at 15–16.
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State
Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to
have certain strategies and elements in
place for assessing and reporting on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
visibility. Individual requirements
under this subsection apply either to
states with Class I areas within their
borders, states with no Class I areas but
that are reasonably anticipated to cause
or contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I area, or both. A state with
Class I areas within its borders must
submit with its SIP revision a
monitoring strategy for measuring,
characterizing, and reporting regional
haze visibility impairment that is
representative of all Class I areas within
the state. SIP revisions for such states
must also provide for the establishment
of any additional monitoring sites or
equipment needed to assess visibility
conditions in Class I areas, as well as
reporting of all visibility monitoring
data to the EPA at least annually.
Compliance with the monitoring
strategy requirement may be met
through a state’s participation in the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, which is used to
measure visibility impairment caused
by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i), (f)(6)(iv). The
IMPROVE monitoring data is used to
determine the 20% most
anthropogenically impaired and 20%
clearest sets of days every year at each
Class I area and tracks visibility
impairment over time.
All states’ SIPs must provide for
procedures by which monitoring data
and other information are used to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment in affected Class I
areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii).
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires
that all states’ SIPs provide for a
statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area;
the inventory must include emissions
for the most recent year for which data
are available and estimates of future
projected emissions. States must also
include commitments to update their
inventories periodically. The
inventories themselves do not need to
be included as elements in the SIP and
are not subject to EPA review as part of
the Agency’s evaluation of a SIP
revision.29 All states’ SIPs must also
provide for any other elements,
including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures, that are necessary for
states to assess and report on visibility.
40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). Per the 2019
29 See ‘‘Step 8: Additional requirements for
regional haze SIPs’’ in 2019 Regional Haze
Guidance at 55.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
80663
Guidance, a state may note in its
regional haze SIP that its compliance
with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule
(AERR) in 40 CFR part 51 subpart A
satisfies the requirement to provide for
an emissions inventory for the most
recent year for which data are available.
To satisfy the requirement to provide
estimates of future projected emissions,
a state may explain in its SIP how
projected emissions were developed for
use in establishing RPGs for its own and
nearby Class I areas.30
Separate from the requirements
related to monitoring for regional haze
purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the
RHR also contains a requirement at
§ 51.308(f)(4) related to any additional
monitoring that may be needed to
address visibility impairment in Class I
areas from a single source or a small
group of sources. This is called
‘‘reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.’’ 31 Under this provision, if
the EPA or the FLM of an affected Class
I area has advised a state that additional
monitoring is needed to assess
reasonably attributable visibility
impairment, the state must include in
its SIP revision for the second
implementation period an appropriate
strategy for evaluating such impairment.
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports
Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state’s
regional haze SIP revision to address the
requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1) through (5) so that the plan
revision due in 2021 will serve also as
a progress report addressing the period
since submission of the progress report
for the first implementation period. The
regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the
public and the EPA about a state’s
implementation of its existing long-term
strategy and whether such
implementation is in fact resulting in
the expected visibility improvement.
See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016),
(82 FR at 3119, January 10, 2017). To
this end, every state’s SIP revision for
the second implementation period is
required to describe the status of
implementation of all measures
included in the state’s long-term
strategy, including BART and
reasonable progress emission reduction
measures from the first implementation
period, and the resulting emissions
reductions. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
30 Id.
31 EPA’s visibility protection regulations define
‘‘reasonably attributable visibility impairment’’ as
‘‘visibility impairment that is caused by the
emission of air pollutants from one, or a small
number of sources.’’ 40 CFR 51.301.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
80664
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
A core component of the progress
report requirements is an assessment of
changes in visibility conditions on the
clearest and most impaired days. For
second implementation period progress
reports, § 51.308(g)(3) requires states
with Class I areas within their borders
to first determine current visibility
conditions for each area on the most
impaired and clearest days, 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3)(i)(B), and then to calculate
the difference between those current
conditions and baseline (2000–2004)
visibility conditions in order to assess
progress made to date. See 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3)(ii)(B). States must also
assess the changes in visibility
impairment for the most impaired and
clearest days since they submitted their
first implementation period progress
reports. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(iii)(B),
(f)(5). Since different states submitted
their first implementation period
progress reports at different times, the
starting point for this assessment will
vary state by state.
Similarly, states must provide
analyses tracking the change in
emissions of pollutants contributing to
visibility impairment from all sources
and activities within the state over the
period since they submitted their first
implementation period progress reports.
See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), (f)(5). Changes
in emissions should be identified by the
type of source or activity. Section
51.308(g)(5) also addresses changes in
emissions since the period addressed by
the previous progress report and
requires states’ SIP revisions to include
an assessment of any significant changes
in anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the state. This assessment must
include an explanation of whether these
changes in emissions were anticipated
and whether they have limited or
impeded progress in reducing emissions
and improving visibility relative to what
the state projected based on its longterm strategy for the first
implementation period.
G. Requirements for State and Federal
Land Manager Coordination
Clean Air Act section 169A(d)
requires that before a state holds a
public hearing on a proposed regional
haze SIP revision, it must consult with
the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant
to that consultation, the state must
include a summary of the FLMs’
conclusions and recommendations in
the notice to the public. Consistent with
this statutory requirement, the RHR also
requires that states ‘‘provide the [FLM]
with an opportunity for consultation, in
person and at a point early enough in
the State’s policy analyses of its longterm strategy emission reduction
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
obligation so that information and
recommendations provided by the
[FLM] can meaningfully inform the
State’s decisions on the long-term
strategy.’’ 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2).
Consultation that occurs 120 days prior
to any public hearing or public
comment opportunity will be deemed
‘‘early enough,’’ but the RHR provides
that in any event the opportunity for
consultation must be provided at least
60 days before a public hearing or
comment opportunity. This consultation
must include the opportunity for the
FLMs to discuss their assessment of
visibility impairment in any Class I area
and their recommendations on the
development and implementation of
strategies to address such impairment.
40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In order for the EPA
to evaluate whether FLM consultation
meeting the requirements of the RHR
has occurred, the SIP submission should
include documentation of the timing
and content of such consultation. The
SIP revision submitted to the EPA must
also describe how the state addressed
any comments provided by the FLMs.
40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP
revision must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the
state and FLMs regarding the state’s
visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP
revisions, five-year progress reports, and
the implementation of other programs
having the potential to contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
40 CFR 51.308(i)(4).
IV. The EPA’s Evaluation of New
Hampshire’s Regional Haze Submission
for the Second Implementation Period
A. Background on New Hampshire’s
First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
NHDES submitted its regional haze
SIP for the first implementation period
to the EPA on January 9, 2010, and
supplemented it on January 14, 2011,
and August 14, 2011. The EPA approved
New Hampshire’s first implementation
period regional haze SIP submission on
August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50602).
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g), New
Hampshire was also responsible for
submitting a five-year progress report as
a SIP revision for the first
implementation period, which it did on
December 16, 2014. The EPA approved
the progress report into the New
Hampshire SIP on October 12, 2016 (81
FR 70360).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. New Hampshire’s Second
Implementation Period SIP Submission
and the EPA’s Evaluation
In accordance with CAA sections
169A and the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f),
on May 5, 2022, NHDES submitted a
revision to the New Hampshire SIP to
address its regional haze obligations for
the second implementation period,
which runs through 2028. The New
Hampshire submission also included
the revised New Hampshire’s Code of
Administrative Rules Env-A 2300,
‘‘Mitigation of Regional Haze,’’ which
contains updated emissions limits for
certain facilities located in the State.
New Hampshire made a draft Regional
Haze SIP submission available for
public comment on November 4, 2019,
with a second notice made available for
public comment on December 10, 2021.
A public hearing was also held on
February 23, 2022. NHDES has included
the public comments and its responses
to those comments in the submission.
The following sections describe New
Hampshire’s SIP submission, including
analyses conducted by MANE–VU and
New Hampshire’s determinations based
on those analyses, New Hampshire’s
assessment of progress made since the
first implementation period in reducing
emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants, and the visibility
improvement progress at its Class I areas
and nearby Class I areas. This notice
also contains EPA’s evaluation of New
Hampshire’s submission against the
requirements of the CAA and RHR for
the second implementation period of
the regional haze program.
C. Identification of Class I Areas
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA
requires each state in which any Class
I area is located or ‘‘the emissions from
which may reasonably be anticipated to
cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility’’ in a Class I area to have a
plan for making reasonable progress
toward the national visibility goal. The
RHR implements this statutory
requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which
provides that each state’s plan ‘‘must
address regional haze in each
mandatory Class I Federal area located
within the State and in each mandatory
Class I Federal area located outside the
State that may be affected by emissions
from within the State,’’ and (f)(2), which
requires each state’s plan to include a
long-term strategy that addresses
regional haze in such Class I areas.
The EPA explained in the 1999 RHR
preamble that the CAA section
169A(b)(2) requirement that states
submit SIPs to address visibility
impairment establishes ‘‘an ‘extremely
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
low triggering threshold’ in determining
which States should submit SIPs for
regional haze.’’ 64 FR at 35721. In
concluding that each of the contiguous
48 states and the District of Columbia
meet this threshold,32 the EPA relied on
‘‘a large body of evidence
demonstrat[ing] that long-range
transport of fine PM contributes to
regional haze,’’ id., including modeling
studies that ‘‘preliminarily
demonstrated that each State not having
a Class I area had emissions
contributing to impairment in at least
one downwind Class I area.’’ Id. at
35722. In addition to the technical
evidence supporting a conclusion that
each state contributes to existing
visibility impairment, the EPA also
explained that the second half of the
national visibility goal—preventing
future visibility impairment—requires
having a framework in place to address
future growth in visibility-impairing
emissions and makes it inappropriate to
‘‘establish criteria for excluding States
or geographic areas from consideration
as potential contributors to regional
haze visibility impairment.’’ Id. at
35721. Thus, the EPA concluded that
the agency’s ‘‘statutory authority and
the scientific evidence are sufficient to
require all States to develop regional
haze SIPs to ensure the prevention of
any future impairment of visibility, and
to conduct further analyses to determine
whether additional control measures are
needed to ensure reasonable progress in
remedying existing impairment in
downwind Class I areas.’’ Id. at 35722.
EPA’s 2017 revisions to the RHR did not
disturb this conclusion. See 82 FR at
3094.
New Hampshire has two mandatory
Class I Federal areas within its borders,
the Great Gulf Wilderness Area and the
Presidential Range-Dry River
Wilderness Area. Visibility monitoring
in these areas is accomplished with
instruments located at a single site at
Camp Dodge. This monitoring station
represents both Class 1 wilderness
areas, and for this reason, both of New
Hampshire’s Federal Class I areas are
often referred to collectively as simply
the Great Gulf Wilderness. For the
second implementation period, MANE–
VU performed technical analyses 33 to
32 EPA
determined that ‘‘there is more than
sufficient evidence to support our conclusion that
emissions from each of the 48 contiguous states and
the District of Columba may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in a Class I area.’’ 64 FR at 35721.
Hawaii, Alaska, and the U.S. Virgin Islands must
also submit regional haze SIPs because they contain
Class I areas.
33 The contribution assessment methodologies for
MANE–VU Class I areas are summarized in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
help assess source and state-level
contributions to visibility impairment
and the need for interstate consultation.
MANE–VU used the results of these
analyses to determine which states’
emissions ‘‘have a high likelihood of
affecting visibility in MANE–VU’s Class
I areas.’’ 34 Similar to metrics used in the
first implementation period,35 MANE–
VU used a greater than 2 percent of
sulfate plus nitrate emissions
contribution criteria to determine
whether emissions from individual
jurisdictions within the region affected
visibility in any Class I areas. The
MANE–VU analyses for the second
implementation period used a
combination of data analysis
techniques, including emissions data,
distance from Class I areas, wind
trajectories, and CALPUFF dispersion
modeling. Although many of the
analyses focused only on SO2 emissions
and resultant particulate sulfate
contributions to visibility impairment,
some also incorporated NOX emissions
to estimate particulate nitrate
contributions.
One MANE–VU analysis used for
contribution assessment was CALPUFF
air dispersion modeling. The CALPUFF
model was used to estimate sulfate and
nitrate formation and transport in
MANE–VU and nearby regions
originating from large electric generating
unit (EGU) point sources and other large
industrial and institutional sources in
the eastern and central United States.
Information from an initial round of
CALPUFF modeling was collated for the
444 EGUs that were determined to
warrant further scrutiny based on their
emissions of SO2 and NOX. The list of
EGUs was based on an enhanced ‘‘Q/d’’
analysis 36 that considered recent SO2
emissions in the eastern United States
and an analysis that adjusted previous
2002 MANE–VU CALPUFF modeling by
applying a ratio of 2011 to 2002 SO2
emissions. This list of sources was then
enhanced by including the top five SO2
and NOx emission sources for 2011 for
each state included in the modeling
domain. A total of 311 EGU stacks (as
opposed to individual units) were
included in the CALPUFF modeling
analysis. Initial information was also
collected on the 50 industrial and
appendix E of the docket. ‘‘Selection of States for
MANE–VU Regional Haze Consultation (2018).’’
34 Id.
35 See docket EPA–R01–OAR–2023–0187 for
MANE–VU supporting materials.
36 ‘‘Q/d’’ is emissions (Q) in tons per year,
typically of one or a combination of visibilityimpairing pollutants, divided by distance to a class
I area (d) in kilometers. The resulting ratio is
commonly used as a metric to assess a source’s
potential visibility impacts on a particular class I
area.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
80665
institutional sources that, according to
2011 Q/d analysis, contributed the most
to visibility impact in each Class I area.
The ultimate CALPUFF modeling run
included a total of 311 EGU stacks and
82 industrial facilities. The summary
report for the CALPUFF modeling
included the top 10 most impacting
EGUs and the top 5 most impacting
industrial/institutional sources for each
Class I area and compiled those results
into a ranked list of the most impacting
EGUs and industrial sources at MANE–
VU Class I areas.37
The CALPUFF modeling results
identified GSP Merrimack (units 1 and
2) and Newington as New Hampshire’s
EGU emissions sources impacting Great
Gulf above a 1 Mm¥1 light extinction
impact threshold. NHDES also
performed CALPUFF screening on
several other New Hampshire emission
sources. The selection of emission units
for modeling was based on the MANE–
VU EGU and peaking unit criteria, the
MANE–VU industrial, commercial, and
institutional (ICI) facility criteria, and
requests from EPA and the National
Park Service through consultation. The
New Hampshire sources which had
maximum estimated visibility
extinction above 1 Mm¥1 at federal
Class I areas were included in the list of
New Hampshire sources for further
analysis.38
The second MANE–VU contribution
analysis used a meteorologically
weighted Q/d calculation to assess
states’ contributions to visibility
impairment at MANE–VU Class I
areas.39 This analysis focused
predominantly on SO2 emissions and
used cumulative SO2 emissions from a
source and a state for the variable ‘‘Q,’’
and the distance of the source or state
to the IMPROVE monitor receptor at a
Class I area as ‘‘d.’’ The result is then
multiplied by a constant (Ci), which is
determined based on the prevailing
wind patterns. MANE–VU selected a
meteorologically weighted Q/d analysis
as an inexpensive initial screening tool
that could easily be repeated to
determine which states, sectors, or
sources have a larger relative impact
and warrant further analysis. Although
MANE–VU did not originally estimate
nitrate impacts, the MANE–VU Q/d
analysis was subsequently extended to
37 See appendix C in the Docket, ‘‘2016 MANE–
VU Source Contribution Modeling Report,
CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical Generating
Units and Industrial Sources’’ and appendix D
‘‘MANE–VU TSC’’, (April 2016) and ‘‘MANE–VU
Updated Q/d*C Contribution Assessment.’’
38 See table 2–6 ‘‘New Hampshire Visibility
Impairing EGU and ICI Point Sources’’ in the NH
Regional Haze SIP—Final May 2022.
39 See appendix D, ‘‘Contribution Assessment
2006—Final.’’
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80666
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
account for nitrate contributions from
NOX emissions and to approximate the
nitrate impacts from area and mobile
sources. MANE–VU therefore developed
a ratio of nitrate to sulfate impacts based
on the previously described CALPUFF
modeling and applied those to the
sulfate Q/d results in order to derive
nitrate contribution estimates. Several
states did not have CALPUFF nitrate to
sulfate ratio results, however, because
there were no point sources modeled
with CALPUFF.
In order to develop a final set of
contribution estimates, MANE–VU
weighted the results from both the Q/d
and CALPUFF analyses. The MANE–VU
mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate
contribution results were reported for
the MANE–VU Class I areas. (The Q/d
summary report included results for
several non-MANE–VU areas as well). If
a state’s contribution to sulfate and
nitrate concentrations at a particular
Class I area was 2 percent or greater,
MANE–VU regarded that state as
contributing to visibility impairment in
that area. According to MANE–VU’s
analyses, sources in New Hampshire
have been found to contribute to
visibility impairment at its own Class I
areas, Acadia National Park and
Moosehorn Wilderness Area in Maine,
and, by extension, RooseveltCampobello International Park in New
Brunswick.
As explained above, the EPA
concluded in the 1999 RHR that ‘‘all
[s]tates contain sources whose
emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to regional haze in a Class I
area,’’ 64 FR at 35721, and this
determination was not changed in the
2017 RHR. Critically, the statute and
regulation both require that the causeor-contribute assessment consider all
emissions of visibility-impairing
pollutants from a state, as opposed to
emissions of a particular pollutant or
emissions from a certain set of sources.
Consistent with these requirements, the
2019 Guidance makes it clear that ‘‘all
types of anthropogenic sources are to be
included in the determination’’ of
whether a state’s emissions are
reasonably anticipated to result in any
visibility impairment. 2019 Guidance at
8.
First, as an aside, the screening
analyses on which MANE–VU relied are
useful for certain purposes. MANE–VU
used information from its technical
analysis to rank the largest contributing
states to sulfate and nitrate impairment
in seven Class I areas in the MANE–VU
region and three additional, nearby
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
Class I areas.40 The rankings were used
to determine upwind states that were
deemed important to include in state-tostate consultation (based on an
identified impact screening threshold).
Additionally, large individual source
impacts were used to target MANE–VU
control analysis ‘‘Asks’’ 41 of states and
sources both within and upwind of
MANE–VU.42 The EPA finds the nature
of the analyses generally appropriate to
support decisions on states with which
to consult. However, we have cautioned
that source selection methodologies that
target the largest regional contributors to
visibility impairment across multiple
states may not be reasonable for a
particular state if it results in few or no
sources being selected for subsequent
analysis. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 3.
With regard to the analysis and
determinations regarding New
Hampshire’s contribution to visibility
impairment at out-of-state Class I areas,
the MANE–VU technical work focuses
on the magnitude of visibility impacts
from certain New Hampshire emissions
on its Class I area and other nearby
Class I areas. However, the analyses did
not account for all emissions and all
components of visibility impairment
(e.g., primary PM emissions, and
impairment from fine PM, elemental
carbon, and organic carbon). In
addition, Q/d analyses with a relatively
simplistic accounting for wind
trajectories and CALPUFF applied to a
very limited set of EGUs and major
industrial sources of SO2 and NOx are
not scientifically rigorous tools capable
of evaluating contribution to visibility
impairment from all emissions in a
state. The EPA does agree that the
contribution to visibility impairment
from New Hampshire’s emissions at
nearby out-of-state Class I areas is
smaller than that from numerous other
MANE–VU states.43 And while some
40 The Class I areas analyzed were Acadia
National Park in Maine, Brigantine Wilderness in
New Jersey, Great Gulf Wilderness and Presidential
Range—Dry River Wilderness in New Hampshire,
Lye Brook Wilderness in Vermont, Moosehorn
Wilderness in Maine, Roosevelt-Campobello
International Park in New Brunswick, Shenandoah
National Park in Virginia, James River Face
Wilderness in Virginia, and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek
Wildernesses in West Virginia.
41 As explained more fully in section IV.E.a,
MANE–VU refers to each of the components of its
overall strategy as an ‘‘Ask ‘‘of its member states.
42 The MANE–VU consultation report (Appendix
G) explains that ‘‘[t]he objective of this technical
work was to identify states and sources from which
MANE–VU will pursue further analysis. This
screening was intended to identify which states to
invite to consultation, not a definitive list of which
states are contributing.’’
43 Because MANE–VU did not include all New
Hampshire’s emissions or contributions to visibility
impairment in its analysis, we cannot definitively
state that New Hampshire’s contribution to
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
MANE–VU states noted that the
contributions from several states outside
the MANE–VU region are significantly
larger than its own, we again clarify that
each state is obligated under the CAA
and RHR to address regional haze
visibility impairment resulting from
emissions from within the state,
irrespective of whether another state’s
contribution is greater. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 3. Additionally,
we note that the 2 percent or greater
sulfate-plus-nitrate threshold used to
determine whether New Hampshire
emissions contribute to visibility
impairment at a particular Class I area
may be higher than what EPA believes
is an ‘‘extremely low triggering
threshold’’ intended by the statute and
regulations. In sum, based on the
information provided, it is clear that
emissions from New Hampshire
contribute to visibility impairment in
the Class I areas in Maine, New
Brunswick, and New Hampshire and
have relatively small contributions to
the other nearby Class I areas. EPA
generally agrees with this conclusion.
However, due to the low triggering
threshold implied by the Rule and the
lack of rigorous modeling analyses, we
do not necessarily agree with the level
of the State’s 2% contribution threshold
as a general matter.
Regardless, we note that New
Hampshire did determine that sources
and emissions within the state
contribute to visibility impairment at
both in-state wildernesses and three outof-state Class I areas. Furthermore, the
state took part in the emission control
strategy consultation process as a
member of MANE–VU. As part of that
process, MANE–VU developed a set of
emissions reduction measures identified
as being necessary to make reasonable
progress in the seven MANE–VU Class
I areas. This strategy consists of six Asks
for states within MANE–VU and five
Asks for states outside the region that
were found to impact visibility at Class
I areas within MANE–VU.44 New
Hampshire’s submission discusses each
of the Asks and explains why or why
not each is applicable and how it has
complied with the relevant components
of the emissions control strategy
MANE–VU has laid out for its states.
New Hampshire worked with MANE–
VU to determine potential reasonable
measures that could be implemented by
2028, considering the cost of
compliance, the time necessary for
visibility impairment is not the most significant.
However, that is very likely the case.
44 See appendix G ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report and Consultation
Documentation—Final.’’
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
compliance, the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts, and the
remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources. As discussed in further
detail below, the EPA is proposing to
find that New Hampshire has submitted
a regional haze plan that meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)
related to the development of a longterm strategy. Thus, although we have
concerns regarding some aspects of
MANE–VU’s technical analyses
supporting states’ contribution
determinations as a general matter, we
propose to find that New Hampshire has
nevertheless satisfied the applicable
requirements for making reasonable
progress towards natural visibility
conditions in Class I areas that may be
affected be emissions from the state.
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current,
and Natural Visibility Conditions;
Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate
of Progress
Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to
determine the following for ‘‘each
mandatory Class I Federal area located
within the State’’: baseline visibility
conditions for the most impaired and
clearest days, natural visibility
conditions for the most impaired and
clearest days, progress to date for the
most impaired and clearest days, the
differences between current visibility
conditions and natural visibility
conditions, and the URP. This section
also provides the option for states to
propose adjustments to the URP line for
a Class I area to account for visibility
impacts from anthropogenic sources
outside the United States and/or the
impacts from wildland prescribed fires
that were conducted for certain,
specified objectives. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
The Great Gulf and Presidential
Range—Dry River Wilderness areas have
2000–2004 baseline visibility conditions
of 7.65 deciviews on the 20% clearest
days and 21.88 deciviews on the 20%
most impaired days.45 New Hampshire
calculated an estimated natural
background visibility of 3.73 deciviews
on the 20% clearest days and 9.78
deciviews on the 20% most impaired
days for the Great Gulf and Presidential
Range—Dry River Wilderness areas.46
The current visibility conditions, which
are based on 2015–2019 monitoring
45 See ‘‘Table 4–1: Baseline Visibility for the 20%
Clearest and 20% Worst Days for the Baseline
Period in New Hampshire Class I Areas’’ in the NH
Regional Haze SIP submission—Final (May 2022).
46 See ‘‘Table 4–3: Comparison of Natural,
Baseline, and Current Visibility for the 20%
Clearest and 20% Most Impaired Days in New
Hampshire Class I Areas’’ in the NH Regional Haze
SIP submission—Final (May 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
data, were 4.69 deciviews on the
clearest days and 12.33 deciviews on
the most impaired days,47 which
represents an improvement from the
baseline period of 2.96 deciviews on the
20% clearest days and 9.55 deciviews
on the 20% most impaired days.48 In
addition, current visibility conditions
are 0.96 and 2.55 deciviews greater than
natural conditions on the respective sets
of days.49 New Hampshire calculated an
annual URP of 0.202 deciviews needed
to reach natural visibility on the 20%
most impaired days.50 New Hampshire
noted that, at 12.33 deciviews, current
visibility conditions on the most
impaired days in the Great Gulf/
Presidential-Dry River Wilderness Area
are already below the URP glidepath for
both 2018—the end of the first SIP
planning period—and 2028—the end of
the second SIP planning period.51 New
Hampshire has not proposed any
adjustments to the URP to account for
impacts from anthropogenic sources
outside the United States or from
wildland prescribed fires. EPA is
proposing to find that New Hampshire
has submitted a regional haze plan that
meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1) related to the calculations of
baseline, current, and natural visibility
conditions; progress to date; and the
uniform rate of progress for the second
implementation period.
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
a. New Hampshire’s Response to the Six
MANE–VU Asks
Each state having a Class I area within
its borders or emissions that may affect
visibility in a Class I area must develop
a long-term strategy for making
reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal. CAA section
169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in the
Background section of this notice,
reasonable progress is achieved when
all states contributing to visibility
impairment in a Class I area are
implementing the measures
determined—through application of the
four statutory factors to sources of
visibility impairing pollutants—to be
necessary to make reasonable progress.
47 See ‘‘Table 4–2: Current Visibility for the 20%
Clearest and 20% Most Impaired Days during 2015–
2019 in New Hampshire Class I Areas’’ in the NH
Regional Haze SIP submission—Final (May 2022).
48 NH Regional Haze SIP submission—Final, at 39
(May 2022).
49 See ‘‘Table 4–4: Current Visibility (2015–2019)
vs. Natural Visibility Conditions (dv)’’ in the NH
Regional Haze SIP submission—Final (May 2022).
50 See ‘‘Table 4–6: Baseline, Current and
Reasonable Progress Goal Haze Index Levels for
New Hampshire’s Class I Areas’’ in the NH Regional
Haze SIP submission—Final (May 2022).
51 NH Regional Haze SIP submission—Final, at
40–41 (May 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
80667
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each state’s longterm strategy must include the
enforceable emission limitations,
compliance schedules, and other
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2). All new (i.e., additional)
measures that are the outcome of fourfactor analyses are necessary to make
reasonable progress and must be in the
long-term strategy. If the outcome of a
four-factor analysis and other measures
necessary to make reasonable progress is
that no new measures are reasonable for
a source, that source’s existing measures
are necessary to make reasonable
progress, unless the state can
demonstrate that the source will
continue to implement those measures
and will not increase its emission rate.
Existing measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress must also be
in the long-term strategy. In developing
its long-term strategies, a state must also
consider the five additional factors in
§ 51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its
reasonable progress determinations, the
state must describe the criteria used to
determine which sources or group of
sources were evaluated (i.e., subjected
to four-factor analysis) for the second
implementation period and how the
four factors were taken into
consideration in selecting the emission
reduction measures for inclusion in the
long-term strategy. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i).
In this section of the NPRM, EPA
summarizes how New Hampshire
addresses the requirements of
§ 51.308(f)(2)(i), including a discussion
of the six Asks developed by MANE–VU
and how New Hampshire addressed
each. In section IV.E.b of the NPRM,
EPA evaluates New Hampshire’s
compliance with the requirements of
§ 51.308(f)(2)(i).
States may rely on technical
information developed by the RPOs of
which they are members to select
sources for four-factor analysis and to
conduct that analysis, as well as to
satisfy the documentation requirements
under § 51.308(f). Where an RPO has
performed source selection and/or fourfactor analyses (or considered the five
additional factors in § 51.308(f)(2)(iv))
for its member states, those states may
rely on the RPO’s analyses for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements
of § 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the states
have a reasonable basis to do so and all
state participants in the RPO process
have approved the technical analyses.
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). States may also
satisfy the requirement of
§ 51.308(f)(2)(ii) to engage in interstate
consultation with other states that have
emissions that are reasonably
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80668
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in a given Class I area under
the auspices of intra- and inter-RPO
engagement.
New Hampshire is a member of the
MANE–VU RPO and participated in the
RPO’s regional approach to developing
a strategy for making reasonable
progress towards the national visibility
goal in the MANE–VU Class I areas.
MANE–VU’s strategy includes a
combination of: (1) Measures for certain
source sectors and groups of sectors that
the RPO determined were reasonable for
states to pursue, and (2) a request for
member states to conduct four-factor
analyses for individual sources that it
identified as contributing to visibility
impairment. MANE–VU refers to each of
the components of its overall strategy as
an Ask of its member states. On August
25, 2017, the Executive Director of
MANE–VU, on behalf of the MANE–VU
states and tribal nations, signed a
statement that identifies six emission
reduction measures that comprise the
Asks for the second implementation
period.52 The Asks were ‘‘designed to
identify reasonable emission reduction
strategies that must be addressed by the
states and tribal nations of MANE–VU
through their regional haze SIP
updates.’’ 53 The statement explains that
‘‘[i]f any State cannot agree with or
complete a Class I State’s Asks, the State
must describe the actions taken to
resolve the disagreement in the Regional
Haze SIP.’’ 54
MANE–VU’s recommendations as to
the appropriate control measures were
based on technical analyses
documented in the RPO’s reports and
included as appendices to or referenced
in New Hampshire’s regional haze SIP
submission. One of the initial steps of
MANE–VU’s technical analysis was to
determine which visibility-impairing
pollutants should be the focus of its
efforts for the second implementation
period. In the first implementation
period, MANE–VU determined that
sulfates were the most significant
visibility impairing pollutant at the
region’s Class I areas. To determine the
impact of certain pollutants on visibility
at Class I areas for the purpose of second
implementation period planning,
MANE–VU conducted an analysis
comparing the pollutant contribution on
the clearest and most impaired days in
the baseline period (2000–2004) to the
most recent period (2012–2016) 55 at
MANE–VU and nearby Class I areas.
MANE–VU found that while SO2
emissions were decreasing and visibility
was improving, sulfates still made up
the most significant contribution to
visibility impairment at MANE–VU and
nearby Class I areas. According to the
analysis, NOX emissions have begun to
play a more significant role in visibility
impacts in recent years as SO2
emissions have decreased. The technical
analyses used by New Hampshire are
included in their submission and are as
follows:
• 2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze
in MANE–VU Class I Areas (Appendix
L NH);
• Impact of Wintertime SCR/SNCR
Optimization on Visibility Impairing
Nitrate Precursor Emissions. November
2017. (Appendix Q NH);
• High Electric Demand Days and
Visibility Impairment in MANE–VU.
December 2017. (Appendix R NH);
• Benefits of Combined Heat and
Power Systems for Reducing Pollutant
Emissions in MANE–VU States. March
2016. (Appendix S NH);
• 2016 MANE–VU Source
Contribution Modeling Report—
CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical
Generating Units and Industrial Sources
April 4, 2017 (Appendix C NH);
• Contribution Assessment
Preliminary Inventory Analysis. October
10, 2016. (Appendix D NH);
• Four-Factor Data Collection Memo.
March 2017. (Appendix K NH);
• Status of the Top 167 Stacks from
the 2008 MANE–VU Ask. July 2016.
(Appendix M NH).
To support development of the Asks,
MANE–VU gathered information on
each of the four statutory factors for six
source sectors it determined, based on
an examination of annual emission
inventories, ‘‘had emissions [of SO2
and/or NOX] that were reasonabl[y]
anticipated to contribute to visibility
degradation in MANE–VU:’’ electric
generating units (EGUs), industrial/
commercial/institutional boilers (ICI
boilers), cement kilns, heating oil,
residential wood combustion, and
outdoor wood combustion.56 MANE–
VU also collected data on individual
sources within the EGU, ICI boiler, and
cement kiln sectors.57 Information for
the six sectors included explanations of
technically feasible control options for
SO2 or NOX, illustrative cost-
effectiveness estimates for a range of
model units and control options, sectorwide cost considerations, potential time
frames for compliance with control
options, potential energy and non-airquality environmental impacts of
certain control options, and how the
remaining useful lives of sources might
be considered in a control analysis.58
Source-specific data included SO2
emissions 59 and existing controls 60 for
certain existing EGUs, ICI boilers, and
cement kilns. MANE–VU considered
this information on the four factors as
well as the analyses developed by the
RPO’s Technical Support Committee
when it determined specific emission
reduction measures that were found to
be reasonable for certain sources within
two of the sectors it had examined—
EGUs and ICI boilers. The Asks were
based on this analysis and looked to
optimize the use of existing controls,
have states conduct further analysis on
EGU or ICI boilers with considerable
visibility impacts, implement low sulfur
fuel standards, or lock-in lower
emission rates.
MANE–VU Ask 1 is ‘‘ensuring the
most effective use of control
technologies on a year-round basis’’ at
EGUs with a nameplate capacity larger
than or equal to 25 megawatts (MW)
with already installed NOX and/or SO2
controls.61 Twelve EGUs at seven
stationary sources in New Hampshire
were identified as meeting the criteria of
Ask 1. These sources include Burgess
BioPower (EU01), Essential Power
Newington (EU01 and EU02), Granite
Ridge Energy (EU01 and EU02), Stored
Solar Tamworth (EU01), GSP Merrimack
Station (MK1 and MK2), GSP Schiller
Station (SR4, SR5, and SR6), and GSP
Newington Station (NT1). Additionally,
the National Park Service identified
Wheelabrator Concord as a facility of
interest. NHDES determined that no
further limitations as a result of MANE–
VU Ask 1 were required of these
sources.
New Hampshire explained that
Burgess BioPower’s operation was
subject to Nonattainment New Source
Review (NNSR) for NOX at the time of
the facility’s initial permitting; hence,
the NOX limit represents the Lowest
Available Emission Rate (LAER). This
limit is incorporated into Title V
Operating Permit TV–0065, issued on
December 24, 2020, which limits NOX
58 Id.
52 See
appendix G ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report and Consultation
Documentation—Final.’’
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 The period of 2012–2016 was the most recent
period for which data were available at the time of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
analysis. NH also included 2015–2019 data,
discussed above in part D of this section.
56 See appendix K ‘‘MANE–VU Four Factor Data
Collection Memo at 1, March 30, 2017.’’
57 See appendix L ‘‘2016 Updates to the
Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional
Haze in MANE–VU Class I Areas, Jan. 31, 2016.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59 See appendix K ‘‘Four Factor Data Collection
Memo.’’
60 See appendix M ‘‘Status of the Top 167 Stacks
from the 2008 MANE–VU Ask. July 2016.’’
61 See appendix G ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report and Consultation
Documentation—Final.’’
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
emissions from the biomass boiler to
0.060 lbs/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling
average, based on the use of Selective
Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology
and SO2 emissions to 0.012 lbs/MMBtu.
Essential Power Newington was
subject to NNSR for NOX at the time of
initial permitting in July 2010; these
NOX limits were established as LAERbased limits. The Newington units use
dry low NOX (DLN) combustion
combined with SCR (as well as water
injection during limited firing on ultralow sulfur fuel oil). The facility is
required by permit to use inherently low
sulfur fuels (natural gas and ultra-low
sulfur fuel oil). The units at this facility
were subject to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) review for SO2 at
the time of their initial permitting; these
SO2 limits (0.0071 lbs/MMBtu for
natural gas, and 0.0015 lbs/MMBtu for
No. 2 fuel oil) were established as Best
Available Control Technology (BACT)
limits. These limits are incorporated
into Title V Operating Permit TV–0058,
which limits NOX and SO2 emissions on
a year-round basis.
The units at Granite Ridge Energy
were subject to NNSR for NOX at the
time of their initial permitting; these
limits were established as LAER-based
limits. The facility uses inherently low
sulfur fuel (natural gas). The units at
this facility were subject to PSD review
for SO2 at the time of their initial
permitting; this limit (0.0023 lbs/
MMBtu) was established as a BACTbased limit. These limits are included in
Title V Operating Permit TV–0056,
which limits NOX and SO2 emissions on
a year-round basis.
Stored Solar Tamworth’s operation is
subject to an emission limit that was
established when the facility was
initially permitted under the PSD
permit program in 1987. This control
limits NOX emissions to 0.265 lbs/
MMBtu over any consecutive 24-hour
period. In 2008, this facility installed
overfire air (OFA) and flue gas
recirculation (FGR) technologies, as well
as a Selective Noncatalytic Reduction
(SNCR) system and a SCR system. These
limits are included in the facility’s Title
V Operating Permit TV–0018. Stored
Solar Tamworth has voluntarily chosen
to maintain NOX emissions at or below
0.075 lb/MMBtu, on a quarterly average
for the purpose of generating renewable
energy certificates.
In response to the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask,’’
Stored Solar Tamworth agreed to take
lower year-round, enforceable NOX
emission limitations. NHDES revised
New Hampshire’s Code of
Administrative Rules Env-A 2300,
‘‘Mitigation of Regional Haze’’ to
include these limits and submitted the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
rule to EPA as part of this SIP revision.
This rule will lower the NOX emissions
limitations to a 30-day rolling average of
0.075 lb/MMBtu or a 24-hour calendar
day average of 0.085 lb/MMBtu.
GSP Merrimack Station’s operation is
covered by Title V Operating Permit
TV–0055 which limits NOX and SO2
emissions. On May 3, 2018, NHDES
requested information from GSP
regarding NOX RACT and Regional Haze
Rule requirements associated with the
MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ This request for
information was focused on the most
effective use of existing control
technologies for MK1 and MK2. In
addition, GSP completed an analysis of
additional controls for NOX and SO2 for
MK1 and MK2. After review, NHDES
concluded the analysis validates the
continued use of current enforceable
measures for both SO2 and NOX. In
response to the MANE–VU Ask, NHDES
amended New Hampshire’s Code of
Administrative Rules Env-A 2300,
‘‘Mitigation of Regional Haze’’ to
reference new NOX RACT limits for
MK1, which New Hampshire has made
more stringent, changing from 1.22 lb/
MMBtu (rolling 7-calendar day average),
or 18.1 tons per calendar day (when
MK2 is not in full operation), or 29.1
tons per calendar day (when combined
with MK2) to 0.22 lb/MMBtu (24-hour
calendar day average) or 4.0 tons per
day on any calendar day during which
a startup or shutdown occurs.62 NHDES
also revised Env-A 2300 to reference the
new NOX RACT limits for MK2 from
15.4 tons per 24-hour calendar day, or
29.1 tons per calendar day (when
combined with MK1) to 0.22 lb/MMBtu
(24-hour calendar day average) or 11.5
tons per day on any calendar day during
which a startup or shutdown occurs.
NHDES submitted the revised Env-A
2300 to EPA as part of New Hampshire’s
Regional Haze SIP revision for the
second implementation period.63
GSP Schiller Station’s operation is
covered by Title V Operating Permit
TV–0053 and NOX RACT Orders RO–
003 and ARD–06–001 which limit NOX
and SO2 emissions. NHDES requested
62 See Table 4–15 ‘‘Reductions in Allowable NO
X
RACT Emission Limits for MK1 and MK2 Over
Time’’ of the NH RH SIP, Final 2022.
63 Env-A 2300 incorporates by reference NO
X
limits in Env-A 1300, which NHDES revised in
2018 as part of its SIP submittal for the 2008 and
2015 8-hr ozone standards. EPA has proposed in a
separate action to approve Env-A 1300 into NH’s
SIP. See 88 FR 43483 (July 10, 2023). On September
6, 2023, EPA issued a final notice approving
portions of Env-A 1300 in the NH SIP with the
exception of New Hampshire’s NOX RACT limits
applicable to coal-fired cyclone boilers. See 88 FR
60893 (September 6, 2023). EPA will issue a
decision on New Hampshire’s NOX RACT
requirements for coal-fired cyclone boilers in a
subsequent rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
80669
additional information from GSP
regarding both NOX RACT and Regional
Haze Rule requirements associated with
the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ For SR4 and SR6,
NHDES requested that GSP conduct a
NOX RACT analysis for optimization of
the SNCR including an evaluation of the
technical and economic feasibility of
operating the SNCR systems on a yearround basis to achieve various proposed
NOX emission levels. Also, GSP was
requested to evaluate the most effective
use of the DSI systems on SR4 and SR6
for SO2 emission reductions. For ‘‘Ask
1’’ regarding SR5, NHDES requested
GSP evaluate the most effective use of
the SNCR for NOX emission reductions
and the limestone injection system for
SO2 emission reductions. GSP provided
analyses to demonstrate that operation
of low NOX burners (LNB) and OFA on
SR4 and SR6 were sufficient to achieve
an emission limit of 0.25 lbs NOX/
MMBtu and that year-round operation
of the SNCR would not result in any
additional emissions reductions.
NHDES issued NOX RACT Order RO–
003 on September 6, 2018, which
established a NOX emission limit for
SR4 and SR6 of 0.25 lbs/MMBtu per 24hour calendar day average that applies
at all times, including periods of startup
and shutdown on a year-round basis.
New Hampshire submitted this NOX
RACT Order as a single-source SIP
revision in September 2018. It was
approved by the EPA on September 12,
2019 (84 FR 48068).
SR4 and SR6 also comply with the
most current and strict federal standards
for acid gases, the HCl limit required
under MATS, and the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS.
GSP Schiller Station implements the
most effective use of the existing control
technology, which is year-round
operation of the DSI systems, targeting
reduction of multiple acid gases. SR5 is
a wood-fired boiler that is also
permitted to fire coal but has only fired
coal for collecting performance test data
in November 2006 during
commissioning of the boiler. GSP has
not combusted coal in SR5 since that
time. Based on compliance stack testing
and emissions monitoring data, sorbent
injection is not needed to comply with
the SO2 emission limit while burning
biomass. NHDES determined that the
existing pollution control equipment
(LNB, OFA, SNCR and DSI) installed on
SR4, SR5 and SR6, the federally
enforceable NOX RACT emission limits
and the NOX and SO2 emission
limitations required by TV–0053 on a
year-round basis satisfy Ask 1.
The GSP Newington Station’s unit
subject to ‘‘Ask 1’’ at this facility is an
oil- and natural gas-fired EGU
designated as NT1. NT1 is equipped
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80670
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
to control the emissions of particulate
matter and LNB, OFA and water
injection system to control NOX
emissions. GSP operates the water
injection system on NT1 as necessary to
maintain compliance with the NOX
emission limits. NT1 is subject to MATS
as an existing EGU under the ‘‘limiteduse liquid oil-fired EGU72’’ subcategory.
These controls are included in the Title
V Operating Permit TV–0054. TV–0054
contains a requirement to conduct a
NOX RACT analysis within six months
of switching from the limited use MATS
subcategory to continental liquid oilfired EGU subcategory should they ever
do so. NT1 does not have ‘‘already
installed’’ SO2 controls and therefore
Ask 1 applies only to its NOX emissions.
NHDES determined that the existing
pollution control equipment (LNB, OFA
and water injection system) installed on
NT1 combined with the federally
enforceable NOX emission limitations
required by TV–0054 on a year-round
basis satisfy Ask 1.
Wheelabrator Concord’s operation is
covered by Title V Operating Permit
TV–0032, which was issued January 24,
2019. The two identical mass burn
waterwall boilers at Wheelabrator
Concord are considered large municipal
waste combustion (MWC) units under
New Hampshire’s Code of
Administrative Rules Env-A 3300,
‘‘Municipal Waste Combustion.’’ The
two MWC units at Wheelabrator
Concord are also subject to New
Hampshire’s Code of Administrative
Rules Env-A 1300, ‘‘NOX RACT’’
(approved September 6, 2023, 88 FR
60893). Therefore, NHDES determined
that no further limitations from MANE–
VU Ask 1 are required of this source.
MANE–VU Ask 2 consists of a request
that states ‘‘perform a four-factor
analysis for reasonable installation or
upgrade to emissions controls’’ for
specified sources. MANE–VU developed
its Ask 2 list of sources for analysis by
performing modeling and identifying
facilities with the potential for 3.0
inverse megameters (Mm¥1) or greater
impacts on visibility at any Class I area
in the MANE–VU region. GSP
Merrimack Station, in Bow, was
identified as the only facility in NH
with the potential for 3.0 Mm¥1 or
greater visibility impact at any MANE–
VU Class I area.
GSP Merrimack Station’s operation is
already covered by Title V Operating
Permit TV–0055 which limits NOX and
SO2 emissions. MK1 and MK2 are
cyclone-firing, wet-bottom utility boilers
that burn bituminous coal and are each
equipped with SCR for NOX control as
well as ESPs for particulate matter
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
control. In addition, because of state law
RSA 125–O, Multiple Pollutant
Reduction Program, MK1 and MK2 are
equipped with a common FGD system
which is designed to reduce mercury
emissions but has the co-benefit of acid
gas (SO2 and HCl) removal. New
Hampshire asked GSP to perform fourfactor analyses for both MK1 and MK2.
As a result of this request, GSP
considered various control measures for
NOX and SO2, which, for NOX, included
review of fuel switching, OFA, SNCR,
reburn, and upgrades to the existing
SCR and, for SO2, considered upgrades
to the existing FGD, coal cleaning, dry
FGD, FGD plus DSI and fuel switching.
GSP further noted that both units
already employ SCR for controlling NOX
emissions and that the existing FGD
system already achieves a 95%
reduction in SO2 emissions. GSP
concluded that both units are already
effectively controlled and that no
additional measures would result in any
additional emissions reductions.64
NHDES closely reviewed GSP’s analysis
and agreed with the company’s
conclusion that it supports the
continued use of current enforceable
measures for both SO2 and NOX, that no
upgrade or replacement of the controls
on MK1 and MK2 are necessary to make
reasonable progress, and that a full fourfactor analysis would not have
identified any additional controls
required for reasonable progress. New
Hampshire therefore concluded that it
satisfies Ask 2.
Ask 3 is for each MANE–VU state to
pursue an ultra low-sulfur fuel oil
standard if it has not already done so in
the first implementation period. The
Ask includes percent by weight
standards for #2 distillate oil (0.0015%
sulfur by weight or 15 ppm), #4 residual
oil (0.25–0.5% sulfur by weight), and #6
residual oil (0.3–0.5% sulfur by weight).
New Hampshire amended state law RSA
125–C:10-d, Sulfur Limits of Certain
Liquid Fuels. Beginning on July 1, 2018,
fuel imported into New Hampshire was
required to meet the following reduced
sulfur limits—0.0015% for No. 2 fuel
oil, 0.25% for No. 4 fuel oil and 0.5%
for Nos. 5 or 6 fuel oil—and as of
February 1, 2019, non-compliant fuels
are not allowed to be distributed for sale
within the State. This law will result in
further reductions in SO2 emissions
from industrial, area, and non-road
sources beyond the 30% reduction seen
in the 2008 vs. 2014 NEI data. The law
was incorporated into New Hampshire’s
Code of Administrative Rules Env-A
1600, Fuel Specifications and was
submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision
64 See
PO 00000
NH SIP submittal Appendix T.
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
on May 17, 2019, which EPA approved
on April 26, 2021 (86 FR 21942). New
Hampshire therefore concluded that it is
meeting Ask 3.
MANE–VU Ask 4 requests states to
update permits to ‘‘lock in’’ lower
emissions rates for NOX, SO2, and PM
at emissions sources larger than 250
million British Thermal Units (MMBtu)
per hour heat input that have switched
to lower emitting fuels. New Hampshire
submitted that there are no such
facilities in the State and therefore
concluded it is meeting Ask 4.
Ask 5 requests that MANE–VU states
‘‘control NOX emissions for peaking
combustion turbines that have the
potential to operate on high electric
demand days’’ by either: (1) Meeting
NOX emissions standards specified in
the Ask for turbines that run on natural
gas and fuel oil, (2) performing a fourfactor analysis for reasonable
installation of or upgrade to emission
controls, or (3) obtaining equivalent
emission reductions on high electric
demand days.65 The Ask requests states
to strive for NOX emission standards of
no greater than 25 ppm for natural gas
and 42 ppm for fuel oil, or at a
minimum, NOX emissions standards of
no greater than 42 ppm for natural gas
and 96 ppm at for fuel oil. The peaking
combustion turbines located at New
Hampshire stationary sources that were
identified as meeting the criteria of
‘‘Ask #5’’ are: GSP Lost Nation Station
(LNCT1) GSP Merrimack Station
(MKCT1 and MKCT2), GSP Schiller
Station (SRCT), and GSP White Lake
Station (WLCT1). GSP performed fourfactor analyses for reasonable
installation or upgrade to NOX emission
controls at these units, which indicated
no additional NOX controls that GSP
could be employed on any of the
combustion turbines that are both
technically and economically feasible.
All five GSP turbines are of the same era
(1968–1970) and have similar NOX
emissions and specifications.
Additionally, GSP has pledged to
continue employing good combustion
practices to optimize their NOX
emissions profile. New Hampshire
reviewed and adopted the four-factor
analyses and concluded it is meeting
Ask 5.
The last Ask for states within MANE–
VU (Ask 6) requests states to report in
their regional haze SIPs about programs
that decrease energy demand and
increase the use of combined heat and
power (CHP) and other distributed
generation technologies such as fuel
65 See appendix G ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report and Consultation
Documentation—Final.’’
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
cells, wind and solar. New Hampshire
participates in RGGI,66 a Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic 10-state initiative to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions that
contribute to global climate change. The
initiative creates a market for emissions
allowances through a regional cap-andtrade program for greenhouse gas
emissions from area power plants. As a
co-benefit of this program, emissions of
particle producing pollutants are also
reduced. New Hampshire emissions
allowances are sold at quarterly
auctions and the proceeds fund the
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction
(GHGER) Fund. The GHGER Fund is
administered by the Public Utilities
Commission, which distributes the
funds to programs across the state to
support energy efficiency, conservation,
and demand response programs.
New Hampshire’s also explained the
State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard
(RPS) statute, RSA 362–F: ‘‘Electric
Renewable Portfolio Standard’’, requires
each electricity provider to meet
customer load by purchasing or
acquiring certificates representing
generation from renewable energy based
on total megawatt-hours supplied. The
RPS requirement increases from 4% in
2008 to 25.2% in 2025 and thereafter,
based on type of renewable energy. A
portion of this renewable portfolio
energy generation comes from nonemitting sources such as hydro, solar
and wind. New Hampshire therefore
concluded it is meeting Ask 6.
In sum, New Hampshire identified
several SIP approved mechanisms for
controlling pollutants that impair
visibility and that are necessary for
reasonable progress—including its
regulations limiting sulfur content in
fuels, the updated RACT rules at EnvA 1300, and the more stringent NOX
limits at Stored Solar Tamworth
implemented through Env-A 2300—
which EPA is proposing to add to New
Hampshire’s SIP in this action. In
addition to these SIP approved
measures, New Hampshire also
identified other federally enforceable
and permanent controls including
BACT and LAER limits from NNSR and
PSD permitting that are incorporated
into the facilities’ Title V operating
permits that have led to additional
visibility improvements.
b. The EPA’s Evaluation of New
Hampshire’s Response to the Six
MANE–VU Asks and Compliance With
§ 51.308(f)(2)(i)
The EPA is proposing to find that
New Hampshire has satisfied the
requirements of § 51.308(f)(2)(i) related
to evaluating sources and determining
the emission reduction measures that
are necessary to make reasonable
progress by considering the four
statutory factors. We are proposing to
find that New Hampshire has satisfied
the four-factor analysis requirement
through its analysis and actions to
address MANE–VU Asks 1, 2 3, and 5.
As explained above, New Hampshire
relied on MANE–VU’s technical
analyses and framework (i.e., the Asks)
to select sources and form the basis of
its long-term strategy. MANE–VU
conducted an inventory analysis to
identify the source sectors that
produced the greatest amount of SO2
and NOX emissions in 2011; inventory
data were also projected to 2018. Based
on this analysis, MANE–VU identified
the top-emitting sectors for each of the
two pollutants, which for SO2 include
coal-fired EGUs, industrial boilers, oilfired EGUs, and oil-fired area sources
including residential, commercial, and
industrial sources. Major-emitting
sources of NOX include on-road
vehicles, non-road vehicles, and
EGUs.67 The RPO’s documentation
explains that ‘‘[EGUs] emitting SO2 and
NOX and industrial point sources
emitting SO2 were found to be sectors
with high emissions that warranted
further scrutiny. Mobile sources were
not considered in this analysis because
any ask concerning mobile sources
would be made to EPA and not during
the intra-RPO and inter-RPO
consultation process among the states
and tribes.’’ 68 EPA proposes to find that
New Hampshire reasonably evaluated
the two pollutants—SO2 and NOX—that
currently drive visibility impairment
within the MANE–VU region and that it
adequately explained and supported its
decision to focus on these two
pollutants through its reliance on the
MANE–VU technical analyses cited in
its submission.
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states
to evaluate and determine the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress by applying
the four statutory factors to sources in
a control analysis. As explained
previously, the MANE–VU Asks are a
mix of measures for sectors and groups
of sources identified as reasonable for
66 For more info: https://www.energy.nh.gov/
renewable-energy/regional-greenhouse-gasinitiative.
67 See appendix H ‘‘Contribution Assessment—
Final.’’
68 See Appendix G ‘‘Asks—Final.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
80671
states to address in their regional haze
plans. While MANE–VU formulated the
Asks to be ‘‘reasonable emission
reduction strategies’’ to control
emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants,69 EPA believes that New
Hampshire, in four of the Asks in
particular, engaged with the
requirement that states determine the
emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress
through consideration of the four
factors. As laid out in further detail
below, the EPA is proposing to find that
MANE–VU’s four-factor analysis
conducted to support the emission
reduction measures in Ask 3 (ultra-low
sulfur fuel oil), in conjunction with New
Hampshire’s analysis and explanation of
how it has complied with Asks 1
(ensure the most effective use of control
technologies on a year-round basis at
certain EGUs), 2 (perform four-factor
analyses for sources with potential for
≥3.0 Mm¥1 impacts), and 5 (perform
four-factor analyses for measures to
control NOX emissions at certain
peaking combustion turbines) satisfy the
requirement of § 51.308(f)(2)(i). The
emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress
must be included in the long-term
strategy, i.e., in New Hampshire’s SIP.
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
As for Ask 1, New Hampshire
included an analysis of twelve EGUs at
seven stationary sources that were
identified as meeting the criteria of the
Ask (i.e., capacity ≥25MW with already
installed NOX and/or SO2 controls).
New Hampshire, in response to an FLM
request, also added two Wheelabrator
Concord MWC units to this analysis.
New Hampshire identified existing
controls, updated RACT limits, and new
limits implemented in Env-A 2300,
Mitigation of Regional Haze. Technical
analyses were also completed for two of
the EGUs as discussed more below
under Ask 2. New Hampshire asserted
that it satisfies Ask 1 because its SIPapproved regulations include yearround emission limits and because it
already requires that controls be run
year-round for both NOX and SO2 by
setting emission limits in permits that
reflect the emission levels when the
controls are run. As discussed in the
previous section, New Hampshire
included a description of existing rules,
permit limits, and updated regulations
to meet the requirements of Ask 1. New
Hampshire has also increased controls
on RACT (which EPA has proposed to
approve in a separate notice), and EPA
proposes to find that New Hampshire
69 Id.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80672
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
reasonably concluded that it has
satisfied Ask 1.
Ask 2 addresses the sources MANE–
VU determined have the potential for
larger than, or equal to, 3.0 Mm¥1
visibility impact at any MANE–VU
Class I area; the Ask requests MANE–
VU states to conduct four-factor
analyses for the specified sources within
their borders. This Ask explicitly
engages with the statutory and
regulatory requirement to determine the
emission reduction measures necessary
to make reasonable progress based on
the four factors; MANE–VU considered
it ‘‘reasonable to have the greatest
contributors to visibility impairment
conduct a four-factor analysis that
would determine whether emission
control measures should be pursued and
what would be reasonable for each
source.’’ 70
As an initial matter, EPA does not
generally agree that 3.0 Mm¥1 visibility
impact is a reasonable threshold for
source selection. The RHR recognizes
that, due to the nature of regional haze
visibility impairment, numerous and
sometimes relatively small sources may
need to be selected and evaluated for
control measures in order to make
reasonable progress. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 4. As explained
in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, while
states have discretion to choose any
source selection threshold that is
reasonable, ‘‘[a] state that relies on a
visibility (or proxy for visibility impact)
threshold to select sources for fourfactor analysis should set the threshold
at a level that captures a meaningful
portion of the state’s total contribution
to visibility impairment to Class I
areas.’’ 2021 Memo at 3. In this case, the
3.0 Mm¥1 threshold identified only one
unit at one source in New Hampshire
(and only 22 across the entire MANE–
VU region), indicating that it may be
unreasonably high.
At 3.3 Mm¥1, Unit 2 at GSP
Merrimack Station (MK2), in Bow, was
identified as the only EGU in NH with
the potential for 3.0 Mm¥1 or greater
visibility impact at any MANE–VU
Class I area. As noted above, GSP
Merrimack Station’s operation is
covered by Title V Operating Permit
TV–0055 which limits NOX and SO2
emissions. MK1 and MK2 are each
equipped with SCR for NOX control as
well as ESPs for particulate matter
control. In addition, because of state law
NH RSA 125–O, Multiple Pollutant
Reduction Program, MK1 and MK2 are
equipped with a common FGD system
which is designed to reduce mercury
emissions but has the co-benefit of acid
gas (SO2 and HCl) removal. While only
Unit 2 was identified by MANE–VU as
contributing a 3.0 Mm¥1 or greater
visibility impact at any MANE–VU
Class I area, New Hampshire asked GSP
to perform four-factor analyses for both
Units 1 and 2. GSP responded that both
units already employ SCR for
controlling NOX emissions and that the
existing FGD system already achieves a
95% reduction in SO2 emissions.
Consequently, GSP concluded that both
units are already effectively controlled
and that any additional control
measures would not result in any
additional emissions reductions.71
Based on a showing of existing effective
controls, New Hampshire concluded
that the result of a four-factor analysis
would likely be no new controls and
that no upgrade or replacement of the
existing pollution control equipment
was required as a result of Ask 2.
The EPA proposes to find that New
Hampshire reasonably determined it has
satisfied Ask 2. As explained above, we
do not generally agree that a 3.0 Mm¥1
threshold for selecting sources for fourfactor analysis results in a set of sources
the evaluation of which has the
potential to meaningfully reduce the
state’s contribution to visibility
impairment. MANE–VU’s threshold
identified only one source in New
Hampshire for four-factor analysis.
However, EPA notes that New
Hampshire considered the four statutory
factors in determining the emissions
reduction measures necessary for some
of its other top-impacting EGUs as part
of Ask 5,72 including Lost Nation and
White Lake, which, according to New
Hampshire’s submission, have the
potential for visibility impacts at the
Presidential Range-Dry River
Wilderness of 1.87 and 2.2 Mm¥1,
respectively.73 EPA is basing this
proposed finding on the state’s
examination of its largest operating EGU
sources, at the time of SIP submission,
and on the emissions from and controls
that apply to those sources, as well as
on New Hampshire’s existing SIPapproved NOX and SO2 rules that
effectively control emissions from the
largest contributing stationary-source
sectors.
Ask 3, which addresses the sulfur
content of heating oil used in MANE–
VU states, is based on a four-factor
analysis for the heating oil sulfur
reduction regulations contained in that
71 See
70 See
Appendix E ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report and Consultation
Documentation—Final.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
NH SIP submittal Appendix T.
NH SIP submittal Appendix T.
73 See page 22 of the NH Regional Haze SIP
submission—(May 2022).
Ask; specifically, for the control strategy
of reducing the sulfur content of
distillate oil to 15 ppm. The analysis
started with an assessment of the costs
of retrofitting refineries to produce 15
ppm heating oil in sufficient quantities
to support implementation of the
standard, as well as the impacts of
requiring a reduction in sulfur content
on consumer prices. The analysis noted
that, as a result of previous EPA
rulemakings to reduce the sulfur content
of on-road and non-road-fuels to 15
ppm, technologies are currently
available to achieve sulfur reductions
and many refiners are already meeting
this standard, meaning that the capital
investments for further reductions in the
sulfur content of heating oil are
expected to be relatively low compared
to costs incurred in the past. The
analysis also examined, by way of
example, the impacts of New York’s
existing 15 ppm sulfur requirements on
heating oil prices and concluded that
the cost associated with reducing sulfur
was relatively small in terms of the
absolute price of heating oil compared
to the magnitude of volatility in crude
oil prices. It also noted that the slight
price premium is compensated by cost
savings due to the benefits of lowersulfur fuels in terms of equipment life
and maintenance and fuel stability.
Consideration of the time necessary for
compliance with a 15-ppm sulfur
standard was accomplished through a
discussion of the amount of time
refiners had needed to comply with the
EPA’s on-road and non-road fuel 15
ppm requirement, and the implications
existing refinery capacity and
distribution infrastructure may have for
compliance times with a 15-ppm
heating oil standard. The analysis
concluded that with phased-in timing
for states that have not yet adopted a 15
ppm heating oil standard there ‘‘appears
to be sufficient time to allow refiners to
add any additional heating oil capacity
that may be required.’’ 74 The analysis
further noted the beneficial energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts
of a 15 ppm sulfur heating oil
requirement and that reducing sulfur
content may also have a salutary impact
on the remaining useful life of
residential furnaces and boilers.75
The EPA proposes to find that New
Hampshire reasonably relied on MANE–
VU’s four-factor analysis for a lowsulfur fuel oil regulation, which engaged
with each of the statutory factors and
explained how the information
supported a conclusion that a 15 ppmsulfur fuel oil standard for fuel oils is
72 See
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74 Id.
75 Id.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
see 8–7.
see 8–8.
20NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
reasonable. New Hampshire’s SIPapproved ultra-low sulfur fuel oil rule 76
is consistent with Ask 3’s sulfur content
standards for the three types of fuel oils
(distillate oil, #4 residual oil, #6
residual oil). EPA therefore proposes to
find that New Hampshire reasonably
determined that it has satisfied Ask 3.
New Hampshire concluded that no
additional updates were needed to meet
Ask 4, which requests that MANE–VU
states pursue updating permits,
enforceable agreements, and/or rules to
lock-in lower emission rates for sources
larger than 250 MMBtu per hour that
have switched to lower emitting fuels.
EPA agrees that New Hampshire does
not contain any sources encompassed
by this Ask, except that Schiller Station
Unit 5 technically maintains the ability
to operate by burning coal. We note,
however, that Schiller Station Unit 5
has not burned coal other than for stack
testing at installation, and it is
reasonable to conclude, for a number of
reasons—including historic operation,
financial viability, fuel availability, and
the overall direction of the fuels
market—that it is unlikely that this
source will ever burn coal again. GSP
reportedly laid off union staff at Schiller
Station and locked the gates to the
facility in June of 2020.77 78 All three of
the steam units at Schiller have reported
zero operating hours and zero emissions
since 2020.79 Additionally, Schiller
does not have any current capacity
supply obligation for its steam units
(which includes Unit 5) in the Forward
Capacity Market and did not offer a bid
for them in ISO New England’s latest
Forward Capacity Auction (FCA 17),
which secures future power supply
obligations through May 2027, making it
unlikely that these units will ever
operate in any capacity again.80
Ask 5 addresses NOX emissions from
peaking combustion turbines that have
the potential to operate on high electric
76 Env-A 1600, Fuel Specifications was approved
by EPA as a SIP revision on April 26, 2021 [86 FR
21942].
77 N.H. Coal Plant Will Run Through At Least
2025 After Latest Grid Auction, NH Pub. Radio
(Mar. 1, 2021), available at https://www.nhpr.org/
climate-change/2021-03-01/n-h-coal-plant-will-runthrough-at-least-2025-after-latest-grid-auction;
Union says Schiller coal-fired power plant is shut
for good, Granite Geek (Jan. 12, 2021), available at
https://granitegeek.concordmonitor.com/2021/01/
12/union-says-schiller-coal-fired-power-plant-isshut-for-good/.
78 See https://www.ibew1837.org/content/schillerstation-closing-end-era, or see PDF version of this
article in the docket.
79 See EPA’s Clean Air Markets Program Data
(CAMPD) at https://campd.epa.gov/data.
80 See https://www.iso-ne.com/marketsoperations/markets/forward-capacity-market/ to
download ISO New England forward capacity
auction results. This spreadsheet has also been
added to the docket for this notice.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
demand days. New Hampshire
identified five combustion turbines in
the State as meeting the criteria of this
Ask: GSP Lost Nation Station (LNCT1),
GSP Merrimack Station (MKCT1 and
MKCT2), GSP Schiller Station (SRCT),
and GSP White Lake Station (WLCT1).
The Ask requests states to strive for
certain NOX emission standards for such
sources or to perform four-factor
analyses for reasonable installation or
upgrade to emission controls. None of
the five turbines New Hampshire
identified are currently meeting the
NOX emissions standards in the Ask, so
New Hampshire requested four-factor
analyses for each source. Each
combustion turbine is owned by Granite
Shore Power, was originally installed
around the same time (1968–1970), has
a similar unit rating (290 MMBtu/hr–
319 MMBtu/hr), operates at an annual
capacity factor below 1%, and has NOX
emissions ranging from 0.7 lbs/MMBtu
to 0.9 lbs/MMBtu. The total average
yearly emissions for these sources from
2018–2022 were: GSP Lost Nation
Station (LNCT1)—2.698 tons, GSP
Merrimack Station (MKCT1)—2.596
tons, (MKCT2)—2.738 tons, GSP
Schiller Station (SRCT)—2.582 tons,
and GSP White Lake Station (WLCT1)—
3.595 tons. Based on the four-factor
analyses, New Hampshire concluded
that no additional NOX controls are both
technically and economically feasible
for these sources EPA proposes to find
that New Hampshire reasonably
concluded that it has met the
requirements of Ask 5.
Finally, with regard to Ask 6, New
Hampshire explains the clean energy
requirements within the state including
New Hampshire’s Renewable Portfolio
Standard (RPS) statute, NH RSA 362–F:
Electric Renewable Portfolio Standard,
and the State’s participation in RGGI to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The
EPA is proposing to find that New
Hampshire has satisfied Ask 6’s request
to consider and report in its SIP
measures or programs related to energy
efficiency, cogeneration, and other clean
distributed generation technologies.
In sum, New Hampshire identified
several mechanisms for controlling
pollutants that impair visibility—
including its regulations limiting sulfur
content in fuels (which are in New
Hampshire’s SIP), the previously
discussed updated RACT rules at EnvA 1300 (which EPA has in a separate
action recently proposed to approve into
the SIP), and the more stringent NOX
limits at Stored Solar Tamworth
implemented through Env-A 2300
(which EPA is proposing to add to the
SIP in this action). EPA proposes that
New Hampshire has reasonably
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
80673
concluded that these measures are
necessary to make reasonable progress
for the second planning period. In
addition to these SIP approved
measures, New Hampshire also
identified other federally enforceable
and permanent controls including
BACT and LAER limits from NNSR and
PSD permitting, that are incorporated
into the facilities’ Title V operating
permits.
EPA is proposing to find—based on
New Hampshire’s participation in the
MANE–VU planning process, how it has
addressed the Asks, and the EPA’s
assessment of New Hampshire’s
emissions and point sources—that New
Hampshire has complied with the
requirements of § 51.308(f)(2)(i).
EPA is proposing to find the state’s
approach reasonable for several reasons.
New Hampshire reasonably evaluated
and explained its decision to focus on
SO2 and NOX to address visibility
impairment within the MANE–VU
region. And New Hampshire adequately
supported that decision through
reasonable reliance on the MANE–VU
technical analyses cited in its
submission. In addition, New
Hampshire selected the sources with the
greatest modeled impacts on visibility
and also analyzed sources identified by
the FLMs through the consultation
process. New Hampshire’s submittal
also includes four-factor analyses and
demonstrates that the sources of SO2
and NOX within the state that would be
expected to contribute to visibility
impairment have small emissions of
NOX and SO2, are subject to stringent
emission control measures, or both. In
addition, New Hampshire’s SIPapproved sulfur in fuel rule sets
stringent limits for sulfur content and
SO2 emissions for fuels. The New
Hampshire SIP submittal also includes
Env-A 2300, which lowers NOX
emission limits for Stored Solar
Tamworth and incorporates by reference
an updated Env-A 1300, which includes
lower NOX limits for several sources
including Merrimack Station and
Wheelabrator Concord.
EPA proposes to find that New
Hampshire’s SIP submittal satisfies the
requirements that states determine the
emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress
by considering the four factors, and that
their long-term strategies include the
enforceable emission limitations,
compliance schedules, and other
measures necessary to make reasonable
progress.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80674
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy
Requirements
The consultation requirements of
§ 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide that states must
consult with other states that are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinated emission
management strategies containing the
emission reductions necessary to make
reasonable progress. Section
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) respectively
require states to include in their SIPs
measures agreed to during state-to-state
consultations or a regional planning
process and to consider the emission
reduction measures identified by other
states as necessary for reasonable
progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C)
speaks to what happens if states cannot
agree on what measures are necessary to
make reasonable progress.
New Hampshire participated in and
provided documentation of the MANE–
VU intra- and inter-RPO consultation
processes, which included consulting
with both MANE–VU and non-MANE–
VU states about emissions reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in New Hampshire’s Class I
areas and emissions from New
Hampshire reasonably anticipated to
contribute to visibility impairment in
other Class I areas. The consultations
addressed developing coordinated
emission management strategies
containing the emission reductions
necessary to make reasonable progress
at the Class I areas. New Hampshire
addressed impacts to the MANE–VU
Class I areas by providing information
on the measures it has in place that
satisfy each MANE–VU Ask.81 New
Hampshire received comments from
North Carolina, Virginia, and West
Virginia on New Hampshire’s Draft SIP.
The comments generally disagree with
MANE–VU’s requests of non-MANE–VU
states. The comments do not include
any requests that New Hampshire
consider additional measures to address
visibility impairment in Class I areas in
those respective States. MANE–VU
documented these and other
disagreements that occurred during
consultation. For instance, MANE–VU
noted in its Consultation Report that
upwind states expressed concern
regarding the analyses the RPO used for
the selection of states for the
consultation. MANE–VU agreed that
these tools, as all models, have their
limitations, but nonetheless deemed
them appropriate. Additionally, there
were several comments regarding the
81 See appendix G ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report and Consultation
Documentation—Final.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
choice of the 2011 modeling base year.
MANE–VU agreed that the choice of
base year is critical to the outcome of
the study. MANE–VU acknowledged
that there were newer versions of the
emission inventories and the need to
use the best available inventory for each
analysis. However, MANE–VU
disagreed that the choice of these
inventories was not appropriate for the
analysis.
In sum, New Hampshire participated
in the MANE–VU intra- and inter-RPO
consultation and included in its SIP
submittal the measures identified and
agreed to during those consultations,
thereby satisfying § 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A)
and (B). New Hampshire satisfied
§ 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) by participating in
MANE–VU’s consultation process,
which documented the disagreements
between the upwind states and MANE–
VU and explained MANE–VU’s
reasoning on each of the disputed
issues. Based on the entirety of MANE–
VU’s intra- and inter-RPO consultation
and both MANE–VU’s and New
Hampshire’s responses to states’
comments on the SIP submission 82 and
various technical analyses therein, we
propose to determine that New
Hampshire has satisfied the
consultation requirements of
§ 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
The documentation requirement of
§ 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides that states
may meet their obligations to document
the technical bases on which they are
relying to determine the emission
reductions measures that are necessary
to make reasonable progress through an
RPO, as long as the process has been
‘‘approved by all State participants.’’ As
explained above, New Hampshire chose
to rely on MANE–VU’s technical
information, modeling, and analysis to
support development of its long-term
strategy. The MANE–VU technical
analyses on which New Hampshire
relied are listed in the state’s SIP
submission and include source
contribution assessments, information
on each of the four factors and visibility
modeling information for certain EGUs,
and evaluations of emission reduction
strategies for specific source categories.
New Hampshire also provided
information to further demonstrate the
technical bases and emission
information on which it relied on to
determine the emission reductions
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress. Based on the
documentation provided by the state,
we propose to find New Hampshire
satisfies the requirements of
§ 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
82 See
PO 00000
NH Submittal, Appendix W.
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires
that the emissions information
considered to determine the measures
that are necessary to make reasonable
progress include information on
emissions for the most recent year for
which the state has submitted triennial
emissions data to the EPA (or a more
recent year), with a 12-month
exemption period for newly submitted
data. New Hampshire’s SIP submission
included 2017 NEI emission data for
NOX, SO2, PM, VOCs and NH3 and
2016–2019 Air Markets Program Data
(AMPD) emissions for NOX and SO2.
Based on New Hampshire’s
consideration and analysis of the
emission data in their submittal, the
EPA proposes to find that New
Hampshire has satisfied the emissions
information requirement in
51.308(f)(2)(iii).
We also propose to find that New
Hampshire reasonably considered the
five additional factors in
§ 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing its longterm strategy. Pursuant to
§ 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), New Hampshire
noted that existing and ongoing state
and federal emission control programs
that contribute to emission reductions
through 2028 would impact emissions
of visibility impairing pollutants from
point and nonpoint sources in the
second implementation period. New
Hampshire included in its SIP a list of
control measures with their effective
dates, pollutants addressed, and
corresponding State regulations.83
New Hampshire’s consideration of
measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities as required by
§ 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B) includes a list of
measures that New Hampshire has
implemented to mitigate the impacts
from such activities. New Hampshire’s
Code of Administrative Rules Env-A
1000, Prevention, Abatement, and
Control of Open Source Air Pollution,
requires the control of direct emissions
of particulate matter (primarily crustal
material) from mining, transportation,
storage, use, and removal activities.
These requirements apply to such
sources as quarries, unpaved roads,
cement plants, construction sites, rockcrushing operations, and general earthmoving activities. Controls may include
wet suppression, covering, vacuuming,
and other approved means. EPA
originally approved the rule effective
March 19, 2018 [83 FR 6972].
Additionally, New Hampshire’s Code of
Administrative Rules Env-A 2800, Sand
and Gravel Sources: Non-Metallic
Mineral Processing Plants; Cement and
Concrete Sources, requires the control of
83 See
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
Section 4.2.8 of the New Hampshire SIP.
20NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
fugitive dust and standards for
particulate matter emissions and visible
emissions from sand and gravel sources,
non-metallic mineral processing plants,
and cement and concrete sources. EPA
approved the rule effective December 7,
2016 [81 FR 78052].
Pursuant to § 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), New
Hampshire acknowledged the most
impactful of the State’s sources are the
fossil-fuel-fired EGUs. While recent
developments in the oil and gas
industry have forced rapid changes in
the power production sector, and some
generating units have experienced sharp
reductions in utilization, no retirements
or replacements of New Hampshire’s
EGUs have occurred or been announced
since the regional haze SIP was first
submitted in 2010. Although Schiller
Station has been in an extended outage
since June of 2020, no official word
from the Facility’s owner has been
announced regarding a permanent shut
down. As noted earlier, however, the
facility reportedly laid off staff and
locked the gates to the facility in June
of 2020. Furthermore, as also previously
noted, Schiller Station does not have a
current capacity supply obligation for
any coal unit and did not place a bid for
any of these units in ISO New England’s
FCA 17, which secures power supply
obligations through May of 2027.
In considering smoke management as
required in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D),
New Hampshire explained that it
addresses smoke management through
the New Hampshire Prescribed Fire
Council. The U.S. Forest Service and
NHDES are members of the Council and
assisted in the development of burn
standards.84 Federal Class I areas are not
specifically identified as smoke
sensitive features. New Hampshire’s
Class I areas are within the White
Mountain National Forest; thus, the
FLM for New Hampshire’s two Class I
areas (in this case, the U.S. Forest
Service) would be informed of any
planned burn in nearby lands. For any
prescribed fire within this area, the burn
plan would have to meet the FLM’s own
requirements for protection of Federal
Class I areas, which are even more
stringent than the New Hampshire
Prescribed Fire Council’s standards.
New Hampshire considered the
anticipated net effect of projected
changes in emissions as required by
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E) by discussing the
photochemical modeling for the 2018–
2028 period it conducted in
84 NH Prescribed Fire Council, (March 2019).
Planning for Prescribed Burning in New
Hampshire—Minimum Recommended Standards
for Planning & Implementing Prescribed Burns.
Available at https://extension.unh.edu/resources/
files/Resource001886_Rep2781.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
collaboration with MANE–VU. The two
modeling cases run were a 2028 base
case, which considered only on-thebooks controls, and a 2028 control case
that considered implementation of the
MANE–VU Ask. New Hampshire
presented the differences between the
base and control cases on the 20% most
impaired and 20% clearest days for the
Great Gulf Wilderness Area 85 and noted
the success of measures implemented
during the first planning period to
reduce impairment.
Because New Hampshire has
reasonably considered each of the five
additional factors, the EPA proposes to
find that New Hampshire has satisfied
the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv).
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the
requirements pertaining to RPGs for
each Class I area. Because New
Hampshire is host to a Class I area, it is
subject to both § 51.308(f)(3)(i) and,
potentially, to (ii). Section 51.308(f)(3)(i)
requires a state in which a Class I area
is located to establish RPGs—one each
for the most impaired and clearest
days—reflecting the visibility
conditions that will be achieved at the
end of the implementation period as a
result of the emission limitations,
compliance schedules and other
measures required under paragraph
(f)(2) to be in states’ long-term strategies,
as well as implementation of other CAA
requirements. The long-term strategies
as reflected by the RPGs must provide
for an improvement in visibility on the
most impaired days relative to the
baseline period and ensure no
degradation on the clearest days relative
to the baseline period. Section
51.308(f)(3)(ii) applies in circumstances
in which a Class I area’s RPG for the
most impaired days represents a slower
rate of visibility improvement than the
uniform rate of progress calculated
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi). Under
§ 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the state in which
a mandatory Class I area is located
establishes an RPG for the most
impaired days that provides for a slower
rate of visibility improvement than the
URP, the state must demonstrate that
there are no additional emission
reduction measures for anthropogenic
sources or groups of sources in the state
that would be reasonable to include in
its long-term strategy. Section
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that if a state
contains sources that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in a Class I area in another
state, and the RPG for the most impaired
85 See
PO 00000
Table 4–19 of the NH Regional Haze SIP.
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
80675
days in that Class I area is above the
URP, the upwind state must provide the
same demonstration.
Table 4–19 of New Hampshire’s SIP
submittal summarizes baseline visibility
conditions (i.e., visibility conditions
during the baseline period of 2000–
2004) for the most impaired and clearest
days and the 2028 RPG for the most
impaired days for New Hampshire’s
Class I areas, as well as information on
natural visibility conditions, the rate of
progress described by the URP in 2028,
and the modeled 2028 base case
(representing visibility conditions in
2028 with existing controls). Baseline
visibility conditions at New
Hampshire’s Class I areas were 7.65 and
21.88 deciviews for the clearest and
most impaired days, respectively. By
comparison, New Hampshire has
established 2028 RPGs for the clearest
and most impaired days of 5.11 and
12.13 deciviews.86 87
New Hampshire’s 2028 most impaired
base case of 12.13 deciviews reflects the
visibility conditions that are projected
to be achieved based on states’ existing
measures. As such, EPA considers the
2028 modeled base case value of 12.13
deciviews to be the appropriate estimate
of the RPG for the 20% most impaired
visibility days (as opposed to the 12.00
deciviews value that includes measures
from the MANE–VU Asks). EPA expects
that the observed deciview value in
2028 will actually be equal to or lower
than the 12.13 deciview estimate due to
numerous coal-fired utility boilers in
upwind states having recently retired or
being expected to retire under
enforceable commitments before 2028.
Even the conservative estimate of 12.13
deciviews on the most impaired days in
2028 constitutes improvement over the
baseline visibility conditions of 21.88
deciviews. Therefore, the long-term
strategy and the reasonable progress
goals provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days
since the baseline period and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the clearest
days since the baseline period. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(i).
As noted in the RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii), the reasonable progress
goals are not directly enforceable, but
will be considered by the Administrator
in evaluating the adequacy of the
measures in the implementation plan in
providing for reasonable progress
86 See Table 4–6 of the NH Regional Haze SIP.
These values were modeled not including the
MANE–VU Asks. The values for the clearest and
most impaired days including the Asks were 5.06
and 12.00 deciviews, respectively.
87 See also NH Submittal, Appendix W at 7
(indicating that the RPG for New Hampshire’s Class
I Areas is 12.13 deciviews).
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
80676
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
towards achieving natural visibility
conditions at that area. The 2028 RPG
for the most impaired days of 12.13
deciviews fulfills the regulatory purpose
of the RPGs because visibility
conditions at New Hampshire’s Class I
areas have improved since the baseline
period. EPA is therefore proposing to
find that New Hampshire’s RPGs satisfy
the applicable requirements and provide
for reasonable progress towards
achieving natural conditions.
Table 4–19 of New Hampshire’s
submission shows the URP glidepath
value for New Hampshire’s Class I areas
in 2028 as 17.04 deciviews. New
Hampshire’s RPG is well below the
glidepath value, thus the demonstration
requirement under § 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A)
is not triggered. Under
§ 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), a state that contains
sources that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in
a Class I area in another state for which
a demonstration by the other state is
required under 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) must
demonstrate that there are no additional
emission reduction measures that would
be reasonable to include in its long-term
strategy. New Hampshire’s SIP revision
included the modeled MANE–VU 2028
visibility projections at nearby Class I
areas.88 While these projections may not
represent the final RPGs for these Class
I areas, all of the base case 2028
projections for the most impaired days
at these areas (Acadia, Brigantine,
Campobello, Lye Brook, Moosehorn,
Dolly Sods, James River Face, Otter
Creek, and Shenandoah) are well below
the respective 2028 points on the URPs.
Therefore, we propose it is reasonable to
assume that the demonstration
requirement under § 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B)
as it pertains to these areas will not be
triggered for New Hampshire.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that
each comprehensive revision of a state’s
regional haze SIP must contain or
provide for certain elements, including
monitoring strategies, emissions
inventories, and any reporting,
recordkeeping and other measures
needed to assess and report on
visibility. A main requirement of this
subsection is for states with Class I areas
to submit monitoring strategies for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting
on visibility impairment. Compliance
with this requirement may be met
through participation in the Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) network.
88 See
Appendix B ‘‘Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S.
Visibility Data 2004–2019 (2nd RH SIP Metrics.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
The IMPROVE monitor for the Great
Gulf Wilderness (GRGU1) is located at
Camp Dodge, in the mid-northern area
of Greens Grant in the White Mountain
National Forest. The monitor site lies
just east and south of where Route 16
crosses the Greens Grant/Martins
Location boundary, south of Gorham,
New Hampshire, at elevation 454
meters, latitude 44.31°, and longitude of
¥71.22°. This monitor, which also
represents the Presidential Range—Dry
River Wilderness, is operated and
maintained by the U.S. Forest Service.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to
provide for the establishment of any
additional monitoring sites or
equipment needed to assess whether
reasonable progress goals to address
regional haze for all mandatory Class I
Federal areas within the state are being
achieved. New Hampshire has not
received any recommendations or
advice from EPA or affected FLM that
additional monitoring is required
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4).
Therefore, New Hampshire has no
current plans to alter the current
strategy as long as this monitoring
continues to be federally supported.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii) requires SIPs
to provide for procedures by which
monitoring data and other information
are used in determining the contribution
of emissions from within the state to
regional haze visibility impairment at
mandatory Class I Federal areas both
within and outside the state. New
Hampshire relied on the MANE–VU
contribution assessment analysis.89 The
analysis included Eulerian (grid-based)
source models, Lagrangian (air parcelbased) source dispersion models, as
well as a variety of data analysis
techniques that include source
apportionment models, back trajectory
calculations, and the use of monitoring
and inventory data.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(iii) does not
apply to New Hampshire, as it has a
Class I area.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the
SIP to provide for the reporting of all
visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each
Class I area in the state. As noted above,
the Great Gulf Wilderness IMPROVE
monitor is operated and maintained by
the U.S. Forest Service. The monitoring
strategy for New Hampshire relies upon
the continued availability of the
IMPROVE network. The IMPROVE
monitor for the Great Gulf Wilderness
(indicated as GRGU1 in the IMPROVE
monitoring network database) is located
at the base of Mt. Washington. New
89 See
Appendix G for the contribution
assessments.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Hampshire supports the continued
operation of the IMPROVE network
through both state and Federal funding
mechanisms.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to
provide for a statewide inventory of
emissions of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment,
including emissions for the most recent
year for which data are available and
estimates of future projected emissions.
It also requires a commitment to update
the inventory periodically. New
Hampshire provides for emissions
inventories and estimates for future
projected emissions by participating in
the MANE–VU RPO and complying
with EPA’s Air Emissions Reporting
Rule (AERR). In 40 CFR part 51, subpart
A, the AERR requires states to submit
updated emissions inventories for
criteria pollutants to EPA’s Emissions
Inventory System (EIS) every three
years. The emission inventory data are
used to develop the NEI, which
provides for, among other things, a
triennial state-wide inventory of
pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment.
Section 5 of New Hampshire’s
submission includes tables of NEI data.
The source categories of the emissions
inventories included are: (1) Point
sources, (2) nonpoint sources, (3) nonroad mobile sources, and (4) on-road
mobile sources. The point source
category is further divided into Air
Markets Program Data (AMPD) point
sources and non-AMPD point sources.90
New Hamshire included NEI emissions
inventories for the following years: 2002
(one of the regional haze program
baseline years), 2008, 2011, 2014, and
2017; and for the following pollutants:
SO2, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, VOCs, CO, and
NH3. New Hampshire also provided a
summary of SO2 and NOx emissions for
AMPD sources for the years of 2016,
2017, 2018, and 2019.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires
states to include estimates of future
projected emissions and include a
commitment to update the inventory
periodically. New Hampshire relied on
the MANE–VU 2028 emissions
projections for MANE–VU states.
MANE–VU completed two 2028
projected emissions modeling cases—a
2028 base case that considers only onthe-books controls and a 2028 control
case that considers implementation of
90 AMPD sources are facilities that participate in
EPA’s emission trading programs. The majority of
AMPD sources are electric generating units (EGUs).
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the MANE–VU Asks.91 New
Hampshire’s SIP submittal also includes
a commitment to update the statewide
emissions inventory periodically.
The EPA proposes to find that New
Hampshire has met the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) as described above,
including through its continued
participation in the IMPROVE network
and the MANE–VU RPO and its ongoing compliance with the AERR, and
that no further elements are necessary at
this time for New Hampshire to assess
and report on visibility pursuant to 40
CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports
Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that
periodic comprehensive revisions of
states’ regional haze plans also address
the progress report requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The
purpose of these requirements is to
evaluate progress towards the applicable
RPGs for each Class I area within the
state and each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions
from within that state. Sections
51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all states
and require a description of the status
of implementation of all measures
included in a state’s first
implementation period regional haze
plan and a summary of the emission
reductions achieved through
implementation of those measures.
Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to
states with Class I areas within their
borders and requires such states to
assess current visibility conditions,
changes in visibility relative to baseline
(2000–2004) visibility conditions, and
changes in visibility conditions relative
to the period addressed in the first
implementation period progress report.
Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all states
and requires an analysis tracking
changes in emissions of pollutants
contributing to visibility impairment
from all sources and sectors since the
period addressed by the first
implementation period progress report.
This provision further specifies the year
or years through which the analysis
must extend depending on the type of
source and the platform through which
its emission information is reported.
Finally, § 51.308(g)(5), which also
applies to all states, requires an
assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the state that have occurred
91 See
‘‘OTC MANE–VU 2011 Based Modeling
Platform Support Document October 2018—Final.’’
At https://otcair.org/manevu/document.
asp?fview=Reports.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
since the period addressed by the first
implementation period progress report,
including whether such changes were
anticipated and whether they have
limited or impeded expected progress
towards reducing emissions and
improving visibility.
New Hampshire’s submission
describes the status of measures of the
long-term strategy from the first
implementation period. As a member of
MANE–VU, New Hampshire considered
the MANE–VU Asks and adopted
corresponding measures into its longterm strategy for the first
implementation period. The MANE–VU
Asks were: (1) Timely implementation
of Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) requirements; (2) EGU controls
including Controls at 167 Key Sources
that most affect MANE–VU Class I areas;
(3) Low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (4)
Continued evaluation of other control
measures. New Hampshire met all the
identified reasonable measures
requested during the first
implementation period. During the first
planning period for regional haze,
programs that were put in place focused
on reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions. The reductions achieved led
to vast improvements in visibility at the
MANE–VU Federal Class I Areas due to
reduced sulfates formed from SO2
emissions. New Hampshire lists in its
submission an expansive list of control
measures that help control the
emissions of VOCs, NOX, PM and SO2
from a wide range of sources.92 New
Hampshire’s SIP submission includes
emission data demonstrating the
reductions achieved throughout the
state through implementation of the
measures mentioned. The state included
periodic emission data that demonstrate
a decrease in VOCs, NOX, PM and SO2
emissions throughout the state. The
measured visibility improvement from
emission reductions at the two New
Hampshire EGUs that were subjected to
BART and other targeted strategies
showed drastic emission decreases from
2007–2017 for SO2, NOX and particulate
matter.93
The EPA proposes to find that New
Hampshire has met the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) because its
SIP submission describes the measures
included in the long-term strategy from
the first implementation period, as well
as the status of their implementation
and the emission reductions achieved
through such implementation.
92 See Section 5.1 of the NH Regional Haze SIP—
Final May 2022.
93 See Figure 5–1: ‘‘Emissions in SO , NO and
2
X
PM from Two New Hampshire EGUs, 2007–2017
(tpy)’’in the New Hampshire SIP submission.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
80677
New Hampshire’s SIP submission
includes the assessments of visibility
conditions and changes at the State’s
class I areas, expressed in terms of 5year averages, required by section
51.308(f)(3). In particular, New
Hampshire’s submission reports current
(2015–2019) visibility conditions for the
most impaired and clearest days of
12.33 and 4.69 deciviews, respectively,
indicating that haze index levels have
decreased by 9.55 deciviews on the
most impaired days and 2.96 deciviews
on the clearest days from baseline
visibility conditions (2000–2004).94 The
SIP submission also indicates that, since
the period addressed in New
Hampshire’s previous progress report
(2009–2013), haze index levels have
decreased by 3.07 and 1.18 deciviews
on the most impaired and clearest days,
respectively. EPA therefore proposes to
find that New Hampshire has satisfied
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3).
Pursuant to § 51.308(g)(4), New
Hampshire provided a summary of
emissions of NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5,
VOCs, and NH3 from all sources and
activities, including from point,
nonpoint, non-road mobile, and on-road
mobile sources, for the time period from
2002 to 2017, based on emission
inventory information submitted
pursuant to the AERR in 40 CFR part 51,
subpart A. With respect to sources that
report directly to the EPA, New
Hampshire also included AMPD data for
SO2 and NOX emissions for 2016
through 2019.
The reductions achieved by New
Hampshire emission control measures
are seen in the emissions inventory.
Based on New Hampshire’s SIP
submission, NOX emissions have
continuously declined in New
Hampshire from 2002 through 2017,
especially in the point, nonroad and
onroad mobile sectors. NOX emissions
are expected to continue to decrease as
fleet turnover occurs and the older more
polluting vehicles and equipment are
replaced by newer, cleaner ones. New
Hampshire sources that report to the
EPA’s AMPD showed a decline in NOX
emissions in the period since the last
progress report (2,753 tons in 2014 and
1,018 tons in 2019).95
Emissions of SO2 have shown a steady
significant decline in New Hampshire
over the period 2002 to 2017,
particularly in the point, nonroad and
onroad mobile sectors. Large decreases
94 See Section 5.3 of the New Hampshire SIP
submission.
95 See Figure 5–4 ‘‘NO Emissions in New
X
Hampshire for all Data Categories, 2002–2017 (tpy)’’
and Figure 5–7: ‘‘MANE–VU State NOX Emissions
from AMPD, 2016–2019 (tpy)’’in the New
Hampshire SIP submission.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80678
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
are attributable to the installation of
scrubbers at Merrimack Station, which
became operational in late 2011, and to
New Hampshire’s adoption of the
MANE–VU low sulfur fuel strategy.96
Since some components of the low
sulfur fuel strategy have milestones of
2016 and 2018, and as MANE–VU states
continue to adopt rules to implement
the strategy, additional SO2 emissions
reductions have likely been obtained
since 2017 and are expected to continue
into the future. Other SO2 emissions
decreases are due to fuel switching due
to the availability of less expensive
natural gas in recent years, and the
reduction of use of coal-fired EGUs at
Merrimack and Schiller Station.
New Hampshire’s submission
analyzes the change in PM10 emissions
from all NEI data categories point,
nonpoint, non-road, and onroad in New
Hampshire, noting that PM10 emissions
have generally remained constant,
particularly between the 2002/2008
inventories and the 2011/2017
inventories. The apparent change in
point source emissions of PM10 is due
to a large point source in the State
mistakenly reporting its PM10 emissions
in pounds, rather than tons. The
variations in the onroad category are
due to changes in emission inventory
calculation methodologies, which
resulted in higher particulate matter
estimates in the other years than in
2002. The large variation in emissions
in the nonpoint category is due to
changes in calculation methodologies
for residential wood burning and
fugitive dust categories, which have
varied significantly.
New Hampshire also analyzes PM2.5
emissions from all NEI data categories
for the period from 2002 to 2017, noting
that, similar to PM10 emissions, they
have remained generally constant in
New Hampshire. PM2.5 emissions show
some decrease in the nonroad category
for the period from 2002 to 2017
because of Federal new engine
standards for nonroad vehicles and
equipment. Overall, there is a decrease
in onroad emissions due to Federal and
State regulations, but the increase from
2002 to 2008 is due to changes in
emission inventory calculation
methodologies and a model change, as
previously explained, which resulted in
higher fine particulate matter estimates
in the years after 2002. The variation in
emissions in the nonpoint category is
due to changes in calculation
methodologies for residential wood
burning and fugitive dust categories,
which have varied significantly.
96 NH
SIP Submission at 88 (Figure 5–15); see
also id. at 71–72.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
Figure 5–20 of New Hampshire’s
submission shows VOC emissions from
all NEI data categories for the period
2002 to 2017 in New Hampshire. VOC
emissions have shown a decline in New
Hampshire over the period 2002 to
2017. Much of the decrease in VOC is
attributable to Federal and state rules for
evaporative sources of VOC emissions
such as portable fuel containers;
architectural, industrial, and
maintenance coatings; consumer
products; and solvent degreasing. VOC
emissions from non-road and on-road
mobile sources are expected to continue
to decrease as older, more polluting
vehicles are replaced by newer, cleaner
ones.
Figure 5–23 of New Hampshire’s
submission shows ammonia (NH3)
emissions from all NEI data categories
for the period 2002 to 2017 and show
a general downward trend in New
Hampshire. Ammonia decreases were
achieved in the onroad sectors due to
Federal new engine standards for
vehicles and equipment. Point source
increases from 2002 to 2008 are due to
reporting, grouping and methodology
changes, not actual emission increases.
Nonpoint increases and decreases from
2002 to 2017 are due to reporting,
grouping and methodology changes. For
many MANE–VU states, ammonia
emissions for 2014 and 2017 are lower
than they were for earlier years. Most
MANE–VU states saw increases in 2017
relative to 2014; this could likely be the
result of estimation methodology
changes. Emissions from 2002–2008 are
not comparable to post-2008 emissions
due to methodology changes.
The EPA is proposing to find that
New Hampshire has satisfied the
requirements of § 51.308(g)(4) by
providing emissions information for
NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, VOCs, and NH3
broken down by type of source.
The emissions trend data in the SIP
submission 97 supports New
Hampshire’s assessment that no
significant increase of haze-causing
pollutant emissions has occurred in
New Hampshire during the reporting
period and that changes in emissions
have not limited or impeded progress in
reducing pollutant emissions and
improving visibility. New Hampshire
notes that, both within and outside the
State, there has been a shift to cleaner
generation of electricity using natural
gas in place of fuels such as coal or oil
that has contributed to reduced
emissions of haze-causing pollutants.
The EPA is proposing to find that New
97 See
Chapter 5 ‘‘Progress Report and Periodic
Reports’’ in New Hampshire SIP submission.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Hampshire has met the requirements of
§ 51.308(g)(5).
I. Requirements for State and Federal
Land Manager Coordination
Section 169A(d) of the Clean Air Act
requires states to consult with FLMs
before holding the public hearing on a
proposed regional haze SIP, and to
include a summary of the FLMs’
conclusions and recommendations in
the notice to the public. In addition,
section 51.308(i)(2)’s FLM consultation
provision requires a state to provide
FLMs with an opportunity for
consultation that is early enough in the
state’s policy analyses of its emission
reduction obligation so that information
and recommendations provided by the
FLMs can meaningfully inform the
state’s decisions on its long-term
strategy. If the consultation has taken
place at least 120 days before a public
hearing or public comment period, the
opportunity for consultation will be
deemed early enough. Regardless, the
opportunity for consultation must be
provided at least sixty days before a
public hearing or public comment
period at the state level. Section
51.308(i)(2) further provides that FLMs
must be given an opportunity to discuss
their assessment of visibility
impairment in any Class I area and their
recommendations on the development
and implementation of strategies to
address visibility impairment. Section
51.308(i)(3) requires states, in
developing their implementation plans,
to include a description of how they
addressed FLMs’ comments.
The states in the MANE–VU RPO
conducted FLM consultation early in
the planning process concurrent with
the state-to-state consultation that
formed the basis of the RPO’s decision
making process. As part of the
consultation, the FLMs were given the
opportunity to review and comment on
the technical documents developed by
MANE–VU. The FLMs were invited to
attend the intra- and inter-RPO
consultations calls among states and at
least one FLM representative was
documented to have attended seven
intra-RPO meetings and all inter-RPO
meetings. New Hampshire participated
in these consultation meetings and
calls.98
As part of this early engagement with
the FLMs, on April 12, 2018, the U.S
National Park Service (NPS) sent letters
to the MANE–VU states requesting that
they consider specific individual
98 See Appendix G ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze
Consultation Report and Consultation
Documentation—Final.’’
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
sources in their long-term strategies.99
NPS used an analysis of emissions
divided by distance (Q/d) to estimate
the impact of MANE–VU facilities. To
select the facilities, NPS first summed
2014 NEI NOX, PM10, SO2, and SO4
emissions and divided by the distance
to a specified NPS mandatory Class I
Federal area. NPS summed the Q/d
values across all MANE–VU states
relative to Acadia, Mammoth Cave and
Shenandoah National Parks, ranked the
Q/d values relative to each Class I area,
created a running total, and identified
those facilities contributing to 80% of
the total impact at each NPS Class I
area. NPS merged the resulting lists of
facilities and sorted them by their states.
NPS suggested that a state consider
those facilities comprising 80% of the
Q/d total, not to exceed the 25 top
ranked facilities. The NPS originally
identified five facilities in New
Hampshire in this letter.100 New
Hampshire included the NPS initial
letter in their proposed SIP. In a
subsequent letter dated October 22,
2018, NPS identified four facilities for
which more control information was
desired. New Hampshire detailed the
emission controls and updates to the
four facilities to address the NPS’s
request for more information, as
discussed previously.101
On June 9, 2021, the NPS Air
Resources Division (ARD) and NPS
Interior Region 1 staff hosted a
consultation meeting with New
Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (NHDES) to
discuss a draft of the New Hampshire
Regional Haze SIP. Representatives from
the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service also attended the
meeting.102 On June 11, 2021, the NPS
sent a summary of this meeting and
NPS’ comments to New Hampshire via
email, stating that the NPS
‘‘commend[s] the state on its level of
analysis and commitment to emissions
reductions.’’ 103 On June 16, 2021, the
U.S. Forest Service indicated by letter
that it was ‘‘satisfied with the document
as provided and offer[ed] no suggestions
for change.’’ 104 In accordance with CAA
§ 169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), New
Hampshire included summaries of the
consultation and copies of the FLM
correspondence in appendices G and W
99 Id.
100 Id.
101 See
Appendix W email from NPS to NHDES.
NH SIP Submittal, App. W (Email from H.
Salazar, Reg’l Air Res. Coord., NPS, to C. Beahm,
Air Res. Div., NHDES (June 11, 2021)).
103 Id.
104 Id. (Ltr. from D. Ibarguen, Forest Supervisor,
White Mtn. Nat’l Forest, to C. Wright, Air Res. Div.
Dir., NHDES (June 16, 2021)).
102 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
of the SIP submission. New Hampshire
also noted that it has responded to FLM
feedback on the selection and
evaluation of specific sources
potentially impacting visibility in Class
I areas during development of the SIP
submission and, as a result, expanded
the number of sources evaluated to
ensure a robust analysis and adequate
controls to improve visibility.105
New Hampshire held two public
comment periods and one public
hearing related to this Regional Haze
SIP Revision. On November 4, 2019,
NHDES published a notice in the
Manchester, NH, Union Leader
announcing a 30-day public comment
period providing for submission of
written comments and allowing any
member of the public the opportunity to
request a public hearing on the SIP
revision. A second public notice period
was conducted starting on December 10,
2021 (and extended on December 27,
2021), with published notices in the
Union Leader. A public hearing was
held in Room 208C at NHDES Offices in
Concord, NH and online via WebEx at
1:30 p.m. on February 23, 2022.
For the reasons stated above, the EPA
proposes to find that New Hampshire
has satisfied the requirements under
CAA section 169A(d) and 40 CFR
51.308(i) regarding consultation with
the FLMs on its regional haze SIP for the
second implementation period.
New Hampshire’s May 5, 2022, SIP
submission includes a commitment to
revise and submit a subsequent regional
haze SIP by July 21, 2033, and every ten
years thereafter. The state’s commitment
includes submitting periodic progress
reports in accordance with § 51.308(f)
and a commitment to evaluate progress
towards the reasonable progress goal for
each mandatory Class I Federal area
located within the state and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area located
outside the state that may be affected by
emissions from within the state in
accordance with § 51.308(g).106
V. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve New
Hampshire’s May 5, 2022,
supplemented on September 21, 2023,
SIP submission as satisfying the regional
haze requirements for the second
implementation period contained in 40
CFR 51.308(f). Additionally, EPA is
proposing to approve the revised state
rule Env-A 2300, ‘‘Mitigation of
Regional Haze,’’ into the SIP.
105 NH
SIP Submittal, App. W.
the preface and Chapter 9 of the ‘‘NH
Regional Haze SIP—Final March 2022.’’
106 See
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
80679
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, 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 Env-A 2300
‘‘Mitigation of Regional Haze,’’ which
contains updated emissions limits for
certain facilities located in the State.
The EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these documents generally
available through https://
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 1 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80680
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, this proposed rulemaking
action, pertaining to New Hampshire
regional haze SIP submission for the
second planning period, is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the 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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies
to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further
defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ‘‘no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’ The air agency did not
evaluate environmental justice
considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and
did not consider EJ in this action.
Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no
information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for
people of color, low-income
populations, and Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
Dated: November 13, 2023.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2023–25336 Filed 11–17–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2023–0097; FRL–11564–
03–R4]
Air Plan Approval; Kentucky;
Revisions to Jefferson County
Emissions Monitoring and Reporting
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
changes to the Jefferson County portion
of the Kentucky State Implementation
Plan (SIP), submitted by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, through
the Energy and Environment Cabinet
(Cabinet), in a letter dated June 15,
2022. The changes were submitted by
the Cabinet on behalf of the Louisville
Metro Air Pollution Control District
(District) and amend the District’s
stationary source emissions monitoring
and reporting requirements. The EPA is
proposing to approve the changes
because they are consistent with the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 20, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2023–0097 at
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
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. 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, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comments, please visit www.epa.gov/
dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
The telephone number is (404) 562–
9088. Ms. Bell can also be reached via
electronic mail at bell.tiereny@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
On June 15, 2022,1 the
Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted
changes to the Jefferson County portion
of the Kentucky SIP for EPA approval.2 3
In this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to
approve changes to Regulation 1.06,
Stationary Source Self-Monitoring,
Emissions Inventory Development, and
Reporting, in the Jefferson County
portion of the Kentucky SIP, submitted
on June 15, 2022. This regulation
provides the District with the authority
to require emissions monitoring at
stationary sources and requires certain
sources to maintain emissions records
and to provide annual emissions
statements to the District. This
regulation does not impose any
emissions limits or control requirements
on any emissions source.
II. EPA’s Analysis of Kentucky’s SIP
Revision
The June 15, 2022, SIP submission
contains a version of Regulation 1.06
adopted by the District on March 16,
2022 (referred to as ‘‘Version 11’’ by the
District). District Regulation 1.06,
Stationary Source Self-Monitoring,
1 On June 15, 2022, Kentucky provided multiple
SIP revisions that are not addressed in this
rulemaking. One of the June 15, 2022, submittals
contains changes to District Regulation 2.04,
Construction or Modification of Major Sources in or
Impacting upon Non-Attainment Areas (Emission
Offset Requirements) in the Kentucky SIP. These
changes are not addressed in this notice. EPA will
act on these changes in a separate rulemaking.
Another June 15, 2022, SIP revision contained
changes to District Regulation 2.17, Federally
Enforceable District Origin Operating Permits, in
the Kentucky SIP. EPA finalized its approval of
changes to Regulation 2.17 on March 1, 2023. See
88 FR 12831.
2 EPA received this submission on June 13, 2022,
via a letter dated June 15, 2022. Throughout this
notice of proposed rulemaking, this submission will
be referred to as the June 15, 2022, submission.
3 In 2003, the City of Louisville and Jefferson
County governments merged, and the ‘‘Jefferson
County Air Pollution Control District’’ was renamed
the ‘‘Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control
District.’’ However, to be consistent with the
terminology used in the subheading in Table 2 of
40 CFR 52.920(c), throughout this notice we refer
to the District regulations contained in the Jefferson
County portion of the Kentucky SIP as the
‘‘Jefferson County’’ regulations.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80655-80680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25336]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0187; FRL-11554-03-R1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Hampshire; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by New Hampshire on May 5, 2022, as satisfying applicable
requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
for the program's second implementation period. New Hampshire'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 sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 20,
2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA- at
https://www.regulations.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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Rackauskas, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 5-MI), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617)
918-1628, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second
Implementation Period
A. Identification of Class I Areas
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan
Requirements
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of New Hampshire's Regional Haze Submission
for the Second Implementation Period
A. Background on New Hampshire's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
B. New Hampshire's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission
and the EPA's Evaluation
C. Identification of Class I Areas
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
a. New Hampshire's Response to the Six MANE-VU Asks
[[Page 80656]]
b. The EPA's Evaluation of New Hampshire's Response to the Six
MANE-VU Asks and Compliance With Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i)
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
V. Proposed Action
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On May 5, 2022, supplemented on September 21, 2023,\1\ the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) submitted a
revision to its SIP to address regional haze for the second
implementation period. NHDES 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. The EPA is proposing to find
that the New Hampshire regional haze SIP submission for the second
implementation period meets the applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements and thus proposes to approve New Hampshire's submission
into its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NH included a corrected Appendix W in a supplemental
submission on September 21, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas,
which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.\2\ CAA 169A.
The CAA establishes as a national goal the ``prevention of any future,
and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.'' CAA 169A(a)(1). The CAA further directs the EPA to
promulgate regulations to assure reasonable progress toward meeting
this national goal. CAA 169A(a)(4). On December 2, 1980, the EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in mandatory
Class I Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as ``Class I areas'')
that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group
of sources. (45 FR 80084, December 2, 1980). These regulations,
codified at 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.307, represented the first phase
of the EPA's efforts to address visibility impairment. In 1990,
Congress added section 169B to the CAA to further address visibility
impairment, specifically, impairment from regional haze. CAA 169B. The
EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), codified at 40 CFR
51.308,\3\ on July 1, 1999. (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999). These regional
haze regulations are a central component of the EPA's comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all
international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. CAA
162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of areas to
which the requirements of the visibility protection program apply is
in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
\3\ In addition to the generally applicable regional haze
provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, the EPA also promulgated regulations
specific to addressing regional haze visibility impairment in Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The latter
regulations are applicable only for specific jurisdictions' regional
haze plans submitted no later than December 17, 2007, and thus are
not relevant here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair
visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse
particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., sulfur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and, in
some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia
(NH3)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the perception of clarity and color, as well as visible
distance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which
is the principal metric used by the RHR. Under many circumstances, a
change in one deciview will be perceived by the human eye to be the
same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview is unitless. It is
proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric extinction of
light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to its being
scattered and absorbed as it passes through the atmosphere.
Atmospheric light extinction (b\ext\) is a metric used to for
expressing visibility and is measured in inverse megameters
(Mm-1). The EPA's Guidance on Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period
(``2019 Guidance'') offers the flexibility for the use of light
extinction in certain cases. Light extinction can be simpler to use
in calculations than deciviews, since it is not a logarithmic
function. See, e.g., 2019 Guidance at 16, 19, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period, The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019). The formula for
the deciview is 10 ln (b\ext\)/10 Mm-1). 40
CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR
established an iterative planning process that requires both states in
which Class I areas are located and states ``the emissions from which
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility'' in a Class I area to periodically submit SIP revisions
to address such impairment. CAA 169A(b)(2); \5\ see also 40 CFR
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional
haze SIP revisions); (64 FR at 35768, July 1, 1999). Under the CAA,
each SIP submission must contain ``a long-term (ten to fifteen years)
strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national
goal,'' CAA 169A(b)(2)(B); the initial round of SIP submissions also
had to address the statutory requirement that certain older, larger
sources of visibility impairing pollutants install and operate the best
available retrofit technology (BART). CAA 169A(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR
51.308(d), (e). States' first regional haze SIPs were due by December
17, 2007, 40 CFR 51.308(b), with subsequent SIP submissions containing
updated long-term strategies originally due July 31, 2018, and every
ten years thereafter. (64 FR at 35768, July 1, 1999). The EPA
established in the 1999 RHR that all states either have Class I areas
within their borders or ``contain sources whose emissions are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to regional haze in a Class I
area''; therefore, all states must submit regional haze SIPs.\6\ Id. at
35721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for states to
submit plans addressing out-of-state class I areas by providing that
states must address visibility impairment ``in each mandatory Class
I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions from within the State.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
\6\ In addition to each of the fifty states, the EPA also
concluded that the Virgin Islands and District of Columbia must also
submit regional haze SIPs because they either contain a Class I area
or contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.300(b),
(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the focus in the first implementation period of the
regional haze program, which ran from 2007 through 2018, was on
satisfying states' BART obligations. First implementation period SIPs
were additionally required to contain long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal, of which BART
is one component. The core required elements for the first
implementation period SIPs (other than BART) are laid out in 40 CFR
51.308(d). Those provisions required that states
[[Page 80657]]
containing Class I areas establish reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
that are measured in deciviews and reflect the anticipated visibility
conditions at the end of the implementation period including from
implementation of states' long-term strategies. The first planning
period RPGs were required to provide for an improvement in visibility
for the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan
and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days
over the same period. In establishing the RPGs for any Class I area in
a state, the state was required to consider four statutory factors: the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining
useful life of any potentially affected sources. CAA 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1).
States were also required to calculate baseline (using the five-
year period of 2000-2004) and natural visibility conditions (i.e.,
visibility conditions without anthropogenic visibility impairment) for
each Class I area, and to calculate the linear rate of progress needed
to attain natural visibility conditions, assuming a starting point of
baseline visibility conditions in 2004 and ending with natural
conditions in 2064. This linear interpolation is known as the uniform
rate of progress (URP) and is used as a tracking metric to help states
assess the amount of progress they are making towards the national
visibility goal over time in each Class I area.\7\ 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(2). The 1999 RHR also provided that States'
long-term strategies must include the ``enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance, schedules, and other measures as necessary to
achieve the reasonable progress goals.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). In
establishing their long-term strategies, states are required to consult
with other states that also contribute to visibility impairment in a
given Class I area and include all measures necessary to obtain their
shares of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(i), (ii). Section 51.308(d) also contains seven additional
factors states must consider in formulating their long-term strategies,
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), as well as provisions governing monitoring and
other implementation plan requirements. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Finally,
the 1999 RHR required states to submit periodic progress reports--SIP
revisions due every five years that contain information on states'
implementation of their regional haze plans and an assessment of
whether anything additional is needed to make reasonable progress, see
40 CFR 51.308(g), (h)--and to consult with the Federal Land Manager(s)
\8\ (FLMs) responsible for each Class I area according to the
requirements in CAA 169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA established the URP framework in the 1999 RHR to provide
``an equitable analytical approach'' to assessing the rate of
visibility improvement at Class I areas across the country. The
start point for the URP analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was
calculated based on the amount of visibility improvement that was
anticipated to result from implementation of existing CAA programs
over the period from the mid-1990s to approximately 2005. Assuming
this rate of progress would continue into the future, EPA determined
that natural visibility conditions would be reached in 60 years, or
2064 (60 years from the baseline starting point of 2004). However,
EPA did not establish 2064 as the year by which the national goal
must be reached. 64 FR at 35731-32. That is, the URP and the 2064
date are not enforceable targets, but are rather tools that ``allow
for analytical comparisons between the rate of progress that would
be achieved by the state's chosen set of control measures and the
URP.'' (82 FR 3078, 3084, January 10, 2017).
\8\ The EPA's regulations define ``Federal Land Manager'' as
``the Secretary of the department with authority over the Federal
Class I area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park, the Chairman of the
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 10, 2017, the EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR, (82
FR 3078, January 10, 2017), that apply for the second and subsequent
implementation periods. The 2017 rulemaking made several changes to the
requirements for regional haze SIPs to clarify States' obligations and
streamline certain regional haze requirements. The revisions to the
regional haze program for the second and subsequent implementation
periods focused on the requirement that States' SIPs contain long-term
strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national
visibility goal. The reasonable progress requirements as revised in the
2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the 2017 RHR Revisions) are
codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f). Among other changes, the 2017 RHR
Revisions adjusted the deadline for States to submit their second
implementation period SIPs from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021,
clarified the order of analysis and the relationship between RPGs and
the long-term strategy, and focused on making visibility improvements
on the days with the most anthropogenic visibility impairment, as
opposed to the days with the most visibility impairment overall. The
EPA also revised requirements of the visibility protection program
related to periodic progress reports and FLM consultation. The specific
requirements applicable to second implementation period regional haze
SIP submissions are addressed in detail below.
The EPA provided guidance to the states for their second
implementation period SIP submissions in the preamble to the 2017 RHR
Revisions as well as in subsequent, stand-alone guidance documents. In
August 2019, the EPA issued ``Guidance on Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2019
Guidance'').\9\ On July 8, 2021, the EPA issued a memorandum containing
``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for
the Second Implementation Period'' (``2021 Clarifications Memo'').\10\
Additionally, the EPA further clarified the recommended procedures for
processing ambient visibility data and optionally adjusting the URP to
account for international anthropogenic and prescribed fire impacts in
two technical guidance documents: the December 2018 ``Technical
Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for the Second Implementation
Period of the Regional Haze Program'' (``2018 Visibility Tracking
Guidance''),\11\ and the June 2020 ``Recommendation for the Use of
Patched and Substituted Data and Clarification of Data Completeness for
Tracking Visibility Progress for the Second Implementation Period of
the Regional Haze Program'' and associated Technical Addendum (``2020
Data Completeness Memo'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the
Second Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019).
\10\ Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans for the Second Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf. The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
\11\ Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for the
Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progress-second-implementation-period-regional The EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park. (December
20, 2018).
\12\ Recommendation for the Use of Patched and Substituted Data
and Clarification of Data Completeness for Tracking Visibility
Progress for the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze
Program. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program The EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park
(June 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, EPA
intends the second implementation period of the regional haze program
to secure
[[Page 80658]]
meaningful reductions in visibility impairing pollutants that build on
the significant progress states have achieved to date. The Agency also
recognizes that analyses regarding reasonable progress are state-
specific and that, based on states' and sources' individual
circumstances, what constitutes reasonable reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants will vary from state-to-state. While there exist
many opportunities for states to leverage both ongoing and upcoming
emission reductions under other CAA programs, the Agency expects states
to undertake rigorous reasonable progress analyses that identify
further opportunities to advance the national visibility goal
consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements. See
generally 2021 Clarifications Memo. This is consistent with Congress's
determination that a visibility protection program is needed in
addition to the CAA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration programs, as further emission
reductions may be necessary to adequately protect visibility in Class I
areas throughout the country.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95-294 at 205 (``In determining how
to best remedy the growing visibility problem in these areas of
great scenic importance, the committee realizes that as a matter of
equity, the national ambient air quality standards cannot be revised
to adequately protect visibility in all areas of the country.''),
(``the mandatory class I increments of [the PSD program] do not
adequately protect visibility in class I areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Because the air pollutants and pollution affecting visibility in
Class I areas can be transported over long distances, successful
implementation of the regional haze program requires long-term,
regional coordination among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that
have responsibility for Class I areas and the emissions that impact
visibility in those areas. In order to address regional haze, states
need to develop strategies in coordination with one another,
considering the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air
quality in another. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs),\14\
which include representation from state and tribal governments, the
EPA, and FLMs, were developed in the lead-up to the first
implementation period to address regional haze. RPOs evaluate technical
information to better understand how emissions from State and Tribal
land impact Class I areas across the country, pursue the development of
regional strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter and other
pollutants leading to regional haze, and help states meet the
consultation requirements of the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ``multi-
jurisdictional organizations,'' or MJOs. For the purposes of this
notice, the terms RPO and MJO are synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), one of the
five RPOs described above, is a collaborative effort of state
governments, tribal governments, and various Federal agencies
established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the
management of regional haze, visibility, and other air quality issues
in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast corridor of the United States. Member
states and tribal governments (listed alphabetically) include:
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and
Vermont. The Federal partner members of MANE-VU are EPA, U.S. National
Parks Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S.
Forest Service (USFS).
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Implementation
Period
Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to submit regional
haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021.
Each state's SIP must contain a long-term strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any
existing and preventing any future anthropogenic visibility impairment
in Class I areas. CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, Sec. 51.308(f) lays
out the process by which states determine what constitutes their long-
term strategies, with the order of the requirements in Sec.
51.308(f)(1) through (f)(3) generally mirroring the order of the steps
in the reasonable progress analysis \15\ and (f)(4) through (f)(6)
containing additional, related requirements. Broadly speaking, a state
first must identify the Class I areas within the state and determine
the Class I areas outside the state in which visibility may be affected
by emissions from the state. These are the Class I areas that must be
addressed in the state's long-term strategy. See 40 CFR 51.308(f),
(f)(2). For each Class I area within its borders, a state must then
calculate the baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions for
that area, as well as the visibility improvement made to date and the
URP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each state having a Class I area and/or
emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must then
develop a long-term strategy that includes the enforceable emission
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress in such areas. A reasonable
progress determination is based on applying the four factors in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) to sources of visibility-impairing pollutants that
the state has selected to assess for controls for the second
implementation period. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). Additionally, as
further explained below, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ``additional factors'' \16\ that states must consider in
developing their long-term strategies. A state evaluates potential
emission reduction measures for those selected sources and determines
which are necessary to make reasonable progress. Those measures are
then incorporated into the state's long-term strategy. After a state
has developed its long-term strategy, it then establishes RPGs for each
Class I area within its borders by modeling the visibility impacts of
all reasonable progress controls at the end of the second
implementation period, i.e., in 2028, as well as the impacts of other
requirements of the CAA. The RPGs include reasonable progress controls
not only for sources in the state in which the Class I area is located,
but also for sources in other states that contribute to visibility
impairment in that area. The RPGs are then compared to the baseline
visibility conditions and the URP to ensure that progress is being made
towards the statutory goal of preventing any future and remedying any
existing anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I areas. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that we were
adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike
the structure in 51.308(d), ``tracked the actual planning
sequence.'' (82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017).
\16\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to satisfying the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f)
related to reasonable progress, the regional haze SIP revisions for the
second implementation period must address the requirements in Sec.
51.308(g)(1) through (5) pertaining to periodic reports describing
progress towards the RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements
for FLM consultation that
[[Page 80659]]
apply to all visibility protection SIPs and SIP revisions. 40 CFR
51.308(i).
A state must submit its regional haze SIP and subsequent SIP
revisions to the EPA according to the requirements applicable to all
SIP revisions under the CAA and EPA's regulations. See CAA 169(b)(2);
CAA 110(a). Upon EPA approval, a SIP is enforceable by the Agency and
the public under the CAA. If EPA finds that a state fails to make a
required SIP revision, or if the EPA finds that a state's SIP is
incomplete or if disapproves the SIP, the Agency must promulgate a
federal implementation plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable
requirements. CAA 110(c)(1).
A. Identification of Class I Areas
The first step in developing a regional haze SIP is for a state to
determine which Class I areas, in addition to those within its borders,
``may be affected'' by emissions from within the state. In the 1999
RHR, the EPA determined that all states contribute to visibility
impairment in at least one Class I area, 64 FR at 35720-22, and
explained that the statute and regulations lay out an ``extremely low
triggering threshold'' for determining ``whether States should be
required to engage in air quality planning and analysis as a
prerequisite to determining the need for control of emissions from
sources within their State.'' Id. at 35721.
A state must determine which Class I areas must be addressed by its
SIP by evaluating the total emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants from all sources within the state. While the RHR does not
require this evaluation to be conducted in any particular manner, EPA's
2019 Guidance provides recommendations for how such an assessment might
be accomplished, including by, where appropriate, using the
determinations previously made for the first implementation period.
2019 Guidance at 8-9. In addition, the determination of which Class I
areas may be affected by a state's emissions is subject to the
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ``document the technical
basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions
information, on which the State is relying to determine the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress in
each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects.''
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
As part of assessing whether a SIP submission for the second
implementation period is providing for reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal, the RHR contains requirements in Sec.
51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility improvement over time. The
requirements of this subsection apply only to states having Class I
areas within their borders; the required calculations must be made for
each such Class I area. EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance \17\
provides recommendations to assist states in satisfying their
obligations under Sec. 51.308(f)(1); specifically, in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP to account for the
impacts of international anthropogenic emissions and prescribed fires.
See 82 FR at 3103-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance references and relies
on parts of the 2003 Tracking Guidance: ``Guidance for Tracking
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule,'' which can be found at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/visible/tracking.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RHR requires tracking of visibility conditions on two sets of
days: the clearest and the most impaired days. Visibility conditions
for both sets of days are expressed as the average deciview index for
the relevant five-year period (the period representing baseline or
current visibility conditions). The RHR provides that the relevant sets
of days for visibility tracking purposes are the 20% clearest (the 20%
of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest values of the
deciview index) and 20% most impaired days (the 20% of monitored days
in a calendar year with the highest amounts of anthropogenic visibility
impairment).\18\ 40 CFR 51.301. A state must calculate visibility
conditions for both the 20% clearest and 20% most impaired days for the
baseline period of 2000-2004 and the most recent five-year period for
which visibility monitoring data are available (representing current
visibility conditions). 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii). States must also
calculate natural visibility conditions for the clearest and most
impaired days,\19\ by estimating the conditions that would exist on
those two sets of days absent anthropogenic visibility impairment. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii). Using all these data, states must then calculate,
for each Class I area, the amount of progress made since the baseline
period (2000-2004) and how much improvement is left to achieve in order
to reach natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ This notice also refers to the 20% clearest and 20% most
anthropogenically impaired days as the ``clearest'' and ``most
impaired'' or ``most anthropogenically impaired'' days,
respectively.
\19\ The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an error
related to the requirement for calculating two sets of natural
conditions values. The rule says ``most impaired days or the
clearest days'' where it should say ``most impaired days and
clearest days.'' This is an error that was intended to be corrected
in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected in the final
rule language. This is supported by the preamble text at 82 FR 3098:
``In the final version of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii), an occurrence of
``or'' has been corrected to ``and'' to indicate that natural
visibility conditions for both the most impaired days and the
clearest days must be based on available monitoring information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, states must
plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and
natural visibility conditions for each Class I area to determine the
URP--the amount of visibility improvement, measured in deciviews, that
would need to be achieved during each implementation period in order to
achieve natural visibility conditions by the end of 2064. The URP is
used in later steps of the reasonable progress analysis for
informational purposes and to provide a non-enforceable benchmark
against which to assess a Class I area's rate of visibility
improvement.\20\ Additionally, in the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA
provided states the option of proposing to adjust the endpoint of the
URP to account for impacts of anthropogenic sources outside the United
States and/or impacts of certain types of wildland prescribed fires.
These adjustments, which must be approved by the EPA, are intended to
avoid any perception that states should compensate for impacts from
international anthropogenic sources and to give states the flexibility
to determine that limiting the use of wildland-prescribed fire is not
necessary for reasonable progress. 82 FR 3107 footnote 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Being on or below the URP is not a ``safe harbor''; i.e.,
achieving the URP does not mean that a Class I area is making
``reasonable progress'' and does not relieve a state from using the
four statutory factors to determine what level of control is needed
to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance can be used to help satisfy
the 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, including in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP. In addition, the 2020
Data Completeness Memo provides recommendations on the data
completeness language referenced in Sec. 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides
updated natural conditions estimates for each Class I area.
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
The core component of a regional haze SIP submission is a long-term
[[Page 80660]]
strategy that addresses regional haze in each Class I area within a
state's borders and each Class I area that may be affected by emissions
from the state. The long-term strategy ``must include the enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that
are necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to
(f)(2)(i) through (iv).'' 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of progress
that is ``reasonable progress'' is based on applying the four statutory
factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of potential control
options for sources of visibility impairing pollutants, which is
referred to as a ``four-factor'' analysis. The outcome of that analysis
is the emission reduction measures that a particular source or group of
sources needs to implement in order to make reasonable progress towards
the national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress may
be either new, additional control measures for a source, or they may be
the existing emission reduction measures that a source is already
implementing. See 2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 8-
10. Such measures must be represented by ``enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures'' (i.e., any
additional compliance tools) in a state's long-term strategy in its
SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements for the four-
factor analysis. The first step of this analysis entails selecting the
sources to be evaluated for emission reduction measures; to this end,
the RHR requires states to consider ``major and minor stationary
sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area sources'' of
visibility impairing pollutants for potential four-factor control
analysis. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A threshold question at this step is
which visibility impairing pollutants will be analyzed. As EPA
previously explained, consistent with the first implementation period,
EPA generally expects that each state will analyze at least
SO2 and NOX in selecting sources and determining
control measures. See 2019 Guidance at 12, 2021 Clarifications Memo at
4. A state that chooses not to consider at least these two pollutants
should demonstrate why such consideration would be unreasonable. 2021
Clarifications Memo at 4.
While states have the option to analyze all sources, the 2019
Guidance explains that ``an analysis of control measures is not
required for every source in each implementation period,'' and that
``[s]electing a set of sources for analysis of control measures in each
implementation period is . . . consistent with the Regional Haze Rule,
which sets up an iterative planning process and anticipates that a
state may not need to analyze control measures for all its sources in a
given SIP revision.'' 2019 Guidance at 9. However, given that source
selection is the basis of all subsequent control determinations, a
reasonable source selection process ``should be designed and conducted
to ensure that source selection results in a set of pollutants and
sources the evaluation of which has the potential to meaningfully
reduce their contributions to visibility impairment.'' 2021
Clarifications Memo at 3.
EPA explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo that each state has
an obligation to submit a long-term strategy that addresses the
regional haze visibility impairment that results from emissions from
within that state. Thus, source selection should focus on the in-state
contribution to visibility impairment and be designed to capture a
meaningful portion of the state's total contribution to visibility
impairment in Class I areas. A state should not decline to select its
largest in-state sources on the basis that there are even larger out-
of-state contributors. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Similarly, in responding to comments on the 2017 RHR
Revisions EPA explained that ``[a] state should not fail to address
its many relatively low-impact sources merely because it only has
such sources and another state has even more low-impact sources and/
or some high impact sources.'' Responses to Comments on Protection
of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) at 87-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, while states have discretion to choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that
a state's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.''
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a state has selected the set of sources, the next step is to
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation
period.\22\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy
and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements.'' CAA 169A(g)(1). The EPA has explained that the four-
factor analysis is an assessment of potential emission reduction
measures (i.e., control options) for sources; ``use of the terms
`compliance' and `subject to such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1)
strongly indicates that Congress intended the relevant determination to
be the requirements with which sources would have to comply in order to
satisfy the CAA's reasonable progress mandate.'' 82 FR at 3091. Thus,
for each source it has selected for four-factor analysis,\23\ a state
must consider a ``meaningful set'' of technically feasible control
options for reducing emissions of visibility impairing pollutants. Id.
at 3088. The 2019 Guidance provides that ``[a] state must reasonably
pick and justify the measures that it will consider, recognizing that
there is no statutory or regulatory requirement to consider all
technically feasible measures or any particular measures. A range of
technically feasible measures available to reduce emissions would be
one way to justify a reasonable set.'' 2019 Guidance at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The CAA provides that, ``[i]n determining reasonable
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four
statutory factors. CAA 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-
factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or source
categories, a state may also consider additional emission reduction
measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g., from other
newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and measures for
sources not selected for four-factor analysis for the second
planning period.
\23\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires states to
evaluate individual sources. Rather, states have ``the flexibility
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of
sources or even entire source categories, depending on state policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each state.'' 82 FR at
3088. However, not all approaches to grouping sources for four-
factor analysis are necessarily reasonable; the reasonableness of
grouping sources in any particular instance will depend on the
circumstances and the manner in which grouping is conducted. If it
is feasible to establish and enforce different requirements for
sources or subgroups of sources, and if relevant factors can be
quantified for those sources or subgroups, then states should make a
separate reasonable progress determination for each source or
subgroup. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further guidance on what
constitutes a reasonable set of control options for consideration: ``A
reasonable four-factor analysis will consider the full range of
potentially reasonable options for reducing emissions.'' 2021
[[Page 80661]]
Clarifications Memo at 7. In addition to add-on controls and other
retrofits (i.e., new emission reduction measures for sources), EPA
explained that states should generally analyze efficiency improvements
for sources' existing measures as control options in their four-factor
analyses, as in many cases such improvements are reasonable given that
they typically involve only additional operation and maintenance costs.
Additionally, the 2021 Clarifications Memo provides that states that
have assumed a higher emission rate than a source has achieved or could
potentially achieve using its existing measures should also consider
lower emission rates as potential control options. That is, a state
should consider a source's recent actual and projected emission rates
to determine if it could reasonably attain lower emission rates with
its existing measures. If so, the state should analyze the lower
emission rate as a control option for reducing emissions. 2021
Clarifications Memo at 7. The EPA's recommendations to analyze
potential efficiency improvements and achievable lower emission rates
apply to both sources that have been selected for four-factor analysis
and those that have forgone a four-factor analysis on the basis of
existing ``effective controls.'' See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 5, 10.
After identifying a reasonable set of potential control options for
the sources it has selected, a state then collects information on the
four factors with regard to each option identified. The EPA has also
explained that, in addition to the four statutory factors, states have
flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably consider visibility
benefits as an additional factor alongside the four statutory
factors.\24\ The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations for the types
of information that can be used to characterize the four factors (with
or without visibility), as well as ways in which states might
reasonably consider and balance that information to determine which of
the potential control options is necessary to make reasonable progress.
See 2019 Guidance at 30-36. The 2021 Clarifications Memo contains
further guidance on how states can reasonably consider modeled
visibility impacts or benefits in the context of a four-factor
analysis. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 12-13, 14-15. Specifically, EPA
explained that while visibility can reasonably be used when comparing
and choosing between multiple reasonable control options, it should not
be used to summarily reject controls that are reasonable given the four
statutory factors. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13. Ultimately, while
states have discretion to reasonably weigh the factors and to determine
what level of control is needed, Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a
state ``must include in its implementation plan a description of . . .
how the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the
measure for inclusion in its long-term strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016), Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0531,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186; 2019 Guidance at 36-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors.
Pursuant to Sec. 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal must be
included in a state's long-term strategy and in its SIP.\25\ If the
outcome of a four-factor analysis is a new, additional emission
reduction measure for a source, that new measure is necessary to make
reasonable progress towards remedying existing anthropogenic visibility
impairment and must be included in the SIP. If the outcome of a four-
factor analysis is that no new measures are reasonable for a source,
continued implementation of the source's existing measures is generally
necessary to prevent future emission increases and thus to make
reasonable progress towards the second part of the national visibility
goal: preventing future anthropogenic visibility impairment. See CAA
169A(a)(1). That is, when the result of a four-factor analysis is that
no new measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, the source's
existing measures are generally necessary to make reasonable progress
and must be included in the SIP. However, there may be circumstances in
which a state can demonstrate that a source's existing measures are not
necessary to make reasonable progress. Specifically, if a state can
demonstrate that a source will continue to implement its existing
measures and will not increase its emission rate, it may not be
necessary to have those measures in the long-term strategy in order to
prevent future emission increases and future visibility impairment.
EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further explanation and
guidance on how states may demonstrate that a source's existing
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 8-10. If the state can make such a
demonstration, it need not include a source's existing measures in the
long-term strategy or its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ States may choose to, but are not required to, include
measures in their long-term strategies beyond just the emission
reduction measures that are necessary for reasonable progress. See
2021 Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with smoke
management programs may choose to submit their smoke management
plans to EPA for inclusion in their SIPs but are not required to do
so. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3108-09 (requirement to consider smoke
management practices and smoke management programs under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not require states to adopt such practices or
programs into their SIPs, although they may elect to do so).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with source selection, the characterization of information on
each of the factors is also subject to the documentation requirement in
Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress analysis, including
source selection, information gathering, characterization of the four
statutory factors (and potentially visibility), balancing of the four
factors, and selection of the emission reduction measures that
represent reasonable progress, is a technically complex exercise, but
also a flexible one that provides states with bounded discretion to
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances.
Given this flexibility, Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important
function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for its
decision making so that the public and the EPA can comprehend and
evaluate the information and analysis the state relied upon to
determine what emission reduction measures must be in place to make
reasonable progress. The technical documentation must include the
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on
which the state relied to determine the measures necessary to make
reasonable progress. This documentation requirement can be met through
the provision of and reliance on technical analyses developed through a
regional planning process, so long as that process and its output has
been approved by all state participants. In addition to the explicit
regulatory requirement to document the technical basis of their
reasonable progress determinations, states are also subject to the
general principle that those determinations must be reasonably moored
to the statute.\26\ That is, a state's decisions about the emission
[[Page 80662]]
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress must
be consistent with the statutory goal of remedying existing and
preventing future visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531
(9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA, 812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir.
2016); North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013);
Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208-10 (10th Cir. 2013); cf.
also Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 485,
490 (2004); Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165
(3d Cir. 2015);.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The four statutory factors (and potentially visibility) are used to
determine what emission reduction measures for selected sources must be
included in a state's long-term strategy for making reasonable
progress. Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ``additional factors'' \27\ that states must consider in
developing their long-term strategies: (1) Emission reductions due to
ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address
reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (2) measures to reduce
the impacts of construction activities; (3) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (4) basic smoke management practices for
prescribed fire used for agricultural and wildland vegetation
management purposes and smoke management programs; and (5) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point,
area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the
long-term strategy. The 2019 Guidance provides that a state may satisfy
this requirement by considering these additional factors in the process
of selecting sources for four-factor analysis, when performing that
analysis, or both, and that not every one of the additional factors
needs to be considered at the same stage of the process. See 2019
Guidance at 21. EPA provided further guidance on the five additional
factors in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, explaining that a state should
generally not reject cost-effective and otherwise reasonable controls
merely because there have been emission reductions since the first
planning period owing to other ongoing air pollution control programs
or merely because visibility is otherwise projected to improve at Class
I areas. Additionally, states generally should not rely on these
additional factors to summarily assert that the state has already made
sufficient progress and, therefore, no sources need to be selected or
no new controls are needed regardless of the outcome of four-factor
analyses. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses state
boundaries, Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to consult with
other states that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area.
Consultation allows for each state that impacts visibility in an area
to share whatever technical information, analyses, and control
determinations may be necessary to develop coordinated emission
management strategies. This coordination may be managed through inter-
and intra-RPO consultation and the development of regional emissions
strategies; additional consultations between states outside of RPO
processes may also occur. If a state, pursuant to consultation, agrees
that certain measures (e.g., a certain emission limitation) are
necessary to make reasonable progress at a Class I area, it must
include those measures in its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A).
Additionally, the RHR requires that states that contribute to
visibility impairment at the same Class I area consider the emission
reduction measures the other contributing states have identified as
being necessary to make reasonable progress for their own sources. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a state has been asked to consider or adopt
certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately determines those
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress, that state must
document in its SIP the actions taken to resolve the disagreement. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). The EPA will consider the technical
information and explanations presented by the submitting state and the
state with which it disagrees when considering whether to approve the
state's SIP. See id.; 2019 Guidance at 53. Under all circumstances, a
state must document in its SIP submission all substantive consultations
with other contributing states. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
Reasonable progress goals ``measure the progress that is projected
to be achieved by the control measures states have determined are
necessary to make reasonable progress based on a four-factor
analysis.'' 82 FR at 3091. Their primary purpose is to assist the
public and the EPA in assessing the reasonableness of states' long-term
strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national
visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii)-(iv). States in which
Class I areas are located must establish two RPGs, both in deciviews--
one representing visibility conditions on the clearest days and one
representing visibility on the most anthropogenically impaired days--
for each area within their borders. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). The two
RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts, on the two sets of
days, of the emission reduction measures the state with the Class I
area, as well as all other contributing states, have included in their
long-term strategies for the second implementation period.\28\ The RPGs
also account for the projected impacts of implementing other CAA
requirements, including non-SIP based requirements. Because RPGs are
the modeled result of the measures in states' long-term strategies (as
well as other measures required under the CAA), they cannot be
determined before states have conducted their four-factor analyses and
determined the control measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts of the
measures all contributing states include in their long-term
strategies. However, due to the timing of analyses and of control
determinations by other states, other on-going emissions changes, a
particular state's RPGs may not reflect all control measures and
emissions reductions that are expected to occur by the end of the
implementation period. The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations
for addressing the timing of RPG calculations when states are
developing their long-term strategies on disparate schedules, as
well as for adjusting RPGs using a post-modeling approach. 2019
Guidance at 47-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the second implementation period, the RPGs are set for 2028.
Reasonable progress goals are not enforceable targets, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they ``provide a way for the states to check
the projected outcome of the [long-term strategy] against the goals for
visibility improvement.'' 2019 Guidance at 46. While states are not
legally obligated to achieve the visibility conditions described in
their RPGs, Sec. 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ``[t]he long-term
strategy and the reasonable progress goals must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the baseline
period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the clearest days
since the baseline period.'' Thus, states are required to have emission
reduction measures in their long-term strategies that are projected to
achieve visibility conditions on the most impaired days that are better
than the baseline period and show no degradation on the clearest days
compared to the clearest days from the baseline period. The baseline
period for the purpose of this comparison is the baseline visibility
condition--the annual average visibility condition for the period 2000-
2004. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR at 3097-98.
So that RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of
progress a state is making towards the
[[Page 80663]]
national visibility goal, the RHR requires states with Class I areas to
compare the 2028 RPG for the most impaired days to the corresponding
point on the URP line (representing visibility conditions in 2028 if
visibility were to improve at a linear rate from conditions in the
baseline period of 2000-2004 to natural visibility conditions in 2064).
If the most impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the URP (i.e., if
visibility conditions are improving more slowly than the rate described
by the URP), each state that contributes to visibility impairment in
the Class I area must demonstrate, based on the four-factor analysis
required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional emission
reduction measures would be reasonable to include in its long-term
strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)
requires that each state contributing to visibility impairment in a
Class I area that is projected to improve more slowly than the URP
provide ``a robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria
used to determine which sources or groups [of] sources were evaluated
and how the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken
into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-
term strategy.'' The 2019 Guidance provides suggestions about how such
a ``robust demonstration'' might be conducted. See 2019 Guidance at 50-
51.
The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and 2021 Clarifications Memo also
explain that projecting an RPG that is on or below the URP based on
only on-the-books and/or on-the-way control measures (i.e., control
measures already required or anticipated before the four-factor
analysis is conducted) is not a ``safe harbor'' from the CAA's and
RHR's requirement that all states must conduct a four-factor analysis
to determine what emission reduction measures constitute reasonable
progress. The URP is a planning metric used to gauge the amount of
progress made thus far and the amount left before reaching natural
visibility conditions. However, the URP is not based on consideration
of the four statutory factors and therefore cannot answer the question
of whether the amount of progress being made in any particular
implementation period is ``reasonable progress.'' See 82 FR at 3093,
3099-3100; 2019 Guidance at 22; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 15-16.
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual
requirements under this subsection apply either to states with Class I
areas within their borders, states with no Class I areas but that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area, or both. A state with Class I areas within its
borders must submit with its SIP revision a monitoring strategy for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility
impairment that is representative of all Class I areas within the
state. SIP revisions for such states must also provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess visibility conditions in Class I areas, as well as reporting of
all visibility monitoring data to the EPA at least annually. Compliance
with the monitoring strategy requirement may be met through a state's
participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring network, which is used to measure
visibility impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i),
(f)(6)(iv). The IMPROVE monitoring data is used to determine the 20%
most anthropogenically impaired and 20% clearest sets of days every
year at each Class I area and tracks visibility impairment over time.
All states' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring
data and other information are used to determine the contribution of
emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment
in affected Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii). Section
51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires that all states' SIPs provide for a
statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area; the inventory must include emissions for the most recent
year for which data are available and estimates of future projected
emissions. States must also include commitments to update their
inventories periodically. The inventories themselves do not need to be
included as elements in the SIP and are not subject to EPA review as
part of the Agency's evaluation of a SIP revision.\29\ All states' SIPs
must also provide for any other elements, including reporting,
recordkeeping, and other measures, that are necessary for states to
assess and report on visibility. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). Per the 2019
Guidance, a state may note in its regional haze SIP that its compliance
with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) in 40 CFR part 51 subpart
A satisfies the requirement to provide for an emissions inventory for
the most recent year for which data are available. To satisfy the
requirement to provide estimates of future projected emissions, a state
may explain in its SIP how projected emissions were developed for use
in establishing RPGs for its own and nearby Class I areas.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See ``Step 8: Additional requirements for regional haze
SIPs'' in 2019 Regional Haze Guidance at 55.
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate from the requirements related to monitoring for regional
haze purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the RHR also contains a
requirement at Sec. 51.308(f)(4) related to any additional monitoring
that may be needed to address visibility impairment in Class I areas
from a single source or a small group of sources. This is called
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment.'' \31\ Under this
provision, if the EPA or the FLM of an affected Class I area has
advised a state that additional monitoring is needed to assess
reasonably attributable visibility impairment, the state must include
in its SIP revision for the second implementation period an appropriate
strategy for evaluating such impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ EPA's visibility protection regulations define ``reasonably
attributable visibility impairment'' as ``visibility impairment that
is caused by the emission of air pollutants from one, or a small
number of sources.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report
for the first implementation period. The regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the public and the EPA about a
state's implementation of its existing long-term strategy and whether
such implementation is in fact resulting in the expected visibility
improvement. See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016), (82 FR at 3119,
January 10, 2017). To this end, every state's SIP revision for the
second implementation period is required to describe the status of
implementation of all measures included in the state's long-term
strategy, including BART and reasonable progress emission reduction
measures from the first implementation period, and the resulting
emissions reductions. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
[[Page 80664]]
A core component of the progress report requirements is an
assessment of changes in visibility conditions on the clearest and most
impaired days. For second implementation period progress reports, Sec.
51.308(g)(3) requires states with Class I areas within their borders to
first determine current visibility conditions for each area on the most
impaired and clearest days, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i)(B), and then to
calculate the difference between those current conditions and baseline
(2000-2004) visibility conditions in order to assess progress made to
date. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii)(B). States must also assess the
changes in visibility impairment for the most impaired and clearest
days since they submitted their first implementation period progress
reports. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(iii)(B), (f)(5). Since different
states submitted their first implementation period progress reports at
different times, the starting point for this assessment will vary state
by state.
Similarly, states must provide analyses tracking the change in
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all
sources and activities within the state over the period since they
submitted their first implementation period progress reports. See 40
CFR 51.308(g)(4), (f)(5). Changes in emissions should be identified by
the type of source or activity. Section 51.308(g)(5) also addresses
changes in emissions since the period addressed by the previous
progress report and requires states' SIP revisions to include an
assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within
or outside the state. This assessment must include an explanation of
whether these changes in emissions were anticipated and whether they
have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving
visibility relative to what the state projected based on its long-term
strategy for the first implementation period.
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Clean Air Act section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a
public hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must
consult with the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that
consultation, the state must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions
and recommendations in the notice to the public. Consistent with this
statutory requirement, the RHR also requires that states ``provide the
[FLM] with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point
early enough in the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy
emission reduction obligation so that information and recommendations
provided by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on
the long-term strategy.'' 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). Consultation that occurs
120 days prior to any public hearing or public comment opportunity will
be deemed ``early enough,'' but the RHR provides that in any event the
opportunity for consultation must be provided at least 60 days before a
public hearing or comment opportunity. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of visibility
impairment in any Class I area and their recommendations on the
development and implementation of strategies to address such
impairment. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In order for the EPA to evaluate
whether FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the RHR has
occurred, the SIP submission should include documentation of the timing
and content of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to the EPA
must also describe how the state addressed any comments provided by the
FLMs. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision must provide
procedures for continuing consultation between the state and FLMs
regarding the state's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4).
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of New Hampshire's Regional Haze Submission
for the Second Implementation Period
A. Background on New Hampshire's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
NHDES submitted its regional haze SIP for the first implementation
period to the EPA on January 9, 2010, and supplemented it on January
14, 2011, and August 14, 2011. The EPA approved New Hampshire's first
implementation period regional haze SIP submission on August 22, 2012
(77 FR 50602). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g), New Hampshire was also
responsible for submitting a five-year progress report as a SIP
revision for the first implementation period, which it did on December
16, 2014. The EPA approved the progress report into the New Hampshire
SIP on October 12, 2016 (81 FR 70360).
B. New Hampshire's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and the
EPA's Evaluation
In accordance with CAA sections 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(f), on May 5, 2022, NHDES submitted a revision to the New
Hampshire SIP to address its regional haze obligations for the second
implementation period, which runs through 2028. The New Hampshire
submission also included the revised New Hampshire's Code of
Administrative Rules Env-A 2300, ``Mitigation of Regional Haze,'' which
contains updated emissions limits for certain facilities located in the
State. New Hampshire made a draft Regional Haze SIP submission
available for public comment on November 4, 2019, with a second notice
made available for public comment on December 10, 2021. A public
hearing was also held on February 23, 2022. NHDES has included the
public comments and its responses to those comments in the submission.
The following sections describe New Hampshire's SIP submission,
including analyses conducted by MANE-VU and New Hampshire's
determinations based on those analyses, New Hampshire's assessment of
progress made since the first implementation period in reducing
emissions of visibility impairing pollutants, and the visibility
improvement progress at its Class I areas and nearby Class I areas.
This notice also contains EPA's evaluation of New Hampshire's
submission against the requirements of the CAA and RHR for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program.
C. Identification of Class I Areas
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each state in which any
Class I area is located or ``the emissions from which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility'' in
a Class I area to have a plan for making reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. The RHR implements this statutory requirement
at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which provides that each state's plan ``must
address regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within the
State,'' and (f)(2), which requires each state's plan to include a
long-term strategy that addresses regional haze in such Class I areas.
The EPA explained in the 1999 RHR preamble that the CAA section
169A(b)(2) requirement that states submit SIPs to address visibility
impairment establishes ``an `extremely
[[Page 80665]]
low triggering threshold' in determining which States should submit
SIPs for regional haze.'' 64 FR at 35721. In concluding that each of
the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia meet this
threshold,\32\ the EPA relied on ``a large body of evidence
demonstrat[ing] that long-range transport of fine PM contributes to
regional haze,'' id., including modeling studies that ``preliminarily
demonstrated that each State not having a Class I area had emissions
contributing to impairment in at least one downwind Class I area.'' Id.
at 35722. In addition to the technical evidence supporting a conclusion
that each state contributes to existing visibility impairment, the EPA
also explained that the second half of the national visibility goal--
preventing future visibility impairment--requires having a framework in
place to address future growth in visibility-impairing emissions and
makes it inappropriate to ``establish criteria for excluding States or
geographic areas from consideration as potential contributors to
regional haze visibility impairment.'' Id. at 35721. Thus, the EPA
concluded that the agency's ``statutory authority and the scientific
evidence are sufficient to require all States to develop regional haze
SIPs to ensure the prevention of any future impairment of visibility,
and to conduct further analyses to determine whether additional control
measures are needed to ensure reasonable progress in remedying existing
impairment in downwind Class I areas.'' Id. at 35722. EPA's 2017
revisions to the RHR did not disturb this conclusion. See 82 FR at
3094.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ EPA determined that ``there is more than sufficient
evidence to support our conclusion that emissions from each of the
48 contiguous states and the District of Columba may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area.'' 64 FR at 35721. Hawaii, Alaska, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands must also submit regional haze SIPs because they contain
Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire has two mandatory Class I Federal areas within its
borders, the Great Gulf Wilderness Area and the Presidential Range-Dry
River Wilderness Area. Visibility monitoring in these areas is
accomplished with instruments located at a single site at Camp Dodge.
This monitoring station represents both Class 1 wilderness areas, and
for this reason, both of New Hampshire's Federal Class I areas are
often referred to collectively as simply the Great Gulf Wilderness. For
the second implementation period, MANE-VU performed technical analyses
\33\ to help assess source and state-level contributions to visibility
impairment and the need for interstate consultation. MANE-VU used the
results of these analyses to determine which states' emissions ``have a
high likelihood of affecting visibility in MANE-VU's Class I areas.''
\34\ Similar to metrics used in the first implementation period,\35\
MANE-VU used a greater than 2 percent of sulfate plus nitrate emissions
contribution criteria to determine whether emissions from individual
jurisdictions within the region affected visibility in any Class I
areas. The MANE-VU analyses for the second implementation period used a
combination of data analysis techniques, including emissions data,
distance from Class I areas, wind trajectories, and CALPUFF dispersion
modeling. Although many of the analyses focused only on SO2
emissions and resultant particulate sulfate contributions to visibility
impairment, some also incorporated NOX emissions to estimate
particulate nitrate contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The contribution assessment methodologies for MANE-VU Class
I areas are summarized in appendix E of the docket. ``Selection of
States for MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation (2018).''
\34\ Id.
\35\ See docket EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0187 for MANE-VU supporting
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One MANE-VU analysis used for contribution assessment was CALPUFF
air dispersion modeling. The CALPUFF model was used to estimate sulfate
and nitrate formation and transport in MANE-VU and nearby regions
originating from large electric generating unit (EGU) point sources and
other large industrial and institutional sources in the eastern and
central United States. Information from an initial round of CALPUFF
modeling was collated for the 444 EGUs that were determined to warrant
further scrutiny based on their emissions of SO2 and
NOX. The list of EGUs was based on an enhanced ``Q/d''
analysis \36\ that considered recent SO2 emissions in the
eastern United States and an analysis that adjusted previous 2002 MANE-
VU CALPUFF modeling by applying a ratio of 2011 to 2002 SO2
emissions. This list of sources was then enhanced by including the top
five SO2 and NOx emission sources for 2011 for each state
included in the modeling domain. A total of 311 EGU stacks (as opposed
to individual units) were included in the CALPUFF modeling analysis.
Initial information was also collected on the 50 industrial and
institutional sources that, according to 2011 Q/d analysis, contributed
the most to visibility impact in each Class I area. The ultimate
CALPUFF modeling run included a total of 311 EGU stacks and 82
industrial facilities. The summary report for the CALPUFF modeling
included the top 10 most impacting EGUs and the top 5 most impacting
industrial/institutional sources for each Class I area and compiled
those results into a ranked list of the most impacting EGUs and
industrial sources at MANE-VU Class I areas.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ ``Q/d'' is emissions (Q) in tons per year, typically of one
or a combination of visibility-impairing pollutants, divided by
distance to a class I area (d) in kilometers. The resulting ratio is
commonly used as a metric to assess a source's potential visibility
impacts on a particular class I area.
\37\ See appendix C in the Docket, ``2016 MANE-VU Source
Contribution Modeling Report, CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical
Generating Units and Industrial Sources'' and appendix D ``MANE-VU
TSC'', (April 2016) and ``MANE-VU Updated Q/d*C Contribution
Assessment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CALPUFF modeling results identified GSP Merrimack (units 1 and
2) and Newington as New Hampshire's EGU emissions sources impacting
Great Gulf above a 1 Mm-1 light extinction impact threshold.
NHDES also performed CALPUFF screening on several other New Hampshire
emission sources. The selection of emission units for modeling was
based on the MANE-VU EGU and peaking unit criteria, the MANE-VU
industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) facility criteria, and
requests from EPA and the National Park Service through consultation.
The New Hampshire sources which had maximum estimated visibility
extinction above 1 Mm-1 at federal Class I areas were
included in the list of New Hampshire sources for further analysis.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See table 2-6 ``New Hampshire Visibility Impairing EGU and
ICI Point Sources'' in the NH Regional Haze SIP--Final May 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second MANE-VU contribution analysis used a meteorologically
weighted Q/d calculation to assess states' contributions to visibility
impairment at MANE-VU Class I areas.\39\ This analysis focused
predominantly on SO2 emissions and used cumulative
SO2 emissions from a source and a state for the variable
``Q,'' and the distance of the source or state to the IMPROVE monitor
receptor at a Class I area as ``d.'' The result is then multiplied by a
constant (Ci), which is determined based on the prevailing
wind patterns. MANE-VU selected a meteorologically weighted Q/d
analysis as an inexpensive initial screening tool that could easily be
repeated to determine which states, sectors, or sources have a larger
relative impact and warrant further analysis. Although MANE-VU did not
originally estimate nitrate impacts, the MANE-VU Q/d analysis was
subsequently extended to
[[Page 80666]]
account for nitrate contributions from NOX emissions and to
approximate the nitrate impacts from area and mobile sources. MANE-VU
therefore developed a ratio of nitrate to sulfate impacts based on the
previously described CALPUFF modeling and applied those to the sulfate
Q/d results in order to derive nitrate contribution estimates. Several
states did not have CALPUFF nitrate to sulfate ratio results, however,
because there were no point sources modeled with CALPUFF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See appendix D, ``Contribution Assessment 2006--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to develop a final set of contribution estimates, MANE-VU
weighted the results from both the Q/d and CALPUFF analyses. The MANE-
VU mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate contribution results were reported
for the MANE-VU Class I areas. (The Q/d summary report included results
for several non-MANE-VU areas as well). If a state's contribution to
sulfate and nitrate concentrations at a particular Class I area was 2
percent or greater, MANE-VU regarded that state as contributing to
visibility impairment in that area. According to MANE-VU's analyses,
sources in New Hampshire have been found to contribute to visibility
impairment at its own Class I areas, Acadia National Park and Moosehorn
Wilderness Area in Maine, and, by extension, Roosevelt-Campobello
International Park in New Brunswick.
As explained above, the EPA concluded in the 1999 RHR that ``all
[s]tates contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to regional haze in a Class I area,'' 64 FR at 35721, and
this determination was not changed in the 2017 RHR. Critically, the
statute and regulation both require that the cause-or-contribute
assessment consider all emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants
from a state, as opposed to emissions of a particular pollutant or
emissions from a certain set of sources. Consistent with these
requirements, the 2019 Guidance makes it clear that ``all types of
anthropogenic sources are to be included in the determination'' of
whether a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to result in any
visibility impairment. 2019 Guidance at 8.
First, as an aside, the screening analyses on which MANE-VU relied
are useful for certain purposes. MANE-VU used information from its
technical analysis to rank the largest contributing states to sulfate
and nitrate impairment in seven Class I areas in the MANE-VU region and
three additional, nearby Class I areas.\40\ The rankings were used to
determine upwind states that were deemed important to include in state-
to-state consultation (based on an identified impact screening
threshold). Additionally, large individual source impacts were used to
target MANE-VU control analysis ``Asks'' \41\ of states and sources
both within and upwind of MANE-VU.\42\ The EPA finds the nature of the
analyses generally appropriate to support decisions on states with
which to consult. However, we have cautioned that source selection
methodologies that target the largest regional contributors to
visibility impairment across multiple states may not be reasonable for
a particular state if it results in few or no sources being selected
for subsequent analysis. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ The Class I areas analyzed were Acadia National Park in
Maine, Brigantine Wilderness in New Jersey, Great Gulf Wilderness
and Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness in New Hampshire, Lye
Brook Wilderness in Vermont, Moosehorn Wilderness in Maine,
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park in New Brunswick, Shenandoah
National Park in Virginia, James River Face Wilderness in Virginia,
and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek Wildernesses in West Virginia.
\41\ As explained more fully in section IV.E.a, MANE-VU refers
to each of the components of its overall strategy as an ``Ask ``of
its member states.
\42\ The MANE-VU consultation report (Appendix G) explains that
``[t]he objective of this technical work was to identify states and
sources from which MANE-VU will pursue further analysis. This
screening was intended to identify which states to invite to
consultation, not a definitive list of which states are
contributing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the analysis and determinations regarding New
Hampshire's contribution to visibility impairment at out-of-state Class
I areas, the MANE-VU technical work focuses on the magnitude of
visibility impacts from certain New Hampshire emissions on its Class I
area and other nearby Class I areas. However, the analyses did not
account for all emissions and all components of visibility impairment
(e.g., primary PM emissions, and impairment from fine PM, elemental
carbon, and organic carbon). In addition, Q/d analyses with a
relatively simplistic accounting for wind trajectories and CALPUFF
applied to a very limited set of EGUs and major industrial sources of
SO2 and NOx are not scientifically rigorous tools capable of
evaluating contribution to visibility impairment from all emissions in
a state. The EPA does agree that the contribution to visibility
impairment from New Hampshire's emissions at nearby out-of-state Class
I areas is smaller than that from numerous other MANE-VU states.\43\
And while some MANE-VU states noted that the contributions from several
states outside the MANE-VU region are significantly larger than its
own, we again clarify that each state is obligated under the CAA and
RHR to address regional haze visibility impairment resulting from
emissions from within the state, irrespective of whether another
state's contribution is greater. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 3.
Additionally, we note that the 2 percent or greater sulfate-plus-
nitrate threshold used to determine whether New Hampshire emissions
contribute to visibility impairment at a particular Class I area may be
higher than what EPA believes is an ``extremely low triggering
threshold'' intended by the statute and regulations. In sum, based on
the information provided, it is clear that emissions from New Hampshire
contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I areas in Maine, New
Brunswick, and New Hampshire and have relatively small contributions to
the other nearby Class I areas. EPA generally agrees with this
conclusion. However, due to the low triggering threshold implied by the
Rule and the lack of rigorous modeling analyses, we do not necessarily
agree with the level of the State's 2% contribution threshold as a
general matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Because MANE-VU did not include all New Hampshire's
emissions or contributions to visibility impairment in its analysis,
we cannot definitively state that New Hampshire's contribution to
visibility impairment is not the most significant. However, that is
very likely the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless, we note that New Hampshire did determine that sources
and emissions within the state contribute to visibility impairment at
both in-state wildernesses and three out-of-state Class I areas.
Furthermore, the state took part in the emission control strategy
consultation process as a member of MANE-VU. As part of that process,
MANE-VU developed a set of emissions reduction measures identified as
being necessary to make reasonable progress in the seven MANE-VU Class
I areas. This strategy consists of six Asks for states within MANE-VU
and five Asks for states outside the region that were found to impact
visibility at Class I areas within MANE-VU.\44\ New Hampshire's
submission discusses each of the Asks and explains why or why not each
is applicable and how it has complied with the relevant components of
the emissions control strategy MANE-VU has laid out for its states. New
Hampshire worked with MANE-VU to determine potential reasonable
measures that could be implemented by 2028, considering the cost of
compliance, the time necessary for
[[Page 80667]]
compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and
the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. As
discussed in further detail below, the EPA is proposing to find that
New Hampshire has submitted a regional haze plan that meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) related to the development of a
long-term strategy. Thus, although we have concerns regarding some
aspects of MANE-VU's technical analyses supporting states' contribution
determinations as a general matter, we propose to find that New
Hampshire has nevertheless satisfied the applicable requirements for
making reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions in
Class I areas that may be affected be emissions from the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See appendix G ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to determine the following for
``each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State'':
baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
progress to date for the most impaired and clearest days, the
differences between current visibility conditions and natural
visibility conditions, and the URP. This section also provides the
option for states to propose adjustments to the URP line for a Class I
area to account for visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources
outside the United States and/or the impacts from wildland prescribed
fires that were conducted for certain, specified objectives. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
The Great Gulf and Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness areas
have 2000-2004 baseline visibility conditions of 7.65 deciviews on the
20% clearest days and 21.88 deciviews on the 20% most impaired
days.\45\ New Hampshire calculated an estimated natural background
visibility of 3.73 deciviews on the 20% clearest days and 9.78
deciviews on the 20% most impaired days for the Great Gulf and
Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness areas.\46\ The current
visibility conditions, which are based on 2015-2019 monitoring data,
were 4.69 deciviews on the clearest days and 12.33 deciviews on the
most impaired days,\47\ which represents an improvement from the
baseline period of 2.96 deciviews on the 20% clearest days and 9.55
deciviews on the 20% most impaired days.\48\ In addition, current
visibility conditions are 0.96 and 2.55 deciviews greater than natural
conditions on the respective sets of days.\49\ New Hampshire calculated
an annual URP of 0.202 deciviews needed to reach natural visibility on
the 20% most impaired days.\50\ New Hampshire noted that, at 12.33
deciviews, current visibility conditions on the most impaired days in
the Great Gulf/Presidential-Dry River Wilderness Area are already below
the URP glidepath for both 2018--the end of the first SIP planning
period--and 2028--the end of the second SIP planning period.\51\ New
Hampshire has not proposed any adjustments to the URP to account for
impacts from anthropogenic sources outside the United States or from
wildland prescribed fires. EPA is proposing to find that New Hampshire
has submitted a regional haze plan that meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(f)(1) related to the calculations of baseline, current, and
natural visibility conditions; progress to date; and the uniform rate
of progress for the second implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See ``Table 4-1: Baseline Visibility for the 20% Clearest
and 20% Worst Days for the Baseline Period in New Hampshire Class I
Areas'' in the NH Regional Haze SIP submission--Final (May 2022).
\46\ See ``Table 4-3: Comparison of Natural, Baseline, and
Current Visibility for the 20% Clearest and 20% Most Impaired Days
in New Hampshire Class I Areas'' in the NH Regional Haze SIP
submission--Final (May 2022).
\47\ See ``Table 4-2: Current Visibility for the 20% Clearest
and 20% Most Impaired Days during 2015-2019 in New Hampshire Class I
Areas'' in the NH Regional Haze SIP submission--Final (May 2022).
\48\ NH Regional Haze SIP submission--Final, at 39 (May 2022).
\49\ See ``Table 4-4: Current Visibility (2015-2019) vs. Natural
Visibility Conditions (dv)'' in the NH Regional Haze SIP
submission--Final (May 2022).
\50\ See ``Table 4-6: Baseline, Current and Reasonable Progress
Goal Haze Index Levels for New Hampshire's Class I Areas'' in the NH
Regional Haze SIP submission--Final (May 2022).
\51\ NH Regional Haze SIP submission--Final, at 40-41 (May
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
a. New Hampshire's Response to the Six MANE-VU Asks
Each state having a Class I area within its borders or emissions
that may affect visibility in a Class I area must develop a long-term
strategy for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility
goal. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in the Background section
of this notice, reasonable progress is achieved when all states
contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I area are
implementing the measures determined--through application of the four
statutory factors to sources of visibility impairing pollutants--to be
necessary to make reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each
state's long-term strategy must include the enforceable emission
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). All new
(i.e., additional) measures that are the outcome of four-factor
analyses are necessary to make reasonable progress and must be in the
long-term strategy. If the outcome of a four-factor analysis and other
measures necessary to make reasonable progress is that no new measures
are reasonable for a source, that source's existing measures are
necessary to make reasonable progress, unless the state can demonstrate
that the source will continue to implement those measures and will not
increase its emission rate. Existing measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress must also be in the long-term strategy. In
developing its long-term strategies, a state must also consider the
five additional factors in Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its
reasonable progress determinations, the state must describe the
criteria used to determine which sources or group of sources were
evaluated (i.e., subjected to four-factor analysis) for the second
implementation period and how the four factors were taken into
consideration in selecting the emission reduction measures for
inclusion in the long-term strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
In this section of the NPRM, EPA summarizes how New Hampshire
addresses the requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i), including a
discussion of the six Asks developed by MANE-VU and how New Hampshire
addressed each. In section IV.E.b of the NPRM, EPA evaluates New
Hampshire's compliance with the requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i).
States may rely on technical information developed by the RPOs of
which they are members to select sources for four-factor analysis and
to conduct that analysis, as well as to satisfy the documentation
requirements under Sec. 51.308(f). Where an RPO has performed source
selection and/or four-factor analyses (or considered the five
additional factors in Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member states,
those states may rely on the RPO's analyses for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the
states have a reasonable basis to do so and all state participants in
the RPO process have approved the technical analyses. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii). States may also satisfy the requirement of Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(ii) to engage in interstate consultation with other states
that have emissions that are reasonably
[[Page 80668]]
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I
area under the auspices of intra- and inter-RPO engagement.
New Hampshire is a member of the MANE-VU RPO and participated in
the RPO's regional approach to developing a strategy for making
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal in the MANE-VU
Class I areas. MANE-VU's strategy includes a combination of: (1)
Measures for certain source sectors and groups of sectors that the RPO
determined were reasonable for states to pursue, and (2) a request for
member states to conduct four-factor analyses for individual sources
that it identified as contributing to visibility impairment. MANE-VU
refers to each of the components of its overall strategy as an Ask of
its member states. On August 25, 2017, the Executive Director of MANE-
VU, on behalf of the MANE-VU states and tribal nations, signed a
statement that identifies six emission reduction measures that comprise
the Asks for the second implementation period.\52\ The Asks were
``designed to identify reasonable emission reduction strategies that
must be addressed by the states and tribal nations of MANE-VU through
their regional haze SIP updates.'' \53\ The statement explains that
``[i]f any State cannot agree with or complete a Class I State's Asks,
the State must describe the actions taken to resolve the disagreement
in the Regional Haze SIP.'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See appendix G ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation--Final.''
\53\ Id.
\54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU's recommendations as to the appropriate control measures
were based on technical analyses documented in the RPO's reports and
included as appendices to or referenced in New Hampshire's regional
haze SIP submission. One of the initial steps of MANE-VU's technical
analysis was to determine which visibility-impairing pollutants should
be the focus of its efforts for the second implementation period. In
the first implementation period, MANE-VU determined that sulfates were
the most significant visibility impairing pollutant at the region's
Class I areas. To determine the impact of certain pollutants on
visibility at Class I areas for the purpose of second implementation
period planning, MANE-VU conducted an analysis comparing the pollutant
contribution on the clearest and most impaired days in the baseline
period (2000-2004) to the most recent period (2012-2016) \55\ at MANE-
VU and nearby Class I areas. MANE-VU found that while SO2
emissions were decreasing and visibility was improving, sulfates still
made up the most significant contribution to visibility impairment at
MANE-VU and nearby Class I areas. According to the analysis,
NOX emissions have begun to play a more significant role in
visibility impacts in recent years as SO2 emissions have
decreased. The technical analyses used by New Hampshire are included in
their submission and are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ The period of 2012-2016 was the most recent period for
which data were available at the time of analysis. NH also included
2015-2019 data, discussed above in part D of this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Updates to the Assessment of Reasonable Progress for
Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas (Appendix L NH);
Impact of Wintertime SCR/SNCR Optimization on Visibility
Impairing Nitrate Precursor Emissions. November 2017. (Appendix Q NH);
High Electric Demand Days and Visibility Impairment in
MANE-VU. December 2017. (Appendix R NH);
Benefits of Combined Heat and Power Systems for Reducing
Pollutant Emissions in MANE-VU States. March 2016. (Appendix S NH);
2016 MANE-VU Source Contribution Modeling Report--CALPUFF
Modeling of Large Electrical Generating Units and Industrial Sources
April 4, 2017 (Appendix C NH);
Contribution Assessment Preliminary Inventory Analysis.
October 10, 2016. (Appendix D NH);
Four-Factor Data Collection Memo. March 2017. (Appendix K
NH);
Status of the Top 167 Stacks from the 2008 MANE-VU Ask.
July 2016. (Appendix M NH).
To support development of the Asks, MANE-VU gathered information on
each of the four statutory factors for six source sectors it
determined, based on an examination of annual emission inventories,
``had emissions [of SO2 and/or NOX] that were
reasonabl[y] anticipated to contribute to visibility degradation in
MANE-VU:'' electric generating units (EGUs), industrial/commercial/
institutional boilers (ICI boilers), cement kilns, heating oil,
residential wood combustion, and outdoor wood combustion.\56\ MANE-VU
also collected data on individual sources within the EGU, ICI boiler,
and cement kiln sectors.\57\ Information for the six sectors included
explanations of technically feasible control options for SO2
or NOX, illustrative cost-effectiveness estimates for a
range of model units and control options, sector-wide cost
considerations, potential time frames for compliance with control
options, potential energy and non-air-quality environmental impacts of
certain control options, and how the remaining useful lives of sources
might be considered in a control analysis.\58\ Source-specific data
included SO2 emissions \59\ and existing controls \60\ for
certain existing EGUs, ICI boilers, and cement kilns. MANE-VU
considered this information on the four factors as well as the analyses
developed by the RPO's Technical Support Committee when it determined
specific emission reduction measures that were found to be reasonable
for certain sources within two of the sectors it had examined--EGUs and
ICI boilers. The Asks were based on this analysis and looked to
optimize the use of existing controls, have states conduct further
analysis on EGU or ICI boilers with considerable visibility impacts,
implement low sulfur fuel standards, or lock-in lower emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See appendix K ``MANE-VU Four Factor Data Collection Memo
at 1, March 30, 2017.''
\57\ See appendix L ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas, Jan.
31, 2016.''
\58\ Id.
\59\ See appendix K ``Four Factor Data Collection Memo.''
\60\ See appendix M ``Status of the Top 167 Stacks from the 2008
MANE-VU Ask. July 2016.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 1 is ``ensuring the most effective use of control
technologies on a year-round basis'' at EGUs with a nameplate capacity
larger than or equal to 25 megawatts (MW) with already installed
NOX and/or SO2 controls.\61\ Twelve EGUs at seven
stationary sources in New Hampshire were identified as meeting the
criteria of Ask 1. These sources include Burgess BioPower (EU01),
Essential Power Newington (EU01 and EU02), Granite Ridge Energy (EU01
and EU02), Stored Solar Tamworth (EU01), GSP Merrimack Station (MK1 and
MK2), GSP Schiller Station (SR4, SR5, and SR6), and GSP Newington
Station (NT1). Additionally, the National Park Service identified
Wheelabrator Concord as a facility of interest. NHDES determined that
no further limitations as a result of MANE-VU Ask 1 were required of
these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See appendix G ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire explained that Burgess BioPower's operation was
subject to Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) for NOX at
the time of the facility's initial permitting; hence, the
NOX limit represents the Lowest Available Emission Rate
(LAER). This limit is incorporated into Title V Operating Permit TV-
0065, issued on December 24, 2020, which limits NOX
[[Page 80669]]
emissions from the biomass boiler to 0.060 lbs/MMBtu on a 30-day
rolling average, based on the use of Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR) technology and SO2 emissions to 0.012 lbs/MMBtu.
Essential Power Newington was subject to NNSR for NOX at
the time of initial permitting in July 2010; these NOX
limits were established as LAER-based limits. The Newington units use
dry low NOX (DLN) combustion combined with SCR (as well as
water injection during limited firing on ultra-low sulfur fuel oil).
The facility is required by permit to use inherently low sulfur fuels
(natural gas and ultra-low sulfur fuel oil). The units at this facility
were subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review
for SO2 at the time of their initial permitting; these
SO2 limits (0.0071 lbs/MMBtu for natural gas, and 0.0015
lbs/MMBtu for No. 2 fuel oil) were established as Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) limits. These limits are incorporated into
Title V Operating Permit TV-0058, which limits NOX and
SO2 emissions on a year-round basis.
The units at Granite Ridge Energy were subject to NNSR for
NOX at the time of their initial permitting; these limits
were established as LAER-based limits. The facility uses inherently low
sulfur fuel (natural gas). The units at this facility were subject to
PSD review for SO2 at the time of their initial permitting;
this limit (0.0023 lbs/MMBtu) was established as a BACT-based limit.
These limits are included in Title V Operating Permit TV-0056, which
limits NOX and SO2 emissions on a year-round
basis.
Stored Solar Tamworth's operation is subject to an emission limit
that was established when the facility was initially permitted under
the PSD permit program in 1987. This control limits NOX
emissions to 0.265 lbs/MMBtu over any consecutive 24-hour period. In
2008, this facility installed overfire air (OFA) and flue gas
recirculation (FGR) technologies, as well as a Selective Noncatalytic
Reduction (SNCR) system and a SCR system. These limits are included in
the facility's Title V Operating Permit TV-0018. Stored Solar Tamworth
has voluntarily chosen to maintain NOX emissions at or below
0.075 lb/MMBtu, on a quarterly average for the purpose of generating
renewable energy certificates.
In response to the MANE-VU ``Ask,'' Stored Solar Tamworth agreed to
take lower year-round, enforceable NOX emission limitations.
NHDES revised New Hampshire's Code of Administrative Rules Env-A 2300,
``Mitigation of Regional Haze'' to include these limits and submitted
the rule to EPA as part of this SIP revision. This rule will lower the
NOX emissions limitations to a 30-day rolling average of
0.075 lb/MMBtu or a 24-hour calendar day average of 0.085 lb/MMBtu.
GSP Merrimack Station's operation is covered by Title V Operating
Permit TV-0055 which limits NOX and SO2
emissions. On May 3, 2018, NHDES requested information from GSP
regarding NOX RACT and Regional Haze Rule requirements
associated with the MANE-VU ``Ask.'' This request for information was
focused on the most effective use of existing control technologies for
MK1 and MK2. In addition, GSP completed an analysis of additional
controls for NOX and SO2 for MK1 and MK2. After
review, NHDES concluded the analysis validates the continued use of
current enforceable measures for both SO2 and
NOX. In response to the MANE-VU Ask, NHDES amended New
Hampshire's Code of Administrative Rules Env-A 2300, ``Mitigation of
Regional Haze'' to reference new NOX RACT limits for MK1,
which New Hampshire has made more stringent, changing from 1.22 lb/
MMBtu (rolling 7-calendar day average), or 18.1 tons per calendar day
(when MK2 is not in full operation), or 29.1 tons per calendar day
(when combined with MK2) to 0.22 lb/MMBtu (24-hour calendar day
average) or 4.0 tons per day on any calendar day during which a startup
or shutdown occurs.\62\ NHDES also revised Env-A 2300 to reference the
new NOX RACT limits for MK2 from 15.4 tons per 24-hour
calendar day, or 29.1 tons per calendar day (when combined with MK1) to
0.22 lb/MMBtu (24-hour calendar day average) or 11.5 tons per day on
any calendar day during which a startup or shutdown occurs. NHDES
submitted the revised Env-A 2300 to EPA as part of New Hampshire's
Regional Haze SIP revision for the second implementation period.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See Table 4-15 ``Reductions in Allowable NOX
RACT Emission Limits for MK1 and MK2 Over Time'' of the NH RH SIP,
Final 2022.
\63\ Env-A 2300 incorporates by reference NOX limits
in Env-A 1300, which NHDES revised in 2018 as part of its SIP
submittal for the 2008 and 2015 8-hr ozone standards. EPA has
proposed in a separate action to approve Env-A 1300 into NH's SIP.
See 88 FR 43483 (July 10, 2023). On September 6, 2023, EPA issued a
final notice approving portions of Env-A 1300 in the NH SIP with the
exception of New Hampshire's NOX RACT limits applicable
to coal-fired cyclone boilers. See 88 FR 60893 (September 6, 2023).
EPA will issue a decision on New Hampshire's NOX RACT
requirements for coal-fired cyclone boilers in a subsequent
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSP Schiller Station's operation is covered by Title V Operating
Permit TV-0053 and NOX RACT Orders RO-003 and ARD-06-001
which limit NOX and SO2 emissions. NHDES
requested additional information from GSP regarding both NOX
RACT and Regional Haze Rule requirements associated with the MANE-VU
``Ask.'' For SR4 and SR6, NHDES requested that GSP conduct a
NOX RACT analysis for optimization of the SNCR including an
evaluation of the technical and economic feasibility of operating the
SNCR systems on a year-round basis to achieve various proposed
NOX emission levels. Also, GSP was requested to evaluate the
most effective use of the DSI systems on SR4 and SR6 for SO2
emission reductions. For ``Ask 1'' regarding SR5, NHDES requested GSP
evaluate the most effective use of the SNCR for NOX emission
reductions and the limestone injection system for SO2
emission reductions. GSP provided analyses to demonstrate that
operation of low NOX burners (LNB) and OFA on SR4 and SR6
were sufficient to achieve an emission limit of 0.25 lbs
NOX/MMBtu and that year-round operation of the SNCR would
not result in any additional emissions reductions. NHDES issued
NOX RACT Order RO-003 on September 6, 2018, which
established a NOX emission limit for SR4 and SR6 of 0.25
lbs/MMBtu per 24-hour calendar day average that applies at all times,
including periods of startup and shutdown on a year-round basis. New
Hampshire submitted this NOX RACT Order as a single-source
SIP revision in September 2018. It was approved by the EPA on September
12, 2019 (84 FR 48068).
SR4 and SR6 also comply with the most current and strict federal
standards for acid gases, the HCl limit required under MATS, and the 1-
hr SO2 NAAQS. GSP Schiller Station implements the most
effective use of the existing control technology, which is year-round
operation of the DSI systems, targeting reduction of multiple acid
gases. SR5 is a wood-fired boiler that is also permitted to fire coal
but has only fired coal for collecting performance test data in
November 2006 during commissioning of the boiler. GSP has not combusted
coal in SR5 since that time. Based on compliance stack testing and
emissions monitoring data, sorbent injection is not needed to comply
with the SO2 emission limit while burning biomass. NHDES
determined that the existing pollution control equipment (LNB, OFA,
SNCR and DSI) installed on SR4, SR5 and SR6, the federally enforceable
NOX RACT emission limits and the NOX and
SO2 emission limitations required by TV-0053 on a year-round
basis satisfy Ask 1.
The GSP Newington Station's unit subject to ``Ask 1'' at this
facility is an oil- and natural gas-fired EGU designated as NT1. NT1 is
equipped
[[Page 80670]]
with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) to control the emissions of
particulate matter and LNB, OFA and water injection system to control
NOX emissions. GSP operates the water injection system on
NT1 as necessary to maintain compliance with the NOX
emission limits. NT1 is subject to MATS as an existing EGU under the
``limited-use liquid oil-fired EGU72'' subcategory. These controls are
included in the Title V Operating Permit TV-0054. TV-0054 contains a
requirement to conduct a NOX RACT analysis within six months
of switching from the limited use MATS subcategory to continental
liquid oil-fired EGU subcategory should they ever do so. NT1 does not
have ``already installed'' SO2 controls and therefore Ask 1
applies only to its NOX emissions. NHDES determined that the
existing pollution control equipment (LNB, OFA and water injection
system) installed on NT1 combined with the federally enforceable
NOX emission limitations required by TV-0054 on a year-round
basis satisfy Ask 1.
Wheelabrator Concord's operation is covered by Title V Operating
Permit TV-0032, which was issued January 24, 2019. The two identical
mass burn waterwall boilers at Wheelabrator Concord are considered
large municipal waste combustion (MWC) units under New Hampshire's Code
of Administrative Rules Env-A 3300, ``Municipal Waste Combustion.'' The
two MWC units at Wheelabrator Concord are also subject to New
Hampshire's Code of Administrative Rules Env-A 1300, ``NOX
RACT'' (approved September 6, 2023, 88 FR 60893). Therefore, NHDES
determined that no further limitations from MANE-VU Ask 1 are required
of this source.
MANE-VU Ask 2 consists of a request that states ``perform a four-
factor analysis for reasonable installation or upgrade to emissions
controls'' for specified sources. MANE-VU developed its Ask 2 list of
sources for analysis by performing modeling and identifying facilities
with the potential for 3.0 inverse megameters (Mm-1) or
greater impacts on visibility at any Class I area in the MANE-VU
region. GSP Merrimack Station, in Bow, was identified as the only
facility in NH with the potential for 3.0 Mm-1 or greater
visibility impact at any MANE-VU Class I area.
GSP Merrimack Station's operation is already covered by Title V
Operating Permit TV-0055 which limits NOX and SO2
emissions. MK1 and MK2 are cyclone-firing, wet-bottom utility boilers
that burn bituminous coal and are each equipped with SCR for
NOX control as well as ESPs for particulate matter control.
In addition, because of state law RSA 125-O, Multiple Pollutant
Reduction Program, MK1 and MK2 are equipped with a common FGD system
which is designed to reduce mercury emissions but has the co-benefit of
acid gas (SO2 and HCl) removal. New Hampshire asked GSP to
perform four-factor analyses for both MK1 and MK2. As a result of this
request, GSP considered various control measures for NOX and
SO2, which, for NOX, included review of fuel
switching, OFA, SNCR, reburn, and upgrades to the existing SCR and, for
SO2, considered upgrades to the existing FGD, coal cleaning,
dry FGD, FGD plus DSI and fuel switching. GSP further noted that both
units already employ SCR for controlling NOX emissions and
that the existing FGD system already achieves a 95% reduction in
SO2 emissions. GSP concluded that both units are already
effectively controlled and that no additional measures would result in
any additional emissions reductions.\64\ NHDES closely reviewed GSP's
analysis and agreed with the company's conclusion that it supports the
continued use of current enforceable measures for both SO2
and NOX, that no upgrade or replacement of the controls on
MK1 and MK2 are necessary to make reasonable progress, and that a full
four-factor analysis would not have identified any additional controls
required for reasonable progress. New Hampshire therefore concluded
that it satisfies Ask 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See NH SIP submittal Appendix T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask 3 is for each MANE-VU state to pursue an ultra low-sulfur fuel
oil standard if it has not already done so in the first implementation
period. The Ask includes percent by weight standards for #2 distillate
oil (0.0015% sulfur by weight or 15 ppm), #4 residual oil (0.25-0.5%
sulfur by weight), and #6 residual oil (0.3-0.5% sulfur by weight). New
Hampshire amended state law RSA 125-C:10-d, Sulfur Limits of Certain
Liquid Fuels. Beginning on July 1, 2018, fuel imported into New
Hampshire was required to meet the following reduced sulfur limits--
0.0015% for No. 2 fuel oil, 0.25% for No. 4 fuel oil and 0.5% for Nos.
5 or 6 fuel oil--and as of February 1, 2019, non-compliant fuels are
not allowed to be distributed for sale within the State. This law will
result in further reductions in SO2 emissions from
industrial, area, and non-road sources beyond the 30% reduction seen in
the 2008 vs. 2014 NEI data. The law was incorporated into New
Hampshire's Code of Administrative Rules Env-A 1600, Fuel
Specifications and was submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision on May
17, 2019, which EPA approved on April 26, 2021 (86 FR 21942). New
Hampshire therefore concluded that it is meeting Ask 3.
MANE-VU Ask 4 requests states to update permits to ``lock in''
lower emissions rates for NOX, SO2, and PM at
emissions sources larger than 250 million British Thermal Units (MMBtu)
per hour heat input that have switched to lower emitting fuels. New
Hampshire submitted that there are no such facilities in the State and
therefore concluded it is meeting Ask 4.
Ask 5 requests that MANE-VU states ``control NOX
emissions for peaking combustion turbines that have the potential to
operate on high electric demand days'' by either: (1) Meeting
NOX emissions standards specified in the Ask for turbines
that run on natural gas and fuel oil, (2) performing a four-factor
analysis for reasonable installation of or upgrade to emission
controls, or (3) obtaining equivalent emission reductions on high
electric demand days.\65\ The Ask requests states to strive for
NOX emission standards of no greater than 25 ppm for natural
gas and 42 ppm for fuel oil, or at a minimum, NOX emissions
standards of no greater than 42 ppm for natural gas and 96 ppm at for
fuel oil. The peaking combustion turbines located at New Hampshire
stationary sources that were identified as meeting the criteria of
``Ask #5'' are: GSP Lost Nation Station (LNCT1) GSP Merrimack Station
(MKCT1 and MKCT2), GSP Schiller Station (SRCT), and GSP White Lake
Station (WLCT1). GSP performed four-factor analyses for reasonable
installation or upgrade to NOX emission controls at these
units, which indicated no additional NOX controls that GSP
could be employed on any of the combustion turbines that are both
technically and economically feasible. All five GSP turbines are of the
same era (1968-1970) and have similar NOX emissions and
specifications. Additionally, GSP has pledged to continue employing
good combustion practices to optimize their NOX emissions
profile. New Hampshire reviewed and adopted the four-factor analyses
and concluded it is meeting Ask 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See appendix G ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last Ask for states within MANE-VU (Ask 6) requests states to
report in their regional haze SIPs about programs that decrease energy
demand and increase the use of combined heat and power (CHP) and other
distributed generation technologies such as fuel
[[Page 80671]]
cells, wind and solar. New Hampshire participates in RGGI,\66\ a
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 10-state initiative to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions that contribute to global climate change. The initiative
creates a market for emissions allowances through a regional cap-and-
trade program for greenhouse gas emissions from area power plants. As a
co-benefit of this program, emissions of particle producing pollutants
are also reduced. New Hampshire emissions allowances are sold at
quarterly auctions and the proceeds fund the Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reduction (GHGER) Fund. The GHGER Fund is administered by the Public
Utilities Commission, which distributes the funds to programs across
the state to support energy efficiency, conservation, and demand
response programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ For more info: https://www.energy.nh.gov/renewable-energy/regional-greenhouse-gas-initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire's also explained the State's Renewable Portfolio
Standard (RPS) statute, RSA 362-F: ``Electric Renewable Portfolio
Standard'', requires each electricity provider to meet customer load by
purchasing or acquiring certificates representing generation from
renewable energy based on total megawatt-hours supplied. The RPS
requirement increases from 4% in 2008 to 25.2% in 2025 and thereafter,
based on type of renewable energy. A portion of this renewable
portfolio energy generation comes from non-emitting sources such as
hydro, solar and wind. New Hampshire therefore concluded it is meeting
Ask 6.
In sum, New Hampshire identified several SIP approved mechanisms
for controlling pollutants that impair visibility and that are
necessary for reasonable progress--including its regulations limiting
sulfur content in fuels, the updated RACT rules at Env-A 1300, and the
more stringent NOX limits at Stored Solar Tamworth
implemented through Env-A 2300--which EPA is proposing to add to New
Hampshire's SIP in this action. In addition to these SIP approved
measures, New Hampshire also identified other federally enforceable and
permanent controls including BACT and LAER limits from NNSR and PSD
permitting that are incorporated into the facilities' Title V operating
permits that have led to additional visibility improvements.
b. The EPA's Evaluation of New Hampshire's Response to the Six MANE-VU
Asks and Compliance With Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i)
The EPA is proposing to find that New Hampshire has satisfied the
requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i) related to evaluating sources and
determining the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress by considering the four statutory factors. We are
proposing to find that New Hampshire has satisfied the four-factor
analysis requirement through its analysis and actions to address MANE-
VU Asks 1, 2 3, and 5.
As explained above, New Hampshire relied on MANE-VU's technical
analyses and framework (i.e., the Asks) to select sources and form the
basis of its long-term strategy. MANE-VU conducted an inventory
analysis to identify the source sectors that produced the greatest
amount of SO2 and NOX emissions in 2011;
inventory data were also projected to 2018. Based on this analysis,
MANE-VU identified the top-emitting sectors for each of the two
pollutants, which for SO2 include coal-fired EGUs,
industrial boilers, oil-fired EGUs, and oil-fired area sources
including residential, commercial, and industrial sources. Major-
emitting sources of NOX include on-road vehicles, non-road
vehicles, and EGUs.\67\ The RPO's documentation explains that ``[EGUs]
emitting SO2 and NOX and industrial point sources
emitting SO2 were found to be sectors with high emissions
that warranted further scrutiny. Mobile sources were not considered in
this analysis because any ask concerning mobile sources would be made
to EPA and not during the intra-RPO and inter-RPO consultation process
among the states and tribes.'' \68\ EPA proposes to find that New
Hampshire reasonably evaluated the two pollutants--SO2 and
NOX--that currently drive visibility impairment within the
MANE-VU region and that it adequately explained and supported its
decision to focus on these two pollutants through its reliance on the
MANE-VU technical analyses cited in its submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See appendix H ``Contribution Assessment--Final.''
\68\ See Appendix G ``Asks--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to evaluate and determine
the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress by applying the four statutory factors to sources in a control
analysis. As explained previously, the MANE-VU Asks are a mix of
measures for sectors and groups of sources identified as reasonable for
states to address in their regional haze plans. While MANE-VU
formulated the Asks to be ``reasonable emission reduction strategies''
to control emissions of visibility impairing pollutants,\69\ EPA
believes that New Hampshire, in four of the Asks in particular, engaged
with the requirement that states determine the emission reduction
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress through
consideration of the four factors. As laid out in further detail below,
the EPA is proposing to find that MANE-VU's four-factor analysis
conducted to support the emission reduction measures in Ask 3 (ultra-
low sulfur fuel oil), in conjunction with New Hampshire's analysis and
explanation of how it has complied with Asks 1 (ensure the most
effective use of control technologies on a year-round basis at certain
EGUs), 2 (perform four-factor analyses for sources with potential for
>=3.0 Mm-\1\ impacts), and 5 (perform four-factor analyses
for measures to control NOX emissions at certain peaking
combustion turbines) satisfy the requirement of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i).
The emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress must be included in the long-term strategy, i.e., in New
Hampshire's SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for Ask 1, New Hampshire included an analysis of twelve EGUs at
seven stationary sources that were identified as meeting the criteria
of the Ask (i.e., capacity >=25MW with already installed NOX
and/or SO2 controls). New Hampshire, in response to an FLM
request, also added two Wheelabrator Concord MWC units to this
analysis. New Hampshire identified existing controls, updated RACT
limits, and new limits implemented in Env-A 2300, Mitigation of
Regional Haze. Technical analyses were also completed for two of the
EGUs as discussed more below under Ask 2. New Hampshire asserted that
it satisfies Ask 1 because its SIP-approved regulations include year-
round emission limits and because it already requires that controls be
run year-round for both NOX and SO2 by setting
emission limits in permits that reflect the emission levels when the
controls are run. As discussed in the previous section, New Hampshire
included a description of existing rules, permit limits, and updated
regulations to meet the requirements of Ask 1. New Hampshire has also
increased controls on RACT (which EPA has proposed to approve in a
separate notice), and EPA proposes to find that New Hampshire
[[Page 80672]]
reasonably concluded that it has satisfied Ask 1.
Ask 2 addresses the sources MANE-VU determined have the potential
for larger than, or equal to, 3.0 Mm-\1\ visibility impact
at any MANE-VU Class I area; the Ask requests MANE-VU states to conduct
four-factor analyses for the specified sources within their borders.
This Ask explicitly engages with the statutory and regulatory
requirement to determine the emission reduction measures necessary to
make reasonable progress based on the four factors; MANE-VU considered
it ``reasonable to have the greatest contributors to visibility
impairment conduct a four-factor analysis that would determine whether
emission control measures should be pursued and what would be
reasonable for each source.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See Appendix E ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an initial matter, EPA does not generally agree that 3.0
Mm-\1\ visibility impact is a reasonable threshold for
source selection. The RHR recognizes that, due to the nature of
regional haze visibility impairment, numerous and sometimes relatively
small sources may need to be selected and evaluated for control
measures in order to make reasonable progress. See 2021 Clarifications
Memo at 4. As explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, while states
have discretion to choose any source selection threshold that is
reasonable, ``[a] state that relies on a visibility (or proxy for
visibility impact) threshold to select sources for four-factor analysis
should set the threshold at a level that captures a meaningful portion
of the state's total contribution to visibility impairment to Class I
areas.'' 2021 Memo at 3. In this case, the 3.0 Mm-\1\
threshold identified only one unit at one source in New Hampshire (and
only 22 across the entire MANE-VU region), indicating that it may be
unreasonably high.
At 3.3 Mm-\1\, Unit 2 at GSP Merrimack Station (MK2), in
Bow, was identified as the only EGU in NH with the potential for 3.0
Mm-\1\ or greater visibility impact at any MANE-VU Class I
area. As noted above, GSP Merrimack Station's operation is covered by
Title V Operating Permit TV-0055 which limits NOX and
SO2 emissions. MK1 and MK2 are each equipped with SCR for
NOX control as well as ESPs for particulate matter control.
In addition, because of state law NH RSA 125-O, Multiple Pollutant
Reduction Program, MK1 and MK2 are equipped with a common FGD system
which is designed to reduce mercury emissions but has the co-benefit of
acid gas (SO2 and HCl) removal. While only Unit 2 was
identified by MANE-VU as contributing a 3.0 Mm-\1\ or
greater visibility impact at any MANE-VU Class I area, New Hampshire
asked GSP to perform four-factor analyses for both Units 1 and 2. GSP
responded that both units already employ SCR for controlling
NOX emissions and that the existing FGD system already
achieves a 95% reduction in SO2 emissions. Consequently, GSP
concluded that both units are already effectively controlled and that
any additional control measures would not result in any additional
emissions reductions.\71\ Based on a showing of existing effective
controls, New Hampshire concluded that the result of a four-factor
analysis would likely be no new controls and that no upgrade or
replacement of the existing pollution control equipment was required as
a result of Ask 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See NH SIP submittal Appendix T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that New Hampshire reasonably determined
it has satisfied Ask 2. As explained above, we do not generally agree
that a 3.0 Mm-\1\ threshold for selecting sources for four-
factor analysis results in a set of sources the evaluation of which has
the potential to meaningfully reduce the state's contribution to
visibility impairment. MANE-VU's threshold identified only one source
in New Hampshire for four-factor analysis. However, EPA notes that New
Hampshire considered the four statutory factors in determining the
emissions reduction measures necessary for some of its other top-
impacting EGUs as part of Ask 5,\72\ including Lost Nation and White
Lake, which, according to New Hampshire's submission, have the
potential for visibility impacts at the Presidential Range-Dry River
Wilderness of 1.87 and 2.2 Mm-\1\, respectively.\73\ EPA is
basing this proposed finding on the state's examination of its largest
operating EGU sources, at the time of SIP submission, and on the
emissions from and controls that apply to those sources, as well as on
New Hampshire's existing SIP-approved NOX and SO2
rules that effectively control emissions from the largest contributing
stationary-source sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See NH SIP submittal Appendix T.
\73\ See page 22 of the NH Regional Haze SIP submission--(May
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask 3, which addresses the sulfur content of heating oil used in
MANE-VU states, is based on a four-factor analysis for the heating oil
sulfur reduction regulations contained in that Ask; specifically, for
the control strategy of reducing the sulfur content of distillate oil
to 15 ppm. The analysis started with an assessment of the costs of
retrofitting refineries to produce 15 ppm heating oil in sufficient
quantities to support implementation of the standard, as well as the
impacts of requiring a reduction in sulfur content on consumer prices.
The analysis noted that, as a result of previous EPA rulemakings to
reduce the sulfur content of on-road and non-road-fuels to 15 ppm,
technologies are currently available to achieve sulfur reductions and
many refiners are already meeting this standard, meaning that the
capital investments for further reductions in the sulfur content of
heating oil are expected to be relatively low compared to costs
incurred in the past. The analysis also examined, by way of example,
the impacts of New York's existing 15 ppm sulfur requirements on
heating oil prices and concluded that the cost associated with reducing
sulfur was relatively small in terms of the absolute price of heating
oil compared to the magnitude of volatility in crude oil prices. It
also noted that the slight price premium is compensated by cost savings
due to the benefits of lower-sulfur fuels in terms of equipment life
and maintenance and fuel stability. Consideration of the time necessary
for compliance with a 15-ppm sulfur standard was accomplished through a
discussion of the amount of time refiners had needed to comply with the
EPA's on-road and non-road fuel 15 ppm requirement, and the
implications existing refinery capacity and distribution infrastructure
may have for compliance times with a 15-ppm heating oil standard. The
analysis concluded that with phased-in timing for states that have not
yet adopted a 15 ppm heating oil standard there ``appears to be
sufficient time to allow refiners to add any additional heating oil
capacity that may be required.'' \74\ The analysis further noted the
beneficial energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of a 15 ppm
sulfur heating oil requirement and that reducing sulfur content may
also have a salutary impact on the remaining useful life of residential
furnaces and boilers.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Id. see 8-7.
\75\ Id. see 8-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that New Hampshire reasonably relied on
MANE-VU's four-factor analysis for a low-sulfur fuel oil regulation,
which engaged with each of the statutory factors and explained how the
information supported a conclusion that a 15 ppm-sulfur fuel oil
standard for fuel oils is
[[Page 80673]]
reasonable. New Hampshire's SIP-approved ultra-low sulfur fuel oil rule
\76\ is consistent with Ask 3's sulfur content standards for the three
types of fuel oils (distillate oil, #4 residual oil, #6 residual oil).
EPA therefore proposes to find that New Hampshire reasonably determined
that it has satisfied Ask 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Env-A 1600, Fuel Specifications was approved by EPA as a
SIP revision on April 26, 2021 [86 FR 21942].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire concluded that no additional updates were needed to
meet Ask 4, which requests that MANE-VU states pursue updating permits,
enforceable agreements, and/or rules to lock-in lower emission rates
for sources larger than 250 MMBtu per hour that have switched to lower
emitting fuels. EPA agrees that New Hampshire does not contain any
sources encompassed by this Ask, except that Schiller Station Unit 5
technically maintains the ability to operate by burning coal. We note,
however, that Schiller Station Unit 5 has not burned coal other than
for stack testing at installation, and it is reasonable to conclude,
for a number of reasons--including historic operation, financial
viability, fuel availability, and the overall direction of the fuels
market--that it is unlikely that this source will ever burn coal again.
GSP reportedly laid off union staff at Schiller Station and locked the
gates to the facility in June of 2020.77 78 All three of the
steam units at Schiller have reported zero operating hours and zero
emissions since 2020.\79\ Additionally, Schiller does not have any
current capacity supply obligation for its steam units (which includes
Unit 5) in the Forward Capacity Market and did not offer a bid for them
in ISO New England's latest Forward Capacity Auction (FCA 17), which
secures future power supply obligations through May 2027, making it
unlikely that these units will ever operate in any capacity again.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ N.H. Coal Plant Will Run Through At Least 2025 After Latest
Grid Auction, NH Pub. Radio (Mar. 1, 2021), available at https://www.nhpr.org/climate-change/2021-03-01/n-h-coal-plant-will-run-through-at-least-2025-after-latest-grid-auction; Union says Schiller
coal-fired power plant is shut for good, Granite Geek (Jan. 12,
2021), available at https://granitegeek.concordmonitor.com/2021/01/12/union-says-schiller-coal-fired-power-plant-is-shut-for-good/.
\78\ See https://www.ibew1837.org/content/schiller-station-closing-end-era, or see PDF version of this article in the docket.
\79\ See EPA's Clean Air Markets Program Data (CAMPD) at https://campd.epa.gov/data.
\80\ See https://www.iso-ne.com/markets-operations/markets/forward-capacity-market/ to download ISO New England forward
capacity auction results. This spreadsheet has also been added to
the docket for this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask 5 addresses NOX emissions from peaking combustion
turbines that have the potential to operate on high electric demand
days. New Hampshire identified five combustion turbines in the State as
meeting the criteria of this Ask: GSP Lost Nation Station (LNCT1), GSP
Merrimack Station (MKCT1 and MKCT2), GSP Schiller Station (SRCT), and
GSP White Lake Station (WLCT1). The Ask requests states to strive for
certain NOX emission standards for such sources or to
perform four-factor analyses for reasonable installation or upgrade to
emission controls. None of the five turbines New Hampshire identified
are currently meeting the NOX emissions standards in the
Ask, so New Hampshire requested four-factor analyses for each source.
Each combustion turbine is owned by Granite Shore Power, was originally
installed around the same time (1968-1970), has a similar unit rating
(290 MMBtu/hr-319 MMBtu/hr), operates at an annual capacity factor
below 1%, and has NOX emissions ranging from 0.7 lbs/MMBtu
to 0.9 lbs/MMBtu. The total average yearly emissions for these sources
from 2018-2022 were: GSP Lost Nation Station (LNCT1)--2.698 tons, GSP
Merrimack Station (MKCT1)--2.596 tons, (MKCT2)--2.738 tons, GSP
Schiller Station (SRCT)--2.582 tons, and GSP White Lake Station
(WLCT1)--3.595 tons. Based on the four-factor analyses, New Hampshire
concluded that no additional NOX controls are both
technically and economically feasible for these sources EPA proposes to
find that New Hampshire reasonably concluded that it has met the
requirements of Ask 5.
Finally, with regard to Ask 6, New Hampshire explains the clean
energy requirements within the state including New Hampshire's
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) statute, NH RSA 362-F: Electric
Renewable Portfolio Standard, and the State's participation in RGGI to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA is proposing to find that New
Hampshire has satisfied Ask 6's request to consider and report in its
SIP measures or programs related to energy efficiency, cogeneration,
and other clean distributed generation technologies.
In sum, New Hampshire identified several mechanisms for controlling
pollutants that impair visibility--including its regulations limiting
sulfur content in fuels (which are in New Hampshire's SIP), the
previously discussed updated RACT rules at Env-A 1300 (which EPA has in
a separate action recently proposed to approve into the SIP), and the
more stringent NOX limits at Stored Solar Tamworth
implemented through Env-A 2300 (which EPA is proposing to add to the
SIP in this action). EPA proposes that New Hampshire has reasonably
concluded that these measures are necessary to make reasonable progress
for the second planning period. In addition to these SIP approved
measures, New Hampshire also identified other federally enforceable and
permanent controls including BACT and LAER limits from NNSR and PSD
permitting, that are incorporated into the facilities' Title V
operating permits.
EPA is proposing to find--based on New Hampshire's participation in
the MANE-VU planning process, how it has addressed the Asks, and the
EPA's assessment of New Hampshire's emissions and point sources--that
New Hampshire has complied with the requirements of Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(i).
EPA is proposing to find the state's approach reasonable for
several reasons. New Hampshire reasonably evaluated and explained its
decision to focus on SO2 and NOX to address
visibility impairment within the MANE-VU region. And New Hampshire
adequately supported that decision through reasonable reliance on the
MANE-VU technical analyses cited in its submission. In addition, New
Hampshire selected the sources with the greatest modeled impacts on
visibility and also analyzed sources identified by the FLMs through the
consultation process. New Hampshire's submittal also includes four-
factor analyses and demonstrates that the sources of SO2 and
NOX within the state that would be expected to contribute to
visibility impairment have small emissions of NOX and
SO2, are subject to stringent emission control measures, or
both. In addition, New Hampshire's SIP-approved sulfur in fuel rule
sets stringent limits for sulfur content and SO2 emissions
for fuels. The New Hampshire SIP submittal also includes Env-A 2300,
which lowers NOX emission limits for Stored Solar Tamworth
and incorporates by reference an updated Env-A 1300, which includes
lower NOX limits for several sources including Merrimack
Station and Wheelabrator Concord.
EPA proposes to find that New Hampshire's SIP submittal satisfies
the requirements that states determine the emission reduction measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four
factors, and that their long-term strategies include the enforceable
emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures
necessary to make reasonable progress.
[[Page 80674]]
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
The consultation requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide
that states must consult with other states that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinated emission management strategies containing the
emission reductions necessary to make reasonable progress. Section
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) respectively require states to include in
their SIPs measures agreed to during state-to-state consultations or a
regional planning process and to consider the emission reduction
measures identified by other states as necessary for reasonable
progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to what happens if states
cannot agree on what measures are necessary to make reasonable
progress.
New Hampshire participated in and provided documentation of the
MANE-VU intra- and inter-RPO consultation processes, which included
consulting with both MANE-VU and non-MANE-VU states about emissions
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in New
Hampshire's Class I areas and emissions from New Hampshire reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in other Class I
areas. The consultations addressed developing coordinated emission
management strategies containing the emission reductions necessary to
make reasonable progress at the Class I areas. New Hampshire addressed
impacts to the MANE-VU Class I areas by providing information on the
measures it has in place that satisfy each MANE-VU Ask.\81\ New
Hampshire received comments from North Carolina, Virginia, and West
Virginia on New Hampshire's Draft SIP. The comments generally disagree
with MANE-VU's requests of non-MANE-VU states. The comments do not
include any requests that New Hampshire consider additional measures to
address visibility impairment in Class I areas in those respective
States. MANE-VU documented these and other disagreements that occurred
during consultation. For instance, MANE-VU noted in its Consultation
Report that upwind states expressed concern regarding the analyses the
RPO used for the selection of states for the consultation. MANE-VU
agreed that these tools, as all models, have their limitations, but
nonetheless deemed them appropriate. Additionally, there were several
comments regarding the choice of the 2011 modeling base year. MANE-VU
agreed that the choice of base year is critical to the outcome of the
study. MANE-VU acknowledged that there were newer versions of the
emission inventories and the need to use the best available inventory
for each analysis. However, MANE-VU disagreed that the choice of these
inventories was not appropriate for the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See appendix G ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, New Hampshire participated in the MANE-VU intra- and inter-
RPO consultation and included in its SIP submittal the measures
identified and agreed to during those consultations, thereby satisfying
Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B). New Hampshire satisfied Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) by participating in MANE-VU's consultation process,
which documented the disagreements between the upwind states and MANE-
VU and explained MANE-VU's reasoning on each of the disputed issues.
Based on the entirety of MANE-VU's intra- and inter-RPO consultation
and both MANE-VU's and New Hampshire's responses to states' comments on
the SIP submission \82\ and various technical analyses therein, we
propose to determine that New Hampshire has satisfied the consultation
requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See NH Submittal, Appendix W.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The documentation requirement of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides
that states may meet their obligations to document the technical bases
on which they are relying to determine the emission reductions measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress through an RPO, as long
as the process has been ``approved by all State participants.'' As
explained above, New Hampshire chose to rely on MANE-VU's technical
information, modeling, and analysis to support development of its long-
term strategy. The MANE-VU technical analyses on which New Hampshire
relied are listed in the state's SIP submission and include source
contribution assessments, information on each of the four factors and
visibility modeling information for certain EGUs, and evaluations of
emission reduction strategies for specific source categories. New
Hampshire also provided information to further demonstrate the
technical bases and emission information on which it relied on to
determine the emission reductions measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress. Based on the documentation provided by the state,
we propose to find New Hampshire satisfies the requirements of Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that the emissions
information considered to determine the measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most
recent year for which the state has submitted triennial emissions data
to the EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period
for newly submitted data. New Hampshire's SIP submission included 2017
NEI emission data for NOX, SO2, PM, VOCs and NH3
and 2016-2019 Air Markets Program Data (AMPD) emissions for
NOX and SO2. Based on New Hampshire's
consideration and analysis of the emission data in their submittal, the
EPA proposes to find that New Hampshire has satisfied the emissions
information requirement in 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
We also propose to find that New Hampshire reasonably considered
the five additional factors in Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing its
long-term strategy. Pursuant to Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), New
Hampshire noted that existing and ongoing state and federal emission
control programs that contribute to emission reductions through 2028
would impact emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from point
and nonpoint sources in the second implementation period. New Hampshire
included in its SIP a list of control measures with their effective
dates, pollutants addressed, and corresponding State regulations.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See Section 4.2.8 of the New Hampshire SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire's consideration of measures to mitigate the impacts
of construction activities as required by Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B)
includes a list of measures that New Hampshire has implemented to
mitigate the impacts from such activities. New Hampshire's Code of
Administrative Rules Env-A 1000, Prevention, Abatement, and Control of
Open Source Air Pollution, requires the control of direct emissions of
particulate matter (primarily crustal material) from mining,
transportation, storage, use, and removal activities. These
requirements apply to such sources as quarries, unpaved roads, cement
plants, construction sites, rock-crushing operations, and general
earth-moving activities. Controls may include wet suppression,
covering, vacuuming, and other approved means. EPA originally approved
the rule effective March 19, 2018 [83 FR 6972]. Additionally, New
Hampshire's Code of Administrative Rules Env-A 2800, Sand and Gravel
Sources: Non-Metallic Mineral Processing Plants; Cement and Concrete
Sources, requires the control of
[[Page 80675]]
fugitive dust and standards for particulate matter emissions and
visible emissions from sand and gravel sources, non-metallic mineral
processing plants, and cement and concrete sources. EPA approved the
rule effective December 7, 2016 [81 FR 78052].
Pursuant to Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), New Hampshire acknowledged
the most impactful of the State's sources are the fossil-fuel-fired
EGUs. While recent developments in the oil and gas industry have forced
rapid changes in the power production sector, and some generating units
have experienced sharp reductions in utilization, no retirements or
replacements of New Hampshire's EGUs have occurred or been announced
since the regional haze SIP was first submitted in 2010. Although
Schiller Station has been in an extended outage since June of 2020, no
official word from the Facility's owner has been announced regarding a
permanent shut down. As noted earlier, however, the facility reportedly
laid off staff and locked the gates to the facility in June of 2020.
Furthermore, as also previously noted, Schiller Station does not have a
current capacity supply obligation for any coal unit and did not place
a bid for any of these units in ISO New England's FCA 17, which secures
power supply obligations through May of 2027.
In considering smoke management as required in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), New Hampshire explained that it addresses smoke
management through the New Hampshire Prescribed Fire Council. The U.S.
Forest Service and NHDES are members of the Council and assisted in the
development of burn standards.\84\ Federal Class I areas are not
specifically identified as smoke sensitive features. New Hampshire's
Class I areas are within the White Mountain National Forest; thus, the
FLM for New Hampshire's two Class I areas (in this case, the U.S.
Forest Service) would be informed of any planned burn in nearby lands.
For any prescribed fire within this area, the burn plan would have to
meet the FLM's own requirements for protection of Federal Class I
areas, which are even more stringent than the New Hampshire Prescribed
Fire Council's standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ NH Prescribed Fire Council, (March 2019). Planning for
Prescribed Burning in New Hampshire--Minimum Recommended Standards
for Planning & Implementing Prescribed Burns. Available at https://extension.unh.edu/resources/files/Resource001886_Rep2781.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire considered the anticipated net effect of projected
changes in emissions as required by 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E) by discussing
the photochemical modeling for the 2018-2028 period it conducted in
collaboration with MANE-VU. The two modeling cases run were a 2028 base
case, which considered only on-the-books controls, and a 2028 control
case that considered implementation of the MANE-VU Ask. New Hampshire
presented the differences between the base and control cases on the 20%
most impaired and 20% clearest days for the Great Gulf Wilderness Area
\85\ and noted the success of measures implemented during the first
planning period to reduce impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ See Table 4-19 of the NH Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because New Hampshire has reasonably considered each of the five
additional factors, the EPA proposes to find that New Hampshire has
satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements pertaining to RPGs
for each Class I area. Because New Hampshire is host to a Class I area,
it is subject to both Sec. 51.308(f)(3)(i) and, potentially, to (ii).
Section 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires a state in which a Class I area is
located to establish RPGs--one each for the most impaired and clearest
days--reflecting the visibility conditions that will be achieved at the
end of the implementation period as a result of the emission
limitations, compliance schedules and other measures required under
paragraph (f)(2) to be in states' long-term strategies, as well as
implementation of other CAA requirements. The long-term strategies as
reflected by the RPGs must provide for an improvement in visibility on
the most impaired days relative to the baseline period and ensure no
degradation on the clearest days relative to the baseline period.
Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii) applies in circumstances in which a Class I
area's RPG for the most impaired days represents a slower rate of
visibility improvement than the uniform rate of progress calculated
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi). Under Sec. 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the
state in which a mandatory Class I area is located establishes an RPG
for the most impaired days that provides for a slower rate of
visibility improvement than the URP, the state must demonstrate that
there are no additional emission reduction measures for anthropogenic
sources or groups of sources in the state that would be reasonable to
include in its long-term strategy. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires
that if a state contains sources that are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area in another state,
and the RPG for the most impaired days in that Class I area is above
the URP, the upwind state must provide the same demonstration.
Table 4-19 of New Hampshire's SIP submittal summarizes baseline
visibility conditions (i.e., visibility conditions during the baseline
period of 2000-2004) for the most impaired and clearest days and the
2028 RPG for the most impaired days for New Hampshire's Class I areas,
as well as information on natural visibility conditions, the rate of
progress described by the URP in 2028, and the modeled 2028 base case
(representing visibility conditions in 2028 with existing controls).
Baseline visibility conditions at New Hampshire's Class I areas were
7.65 and 21.88 deciviews for the clearest and most impaired days,
respectively. By comparison, New Hampshire has established 2028 RPGs
for the clearest and most impaired days of 5.11 and 12.13
deciviews.86 87
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See Table 4-6 of the NH Regional Haze SIP. These values
were modeled not including the MANE-VU Asks. The values for the
clearest and most impaired days including the Asks were 5.06 and
12.00 deciviews, respectively.
\87\ See also NH Submittal, Appendix W at 7 (indicating that the
RPG for New Hampshire's Class I Areas is 12.13 deciviews).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire's 2028 most impaired base case of 12.13 deciviews
reflects the visibility conditions that are projected to be achieved
based on states' existing measures. As such, EPA considers the 2028
modeled base case value of 12.13 deciviews to be the appropriate
estimate of the RPG for the 20% most impaired visibility days (as
opposed to the 12.00 deciviews value that includes measures from the
MANE-VU Asks). EPA expects that the observed deciview value in 2028
will actually be equal to or lower than the 12.13 deciview estimate due
to numerous coal-fired utility boilers in upwind states having recently
retired or being expected to retire under enforceable commitments
before 2028. Even the conservative estimate of 12.13 deciviews on the
most impaired days in 2028 constitutes improvement over the baseline
visibility conditions of 21.88 deciviews. Therefore, the long-term
strategy and the reasonable progress goals provide for an improvement
in visibility for the most impaired days since the baseline period and
ensure no degradation in visibility for the clearest days since the
baseline period. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i).
As noted in the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii), the reasonable
progress goals are not directly enforceable, but will be considered by
the Administrator in evaluating the adequacy of the measures in the
implementation plan in providing for reasonable progress
[[Page 80676]]
towards achieving natural visibility conditions at that area. The 2028
RPG for the most impaired days of 12.13 deciviews fulfills the
regulatory purpose of the RPGs because visibility conditions at New
Hampshire's Class I areas have improved since the baseline period. EPA
is therefore proposing to find that New Hampshire's RPGs satisfy the
applicable requirements and provide for reasonable progress towards
achieving natural conditions.
Table 4-19 of New Hampshire's submission shows the URP glidepath
value for New Hampshire's Class I areas in 2028 as 17.04 deciviews. New
Hampshire's RPG is well below the glidepath value, thus the
demonstration requirement under Sec. 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) is not
triggered. Under Sec. 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), a state that contains
sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in a Class I area in another state for which a demonstration
by the other state is required under 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) must
demonstrate that there are no additional emission reduction measures
that would be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy. New
Hampshire's SIP revision included the modeled MANE-VU 2028 visibility
projections at nearby Class I areas.\88\ While these projections may
not represent the final RPGs for these Class I areas, all of the base
case 2028 projections for the most impaired days at these areas
(Acadia, Brigantine, Campobello, Lye Brook, Moosehorn, Dolly Sods,
James River Face, Otter Creek, and Shenandoah) are well below the
respective 2028 points on the URPs. Therefore, we propose it is
reasonable to assume that the demonstration requirement under Sec.
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) as it pertains to these areas will not be triggered
for New Hampshire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See Appendix B ``Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility
Data 2004-2019 (2nd RH SIP Metrics.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each comprehensive revision of
a state's regional haze SIP must contain or provide for certain
elements, including monitoring strategies, emissions inventories, and
any reporting, recordkeeping and other measures needed to assess and
report on visibility. A main requirement of this subsection is for
states with Class I areas to submit monitoring strategies for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting on visibility impairment.
Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in
the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
network.
The IMPROVE monitor for the Great Gulf Wilderness (GRGU1) is
located at Camp Dodge, in the mid-northern area of Greens Grant in the
White Mountain National Forest. The monitor site lies just east and
south of where Route 16 crosses the Greens Grant/Martins Location
boundary, south of Gorham, New Hampshire, at elevation 454 meters,
latitude 44.31[deg], and longitude of -71.22[deg]. This monitor, which
also represents the Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness, is
operated and maintained by the U.S. Forest Service.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess whether reasonable progress goals to address regional haze for
all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state are being
achieved. New Hampshire has not received any recommendations or advice
from EPA or affected FLM that additional monitoring is required
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4). Therefore, New Hampshire has no
current plans to alter the current strategy as long as this monitoring
continues to be federally supported.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii) requires SIPs to provide for procedures by
which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas both within
and outside the state. New Hampshire relied on the MANE-VU contribution
assessment analysis.\89\ The analysis included Eulerian (grid-based)
source models, Lagrangian (air parcel-based) source dispersion models,
as well as a variety of data analysis techniques that include source
apportionment models, back trajectory calculations, and the use of
monitoring and inventory data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See Appendix G for the contribution assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(6)(iii) does not apply to New Hampshire, as it
has a Class I area.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the SIP to provide for the
reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each Class I area in the state. As noted above, the
Great Gulf Wilderness IMPROVE monitor is operated and maintained by the
U.S. Forest Service. The monitoring strategy for New Hampshire relies
upon the continued availability of the IMPROVE network. The IMPROVE
monitor for the Great Gulf Wilderness (indicated as GRGU1 in the
IMPROVE monitoring network database) is located at the base of Mt.
Washington. New Hampshire supports the continued operation of the
IMPROVE network through both state and Federal funding mechanisms.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for a statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for
the most recent year for which data are available and estimates of
future projected emissions. It also requires a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. New Hampshire provides for emissions
inventories and estimates for future projected emissions by
participating in the MANE-VU RPO and complying with EPA's Air Emissions
Reporting Rule (AERR). In 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, the AERR requires
states to submit updated emissions inventories for criteria pollutants
to EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) every three years. The
emission inventory data are used to develop the NEI, which provides
for, among other things, a triennial state-wide inventory of pollutants
that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment.
Section 5 of New Hampshire's submission includes tables of NEI
data. The source categories of the emissions inventories included are:
(1) Point sources, (2) nonpoint sources, (3) non-road mobile sources,
and (4) on-road mobile sources. The point source category is further
divided into Air Markets Program Data (AMPD) point sources and non-AMPD
point sources.\90\ New Hamshire included NEI emissions inventories for
the following years: 2002 (one of the regional haze program baseline
years), 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2017; and for the following pollutants:
SO2, NOX, PM10, PM2.5,
VOCs, CO, and NH3. New Hampshire also provided a summary of
SO2 and NOx emissions for AMPD sources for the years of
2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ AMPD sources are facilities that participate in EPA's
emission trading programs. The majority of AMPD sources are electric
generating units (EGUs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires states to include estimates
of future projected emissions and include a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. New Hampshire relied on the MANE-VU 2028
emissions projections for MANE-VU states. MANE-VU completed two 2028
projected emissions modeling cases--a 2028 base case that considers
only on-the-books controls and a 2028 control case that considers
implementation of
[[Page 80677]]
the MANE-VU Asks.\91\ New Hampshire's SIP submittal also includes a
commitment to update the statewide emissions inventory periodically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See ``OTC MANE-VU 2011 Based Modeling Platform Support
Document October 2018--Final.'' At https://otcair.org/manevu/document.asp?fview=Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that New Hampshire has met the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) as described above, including
through its continued participation in the IMPROVE network and the
MANE-VU RPO and its on-going compliance with the AERR, and that no
further elements are necessary at this time for New Hampshire to assess
and report on visibility pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic comprehensive revisions
of states' regional haze plans also address the progress report
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The purpose of these
requirements is to evaluate progress towards the applicable RPGs for
each Class I area within the state and each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions from within that state.
Sections 51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all states and require a
description of the status of implementation of all measures included in
a state's first implementation period regional haze plan and a summary
of the emission reductions achieved through implementation of those
measures. Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to states with Class I
areas within their borders and requires such states to assess current
visibility conditions, changes in visibility relative to baseline
(2000-2004) visibility conditions, and changes in visibility conditions
relative to the period addressed in the first implementation period
progress report. Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all states and
requires an analysis tracking changes in emissions of pollutants
contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and sectors
since the period addressed by the first implementation period progress
report. This provision further specifies the year or years through
which the analysis must extend depending on the type of source and the
platform through which its emission information is reported. Finally,
Sec. 51.308(g)(5), which also applies to all states, requires an
assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within
or outside the state that have occurred since the period addressed by
the first implementation period progress report, including whether such
changes were anticipated and whether they have limited or impeded
expected progress towards reducing emissions and improving visibility.
New Hampshire's submission describes the status of measures of the
long-term strategy from the first implementation period. As a member of
MANE-VU, New Hampshire considered the MANE-VU Asks and adopted
corresponding measures into its long-term strategy for the first
implementation period. The MANE-VU Asks were: (1) Timely implementation
of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements; (2) EGU
controls including Controls at 167 Key Sources that most affect MANE-VU
Class I areas; (3) Low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (4) Continued
evaluation of other control measures. New Hampshire met all the
identified reasonable measures requested during the first
implementation period. During the first planning period for regional
haze, programs that were put in place focused on reducing sulfur
dioxide (SO2) emissions. The reductions achieved led to vast
improvements in visibility at the MANE-VU Federal Class I Areas due to
reduced sulfates formed from SO2 emissions. New Hampshire
lists in its submission an expansive list of control measures that help
control the emissions of VOCs, NOX, PM and SO2
from a wide range of sources.\92\ New Hampshire's SIP submission
includes emission data demonstrating the reductions achieved throughout
the state through implementation of the measures mentioned. The state
included periodic emission data that demonstrate a decrease in VOCs,
NOX, PM and SO2 emissions throughout the state.
The measured visibility improvement from emission reductions at the two
New Hampshire EGUs that were subjected to BART and other targeted
strategies showed drastic emission decreases from 2007-2017 for
SO2, NOX and particulate matter.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See Section 5.1 of the NH Regional Haze SIP--Final May
2022.
\93\ See Figure 5-1: ``Emissions in SO2,
NOX and PM from Two New Hampshire EGUs, 2007-2017
(tpy)''in the New Hampshire SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that New Hampshire has met the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) because its SIP submission
describes the measures included in the long-term strategy from the
first implementation period, as well as the status of their
implementation and the emission reductions achieved through such
implementation.
New Hampshire's SIP submission includes the assessments of
visibility conditions and changes at the State's class I areas,
expressed in terms of 5-year averages, required by section
51.308(f)(3). In particular, New Hampshire's submission reports current
(2015-2019) visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest
days of 12.33 and 4.69 deciviews, respectively, indicating that haze
index levels have decreased by 9.55 deciviews on the most impaired days
and 2.96 deciviews on the clearest days from baseline visibility
conditions (2000-2004).\94\ The SIP submission also indicates that,
since the period addressed in New Hampshire's previous progress report
(2009-2013), haze index levels have decreased by 3.07 and 1.18
deciviews on the most impaired and clearest days, respectively. EPA
therefore proposes to find that New Hampshire has satisfied the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ See Section 5.3 of the New Hampshire SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Sec. 51.308(g)(4), New Hampshire provided a summary of
emissions of NOX, SO2, PM10,
PM2.5, VOCs, and NH3 from all sources and
activities, including from point, nonpoint, non-road mobile, and on-
road mobile sources, for the time period from 2002 to 2017, based on
emission inventory information submitted pursuant to the AERR in 40 CFR
part 51, subpart A. With respect to sources that report directly to the
EPA, New Hampshire also included AMPD data for SO2 and
NOX emissions for 2016 through 2019.
The reductions achieved by New Hampshire emission control measures
are seen in the emissions inventory. Based on New Hampshire's SIP
submission, NOX emissions have continuously declined in New
Hampshire from 2002 through 2017, especially in the point, nonroad and
onroad mobile sectors. NOX emissions are expected to
continue to decrease as fleet turnover occurs and the older more
polluting vehicles and equipment are replaced by newer, cleaner ones.
New Hampshire sources that report to the EPA's AMPD showed a decline in
NOX emissions in the period since the last progress report
(2,753 tons in 2014 and 1,018 tons in 2019).\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See Figure 5-4 ``NOX Emissions in New Hampshire
for all Data Categories, 2002-2017 (tpy)'' and Figure 5-7: ``MANE-VU
State NOX Emissions from AMPD, 2016-2019 (tpy)''in the
New Hampshire SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions of SO2 have shown a steady significant decline
in New Hampshire over the period 2002 to 2017, particularly in the
point, nonroad and onroad mobile sectors. Large decreases
[[Page 80678]]
are attributable to the installation of scrubbers at Merrimack Station,
which became operational in late 2011, and to New Hampshire's adoption
of the MANE-VU low sulfur fuel strategy.\96\ Since some components of
the low sulfur fuel strategy have milestones of 2016 and 2018, and as
MANE-VU states continue to adopt rules to implement the strategy,
additional SO2 emissions reductions have likely been
obtained since 2017 and are expected to continue into the future. Other
SO2 emissions decreases are due to fuel switching due to the
availability of less expensive natural gas in recent years, and the
reduction of use of coal-fired EGUs at Merrimack and Schiller Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ NH SIP Submission at 88 (Figure 5-15); see also id. at 71-
72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire's submission analyzes the change in PM10
emissions from all NEI data categories point, nonpoint, non-road, and
onroad in New Hampshire, noting that PM10 emissions have
generally remained constant, particularly between the 2002/2008
inventories and the 2011/2017 inventories. The apparent change in point
source emissions of PM10 is due to a large point source in
the State mistakenly reporting its PM10 emissions in pounds,
rather than tons. The variations in the onroad category are due to
changes in emission inventory calculation methodologies, which resulted
in higher particulate matter estimates in the other years than in 2002.
The large variation in emissions in the nonpoint category is due to
changes in calculation methodologies for residential wood burning and
fugitive dust categories, which have varied significantly.
New Hampshire also analyzes PM2.5 emissions from all NEI
data categories for the period from 2002 to 2017, noting that, similar
to PM10 emissions, they have remained generally constant in
New Hampshire. PM2.5 emissions show some decrease in the
nonroad category for the period from 2002 to 2017 because of Federal
new engine standards for nonroad vehicles and equipment. Overall, there
is a decrease in onroad emissions due to Federal and State regulations,
but the increase from 2002 to 2008 is due to changes in emission
inventory calculation methodologies and a model change, as previously
explained, which resulted in higher fine particulate matter estimates
in the years after 2002. The variation in emissions in the nonpoint
category is due to changes in calculation methodologies for residential
wood burning and fugitive dust categories, which have varied
significantly.
Figure 5-20 of New Hampshire's submission shows VOC emissions from
all NEI data categories for the period 2002 to 2017 in New Hampshire.
VOC emissions have shown a decline in New Hampshire over the period
2002 to 2017. Much of the decrease in VOC is attributable to Federal
and state rules for evaporative sources of VOC emissions such as
portable fuel containers; architectural, industrial, and maintenance
coatings; consumer products; and solvent degreasing. VOC emissions from
non-road and on-road mobile sources are expected to continue to
decrease as older, more polluting vehicles are replaced by newer,
cleaner ones.
Figure 5-23 of New Hampshire's submission shows ammonia
(NH3) emissions from all NEI data categories for the period
2002 to 2017 and show a general downward trend in New Hampshire.
Ammonia decreases were achieved in the onroad sectors due to Federal
new engine standards for vehicles and equipment. Point source increases
from 2002 to 2008 are due to reporting, grouping and methodology
changes, not actual emission increases. Nonpoint increases and
decreases from 2002 to 2017 are due to reporting, grouping and
methodology changes. For many MANE-VU states, ammonia emissions for
2014 and 2017 are lower than they were for earlier years. Most MANE-VU
states saw increases in 2017 relative to 2014; this could likely be the
result of estimation methodology changes. Emissions from 2002-2008 are
not comparable to post-2008 emissions due to methodology changes.
The EPA is proposing to find that New Hampshire has satisfied the
requirements of Sec. 51.308(g)(4) by providing emissions information
for NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5,
VOCs, and NH3 broken down by type of source.
The emissions trend data in the SIP submission \97\ supports New
Hampshire's assessment that no significant increase of haze-causing
pollutant emissions has occurred in New Hampshire during the reporting
period and that changes in emissions have not limited or impeded
progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility. New
Hampshire notes that, both within and outside the State, there has been
a shift to cleaner generation of electricity using natural gas in place
of fuels such as coal or oil that has contributed to reduced emissions
of haze-causing pollutants. The EPA is proposing to find that New
Hampshire has met the requirements of Sec. 51.308(g)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ See Chapter 5 ``Progress Report and Periodic Reports'' in
New Hampshire SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Section 169A(d) of the Clean Air Act requires states to consult
with FLMs before holding the public hearing on a proposed regional haze
SIP, and to include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and
recommendations in the notice to the public. In addition, section
51.308(i)(2)'s FLM consultation provision requires a state to provide
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation that is early enough in the
state's policy analyses of its emission reduction obligation so that
information and recommendations provided by the FLMs can meaningfully
inform the state's decisions on its long-term strategy. If the
consultation has taken place at least 120 days before a public hearing
or public comment period, the opportunity for consultation will be
deemed early enough. Regardless, the opportunity for consultation must
be provided at least sixty days before a public hearing or public
comment period at the state level. Section 51.308(i)(2) further
provides that FLMs must be given an opportunity to discuss their
assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I area and their
recommendations on the development and implementation of strategies to
address visibility impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3) requires states, in
developing their implementation plans, to include a description of how
they addressed FLMs' comments.
The states in the MANE-VU RPO conducted FLM consultation early in
the planning process concurrent with the state-to-state consultation
that formed the basis of the RPO's decision making process. As part of
the consultation, the FLMs were given the opportunity to review and
comment on the technical documents developed by MANE-VU. The FLMs were
invited to attend the intra- and inter-RPO consultations calls among
states and at least one FLM representative was documented to have
attended seven intra-RPO meetings and all inter-RPO meetings. New
Hampshire participated in these consultation meetings and calls.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ See Appendix G ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of this early engagement with the FLMs, on April 12, 2018,
the U.S National Park Service (NPS) sent letters to the MANE-VU states
requesting that they consider specific individual
[[Page 80679]]
sources in their long-term strategies.\99\ NPS used an analysis of
emissions divided by distance (Q/d) to estimate the impact of MANE-VU
facilities. To select the facilities, NPS first summed 2014 NEI
NOX, PM10, SO2, and SO4
emissions and divided by the distance to a specified NPS mandatory
Class I Federal area. NPS summed the Q/d values across all MANE-VU
states relative to Acadia, Mammoth Cave and Shenandoah National Parks,
ranked the Q/d values relative to each Class I area, created a running
total, and identified those facilities contributing to 80% of the total
impact at each NPS Class I area. NPS merged the resulting lists of
facilities and sorted them by their states. NPS suggested that a state
consider those facilities comprising 80% of the Q/d total, not to
exceed the 25 top ranked facilities. The NPS originally identified five
facilities in New Hampshire in this letter.\100\ New Hampshire included
the NPS initial letter in their proposed SIP. In a subsequent letter
dated October 22, 2018, NPS identified four facilities for which more
control information was desired. New Hampshire detailed the emission
controls and updates to the four facilities to address the NPS's
request for more information, as discussed previously.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Id.
\100\ Id.
\101\ See Appendix W email from NPS to NHDES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 9, 2021, the NPS Air Resources Division (ARD) and NPS
Interior Region 1 staff hosted a consultation meeting with New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) to discuss a
draft of the New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP. Representatives from the
U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service also attended the
meeting.\102\ On June 11, 2021, the NPS sent a summary of this meeting
and NPS' comments to New Hampshire via email, stating that the NPS
``commend[s] the state on its level of analysis and commitment to
emissions reductions.'' \103\ On June 16, 2021, the U.S. Forest Service
indicated by letter that it was ``satisfied with the document as
provided and offer[ed] no suggestions for change.'' \104\ In accordance
with CAA Sec. 169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), New Hampshire included
summaries of the consultation and copies of the FLM correspondence in
appendices G and W of the SIP submission. New Hampshire also noted that
it has responded to FLM feedback on the selection and evaluation of
specific sources potentially impacting visibility in Class I areas
during development of the SIP submission and, as a result, expanded the
number of sources evaluated to ensure a robust analysis and adequate
controls to improve visibility.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ See NH SIP Submittal, App. W (Email from H. Salazar, Reg'l
Air Res. Coord., NPS, to C. Beahm, Air Res. Div., NHDES (June 11,
2021)).
\103\ Id.
\104\ Id. (Ltr. from D. Ibarguen, Forest Supervisor, White Mtn.
Nat'l Forest, to C. Wright, Air Res. Div. Dir., NHDES (June 16,
2021)).
\105\ NH SIP Submittal, App. W.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire held two public comment periods and one public
hearing related to this Regional Haze SIP Revision. On November 4,
2019, NHDES published a notice in the Manchester, NH, Union Leader
announcing a 30-day public comment period providing for submission of
written comments and allowing any member of the public the opportunity
to request a public hearing on the SIP revision. A second public notice
period was conducted starting on December 10, 2021 (and extended on
December 27, 2021), with published notices in the Union Leader. A
public hearing was held in Room 208C at NHDES Offices in Concord, NH
and online via WebEx at 1:30 p.m. on February 23, 2022.
For the reasons stated above, the EPA proposes to find that New
Hampshire has satisfied the requirements under CAA section 169A(d) and
40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding consultation with the FLMs on its regional
haze SIP for the second implementation period.
New Hampshire's May 5, 2022, SIP submission includes a commitment
to revise and submit a subsequent regional haze SIP by July 21, 2033,
and every ten years thereafter. The state's commitment includes
submitting periodic progress reports in accordance with Sec. 51.308(f)
and a commitment to evaluate progress towards the reasonable progress
goal for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the state
and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the state
that may be affected by emissions from within the state in accordance
with Sec. 51.308(g).\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ See the preface and Chapter 9 of the ``NH Regional Haze
SIP--Final March 2022.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's May 5, 2022,
supplemented on September 21, 2023, SIP submission as satisfying the
regional haze requirements for the second implementation period
contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f). Additionally, EPA is proposing to
approve the revised state rule Env-A 2300, ``Mitigation of Regional
Haze,'' into the SIP.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, 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 Env-A 2300 ``Mitigation of Regional Haze,''
which contains updated emissions limits for certain facilities located
in the State. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and
at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National
[[Page 80680]]
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with
the CAA.
In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, pertaining to New
Hampshire regional haze SIP submission for the second planning period,
is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other
area where the 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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' The air agency did
not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is
not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the
record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: November 13, 2023.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2023-25336 Filed 11-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
