Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11809 

Island will take one or more of the 

following actions at that time, 

whichever actions are appropriate or 

necessary: 

• If Rhode Island determines that the 

existing State Implementation Plan 

requires no further substantive revision 

in order to achieve established goals for 

visibility improvement and emissions 

reductions, RI DEM will provide to the 

EPA Administrator a negative 

declaration that further revision of the 

existing plan is not needed. 

• If Rhode Island determines that its 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources in one or more other State(s) 

which participated in the regional 

planning process, Rhode Island will 

provide notification to the EPA 

Administrator and to those other 

State(s). Rhode Island will also 

collaborate with the other State(s) 

through the regional planning process 

for the purpose of developing additional 

strategies to address any such 

deficiencies in Rhode Island’s plan. 

• If Rhode Island determines that its 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources in another country, Rhode 

Island will provide notification, along 

with available information, to the EPA 

Administrator. 

• If Rhode Island determines that the 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources within the State, Rhode Island 

will revise its implementation plan to 

address the plan’s deficiencies within 

one year from this determination. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing approval of Rhode 

Island’s August 7, 2009 SIP revision as 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

the Regional Haze Rule found in 40 CFR 

51.308. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 13, 2012. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4656 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0599; A–1–FRL– 

9639–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire; Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of 

a revision to the New Hampshire State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services (NHDES) on 

January 29, 2010, with supplemental 

submittals on January 14, 2011, and 

August 26, 2011, that addresses regional 

haze for the first planning period from 

2008 through 2018. This revision 

addresses the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules that 

require States to prevent any future, and 

remedy any existing, manmade 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas (also referred to as the 

‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2008–0559 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0599 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11810 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air 

Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2008– 

0599. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, 

MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, 

you contact the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

In addition, copies of the State 

submittal are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the Air 

Resources Division, Department of 

Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, 

P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302–0095. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

Code OEP05–02), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, telephone number (617) 918– 

1697, fax number (617) 918–0697, email 

mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed 

action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Background Information 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

II. What are the requirements for the regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of New 

Hampshire’s regional haze SIP 

submittal? 

A. New Hampshire’s Affected Class I Areas 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to 

Visibility Impairments 

2. Procedure for Identifying Sources To 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls 

3. Application of the Four Clean Air Act 

Factors in the Reasonable Progress 

Analysis 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

1. Identification of All BART Eligible 

Sources 

2. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

3. New Hampshire BART Analysis Protocol 

4. Source Specific BART Determinations 

5. Enforceability of BART 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

3. Meeting the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ 

4. Additional Considerations for the LTS 

F. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

I. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles and their precursors (e.g., 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in 

some cases, ammonia and volatile 

organic compounds). Fine particle 

precursors react in the atmosphere to 

form fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g., 

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and soil dust), which 

also impair visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the Western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without manmade air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11811 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 

7472(a)). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 

69122, November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions (42 U.S.C. 

7472(a)). Although States and Tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager’’ (FLM). (42 U.S.C. 7602(i)). When we use 

the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

2The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715, 

(July 1, 1999). 

B. Background Information 

In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of 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 1 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ (RAVI). See 45 FR 80084, 

(Dec. 2, 1980). These regulations 

represented the first phase in addressing 

visibility impairment. EPA deferred 

action on regional haze that emanates 

from a variety of sources until 

monitoring, modeling and scientific 

knowledge about the relationships 

between pollutants and visibility 

impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule. 

The Regional Haze Rule revised the 

existing visibility regulations to 

integrate into the regulation provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment 

and established a comprehensive 

visibility protection program for Class I 

areas. The requirements for regional 

haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 

51.309, are included in EPA’s visibility 

protection regulations at 40 CFR 

51.300–309. Some of the main elements 

of the regional haze requirements are 

summarized in Section II. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 States, the District 

of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 

Forty CFR 51.308(b) requires States to 

submit the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. On January 15, 2009, EPA found 

that 37 States, the District of Columbia 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands failed to 

submit this required implementation 

plan. See 74 FR 2392 (Jan. 15, 2009). In 

particular, EPA found that New 

Hampshire failed to submit a plan that 

met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. 

See 74 FR 2393. On January 14, 2011, 

the Air Resources Division of the New 

Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services (NHDES) 

submitted revisions to the New 

Hampshire State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to address regional haze as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308. A revision 

to this submittal was made on August 

26, 2011. EPA has reviewed New 

Hampshire’s submittal and is proposing 

to find that it is consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 as 

outlined in Section II. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

States, tribal governments and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, States need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the States and 

Tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their States and Tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of PM2.5 and other pollutants leading to 

regional haze. 

The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 

Union (MANE–VU) RPO is a 

collaborative effort of State 

governments, tribal governments, and 

various federal agencies established to 

initiate and coordinate activities 

associated with the management of 

regional haze, visibility and other air 

quality issues in the Northeastern 

United States. Member State and Tribal 

governments include: Connecticut, 

Delaware, the District of Columbia, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, 

Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

II. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require States 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is 

determined by measuring the visual 

range (or deciview), which is the 

greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, 

at which a dark object can be viewed 

against the sky. The deciview is a useful 

measure for tracking progress in 

improving visibility, because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview.2

The deciview is used in expressing 

Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) 

(which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11812 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART are listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by manmade air 

pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., manmade sources of air 

pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program and as 

part of the process for determining 

reasonable progress, States must 

calculate the degree of existing visibility 

impairment at each Class I area within 

the State at the time of each regional 

haze SIP submittal and periodically 

review progress every five years midway 

through each 10-year planning period. 

To do this, the RHR requires States to 

determine the degree of impairment (in 

deciviews) for the average of the 20 

percent least impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 

percent most impaired (‘‘worst’’) 

visibility days over a specified time 

period at each of their Class I areas. In 

addition, States must also develop an 

estimate of natural visibility conditions 

for the purposes of comparing progress 

toward the national goal. Natural 

visibility is determined by estimating 

the natural concentrations of pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment and 

then calculating total light extinction 

based on those estimates. EPA has 

provided guidance to States regarding 

how to calculate baseline, natural and 

current visibility conditions in 

documents titled, Guidance for 

Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005) 

available at www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/ 

memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 

Natural Visibility Guidance’’), and 

Guidance for Tracking Progress Under 

the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003 

(EPA–454/B–03–004), available at 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf (hereinafter referred to 

as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

impairment for the 20 percent least 

impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days at the time the regional 

haze program was established. Using 

monitoring data from 2000 through 

2004, States are required to calculate the 

average degree of visibility impairment 

for each Class I area within the State, 

based on the average of annual values 

over the five year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

States that establish RPGs for Class I 

areas for each (approximately) 10-year 

planning period. The RHR does not 

mandate specific milestones or rates of 

progress, but instead calls for States to 

establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions for their Class I areas. In 

setting RPGs, States must provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the most 

impaired days over the (approximately) 

10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in the CAA and in EPA’s 

RHR: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) 

the time necessary for compliance; (3) 

the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

and (4) the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected sources. States must 

demonstrate in their SIPs how these 

factors are considered when selecting 

the RPGs for the best and worst days for 

each applicable Class I area. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s July 1, 2007 

memorandum from William L. Wehrum, 

Acting Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, to EPA Regional 

Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10, 

entitled Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program (p. 4–2, 5– 

1)(EPA’s Reasonable Progress 

Guidance). In setting the RPGs, States 

must also consider the rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (referred to as the 

‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the ‘‘glide 

path’’) and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the 10-year period of the 

SIP. The year 2064 represents a rate of 

progress which States are to use for 

analytical comparison to the amount of 

progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each State with one or 

more Class I areas (‘‘Class I State’’) must 

also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing States,’’ i.e., other nearby 

States with emission sources that may 

be contributing to visibility impairment 

at the Class I State’s areas. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

States to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, the CAA 

requires States to revise their SIPs to 

contain such measures as may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

towards the natural visibility goal, 

including a requirement that certain 

categories of existing stationary sources 

built between 1962 and 1977 procure, 

install, and operate the ‘‘Best Available 

Retrofit Technology’’ as determined by 

the State. (CAA 169A(b)(2)a)).3 States 

are directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such sources that 

may be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Rather than requiring 

source-specific BART controls, States 

also have the flexibility to adopt an 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative program as long as the 

alternative provides greater reasonable 

progress towards improving visibility 

than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist States in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

applicability determination for a fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating plant with 

a total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts (MW), a State must use 

the approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11813 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibility 

impairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate 

matter (PM). EPA has stated that States 

should use their best judgment in 

determining whether volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH3) 

and ammonia compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

The RPOs provided air quality 

modeling to the States to help them in 

determining whether potential BART 

sources can be reasonably expected to 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in a Class I area. Under the 

BART Guidelines, States may select an 

exemption threshold value for their 

BART modeling, below which a BART 

eligible source would not be expected to 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in any Class I area. The 

State must document this exemption 

threshold value in the SIP and must 

state the basis for its selection of that 

value. Any source with emissions that 

model above the threshold value would 

be subject to a BART determination 

review. The BART Guidelines 

acknowledge varying circumstances 

affecting different Class I areas. States 

should consider the number of emission 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts. Any 

exemption threshold set by the State 

should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews. 

See 70 FR 39161 (July 6, 2005). 

In their SIPs, States must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. The term 

‘‘BART-eligible source’’ used in the 

BART Guidelines means the collection 

of individual emission units at a facility 

that together comprises the BARTeligible source. See 70 FR 39161 (July 6, 

2005). In making BART determinations, 

section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires 

that States consider the following 

factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) 

the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

(3) any existing pollution control 

technology in use at the source; (4) the 

remaining useful life of the source; and 

(5) the degree of improvement in 

visibility which may reasonably be 

anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology. States are free to 

determine the weight and significance 

to be assigned to each factor. See 70 FR 

39170 (July 6, 2005). 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a State 

has made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP, as required by CAA 

(section 169(g)(4)) and the RHR (40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to what is 

required by the RHR, general SIP 

requirements mandate that the SIP must 

also include all regulatory requirements 

related to monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting for the BART controls on 

the source. States have the flexibility to 

choose the type of control measures 

they will use to meet the requirements 

of BART. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR 

requires that States include a LTS in 

their SIPs. The LTS is the compilation 

of all control measures a State will use 

to meet any applicable RPGs. The LTS 

must include ‘‘enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures as necessary to achieve 

the reasonable progress goals’’ for all 

Class I areas within, or affected by 

emissions from, the State. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). 

When a State’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another State, the 

RHR requires the impacted State to 

coordinate with the contributing States 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. See 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, 

the contributing State must demonstrate 

that it has included in its SIP all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emission reductions needed to meet 

the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between States may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two States belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, States 

must describe how each of the seven 

factors listed below is taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the State for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the State’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the State 

must revise its plan to provide for 

review and revision of a coordinated 

LTS for addressing reasonably 

attributable and regional haze visibility 

impairment, and the State must submit 

the first such coordinated LTS with its 

first regional haze SIP. Future 

coordinated LTS’s, and periodic 

progress reports evaluating progress 

towards RPGs, must be submitted 

consistent with the schedule for SIP 

submission and periodic progress 

reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 

51.308(g), respectively. The periodic 

reviews of a State’s LTS must report on 

both regional haze and RAVI 

impairment and must be submitted to 

EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Forty CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the State. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the IMPROVE network. 

The monitoring strategy is due with the 

first regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11814 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

4The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering 

committee composed of representatives from 

Federal (including representatives from EPA and 

the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring 

program was established in 1985 to aid the creation 

of Federal and State implementation plans for the 

protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the 

objectives of IMPROVE is to identify chemical 

species and emission sources responsible for 

existing man-made visibility impairment. The 

IMPROVE program has also been a key participant 

in visibility-related research, including the 

advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 

analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 

formulation and source attribution field studies. 

5The science behind the revised IMPROVE 

equation is summarized in numerous published 

papers. See, eg., J. L. Hand & W. C. Malm, Review 

of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient 

Light Extinction Coefficients—Final Report, March 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a State 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the State to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the State; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a State 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the State to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other States; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the State, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing 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 a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A State 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

Forty CFR 51.308(f) of the RHR 

requires control strategies to cover an 

initial implementation period extending 

to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 

reassessment and revision of those 

strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years 

thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must 

meet the core requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d) with the exception of BART. 

The BART provisions of 40 CFR 

51.308(e), as noted above, apply only to 

the first implementation period. 

Periodic SIP revisions will assure that 

the statutory requirement of reasonable 

progress will continue to be met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that States consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 

51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

State must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP 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. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of New 

Hampshire’s regional haze SIP 

submittal? 

On January 29, 2010, NHDES’s Air 

Resources Division submitted revisions 

to the New Hampshire SIP to address 

regional haze as required by 40 CFR 

51.308. Amended SIP revisions were 

submitted on January 14, 2011, and 

August 26, 2011. EPA has reviewed 

New Hampshire’s submittals and is 

proposing to find that it is consistent 

with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 

as outlined in Section II. A detailed 

analysis follows. 

New Hampshire is responsible for 

developing a regional haze SIP which 

addresses visibility in New Hampshire’s 

two Class I areas. These areas are the 

Great Gulf Wilderness and the 

Presidential Range—Dry River 

Wilderness, both located within the 

White Mountains National Forest. The 

State must also address New 

Hampshire’s impact on any other nearby 

Class I areas. 

A. New Hampshire’s Affected Class I 

Areas 

New Hampshire is home to two Class 

I areas: (1) Great Gulf Wilderness Area 

(Great Gulf); and (2) Presidential 

Range—Dry River Wilderness Area (Dry 

River). 

In addition to these areas, the MANE– 

VU RPO contains five other Class I areas 

in three States: Lye Brook Wilderness 

Area in Vermont; Acadia National Park, 

Moosehorn Wilderness Area and 

Roosevelt Campobello International 

Park in Maine; and the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area in New Jersey. 

The New Hampshire regional haze 

SIP establishes RPGs for visibility 

improvement at its Class I areas and a 

LTS to achieve those RPGs within the 

first regional haze implementation 

period ending in 2018. In developing 

the RPG for each Class I area, New 

Hampshire considered both emission 

sources inside and outside of New 

Hampshire that may cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in New 

Hampshire’s Class I area. The State also 

identified and considered emission 

sources within New Hampshire that 

may cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in Class I areas in 

neighboring States as required by 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3). The MANE–VU RPO 

worked with the State in developing the 

technical analyses used to make these 

determinations, including State-by-State 

contributions to visibility impairment in 

specific Class I areas, which included 

the two areas in New Hampshire and 

those areas affected by emissions from 

New Hampshire. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

As required by the RHR and in 

accordance with EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, New Hampshire 

calculated baseline/current and natural 

conditions for its Class I areas. 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

Natural background refers to visibility 

conditions that existed before human 

activities affected air quality in the 

region. The national goal, as set out in 

the Clean Air Act, is a return to natural 

visibility conditions. 

Estimates of natural visibility 

conditions are based on annual average 

concentrations of fine particle 

components. The IMPROVE 4 equation 

is a formula for estimating light 

extinction from species measured by the 

IMPROVE monitors. As documented in 

EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, 

EPA determined, with concurrence from 

the IMPROVE Steering Committee, that 

States may use a ‘‘refined approach’’ to 

the then current IMPROVE formula to 

estimate the values that characterize the 

natural visibility conditions of the Class 

I areas. The purpose of the refinement 

to the ‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to 

provide more accurate estimates of the 

various factors that affect the calculation 

of light extinction. The new IMPROVE 

equation takes into account the most 

recent review of the science 5 and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11815 

2006 (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado State 

University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the 

Atmosphere, Fort Collins, CO), available at http:// 

vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/ 

GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/ 

IMPROVEeqReview.htm; Marc Pitchford, Natural 

Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE 

Alogrithm to Natural Species Concentrations 

Estimates: Final Report of the Natural Haze Levels 

II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis 

Workgroup, Sept. 2006, available at http:// 

vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/ 

GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/ 

naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt. 

6CMAQ is a photochemical grid model. The 

model uses simulations of chemical reactions, 

emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, and the 

Pennsylvania State University/National Center for 

Continued 

accounts for the effect of particle size 

distribution on light extinction 

efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and organic 

carbon. It also adjusts the mass 

multiplier for organic carbon 

(particulate organic matter) by 

increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms 

are added to the equation to account for 

light extinction by sea salt and light 

absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. 

Site-specific values are used for 

Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light 

due to atmospheric gases) to account for 

the site-specific effects of elevation and 

temperature. Separate relative humidity 

enhancement factors are used for small 

and large size distributions of 

ammonium sulfate and ammonium 

nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 

remaining contributors, elemental 

carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 

soil, and coarse mass terms, do not 

change between the original and new 

IMPROVE equations. New Hampshire 

opted to use this refined approach, 

referred to as the ‘‘new IMPROVE 

equation,’’ for its two areas. 

Natural visibility conditions using the 

new IMPROVE equation were calculated 

separately for each Class I area by 

MANE–VU. EPA is proposing to find 

that the best and worst 20 percent 

natural visibility values for Great Gulf 

and Dry River (shown in Table 1) were 

calculated using the EPA guidelines. 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

Great Gulf and Dry River do not 

contain an IMPROVE monitor. In cases 

where onsite monitoring is not 

available, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) 

requires States to use the most 

representative monitoring available for 

the 2000–2004 period to establish 

baseline visibility conditions, in 

consultation with EPA. New Hampshire 

used, and EPA concurs with the use of, 

2000–2004 data from the IMPROVE 

monitor located at Camp Dodge in 

Pinkham Notch, New Hampshire as 

representative of Great Gulf and Dry 

River. The Camp Dodge IMPROVE 

monitor is adjacent to the Great Gulf 

area. 

As explained in Section II.B, for the 

first regional haze SIP, baseline 

visibility conditions are the same as 

current conditions. A five-year average 

of the 2000–2004 monitoring data was 

calculated for each of the 20 percent 

worst and 20 percent best visibility days 

for Great Gulf and Dry River. IMPROVE 

data records for the period 2000–2004 

meet the EPA requirements for data 

completeness. See page 2–8 of EPA’s 

2003 Tracking Progress Guidance. 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

For the New Hampshire Class I areas, 

baseline visibility conditions on the 20 

percent worst days are 22.8 deciviews at 

Great Gulf and Dry River. Natural 

visibility conditions for these areas are 

estimated to be 12.0 dv on the 20 

percent worst visibility days. The 

natural and background conditions for 

Great Gulf and Dry River for both the 20 

percent worst and 20 percent best days 

are presented in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—NATURAL BACKGROUND AND BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR GREAT GULF AND DRY RIVER

Class I areas 

2000–2004 Baseline (dv) Natural conditions (dv) 

Worst 20% Best 20% Worst 20% Best 20% 

Great Gulf and Dry River ................................................................................. 22.8 7.7 12.0 3.7 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

In setting the RPGs, New Hampshire 

considered the uniform rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (‘‘glide path’’) and 

the emission reduction measures 

needed to achieve that rate of progress 

over the period of the SIP to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in 

EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance 

document, the uniform rate of progress 

is not a presumptive target, and RPGs 

may be greater, lesser, or equivalent to 

the glide path. 

For Great Gulf and Dry River, the 

overall visibility improvement 

necessary to reach natural conditions is 

the difference between the baseline 

visibility of 22.8 dv and natural 

background visibility of 12.0 dv, or an 

improvement of 10.8 dv for the 20 

percent worst visibility days. New 

Hampshire must also ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the best 20 

percent visibility days over the same 

period in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1). 

New Hampshire’s SIP submittal 

presents two graphs, one for the 20 

percent best days, and one for the 20 

percent worst days, for its Class I areas. 

New Hampshire constructed the graphs 

for the worst days (i.e., the glide path) 

in accordance with EPA’s 2003 Tracking 

Progress Guidance by plotting a straight 

graphical line from the baseline level of 

visibility impairment for 2000–2004 to 

the level of natural visibility conditions 

in 2064. For the best days, the graph 

includes a horizontal, straight line 

spanning from baseline conditions in 

2004 out to 2018 to depict no 

degradation in visibility over the 

implementation period of the SIP. New 

Hampshire’s SIP shows that the State’s 

RPG for its Class I areas provide for 

improvement in visibility for the 20 

percent worst days over the period of 

the implementation plan and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the 20 

percent best visibility days over the 

same period in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1). 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

As a State containing two Class I 

areas, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) of the RHR 

requires New Hampshire to develop the 

reasonable progress goals for visibility 

improvement during the first planning 

period. 

1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants 

to Visibility Impairment 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, MANE–VU 

developed emission sensitivity model 

runs using EPA’s Community Multiscale 

Air Quality (CMAQ) air quality model6

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11816 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological 

Model to produce speciated PM2.5 concentrations. 

For more information, see www.epa.gov/asmdnerl/ 

CMAQ/cmaq_model.html 

7See the NESCAUM Document ‘‘Regional Haze 

and Visibility in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 

States,’’ January 31, 2001. 

8This document has been provided as part of the 

docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

9This report has been included as part of the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

10MANE–VU identified these 167 units based on 

source apportionment modeling using two different 

meteorological data sets. From each of the modeling 

runs, MANE–VU identified the top 100 units which 

contribute to visibility impairment. Differences in 

model output resulted in a total of 167 units being 

identified for further control. 

to evaluate visibility and air quality 

impacts from various groups of 

emissions and pollutant scenarios in the 

Class I areas on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days. 

Regarding which pollutants are most 

significantly impacting visibility in the 

MANE–VU region, MANE–VU’s 

contribution assessment demonstrated 

that sulfate is the major contributor to 

PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at 

Class I areas in the Northeast and MidAtlantic Region.7 Sulfate particles 

commonly account for more than 50 

percent of particle-related light 

extinction at northeastern Class I areas 

on the clearest days and for as much as, 

or more than, 80 percent on the haziest 

days. For example, at the Brigantine 

National Wildlife Refuge Class I area 

(the MANE–VU Class I area with the 

greatest visibility impairment), on the 

20 percent worst visibility days in 2000 

through 2004, sulfate accounted for 66 

percent of the particle extinction. After 

sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently 

accounts for the next largest fraction of 

light extinction. Organic carbon 

accounted for 13 percent of light 

extinction on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days for Brigantine, followed 

by nitrate that accounts for 9 percent of 

light extinction. 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by MANE–VU predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 

MANE–VU region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. As a 

result of the dominant role of sulfate in 

the formation of regional haze in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region, 

MANE–VU concluded that an effective 

emissions management approach would 

rely heavily on broad-based regional 

SO2 control efforts in the eastern United 

States. 

Through source apportionment 

modeling, MANE–VU assisted States in 

determining their contribution to the 

visibility impairment of each Class I 

area in the MANE–VU region. New 

Hampshire and the other MANE–VU 

States adopted a weight-of-evidence 

approach which relied on several 

independent methods for assessing the 

contribution of different sources and 

geographic source regions to regional 

haze in the northeastern and midAtlantic portions of the United States. 

Details about each technique can be 

found in the NESCAUM Document 

Contributions to Regional Haze in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United 

States, August 2006 (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘Contribution Report’’).8

The MANE–VU Class I States 

determined that any State contributing 

at least 2% of the total sulfate observed 

on the 20 percent worst visibility days 

in 2002 were contributors to visibility 

impairment at the Class I area. 

Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, 

and the District of Columbia were 

determined to contribute less than 2% 

of sulfate at any of the Northeast Class 

I areas. States found to contribute 2% or 

more of the sulfate at any of the MANE– 

VU Class I areas were: Georgia, Illinois, 

Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

The contribution of New Hampshire 

emissions to the total sulfate was 

determined to contribute to the 

visibility impairment in not only the 

New Hampshire Class I areas (3.95% of 

total sulfate), but Acadia National Park 

in Maine as well (2.25% of total sulfate). 

The impact of sulfate on visibility is 

discussed in greater detail below. 

EPA is proposing to find that NHDES 

has adequately demonstrated that 

emissions from New Hampshire sources 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

nearby Class I Areas. 

2. Procedure for Identifying Sources to 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls 

In developing the 2018 reasonable 

progress goal, New Hampshire relied 

primarily upon the information and 

analysis developed by MANE–VU to 

meet this requirement. Based on the 

Contribution Report, MANE–VU 

focused on SO2 as the dominant 

contributor to visibility impairment at 

all MANE–VU Class I areas during all 

seasons. In addition, the Contribution 

Report found that only 25 percent of the 

sulfate at the MANE–VU Class I areas 

originate in the MANE–VU States. 

Sources in the Midwest and Southeast 

regions were responsible for 15 to 25 

percent, respectively. Point sources 

dominated the inventory of SO2

emissions. Therefore, MANE–VU’s 

strategy includes additional measures to 

control sources of SO2 both within the 

MANE–VU region and in other States 

that were determined to contribute to 

regional haze at the MANE–VU Class I 

Areas. 

Based on information from the 

Contribution Report and additional 

emission inventory analysis, MANE–VU 

and New Hampshire identified the 

following source categories for further 

examination for reasonable controls: 

• Coal and oil-fired Electrical 

Generating Units (EGUs); 

• Point and area source industrial, 

commercial and institutional boilers; 

• Cement and Lime Kilns; 

• Heating Oil; and 

• Residential wood combustion. 

MANE–VU analyzed these sources 

categories as potential sources of 

emission reductions for making 

reasonable progress based on the ‘‘four 

statutory factors’’ according to 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(V). 

3. Application of the Four Clean Air Act 

Factors in the Reasonable Progress 

Analysis 

As discussed in Section II.C above, 

New Hampshire must consider the 

following factors in developing the 

RPGs: (1) The cost of compliance; (2) the 

time necessary for compliance; (3) the 

energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

and (4) the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected sources. MANE– 

VU’s four factor analysis can be found 

in ‘‘Assessment of Reasonable Progress 

for Regional Haze in MANE–VU Class I 

Areas,’’ July 9, 2007, otherwise known 

as the Reasonable Progress Report.9

New Hampshire and the other 

MANE–VU States reviewed the 

Reasonable Progress Report, consulted 

with one another about possible control 

measures, and agreed to the following 

measures as recommended strategies for 

making reasonable progress: 

implementation of BART requirements; 

a 90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions 

from 167 EGU emission points10 (or if 

it is infeasible to achieve that level of 

reduction from a unit, alternative 

measures will be pursued in such State); 

and a low sulfur fuel oil strategy. These 

measures are collectively known as the 

MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ 

MANE–VU used model projections to 

calculate the RPG for the Class I areas 

in the MANE–VU region. The projected 

improvement in visibility due to 

emission reductions expected by the 

end of the first period, 2018, is shown 

in Table 2. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11817 

TABLE 2—PROJECTED REASONABLE PROGRESS GOAL AND UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS (URP) FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE

CLASS I AREAS FROM NESCAUM 2018 VISIBILITY PROJECTIONS IN DECIVIEWS

Class I areas 2000–2004 

Baseline 2018 CMAQ URP Natural background 

Great Gulf and Dry River ................. 20% Worst Visibility Days ............... 22.8 19 .23 20.3 12.0 

20% Best Visibility Days ................. 7.7 7 .2 ........................ 3.7 

At the time of MANE–VU modeling 

(discussed in further detail in Section 

III.E.2), some of the other States with 

sources potentially impacting visibility, 

in the Class I areas in both New 

Hampshire and the rest of the MANE– 

VU domain, had not yet made final 

control determinations for BART, and 

thus, these controls are not included in 

the modeling prepared by MANE–VU 

and used by New Hampshire. This is a 

conservative approach because 

additional emission reductions could 

result from the application of BART 

controls. The modeling conducted by 

MANE–VU demonstrates that the 2018 

control scenario (2018 projection) 

provides for an improvement in 

visibility greater than the uniform rate 

of progress for the New Hampshire Class 

I areas for the most impaired days over 

the period of the implementation plan 

and ensures no degradation in visibility 

for the least impaired days over the 

same period. 

Consistent with EPA guidance at the 

time, the MANE–VU modeling included 

reductions from the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) in estimating the RPGs for 

2018. The regional haze provisions 

specify that a State may not adopt a RPG 

that represents less visibility 

improvement than is expected to result 

from other CAA requirements during 

the implementation period. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, in estimating 

the RPGs for 2018, many States took 

into account emission reductions 

anticipated from CAIR. MANE–VU 

initially reduced emissions from highest 

impacting 167 EGUs by ninety percent. 

However, many of the units targeted for 

the 90% reduction were part of the 

CAIR program. Since the 90% reduction 

was larger, in total tons of emissions 

reduced, than the reductions expected 

from CAIR, MANE–VU added the excess 

emissions back into the inventory to 

account for trading of the emission 

credits across the modeling domain. 

This way, MANE–VU States would not 

overestimate the emission reductions or 

the related visibility improvement if 

States used the CAIR program as their 

response to the MANE–VU’s ‘‘Ask’’ of 

ninety percent reduction from the 167 

EGUs in the eastern United States. 

The RPGs for Great Gulf and Dry 

River in New Hampshire are based on 

modeled projections of future emissions 

that were developed using the best 

available information at the time the 

analysis was completed. While MANE– 

VU’s emission inventory used for 

modeling included estimates of future 

emission growth, projections can change 

as additional information regarding 

future conditions becomes available. It 

would be both impractical and resourceintensive to require a State to 

continually adjust the RPG every time 

an event affecting these future 

projections changed. EPA recognized 

the problems of a rigid requirement to 

meet a long-term goal based on modeled 

projections of future visibility 

conditions, and addressed the 

uncertainties associated with RPGs in 

several ways. EPA made clear in the 

RHR that the RPG is not a mandatory 

standard which must be achieved by a 

particular date. See 64 FR 35733. At the 

same time, EPA established a 

requirement for a five-year, midcourse 

review and, if necessary, correction of 

the States’ regional haze plans. See 40 

CFR 52.308(g). In particular, the RHR 

calls for a five-year progress review after 

submittal of the initial regional haze 

plan. The purpose of this progress 

review is to assess the effectiveness of 

emission management strategies in 

meeting the RPG and to provide an 

assessment of whether current 

implementation strategies are sufficient 

for the State or affected States to meet 

their RPGs. If a State concludes, based 

on its assessment, that the RPGs for a 

Class I area will not be met, the RHR 

requires the State to take appropriate 

action. See 40 CFR 52.308(h). The 

nature of the appropriate action will 

depend on the basis for the State’s 

conclusion that the current strategies are 

insufficient to meet the RPGs. In its SIP 

submittal, New Hampshire commits to 

the midcourse review and submitting 

revisions to the regional haze plan 

where necessary. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve New Hampshire’s 

RPG for the first regional haze planning 

period irrespective of the status of CAIR 

and irrespective of the associated issues 

regarding the adequacy of other State’s 

plans. For similar reasons, EPA believes 

the approvability of the New Hampshire 

plan is not affected by the status of the 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule, which 

was promulgated on August 8, 2011 (76 

FR 48208), and stayed on December 30, 

2011. (EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA, Civ. No. 11–1302, slip op. (DC 

Cir. Dec. 30, 2011), available at 

www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/ 

CourtDecision.pdf.) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

1. Identification of All Bart Eligible 

Sources 

Determining BART-eligible sources is 

the first step in the BART process. The 

New Hampshire BART-eligible sources 

were identified in accordance with the 

methodology in Appendix Y of the 

Regional Haze Rule, Guidelines for 

BART Determinations Under the 

Regional Haze Rule, Part II, How to 

Identify BART–Eligible Sources. See 70 

FR 39158. This guidance consists of the 

following criteria: 

• The unit falls into one of the listed 

source categories; 

• The unit was constructed or 

reconstructed between 1962 and 1977; 

and 

• The unit has the potential to emit 

over 250 tons per year of sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, 

volatile organic compounds, or 

ammonia. 

The BART Guidelines requires States 

to address SO2, NOX, and particulate 

matter. States are allowed to use their 

best judgment in deciding whether VOC 

or ammonia emissions from a source are 

likely to have an impact on visibility in 

the area. The State of New Hampshire 

addressed SO2, NOX, and used 

particulate matter less than 10 microns 

in diameter (PM10) as an indicator for 

particulate matter to identify BART 

eligible units, as the BART Guidelines 

require. Consistent with the BART 

Guidelines, the State of New Hampshire 

did not evaluate emissions of VOCs and 

ammonia in BART determinations due 

to the lack of impact on visibility in the 

area due to anthropogenic sources. The 

majority of VOC emissions in New 

Hampshire are biogenic in nature, 

especially near the New Hampshire 

Class I areas. Therefore, the ability to 

further reduce total ambient VOC 

concentrations at Class I areas is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11818 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

11Additional detail regarding the CALPUFF and 

CALGRID modeling is provided in Attachment XBART Analysis for Sources in New Hampshire of 

the SIP submittal. 

12The MANE–VU Workgroup Recommended 

level of BART control can be found in Attachment 

W—‘‘MANE–VU Five-Factor Analysis of BARTeligible Sources’’ of the SIP submittal. 

13Env-A 2300 Mitigation of Regional Haze, 

effective January 8, 2011. 

limited. Point, area, and mobile sources 

of VOCs in New Hampshire are already 

comprehensively controlled as part of 

ozone attainment and maintenance 

strategy. In respect to ammonia, the 

overall ammonia inventory is very 

uncertain, but the amount of 

anthropogenic emissions at sources that 

were BART-eligible is relatively small, 

and no additional sources were 

identified that had greater than 250 tons 

per year ammonia and required a BART 

analysis. 

The identification of BART sources in 

New Hampshire was undertaken as part 

of a multi-State analysis conducted by 

the Northeast States for Coordinated Air 

Use Management (NESCAUM). 

NESCAUM worked with NH DES 

licensing engineers to review all sources 

and determine their BART eligibility. 

NH DES identified two sources as 

BART-eligible. These sources are listed 

below. 

TABLE 3—BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

Source and unit Location BART source category 2002 Emissions 

(ton/yr) 

Base visibility 

impact (dv) 

PSNH—Merrimack Station, Unit 

MK2.

Bow, NH .......................... 320 MW EGU .................. SO2: 20,902 .....................

NOX: 2,871 ......................

Acadia NP: 2.25. 

Great Gulf: 1.81. 

PM: 210 ........................... Lye Brook: 0.61. 

PSNH—Newington Station, 

Unit NT1.

Newington, NH ................ 400 MW EGU .................. SO2: 5,226 .......................

NOX: 943 .........................

Acadia NP: 1.22. 

Great Gulf: 0.99. 

PM: 338 ........................... Lye Brook: 0.28. 

2. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

New Hampshire, working with 

MANE–VU, found that every MANE– 

VU State with BART-eligible sources 

contributes to visibility impairment at 

one or more Class I areas to a significant 

degree (see the Contribution Report). 

According to Section III of the 2005 

Regional Haze Rule, once the State has 

compiled its list of BART-eligible 

sources, it needs to determine whether 

to make BART determinations for all of 

the sources or to consider exempting 

some of them from BART because they 

may not reasonably be anticipated to 

cause or contribute to any visibility 

impairment in a Class I area. Because 

both of the BART-eligible sources in 

New Hampshire contribute to visibility 

impairment to a significant degree, they 

are both subject to BART. 

3. The New Hampshire BART Analysis 

Protocol 

Forty CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires 

that, for each BART-eligible source 

within the State, any BART 

determination must be based on an 

analysis of the best system of 

continuous emission control technology 

available and the associated emission 

reductions achievable. In addition to 

considering available technologies, this 

analysis must evaluate five specific 

factors for each source: (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of visibility 

improvement which may reasonably be 

anticipated from the use of BART. 

To address the fifth factor, the degree 

of visibility improvement which may be 

reasonably anticipated from the use of 

BART, NH DES conducted California 

Puff Model (CALPUFF) and CALGRID 

photochemical grid11 modeling analyses 

to assess the visibility effects of BART 

controls for both PSNH Merrimack 

Station Unit MK2 and PSNH Newington 

Station Unit NT1. For theses analyses, 

NH DES ran the CALPUFF model for 

each unit under uncontrolled (current 

allowable) and controlled conditions 

(post-control scenarios being assessed). 

Results were tabulated for the average of 

the 20% worst natural visibility days at 

each nearby Class I area and the 20% 

worst baseline visibility modeled day at 

each nearby Class I area. For any pair of 

control levels evaluated, the difference 

in the level of impairment predicted is 

the degree of improvement in visibility 

expected. 

4. Source Specific BART Determinations 

The following section discusses the 

BART determinations for sources in 

New Hampshire. 

a. Public Service of New Hampshire 

(PSNH) Merrimack Station 

i. Background 

PSNH Merrimack Station has two 

coal-fired steam-generating boilers. Only 

one of the boilers (MK2) is subject to 

BART, the other unit (MK1) was put 

into operation prior to 1962. 

Unit MK2 is a wet bottom, cyclonetype boiler with a heat input rating of 

3,473 MMBtu/hr and an electrical 

output of 320 MW. The unit is currently 

equipped with selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) for NOX control, and 

two electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) 

operated in series to capture particulate 

matter (PM) in the flue gases. 

ii. Boiler MK2 

(1) PM BART Review: PM levels are 

currently controlled with two dry ESPs 

in combination with fly ash reinjection. 

These existing ESPs were previously 

upgraded to include state-of-the-art 

electronic controls. Adding a third ESP 

was found to be unreasonable due to 

space limitations. The current permit 

limit for this unit is 0.227 lb of total 

suspended particulate (TSP)/million 

british thermal unit (MMBtu). Limited 

stack tests indicate that the actuall TSP 

emission rate is much lower, averaging 

0.034 lb TSP/MMBtu. The NH DES 

model scenario of upgrading the current 

ESPs to 90% control resulted in a 

visibility improvement of 0.16 dv at 

Acadia, 0.12 dv at Great Gulf, and 0.03 

dv at Lye Brook. 

NH DES determined that the 

installation of additional PM controls is 

unlikely to result in substantial 

visibility improvement. However, based 

on the limited available stack test data, 

NH DES determined that the current 

emission limit of 0.227 lb/MMBtu was 

not reflective of the performance 

capabilities of the control equipment. 

The MANE–VU recommended 

particulate matter limit for non-CAIR 

EGUs is 0.02–0.04 lb/MMBtu.12 New 

Hampshire has adopted a new 

regulation 13 which places Units MK1 

and MK2 within a regulatory ‘‘bubble’’ 

for the purposes of TSP compliance. 

The revised emission limit is 0.08 lb 

TSP/MMBtu for both Units MK1 and 

MK2. New Hampshire defined this level 

of control as BART. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11819 

14See NH RSA Chapter 125–I, Air Toxics Control 

Act (www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/x/125-i/ 

125-i-mrg.htm), and in NH Code of Administrative 

Rules Chapter Env-A 1400, Regulated Toxic Air 

Pollutants. (http://des.nh.gov/organization/ 

commissioner/legal/rules/documents/enva1400.pdf). 

15For the ‘‘bubble,’’ the combined emission rate 

if both units are operating is 377 lb/hr: 

0.08 lb/MMBtu × 4,711 MMBtu/hr = 377 lb/hr. 

Without the ‘‘bubble,’’ the sum of the individual 

emission rates applying MANE–VU’s presumptive 

PM emission limit of 0.04 lb/MMBtu would be 473 

lb/hr: 

(0.04 lb/MMBtu × 3,473 MMBtu/hr) + (0.27 lb/ 

MMBtu × 1,238 MMBtu/hr) = 473 lb/hr. 

New Hampshire’s approach therefore results in a 

decrease of almost 100 lb/hr beyond what 

application of the MANE–VU suggested limit would 

require. 

16At this cost, conservatively assuming a 100% 

removal efficiency (NT1 emitted 5226 tons of SO2

per year during the baseline period), the $/ton for 

FGD is approximately $80,750/ton. In addition, the 

2005 NESCAUM report, ‘‘Assessment of Control 

Options for BART-Eligible Sources,’’ 

www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-controlassessment.pdf/, estimated the cost of FGD for oilfired units could be twice that of coal-fired units. 

EPA is proposing to find as reasonable New 

Hampshire’s determination that the installation of 

FGD is cost prohibitive. 

(2) SO2 BART Review: Emissions of 

SO2 from MK2 are currently controlled 

by a fuel sulfur limit of 2.0 lb sulfur/ 

MMBtu. The most stringent retrofit 

control technology for SO2 controls is 

wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD). New 

Hampshire law requires the installation 

of a wet FGD for mercury removal 14 on 

unit MK1 and MK2. As a co-benefit, the 

FGD is required to achieve at least 90% 

SO2 control. Because this installation is 

already mandated and the removal rate 

approaches the MANE–VU 

recommended limit of 95% for nonCAIR EGUs, New Hampshire 

determined that the BART SO2 emission 

limit for this unit is at least 90% 

control. Current permit conditions 

require the facility to submit calendar 

monthly emission rates for the 

preceding 12 months by December 31, 

2014. At that time, New Hampshire will 

determine the maximum sustainable 

rate of control. As specified by permit 

conditions, in no case may this rate be 

less than 90% control. In addition, 

emissions from MK1 will also be 

controlled via the FGD. 

(3) NOX BART Review: PSNH 

currently operates SCR on MK2. It was 

installed in 1994 to meet other air 

quality requirements (ozone season 

NOX). Selective non-catalytic reduction 

(SNCR) is the only other post 

combustion control technology available 

for controlling NOX and is generally 

considered to be less effective. The 

existing SCR has received previous 

retrofits to improve performance. 

Additional upgrades would require 

major redesign and construction. Capital 

cost would be comparable to installing 

a new SCR and would achieve only 

marginal additional reduction. Because 

Unit MK2 has an existing SCR system 

and can operated year-round at 

reasonable cost, full time operation of 

the existing SCR was determined by 

New Hampshire to be BART for NOX

control. In addition, New Hampshire 

reduced the permitted NOX emission 

limit from a 0.86 lb/MMBtu annual 

average to a 0.30 lb/MMBtu 30-day 

rolling average. 

iii. EPA Assessment 

For PM, New Hampshire decided to 

provide some level of flexibility to 

Merrimack Station which has a source 

subject to BART (MK2) and a source not 

subject to BART (MK1). If only MK1 

operated, the emission limit required by 

New Hampshire would represent a 

decrease of 70.4% from the MK1 

emission limit of 0.27 lb/MMBtu. At 

worst, when only MK2 is operating, the 

emission limit represents a decrease of 

64.8% from the currently permitted 

limit of 0.227 lb/MMBtu. Additionally, 

the emission limit chosen by New 

Hampshire also results in a lower 

emission rate from the combined units 

than if New Hampshire had only 

required MK2 to meet the limit 

suggested by MANE–VU.15 Therefore 

New Hampshire’s proposed BART 

control limits for PM are reflective of 

the MANE–VU recommended 

limitation. Considering the current 

controls on emissions from Merrimack 

Station—two ESPs in series—as well as 

the reductions guaranteed by New 

Hampshire’s limits, EPA is proposing to 

find that New Hampshire’s BART limits 

for PM at Merrimack Station are 

reasonable. 

EPA is also proposing to find that 

New Hampshire’s analyses and 

conclusions of BART emission limits for 

SO2 and NOX for units located at the 

Merrimack Station facility are 

reasonable. EPA has reviewed the New 

Hampshire analyses and concluded they 

were conducted in a manner consistent 

with the RHR and EPA’s BART 

Guidelines. 

b. PSNH Newington Station 

i. Background 

PSNH Newington is comprised of one 

400 MW electrical generating unit, NT1. 

Unit NT1 is principally operated during 

periods of peak electrical demand. The 

unit is capable of burning oil and/or 

natural gas. However, because of 

physical limitations on the boiler’s 

design, the unit can only operate up to 

50 percent maximum heat input when 

firing only natural gas. 

Current emission controls consist of: 

low-NOX burners, an overfire air system, 

and water injection for NOX control; a 

sulfur in fuel oil limit of 2.0% for SO2

control; and an ESP for PM control. 

ii. Boiler NT1 

(1) PM BART Review: PM is currently 

controlled with an ESP. An ESP is 

considered the most stringent control 

available. The current permit limit is 

0.22 lb TSP/MMBtu. A single available 

stack test yielded a controlled TSP 

emission rate in the vicinity of 0.06 lb 

TSP/MMBtu. The facility’s Title V 

operating permit requires a compliance 

stack test for PM emissions be 

performed and the permit limit to be 

amended, as appropriate, prior to March 

31, 2012. 

(2) SO2 BART Review: SO2 is 

currently controlled by a 2.0% sulfur by 

weight fuel oil limit for No. 6 oil, a 0.4% 

sulfur by weight in fuel oil limit for No. 

2 oil, and the use of natural gas. New 

Hampshire identified FGD, a 1.0% 

sulfur limit, a 0.5% sulfur limit, and 

0.3% sulfur limit as feasible controls. 

There is little experience with the cost 

data for installing flue gas 

desulfurization at oil-fired power plants. 

Using the FGD installation at Merrimack 

station as a guide, New Hampshire 

estimated that the capital cost would 

roughly be $422 million.16

New Hampshire analyzed switching 

from 2% sulfur by weight No. 6 oil to 

1%, 0.7%, 0.5%, or 0.3% sulfur by 

weight No. 6 oil as potential BART 

controls. A summary of the cost, the 

expected visibility improvement at the 

highest visibility impacted Class I 

area—Acadia National Park, and the 

cumulative visibility improvement, are 

detailed in Table 4, below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11820 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—INCREASED COST AND VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT EXPECTED FROM INSTALLATION OF SO2 CONTROLS

% Sulfur 

Increased cost/hr $/ton SO2 reduced Visibility 

improvement 

Acadia 

(dv) 

Cumulative visibility 

improvement 

(dv) Low High Low High 

2% to 1% ............................................. $0.00 $2,993 $0.00 $1,030 0 .3 0 .59 

2% to 0.7% .......................................... 1,346 4,712 402 1,407 .......................... ..........................

2% to 0.5% .......................................... 2,020 6,059 528 1,583 0 .46 0 .89 

2% to 0.3% .......................................... 2,693 11,445 627 2,664 0 .52 1 .0 

In addition to cost and expected 

visibility improvement, New Hampshire 

looked at other non-environmental 

impacts such as fuel availability, current 

fuel oil usage, and the existing 

inventory. While 0.5% sulfur by weight 

No. 6 fuel oil is widespread in northern 

New England, 0.3% sulfur by weight 

fuel oil is still very limited in 

availability. In addition, with recent 

utilization levels around 10% capacity, 

it is uncertain when NT1 will consume 

the existing supply of higher sulfur fuel 

oil stored on site. 

New Hampshire has determined that 

an SO2 emission limit of 0.5 lb SO2/ 

MMBtu is the appropriate level of BART 

control. This emission limit is 

comparable to requiring the use of 0.5% 

sulfur by weight No. 6 fuel oil while 

giving the facility flexibility to blend the 

existing fuel oil with natural gas. 

(3) NOX BART Review: NT1 currently 

operates low-NOX burners, an over-fire 

air system, and water injection to 

minimize NOX formation. The facility’s 

existing permit limits NOX emission to 

a daily average of 0.35 lb/MMBtu when 

burning oil and 0.25 lb/MMBtu when 

burning a combination of oil and gas. 

Other potential NOX controls include 

SNCR and SCR. New Hampshire 

estimates the cost of control to be 

$1,030/ton and $1,180 ton for SNCR and 

SCR, respectively. The annualized cost 

is $0.7 million for SNCR and to $1.3 

million for SCR. However, both SNCR 

and SCR will increase ammonia 

emissions which can result in 

additional visibility impairment. 

Modeling indicates that the greatest 

expected visibility improvement from 

SCR is 0.34 dv at Acadia, with a 

cumulative potential improvement of 

0.76 dv across three impacted Class I 

areas. New Hampshire determined that 

the current system of low-NOX burners, 

over-fire air, and water injection 

represents BART. 

iii. EPA Assessment 

EPA is proposing to find that New 

Hampshire’s determination of PM BART 

controls for Newington Station is 

reasonable. ESP is considered the most 

stringent control technology and EPA 

assumes that the permit limit set after 

stack testing will reflect the fullest 

extent of reductions that the facility can 

meet with the use of the ESP. 

While New Hampshire did not require 

the lowest sulfur content fuel 

potentially available, EPA believes that 

New Hampshire’s consideration of 

additional factors, such as the limited 

availability of 0.3% sulfur No. 6 fuel oil 

and the limited additional improvement 

in visibility, is reasonable. Therefore 

EPA is proposing to approve New 

Hampshire’s determination of SO2

BART controls for Newington Station. 

Finally, while the cost per ton for the 

installation of SNCR or SCR is likely not 

cost prohibitive, given the limited 

visibility improvement projected as 

compared to the current controls and 

with the limited use of the unit, EPA is 

proposing to find that New Hampshire’s 

determination that current controls 

satisfy NOX BART is reasonable. 

5. Enforceability of BART 

As part of New Hampshire’s January 

14, 2011 supplemental Regional Haze 

SIP submittal, NH DES included the 

newly adopted ‘‘Env-A 2300 Mitigation 

of Regional Haze’’ and the Merrimack 

Station temporary permit TP–0008, 

which detail emission limits, and 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the 

installation of the identified BART 

controls. EPA is proposing to approve 

the submitted rule and permit as part of 

this rulemaking action. If finalized, as 

proposed, these conditions will become 

federally enforceable. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

As described in Section II.E of this 

action, the LTS is a compilation of 

State-specific control measures relied on 

by the State to obtain its share of 

emission reductions to support the 

RPGs established by Maine, New 

Hampshire, Vermont, and New Jersey 

(the nearby Class I area States). New 

Hampshire’s LTS for the first 

implementation period addresses the 

emissions reductions from federal, 

State, and local controls that take effect 

in the State from the baseline period 

starting in 2002 until 2018. New 

Hampshire participated in the MANE– 

VU regional strategy development 

process. As a participant, New 

Hampshire supported a regional 

approach toward deciding which 

control measures to pursue for regional 

haze, which was based on technical 

analyses documented in the following 

reports: (a) The MANE–VU Contribution 

Report; (b) the Reasonable Progress 

Report; (c) Five-Factor Analysis of 

BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of 

Options for Conducting BART 

Determinations, available at 

www.nescaum.org/documents/bartfinal-memo-06-28-07.pdf; and (d) 

Assessment of Control Technology 

Options for BART-Eligible Sources: 

Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial 

Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper, and 

Pulp Facilities, available at 

www.nescaum.org/documents/bartcontrol-assessment.pdf. 

The LTS was developed by New 

Hampshire, in coordination with 

MANE–VU, identifying the emissions 

units within New Hampshire that are 

currently likely to have the largest 

impacts on visibility at nearby Class I 

areas, estimating emissions reductions 

for 2018, based on all controls required 

under federal and State regulations for 

the 2002–2018 period (including 

BART), and comparing projected 

visibility improvement with the uniform 

rate of progress for the nearby Class I 

area. 

New Hampshire’s LTS includes 

measures needed to achieve its share of 

emissions reductions agreed upon 

through the consultation process with 

MANE–VU Class I States and includes 

enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals established by 

Maine, Vermont, and New Jersey for 

their Class I areas. 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The State-wide emissions inventories 

used in the regional haze technical 

analyses were developed by MARAMA 

for MANE–VU with assistance from 

New Hampshire. The 2018 emissions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11821 

17New Hampshire recently revised Env-Wm 1404 

to no longer require Stage II vapor recovery controls 

as of January 1, 2012. The previous version of the 

rule, however, is still currently included in the New 

Hampshire SIP. New Hampshire DES is currently 

developing a SIP submittal for the revised rule 

which would ensure that Clean Air Act 

antibacksliding requirements are met. The SIP 

submittal must provide for equivalent or greater 

reductions than under the currently approved Stage 

II program. Therefore, consideration of these 

reductions in the model is reasonable. 

inventory was developed by projecting 

2002 emissions forward based on 

assumptions regarding emissions 

growth due to projected increases in 

economic activity and emission 

reductions expected from federal and 

State regulations. MANE–VU’s 

emissions inventories included 

estimates of NOX, coarse particulate 

matter (PM10), PM2.5, and SO2, VOC, and 

NH3. The BART Guidelines direct States 

to exercise judgment in deciding 

whether VOC and NH3 impair visibility 

in their Class I area(s). As discussed 

further in Section III.C.1 above, MANE– 

VU demonstrated that anthropogenic 

emissions of sulfates are the major 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. It 

was also determined that the total NH3

emissions in the MANE–VU region are 

extremely small. 

MANE–VU developed emissions 

inventories for four inventory source 

classifications: (1) Stationary point 

sources; (2) stationary area sources; (3) 

non-road mobile sources; and (4) onroad mobile sources. The New York 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation also developed an 

inventory of biogenic emissions for the 

entire MANE–VU region. Stationary 

point sources are those sources that emit 

greater than a specified tonnage per 

year, depending on the pollutant, with 

data provided at the facility level. 

Stationary area sources are those 

sources whose individual emissions are 

relatively small, but due to the large 

number of these sources, the collective 

emissions from the source category 

could be significant. Non-road mobile 

sources are equipment that can move 

but do not use the roadways. On-road 

mobile source emissions are 

automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles 

that use the roadway system. The 

emissions from these sources are 

estimated by vehicle type and road type. 

Biogenic sources are natural sources like 

trees, crops, grasses, and natural decay 

of plants. Stationary point sources 

emission data is tracked at the facility 

level. For all other source types, 

emissions are summed on the county 

level. 

There are many federal and State 

control programs being implemented 

that MANE–VU and New Hampshire 

anticipate will reduce emissions 

between the baseline period and 2018. 

Emission reductions from these control 

programs in the MANE–VU region were 

projected to achieve substantial 

visibility improvement by 2018 at all of 

the MANE–VU Class I areas. To assess 

emissions reductions from ongoing air 

pollution control programs, BART, and 

reasonable progress measures, MANE– 

VU developed emissions projections for 

2018 called ‘‘Best and Final.’’ The 

emissions inventory provided by the 

State of New Hampshire for the ‘‘Best 

and Final’’ 2018 projections is based on 

expected control requirements. 

New Hampshire relied on emission 

reductions from a number of ongoing 

and expected air pollution control 

programs as part of the State’s long term 

strategy. For electrical generating units 

(EGUs), New Hampshire’s Regulation 

Chapter Env-A 3200, NOX Budget 

Trading Program which limits ozone 

season NOX emissions on all fossil-fuelfired EGUs greater than 15 MW to 0.15 

lb/MMBtu. However, a unit can meet 

this limit via NOX credits. 

New Hampshire also relied on the 

following controls on non-EGU point 

sources in estimating 2018 emissions 

inventories: 2-year, 4-year, 7-year, and 

10-year Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Standards; 

Combustion Turbine and Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) 

MACT; and Industrial Boiler/Process 

Heater MACT. 

On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District 

Court of Appeals mandated the vacatur 

and remand of the Industrial Boiler 

MACT Rule. NRDC v. EPA, 489F.3d 

1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007). This MACT was 

vacated since it was directly affected by 

the vacatur and remand of the 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incinerator (CISWI) Definition Rule. 

EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler 

MACT rule to address the vacatur on 

June 4, 2010, (75 FR 32006) and issued 

a final rule on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 

15608). On May 18, 2011, EPA stayed 

the effective date of the Industrial Boiler 

MACT pending review by the D.C. 

Circuit or the completion of EPA’s 

reconsideration of the rule. See 76 FR 

28662. 

On December 2, 2011, EPA issued a 

proposed reconsideration of the MACT 

standards for existing and new Boilers 

at major (76 FR 80598) and area (76 FR 

80532) source facilities, and for 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incinerators (76 FR 80452). On January 

9, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia vacated EPA’s stay 

of the effectiveness date of the Industrial 

Boiler MACT, reinstating the original 

effective date and therefore requiring 

compliance with the current rule in 

2014. Sierra Club v. Jackson, Civ. No. 

11–1278, slip op. (D.D.C. Jan. 9, 2012). 

Even though New Hampshire’s 

modeling is based on the old Industrial 

Boiler MACT limits, New Hampshire 

modeling conclusions are unlikely to be 

affected because the expected 

reductions in SO2 and PM resulting 

from the new MACT are small relative 

to the New Hampshire inventory. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that 

the expected reductions of the new rule 

are acceptable since the final rule 

requires compliance by 2014. This 

provides New Hampshire time to assure 

the required controls are in place prior 

to the end of the first implementation 

period in 2018. In addition, the RHR 

requires that any resulting differences 

between emissions projections and 

actual emissions reductions that may 

occur will be addressed during the fiveyear review prior to the next 2018 

regional haze SIP. 

Controls on area sources expected in 

2018 include VOC control for consumer 

products (Env-A 4100), architectural 

and industrial maintenance coatings 

(Env-A 4200), portable fuel containers 

(Env-A 4000), and solvent cleaning 

(Env-A 1221). 

Controls on mobile sources expected 

in 2018 include: Stage I vapor recovery 

systems at gasoline dispensing facilities 

in the State and Stage II vapor recovery 

at any gasoline dispensing facility in the 

four southern counties classified as 

ozone nonattainment areas 

(Rockingham, Strafford, Hillsborough, 

and Merrimack) (Env-A 1205, later renumbered to Env-Wm 1404);17 Federal 

On-Board Refueling Vapor Recovery 

(ORVR) Rule; Federal Tier 2 Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Standards and 

Gasoline Sulfur Requirements; Federal 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Emission 

Standards for Trucks and Buses; and 

Federal Emission Standards for Large 

Industrial Spark-Ignition Engines and 

Recreation Vehicles. 

Controls on non-road sources 

expected by 2018 include the following 

federal regulations: Control of Air 

Pollution: Determination of Significance 

for Nonroad Sources and Emission 

Standards for New Nonroad 

Compression Ignition Engines at or 

above 37 kilowatts (59 FR 31306, (June 

17, 1994)); Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines 

(63 FR 56967, (October 23, 1998)); 

Control of Emissions from Nonroad 

Large Spark-Ignition Engines and 

Recreational Engines (67 FR 68241, 

(November 8, 2002)); and Control of 

Emissions of Air Pollution from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11822 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

18The 2018 SO2 Emission Inventroy has been 

adjusted to account for the lack of a low sulfur fuel 

oil strategy. The State had estimated that the low 

sulfur fuel oil strategy would result in an SO2

reduction of 6,449 tons from area sources and 2,030 

ton reduction from non-EGU point sources. 

19An adjustment factor was applied during the 

processing of emissions data to restate fugitive 

particulate matter emissions. Grid models have 

been found to overestimate fugitive dust impacts 

when compared with ambient samples; therefore, 

an adjustment is typically applied to account for the 

removal of particles by vegetation and other terrain 

features. The summary emissions for PM10 in Table 

6 reflect this adjustment. A comparable adjustment 

was not made to the PM10 value listed in Table 5. 

Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuels (69 

FR 38958, (June 29, 2004)). 

Tables 5 and 6 are summaries of the 

2002 baseline and 2018 estimated 

emissions inventories for New 

Hampshire. The 2018 estimated 

emissions include emissions growth as 

well as emission reductions due to 

ongoing emission control strategies and 

reasonable progress goals. 

TABLE 5—2002 EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Tons per year] 

VOC NOX PM10 PM2.5 SO2 NH3

Point ......................................................... 1,599 9,759 3,332 2,938 46,560 74 

Area .......................................................... 65,370 10,960 43,328 17,532 7,072 2,158 

On-Road Mobile ....................................... 16,762 33,283 814 562 777 1,447 

Non-Road Mobile ..................................... 22,376 9,912 1,058 965 891 9 

Biogenics .................................................. 141,894 482 0 0 0 0 

Total .................................................. 248,001 64,396 48,532 21,997 55,300 3,688 

TABLE 6—2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Tons per year] 

VOC NOX PM10 PM2.5 SO2

18 NH3

Point ......................................................... 1,291 4,258 3,397 3,208 13,880 184 

Area .......................................................... 62,649 12,180 21,775 14,993 7,421 2,789 

On-Road Mobile ....................................... 6,564 7,671 282 263 537 1,916 

Non-Road Mobile ..................................... 15,003 6,344 697 634 246 11 

Biogenics .................................................. 141,894 482 0 0 0 0 

Total .................................................. 227,401 30,935 19 26,151 19,098 22,084 4,900 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

MANE–VU performed modeling for 

the regional haze LTS for the 11 MidAtlantic and Northeast States and the 

District of Columbia. The modeling 

analysis is a complex technical 

evaluation that began with selection of 

the modeling system. MANE–VU used 

the following modeling system: 

• Meteorological Model: The FifthGeneration Pennsylvania State 

University/National Center for 

Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) 

version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic, 

prognostic meteorological model 

routinely used for urban- and regionalscale photochemical, PM2.5, and 

regional haze regulatory modeling 

studies. 

• Emissions Model: The Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

(SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system 

is an emissions modeling system that 

generates hourly gridded speciated 

emission inputs of mobile, non-road 

mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic 

emission sources for photochemical grid 

models. 

• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s 

Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a 

photochemical grid model capable of 

addressing ozone, PM, visibility and 

acid deposition at a regional scale. 

• Air Quality Model: The Regional 

Model for Aerosols and Deposition 

(REMSAD), is a Eulerian grid model that 

was primarily used to determine the 

attribution of sulfate species in the 

Eastern U.S. via the species-tagging 

scheme. 

• Air Quality Model: The California 

Puff Model (CALPUFF), version 5 is a 

non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model 

used to access the contribution of 

individual States’ emissions to sulfate 

levels at selected Class I receptor sites. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in 

the MANE–VU region for 2002 and 2018 

was carried out on a grid of 12x12 

kilometer (km) cells that covers the 11 

MANE–VU States (Connecticut, 

Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont) and the District of 

Columbia and States adjacent to them. 

This grid is nested within a larger 

national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 

km grid cells that covers the continental 

United States, portions of Canada and 

Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and 

Pacific Oceans along the east and west 

coasts. Selection of a representative 

period of meteorology is crucial for 

evaluating baseline air quality 

conditions and projecting future 

changes in air quality due to changes in 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants. MANE–VU conducted an indepth analysis which resulted in the 

selection of the entire year of 2002 

(January 1–December 31) as the best 

period of meteorology available for 

conducting the CMAQ modeling. The 

MANE–VU States’ modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA’s 

Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, April 

2007 (EPA–454/B–07–002), available at 

www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/ 

guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, and 

EPA document, Emissions Inventory 

Guidance for Implementation of Ozone 

and Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations, August 2005 and updated 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11823 

20The annual 2002 SO2 emissions from Schiller 

Station Unit 5 and Fraser LLC were 2,796 tons and 

638 tons, respectively. 

21On January 15, 2009, EPA made a finding that, 

among other States, New Hampshire had failed to 

submit a Regional Haze SIP by the required 

deadline. 74 FR 2392. We have proposed a consent 

decree to resolve a deadline suit regarding this 

finding as well as the finding of failure for 36 other 

States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. National Parks Conservation Association v. 

Jackson, Civ. No. 1:11-cv-1548 (D.D.C. 2011). 

Because we do not believe a low-sulfur fuel oil 

strategy is necessary for New Hampshire during this 

first implementation period, EPA is moving forward 

with this proposed approval of the State’s SIP 

submittal in order to satisfy our obligations under 

the Clean Air Act. 

November 2005 (EPA–454/R–05–001), 

available at www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ 

eidocs/eiguid/index.html (hereinafter 

referred to as ’’ EPA’s Modeling 

Guidance’’). 

MANE–VU examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. MANE–VU used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once MANE–VU determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

MANE–VU used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), the State of New 

Hampshire provided the appropriate 

supporting documentation for all 

required analyses used to determine the 

State’s LTS. The technical analyses and 

modeling used to develop the glide path 

and to support the LTS are consistent 

with EPA’s RHR, and interim and final 

EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA is 

proposing to find that the MANE–VU 

technical modeling to support the LTS 

and determine visibility improvement 

for the uniform rate of progress is 

acceptable because the modeling system 

was chosen and used according to EPA 

Modeling Guidance. EPA agrees with 

the MANE–VU model performance 

procedures and results, and that the 

CMAQ is an appropriate tool for the 

regional haze assessments for the New 

Hampshire LTS and regional haze SIP. 

2. Meeting the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ 

New Hampshire is home to two Class 

I areas, therefore it is required to 

establish RPGs. New Hampshire, in 

cooperation with the MANE–VU States, 

developed the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ that 

will provide for reasonable progress 

towards achieving natural visibility at 

the MANE–VU Class I area. The ‘‘Ask’’ 

consists of: (a) Timely implementation 

of BART requirements; (b) a 90 percent 

reduction in SO2 emissions from each of 

the EGU stacks identified by MANE–VU 

comprising a total of 167 stacks; (c) 

adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy; and (d) continued evaluation of 

other control measures to reduce SO2

and NOX emissions. 

a. Timely Implementation of BART 

The New Hampshire BART 

determinations are discussed in detail 

in Section III.D. As previously noted, 

EPA is proposing to find that the BART 

determinations for Merrimack Station 

Unit MK2 and Newington Station NT1 

are reasonable. 

b. Ninety Percent Reduction in SO2

Emissions From Each of the EGU Stacks 

Identified by MANE–VU Comprising a 

Total of 167 Stacks 

New Hampshire has three EGU stacks 

identified by MANE–VU as a top 

contributor to visibility impairment in 

any of the MANE–VU Class I areas: MK1 

and MK2 at Merrimack Station; and 

NT1 at Newington Station. 

Merrimack Station is installing a wet 

flue gas desulfurization system on MK1 

and MK2 which will reduce SO2

emissions by at least 90%. Permit 

conditions require the facility to submit 

calendar monthly emission rates for the 

preceding 12 months by December 31, 

2014. At that time, New Hampshire will 

determine the maximum sustainable 

rate of control. As specified by current 

permit conditions, in no case may this 

rate be less than 90% control. It is 

expected that the level of control will 

approach 95%. The New Hampshire 

BART determination for Newington 

Station NT1 is an SO2 emission limit of 

0.50 lb/MMBtu. This represents a 67% 

reduction in SO2 emission from NT1. 

The combination of reductions from 

the three identified stacks results in at 

least an overall 87% reduction in SO2

emissions, comparable to the MANE– 

VU projected 90% reduction. 

c. Continued Evaluation of Other 

Control Measures To Reduce SO2 and 

NOX Emissions Including the MANE– 

VU Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy 

The MANE–VU low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy includes: The Phase I reduction 

of distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur by 

weight (500 parts per million (ppm)) by 

no later than 2014; and the Phase II 

reductions of #4 residual oil to 0.25% 

sulfur by weight by no later than 2018; 

#6 residual oil to 0.5% sulfur by weight 

by no later than 2018; and further 

reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil 

to 15 ppm by 2018. 

The reduction in SO2 emissions from 

this low-sulfur fuel oil strategy by 2018 

will yield corresponding reductions in 

sulfate aerosol, the main culprit in fineparticle pollution and regional haze. 

The MANE–VU analysis demonstrates 

that the reduction of the sulfur content 

in fuel oil will lead to an average 

reduction of 0.13–0.18 ug/m3 in the 24 

hour PM2.5 concentration within New 

Hampshire, improving health and local 

visibility. In addition, the use of low 

sulfur fuels will result in cost savings to 

owners/operators of residential furnaces 

and boilers due to reduced maintenance 

costs and extended life of the units. 

In its August 26, 2011 submittal, New 

Hampshire committed to the 

‘‘[c]ontinued evaluation of other 

possible control measures for hazecausing emissions, including 

participation in MANE–VU’s low sulfur 

fuel oil strategy by 2018.’’ While New 

Hampshire has not yet submitted a 

federally enforceable low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy, in addition to previously 

discussed SO2 reductions, SO2

emissions in New Hampshire have been 

reduced through the conversion of coalfired Unit 5 at Schiller Station to a 

biomass-firing unit and the shutdown of 

Fraser LLC pulp and paper mill.20

EPA is proposing approval of the New 

Hampshire Regional Haze SIP for the 

first implementation period without 

inclusion of an adopted low sulfur fuel 

oil regulation.21 While the additional 

reductions are somewhat less than the 

reductions projected to result from 

adoption of a low-sulfur fuel oil 

strategy, this shortfall is not anticipated 

to interfere with the ability of New 

Hampshire and the other Class I States 

to meet their respective reasonable 

progress goals. We encourage adoption 

of a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy by New 

Hampshire as such a strategy will have 

local air quality and some, limited 

visibility benefits, however, we do not 

believe it is a necessary component of 

an approvable Regional Haze SIP for 

New Hampshire for the first 

implementation period. 

EPA also notes that implementation of 

recent federal measures, such as the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11824 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

22This document has been provided as part of the 

docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

23This document has been included as part of the 

docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(MATS) and the revised one hour SO2

standard, is expected to result in further 

SO2 emission reductions during the first 

planning period. Although expected 

emission reductions cannot be relied 

upon to demonstrate that New 

Hampshire has obtained its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

RPG for the area, once these measures 

are implemented and the reductions 

quantified, EPA expects that New 

Hampshire’s overall SO2 emission 

reductions will exceed those agreed to 

in the RPO process. 

3. Additional Considerations for the 

LTS 

Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires 

States to consider the following factors 

in developing the long term strategy: 

• Emission reductions due to ongoing 

air pollution control programs, 

including measures to address 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment; 

• Measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities; 

• Emission limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the 

reasonable progress goal; 

• Source retirement and replacement 

schedules; 

• Smoke management techniques for 

agricultural and forestry management 

purposes including plans as currently 

exist within the State for these 

purposes; 

• Enforceability of emissions 

limitations and control measures; and 

• 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. 

a. Emission Reductions Including RAVI 

No source in New Hampshire has 

been identified as subject to RAVI. A list 

of New Hampshire’s ongoing air 

pollution control programs is included 

in Section III.E.1. 

b. Construction Activities 

The Regional Haze Rule requires New 

Hampshire to consider measures to 

mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities on regional haze. MANE–VU’s 

consideration of control measures for 

construction activities is documented in 

‘‘Technical Support Document on 

Measures to Mitigate the Visibility 

Impacts of Construction Activities in the 

MANE–VU Region,’’ Draft, October 20, 

2006.22

The construction industry is already 

subject to requirements for controlling 

pollutants that contribute to visibility 

impairment. For example, federal 

regulations require the reduction of SO2

emissions from construction vehicles. 

At the State level, New Hampshire 

currently regulates emissions of fugitive 

dust through New Hampshire’s Code of 

Administrative Rules Env-A 1002, 

Fugitive Dust, which requires the 

control of direct emissions of particulate 

matter from mining, transportation, 

storage, use, and removal activities. 

MANE–VU’s Contribution Report 

found that, from a regional haze 

perspective, crustal material generally 

does not play a major role. On the 20 

percent best-visibility days during the 

2000–2004 baseline period, crustal 

material accounted for 6 to 11 percent 

of the particle-related light extinction at 

the MANE–VU Class I Areas. On the 20 

percent worst-visibility days, however, 

the contribution was reduced to 2 to 3 

percent. Furthermore, the crustal 

fraction is largely made up of pollutants 

of natural origin (e.g., soil or sea salt) 

that are not targeted under the Regional 

Haze Rule. Nevertheless, the crustal 

fraction at any given location can be 

heavily influenced by the proximity of 

construction activities; and construction 

activities occurring in the immediate 

vicinity of MANE–VU Class I area could 

have a noticeable effect on visibility. 

For this regional haze SIP, New 

Hampshire concluded that its current 

regulations are currently sufficient to 

mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities. Any future deliberations on 

potential control measures for 

construction activities and the possible 

implementation will be documented in 

the first regional haze SIP progress 

report. EPA is proposing to find that 

New Hampshire has adequately 

addressed measures to mitigate the 

impacts of construction activities. 

c. Emission Limitations and Schedules 

for Compliance To Achieve the RPG 

In addition to the existing CAA 

control requirements discussed in 

Section III.E.1, New Hampshire has 

adopted and submitted regulation EnvA 2300 Mitigation of Regional Haze to 

EPA as a SIP revision. This rule 

establishes SO2, NOX and PM emission 

limits for Merrimack Station units MK1 

and MK2 and Newington Station NT1. 

EPA is proposing to approve this rule as 

part of today’s action. 

d. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedule 

Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) of the 

Regional Haze Rule requires New 

Hampshire to consider source 

retirement and replacement schedules 

in developing the long term strategy. 

Source retirement and replacement were 

considered in developing the 2018 

emissions. The following sources in 

New Hampshire were shut down (or 

replaced) after the 2002 base year and 

therefore were not included in the 2018 

inventory: 

• PSNH Schiller Station Unit No. 5 

replacement (Portsmouth, NH), 

• Groveton Paperboard, Inc. 

(Groveton, NH), and 

• Wausau Paper Printing & Writing, 

LLC (Groveton, NH). 

Since the 2002 and 2018 inventories 

were developed, Fraser N.H. LLC 

(Berlin, NH) also shut down. 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

New Hampshire has satisfactorily 

considered source retirement and 

replacement schedules as part of the 

LTS. 

e. Smoke Management Techniques 

The Regional Haze Rule requires 

States to consider smoke management 

techniques related to agricultural and 

forestry management in developing the 

long-term strategy. MANE–VU’s 

analysis of smoke management in the 

context of regional haze is documented 

in ‘‘Technical Support Document on 

Agricultural and Smoke Management in 

the MANE–VU Region,’’ September 1, 

2006.23

New Hampshire does not currently 

have a Smoke Management Program 

(SMP). However, SMPs are required 

only when smoke impacts from fires 

managed for resources benefits 

contribute significantly to regional haze. 

The emissions inventory presented in 

the above-cited document indicates that 

agricultural, managed and prescribed 

burning emissions are very minor; the 

inventory estimates that, in New 

Hampshire, those emissions from those 

source categories totaled 498.5 tons of 

PM10, 427.6 tons of PM2.5 and 30.1 tons 

of SO2 in 2002, which constitute 1.0%, 

1.9% and 0.05% of the total inventory 

for these pollutants, respectively. 

Source apportionment results show 

that wood smoke is a moderate 

contributor to visibility impairment at 

some Class I areas in the MANE–VU 

region; however, smoke is not a large 

contributor to haze in MANE–VU Class 

I areas on either the 20% best or 20% 

worst visibility days. Moreover, most of 

wood smoke is attributable to 

residential wood combustion. Therefore, 

it is unlikely that fires for agricultural or 

forestry management cause large 

impacts on visibility in any of the Class 

I areas in the MANE–VU region. On rare 

occasions, smoke from major fires 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11825 

degrades air quality and visibility in the 

MANE–VU area. However, these fires 

are generally unwanted wildfires that 

are not subject to SMPs. Therefore, a 

SMP is not required for New 

Hampshire. EPA proposes to approve 

New Hampshire’s decision that an 

Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Plan to address visibility 

impairment is not required at this time. 

f. Enforceability of Emission Limitations 

and Control Measures 

All emission limitations included as 

part of New Hampshire’s Regional Haze 

SIP are either currently federally 

enforceable or will become federally 

enforceable if this action is finalized as 

proposed. EPA is proposing to find that 

New Hampshire has adequately 

addressed the enforceability of emission 

limitations and control measures. 

g. The Anticipated Net Effect on 

Visibility 

As explained above, New Hampshire 

has not adopted the low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy included in the MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask.’’ However, through 

implementation of BART and the 

targeted EGU strategy, New Hampshire 

will achieve a greater than 60% 

reduction in statewide SO2 emissions. 

New Hampshire and EPA anticipate that 

the Class I areas impacted by New 

Hampshire will attain the visibility 

improvement expected for the first 

planning period. 

In summary, EPA is proposing to find 

that New Hampshire’s Regional Haze 

SIP meets, or is comparable to, the 

MANE–VU Ask, that the controls 

proposed in the SIP are reasonable for 

the LTS for the first implementation 

period, and that New Hampshire 

adequately addressed all the 

requirements of a LTS contained in the 

RHR. 

F. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

On May 10, 2006, the MANE–VU 

State Air Directors adopted the InterRPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation 

Framework that documented the 

consultation process within the context 

of regional phase planning, and was 

intended to create greater certainty and 

understanding among RPOs. MANE–VU 

States held ten consultation meetings 

and/or conference calls from March 1, 

2007, through March 21, 2008. In 

addition to MANE–VU members 

attending these meetings and conference 

calls, participants from the Visibility 

Improvement State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) 

RPO, Midwest RPO, and the relevant 

Federal Land Managers were also in 

attendance. In addition to the 

conference calls and meeting, the FLMs 

were given the opportunity to review 

and comment on each of the technical 

documents developed by MANE–VU. 

On August 1, 2008, New Hampshire 

submitted a draft Regional Haze SIP to 

the relevant FLMs for review and 

comment pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(2). The FLMs provided 

comments on the draft Regional Haze 

SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(3). The comments received 

from the FLMs were addressed and 

incorporated in New Hampshire’s SIP 

revision. Most of the comments were 

requests for additional detail as to 

various aspects of the SIP. These 

comments and New Hampshire’s 

response to comments can be found in 

the docket for this proposed rulemaking. 

On May 25, 2009, New Hampshire 

published a notice of agency rulemaking 

proposal. This initiated a 30-day 

comment period and a public hearing 

on June 24, 2009. On November 19, 

2010, New Hampshire published a 

second notice of agency rulemaking 

proposal. This initiated a 30-day 

comment period and a public hearing 

on December 20, 2010. NHDES received 

comments from EPA, the Federal Land 

Managers, Appalachian Mountain Club, 

and Sierra Club. New Hampshire’s 

response to comments is included as an 

attachment to the SIP submittal. 

To address the requirement for 

continuing consultation procedures 

with the FLMs under 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(4), New Hampshire commits 

in their SIP to ongoing consultation 

with the FLMs periodically and as 

circumstances require, on the following 

implementation items: 

• Status of emission strategies 

identified in the SIP as contributing to 

improvements in the worst-day 

visibility; 

• Summary of major new source 

permits issued; 

• Status of New Hampshire’s actions 

toward completing any future 

assessments or rulemakings on source 

identified as probable contributors to 

visibility impairment, but not directly 

addressed in the most recent SIP 

revision; 

• Any changes to the monitoring 

strategy or status of monitoring stations 

that might affect tracking of reasonable 

progress; 

• Work underway for preparing the 

5-year SIP review and/or 10-year SIP 

revision, including any items where the 

FLM’s consideration or support is 

requested; and 

• Summary of topics discussed in 

ongoing communications (e.g. meetings, 

emails, etc.) between New Hampshire 

and the FLMs regarding implementation 

of the visibility improvement program. 

EPA proposes to find that New 

Hampshire has addressed the 

requirements for consultation with 

States impacting New Hampshire’s 

Class I areas and with the Federal Land 

Managers. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Forty CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional 

Haze Rule requires a monitoring strategy 

for measuring, characterizing, and 

reporting regional haze visibility 

impairment that is representative of all 

mandatory Class I Areas within the 

State of New Hampshire. The 

monitoring strategy relies upon 

participation in the IMPROVE network. 

The State of New Hampshire 

participates in the IMPROVE network, 

and will evaluate the monitoring 

network periodically and make those 

changes needed to be able to assess 

whether reasonable progress goals are 

being achieved in each of New 

Hampshire’s mandatory Class I Areas. In 

its SIP submittal, New Hampshire is 

committing to continued support of the 

IMPROVE network. 

Forty CFR 51.308(d)(4)(i) requires 

States to establish additional monitoring 

sites or equipment as needed to assess 

whether reasonable progress goals are 

being achieved toward visibility 

improvement at mandatory Class I areas. 

At this time, the current monitors are 

sufficient to make this assessment. 

In its SIP submittal, New Hampshire 

commits to meet the requirements under 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv) to report to EPA 

visibility data for each of New 

Hampshire’s Class I Areas annually. 

The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4)(vi)) requires the inclusion 

of other monitoring elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures, necessary to assess and report 

visibility. While the State of New 

Hampshire has concluded that the 

current IMPROVE network provides 

sufficient data to adequately measure 

and report progress toward the goals set 

for the MANE–VU Class I sites to which 

the State contributes, the State has also 

found additional monitoring 

information useful to assess visibility 

and fine particle pollution in the region 

in the past. Examples of these data 

include results from: The MANE–VU 

Regional Aerosol Intensive Network 

(RAIN), which provides continuous, 

speciated information on rural aerosol 

characteristics and visibility parameters; 

the EPA Clean Air Status and Trends 

Network (CASTNET), which has 

provided complementary rural fine 

particle speciation data at non-class I 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11826 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

sites; the EPA Speciation Trends 

Network (STN), which provides 

speciated, urban fine particle data to 

help develop a comprehensive picture 

of local and regional sources; stateoperated rural and urban speciation 

sites using IMPROVE or STN methods; 

and the Supersites program, which has 

provided information through special 

studies that generally expands the 

understanding of the processes that 

control fine particle formation and 

transport in the region. New Hampshire 

plans to continue to utilize these and 

other data—as they are available and 

fiscal realities allow—to improve their 

understanding of visibility impairment 

and to document progress toward 

reasonable progress goals under the 

Regional Haze Rule. 

H. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

Consistent with the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(g), New Hampshire has 

committed to submitting a report on 

reasonable progress (in the form of a SIP 

revision) to the EPA every five years 

following the initial submittal of its 

regional haze SIP. The reasonable 

progress report will evaluate the 

progress made towards the RPGs for the 

MANE–VU Class I areas, located in 

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and 

New Jersey. 

Forty CFR 51.308(f) requires New 

Hampshire to submit periodic revisions 

to its Regional Haze SIP by July 31, 

2018, and every ten years thereafter. 

New Hampshire acknowledges and 

agrees to comply with this schedule. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v), 

NHDES will also make periodic updates 

to the New Hampshire emissions 

inventory. NHDES plans to complete 

these updates to coincide with the 

progress reports. Actual emissions will 

be compared to projected modeled 

emissions in the progress reports. 

Lastly, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), 

NHDES will submit a determination of 

adequacy of its regional haze SIP 

revision whenever a progress report is 

submitted. New Hampshire’s regional 

haze SIP states that, depending on the 

findings of its five-year review, New 

Hampshire will take one or more of the 

following actions at that time, 

whichever actions are appropriate or 

necessary: 

• If New Hampshire determines that 

the existing State Implementation Plan 

requires no further substantive revision 

in order to achieve established goals for 

visibility improvement and emissions 

reductions, NHDES will provide to the 

EPA Administrator a negative 

declaration that further revision of the 

existing plan is not needed. 

• If New Hampshire determines that 

its implementation plan is, or may be, 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources in one or more other State(s) 

which participated in the regional 

planning process, NHDES will provide 

notification to the EPA Administrator 

and to those other State(s). New 

Hampshire will also collaborate with 

the other State(s) through the regional 

planning process for the purpose of 

developing additional strategies to 

address any such deficiencies in New 

Hampshire’s plan. 

• If New Hampshire determines that 

its implementation plan is, or may be, 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources in another country, NHDES will 

provide notification, along with 

available information, to the EPA 

Administrator. 

• If New Hampshire determines that 

the implementation plan is, or may be, 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources within the State, NHDES will 

revise its implementation plan to 

address the plan’s deficiencies within 

one year from this determination. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve New 

Hampshire’s January 29, 2010 Regional 

Haze SIP revision, amended January 14, 

2011, and August 26, 2011, as meeting 

the applicable implementing regulations 

found in 40 CFR 51.308. EPA is also 

proposing to approve, and incorporate 

into the New Hampshire SIP, New 

Hampshire’s regulation Env-A 2300 

Mitigation of Regional Haze and PSNH 

Merrimack Station Temporary Permit 

TP–0008 Flue Gas Desulfurization 

System dated March 9, 2009, and 

reissued August 2, 2010, and July 8, 

2011. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4677 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS