Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80655 

fees, penalties or fines) the provider 

pays to the Postal Service in connection 

with the customer’s returned payment. 

(2) Responsibility to comply with 

NACHA rules. The provider is required 

to comply with the latest NACHA rules 

published by the North American 

Clearing House Association. Each 

provider must provide a written 

statement signed by an executive officer 

of the company attesting to that 

compliance at least annually. If the 

provider cannot provide that written 

statement attesting to compliance due to 

identified areas of non-compliance, the 

PC provider must provide to the Postal 

Service within 30 days a written plan 

describing its prioritized approach, 

including milestone dates, toward 

achieving compliance within a mutually 

agreed period. The Postal Service will 

provide specific written guidance 

separately if requested. Failure to 

comply may result in revocation of 

access to applicable Postal Service ACH 

programs. 

(3) Responsibility to maintain 

customer ACH agreements. The 

provider must obtain and store an 

agreement with each and every 

customer utilizing ACH debit as a 

payment method. The customer 

agreement must authorize the provider 

to debit the designated bank account 

identified to pay for postage through the 

Postal Service account of its choice. The 

agreement must have at least the 

following elements: Company Name (if 

applicable), Name and Title and 

Address of the person entering into the 

agreement, Contact Information (Phone 

Number, Fax Number and eMail 

Address as applicable), Date and 

Signature (or appropriate electronic 

signature evidence) of Agreement, 

Customer’s Bank Name and Address, 

Bank Routing Number, Account Number 

and Account Type (Checking or 

Savings, Business or Personal) being 

agreed to transact upon, an Attestation 

that the person submitting the form is 

authorized to act on behalf of the 

account, and Termination Date and 

Signature (or appropriate electronic 

signature evidence) of the Agreement (if 

applicable). The agreement must be 

stored for at least two years after 

termination of the agreement, must be 

easily reproducible, and must be 

provided electronically to the Postal 

Service within three business days of 

electronic written request by the Postal 

Service in a format that can be easily 

and readily used for all NACHA and 

ACH related purposes including, 

without limitation, audit and defense of 

claims. The Postal Service will provide 

specific written guidance separately if 

requested. Failure to comply may result 

in revocation of access to applicable 

Postal Service ACH programs. 

(4) Credit cards. Unless otherwise 

established in a written agreement 

between the Postal Service and the 

provider, the provider is fully 

responsible for its own credit card 

compliance. 

* * * * * 

Sarah Sullivan, 

Attorney, Ethics & Legal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25628 Filed 11–17–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2023–0187; FRL–11554– 

03–R1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan for the Second 

Implementation Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision submitted by New 

Hampshire on May 5, 2022, as satisfying 

applicable requirements under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule for the program’s 

second implementation period. New 

Hampshire’s SIP submission addresses 

the requirement that states must 

periodically revise their long-term 

strategies for making reasonable 

progress towards the national goal of 

preventing any future, and remedying 

any existing, anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility, including regional haze, in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas. The 

SIP submission also addresses other 

applicable requirements for the second 

implementation period of the regional 

haze program. The EPA is taking this 

action pursuant to sections 110 and 

169A of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 20, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA- at 

https://www.regulations.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Rackauskas, Air Quality Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 

100, (Mail code 5–MI), Boston, MA 

02109–3912, tel. (617) 918–1628, email 

rackauskas.eric@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is the EPA proposing? 

II. Background and Requirements for 

Regional Haze Plans 

A. Regional Haze Background 

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for 

the Second Implementation Period 

A. Identification of Class I Areas 

B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and 

Natural Visibility Conditions; Progress to 

Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze 

D. Reasonable Progress Goals 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

F. Requirements for Periodic Reports 

Describing Progress Towards the 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

G. Requirements for State and Federal 

Land Manager Coordination 

IV. The EPA’s Evaluation of New 

Hampshire’s Regional Haze Submission 

for the Second Implementation Period 

A. Background on New Hampshire’s First 

Implementation Period SIP Submission 

B. New Hampshire’s Second 

Implementation Period SIP Submission 

and the EPA’s Evaluation 

C. Identification of Class I Areas 

D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and 

Natural Visibility Conditions; Progress to 

Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress 

E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze 

a. New Hampshire’s Response to the Six 

MANE–VU Asks 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80656 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1NH included a corrected Appendix W in a 

supplemental submission on September 21, 2023. 

2Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class 

I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 

6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial 

parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 

parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 

CAA 162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. 

The list of areas to which the requirements of the 

visibility protection program apply is in 40 CFR 

part 81, subpart D. 

3 In addition to the generally applicable regional 

haze provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, the EPA also 

promulgated regulations specific to addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment in Class I areas 

on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The 

latter regulations are applicable only for specific 

jurisdictions’ regional haze plans submitted no later 

than December 17, 2007, and thus are not relevant 

here. 

4There are several ways to measure the amount 

of visibility impairment, i.e., haze. One such 

measurement is the deciview, which is the 

principal metric used by the RHR. Under many 

circumstances, a change in one deciview will be 

perceived by the human eye to be the same on both 

clear and hazy days. The deciview is unitless. It is 

proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric 

extinction of light, which is the perceived dimming 

of light due to its being scattered and absorbed as 

it passes through the atmosphere. Atmospheric light 

extinction (bext) is a metric used to for expressing 

visibility and is measured in inverse megameters 

(Mm¥1). The EPA’s Guidance on Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plans for the Second 

Implementation Period (‘‘2019 Guidance’’) offers 

the flexibility for the use of light extinction in 

certain cases. Light extinction can be simpler to use 

in calculations than deciviews, since it is not a 

logarithmic function. See, e.g., 2019 Guidance at 16, 

19, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidanceregional-haze-state-implementation-plans-secondimplementation-period, The EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 

Park (August 20, 2019). The formula for the 

deciview is 10 ln (bext)/10 Mm¥1). 40 CFR 51.301. 

5The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for 

states to submit plans addressing out-of-state class 

I areas by providing that states must address 

visibility impairment ‘‘in each mandatory Class I 

Federal area located outside the State that may be 

affected by emissions from within the State.’’ 40 

CFR 51.308(d), (f). 

6 In addition to each of the fifty states, the EPA 

also concluded that the Virgin Islands and District 

of Columbia must also submit regional haze SIPs 

because they either contain a Class I area or contain 

sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated 

to contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40 

CFR 51.300(b), (d)(3). 

b. The EPA’s Evaluation of New 

Hampshire’s Response to the Six MANE– 

VU Asks and Compliance With 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(i) 

c. Additional Long-Term Strategy 

Requirements 

F. Reasonable Progress Goals 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Requirements for Periodic Reports 

Describing Progress Towards the 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

I. Requirements for State and Federal Land 

Manager Coordination 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is the EPA proposing? 

On May 5, 2022, supplemented on 

September 21, 2023,1 the New 

Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services (NHDES) 

submitted a revision to its SIP to 

address regional haze for the second 

implementation period. NHDES made 

this SIP submission to satisfy the 

requirements of the CAA’s regional haze 

program pursuant to CAA sections 169A 

and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. The EPA 

is proposing to find that the New 

Hampshire regional haze SIP 

submission for the second 

implementation period meets the 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements and thus proposes to 

approve New Hampshire’s submission 

into its SIP. 

II. Background and Requirements for 

Regional Haze Plans 

A. Regional Haze Background 

In the 1977 CAA Amendments, 

Congress created a program for 

protecting visibility in the nation’s 

mandatory Class I Federal areas, which 

include certain national parks and 

wilderness areas.2 CAA 169A. The CAA 

establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory class I Federal 

areas which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution.’’ CAA 

169A(a)(1). The CAA further directs the 

EPA to promulgate regulations to assure 

reasonable progress toward meeting this 

national goal. CAA 169A(a)(4). On 

December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as 

‘‘Class I areas’’) that is ‘‘reasonably 

attributable’’ to a single source or small 

group of sources. (45 FR 80084, 

December 2, 1980). These regulations, 

codified at 40 CFR 51.300 through 

51.307, represented the first phase of the 

EPA’s efforts to address visibility 

impairment. In 1990, Congress added 

section 169B to the CAA to further 

address visibility impairment, 

specifically, impairment from regional 

haze. CAA 169B. The EPA promulgated 

the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), codified 

at 40 CFR 51.308,3 on July 1, 1999. (64 

FR 35714, July 1, 1999). These regional 

haze regulations are a central 

component of the EPA’s comprehensive 

visibility protection program for Class I 

areas. 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

anthropogenic sources and activities 

which are located across a broad 

geographic area and that emit pollutants 

that impair visibility. Visibility 

impairing pollutants include fine and 

coarse particulate matter (PM) (e.g., 

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and soil dust) and 

their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and, in 

some cases, volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) and ammonia (NH3)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5), which impairs visibility 

by scattering and absorbing light. 

Visibility impairment reduces the 

perception of clarity and color, as well 

as visible distance.4

To address regional haze visibility 

impairment, the 1999 RHR established 

an iterative planning process that 

requires both states in which Class I 

areas are located and states ‘‘the 

emissions from which may reasonably 

be anticipated to cause or contribute to 

any impairment of visibility’’ in a Class 

I area to periodically submit SIP 

revisions to address such impairment. 

CAA 169A(b)(2); 5 see also 40 CFR 

51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission 

dates for iterative regional haze SIP 

revisions); (64 FR at 35768, July 1, 

1999). Under the CAA, each SIP 

submission must contain ‘‘a long-term 

(ten to fifteen years) strategy for making 

reasonable progress toward meeting the 

national goal,’’ CAA 169A(b)(2)(B); the 

initial round of SIP submissions also 

had to address the statutory requirement 

that certain older, larger sources of 

visibility impairing pollutants install 

and operate the best available retrofit 

technology (BART). CAA 169A(b)(2)(A); 

40 CFR 51.308(d), (e). States’ first 

regional haze SIPs were due by 

December 17, 2007, 40 CFR 51.308(b), 

with subsequent SIP submissions 

containing updated long-term strategies 

originally due July 31, 2018, and every 

ten years thereafter. (64 FR at 35768, 

July 1, 1999). The EPA established in 

the 1999 RHR that all states either have 

Class I areas within their borders or 

‘‘contain sources whose emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

regional haze in a Class I area’’; 

therefore, all states must submit regional 

haze SIPs.6 Id. at 35721. 

Much of the focus in the first 

implementation period of the regional 

haze program, which ran from 2007 

through 2018, was on satisfying states’ 

BART obligations. First implementation 

period SIPs were additionally required 

to contain long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward the 

national visibility goal, of which BART 

is one component. The core required 

elements for the first implementation 

period SIPs (other than BART) are laid 

out in 40 CFR 51.308(d). Those 

provisions required that states 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80657 

7EPA established the URP framework in the 1999 

RHR to provide ‘‘an equitable analytical approach’’ 

to assessing the rate of visibility improvement at 

Class I areas across the country. The start point for 

the URP analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was 

calculated based on the amount of visibility 

improvement that was anticipated to result from 

implementation of existing CAA programs over the 

period from the mid-1990s to approximately 2005. 

Assuming this rate of progress would continue into 

the future, EPA determined that natural visibility 

conditions would be reached in 60 years, or 2064 

(60 years from the baseline starting point of 2004). 

However, EPA did not establish 2064 as the year 

by which the national goal must be reached. 64 FR 

at 35731–32. That is, the URP and the 2064 date are 

not enforceable targets, but are rather tools that 

‘‘allow for analytical comparisons between the rate 

of progress that would be achieved by the state’s 

chosen set of control measures and the URP.’’ (82 

FR 3078, 3084, January 10, 2017). 

8The EPA’s regulations define ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager’’ as ‘‘the Secretary of the department with 

authority over the Federal Class I area (or the 

Secretary’s designee) or, with respect to RooseveltCampobello International Park, the Chairman of the 

Roosevelt-Campobello International Park 

Commission.’’ 40 CFR 51.301. 

9 Guidance on Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plans for the Second 

Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/ 

visibility/guidance-regional-haze-stateimplementation-plans-second-implementationperiod The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 

2019). 

10Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plans for the Second 

Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/ 

system/files/documents/2021-07/clarificationsregarding-regional-haze-state-implementationplans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf. 

The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021). 

11Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility 

Progress for the Second Implementation Period of 

the Regional Haze Program. https://www.epa.gov/ 

visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibilityprogress-second-implementation-period-regional 

The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park. (December 20, 

2018). 

12Recommendation for the Use of Patched and 

Substituted Data and Clarification of Data 

Completeness for Tracking Visibility Progress for 

the Second Implementation Period of the Regional 

Haze Program. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/ 

memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-datausage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program 

The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park (June 3, 2020). 

containing Class I areas establish 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs) that 

are measured in deciviews and reflect 

the anticipated visibility conditions at 

the end of the implementation period 

including from implementation of 

states’ long-term strategies. The first 

planning period RPGs were required to 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

period of the implementation plan and 

ensure no degradation in visibility for 

the least impaired days over the same 

period. In establishing the RPGs for any 

Class I area in a state, the state was 

required to consider four statutory 

factors: the costs of compliance, the 

time necessary for compliance, the 

energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

and the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected sources. CAA 

169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). 

States were also required to calculate 

baseline (using the five-year period of 

2000–2004) and natural visibility 

conditions (i.e., visibility conditions 

without anthropogenic visibility 

impairment) for each Class I area, and 

to calculate the linear rate of progress 

needed to attain natural visibility 

conditions, assuming a starting point of 

baseline visibility conditions in 2004 

and ending with natural conditions in 

2064. This linear interpolation is known 

as the uniform rate of progress (URP) 

and is used as a tracking metric to help 

states assess the amount of progress they 

are making towards the national 

visibility goal over time in each Class I 

area.7 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(2). 

The 1999 RHR also provided that States’ 

long-term strategies must include the 

‘‘enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance, schedules, and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals.’’ 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). In establishing their longterm strategies, states are required to 

consult with other states that also 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

given Class I area and include all 

measures necessary to obtain their 

shares of the emission reductions 

needed to meet the RPGs. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(i), (ii). Section 51.308(d) 

also contains seven additional factors 

states must consider in formulating their 

long-term strategies, 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v), as well as provisions 

governing monitoring and other 

implementation plan requirements. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(4). Finally, the 1999 RHR 

required states to submit periodic 

progress reports—SIP revisions due 

every five years that contain information 

on states’ implementation of their 

regional haze plans and an assessment 

of whether anything additional is 

needed to make reasonable progress, see 

40 CFR 51.308(g), (h)—and to consult 

with the Federal Land Manager(s) 8

(FLMs) responsible for each Class I area 

according to the requirements in CAA 

169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

On January 10, 2017, the EPA 

promulgated revisions to the RHR, (82 

FR 3078, January 10, 2017), that apply 

for the second and subsequent 

implementation periods. The 2017 

rulemaking made several changes to the 

requirements for regional haze SIPs to 

clarify States’ obligations and streamline 

certain regional haze requirements. The 

revisions to the regional haze program 

for the second and subsequent 

implementation periods focused on the 

requirement that States’ SIPs contain 

long-term strategies for making 

reasonable progress towards the 

national visibility goal. The reasonable 

progress requirements as revised in the 

2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the 

2017 RHR Revisions) are codified at 40 

CFR 51.308(f). Among other changes, 

the 2017 RHR Revisions adjusted the 

deadline for States to submit their 

second implementation period SIPs 

from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021, 

clarified the order of analysis and the 

relationship between RPGs and the 

long-term strategy, and focused on 

making visibility improvements on the 

days with the most anthropogenic 

visibility impairment, as opposed to the 

days with the most visibility 

impairment overall. The EPA also 

revised requirements of the visibility 

protection program related to periodic 

progress reports and FLM consultation. 

The specific requirements applicable to 

second implementation period regional 

haze SIP submissions are addressed in 

detail below. 

The EPA provided guidance to the 

states for their second implementation 

period SIP submissions in the preamble 

to the 2017 RHR Revisions as well as in 

subsequent, stand-alone guidance 

documents. In August 2019, the EPA 

issued ‘‘Guidance on Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plans for the 

Second Implementation Period’’ (‘‘2019 

Guidance’’).9 On July 8, 2021, the EPA 

issued a memorandum containing 

‘‘Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plans for the 

Second Implementation Period’’ (‘‘2021 

Clarifications Memo’’).10 Additionally, 

the EPA further clarified the 

recommended procedures for processing 

ambient visibility data and optionally 

adjusting the URP to account for 

international anthropogenic and 

prescribed fire impacts in two technical 

guidance documents: the December 

2018 ‘‘Technical Guidance on Tracking 

Visibility Progress for the Second 

Implementation Period of the Regional 

Haze Program’’ (‘‘2018 Visibility 

Tracking Guidance’’),11 and the June 

2020 ‘‘Recommendation for the Use of 

Patched and Substituted Data and 

Clarification of Data Completeness for 

Tracking Visibility Progress for the 

Second Implementation Period of the 

Regional Haze Program’’ and associated 

Technical Addendum (‘‘2020 Data 

Completeness Memo’’).12

As previously explained in the 2021 

Clarifications Memo, EPA intends the 

second implementation period of the 

regional haze program to secure 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80658 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

13See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95–294 at 205 (‘‘In 

determining how to best remedy the growing 

visibility problem in these areas of great scenic 

importance, the committee realizes that as a matter 

of equity, the national ambient air quality standards 

cannot be revised to adequately protect visibility in 

all areas of the country.’’), (‘‘the mandatory class I 

increments of [the PSD program] do not adequately 

protect visibility in class I areas’’). 

14RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ‘‘multijurisdictional organizations,’’ or MJOs. For the 

purposes of this notice, the terms RPO and MJO are 

synonymous. 

15EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that 

we were adopting new regulatory language in 40 

CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike the structure in 

51.308(d), ‘‘tracked the actual planning sequence.’’ 

(82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017). 

16The five ‘‘additional factors’’ for consideration 

in section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four 

factors listed in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must consider and apply 

to sources in determining reasonable progress. 

meaningful reductions in visibility 

impairing pollutants that build on the 

significant progress states have achieved 

to date. The Agency also recognizes that 

analyses regarding reasonable progress 

are state-specific and that, based on 

states’ and sources’ individual 

circumstances, what constitutes 

reasonable reductions in visibility 

impairing pollutants will vary from 

state-to-state. While there exist many 

opportunities for states to leverage both 

ongoing and upcoming emission 

reductions under other CAA programs, 

the Agency expects states to undertake 

rigorous reasonable progress analyses 

that identify further opportunities to 

advance the national visibility goal 

consistent with the statutory and 

regulatory requirements. See generally 

2021 Clarifications Memo. This is 

consistent with Congress’s 

determination that a visibility 

protection program is needed in 

addition to the CAA’s National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration programs, as 

further emission reductions may be 

necessary to adequately protect 

visibility in Class I areas throughout the 

country.13

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Because the air pollutants and 

pollution affecting visibility in Class I 

areas can be transported over long 

distances, successful implementation of 

the regional haze program requires longterm, regional coordination among 

multiple jurisdictions and agencies that 

have responsibility for Class I areas and 

the emissions that impact visibility in 

those areas. In order to address regional 

haze, states need to develop strategies in 

coordination with one another, 

considering the effect of emissions from 

one jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. Five regional planning 

organizations (RPOs),14 which include 

representation from state and tribal 

governments, the EPA, and FLMs, were 

developed in the lead-up to the first 

implementation period to address 

regional haze. RPOs evaluate technical 

information to better understand how 

emissions from State and Tribal land 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

pursue the development of regional 

strategies to reduce emissions of 

particulate matter and other pollutants 

leading to regional haze, and help states 

meet the consultation requirements of 

the RHR. 

The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 

Union (MANE–VU), one of the five 

RPOs described above, is a collaborative 

effort of state governments, tribal 

governments, and various Federal 

agencies established to initiate and 

coordinate activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility, 

and other air quality issues in the MidAtlantic and Northeast corridor of the 

United States. Member states and tribal 

governments (listed alphabetically) 

include: Connecticut, Delaware, the 

District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, 

Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, 

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and Vermont. 

The Federal partner members of MANE– 

VU are EPA, U.S. National Parks Service 

(NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 

III. Requirements for Regional Haze 

Plans for the Second Implementation 

Period 

Under the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations, all 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

are required to submit regional haze 

SIPs satisfying the applicable 

requirements for the second 

implementation period of the regional 

haze program by July 31, 2021. Each 

state’s SIP must contain a long-term 

strategy for making reasonable progress 

toward meeting the national goal of 

remedying any existing and preventing 

any future anthropogenic visibility 

impairment in Class I areas. CAA 

169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, § 51.308(f) 

lays out the process by which states 

determine what constitutes their longterm strategies, with the order of the 

requirements in § 51.308(f)(1) through 

(f)(3) generally mirroring the order of 

the steps in the reasonable progress 

analysis 15 and (f)(4) through (f)(6) 

containing additional, related 

requirements. Broadly speaking, a state 

first must identify the Class I areas 

within the state and determine the Class 

I areas outside the state in which 

visibility may be affected by emissions 

from the state. These are the Class I 

areas that must be addressed in the 

state’s long-term strategy. See 40 CFR 

51.308(f), (f)(2). For each Class I area 

within its borders, a state must then 

calculate the baseline, current, and 

natural visibility conditions for that 

area, as well as the visibility 

improvement made to date and the URP. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each state 

having a Class I area and/or emissions 

that may affect visibility in a Class I area 

must then develop a long-term strategy 

that includes the enforceable emission 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures that are necessary to 

make reasonable progress in such areas. 

A reasonable progress determination is 

based on applying the four factors in 

CAA section 169A(g)(1) to sources of 

visibility-impairing pollutants that the 

state has selected to assess for controls 

for the second implementation period. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). Additionally, 

as further explained below, the RHR at 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately 

provides five ‘‘additional factors’’ 16 that 

states must consider in developing their 

long-term strategies. A state evaluates 

potential emission reduction measures 

for those selected sources and 

determines which are necessary to make 

reasonable progress. Those measures are 

then incorporated into the state’s longterm strategy. After a state has 

developed its long-term strategy, it then 

establishes RPGs for each Class I area 

within its borders by modeling the 

visibility impacts of all reasonable 

progress controls at the end of the 

second implementation period, i.e., in 

2028, as well as the impacts of other 

requirements of the CAA. The RPGs 

include reasonable progress controls not 

only for sources in the state in which 

the Class I area is located, but also for 

sources in other states that contribute to 

visibility impairment in that area. The 

RPGs are then compared to the baseline 

visibility conditions and the URP to 

ensure that progress is being made 

towards the statutory goal of preventing 

any future and remedying any existing 

anthropogenic visibility impairment in 

Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)–(3). 

In addition to satisfying the 

requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f) related 

to reasonable progress, the regional haze 

SIP revisions for the second 

implementation period must address the 

requirements in § 51.308(g)(1) through 

(5) pertaining to periodic reports 

describing progress towards the RPGs, 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), as well as 

requirements for FLM consultation that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80659 

17The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance 

references and relies on parts of the 2003 Tracking 

Guidance: ‘‘Guidance for Tracking Progress Under 

the Regional Haze Rule,’’ which can be found at 

https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/ 

visible/tracking.pdf. 

18This notice also refers to the 20% clearest and 

20% most anthropogenically impaired days as the 

‘‘clearest’’ and ‘‘most impaired’’ or ‘‘most 

anthropogenically impaired’’ days, respectively. 

19The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an 

error related to the requirement for calculating two 

sets of natural conditions values. The rule says 

‘‘most impaired days or the clearest days’’ where it 

should say ‘‘most impaired days and clearest days.’’ 

This is an error that was intended to be corrected 

in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected 

in the final rule language. This is supported by the 

preamble text at 82 FR 3098: ‘‘In the final version 

of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii), an occurrence of ‘‘or’’ has 

been corrected to ‘‘and’’ to indicate that natural 

visibility conditions for both the most impaired 

days and the clearest days must be based on 

available monitoring information.’’ 

20Being on or below the URP is not a ‘‘safe 

harbor’’; i.e., achieving the URP does not mean that 

a Class I area is making ‘‘reasonable progress’’ and 

does not relieve a state from using the four statutory 

factors to determine what level of control is needed 

to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3093. 

apply to all visibility protection SIPs 

and SIP revisions. 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

A state must submit its regional haze 

SIP and subsequent SIP revisions to the 

EPA according to the requirements 

applicable to all SIP revisions under the 

CAA and EPA’s regulations. See CAA 

169(b)(2); CAA 110(a). Upon EPA 

approval, a SIP is enforceable by the 

Agency and the public under the CAA. 

If EPA finds that a state fails to make a 

required SIP revision, or if the EPA 

finds that a state’s SIP is incomplete or 

if disapproves the SIP, the Agency must 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable 

requirements. CAA 110(c)(1). 

A. Identification of Class I Areas 

The first step in developing a regional 

haze SIP is for a state to determine 

which Class I areas, in addition to those 

within its borders, ‘‘may be affected’’ by 

emissions from within the state. In the 

1999 RHR, the EPA determined that all 

states contribute to visibility 

impairment in at least one Class I area, 

64 FR at 35720–22, and explained that 

the statute and regulations lay out an 

‘‘extremely low triggering threshold’’ for 

determining ‘‘whether States should be 

required to engage in air quality 

planning and analysis as a prerequisite 

to determining the need for control of 

emissions from sources within their 

State.’’ Id. at 35721. 

A state must determine which Class I 

areas must be addressed by its SIP by 

evaluating the total emissions of 

visibility impairing pollutants from all 

sources within the state. While the RHR 

does not require this evaluation to be 

conducted in any particular manner, 

EPA’s 2019 Guidance provides 

recommendations for how such an 

assessment might be accomplished, 

including by, where appropriate, using 

the determinations previously made for 

the first implementation period. 2019 

Guidance at 8–9. In addition, the 

determination of which Class I areas 

may be affected by a state’s emissions is 

subject to the requirement in 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ‘‘document the 

technical basis, including modeling, 

monitoring, cost, engineering, and 

emissions information, on which the 

State is relying to determine the 

emission reduction measures that are 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

in each mandatory Class I Federal area 

it affects.’’ 

B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, 

and Natural Visibility Conditions; 

Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate 

of Progress 

As part of assessing whether a SIP 

submission for the second 

implementation period is providing for 

reasonable progress towards the 

national visibility goal, the RHR 

contains requirements in § 51.308(f)(1) 

related to tracking visibility 

improvement over time. The 

requirements of this subsection apply 

only to states having Class I areas within 

their borders; the required calculations 

must be made for each such Class I area. 

EPA’s 2018 Visibility Tracking 

Guidance 17 provides recommendations 

to assist states in satisfying their 

obligations under § 51.308(f)(1); 

specifically, in developing information 

on baseline, current, and natural 

visibility conditions, and in making 

optional adjustments to the URP to 

account for the impacts of international 

anthropogenic emissions and prescribed 

fires. See 82 FR at 3103–05. 

The RHR requires tracking of 

visibility conditions on two sets of days: 

the clearest and the most impaired days. 

Visibility conditions for both sets of 

days are expressed as the average 

deciview index for the relevant five-year 

period (the period representing baseline 

or current visibility conditions). The 

RHR provides that the relevant sets of 

days for visibility tracking purposes are 

the 20% clearest (the 20% of monitored 

days in a calendar year with the lowest 

values of the deciview index) and 20% 

most impaired days (the 20% of 

monitored days in a calendar year with 

the highest amounts of anthropogenic 

visibility impairment).18 40 CFR 51.301. 

A state must calculate visibility 

conditions for both the 20% clearest and 

20% most impaired days for the 

baseline period of 2000–2004 and the 

most recent five-year period for which 

visibility monitoring data are available 

(representing current visibility 

conditions). 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii). 

States must also calculate natural 

visibility conditions for the clearest and 

most impaired days,19 by estimating the 

conditions that would exist on those 

two sets of days absent anthropogenic 

visibility impairment. 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(1)(ii). Using all these data, 

states must then calculate, for each 

Class I area, the amount of progress 

made since the baseline period (2000– 

2004) and how much improvement is 

left to achieve in order to reach natural 

visibility conditions. 

Using the data for the set of most 

impaired days only, states must plot a 

line between visibility conditions in the 

baseline period and natural visibility 

conditions for each Class I area to 

determine the URP—the amount of 

visibility improvement, measured in 

deciviews, that would need to be 

achieved during each implementation 

period in order to achieve natural 

visibility conditions by the end of 2064. 

The URP is used in later steps of the 

reasonable progress analysis for 

informational purposes and to provide a 

non-enforceable benchmark against 

which to assess a Class I area’s rate of 

visibility improvement.20 Additionally, 

in the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA 

provided states the option of proposing 

to adjust the endpoint of the URP to 

account for impacts of anthropogenic 

sources outside the United States and/ 

or impacts of certain types of wildland 

prescribed fires. These adjustments, 

which must be approved by the EPA, 

are intended to avoid any perception 

that states should compensate for 

impacts from international 

anthropogenic sources and to give states 

the flexibility to determine that limiting 

the use of wildland-prescribed fire is 

not necessary for reasonable progress. 

82 FR 3107 footnote 116. 

EPA’s 2018 Visibility Tracking 

Guidance can be used to help satisfy the 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, 

including in developing information on 

baseline, current, and natural visibility 

conditions, and in making optional 

adjustments to the URP. In addition, the 

2020 Data Completeness Memo provides 

recommendations on the data 

completeness language referenced in 

§ 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides updated 

natural conditions estimates for each 

Class I area. 

C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional 

Haze 

The core component of a regional 

haze SIP submission is a long-term 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80660 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

21Similarly, in responding to comments on the 

2017 RHR Revisions EPA explained that ‘‘[a] state 

should not fail to address its many relatively lowimpact sources merely because it only has such 

sources and another state has even more low-impact 

sources and/or some high impact sources.’’ 

Responses to Comments on Protection of Visibility: 

Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; 

Proposed Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) at 87– 

88. 

22The CAA provides that, ‘‘[i]n determining 

reasonable progress there shall be taken into 

consideration’’ the four statutory factors. CAA 

169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-factor 

analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or 

source categories, a state may also consider 

additional emission reduction measures for 

inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g., from other 

newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules 

and measures for sources not selected for four-factor 

analysis for the second planning period. 

23 ‘‘Each source’’ or ‘‘particular source’’ is used 

here as shorthand. While a source-specific analysis 

is one way of applying the four factors, neither the 

statute nor the RHR requires states to evaluate 

individual sources. Rather, states have ‘‘the 

flexibility to conduct four-factor analyses for 

specific sources, groups of sources or even entire 

source categories, depending on state policy 

preferences and the specific circumstances of each 

state.’’ 82 FR at 3088. However, not all approaches 

to grouping sources for four-factor analysis are 

necessarily reasonable; the reasonableness of 

grouping sources in any particular instance will 

depend on the circumstances and the manner in 

which grouping is conducted. If it is feasible to 

establish and enforce different requirements for 

sources or subgroups of sources, and if relevant 

factors can be quantified for those sources or 

subgroups, then states should make a separate 

reasonable progress determination for each source 

or subgroup. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7–8. 

strategy that addresses regional haze in 

each Class I area within a state’s borders 

and each Class I area that may be 

affected by emissions from the state. 

The long-term strategy ‘‘must include 

the enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress, as determined 

pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through (iv).’’ 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of 

progress that is ‘‘reasonable progress’’ is 

based on applying the four statutory 

factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an 

evaluation of potential control options 

for sources of visibility impairing 

pollutants, which is referred to as a 

‘‘four-factor’’ analysis. The outcome of 

that analysis is the emission reduction 

measures that a particular source or 

group of sources needs to implement in 

order to make reasonable progress 

towards the national visibility goal. See 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission 

reduction measures that are necessary to 

make reasonable progress may be either 

new, additional control measures for a 

source, or they may be the existing 

emission reduction measures that a 

source is already implementing. See 

2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications 

Memo at 8–10. Such measures must be 

represented by ‘‘enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures’’ (i.e., any additional 

compliance tools) in a state’s long-term 

strategy in its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). 

Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the 

requirements for the four-factor 

analysis. The first step of this analysis 

entails selecting the sources to be 

evaluated for emission reduction 

measures; to this end, the RHR requires 

states to consider ‘‘major and minor 

stationary sources or groups of sources, 

mobile sources, and area sources’’ of 

visibility impairing pollutants for 

potential four-factor control analysis. 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A threshold 

question at this step is which visibility 

impairing pollutants will be analyzed. 

As EPA previously explained, 

consistent with the first implementation 

period, EPA generally expects that each 

state will analyze at least SO2 and NOX

in selecting sources and determining 

control measures. See 2019 Guidance at 

12, 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4. A 

state that chooses not to consider at 

least these two pollutants should 

demonstrate why such consideration 

would be unreasonable. 2021 

Clarifications Memo at 4. 

While states have the option to 

analyze all sources, the 2019 Guidance 

explains that ‘‘an analysis of control 

measures is not required for every 

source in each implementation period,’’ 

and that ‘‘[s]electing a set of sources for 

analysis of control measures in each 

implementation period is . . . 

consistent with the Regional Haze Rule, 

which sets up an iterative planning 

process and anticipates that a state may 

not need to analyze control measures for 

all its sources in a given SIP revision.’’ 

2019 Guidance at 9. However, given that 

source selection is the basis of all 

subsequent control determinations, a 

reasonable source selection process 

‘‘should be designed and conducted to 

ensure that source selection results in a 

set of pollutants and sources the 

evaluation of which has the potential to 

meaningfully reduce their contributions 

to visibility impairment.’’ 2021 

Clarifications Memo at 3. 

EPA explained in the 2021 

Clarifications Memo that each state has 

an obligation to submit a long-term 

strategy that addresses the regional haze 

visibility impairment that results from 

emissions from within that state. Thus, 

source selection should focus on the instate contribution to visibility 

impairment and be designed to capture 

a meaningful portion of the state’s total 

contribution to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas. A state should not decline 

to select its largest in-state sources on 

the basis that there are even larger outof-state contributors. 2021 Clarifications 

Memo at 4.21

Thus, while states have discretion to 

choose any source selection 

methodology that is reasonable, 

whatever choices they make should be 

reasonably explained. To this end, 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that a state’s 

SIP submission include ‘‘a description 

of the criteria it used to determine 

which sources or groups of sources it 

evaluated.’’ The technical basis for 

source selection, which may include 

methods for quantifying potential 

visibility impacts such as emissions 

divided by distance metrics, trajectory 

analyses, residence time analyses, and/ 

or photochemical modeling, must also 

be appropriately documented, as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). 

Once a state has selected the set of 

sources, the next step is to determine 

the emissions reduction measures for 

those sources that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress for the second 

implementation period.22 This is 

accomplished by considering the four 

factors—‘‘the costs of compliance, the 

time necessary for compliance, and the 

energy and nonair quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

and the remaining useful life of any 

existing source subject to such 

requirements.’’ CAA 169A(g)(1). The 

EPA has explained that the four-factor 

analysis is an assessment of potential 

emission reduction measures (i.e., 

control options) for sources; ‘‘use of the 

terms ‘compliance’ and ‘subject to such 

requirements’ in section 169A(g)(1) 

strongly indicates that Congress 

intended the relevant determination to 

be the requirements with which sources 

would have to comply in order to satisfy 

the CAA’s reasonable progress 

mandate.’’ 82 FR at 3091. Thus, for each 

source it has selected for four-factor 

analysis,23 a state must consider a 

‘‘meaningful set’’ of technically feasible 

control options for reducing emissions 

of visibility impairing pollutants. Id. at 

3088. The 2019 Guidance provides that 

‘‘[a] state must reasonably pick and 

justify the measures that it will 

consider, recognizing that there is no 

statutory or regulatory requirement to 

consider all technically feasible 

measures or any particular measures. A 

range of technically feasible measures 

available to reduce emissions would be 

one way to justify a reasonable set.’’ 

2019 Guidance at 29. 

EPA’s 2021 Clarifications Memo 

provides further guidance on what 

constitutes a reasonable set of control 

options for consideration: ‘‘A reasonable 

four-factor analysis will consider the 

full range of potentially reasonable 

options for reducing emissions.’’ 2021 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80661 

24See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection 

of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for 

State Plans; Proposed Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 

2016), Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0531, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186; 2019 

Guidance at 36–37. 

25States may choose to, but are not required to, 

include measures in their long-term strategies 

beyond just the emission reduction measures that 

are necessary for reasonable progress. See 2021 

Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with 

smoke management programs may choose to submit 

their smoke management plans to EPA for inclusion 

in their SIPs but are not required to do so. See, e.g., 

82 FR at 3108–09 (requirement to consider smoke 

management practices and smoke management 

programs under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not 

require states to adopt such practices or programs 

into their SIPs, although they may elect to do so). 

26See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815 

F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA, 

812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir. 2016); North Dakota v. 

EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013); Oklahoma 

v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208–10 (10th Cir. 

2013); cf. also Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation 

v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 485, 490 (2004); Nat’l Parks 

Conservation Ass’n v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165 (3d 

Cir. 2015);. 

Clarifications Memo at 7. In addition to 

add-on controls and other retrofits (i.e., 

new emission reduction measures for 

sources), EPA explained that states 

should generally analyze efficiency 

improvements for sources’ existing 

measures as control options in their 

four-factor analyses, as in many cases 

such improvements are reasonable given 

that they typically involve only 

additional operation and maintenance 

costs. Additionally, the 2021 

Clarifications Memo provides that states 

that have assumed a higher emission 

rate than a source has achieved or could 

potentially achieve using its existing 

measures should also consider lower 

emission rates as potential control 

options. That is, a state should consider 

a source’s recent actual and projected 

emission rates to determine if it could 

reasonably attain lower emission rates 

with its existing measures. If so, the 

state should analyze the lower emission 

rate as a control option for reducing 

emissions. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 

7. The EPA’s recommendations to 

analyze potential efficiency 

improvements and achievable lower 

emission rates apply to both sources 

that have been selected for four-factor 

analysis and those that have forgone a 

four-factor analysis on the basis of 

existing ‘‘effective controls.’’ See 2021 

Clarifications Memo at 5, 10. 

After identifying a reasonable set of 

potential control options for the sources 

it has selected, a state then collects 

information on the four factors with 

regard to each option identified. The 

EPA has also explained that, in addition 

to the four statutory factors, states have 

flexibility under the CAA and RHR to 

reasonably consider visibility benefits as 

an additional factor alongside the four 

statutory factors.24 The 2019 Guidance 

provides recommendations for the types 

of information that can be used to 

characterize the four factors (with or 

without visibility), as well as ways in 

which states might reasonably consider 

and balance that information to 

determine which of the potential control 

options is necessary to make reasonable 

progress. See 2019 Guidance at 30–36. 

The 2021 Clarifications Memo contains 

further guidance on how states can 

reasonably consider modeled visibility 

impacts or benefits in the context of a 

four-factor analysis. 2021 Clarifications 

Memo at 12–13, 14–15. Specifically, 

EPA explained that while visibility can 

reasonably be used when comparing 

and choosing between multiple 

reasonable control options, it should not 

be used to summarily reject controls 

that are reasonable given the four 

statutory factors. 2021 Clarifications 

Memo at 13. Ultimately, while states 

have discretion to reasonably weigh the 

factors and to determine what level of 

control is needed, § 51.308(f)(2)(i) 

provides that a state ‘‘must include in 

its implementation plan a description of 

. . . how the four factors were taken 

into consideration in selecting the 

measure for inclusion in its long-term 

strategy.’’ 

As explained above, § 51.308(f)(2)(i) 

requires states to determine the 

emission reduction measures for sources 

that are necessary to make reasonable 

progress by considering the four factors. 

Pursuant to § 51.308(f)(2), measures that 

are necessary to make reasonable 

progress towards the national visibility 

goal must be included in a state’s longterm strategy and in its SIP.25 If the 

outcome of a four-factor analysis is a 

new, additional emission reduction 

measure for a source, that new measure 

is necessary to make reasonable progress 

towards remedying existing 

anthropogenic visibility impairment and 

must be included in the SIP. If the 

outcome of a four-factor analysis is that 

no new measures are reasonable for a 

source, continued implementation of 

the source’s existing measures is 

generally necessary to prevent future 

emission increases and thus to make 

reasonable progress towards the second 

part of the national visibility goal: 

preventing future anthropogenic 

visibility impairment. See CAA 

169A(a)(1). That is, when the result of 

a four-factor analysis is that no new 

measures are necessary to make 

reasonable progress, the source’s 

existing measures are generally 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

and must be included in the SIP. 

However, there may be circumstances in 

which a state can demonstrate that a 

source’s existing measures are not 

necessary to make reasonable progress. 

Specifically, if a state can demonstrate 

that a source will continue to 

implement its existing measures and 

will not increase its emission rate, it 

may not be necessary to have those 

measures in the long-term strategy in 

order to prevent future emission 

increases and future visibility 

impairment. EPA’s 2021 Clarifications 

Memo provides further explanation and 

guidance on how states may 

demonstrate that a source’s existing 

measures are not necessary to make 

reasonable progress. See 2021 

Clarifications Memo at 8–10. If the state 

can make such a demonstration, it need 

not include a source’s existing measures 

in the long-term strategy or its SIP. 

As with source selection, the 

characterization of information on each 

of the factors is also subject to the 

documentation requirement in 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable 

progress analysis, including source 

selection, information gathering, 

characterization of the four statutory 

factors (and potentially visibility), 

balancing of the four factors, and 

selection of the emission reduction 

measures that represent reasonable 

progress, is a technically complex 

exercise, but also a flexible one that 

provides states with bounded discretion 

to design and implement approaches 

appropriate to their circumstances. 

Given this flexibility, § 51.308(f)(2)(iii) 

plays an important function in requiring 

a state to document the technical basis 

for its decision making so that the 

public and the EPA can comprehend 

and evaluate the information and 

analysis the state relied upon to 

determine what emission reduction 

measures must be in place to make 

reasonable progress. The technical 

documentation must include the 

modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, 

and emissions information on which the 

state relied to determine the measures 

necessary to make reasonable progress. 

This documentation requirement can be 

met through the provision of and 

reliance on technical analyses 

developed through a regional planning 

process, so long as that process and its 

output has been approved by all state 

participants. In addition to the explicit 

regulatory requirement to document the 

technical basis of their reasonable 

progress determinations, states are also 

subject to the general principle that 

those determinations must be 

reasonably moored to the statute.26 That 

is, a state’s decisions about the emission 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80662 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

27The five ‘‘additional factors’’ for consideration 

in section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four 

factors listed in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must consider and apply 

to sources in determining reasonable progress. 

28RPGs are intended to reflect the projected 

impacts of the measures all contributing states 

include in their long-term strategies. However, due 

to the timing of analyses and of control 

determinations by other states, other on-going 

emissions changes, a particular state’s RPGs may 

not reflect all control measures and emissions 

reductions that are expected to occur by the end of 

the implementation period. The 2019 Guidance 

provides recommendations for addressing the 

timing of RPG calculations when states are 

developing their long-term strategies on disparate 

schedules, as well as for adjusting RPGs using a 

post-modeling approach. 2019 Guidance at 47–48. 

reduction measures that are necessary to 

make reasonable progress must be 

consistent with the statutory goal of 

remedying existing and preventing 

future visibility impairment. 

The four statutory factors (and 

potentially visibility) are used to 

determine what emission reduction 

measures for selected sources must be 

included in a state’s long-term strategy 

for making reasonable progress. 

Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR 

51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five 

‘‘additional factors’’ 27 that states must 

consider in developing their long-term 

strategies: (1) Emission reductions due 

to ongoing air pollution control 

programs, including measures to 

address reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment; (2) measures to reduce the 

impacts of construction activities; (3) 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (4) basic smoke management 

practices for prescribed fire used for 

agricultural and wildland vegetation 

management purposes and smoke 

management programs; and (5) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the long-term strategy. The 

2019 Guidance provides that a state may 

satisfy this requirement by considering 

these additional factors in the process of 

selecting sources for four-factor 

analysis, when performing that analysis, 

or both, and that not every one of the 

additional factors needs to be 

considered at the same stage of the 

process. See 2019 Guidance at 21. EPA 

provided further guidance on the five 

additional factors in the 2021 

Clarifications Memo, explaining that a 

state should generally not reject costeffective and otherwise reasonable 

controls merely because there have been 

emission reductions since the first 

planning period owing to other ongoing 

air pollution control programs or merely 

because visibility is otherwise projected 

to improve at Class I areas. 

Additionally, states generally should 

not rely on these additional factors to 

summarily assert that the state has 

already made sufficient progress and, 

therefore, no sources need to be selected 

or no new controls are needed 

regardless of the outcome of four-factor 

analyses. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 

13. 

Because the air pollution that causes 

regional haze crosses state boundaries, 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to 

consult with other states that also have 

emissions that are reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in a given Class I area. 

Consultation allows for each state that 

impacts visibility in an area to share 

whatever technical information, 

analyses, and control determinations 

may be necessary to develop 

coordinated emission management 

strategies. This coordination may be 

managed through inter- and intra-RPO 

consultation and the development of 

regional emissions strategies; additional 

consultations between states outside of 

RPO processes may also occur. If a state, 

pursuant to consultation, agrees that 

certain measures (e.g., a certain 

emission limitation) are necessary to 

make reasonable progress at a Class I 

area, it must include those measures in 

its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A). 

Additionally, the RHR requires that 

states that contribute to visibility 

impairment at the same Class I area 

consider the emission reduction 

measures the other contributing states 

have identified as being necessary to 

make reasonable progress for their own 

sources. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a 

state has been asked to consider or 

adopt certain emission reduction 

measures, but ultimately determines 

those measures are not necessary to 

make reasonable progress, that state 

must document in its SIP the actions 

taken to resolve the disagreement. 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). The EPA will 

consider the technical information and 

explanations presented by the 

submitting state and the state with 

which it disagrees when considering 

whether to approve the state’s SIP. See 

id.; 2019 Guidance at 53. Under all 

circumstances, a state must document in 

its SIP submission all substantive 

consultations with other contributing 

states. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). 

D. Reasonable Progress Goals 

Reasonable progress goals ‘‘measure 

the progress that is projected to be 

achieved by the control measures states 

have determined are necessary to make 

reasonable progress based on a fourfactor analysis.’’ 82 FR at 3091. Their 

primary purpose is to assist the public 

and the EPA in assessing the 

reasonableness of states’ long-term 

strategies for making reasonable 

progress towards the national visibility 

goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii)–(iv). 

States in which Class I areas are located 

must establish two RPGs, both in 

deciviews—one representing visibility 

conditions on the clearest days and one 

representing visibility on the most 

anthropogenically impaired days—for 

each area within their borders. 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)(i). The two RPGs are 

intended to reflect the projected 

impacts, on the two sets of days, of the 

emission reduction measures the state 

with the Class I area, as well as all other 

contributing states, have included in 

their long-term strategies for the second 

implementation period.28 The RPGs also 

account for the projected impacts of 

implementing other CAA requirements, 

including non-SIP based requirements. 

Because RPGs are the modeled result of 

the measures in states’ long-term 

strategies (as well as other measures 

required under the CAA), they cannot 

be determined before states have 

conducted their four-factor analyses and 

determined the control measures that 

are necessary to make reasonable 

progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo 

at 6. 

For the second implementation 

period, the RPGs are set for 2028. 

Reasonable progress goals are not 

enforceable targets, 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they ‘‘provide a 

way for the states to check the projected 

outcome of the [long-term strategy] 

against the goals for visibility 

improvement.’’ 2019 Guidance at 46. 

While states are not legally obligated to 

achieve the visibility conditions 

described in their RPGs, § 51.308(f)(3)(i) 

requires that ‘‘[t]he long-term strategy 

and the reasonable progress goals must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days since the 

baseline period and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the clearest 

days since the baseline period.’’ Thus, 

states are required to have emission 

reduction measures in their long-term 

strategies that are projected to achieve 

visibility conditions on the most 

impaired days that are better than the 

baseline period and show no 

degradation on the clearest days 

compared to the clearest days from the 

baseline period. The baseline period for 

the purpose of this comparison is the 

baseline visibility condition—the 

annual average visibility condition for 

the period 2000–2004. See 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR at 3097–98. 

So that RPGs may also serve as a 

metric for assessing the amount of 

progress a state is making towards the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80663 

29See ‘‘Step 8: Additional requirements for 

regional haze SIPs’’ in 2019 Regional Haze 

Guidance at 55. 

30 Id. 

31EPA’s visibility protection regulations define 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility impairment’’ as 

‘‘visibility impairment that is caused by the 

emission of air pollutants from one, or a small 

number of sources.’’ 40 CFR 51.301. 

national visibility goal, the RHR 

requires states with Class I areas to 

compare the 2028 RPG for the most 

impaired days to the corresponding 

point on the URP line (representing 

visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility 

were to improve at a linear rate from 

conditions in the baseline period of 

2000–2004 to natural visibility 

conditions in 2064). If the most 

impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the 

URP (i.e., if visibility conditions are 

improving more slowly than the rate 

described by the URP), each state that 

contributes to visibility impairment in 

the Class I area must demonstrate, based 

on the four-factor analysis required 

under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no 

additional emission reduction measures 

would be reasonable to include in its 

long-term strategy. 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)(ii) requires that each state 

contributing to visibility impairment in 

a Class I area that is projected to 

improve more slowly than the URP 

provide ‘‘a robust demonstration, 

including documenting the criteria used 

to determine which sources or groups 

[of] sources were evaluated and how the 

four factors required by paragraph 

(f)(2)(i) were taken into consideration in 

selecting the measures for inclusion in 

its long-term strategy.’’ The 2019 

Guidance provides suggestions about 

how such a ‘‘robust demonstration’’ 

might be conducted. See 2019 Guidance 

at 50–51. 

The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and 

2021 Clarifications Memo also explain 

that projecting an RPG that is on or 

below the URP based on only on-thebooks and/or on-the-way control 

measures (i.e., control measures already 

required or anticipated before the fourfactor analysis is conducted) is not a 

‘‘safe harbor’’ from the CAA’s and RHR’s 

requirement that all states must conduct 

a four-factor analysis to determine what 

emission reduction measures constitute 

reasonable progress. The URP is a 

planning metric used to gauge the 

amount of progress made thus far and 

the amount left before reaching natural 

visibility conditions. However, the URP 

is not based on consideration of the four 

statutory factors and therefore cannot 

answer the question of whether the 

amount of progress being made in any 

particular implementation period is 

‘‘reasonable progress.’’ See 82 FR at 

3093, 3099–3100; 2019 Guidance at 22; 

2021 Clarifications Memo at 15–16. 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to 

have certain strategies and elements in 

place for assessing and reporting on 

visibility. Individual requirements 

under this subsection apply either to 

states with Class I areas within their 

borders, states with no Class I areas but 

that are reasonably anticipated to cause 

or contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area, or both. A state with 

Class I areas within its borders must 

submit with its SIP revision a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all Class I areas within 

the state. SIP revisions for such states 

must also provide for the establishment 

of any additional monitoring sites or 

equipment needed to assess visibility 

conditions in Class I areas, as well as 

reporting of all visibility monitoring 

data to the EPA at least annually. 

Compliance with the monitoring 

strategy requirement may be met 

through a state’s participation in the 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

monitoring network, which is used to 

measure visibility impairment caused 

by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program. 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i), (f)(6)(iv). The 

IMPROVE monitoring data is used to 

determine the 20% most 

anthropogenically impaired and 20% 

clearest sets of days every year at each 

Class I area and tracks visibility 

impairment over time. 

All states’ SIPs must provide for 

procedures by which monitoring data 

and other information are used to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment in affected Class I 

areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii). 

Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires 

that all states’ SIPs provide for a 

statewide inventory of emissions of 

pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area; 

the inventory must include emissions 

for the most recent year for which data 

are available and estimates of future 

projected emissions. States must also 

include commitments to update their 

inventories periodically. The 

inventories themselves do not need to 

be included as elements in the SIP and 

are not subject to EPA review as part of 

the Agency’s evaluation of a SIP 

revision.29 All states’ SIPs must also 

provide for any other elements, 

including reporting, recordkeeping, and 

other measures, that are necessary for 

states to assess and report on visibility. 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). Per the 2019 

Guidance, a state may note in its 

regional haze SIP that its compliance 

with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule 

(AERR) in 40 CFR part 51 subpart A 

satisfies the requirement to provide for 

an emissions inventory for the most 

recent year for which data are available. 

To satisfy the requirement to provide 

estimates of future projected emissions, 

a state may explain in its SIP how 

projected emissions were developed for 

use in establishing RPGs for its own and 

nearby Class I areas.30

Separate from the requirements 

related to monitoring for regional haze 

purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the 

RHR also contains a requirement at 

§ 51.308(f)(4) related to any additional 

monitoring that may be needed to 

address visibility impairment in Class I 

areas from a single source or a small 

group of sources. This is called 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment.’’ 31 Under this provision, if 

the EPA or the FLM of an affected Class 

I area has advised a state that additional 

monitoring is needed to assess 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment, the state must include in 

its SIP revision for the second 

implementation period an appropriate 

strategy for evaluating such impairment. 

F. Requirements for Periodic Reports 

Describing Progress Towards the 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state’s 

regional haze SIP revision to address the 

requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1) through (5) so that the plan 

revision due in 2021 will serve also as 

a progress report addressing the period 

since submission of the progress report 

for the first implementation period. The 

regional haze progress report 

requirement is designed to inform the 

public and the EPA about a state’s 

implementation of its existing long-term 

strategy and whether such 

implementation is in fact resulting in 

the expected visibility improvement. 

See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016), 

(82 FR at 3119, January 10, 2017). To 

this end, every state’s SIP revision for 

the second implementation period is 

required to describe the status of 

implementation of all measures 

included in the state’s long-term 

strategy, including BART and 

reasonable progress emission reduction 

measures from the first implementation 

period, and the resulting emissions 

reductions. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80664 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

A core component of the progress 

report requirements is an assessment of 

changes in visibility conditions on the 

clearest and most impaired days. For 

second implementation period progress 

reports, § 51.308(g)(3) requires states 

with Class I areas within their borders 

to first determine current visibility 

conditions for each area on the most 

impaired and clearest days, 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(3)(i)(B), and then to calculate 

the difference between those current 

conditions and baseline (2000–2004) 

visibility conditions in order to assess 

progress made to date. See 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(3)(ii)(B). States must also 

assess the changes in visibility 

impairment for the most impaired and 

clearest days since they submitted their 

first implementation period progress 

reports. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(iii)(B), 

(f)(5). Since different states submitted 

their first implementation period 

progress reports at different times, the 

starting point for this assessment will 

vary state by state. 

Similarly, states must provide 

analyses tracking the change in 

emissions of pollutants contributing to 

visibility impairment from all sources 

and activities within the state over the 

period since they submitted their first 

implementation period progress reports. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), (f)(5). Changes 

in emissions should be identified by the 

type of source or activity. Section 

51.308(g)(5) also addresses changes in 

emissions since the period addressed by 

the previous progress report and 

requires states’ SIP revisions to include 

an assessment of any significant changes 

in anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state. This assessment must 

include an explanation of whether these 

changes in emissions were anticipated 

and whether they have limited or 

impeded progress in reducing emissions 

and improving visibility relative to what 

the state projected based on its longterm strategy for the first 

implementation period. 

G. Requirements for State and Federal 

Land Manager Coordination 

Clean Air Act section 169A(d) 

requires that before a state holds a 

public hearing on a proposed regional 

haze SIP revision, it must consult with 

the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant 

to that consultation, the state must 

include a summary of the FLMs’ 

conclusions and recommendations in 

the notice to the public. Consistent with 

this statutory requirement, the RHR also 

requires that states ‘‘provide the [FLM] 

with an opportunity for consultation, in 

person and at a point early enough in 

the State’s policy analyses of its longterm strategy emission reduction 

obligation so that information and 

recommendations provided by the 

[FLM] can meaningfully inform the 

State’s decisions on the long-term 

strategy.’’ 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). 

Consultation that occurs 120 days prior 

to any public hearing or public 

comment opportunity will be deemed 

‘‘early enough,’’ but the RHR provides 

that in any event the opportunity for 

consultation must be provided at least 

60 days before a public hearing or 

comment opportunity. This consultation 

must include the opportunity for the 

FLMs to discuss their assessment of 

visibility impairment in any Class I area 

and their recommendations on the 

development and implementation of 

strategies to address such impairment. 

40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In order for the EPA 

to evaluate whether FLM consultation 

meeting the requirements of the RHR 

has occurred, the SIP submission should 

include documentation of the timing 

and content of such consultation. The 

SIP revision submitted to the EPA must 

also describe how the state addressed 

any comments provided by the FLMs. 

40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP 

revision must provide procedures for 

continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

40 CFR 51.308(i)(4). 

IV. The EPA’s Evaluation of New 

Hampshire’s Regional Haze Submission 

for the Second Implementation Period 

A. Background on New Hampshire’s 

First Implementation Period SIP 

Submission 

NHDES submitted its regional haze 

SIP for the first implementation period 

to the EPA on January 9, 2010, and 

supplemented it on January 14, 2011, 

and August 14, 2011. The EPA approved 

New Hampshire’s first implementation 

period regional haze SIP submission on 

August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50602). 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g), New 

Hampshire was also responsible for 

submitting a five-year progress report as 

a SIP revision for the first 

implementation period, which it did on 

December 16, 2014. The EPA approved 

the progress report into the New 

Hampshire SIP on October 12, 2016 (81 

FR 70360). 

B. New Hampshire’s Second 

Implementation Period SIP Submission 

and the EPA’s Evaluation 

In accordance with CAA sections 

169A and the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f), 

on May 5, 2022, NHDES submitted a 

revision to the New Hampshire SIP to 

address its regional haze obligations for 

the second implementation period, 

which runs through 2028. The New 

Hampshire submission also included 

the revised New Hampshire’s Code of 

Administrative Rules Env-A 2300, 

‘‘Mitigation of Regional Haze,’’ which 

contains updated emissions limits for 

certain facilities located in the State. 

New Hampshire made a draft Regional 

Haze SIP submission available for 

public comment on November 4, 2019, 

with a second notice made available for 

public comment on December 10, 2021. 

A public hearing was also held on 

February 23, 2022. NHDES has included 

the public comments and its responses 

to those comments in the submission. 

The following sections describe New 

Hampshire’s SIP submission, including 

analyses conducted by MANE–VU and 

New Hampshire’s determinations based 

on those analyses, New Hampshire’s 

assessment of progress made since the 

first implementation period in reducing 

emissions of visibility impairing 

pollutants, and the visibility 

improvement progress at its Class I areas 

and nearby Class I areas. This notice 

also contains EPA’s evaluation of New 

Hampshire’s submission against the 

requirements of the CAA and RHR for 

the second implementation period of 

the regional haze program. 

C. Identification of Class I Areas 

Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA 

requires each state in which any Class 

I area is located or ‘‘the emissions from 

which may reasonably be anticipated to 

cause or contribute to any impairment 

of visibility’’ in a Class I area to have a 

plan for making reasonable progress 

toward the national visibility goal. The 

RHR implements this statutory 

requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which 

provides that each state’s plan ‘‘must 

address regional haze in each 

mandatory Class I Federal area located 

within the State and in each mandatory 

Class I Federal area located outside the 

State that may be affected by emissions 

from within the State,’’ and (f)(2), which 

requires each state’s plan to include a 

long-term strategy that addresses 

regional haze in such Class I areas. 

The EPA explained in the 1999 RHR 

preamble that the CAA section 

169A(b)(2) requirement that states 

submit SIPs to address visibility 

impairment establishes ‘‘an ‘extremely 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80665 

32EPA determined that ‘‘there is more than 

sufficient evidence to support our conclusion that 

emissions from each of the 48 contiguous states and 

the District of Columba may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in a Class I area.’’ 64 FR at 35721. 

Hawaii, Alaska, and the U.S. Virgin Islands must 

also submit regional haze SIPs because they contain 

Class I areas. 

33The contribution assessment methodologies for 

MANE–VU Class I areas are summarized in 

appendix E of the docket. ‘‘Selection of States for 

MANE–VU Regional Haze Consultation (2018).’’ 34 Id. 35See docket EPA–R01–OAR–2023–0187 for 

MANE–VU supporting materials. 36 ‘‘Q/d’’ is emissions (Q) in tons per year, 

typically of one or a combination of visibilityimpairing pollutants, divided by distance to a class 

I area (d) in kilometers. The resulting ratio is 

commonly used as a metric to assess a source’s 

potential visibility impacts on a particular class I 

area. 

37See appendix C in the Docket, ‘‘2016 MANE– 

VU Source Contribution Modeling Report, 

CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical Generating 

Units and Industrial Sources’’ and appendix D 

‘‘MANE–VU TSC’’, (April 2016) and ‘‘MANE–VU 

Updated Q/d*C Contribution Assessment.’’ 38See table 2–6 ‘‘New Hampshire Visibility 

Impairing EGU and ICI Point Sources’’ in the NH 

Regional Haze SIP—Final May 2022. 39See appendix D, ‘‘Contribution Assessment 

2006—Final.’’ 

low triggering threshold’ in determining 

which States should submit SIPs for 

regional haze.’’ 64 FR at 35721. In 

concluding that each of the contiguous 

48 states and the District of Columbia 

meet this threshold,32 the EPA relied on 

‘‘a large body of evidence 

demonstrat[ing] that long-range 

transport of fine PM contributes to 

regional haze,’’ id., including modeling 

studies that ‘‘preliminarily 

demonstrated that each State not having 

a Class I area had emissions 

contributing to impairment in at least 

one downwind Class I area.’’ Id. at 

35722. In addition to the technical 

evidence supporting a conclusion that 

each state contributes to existing 

visibility impairment, the EPA also 

explained that the second half of the 

national visibility goal—preventing 

future visibility impairment—requires 

having a framework in place to address 

future growth in visibility-impairing 

emissions and makes it inappropriate to 

‘‘establish criteria for excluding States 

or geographic areas from consideration 

as potential contributors to regional 

haze visibility impairment.’’ Id. at 

35721. Thus, the EPA concluded that 

the agency’s ‘‘statutory authority and 

the scientific evidence are sufficient to 

require all States to develop regional 

haze SIPs to ensure the prevention of 

any future impairment of visibility, and 

to conduct further analyses to determine 

whether additional control measures are 

needed to ensure reasonable progress in 

remedying existing impairment in 

downwind Class I areas.’’ Id. at 35722. 

EPA’s 2017 revisions to the RHR did not 

disturb this conclusion. See 82 FR at 

3094. 

New Hampshire has two mandatory 

Class I Federal areas within its borders, 

the Great Gulf Wilderness Area and the 

Presidential Range-Dry River 

Wilderness Area. Visibility monitoring 

in these areas is accomplished with 

instruments located at a single site at 

Camp Dodge. This monitoring station 

represents both Class 1 wilderness 

areas, and for this reason, both of New 

Hampshire’s Federal Class I areas are 

often referred to collectively as simply 

the Great Gulf Wilderness. For the 

second implementation period, MANE– 

VU performed technical analyses 33 to 

help assess source and state-level 

contributions to visibility impairment 

and the need for interstate consultation. 

MANE–VU used the results of these 

analyses to determine which states’ 

emissions ‘‘have a high likelihood of 

affecting visibility in MANE–VU’s Class 

I areas.’’ 34 Similar to metrics used in the 

first implementation period,35 MANE– 

VU used a greater than 2 percent of 

sulfate plus nitrate emissions 

contribution criteria to determine 

whether emissions from individual 

jurisdictions within the region affected 

visibility in any Class I areas. The 

MANE–VU analyses for the second 

implementation period used a 

combination of data analysis 

techniques, including emissions data, 

distance from Class I areas, wind 

trajectories, and CALPUFF dispersion 

modeling. Although many of the 

analyses focused only on SO2 emissions 

and resultant particulate sulfate 

contributions to visibility impairment, 

some also incorporated NOX emissions 

to estimate particulate nitrate 

contributions. 

One MANE–VU analysis used for 

contribution assessment was CALPUFF 

air dispersion modeling. The CALPUFF 

model was used to estimate sulfate and 

nitrate formation and transport in 

MANE–VU and nearby regions 

originating from large electric generating 

unit (EGU) point sources and other large 

industrial and institutional sources in 

the eastern and central United States. 

Information from an initial round of 

CALPUFF modeling was collated for the 

444 EGUs that were determined to 

warrant further scrutiny based on their 

emissions of SO2 and NOX. The list of 

EGUs was based on an enhanced ‘‘Q/d’’ 

analysis 36 that considered recent SO2

emissions in the eastern United States 

and an analysis that adjusted previous 

2002 MANE–VU CALPUFF modeling by 

applying a ratio of 2011 to 2002 SO2

emissions. This list of sources was then 

enhanced by including the top five SO2

and NOx emission sources for 2011 for 

each state included in the modeling 

domain. A total of 311 EGU stacks (as 

opposed to individual units) were 

included in the CALPUFF modeling 

analysis. Initial information was also 

collected on the 50 industrial and 

institutional sources that, according to 

2011 Q/d analysis, contributed the most 

to visibility impact in each Class I area. 

The ultimate CALPUFF modeling run 

included a total of 311 EGU stacks and 

82 industrial facilities. The summary 

report for the CALPUFF modeling 

included the top 10 most impacting 

EGUs and the top 5 most impacting 

industrial/institutional sources for each 

Class I area and compiled those results 

into a ranked list of the most impacting 

EGUs and industrial sources at MANE– 

VU Class I areas.37

The CALPUFF modeling results 

identified GSP Merrimack (units 1 and 

2) and Newington as New Hampshire’s 

EGU emissions sources impacting Great 

Gulf above a 1 Mm¥1 light extinction 

impact threshold. NHDES also 

performed CALPUFF screening on 

several other New Hampshire emission 

sources. The selection of emission units 

for modeling was based on the MANE– 

VU EGU and peaking unit criteria, the 

MANE–VU industrial, commercial, and 

institutional (ICI) facility criteria, and 

requests from EPA and the National 

Park Service through consultation. The 

New Hampshire sources which had 

maximum estimated visibility 

extinction above 1 Mm¥1 at federal 

Class I areas were included in the list of 

New Hampshire sources for further 

analysis.38

The second MANE–VU contribution 

analysis used a meteorologically 

weighted Q/d calculation to assess 

states’ contributions to visibility 

impairment at MANE–VU Class I 

areas.39 This analysis focused 

predominantly on SO2 emissions and 

used cumulative SO2 emissions from a 

source and a state for the variable ‘‘Q,’’ 

and the distance of the source or state 

to the IMPROVE monitor receptor at a 

Class I area as ‘‘d.’’ The result is then 

multiplied by a constant (Ci), which is 

determined based on the prevailing 

wind patterns. MANE–VU selected a 

meteorologically weighted Q/d analysis 

as an inexpensive initial screening tool 

that could easily be repeated to 

determine which states, sectors, or 

sources have a larger relative impact 

and warrant further analysis. Although 

MANE–VU did not originally estimate 

nitrate impacts, the MANE–VU Q/d 

analysis was subsequently extended to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80666 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

40The Class I areas analyzed were Acadia 

National Park in Maine, Brigantine Wilderness in 

New Jersey, Great Gulf Wilderness and Presidential 

Range—Dry River Wilderness in New Hampshire, 

Lye Brook Wilderness in Vermont, Moosehorn 

Wilderness in Maine, Roosevelt-Campobello 

International Park in New Brunswick, Shenandoah 

National Park in Virginia, James River Face 

Wilderness in Virginia, and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek 

Wildernesses in West Virginia. 

41As explained more fully in section IV.E.a, 

MANE–VU refers to each of the components of its 

overall strategy as an ‘‘Ask ‘‘of its member states. 

42The MANE–VU consultation report (Appendix 

G) explains that ‘‘[t]he objective of this technical 

work was to identify states and sources from which 

MANE–VU will pursue further analysis. This 

screening was intended to identify which states to 

invite to consultation, not a definitive list of which 

states are contributing.’’ 

43Because MANE–VU did not include all New 

Hampshire’s emissions or contributions to visibility 

impairment in its analysis, we cannot definitively 

state that New Hampshire’s contribution to 

visibility impairment is not the most significant. 

However, that is very likely the case. 

44See appendix G ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze 

Consultation Report and Consultation 

Documentation—Final.’’ 

account for nitrate contributions from 

NOX emissions and to approximate the 

nitrate impacts from area and mobile 

sources. MANE–VU therefore developed 

a ratio of nitrate to sulfate impacts based 

on the previously described CALPUFF 

modeling and applied those to the 

sulfate Q/d results in order to derive 

nitrate contribution estimates. Several 

states did not have CALPUFF nitrate to 

sulfate ratio results, however, because 

there were no point sources modeled 

with CALPUFF. 

In order to develop a final set of 

contribution estimates, MANE–VU 

weighted the results from both the Q/d 

and CALPUFF analyses. The MANE–VU 

mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate 

contribution results were reported for 

the MANE–VU Class I areas. (The Q/d 

summary report included results for 

several non-MANE–VU areas as well). If 

a state’s contribution to sulfate and 

nitrate concentrations at a particular 

Class I area was 2 percent or greater, 

MANE–VU regarded that state as 

contributing to visibility impairment in 

that area. According to MANE–VU’s 

analyses, sources in New Hampshire 

have been found to contribute to 

visibility impairment at its own Class I 

areas, Acadia National Park and 

Moosehorn Wilderness Area in Maine, 

and, by extension, RooseveltCampobello International Park in New 

Brunswick. 

As explained above, the EPA 

concluded in the 1999 RHR that ‘‘all 

[s]tates contain sources whose 

emissions are reasonably anticipated to 

contribute to regional haze in a Class I 

area,’’ 64 FR at 35721, and this 

determination was not changed in the 

2017 RHR. Critically, the statute and 

regulation both require that the causeor-contribute assessment consider all 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants from a state, as opposed to 

emissions of a particular pollutant or 

emissions from a certain set of sources. 

Consistent with these requirements, the 

2019 Guidance makes it clear that ‘‘all 

types of anthropogenic sources are to be 

included in the determination’’ of 

whether a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to result in any 

visibility impairment. 2019 Guidance at 

8. 

First, as an aside, the screening 

analyses on which MANE–VU relied are 

useful for certain purposes. MANE–VU 

used information from its technical 

analysis to rank the largest contributing 

states to sulfate and nitrate impairment 

in seven Class I areas in the MANE–VU 

region and three additional, nearby 

Class I areas.40 The rankings were used 

to determine upwind states that were 

deemed important to include in state-tostate consultation (based on an 

identified impact screening threshold). 

Additionally, large individual source 

impacts were used to target MANE–VU 

control analysis ‘‘Asks’’ 41 of states and 

sources both within and upwind of 

MANE–VU.42 The EPA finds the nature 

of the analyses generally appropriate to 

support decisions on states with which 

to consult. However, we have cautioned 

that source selection methodologies that 

target the largest regional contributors to 

visibility impairment across multiple 

states may not be reasonable for a 

particular state if it results in few or no 

sources being selected for subsequent 

analysis. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 3. 

With regard to the analysis and 

determinations regarding New 

Hampshire’s contribution to visibility 

impairment at out-of-state Class I areas, 

the MANE–VU technical work focuses 

on the magnitude of visibility impacts 

from certain New Hampshire emissions 

on its Class I area and other nearby 

Class I areas. However, the analyses did 

not account for all emissions and all 

components of visibility impairment 

(e.g., primary PM emissions, and 

impairment from fine PM, elemental 

carbon, and organic carbon). In 

addition, Q/d analyses with a relatively 

simplistic accounting for wind 

trajectories and CALPUFF applied to a 

very limited set of EGUs and major 

industrial sources of SO2 and NOx are 

not scientifically rigorous tools capable 

of evaluating contribution to visibility 

impairment from all emissions in a 

state. The EPA does agree that the 

contribution to visibility impairment 

from New Hampshire’s emissions at 

nearby out-of-state Class I areas is 

smaller than that from numerous other 

MANE–VU states.43 And while some 

MANE–VU states noted that the 

contributions from several states outside 

the MANE–VU region are significantly 

larger than its own, we again clarify that 

each state is obligated under the CAA 

and RHR to address regional haze 

visibility impairment resulting from 

emissions from within the state, 

irrespective of whether another state’s 

contribution is greater. See 2021 

Clarifications Memo at 3. Additionally, 

we note that the 2 percent or greater 

sulfate-plus-nitrate threshold used to 

determine whether New Hampshire 

emissions contribute to visibility 

impairment at a particular Class I area 

may be higher than what EPA believes 

is an ‘‘extremely low triggering 

threshold’’ intended by the statute and 

regulations. In sum, based on the 

information provided, it is clear that 

emissions from New Hampshire 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

the Class I areas in Maine, New 

Brunswick, and New Hampshire and 

have relatively small contributions to 

the other nearby Class I areas. EPA 

generally agrees with this conclusion. 

However, due to the low triggering 

threshold implied by the Rule and the 

lack of rigorous modeling analyses, we 

do not necessarily agree with the level 

of the State’s 2% contribution threshold 

as a general matter. 

Regardless, we note that New 

Hampshire did determine that sources 

and emissions within the state 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

both in-state wildernesses and three outof-state Class I areas. Furthermore, the 

state took part in the emission control 

strategy consultation process as a 

member of MANE–VU. As part of that 

process, MANE–VU developed a set of 

emissions reduction measures identified 

as being necessary to make reasonable 

progress in the seven MANE–VU Class 

I areas. This strategy consists of six Asks 

for states within MANE–VU and five 

Asks for states outside the region that 

were found to impact visibility at Class 

I areas within MANE–VU.44 New 

Hampshire’s submission discusses each 

of the Asks and explains why or why 

not each is applicable and how it has 

complied with the relevant components 

of the emissions control strategy 

MANE–VU has laid out for its states. 

New Hampshire worked with MANE– 

VU to determine potential reasonable 

measures that could be implemented by 

2028, considering the cost of 

compliance, the time necessary for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80667 

45See ‘‘Table 4–1: Baseline Visibility for the 20% 

Clearest and 20% Worst Days for the Baseline 

Period in New Hampshire Class I Areas’’ in the NH 

Regional Haze SIP submission—Final (May 2022). 

46See ‘‘Table 4–3: Comparison of Natural, 

Baseline, and Current Visibility for the 20% 

Clearest and 20% Most Impaired Days in New 

Hampshire Class I Areas’’ in the NH Regional Haze 

SIP submission—Final (May 2022). 

47See ‘‘Table 4–2: Current Visibility for the 20% 

Clearest and 20% Most Impaired Days during 2015– 

2019 in New Hampshire Class I Areas’’ in the NH 

Regional Haze SIP submission—Final (May 2022). 

48NH Regional Haze SIP submission—Final, at 39 

(May 2022). 

49See ‘‘Table 4–4: Current Visibility (2015–2019) 

vs. Natural Visibility Conditions (dv)’’ in the NH 

Regional Haze SIP submission—Final (May 2022). 

50See ‘‘Table 4–6: Baseline, Current and 

Reasonable Progress Goal Haze Index Levels for 

New Hampshire’s Class I Areas’’ in the NH Regional 

Haze SIP submission—Final (May 2022). 

51NH Regional Haze SIP submission—Final, at 

40–41 (May 2022). 

compliance, the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts, and the 

remaining useful life of any potentially 

affected sources. As discussed in further 

detail below, the EPA is proposing to 

find that New Hampshire has submitted 

a regional haze plan that meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) 

related to the development of a longterm strategy. Thus, although we have 

concerns regarding some aspects of 

MANE–VU’s technical analyses 

supporting states’ contribution 

determinations as a general matter, we 

propose to find that New Hampshire has 

nevertheless satisfied the applicable 

requirements for making reasonable 

progress towards natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas that may be 

affected be emissions from the state. 

D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, 

and Natural Visibility Conditions; 

Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate 

of Progress 

Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to 

determine the following for ‘‘each 

mandatory Class I Federal area located 

within the State’’: baseline visibility 

conditions for the most impaired and 

clearest days, natural visibility 

conditions for the most impaired and 

clearest days, progress to date for the 

most impaired and clearest days, the 

differences between current visibility 

conditions and natural visibility 

conditions, and the URP. This section 

also provides the option for states to 

propose adjustments to the URP line for 

a Class I area to account for visibility 

impacts from anthropogenic sources 

outside the United States and/or the 

impacts from wildland prescribed fires 

that were conducted for certain, 

specified objectives. 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B). 

The Great Gulf and Presidential 

Range—Dry River Wilderness areas have 

2000–2004 baseline visibility conditions 

of 7.65 deciviews on the 20% clearest 

days and 21.88 deciviews on the 20% 

most impaired days.45 New Hampshire 

calculated an estimated natural 

background visibility of 3.73 deciviews 

on the 20% clearest days and 9.78 

deciviews on the 20% most impaired 

days for the Great Gulf and Presidential 

Range—Dry River Wilderness areas.46

The current visibility conditions, which 

are based on 2015–2019 monitoring 

data, were 4.69 deciviews on the 

clearest days and 12.33 deciviews on 

the most impaired days,47 which 

represents an improvement from the 

baseline period of 2.96 deciviews on the 

20% clearest days and 9.55 deciviews 

on the 20% most impaired days.48 In 

addition, current visibility conditions 

are 0.96 and 2.55 deciviews greater than 

natural conditions on the respective sets 

of days.49 New Hampshire calculated an 

annual URP of 0.202 deciviews needed 

to reach natural visibility on the 20% 

most impaired days.50 New Hampshire 

noted that, at 12.33 deciviews, current 

visibility conditions on the most 

impaired days in the Great Gulf/ 

Presidential-Dry River Wilderness Area 

are already below the URP glidepath for 

both 2018—the end of the first SIP 

planning period—and 2028—the end of 

the second SIP planning period.51 New 

Hampshire has not proposed any 

adjustments to the URP to account for 

impacts from anthropogenic sources 

outside the United States or from 

wildland prescribed fires. EPA is 

proposing to find that New Hampshire 

has submitted a regional haze plan that 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(1) related to the calculations of 

baseline, current, and natural visibility 

conditions; progress to date; and the 

uniform rate of progress for the second 

implementation period. 

E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze 

a. New Hampshire’s Response to the Six 

MANE–VU Asks 

Each state having a Class I area within 

its borders or emissions that may affect 

visibility in a Class I area must develop 

a long-term strategy for making 

reasonable progress towards the 

national visibility goal. CAA section 

169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in the 

Background section of this notice, 

reasonable progress is achieved when 

all states contributing to visibility 

impairment in a Class I area are 

implementing the measures 

determined—through application of the 

four statutory factors to sources of 

visibility impairing pollutants—to be 

necessary to make reasonable progress. 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each state’s longterm strategy must include the 

enforceable emission limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress. 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2). All new (i.e., additional) 

measures that are the outcome of fourfactor analyses are necessary to make 

reasonable progress and must be in the 

long-term strategy. If the outcome of a 

four-factor analysis and other measures 

necessary to make reasonable progress is 

that no new measures are reasonable for 

a source, that source’s existing measures 

are necessary to make reasonable 

progress, unless the state can 

demonstrate that the source will 

continue to implement those measures 

and will not increase its emission rate. 

Existing measures that are necessary to 

make reasonable progress must also be 

in the long-term strategy. In developing 

its long-term strategies, a state must also 

consider the five additional factors in 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its 

reasonable progress determinations, the 

state must describe the criteria used to 

determine which sources or group of 

sources were evaluated (i.e., subjected 

to four-factor analysis) for the second 

implementation period and how the 

four factors were taken into 

consideration in selecting the emission 

reduction measures for inclusion in the 

long-term strategy. 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i). 

In this section of the NPRM, EPA 

summarizes how New Hampshire 

addresses the requirements of 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(i), including a discussion 

of the six Asks developed by MANE–VU 

and how New Hampshire addressed 

each. In section IV.E.b of the NPRM, 

EPA evaluates New Hampshire’s 

compliance with the requirements of 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(i). 

States may rely on technical 

information developed by the RPOs of 

which they are members to select 

sources for four-factor analysis and to 

conduct that analysis, as well as to 

satisfy the documentation requirements 

under § 51.308(f). Where an RPO has 

performed source selection and/or fourfactor analyses (or considered the five 

additional factors in § 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) 

for its member states, those states may 

rely on the RPO’s analyses for the 

purpose of satisfying the requirements 

of § 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the states 

have a reasonable basis to do so and all 

state participants in the RPO process 

have approved the technical analyses. 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). States may also 

satisfy the requirement of 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(ii) to engage in interstate 

consultation with other states that have 

emissions that are reasonably 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80668 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

52See appendix G ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze 

Consultation Report and Consultation 

Documentation—Final.’’ 53 Id. 54 Id. 

55The period of 2012–2016 was the most recent 

period for which data were available at the time of 

analysis. NH also included 2015–2019 data, 

discussed above in part D of this section. 

56See appendix K ‘‘MANE–VU Four Factor Data 

Collection Memo at 1, March 30, 2017.’’ 

57See appendix L ‘‘2016 Updates to the 

Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional 

Haze in MANE–VU Class I Areas, Jan. 31, 2016.’’ 

58 Id. 

59See appendix K ‘‘Four Factor Data Collection 

Memo.’’ 

60See appendix M ‘‘Status of the Top 167 Stacks 

from the 2008 MANE–VU Ask. July 2016.’’ 

61See appendix G ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze 

Consultation Report and Consultation 

Documentation—Final.’’ 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in a given Class I area under 

the auspices of intra- and inter-RPO 

engagement. 

New Hampshire is a member of the 

MANE–VU RPO and participated in the 

RPO’s regional approach to developing 

a strategy for making reasonable 

progress towards the national visibility 

goal in the MANE–VU Class I areas. 

MANE–VU’s strategy includes a 

combination of: (1) Measures for certain 

source sectors and groups of sectors that 

the RPO determined were reasonable for 

states to pursue, and (2) a request for 

member states to conduct four-factor 

analyses for individual sources that it 

identified as contributing to visibility 

impairment. MANE–VU refers to each of 

the components of its overall strategy as 

an Ask of its member states. On August 

25, 2017, the Executive Director of 

MANE–VU, on behalf of the MANE–VU 

states and tribal nations, signed a 

statement that identifies six emission 

reduction measures that comprise the 

Asks for the second implementation 

period.52 The Asks were ‘‘designed to 

identify reasonable emission reduction 

strategies that must be addressed by the 

states and tribal nations of MANE–VU 

through their regional haze SIP 

updates.’’ 53 The statement explains that 

‘‘[i]f any State cannot agree with or 

complete a Class I State’s Asks, the State 

must describe the actions taken to 

resolve the disagreement in the Regional 

Haze SIP.’’ 54

MANE–VU’s recommendations as to 

the appropriate control measures were 

based on technical analyses 

documented in the RPO’s reports and 

included as appendices to or referenced 

in New Hampshire’s regional haze SIP 

submission. One of the initial steps of 

MANE–VU’s technical analysis was to 

determine which visibility-impairing 

pollutants should be the focus of its 

efforts for the second implementation 

period. In the first implementation 

period, MANE–VU determined that 

sulfates were the most significant 

visibility impairing pollutant at the 

region’s Class I areas. To determine the 

impact of certain pollutants on visibility 

at Class I areas for the purpose of second 

implementation period planning, 

MANE–VU conducted an analysis 

comparing the pollutant contribution on 

the clearest and most impaired days in 

the baseline period (2000–2004) to the 

most recent period (2012–2016) 55 at 

MANE–VU and nearby Class I areas. 

MANE–VU found that while SO2

emissions were decreasing and visibility 

was improving, sulfates still made up 

the most significant contribution to 

visibility impairment at MANE–VU and 

nearby Class I areas. According to the 

analysis, NOX emissions have begun to 

play a more significant role in visibility 

impacts in recent years as SO2

emissions have decreased. The technical 

analyses used by New Hampshire are 

included in their submission and are as 

follows: 

• 2016 Updates to the Assessment of 

Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze 

in MANE–VU Class I Areas (Appendix 

L NH); 

• Impact of Wintertime SCR/SNCR 

Optimization on Visibility Impairing 

Nitrate Precursor Emissions. November 

2017. (Appendix Q NH); 

• High Electric Demand Days and 

Visibility Impairment in MANE–VU. 

December 2017. (Appendix R NH); 

• Benefits of Combined Heat and 

Power Systems for Reducing Pollutant 

Emissions in MANE–VU States. March 

2016. (Appendix S NH); 

• 2016 MANE–VU Source 

Contribution Modeling Report— 

CALPUFF Modeling of Large Electrical 

Generating Units and Industrial Sources 

April 4, 2017 (Appendix C NH); 

• Contribution Assessment 

Preliminary Inventory Analysis. October 

10, 2016. (Appendix D NH); 

• Four-Factor Data Collection Memo. 

March 2017. (Appendix K NH); 

• Status of the Top 167 Stacks from 

the 2008 MANE–VU Ask. July 2016. 

(Appendix M NH). 

To support development of the Asks, 

MANE–VU gathered information on 

each of the four statutory factors for six 

source sectors it determined, based on 

an examination of annual emission 

inventories, ‘‘had emissions [of SO2

and/or NOX] that were reasonabl[y] 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

degradation in MANE–VU:’’ electric 

generating units (EGUs), industrial/ 

commercial/institutional boilers (ICI 

boilers), cement kilns, heating oil, 

residential wood combustion, and 

outdoor wood combustion.56 MANE– 

VU also collected data on individual 

sources within the EGU, ICI boiler, and 

cement kiln sectors.57 Information for 

the six sectors included explanations of 

technically feasible control options for 

SO2 or NOX, illustrative costeffectiveness estimates for a range of 

model units and control options, sectorwide cost considerations, potential time 

frames for compliance with control 

options, potential energy and non-airquality environmental impacts of 

certain control options, and how the 

remaining useful lives of sources might 

be considered in a control analysis.58

Source-specific data included SO2

emissions 59 and existing controls 60 for 

certain existing EGUs, ICI boilers, and 

cement kilns. MANE–VU considered 

this information on the four factors as 

well as the analyses developed by the 

RPO’s Technical Support Committee 

when it determined specific emission 

reduction measures that were found to 

be reasonable for certain sources within 

two of the sectors it had examined— 

EGUs and ICI boilers. The Asks were 

based on this analysis and looked to 

optimize the use of existing controls, 

have states conduct further analysis on 

EGU or ICI boilers with considerable 

visibility impacts, implement low sulfur 

fuel standards, or lock-in lower 

emission rates. 

MANE–VU Ask 1 is ‘‘ensuring the 

most effective use of control 

technologies on a year-round basis’’ at 

EGUs with a nameplate capacity larger 

than or equal to 25 megawatts (MW) 

with already installed NOX and/or SO2

controls.61 Twelve EGUs at seven 

stationary sources in New Hampshire 

were identified as meeting the criteria of 

Ask 1. These sources include Burgess 

BioPower (EU01), Essential Power 

Newington (EU01 and EU02), Granite 

Ridge Energy (EU01 and EU02), Stored 

Solar Tamworth (EU01), GSP Merrimack 

Station (MK1 and MK2), GSP Schiller 

Station (SR4, SR5, and SR6), and GSP 

Newington Station (NT1). Additionally, 

the National Park Service identified 

Wheelabrator Concord as a facility of 

interest. NHDES determined that no 

further limitations as a result of MANE– 

VU Ask 1 were required of these 

sources. 

New Hampshire explained that 

Burgess BioPower’s operation was 

subject to Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR) for NOX at the time of 

the facility’s initial permitting; hence, 

the NOX limit represents the Lowest 

Available Emission Rate (LAER). This 

limit is incorporated into Title V 

Operating Permit TV–0065, issued on 

December 24, 2020, which limits NOX


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80669 

62See Table 4–15 ‘‘Reductions in Allowable NOX

RACT Emission Limits for MK1 and MK2 Over 

Time’’ of the NH RH SIP, Final 2022. 

63Env-A 2300 incorporates by reference NOX

limits in Env-A 1300, which NHDES revised in 

2018 as part of its SIP submittal for the 2008 and 

2015 8-hr ozone standards. EPA has proposed in a 

separate action to approve Env-A 1300 into NH’s 

SIP. See 88 FR 43483 (July 10, 2023). On September 

6, 2023, EPA issued a final notice approving 

portions of Env-A 1300 in the NH SIP with the 

exception of New Hampshire’s NOX RACT limits 

applicable to coal-fired cyclone boilers. See 88 FR 

60893 (September 6, 2023). EPA will issue a 

decision on New Hampshire’s NOX RACT 

requirements for coal-fired cyclone boilers in a 

subsequent rulemaking. 

emissions from the biomass boiler to 

0.060 lbs/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling 

average, based on the use of Selective 

Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology 

and SO2 emissions to 0.012 lbs/MMBtu. 

Essential Power Newington was 

subject to NNSR for NOX at the time of 

initial permitting in July 2010; these 

NOX limits were established as LAERbased limits. The Newington units use 

dry low NOX (DLN) combustion 

combined with SCR (as well as water 

injection during limited firing on ultralow sulfur fuel oil). The facility is 

required by permit to use inherently low 

sulfur fuels (natural gas and ultra-low 

sulfur fuel oil). The units at this facility 

were subject to Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) review for SO2 at 

the time of their initial permitting; these 

SO2 limits (0.0071 lbs/MMBtu for 

natural gas, and 0.0015 lbs/MMBtu for 

No. 2 fuel oil) were established as Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) 

limits. These limits are incorporated 

into Title V Operating Permit TV–0058, 

which limits NOX and SO2 emissions on 

a year-round basis. 

The units at Granite Ridge Energy 

were subject to NNSR for NOX at the 

time of their initial permitting; these 

limits were established as LAER-based 

limits. The facility uses inherently low 

sulfur fuel (natural gas). The units at 

this facility were subject to PSD review 

for SO2 at the time of their initial 

permitting; this limit (0.0023 lbs/ 

MMBtu) was established as a BACTbased limit. These limits are included in 

Title V Operating Permit TV–0056, 

which limits NOX and SO2 emissions on 

a year-round basis. 

Stored Solar Tamworth’s operation is 

subject to an emission limit that was 

established when the facility was 

initially permitted under the PSD 

permit program in 1987. This control 

limits NOX emissions to 0.265 lbs/ 

MMBtu over any consecutive 24-hour 

period. In 2008, this facility installed 

overfire air (OFA) and flue gas 

recirculation (FGR) technologies, as well 

as a Selective Noncatalytic Reduction 

(SNCR) system and a SCR system. These 

limits are included in the facility’s Title 

V Operating Permit TV–0018. Stored 

Solar Tamworth has voluntarily chosen 

to maintain NOX emissions at or below 

0.075 lb/MMBtu, on a quarterly average 

for the purpose of generating renewable 

energy certificates. 

In response to the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask,’’ 

Stored Solar Tamworth agreed to take 

lower year-round, enforceable NOX

emission limitations. NHDES revised 

New Hampshire’s Code of 

Administrative Rules Env-A 2300, 

‘‘Mitigation of Regional Haze’’ to 

include these limits and submitted the 

rule to EPA as part of this SIP revision. 

This rule will lower the NOX emissions 

limitations to a 30-day rolling average of 

0.075 lb/MMBtu or a 24-hour calendar 

day average of 0.085 lb/MMBtu. 

GSP Merrimack Station’s operation is 

covered by Title V Operating Permit 

TV–0055 which limits NOX and SO2

emissions. On May 3, 2018, NHDES 

requested information from GSP 

regarding NOX RACT and Regional Haze 

Rule requirements associated with the 

MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ This request for 

information was focused on the most 

effective use of existing control 

technologies for MK1 and MK2. In 

addition, GSP completed an analysis of 

additional controls for NOX and SO2 for 

MK1 and MK2. After review, NHDES 

concluded the analysis validates the 

continued use of current enforceable 

measures for both SO2 and NOX. In 

response to the MANE–VU Ask, NHDES 

amended New Hampshire’s Code of 

Administrative Rules Env-A 2300, 

‘‘Mitigation of Regional Haze’’ to 

reference new NOX RACT limits for 

MK1, which New Hampshire has made 

more stringent, changing from 1.22 lb/ 

MMBtu (rolling 7-calendar day average), 

or 18.1 tons per calendar day (when 

MK2 is not in full operation), or 29.1 

tons per calendar day (when combined 

with MK2) to 0.22 lb/MMBtu (24-hour 

calendar day average) or 4.0 tons per 

day on any calendar day during which 

a startup or shutdown occurs.62 NHDES 

also revised Env-A 2300 to reference the 

new NOX RACT limits for MK2 from 

15.4 tons per 24-hour calendar day, or 

29.1 tons per calendar day (when 

combined with MK1) to 0.22 lb/MMBtu 

(24-hour calendar day average) or 11.5 

tons per day on any calendar day during 

which a startup or shutdown occurs. 

NHDES submitted the revised Env-A 

2300 to EPA as part of New Hampshire’s 

Regional Haze SIP revision for the 

second implementation period.63

GSP Schiller Station’s operation is 

covered by Title V Operating Permit 

TV–0053 and NOX RACT Orders RO– 

003 and ARD–06–001 which limit NOX

and SO2 emissions. NHDES requested 

additional information from GSP 

regarding both NOX RACT and Regional 

Haze Rule requirements associated with 

the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ For SR4 and SR6, 

NHDES requested that GSP conduct a 

NOX RACT analysis for optimization of 

the SNCR including an evaluation of the 

technical and economic feasibility of 

operating the SNCR systems on a yearround basis to achieve various proposed 

NOX emission levels. Also, GSP was 

requested to evaluate the most effective 

use of the DSI systems on SR4 and SR6 

for SO2 emission reductions. For ‘‘Ask 

1’’ regarding SR5, NHDES requested 

GSP evaluate the most effective use of 

the SNCR for NOX emission reductions 

and the limestone injection system for 

SO2 emission reductions. GSP provided 

analyses to demonstrate that operation 

of low NOX burners (LNB) and OFA on 

SR4 and SR6 were sufficient to achieve 

an emission limit of 0.25 lbs NOX/ 

MMBtu and that year-round operation 

of the SNCR would not result in any 

additional emissions reductions. 

NHDES issued NOX RACT Order RO– 

003 on September 6, 2018, which 

established a NOX emission limit for 

SR4 and SR6 of 0.25 lbs/MMBtu per 24- 

hour calendar day average that applies 

at all times, including periods of startup 

and shutdown on a year-round basis. 

New Hampshire submitted this NOX

RACT Order as a single-source SIP 

revision in September 2018. It was 

approved by the EPA on September 12, 

2019 (84 FR 48068). 

SR4 and SR6 also comply with the 

most current and strict federal standards 

for acid gases, the HCl limit required 

under MATS, and the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS. 

GSP Schiller Station implements the 

most effective use of the existing control 

technology, which is year-round 

operation of the DSI systems, targeting 

reduction of multiple acid gases. SR5 is 

a wood-fired boiler that is also 

permitted to fire coal but has only fired 

coal for collecting performance test data 

in November 2006 during 

commissioning of the boiler. GSP has 

not combusted coal in SR5 since that 

time. Based on compliance stack testing 

and emissions monitoring data, sorbent 

injection is not needed to comply with 

the SO2 emission limit while burning 

biomass. NHDES determined that the 

existing pollution control equipment 

(LNB, OFA, SNCR and DSI) installed on 

SR4, SR5 and SR6, the federally 

enforceable NOX RACT emission limits 

and the NOX and SO2 emission 

limitations required by TV–0053 on a 

year-round basis satisfy Ask 1. 

The GSP Newington Station’s unit 

subject to ‘‘Ask 1’’ at this facility is an 

oil- and natural gas-fired EGU 

designated as NT1. NT1 is equipped 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80670 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

64See NH SIP submittal Appendix T. 

65See appendix G ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze 

Consultation Report and Consultation 

Documentation—Final.’’ 

with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) 

to control the emissions of particulate 

matter and LNB, OFA and water 

injection system to control NOX

emissions. GSP operates the water 

injection system on NT1 as necessary to 

maintain compliance with the NOX

emission limits. NT1 is subject to MATS 

as an existing EGU under the ‘‘limiteduse liquid oil-fired EGU72’’ subcategory. 

These controls are included in the Title 

V Operating Permit TV–0054. TV–0054 

contains a requirement to conduct a 

NOX RACT analysis within six months 

of switching from the limited use MATS 

subcategory to continental liquid oilfired EGU subcategory should they ever 

do so. NT1 does not have ‘‘already 

installed’’ SO2 controls and therefore 

Ask 1 applies only to its NOX emissions. 

NHDES determined that the existing 

pollution control equipment (LNB, OFA 

and water injection system) installed on 

NT1 combined with the federally 

enforceable NOX emission limitations 

required by TV–0054 on a year-round 

basis satisfy Ask 1. 

Wheelabrator Concord’s operation is 

covered by Title V Operating Permit 

TV–0032, which was issued January 24, 

2019. The two identical mass burn 

waterwall boilers at Wheelabrator 

Concord are considered large municipal 

waste combustion (MWC) units under 

New Hampshire’s Code of 

Administrative Rules Env-A 3300, 

‘‘Municipal Waste Combustion.’’ The 

two MWC units at Wheelabrator 

Concord are also subject to New 

Hampshire’s Code of Administrative 

Rules Env-A 1300, ‘‘NOX RACT’’ 

(approved September 6, 2023, 88 FR 

60893). Therefore, NHDES determined 

that no further limitations from MANE– 

VU Ask 1 are required of this source. 

MANE–VU Ask 2 consists of a request 

that states ‘‘perform a four-factor 

analysis for reasonable installation or 

upgrade to emissions controls’’ for 

specified sources. MANE–VU developed 

its Ask 2 list of sources for analysis by 

performing modeling and identifying 

facilities with the potential for 3.0 

inverse megameters (Mm¥1) or greater 

impacts on visibility at any Class I area 

in the MANE–VU region. GSP 

Merrimack Station, in Bow, was 

identified as the only facility in NH 

with the potential for 3.0 Mm¥1 or 

greater visibility impact at any MANE– 

VU Class I area. 

GSP Merrimack Station’s operation is 

already covered by Title V Operating 

Permit TV–0055 which limits NOX and 

SO2 emissions. MK1 and MK2 are 

cyclone-firing, wet-bottom utility boilers 

that burn bituminous coal and are each 

equipped with SCR for NOX control as 

well as ESPs for particulate matter 

control. In addition, because of state law 

RSA 125–O, Multiple Pollutant 

Reduction Program, MK1 and MK2 are 

equipped with a common FGD system 

which is designed to reduce mercury 

emissions but has the co-benefit of acid 

gas (SO2 and HCl) removal. New 

Hampshire asked GSP to perform fourfactor analyses for both MK1 and MK2. 

As a result of this request, GSP 

considered various control measures for 

NOX and SO2, which, for NOX, included 

review of fuel switching, OFA, SNCR, 

reburn, and upgrades to the existing 

SCR and, for SO2, considered upgrades 

to the existing FGD, coal cleaning, dry 

FGD, FGD plus DSI and fuel switching. 

GSP further noted that both units 

already employ SCR for controlling NOX

emissions and that the existing FGD 

system already achieves a 95% 

reduction in SO2 emissions. GSP 

concluded that both units are already 

effectively controlled and that no 

additional measures would result in any 

additional emissions reductions.64

NHDES closely reviewed GSP’s analysis 

and agreed with the company’s 

conclusion that it supports the 

continued use of current enforceable 

measures for both SO2 and NOX, that no 

upgrade or replacement of the controls 

on MK1 and MK2 are necessary to make 

reasonable progress, and that a full fourfactor analysis would not have 

identified any additional controls 

required for reasonable progress. New 

Hampshire therefore concluded that it 

satisfies Ask 2. 

Ask 3 is for each MANE–VU state to 

pursue an ultra low-sulfur fuel oil 

standard if it has not already done so in 

the first implementation period. The 

Ask includes percent by weight 

standards for #2 distillate oil (0.0015% 

sulfur by weight or 15 ppm), #4 residual 

oil (0.25–0.5% sulfur by weight), and #6 

residual oil (0.3–0.5% sulfur by weight). 

New Hampshire amended state law RSA 

125–C:10-d, Sulfur Limits of Certain 

Liquid Fuels. Beginning on July 1, 2018, 

fuel imported into New Hampshire was 

required to meet the following reduced 

sulfur limits—0.0015% for No. 2 fuel 

oil, 0.25% for No. 4 fuel oil and 0.5% 

for Nos. 5 or 6 fuel oil—and as of 

February 1, 2019, non-compliant fuels 

are not allowed to be distributed for sale 

within the State. This law will result in 

further reductions in SO2 emissions 

from industrial, area, and non-road 

sources beyond the 30% reduction seen 

in the 2008 vs. 2014 NEI data. The law 

was incorporated into New Hampshire’s 

Code of Administrative Rules Env-A 

1600, Fuel Specifications and was 

submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision 

on May 17, 2019, which EPA approved 

on April 26, 2021 (86 FR 21942). New 

Hampshire therefore concluded that it is 

meeting Ask 3. 

MANE–VU Ask 4 requests states to 

update permits to ‘‘lock in’’ lower 

emissions rates for NOX, SO2, and PM 

at emissions sources larger than 250 

million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) 

per hour heat input that have switched 

to lower emitting fuels. New Hampshire 

submitted that there are no such 

facilities in the State and therefore 

concluded it is meeting Ask 4. 

Ask 5 requests that MANE–VU states 

‘‘control NOX emissions for peaking 

combustion turbines that have the 

potential to operate on high electric 

demand days’’ by either: (1) Meeting 

NOX emissions standards specified in 

the Ask for turbines that run on natural 

gas and fuel oil, (2) performing a fourfactor analysis for reasonable 

installation of or upgrade to emission 

controls, or (3) obtaining equivalent 

emission reductions on high electric 

demand days.65 The Ask requests states 

to strive for NOX emission standards of 

no greater than 25 ppm for natural gas 

and 42 ppm for fuel oil, or at a 

minimum, NOX emissions standards of 

no greater than 42 ppm for natural gas 

and 96 ppm at for fuel oil. The peaking 

combustion turbines located at New 

Hampshire stationary sources that were 

identified as meeting the criteria of 

‘‘Ask #5’’ are: GSP Lost Nation Station 

(LNCT1) GSP Merrimack Station 

(MKCT1 and MKCT2), GSP Schiller 

Station (SRCT), and GSP White Lake 

Station (WLCT1). GSP performed fourfactor analyses for reasonable 

installation or upgrade to NOX emission 

controls at these units, which indicated 

no additional NOX controls that GSP 

could be employed on any of the 

combustion turbines that are both 

technically and economically feasible. 

All five GSP turbines are of the same era 

(1968–1970) and have similar NOX

emissions and specifications. 

Additionally, GSP has pledged to 

continue employing good combustion 

practices to optimize their NOX

emissions profile. New Hampshire 

reviewed and adopted the four-factor 

analyses and concluded it is meeting 

Ask 5. 

The last Ask for states within MANE– 

VU (Ask 6) requests states to report in 

their regional haze SIPs about programs 

that decrease energy demand and 

increase the use of combined heat and 

power (CHP) and other distributed 

generation technologies such as fuel 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80671 

66For more info: https://www.energy.nh.gov/ 

renewable-energy/regional-greenhouse-gasinitiative. 

67See appendix H ‘‘Contribution Assessment— 

Final.’’ 

68See Appendix G ‘‘Asks—Final.’’ 69 Id. 

cells, wind and solar. New Hampshire 

participates in RGGI,66 a Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic 10-state initiative to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions that 

contribute to global climate change. The 

initiative creates a market for emissions 

allowances through a regional cap-andtrade program for greenhouse gas 

emissions from area power plants. As a 

co-benefit of this program, emissions of 

particle producing pollutants are also 

reduced. New Hampshire emissions 

allowances are sold at quarterly 

auctions and the proceeds fund the 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction 

(GHGER) Fund. The GHGER Fund is 

administered by the Public Utilities 

Commission, which distributes the 

funds to programs across the state to 

support energy efficiency, conservation, 

and demand response programs. 

New Hampshire’s also explained the 

State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard 

(RPS) statute, RSA 362–F: ‘‘Electric 

Renewable Portfolio Standard’’, requires 

each electricity provider to meet 

customer load by purchasing or 

acquiring certificates representing 

generation from renewable energy based 

on total megawatt-hours supplied. The 

RPS requirement increases from 4% in 

2008 to 25.2% in 2025 and thereafter, 

based on type of renewable energy. A 

portion of this renewable portfolio 

energy generation comes from nonemitting sources such as hydro, solar 

and wind. New Hampshire therefore 

concluded it is meeting Ask 6. 

In sum, New Hampshire identified 

several SIP approved mechanisms for 

controlling pollutants that impair 

visibility and that are necessary for 

reasonable progress—including its 

regulations limiting sulfur content in 

fuels, the updated RACT rules at EnvA 1300, and the more stringent NOX

limits at Stored Solar Tamworth 

implemented through Env-A 2300— 

which EPA is proposing to add to New 

Hampshire’s SIP in this action. In 

addition to these SIP approved 

measures, New Hampshire also 

identified other federally enforceable 

and permanent controls including 

BACT and LAER limits from NNSR and 

PSD permitting that are incorporated 

into the facilities’ Title V operating 

permits that have led to additional 

visibility improvements. 

b. The EPA’s Evaluation of New 

Hampshire’s Response to the Six 

MANE–VU Asks and Compliance With 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(i) 

The EPA is proposing to find that 

New Hampshire has satisfied the 

requirements of § 51.308(f)(2)(i) related 

to evaluating sources and determining 

the emission reduction measures that 

are necessary to make reasonable 

progress by considering the four 

statutory factors. We are proposing to 

find that New Hampshire has satisfied 

the four-factor analysis requirement 

through its analysis and actions to 

address MANE–VU Asks 1, 2 3, and 5. 

As explained above, New Hampshire 

relied on MANE–VU’s technical 

analyses and framework (i.e., the Asks) 

to select sources and form the basis of 

its long-term strategy. MANE–VU 

conducted an inventory analysis to 

identify the source sectors that 

produced the greatest amount of SO2

and NOX emissions in 2011; inventory 

data were also projected to 2018. Based 

on this analysis, MANE–VU identified 

the top-emitting sectors for each of the 

two pollutants, which for SO2 include 

coal-fired EGUs, industrial boilers, oilfired EGUs, and oil-fired area sources 

including residential, commercial, and 

industrial sources. Major-emitting 

sources of NOX include on-road 

vehicles, non-road vehicles, and 

EGUs.67 The RPO’s documentation 

explains that ‘‘[EGUs] emitting SO2 and 

NOX and industrial point sources 

emitting SO2 were found to be sectors 

with high emissions that warranted 

further scrutiny. Mobile sources were 

not considered in this analysis because 

any ask concerning mobile sources 

would be made to EPA and not during 

the intra-RPO and inter-RPO 

consultation process among the states 

and tribes.’’ 68 EPA proposes to find that 

New Hampshire reasonably evaluated 

the two pollutants—SO2 and NOX—that 

currently drive visibility impairment 

within the MANE–VU region and that it 

adequately explained and supported its 

decision to focus on these two 

pollutants through its reliance on the 

MANE–VU technical analyses cited in 

its submission. 

Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states 

to evaluate and determine the emission 

reduction measures that are necessary to 

make reasonable progress by applying 

the four statutory factors to sources in 

a control analysis. As explained 

previously, the MANE–VU Asks are a 

mix of measures for sectors and groups 

of sources identified as reasonable for 

states to address in their regional haze 

plans. While MANE–VU formulated the 

Asks to be ‘‘reasonable emission 

reduction strategies’’ to control 

emissions of visibility impairing 

pollutants,69 EPA believes that New 

Hampshire, in four of the Asks in 

particular, engaged with the 

requirement that states determine the 

emission reduction measures that are 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

through consideration of the four 

factors. As laid out in further detail 

below, the EPA is proposing to find that 

MANE–VU’s four-factor analysis 

conducted to support the emission 

reduction measures in Ask 3 (ultra-low 

sulfur fuel oil), in conjunction with New 

Hampshire’s analysis and explanation of 

how it has complied with Asks 1 

(ensure the most effective use of control 

technologies on a year-round basis at 

certain EGUs), 2 (perform four-factor 

analyses for sources with potential for 

≥3.0 Mm¥1 impacts), and 5 (perform 

four-factor analyses for measures to 

control NOX emissions at certain 

peaking combustion turbines) satisfy the 

requirement of § 51.308(f)(2)(i). The 

emission reduction measures that are 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

must be included in the long-term 

strategy, i.e., in New Hampshire’s SIP. 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). 

As for Ask 1, New Hampshire 

included an analysis of twelve EGUs at 

seven stationary sources that were 

identified as meeting the criteria of the 

Ask (i.e., capacity ≥25MW with already 

installed NOX and/or SO2 controls). 

New Hampshire, in response to an FLM 

request, also added two Wheelabrator 

Concord MWC units to this analysis. 

New Hampshire identified existing 

controls, updated RACT limits, and new 

limits implemented in Env-A 2300, 

Mitigation of Regional Haze. Technical 

analyses were also completed for two of 

the EGUs as discussed more below 

under Ask 2. New Hampshire asserted 

that it satisfies Ask 1 because its SIPapproved regulations include yearround emission limits and because it 

already requires that controls be run 

year-round for both NOX and SO2 by 

setting emission limits in permits that 

reflect the emission levels when the 

controls are run. As discussed in the 

previous section, New Hampshire 

included a description of existing rules, 

permit limits, and updated regulations 

to meet the requirements of Ask 1. New 

Hampshire has also increased controls 

on RACT (which EPA has proposed to 

approve in a separate notice), and EPA 

proposes to find that New Hampshire 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80672 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

70See Appendix E ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze 

Consultation Report and Consultation 

Documentation—Final.’’ 

71See NH SIP submittal Appendix T. 

72See NH SIP submittal Appendix T. 

73See page 22 of the NH Regional Haze SIP 

submission—(May 2022). 

74 Id. see 8–7. 

75 Id. see 8–8. 

reasonably concluded that it has 

satisfied Ask 1. 

Ask 2 addresses the sources MANE– 

VU determined have the potential for 

larger than, or equal to, 3.0 Mm¥1

visibility impact at any MANE–VU 

Class I area; the Ask requests MANE– 

VU states to conduct four-factor 

analyses for the specified sources within 

their borders. This Ask explicitly 

engages with the statutory and 

regulatory requirement to determine the 

emission reduction measures necessary 

to make reasonable progress based on 

the four factors; MANE–VU considered 

it ‘‘reasonable to have the greatest 

contributors to visibility impairment 

conduct a four-factor analysis that 

would determine whether emission 

control measures should be pursued and 

what would be reasonable for each 

source.’’ 70

As an initial matter, EPA does not 

generally agree that 3.0 Mm¥1 visibility 

impact is a reasonable threshold for 

source selection. The RHR recognizes 

that, due to the nature of regional haze 

visibility impairment, numerous and 

sometimes relatively small sources may 

need to be selected and evaluated for 

control measures in order to make 

reasonable progress. See 2021 

Clarifications Memo at 4. As explained 

in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, while 

states have discretion to choose any 

source selection threshold that is 

reasonable, ‘‘[a] state that relies on a 

visibility (or proxy for visibility impact) 

threshold to select sources for fourfactor analysis should set the threshold 

at a level that captures a meaningful 

portion of the state’s total contribution 

to visibility impairment to Class I 

areas.’’ 2021 Memo at 3. In this case, the 

3.0 Mm¥1 threshold identified only one 

unit at one source in New Hampshire 

(and only 22 across the entire MANE– 

VU region), indicating that it may be 

unreasonably high. 

At 3.3 Mm¥1, Unit 2 at GSP 

Merrimack Station (MK2), in Bow, was 

identified as the only EGU in NH with 

the potential for 3.0 Mm¥1 or greater 

visibility impact at any MANE–VU 

Class I area. As noted above, GSP 

Merrimack Station’s operation is 

covered by Title V Operating Permit 

TV–0055 which limits NOX and SO2

emissions. MK1 and MK2 are each 

equipped with SCR for NOX control as 

well as ESPs for particulate matter 

control. In addition, because of state law 

NH RSA 125–O, Multiple Pollutant 

Reduction Program, MK1 and MK2 are 

equipped with a common FGD system 

which is designed to reduce mercury 

emissions but has the co-benefit of acid 

gas (SO2 and HCl) removal. While only 

Unit 2 was identified by MANE–VU as 

contributing a 3.0 Mm¥1 or greater 

visibility impact at any MANE–VU 

Class I area, New Hampshire asked GSP 

to perform four-factor analyses for both 

Units 1 and 2. GSP responded that both 

units already employ SCR for 

controlling NOX emissions and that the 

existing FGD system already achieves a 

95% reduction in SO2 emissions. 

Consequently, GSP concluded that both 

units are already effectively controlled 

and that any additional control 

measures would not result in any 

additional emissions reductions.71

Based on a showing of existing effective 

controls, New Hampshire concluded 

that the result of a four-factor analysis 

would likely be no new controls and 

that no upgrade or replacement of the 

existing pollution control equipment 

was required as a result of Ask 2. 

The EPA proposes to find that New 

Hampshire reasonably determined it has 

satisfied Ask 2. As explained above, we 

do not generally agree that a 3.0 Mm¥1

threshold for selecting sources for fourfactor analysis results in a set of sources 

the evaluation of which has the 

potential to meaningfully reduce the 

state’s contribution to visibility 

impairment. MANE–VU’s threshold 

identified only one source in New 

Hampshire for four-factor analysis. 

However, EPA notes that New 

Hampshire considered the four statutory 

factors in determining the emissions 

reduction measures necessary for some 

of its other top-impacting EGUs as part 

of Ask 5,72 including Lost Nation and 

White Lake, which, according to New 

Hampshire’s submission, have the 

potential for visibility impacts at the 

Presidential Range-Dry River 

Wilderness of 1.87 and 2.2 Mm¥1, 

respectively.73 EPA is basing this 

proposed finding on the state’s 

examination of its largest operating EGU 

sources, at the time of SIP submission, 

and on the emissions from and controls 

that apply to those sources, as well as 

on New Hampshire’s existing SIPapproved NOX and SO2 rules that 

effectively control emissions from the 

largest contributing stationary-source 

sectors. 

Ask 3, which addresses the sulfur 

content of heating oil used in MANE– 

VU states, is based on a four-factor 

analysis for the heating oil sulfur 

reduction regulations contained in that 

Ask; specifically, for the control strategy 

of reducing the sulfur content of 

distillate oil to 15 ppm. The analysis 

started with an assessment of the costs 

of retrofitting refineries to produce 15 

ppm heating oil in sufficient quantities 

to support implementation of the 

standard, as well as the impacts of 

requiring a reduction in sulfur content 

on consumer prices. The analysis noted 

that, as a result of previous EPA 

rulemakings to reduce the sulfur content 

of on-road and non-road-fuels to 15 

ppm, technologies are currently 

available to achieve sulfur reductions 

and many refiners are already meeting 

this standard, meaning that the capital 

investments for further reductions in the 

sulfur content of heating oil are 

expected to be relatively low compared 

to costs incurred in the past. The 

analysis also examined, by way of 

example, the impacts of New York’s 

existing 15 ppm sulfur requirements on 

heating oil prices and concluded that 

the cost associated with reducing sulfur 

was relatively small in terms of the 

absolute price of heating oil compared 

to the magnitude of volatility in crude 

oil prices. It also noted that the slight 

price premium is compensated by cost 

savings due to the benefits of lowersulfur fuels in terms of equipment life 

and maintenance and fuel stability. 

Consideration of the time necessary for 

compliance with a 15-ppm sulfur 

standard was accomplished through a 

discussion of the amount of time 

refiners had needed to comply with the 

EPA’s on-road and non-road fuel 15 

ppm requirement, and the implications 

existing refinery capacity and 

distribution infrastructure may have for 

compliance times with a 15-ppm 

heating oil standard. The analysis 

concluded that with phased-in timing 

for states that have not yet adopted a 15 

ppm heating oil standard there ‘‘appears 

to be sufficient time to allow refiners to 

add any additional heating oil capacity 

that may be required.’’ 74 The analysis 

further noted the beneficial energy and 

non-air quality environmental impacts 

of a 15 ppm sulfur heating oil 

requirement and that reducing sulfur 

content may also have a salutary impact 

on the remaining useful life of 

residential furnaces and boilers.75

The EPA proposes to find that New 

Hampshire reasonably relied on MANE– 

VU’s four-factor analysis for a lowsulfur fuel oil regulation, which engaged 

with each of the statutory factors and 

explained how the information 

supported a conclusion that a 15 ppmsulfur fuel oil standard for fuel oils is 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80673 

76Env-A 1600, Fuel Specifications was approved 

by EPA as a SIP revision on April 26, 2021 [86 FR 

21942]. 

77N.H. Coal Plant Will Run Through At Least 

2025 After Latest Grid Auction, NH Pub. Radio 

(Mar. 1, 2021), available at https://www.nhpr.org/ 

climate-change/2021-03-01/n-h-coal-plant-will-runthrough-at-least-2025-after-latest-grid-auction; 

Union says Schiller coal-fired power plant is shut 

for good, Granite Geek (Jan. 12, 2021), available at 

https://granitegeek.concordmonitor.com/2021/01/ 

12/union-says-schiller-coal-fired-power-plant-isshut-for-good/. 

78See https://www.ibew1837.org/content/schillerstation-closing-end-era, or see PDF version of this 

article in the docket. 

79See EPA’s Clean Air Markets Program Data 

(CAMPD) at https://campd.epa.gov/data. 

80See https://www.iso-ne.com/marketsoperations/markets/forward-capacity-market/ to 

download ISO New England forward capacity 

auction results. This spreadsheet has also been 

added to the docket for this notice. 

reasonable. New Hampshire’s SIPapproved ultra-low sulfur fuel oil rule 76

is consistent with Ask 3’s sulfur content 

standards for the three types of fuel oils 

(distillate oil, #4 residual oil, #6 

residual oil). EPA therefore proposes to 

find that New Hampshire reasonably 

determined that it has satisfied Ask 3. 

New Hampshire concluded that no 

additional updates were needed to meet 

Ask 4, which requests that MANE–VU 

states pursue updating permits, 

enforceable agreements, and/or rules to 

lock-in lower emission rates for sources 

larger than 250 MMBtu per hour that 

have switched to lower emitting fuels. 

EPA agrees that New Hampshire does 

not contain any sources encompassed 

by this Ask, except that Schiller Station 

Unit 5 technically maintains the ability 

to operate by burning coal. We note, 

however, that Schiller Station Unit 5 

has not burned coal other than for stack 

testing at installation, and it is 

reasonable to conclude, for a number of 

reasons—including historic operation, 

financial viability, fuel availability, and 

the overall direction of the fuels 

market—that it is unlikely that this 

source will ever burn coal again. GSP 

reportedly laid off union staff at Schiller 

Station and locked the gates to the 

facility in June of 2020.77 78 All three of 

the steam units at Schiller have reported 

zero operating hours and zero emissions 

since 2020.79 Additionally, Schiller 

does not have any current capacity 

supply obligation for its steam units 

(which includes Unit 5) in the Forward 

Capacity Market and did not offer a bid 

for them in ISO New England’s latest 

Forward Capacity Auction (FCA 17), 

which secures future power supply 

obligations through May 2027, making it 

unlikely that these units will ever 

operate in any capacity again.80

Ask 5 addresses NOX emissions from 

peaking combustion turbines that have 

the potential to operate on high electric 

demand days. New Hampshire 

identified five combustion turbines in 

the State as meeting the criteria of this 

Ask: GSP Lost Nation Station (LNCT1), 

GSP Merrimack Station (MKCT1 and 

MKCT2), GSP Schiller Station (SRCT), 

and GSP White Lake Station (WLCT1). 

The Ask requests states to strive for 

certain NOX emission standards for such 

sources or to perform four-factor 

analyses for reasonable installation or 

upgrade to emission controls. None of 

the five turbines New Hampshire 

identified are currently meeting the 

NOX emissions standards in the Ask, so 

New Hampshire requested four-factor 

analyses for each source. Each 

combustion turbine is owned by Granite 

Shore Power, was originally installed 

around the same time (1968–1970), has 

a similar unit rating (290 MMBtu/hr– 

319 MMBtu/hr), operates at an annual 

capacity factor below 1%, and has NOX

emissions ranging from 0.7 lbs/MMBtu 

to 0.9 lbs/MMBtu. The total average 

yearly emissions for these sources from 

2018–2022 were: GSP Lost Nation 

Station (LNCT1)—2.698 tons, GSP 

Merrimack Station (MKCT1)—2.596 

tons, (MKCT2)—2.738 tons, GSP 

Schiller Station (SRCT)—2.582 tons, 

and GSP White Lake Station (WLCT1)— 

3.595 tons. Based on the four-factor 

analyses, New Hampshire concluded 

that no additional NOX controls are both 

technically and economically feasible 

for these sources EPA proposes to find 

that New Hampshire reasonably 

concluded that it has met the 

requirements of Ask 5. 

Finally, with regard to Ask 6, New 

Hampshire explains the clean energy 

requirements within the state including 

New Hampshire’s Renewable Portfolio 

Standard (RPS) statute, NH RSA 362–F: 

Electric Renewable Portfolio Standard, 

and the State’s participation in RGGI to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 

EPA is proposing to find that New 

Hampshire has satisfied Ask 6’s request 

to consider and report in its SIP 

measures or programs related to energy 

efficiency, cogeneration, and other clean 

distributed generation technologies. 

In sum, New Hampshire identified 

several mechanisms for controlling 

pollutants that impair visibility— 

including its regulations limiting sulfur 

content in fuels (which are in New 

Hampshire’s SIP), the previously 

discussed updated RACT rules at EnvA 1300 (which EPA has in a separate 

action recently proposed to approve into 

the SIP), and the more stringent NOX

limits at Stored Solar Tamworth 

implemented through Env-A 2300 

(which EPA is proposing to add to the 

SIP in this action). EPA proposes that 

New Hampshire has reasonably 

concluded that these measures are 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

for the second planning period. In 

addition to these SIP approved 

measures, New Hampshire also 

identified other federally enforceable 

and permanent controls including 

BACT and LAER limits from NNSR and 

PSD permitting, that are incorporated 

into the facilities’ Title V operating 

permits. 

EPA is proposing to find—based on 

New Hampshire’s participation in the 

MANE–VU planning process, how it has 

addressed the Asks, and the EPA’s 

assessment of New Hampshire’s 

emissions and point sources—that New 

Hampshire has complied with the 

requirements of § 51.308(f)(2)(i). 

EPA is proposing to find the state’s 

approach reasonable for several reasons. 

New Hampshire reasonably evaluated 

and explained its decision to focus on 

SO2 and NOX to address visibility 

impairment within the MANE–VU 

region. And New Hampshire adequately 

supported that decision through 

reasonable reliance on the MANE–VU 

technical analyses cited in its 

submission. In addition, New 

Hampshire selected the sources with the 

greatest modeled impacts on visibility 

and also analyzed sources identified by 

the FLMs through the consultation 

process. New Hampshire’s submittal 

also includes four-factor analyses and 

demonstrates that the sources of SO2

and NOX within the state that would be 

expected to contribute to visibility 

impairment have small emissions of 

NOX and SO2, are subject to stringent 

emission control measures, or both. In 

addition, New Hampshire’s SIPapproved sulfur in fuel rule sets 

stringent limits for sulfur content and 

SO2 emissions for fuels. The New 

Hampshire SIP submittal also includes 

Env-A 2300, which lowers NOX

emission limits for Stored Solar 

Tamworth and incorporates by reference 

an updated Env-A 1300, which includes 

lower NOX limits for several sources 

including Merrimack Station and 

Wheelabrator Concord. 

EPA proposes to find that New 

Hampshire’s SIP submittal satisfies the 

requirements that states determine the 

emission reduction measures that are 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

by considering the four factors, and that 

their long-term strategies include the 

enforceable emission limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures necessary to make reasonable 

progress. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80674 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

81See appendix G ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze 

Consultation Report and Consultation 

Documentation—Final.’’ 82See NH Submittal, Appendix W. 83See Section 4.2.8 of the New Hampshire SIP. 

c. Additional Long-Term Strategy 

Requirements 

The consultation requirements of 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide that states must 

consult with other states that are 

reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

visibility impairment in a Class I area to 

develop coordinated emission 

management strategies containing the 

emission reductions necessary to make 

reasonable progress. Section 

51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) respectively 

require states to include in their SIPs 

measures agreed to during state-to-state 

consultations or a regional planning 

process and to consider the emission 

reduction measures identified by other 

states as necessary for reasonable 

progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) 

speaks to what happens if states cannot 

agree on what measures are necessary to 

make reasonable progress. 

New Hampshire participated in and 

provided documentation of the MANE– 

VU intra- and inter-RPO consultation 

processes, which included consulting 

with both MANE–VU and non-MANE– 

VU states about emissions reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in New Hampshire’s Class I 

areas and emissions from New 

Hampshire reasonably anticipated to 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

other Class I areas. The consultations 

addressed developing coordinated 

emission management strategies 

containing the emission reductions 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

at the Class I areas. New Hampshire 

addressed impacts to the MANE–VU 

Class I areas by providing information 

on the measures it has in place that 

satisfy each MANE–VU Ask.81 New 

Hampshire received comments from 

North Carolina, Virginia, and West 

Virginia on New Hampshire’s Draft SIP. 

The comments generally disagree with 

MANE–VU’s requests of non-MANE–VU 

states. The comments do not include 

any requests that New Hampshire 

consider additional measures to address 

visibility impairment in Class I areas in 

those respective States. MANE–VU 

documented these and other 

disagreements that occurred during 

consultation. For instance, MANE–VU 

noted in its Consultation Report that 

upwind states expressed concern 

regarding the analyses the RPO used for 

the selection of states for the 

consultation. MANE–VU agreed that 

these tools, as all models, have their 

limitations, but nonetheless deemed 

them appropriate. Additionally, there 

were several comments regarding the 

choice of the 2011 modeling base year. 

MANE–VU agreed that the choice of 

base year is critical to the outcome of 

the study. MANE–VU acknowledged 

that there were newer versions of the 

emission inventories and the need to 

use the best available inventory for each 

analysis. However, MANE–VU 

disagreed that the choice of these 

inventories was not appropriate for the 

analysis. 

In sum, New Hampshire participated 

in the MANE–VU intra- and inter-RPO 

consultation and included in its SIP 

submittal the measures identified and 

agreed to during those consultations, 

thereby satisfying § 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) 

and (B). New Hampshire satisfied 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) by participating in 

MANE–VU’s consultation process, 

which documented the disagreements 

between the upwind states and MANE– 

VU and explained MANE–VU’s 

reasoning on each of the disputed 

issues. Based on the entirety of MANE– 

VU’s intra- and inter-RPO consultation 

and both MANE–VU’s and New 

Hampshire’s responses to states’ 

comments on the SIP submission 82 and 

various technical analyses therein, we 

propose to determine that New 

Hampshire has satisfied the 

consultation requirements of 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(ii). 

The documentation requirement of 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides that states 

may meet their obligations to document 

the technical bases on which they are 

relying to determine the emission 

reductions measures that are necessary 

to make reasonable progress through an 

RPO, as long as the process has been 

‘‘approved by all State participants.’’ As 

explained above, New Hampshire chose 

to rely on MANE–VU’s technical 

information, modeling, and analysis to 

support development of its long-term 

strategy. The MANE–VU technical 

analyses on which New Hampshire 

relied are listed in the state’s SIP 

submission and include source 

contribution assessments, information 

on each of the four factors and visibility 

modeling information for certain EGUs, 

and evaluations of emission reduction 

strategies for specific source categories. 

New Hampshire also provided 

information to further demonstrate the 

technical bases and emission 

information on which it relied on to 

determine the emission reductions 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress. Based on the 

documentation provided by the state, 

we propose to find New Hampshire 

satisfies the requirements of 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(iii). 

Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires 

that the emissions information 

considered to determine the measures 

that are necessary to make reasonable 

progress include information on 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which the state has submitted triennial 

emissions data to the EPA (or a more 

recent year), with a 12-month 

exemption period for newly submitted 

data. New Hampshire’s SIP submission 

included 2017 NEI emission data for 

NOX, SO2, PM, VOCs and NH3 and 

2016–2019 Air Markets Program Data 

(AMPD) emissions for NOX and SO2. 

Based on New Hampshire’s 

consideration and analysis of the 

emission data in their submittal, the 

EPA proposes to find that New 

Hampshire has satisfied the emissions 

information requirement in 

51.308(f)(2)(iii). 

We also propose to find that New 

Hampshire reasonably considered the 

five additional factors in 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing its longterm strategy. Pursuant to 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), New Hampshire 

noted that existing and ongoing state 

and federal emission control programs 

that contribute to emission reductions 

through 2028 would impact emissions 

of visibility impairing pollutants from 

point and nonpoint sources in the 

second implementation period. New 

Hampshire included in its SIP a list of 

control measures with their effective 

dates, pollutants addressed, and 

corresponding State regulations.83

New Hampshire’s consideration of 

measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities as required by 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B) includes a list of 

measures that New Hampshire has 

implemented to mitigate the impacts 

from such activities. New Hampshire’s 

Code of Administrative Rules Env-A 

1000, Prevention, Abatement, and 

Control of Open Source Air Pollution, 

requires the control of direct emissions 

of particulate matter (primarily crustal 

material) from mining, transportation, 

storage, use, and removal activities. 

These requirements apply to such 

sources as quarries, unpaved roads, 

cement plants, construction sites, rockcrushing operations, and general earthmoving activities. Controls may include 

wet suppression, covering, vacuuming, 

and other approved means. EPA 

originally approved the rule effective 

March 19, 2018 [83 FR 6972]. 

Additionally, New Hampshire’s Code of 

Administrative Rules Env-A 2800, Sand 

and Gravel Sources: Non-Metallic 

Mineral Processing Plants; Cement and 

Concrete Sources, requires the control of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80675 

84NH Prescribed Fire Council, (March 2019). 

Planning for Prescribed Burning in New 

Hampshire—Minimum Recommended Standards 

for Planning & Implementing Prescribed Burns. 

Available at https://extension.unh.edu/resources/ 

files/Resource001886_Rep2781.pdf. 85See Table 4–19 of the NH Regional Haze SIP. 

86See Table 4–6 of the NH Regional Haze SIP. 

These values were modeled not including the 

MANE–VU Asks. The values for the clearest and 

most impaired days including the Asks were 5.06 

and 12.00 deciviews, respectively. 

87See also NH Submittal, Appendix W at 7 

(indicating that the RPG for New Hampshire’s Class 

I Areas is 12.13 deciviews). 

fugitive dust and standards for 

particulate matter emissions and visible 

emissions from sand and gravel sources, 

non-metallic mineral processing plants, 

and cement and concrete sources. EPA 

approved the rule effective December 7, 

2016 [81 FR 78052]. 

Pursuant to § 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), New 

Hampshire acknowledged the most 

impactful of the State’s sources are the 

fossil-fuel-fired EGUs. While recent 

developments in the oil and gas 

industry have forced rapid changes in 

the power production sector, and some 

generating units have experienced sharp 

reductions in utilization, no retirements 

or replacements of New Hampshire’s 

EGUs have occurred or been announced 

since the regional haze SIP was first 

submitted in 2010. Although Schiller 

Station has been in an extended outage 

since June of 2020, no official word 

from the Facility’s owner has been 

announced regarding a permanent shut 

down. As noted earlier, however, the 

facility reportedly laid off staff and 

locked the gates to the facility in June 

of 2020. Furthermore, as also previously 

noted, Schiller Station does not have a 

current capacity supply obligation for 

any coal unit and did not place a bid for 

any of these units in ISO New England’s 

FCA 17, which secures power supply 

obligations through May of 2027. 

In considering smoke management as 

required in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), 

New Hampshire explained that it 

addresses smoke management through 

the New Hampshire Prescribed Fire 

Council. The U.S. Forest Service and 

NHDES are members of the Council and 

assisted in the development of burn 

standards.84 Federal Class I areas are not 

specifically identified as smoke 

sensitive features. New Hampshire’s 

Class I areas are within the White 

Mountain National Forest; thus, the 

FLM for New Hampshire’s two Class I 

areas (in this case, the U.S. Forest 

Service) would be informed of any 

planned burn in nearby lands. For any 

prescribed fire within this area, the burn 

plan would have to meet the FLM’s own 

requirements for protection of Federal 

Class I areas, which are even more 

stringent than the New Hampshire 

Prescribed Fire Council’s standards. 

New Hampshire considered the 

anticipated net effect of projected 

changes in emissions as required by 

51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E) by discussing the 

photochemical modeling for the 2018– 

2028 period it conducted in 

collaboration with MANE–VU. The two 

modeling cases run were a 2028 base 

case, which considered only on-thebooks controls, and a 2028 control case 

that considered implementation of the 

MANE–VU Ask. New Hampshire 

presented the differences between the 

base and control cases on the 20% most 

impaired and 20% clearest days for the 

Great Gulf Wilderness Area 85 and noted 

the success of measures implemented 

during the first planning period to 

reduce impairment. 

Because New Hampshire has 

reasonably considered each of the five 

additional factors, the EPA proposes to 

find that New Hampshire has satisfied 

the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv). 

F. Reasonable Progress Goals 

Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the 

requirements pertaining to RPGs for 

each Class I area. Because New 

Hampshire is host to a Class I area, it is 

subject to both § 51.308(f)(3)(i) and, 

potentially, to (ii). Section 51.308(f)(3)(i) 

requires a state in which a Class I area 

is located to establish RPGs—one each 

for the most impaired and clearest 

days—reflecting the visibility 

conditions that will be achieved at the 

end of the implementation period as a 

result of the emission limitations, 

compliance schedules and other 

measures required under paragraph 

(f)(2) to be in states’ long-term strategies, 

as well as implementation of other CAA 

requirements. The long-term strategies 

as reflected by the RPGs must provide 

for an improvement in visibility on the 

most impaired days relative to the 

baseline period and ensure no 

degradation on the clearest days relative 

to the baseline period. Section 

51.308(f)(3)(ii) applies in circumstances 

in which a Class I area’s RPG for the 

most impaired days represents a slower 

rate of visibility improvement than the 

uniform rate of progress calculated 

under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi). Under 

§ 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the state in which 

a mandatory Class I area is located 

establishes an RPG for the most 

impaired days that provides for a slower 

rate of visibility improvement than the 

URP, the state must demonstrate that 

there are no additional emission 

reduction measures for anthropogenic 

sources or groups of sources in the state 

that would be reasonable to include in 

its long-term strategy. Section 

51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that if a state 

contains sources that are reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in a Class I area in another 

state, and the RPG for the most impaired 

days in that Class I area is above the 

URP, the upwind state must provide the 

same demonstration. 

Table 4–19 of New Hampshire’s SIP 

submittal summarizes baseline visibility 

conditions (i.e., visibility conditions 

during the baseline period of 2000– 

2004) for the most impaired and clearest 

days and the 2028 RPG for the most 

impaired days for New Hampshire’s 

Class I areas, as well as information on 

natural visibility conditions, the rate of 

progress described by the URP in 2028, 

and the modeled 2028 base case 

(representing visibility conditions in 

2028 with existing controls). Baseline 

visibility conditions at New 

Hampshire’s Class I areas were 7.65 and 

21.88 deciviews for the clearest and 

most impaired days, respectively. By 

comparison, New Hampshire has 

established 2028 RPGs for the clearest 

and most impaired days of 5.11 and 

12.13 deciviews.86 87

New Hampshire’s 2028 most impaired 

base case of 12.13 deciviews reflects the 

visibility conditions that are projected 

to be achieved based on states’ existing 

measures. As such, EPA considers the 

2028 modeled base case value of 12.13 

deciviews to be the appropriate estimate 

of the RPG for the 20% most impaired 

visibility days (as opposed to the 12.00 

deciviews value that includes measures 

from the MANE–VU Asks). EPA expects 

that the observed deciview value in 

2028 will actually be equal to or lower 

than the 12.13 deciview estimate due to 

numerous coal-fired utility boilers in 

upwind states having recently retired or 

being expected to retire under 

enforceable commitments before 2028. 

Even the conservative estimate of 12.13 

deciviews on the most impaired days in 

2028 constitutes improvement over the 

baseline visibility conditions of 21.88 

deciviews. Therefore, the long-term 

strategy and the reasonable progress 

goals provide for an improvement in 

visibility for the most impaired days 

since the baseline period and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the clearest 

days since the baseline period. 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)(i). 

As noted in the RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)(iii), the reasonable progress 

goals are not directly enforceable, but 

will be considered by the Administrator 

in evaluating the adequacy of the 

measures in the implementation plan in 

providing for reasonable progress 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80676 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

88See Appendix B ‘‘Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. 

Visibility Data 2004–2019 (2nd RH SIP Metrics.’’ 

89See Appendix G for the contribution 

assessments. 

90AMPD sources are facilities that participate in 

EPA’s emission trading programs. The majority of 

AMPD sources are electric generating units (EGUs). 

towards achieving natural visibility 

conditions at that area. The 2028 RPG 

for the most impaired days of 12.13 

deciviews fulfills the regulatory purpose 

of the RPGs because visibility 

conditions at New Hampshire’s Class I 

areas have improved since the baseline 

period. EPA is therefore proposing to 

find that New Hampshire’s RPGs satisfy 

the applicable requirements and provide 

for reasonable progress towards 

achieving natural conditions. 

Table 4–19 of New Hampshire’s 

submission shows the URP glidepath 

value for New Hampshire’s Class I areas 

in 2028 as 17.04 deciviews. New 

Hampshire’s RPG is well below the 

glidepath value, thus the demonstration 

requirement under § 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) 

is not triggered. Under 

§ 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), a state that contains 

sources that are reasonably anticipated 

to contribute to visibility impairment in 

a Class I area in another state for which 

a demonstration by the other state is 

required under 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) must 

demonstrate that there are no additional 

emission reduction measures that would 

be reasonable to include in its long-term 

strategy. New Hampshire’s SIP revision 

included the modeled MANE–VU 2028 

visibility projections at nearby Class I 

areas.88 While these projections may not 

represent the final RPGs for these Class 

I areas, all of the base case 2028 

projections for the most impaired days 

at these areas (Acadia, Brigantine, 

Campobello, Lye Brook, Moosehorn, 

Dolly Sods, James River Face, Otter 

Creek, and Shenandoah) are well below 

the respective 2028 points on the URPs. 

Therefore, we propose it is reasonable to 

assume that the demonstration 

requirement under § 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) 

as it pertains to these areas will not be 

triggered for New Hampshire. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that 

each comprehensive revision of a state’s 

regional haze SIP must contain or 

provide for certain elements, including 

monitoring strategies, emissions 

inventories, and any reporting, 

recordkeeping and other measures 

needed to assess and report on 

visibility. A main requirement of this 

subsection is for states with Class I areas 

to submit monitoring strategies for 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting 

on visibility impairment. Compliance 

with this requirement may be met 

through participation in the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) network. 

The IMPROVE monitor for the Great 

Gulf Wilderness (GRGU1) is located at 

Camp Dodge, in the mid-northern area 

of Greens Grant in the White Mountain 

National Forest. The monitor site lies 

just east and south of where Route 16 

crosses the Greens Grant/Martins 

Location boundary, south of Gorham, 

New Hampshire, at elevation 454 

meters, latitude 44.31°, and longitude of 

¥71.22°. This monitor, which also 

represents the Presidential Range—Dry 

River Wilderness, is operated and 

maintained by the U.S. Forest Service. 

Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to 

provide for the establishment of any 

additional monitoring sites or 

equipment needed to assess whether 

reasonable progress goals to address 

regional haze for all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state are being 

achieved. New Hampshire has not 

received any recommendations or 

advice from EPA or affected FLM that 

additional monitoring is required 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4). 

Therefore, New Hampshire has no 

current plans to alter the current 

strategy as long as this monitoring 

continues to be federally supported. 

Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii) requires SIPs 

to provide for procedures by which 

monitoring data and other information 

are used in determining the contribution 

of emissions from within the state to 

regional haze visibility impairment at 

mandatory Class I Federal areas both 

within and outside the state. New 

Hampshire relied on the MANE–VU 

contribution assessment analysis.89 The 

analysis included Eulerian (grid-based) 

source models, Lagrangian (air parcelbased) source dispersion models, as 

well as a variety of data analysis 

techniques that include source 

apportionment models, back trajectory 

calculations, and the use of monitoring 

and inventory data. 

Section 51.308(f)(6)(iii) does not 

apply to New Hampshire, as it has a 

Class I area. 

Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the 

SIP to provide for the reporting of all 

visibility monitoring data to the 

Administrator at least annually for each 

Class I area in the state. As noted above, 

the Great Gulf Wilderness IMPROVE 

monitor is operated and maintained by 

the U.S. Forest Service. The monitoring 

strategy for New Hampshire relies upon 

the continued availability of the 

IMPROVE network. The IMPROVE 

monitor for the Great Gulf Wilderness 

(indicated as GRGU1 in the IMPROVE 

monitoring network database) is located 

at the base of Mt. Washington. New 

Hampshire supports the continued 

operation of the IMPROVE network 

through both state and Federal funding 

mechanisms. 

Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to 

provide for a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment, 

including emissions for the most recent 

year for which data are available and 

estimates of future projected emissions. 

It also requires a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically. New 

Hampshire provides for emissions 

inventories and estimates for future 

projected emissions by participating in 

the MANE–VU RPO and complying 

with EPA’s Air Emissions Reporting 

Rule (AERR). In 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

A, the AERR requires states to submit 

updated emissions inventories for 

criteria pollutants to EPA’s Emissions 

Inventory System (EIS) every three 

years. The emission inventory data are 

used to develop the NEI, which 

provides for, among other things, a 

triennial state-wide inventory of 

pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment. 

Section 5 of New Hampshire’s 

submission includes tables of NEI data. 

The source categories of the emissions 

inventories included are: (1) Point 

sources, (2) nonpoint sources, (3) nonroad mobile sources, and (4) on-road 

mobile sources. The point source 

category is further divided into Air 

Markets Program Data (AMPD) point 

sources and non-AMPD point sources.90

New Hamshire included NEI emissions 

inventories for the following years: 2002 

(one of the regional haze program 

baseline years), 2008, 2011, 2014, and 

2017; and for the following pollutants: 

SO2, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, VOCs, CO, and 

NH3. New Hampshire also provided a 

summary of SO2 and NOx emissions for 

AMPD sources for the years of 2016, 

2017, 2018, and 2019. 

Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires 

states to include estimates of future 

projected emissions and include a 

commitment to update the inventory 

periodically. New Hampshire relied on 

the MANE–VU 2028 emissions 

projections for MANE–VU states. 

MANE–VU completed two 2028 

projected emissions modeling cases—a 

2028 base case that considers only onthe-books controls and a 2028 control 

case that considers implementation of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80677 

91See ‘‘OTC MANE–VU 2011 Based Modeling 

Platform Support Document October 2018—Final.’’ 

At https://otcair.org/manevu/document.

asp?fview=Reports. 

92See Section 5.1 of the NH Regional Haze SIP— 

Final May 2022. 

93See Figure 5–1: ‘‘Emissions in SO2, NOX and 

PM from Two New Hampshire EGUs, 2007–2017 

(tpy)’’in the New Hampshire SIP submission. 

94See Section 5.3 of the New Hampshire SIP 

submission. 

95See Figure 5–4 ‘‘NOX Emissions in New 

Hampshire for all Data Categories, 2002–2017 (tpy)’’ 

and Figure 5–7: ‘‘MANE–VU State NOX Emissions 

from AMPD, 2016–2019 (tpy)’’in the New 

Hampshire SIP submission. 

the MANE–VU Asks.91 New 

Hampshire’s SIP submittal also includes 

a commitment to update the statewide 

emissions inventory periodically. 

The EPA proposes to find that New 

Hampshire has met the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) as described above, 

including through its continued 

participation in the IMPROVE network 

and the MANE–VU RPO and its ongoing compliance with the AERR, and 

that no further elements are necessary at 

this time for New Hampshire to assess 

and report on visibility pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). 

H. Requirements for Periodic Reports 

Describing Progress Towards the 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that 

periodic comprehensive revisions of 

states’ regional haze plans also address 

the progress report requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The 

purpose of these requirements is to 

evaluate progress towards the applicable 

RPGs for each Class I area within the 

state and each Class I area outside the 

state that may be affected by emissions 

from within that state. Sections 

51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all states 

and require a description of the status 

of implementation of all measures 

included in a state’s first 

implementation period regional haze 

plan and a summary of the emission 

reductions achieved through 

implementation of those measures. 

Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to 

states with Class I areas within their 

borders and requires such states to 

assess current visibility conditions, 

changes in visibility relative to baseline 

(2000–2004) visibility conditions, and 

changes in visibility conditions relative 

to the period addressed in the first 

implementation period progress report. 

Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all states 

and requires an analysis tracking 

changes in emissions of pollutants 

contributing to visibility impairment 

from all sources and sectors since the 

period addressed by the first 

implementation period progress report. 

This provision further specifies the year 

or years through which the analysis 

must extend depending on the type of 

source and the platform through which 

its emission information is reported. 

Finally, § 51.308(g)(5), which also 

applies to all states, requires an 

assessment of any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state that have occurred 

since the period addressed by the first 

implementation period progress report, 

including whether such changes were 

anticipated and whether they have 

limited or impeded expected progress 

towards reducing emissions and 

improving visibility. 

New Hampshire’s submission 

describes the status of measures of the 

long-term strategy from the first 

implementation period. As a member of 

MANE–VU, New Hampshire considered 

the MANE–VU Asks and adopted 

corresponding measures into its longterm strategy for the first 

implementation period. The MANE–VU 

Asks were: (1) Timely implementation 

of Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) requirements; (2) EGU controls 

including Controls at 167 Key Sources 

that most affect MANE–VU Class I areas; 

(3) Low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (4) 

Continued evaluation of other control 

measures. New Hampshire met all the 

identified reasonable measures 

requested during the first 

implementation period. During the first 

planning period for regional haze, 

programs that were put in place focused 

on reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emissions. The reductions achieved led 

to vast improvements in visibility at the 

MANE–VU Federal Class I Areas due to 

reduced sulfates formed from SO2

emissions. New Hampshire lists in its 

submission an expansive list of control 

measures that help control the 

emissions of VOCs, NOX, PM and SO2

from a wide range of sources.92 New 

Hampshire’s SIP submission includes 

emission data demonstrating the 

reductions achieved throughout the 

state through implementation of the 

measures mentioned. The state included 

periodic emission data that demonstrate 

a decrease in VOCs, NOX, PM and SO2

emissions throughout the state. The 

measured visibility improvement from 

emission reductions at the two New 

Hampshire EGUs that were subjected to 

BART and other targeted strategies 

showed drastic emission decreases from 

2007–2017 for SO2, NOX and particulate 

matter.93

The EPA proposes to find that New 

Hampshire has met the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) because its 

SIP submission describes the measures 

included in the long-term strategy from 

the first implementation period, as well 

as the status of their implementation 

and the emission reductions achieved 

through such implementation. 

New Hampshire’s SIP submission 

includes the assessments of visibility 

conditions and changes at the State’s 

class I areas, expressed in terms of 5- 

year averages, required by section 

51.308(f)(3). In particular, New 

Hampshire’s submission reports current 

(2015–2019) visibility conditions for the 

most impaired and clearest days of 

12.33 and 4.69 deciviews, respectively, 

indicating that haze index levels have 

decreased by 9.55 deciviews on the 

most impaired days and 2.96 deciviews 

on the clearest days from baseline 

visibility conditions (2000–2004).94 The 

SIP submission also indicates that, since 

the period addressed in New 

Hampshire’s previous progress report 

(2009–2013), haze index levels have 

decreased by 3.07 and 1.18 deciviews 

on the most impaired and clearest days, 

respectively. EPA therefore proposes to 

find that New Hampshire has satisfied 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3). 

Pursuant to § 51.308(g)(4), New 

Hampshire provided a summary of 

emissions of NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, 

VOCs, and NH3 from all sources and 

activities, including from point, 

nonpoint, non-road mobile, and on-road 

mobile sources, for the time period from 

2002 to 2017, based on emission 

inventory information submitted 

pursuant to the AERR in 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart A. With respect to sources that 

report directly to the EPA, New 

Hampshire also included AMPD data for 

SO2 and NOX emissions for 2016 

through 2019. 

The reductions achieved by New 

Hampshire emission control measures 

are seen in the emissions inventory. 

Based on New Hampshire’s SIP 

submission, NOX emissions have 

continuously declined in New 

Hampshire from 2002 through 2017, 

especially in the point, nonroad and 

onroad mobile sectors. NOX emissions 

are expected to continue to decrease as 

fleet turnover occurs and the older more 

polluting vehicles and equipment are 

replaced by newer, cleaner ones. New 

Hampshire sources that report to the 

EPA’s AMPD showed a decline in NOX

emissions in the period since the last 

progress report (2,753 tons in 2014 and 

1,018 tons in 2019).95

Emissions of SO2 have shown a steady 

significant decline in New Hampshire 

over the period 2002 to 2017, 

particularly in the point, nonroad and 

onroad mobile sectors. Large decreases 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80678 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

96NH SIP Submission at 88 (Figure 5–15); see 

also id. at 71–72. 

97See Chapter 5 ‘‘Progress Report and Periodic 

Reports’’ in New Hampshire SIP submission. 

98See Appendix G ‘‘MANE–VU Regional Haze 

Consultation Report and Consultation 

Documentation—Final.’’ 

are attributable to the installation of 

scrubbers at Merrimack Station, which 

became operational in late 2011, and to 

New Hampshire’s adoption of the 

MANE–VU low sulfur fuel strategy.96

Since some components of the low 

sulfur fuel strategy have milestones of 

2016 and 2018, and as MANE–VU states 

continue to adopt rules to implement 

the strategy, additional SO2 emissions 

reductions have likely been obtained 

since 2017 and are expected to continue 

into the future. Other SO2 emissions 

decreases are due to fuel switching due 

to the availability of less expensive 

natural gas in recent years, and the 

reduction of use of coal-fired EGUs at 

Merrimack and Schiller Station. 

New Hampshire’s submission 

analyzes the change in PM10 emissions 

from all NEI data categories point, 

nonpoint, non-road, and onroad in New 

Hampshire, noting that PM10 emissions 

have generally remained constant, 

particularly between the 2002/2008 

inventories and the 2011/2017 

inventories. The apparent change in 

point source emissions of PM10 is due 

to a large point source in the State 

mistakenly reporting its PM10 emissions 

in pounds, rather than tons. The 

variations in the onroad category are 

due to changes in emission inventory 

calculation methodologies, which 

resulted in higher particulate matter 

estimates in the other years than in 

2002. The large variation in emissions 

in the nonpoint category is due to 

changes in calculation methodologies 

for residential wood burning and 

fugitive dust categories, which have 

varied significantly. 

New Hampshire also analyzes PM2.5

emissions from all NEI data categories 

for the period from 2002 to 2017, noting 

that, similar to PM10 emissions, they 

have remained generally constant in 

New Hampshire. PM2.5 emissions show 

some decrease in the nonroad category 

for the period from 2002 to 2017 

because of Federal new engine 

standards for nonroad vehicles and 

equipment. Overall, there is a decrease 

in onroad emissions due to Federal and 

State regulations, but the increase from 

2002 to 2008 is due to changes in 

emission inventory calculation 

methodologies and a model change, as 

previously explained, which resulted in 

higher fine particulate matter estimates 

in the years after 2002. The variation in 

emissions in the nonpoint category is 

due to changes in calculation 

methodologies for residential wood 

burning and fugitive dust categories, 

which have varied significantly. 

Figure 5–20 of New Hampshire’s 

submission shows VOC emissions from 

all NEI data categories for the period 

2002 to 2017 in New Hampshire. VOC 

emissions have shown a decline in New 

Hampshire over the period 2002 to 

2017. Much of the decrease in VOC is 

attributable to Federal and state rules for 

evaporative sources of VOC emissions 

such as portable fuel containers; 

architectural, industrial, and 

maintenance coatings; consumer 

products; and solvent degreasing. VOC 

emissions from non-road and on-road 

mobile sources are expected to continue 

to decrease as older, more polluting 

vehicles are replaced by newer, cleaner 

ones. 

Figure 5–23 of New Hampshire’s 

submission shows ammonia (NH3) 

emissions from all NEI data categories 

for the period 2002 to 2017 and show 

a general downward trend in New 

Hampshire. Ammonia decreases were 

achieved in the onroad sectors due to 

Federal new engine standards for 

vehicles and equipment. Point source 

increases from 2002 to 2008 are due to 

reporting, grouping and methodology 

changes, not actual emission increases. 

Nonpoint increases and decreases from 

2002 to 2017 are due to reporting, 

grouping and methodology changes. For 

many MANE–VU states, ammonia 

emissions for 2014 and 2017 are lower 

than they were for earlier years. Most 

MANE–VU states saw increases in 2017 

relative to 2014; this could likely be the 

result of estimation methodology 

changes. Emissions from 2002–2008 are 

not comparable to post-2008 emissions 

due to methodology changes. 

The EPA is proposing to find that 

New Hampshire has satisfied the 

requirements of § 51.308(g)(4) by 

providing emissions information for 

NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, VOCs, and NH3

broken down by type of source. 

The emissions trend data in the SIP 

submission 97 supports New 

Hampshire’s assessment that no 

significant increase of haze-causing 

pollutant emissions has occurred in 

New Hampshire during the reporting 

period and that changes in emissions 

have not limited or impeded progress in 

reducing pollutant emissions and 

improving visibility. New Hampshire 

notes that, both within and outside the 

State, there has been a shift to cleaner 

generation of electricity using natural 

gas in place of fuels such as coal or oil 

that has contributed to reduced 

emissions of haze-causing pollutants. 

The EPA is proposing to find that New 

Hampshire has met the requirements of 

§ 51.308(g)(5). 

I. Requirements for State and Federal 

Land Manager Coordination 

Section 169A(d) of the Clean Air Act 

requires states to consult with FLMs 

before holding the public hearing on a 

proposed regional haze SIP, and to 

include a summary of the FLMs’ 

conclusions and recommendations in 

the notice to the public. In addition, 

section 51.308(i)(2)’s FLM consultation 

provision requires a state to provide 

FLMs with an opportunity for 

consultation that is early enough in the 

state’s policy analyses of its emission 

reduction obligation so that information 

and recommendations provided by the 

FLMs can meaningfully inform the 

state’s decisions on its long-term 

strategy. If the consultation has taken 

place at least 120 days before a public 

hearing or public comment period, the 

opportunity for consultation will be 

deemed early enough. Regardless, the 

opportunity for consultation must be 

provided at least sixty days before a 

public hearing or public comment 

period at the state level. Section 

51.308(i)(2) further provides that FLMs 

must be given an opportunity to discuss 

their assessment of visibility 

impairment in any Class I area and their 

recommendations on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Section 

51.308(i)(3) requires states, in 

developing their implementation plans, 

to include a description of how they 

addressed FLMs’ comments. 

The states in the MANE–VU RPO 

conducted FLM consultation early in 

the planning process concurrent with 

the state-to-state consultation that 

formed the basis of the RPO’s decision 

making process. As part of the 

consultation, the FLMs were given the 

opportunity to review and comment on 

the technical documents developed by 

MANE–VU. The FLMs were invited to 

attend the intra- and inter-RPO 

consultations calls among states and at 

least one FLM representative was 

documented to have attended seven 

intra-RPO meetings and all inter-RPO 

meetings. New Hampshire participated 

in these consultation meetings and 

calls.98

As part of this early engagement with 

the FLMs, on April 12, 2018, the U.S 

National Park Service (NPS) sent letters 

to the MANE–VU states requesting that 

they consider specific individual 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80679 

99 Id. 

100 Id. 

101See Appendix W email from NPS to NHDES. 

102See NH SIP Submittal, App. W (Email from H. 

Salazar, Reg’l Air Res. Coord., NPS, to C. Beahm, 

Air Res. Div., NHDES (June 11, 2021)). 

103 Id. 

104 Id. (Ltr. from D. Ibarguen, Forest Supervisor, 

White Mtn. Nat’l Forest, to C. Wright, Air Res. Div. 

Dir., NHDES (June 16, 2021)). 

105NH SIP Submittal, App. W. 

106See the preface and Chapter 9 of the ‘‘NH 

Regional Haze SIP—Final March 2022.’’ 

sources in their long-term strategies.99

NPS used an analysis of emissions 

divided by distance (Q/d) to estimate 

the impact of MANE–VU facilities. To 

select the facilities, NPS first summed 

2014 NEI NOX, PM10, SO2, and SO4

emissions and divided by the distance 

to a specified NPS mandatory Class I 

Federal area. NPS summed the Q/d 

values across all MANE–VU states 

relative to Acadia, Mammoth Cave and 

Shenandoah National Parks, ranked the 

Q/d values relative to each Class I area, 

created a running total, and identified 

those facilities contributing to 80% of 

the total impact at each NPS Class I 

area. NPS merged the resulting lists of 

facilities and sorted them by their states. 

NPS suggested that a state consider 

those facilities comprising 80% of the 

Q/d total, not to exceed the 25 top 

ranked facilities. The NPS originally 

identified five facilities in New 

Hampshire in this letter.100 New 

Hampshire included the NPS initial 

letter in their proposed SIP. In a 

subsequent letter dated October 22, 

2018, NPS identified four facilities for 

which more control information was 

desired. New Hampshire detailed the 

emission controls and updates to the 

four facilities to address the NPS’s 

request for more information, as 

discussed previously.101

On June 9, 2021, the NPS Air 

Resources Division (ARD) and NPS 

Interior Region 1 staff hosted a 

consultation meeting with New 

Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services (NHDES) to 

discuss a draft of the New Hampshire 

Regional Haze SIP. Representatives from 

the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service also attended the 

meeting.102 On June 11, 2021, the NPS 

sent a summary of this meeting and 

NPS’ comments to New Hampshire via 

email, stating that the NPS 

‘‘commend[s] the state on its level of 

analysis and commitment to emissions 

reductions.’’ 103 On June 16, 2021, the 

U.S. Forest Service indicated by letter 

that it was ‘‘satisfied with the document 

as provided and offer[ed] no suggestions 

for change.’’ 104 In accordance with CAA 

§ 169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), New 

Hampshire included summaries of the 

consultation and copies of the FLM 

correspondence in appendices G and W 

of the SIP submission. New Hampshire 

also noted that it has responded to FLM 

feedback on the selection and 

evaluation of specific sources 

potentially impacting visibility in Class 

I areas during development of the SIP 

submission and, as a result, expanded 

the number of sources evaluated to 

ensure a robust analysis and adequate 

controls to improve visibility.105

New Hampshire held two public 

comment periods and one public 

hearing related to this Regional Haze 

SIP Revision. On November 4, 2019, 

NHDES published a notice in the 

Manchester, NH, Union Leader 

announcing a 30-day public comment 

period providing for submission of 

written comments and allowing any 

member of the public the opportunity to 

request a public hearing on the SIP 

revision. A second public notice period 

was conducted starting on December 10, 

2021 (and extended on December 27, 

2021), with published notices in the 

Union Leader. A public hearing was 

held in Room 208C at NHDES Offices in 

Concord, NH and online via WebEx at 

1:30 p.m. on February 23, 2022. 

For the reasons stated above, the EPA 

proposes to find that New Hampshire 

has satisfied the requirements under 

CAA section 169A(d) and 40 CFR 

51.308(i) regarding consultation with 

the FLMs on its regional haze SIP for the 

second implementation period. 

New Hampshire’s May 5, 2022, SIP 

submission includes a commitment to 

revise and submit a subsequent regional 

haze SIP by July 21, 2033, and every ten 

years thereafter. The state’s commitment 

includes submitting periodic progress 

reports in accordance with § 51.308(f) 

and a commitment to evaluate progress 

towards the reasonable progress goal for 

each mandatory Class I Federal area 

located within the state and in each 

mandatory Class I Federal area located 

outside the state that may be affected by 

emissions from within the state in 

accordance with § 51.308(g).106

V. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve New 

Hampshire’s May 5, 2022, 

supplemented on September 21, 2023, 

SIP submission as satisfying the regional 

haze requirements for the second 

implementation period contained in 40 

CFR 51.308(f). Additionally, EPA is 

proposing to approve the revised state 

rule Env-A 2300, ‘‘Mitigation of 

Regional Haze,’’ into the SIP. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

New Hampshire’s Env-A 2300 

‘‘Mitigation of Regional Haze,’’ which 

contains updated emissions limits for 

certain facilities located in the State. 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these documents generally 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 1 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80680 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1On June 15, 2022, Kentucky provided multiple 

SIP revisions that are not addressed in this 

rulemaking. One of the June 15, 2022, submittals 

contains changes to District Regulation 2.04, 

Construction or Modification of Major Sources in or 

Impacting upon Non-Attainment Areas (Emission 

Offset Requirements) in the Kentucky SIP. These 

changes are not addressed in this notice. EPA will 

act on these changes in a separate rulemaking. 

Another June 15, 2022, SIP revision contained 

changes to District Regulation 2.17, Federally 

Enforceable District Origin Operating Permits, in 

the Kentucky SIP. EPA finalized its approval of 

changes to Regulation 2.17 on March 1, 2023. See 

88 FR 12831. 

2EPA received this submission on June 13, 2022, 

via a letter dated June 15, 2022. Throughout this 

notice of proposed rulemaking, this submission will 

be referred to as the June 15, 2022, submission. 

3 In 2003, the City of Louisville and Jefferson 

County governments merged, and the ‘‘Jefferson 

County Air Pollution Control District’’ was renamed 

the ‘‘Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control 

District.’’ However, to be consistent with the 

terminology used in the subheading in Table 2 of 

40 CFR 52.920(c), throughout this notice we refer 

to the District regulations contained in the Jefferson 

County portion of the Kentucky SIP as the 

‘‘Jefferson County’’ regulations. 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

In addition, this proposed rulemaking 

action, pertaining to New Hampshire 

regional haze SIP submission for the 

second planning period, is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further 

defines the term fair treatment to mean 

that ‘‘no group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ The air agency did not 

evaluate environmental justice 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and 

did not consider EJ in this action. 

Consideration of EJ is not required as 

part of this action, and there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of 

achieving environmental justice for 

people of color, low-income 

populations, and Indigenous peoples. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: November 13, 2023. 

David Cash, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25336 Filed 11–17–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2023–0097; FRL–11564– 

03–R4] 

Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; 

Revisions to Jefferson County 

Emissions Monitoring and Reporting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

changes to the Jefferson County portion 

of the Kentucky State Implementation 

Plan (SIP), submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky, through 

the Energy and Environment Cabinet 

(Cabinet), in a letter dated June 15, 

2022. The changes were submitted by 

the Cabinet on behalf of the Louisville 

Metro Air Pollution Control District 

(District) and amend the District’s 

stationary source emissions monitoring 

and reporting requirements. The EPA is 

proposing to approve the changes 

because they are consistent with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 20, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2023–0097 at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit www.epa.gov/ 

dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air and 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

The telephone number is (404) 562– 

9088. Ms. Bell can also be reached via 

electronic mail at bell.tiereny@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

On June 15, 2022,1 the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted 

changes to the Jefferson County portion 

of the Kentucky SIP for EPA approval.2 3

In this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to 

approve changes to Regulation 1.06, 

Stationary Source Self-Monitoring, 

Emissions Inventory Development, and 

Reporting, in the Jefferson County 

portion of the Kentucky SIP, submitted 

on June 15, 2022. This regulation 

provides the District with the authority 

to require emissions monitoring at 

stationary sources and requires certain 

sources to maintain emissions records 

and to provide annual emissions 

statements to the District. This 

regulation does not impose any 

emissions limits or control requirements 

on any emissions source. 

II. EPA’s Analysis of Kentucky’s SIP 

Revision 

The June 15, 2022, SIP submission 

contains a version of Regulation 1.06 

adopted by the District on March 16, 

2022 (referred to as ‘‘Version 11’’ by the 

District). District Regulation 1.06, 

Stationary Source Self-Monitoring, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1