11798 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

ANM WY E5 Rock Springs, WY [Modified] 

Rock Springs-Sweetwater County Airport, 

WY 

(Lat. 41°35′39′′ N., long. 109°03′55′′ W.) 

Rock Springs VOR/DME 

(Lat. 41°35′25′′ N., long. 109°00′55′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 10.1-mile 

radius of the Rock Springs-Sweetwater 

County Airport, and within 8.5 miles north 

and 6.3 miles south of the Rock SpringsSweetwater County Airport 269° and 089° 

bearings extending from the 10.1-mile radius 

to 23.4 miles west and 20.4 miles east of the 

airport, and within 2.2 miles north and 4.4 

miles south of the Rock Springs-Sweetwater 

County Airport 109° bearing extending to 

18.6 miles east of the airport; that airspace 

extending upward from 1,200 feet above the 

surface within a 20.1-mile radius of the Rock 

Springs VOR/DME, including that airspace 

bounded on the north by V–4 and V–6, on 

the southeast by V–208, and on the 

southwest by V–328. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on February 

22, 2012. 

Bill Buck, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

Western Service Center 

[FR Doc. 2012–4705 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket No. FR–5572–C–02] 

Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 

Risk Management Initiatives: Revised 

Seller Concessions; Addresses for the 

Submission of Public Comments 

AGENCY: Office of General Counsel, 

HUD. 

ACTION: Correction. 

SUMMARY: On February 23, 2012 (77 FR 

10695), HUD published a request for 

comments on its proposal to reduce the 

amount of closing costs a seller may pay 

on behalf of a homebuyer purchasing a 

home with financing insured by the 

Federal Housing Administration (FHA). 

The document inadvertently omitted the 

ADDRESSES advising interested members 

of the public how to submit comments. 

This document corrects the omission. 

DATES: The due date for comments 

provided in the February 23, 2012, 

document is unchanged. Comments are 

due on or before: March 26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

the February 23, 2012, document to the 

Regulations Division, Office of General 

Counsel, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., 

Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410– 

0500. Communications must refer to the 

above docket number and title. There 

are two methods for submitting public 

comments. All submissions must refer 

to the docket number (FR–5572–N–01) 

and title (Federal Housing 

Administration (FHA) Risk Management 

Initiatives: Revised Seller Concessions). 

1. Submission of Comments by Mail. 

Comments may be submitted by mail to 

the Regulations Division, Office of 

General Counsel, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

7th Street SW., Room 10276, 

Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

2. Electronic Submission of 

Comments. Interested persons may 

submit comments electronically through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly 

encourages commenters to submit 

comments electronically. Electronic 

submission of comments allows the 

commenter maximum time to prepare 

and submit a comment, ensures timely 

receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to 

make them immediately available to the 

public. Comments submitted 

electronically through the 

www.regulations.gov Web site can be 

viewed by other commenters and 

interested members of the public. 

Commenters should follow the 

instructions provided on that site to 

submit comments electronically. 

Note: To receive consideration as public 

comments, comments must be submitted 

through one of the two methods specified 

above. Again, all submissions must refer to 

the docket number and title of the rule. 

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile 

(FAX) comments are not acceptable. 

Public Inspection of Public 

Comments. All properly submitted 

comments and communications 

submitted to HUD will be available for 

public inspection and copying between 

8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above 

address. Due to security measures at the 

HUD Headquarters building, an 

appointment to review the public 

comments must be scheduled in 

advance by calling the Regulations 

Division at 202–708–3055 (this is not a 

toll-free number). Individuals with 

speech or hearing impairments may 

access this number via TTY by calling 

the Federal Relay Service at 800–877– 

8339. Copies of all comments submitted 

are available for inspection and 

downloading at www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karin Hill, Director, Office of Single 

Family Program Development, Office of 

Housing, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., 

Room 9278, Washington, DC 20410; 

telephone number 202–708–4308 (this 

is not a toll-free number). Persons with 

hearing or speech impairments may 

access this number through TTY by 

calling the toll-free Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

Dated: February 23, 2012. 

Aaron Santa Anna, 

Assistant General Counsel for Regulations. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4696 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0631 ; A–1–FRL– 

9638–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode 

Island; Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of 

a revision to the Rhode Island State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Rhode Island Department of 

Environmental Management (RI DEM) 

on August 7, 2009, that addresses 

regional haze for the first planning 

period from 2008 through 2018. This 

revision addresses the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s 

rules that require States to prevent any 

future, and remedy any existing, 

manmade impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I areas (also referred to 

as the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States 

are required to assure reasonable 

progress toward the national goal of 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

in Class I areas. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2009–0631 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0631,’’ 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11799 

Post Office Square—Suite 100 (Mail 

code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air 

Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100 (mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

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

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2009– 

0631. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, 

MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, 

you contact the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding legal holidays. 

In addition, copies of the State 

submittal are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the State Air 

Agency; Office of Air Resources, 

Department of Environmental 

Management, 235 Promenade Street, 

Providence, RI 02908–5767. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100 (Mail 

Code OEP05–02), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, telephone number (617) 918– 

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

mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed 

action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Background Information 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

II. What are the requirements for the regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Rhode Island’s 

regional haze submittal? 

A. Rhode Island’s Impact on MANE–VU 

Class I Areas 

B. Long-Term Strategy 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to 

Visibility Impairments 

4. Reasonable Progress Goal 

5. Additional Considerations for the LTS 

C. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

IV. What action is EPA proposing? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Throughout this document, wherever 

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

the EPA. 

I. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles and their precursors (e.g., 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in 

some cases, ammonia and volatile 

organic compounds). Fine particle 

precursors react in the atmosphere to 

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

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and soil dust), which 

also impair visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the Western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without manmade air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715, 

(July 1, 1999). 

B. Background Information 

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

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11800 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

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

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

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 

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

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

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

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

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

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

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

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

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

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

2The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

Federal areas 1 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

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

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ (RAVI). See 45 FR 80084 

(Dec. 2, 1980). These regulations 

represented the first phase in addressing 

visibility impairment. EPA deferred 

action on regional haze that emanates 

from a variety of sources until 

monitoring, modeling and scientific 

knowledge about the relationships 

between pollutants and visibility 

impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule. 

The Regional Haze Rule revised the 

existing visibility regulations to 

integrate into the regulation provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment 

and established a comprehensive 

visibility protection program for Class I 

areas. The requirements for regional 

haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 

51.309, are included in EPA’s visibility 

protection regulations at 40 CFR 

51.300–309. Some of the main elements 

of the regional haze requirements are 

summarized in Section II. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 States, the District 

of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 

Forty CFR 51.308(b) requires States to 

submit the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. On January 15, 2009, EPA found 

that 37 States, the District of Columbia 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands failed to 

submit this required implementation 

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

particular, EPA found that Rhode Island 

failed to submit a plan that met the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. See 74 

FR 2393. On August 7, 2009, RI DEM 

submitted revisions to the Rhode Island 

SIP to address regional haze as required 

by 40 CFR 51.308. EPA has reviewed 

Rhode Island’s submittal and proposes 

to find that it is consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 outlined 

in Section II. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

States, tribal governments, and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, States need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the States and 

Tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their States and Tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of PM2.5 and other pollutants leading to 

regional haze. 

The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 

Union (MANE–VU) RPO is a 

collaborative effort of State 

governments, Tribal governments, and 

various federal agencies established to 

initiate and coordinate activities 

associated with the management of 

regional haze, visibility and other air 

quality issues in the Northeastern 

United States. Member State and Tribal 

governments include: Connecticut, 

Delaware, the District of Columbia, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, 

Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

II. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require States 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is 

determined by measuring the visual 

range (or deciview), which is the 

greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, 

at which a dark object can be viewed 

against the sky. The deciview is a useful 

measure for tracking progress in 

improving visibility, because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview.2

The deciview is used in expressing 

Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) 

(which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by manmade air 

pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., manmade sources of air 

pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program and as 

part of the process for determining 

reasonable progress, States must 

calculate the degree of existing visibility 

impairment at each Class I area within 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11801 

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

subject to BART are listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

the State at the time of each regional 

haze SIP submittal and periodically 

review progress every five years midway 

through each 10-year planning period. 

To do this, the RHR requires States to 

determine the degree of impairment (in 

deciviews) for the average of the 20 

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

percent most impaired (‘‘worst’’) 

visibility days over a specified time 

period at each of their Class I areas. In 

addition, States must also develop an 

estimate of natural visibility conditions 

for the purposes of comparing progress 

toward the national goal. Natural 

visibility is determined by estimating 

the natural concentrations of pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment and 

then calculating total light extinction 

based on those estimates. EPA has 

provided guidance to States regarding 

how to calculate baseline, natural, and 

current visibility conditions in 

documents titled, EPA’s Guidance for 

Estimating Natural Visibility conditions 

under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005, 

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

memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 

Natural Visibility Guidance’’), and 

Guidance for Tracking Progress Under 

the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003 

(EPA–454/B–03–004 located at 

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

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

impairment for the 20 percent least 

impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days at the time the regional 

haze program was established. Using 

monitoring data from 2000 through 

2004, States are required to calculate the 

average degree of visibility impairment 

for each Class I area within the State, 

based on the average of annual values 

over the five year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

States that establish RPGs for Class I 

areas for each (approximately) 10-year 

planning period. The RHR does not 

mandate specific milestones or rates of 

progress, but instead calls for States to 

establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

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

conditions for their Class I areas. In 

setting RPGs, States must provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the most 

impaired days over the (approximately) 

10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in the CAA and in EPA’s 

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

the time necessary for compliance; (3) 

the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

and (4) the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected sources. States must 

demonstrate in their SIPs how these 

factors are considered when selecting 

the RPGs for the best and worst days for 

each applicable Class I area. See 40 CFR 

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

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s July 1, 2007 

memorandum from William L. Wehrum, 

Acting Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, to EPA Regional 

Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10, 

entitled Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program (p. 4–2, 5– 

1)(EPA’s Reasonable Progress 

Guidance). In setting the RPGs, States 

must also consider the rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (referred to as the 

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

path’’) and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the 10-year period of the 

SIP. The year 2064 represents a rate of 

progress which States are to use for 

analytical comparison to the amount of 

progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each State with one or 

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

also consult with potentially 

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

States with emission sources that may 

be contributing to visibility impairment 

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

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

States to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, the CAA 

requires States to revise their SIPs to 

contain such measures as may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

towards the natural visibility goal, 

including a requirement that certain 

categories of existing stationary sources 

built between 1962 and 1977 procure, 

install, and operate the ‘‘Best Available 

Retrofit Technology’’ as determined by 

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

are directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such sources that 

may be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Rather than requiring 

source-specific BART controls, States 

also have the flexibility to adopt an 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative program as long as the 

alternative provides greater reasonable 

progress towards improving visibility 

than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist States in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

applicability determination for a fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating plant with 

a total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts (MW), a State must use 

the approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibility 

impairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate 

matter (PM). EPA has stated that States 

should use their best judgment in 

determining whether volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH3) 

and ammonia compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

The RPOs provided air quality 

modeling to the States to help them in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11802 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

determining whether potential BART 

sources can be reasonably expected to 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in a Class I area. Under the 

BART Guidelines, States may select an 

exemption threshold value for their 

BART modeling, below which a BART 

eligible source would not be expected to 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in any Class I area. The 

State must document this exemption 

threshold value in the SIP and must 

state the basis for its selection of that 

value. Any source with emissions that 

model above the threshold value would 

be subject to a BART determination 

review. The BART Guidelines 

acknowledge varying circumstances 

affecting different Class I areas. States 

should consider the number of emission 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts. Any 

exemption threshold set by the State 

should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews. 

See 70 FR 39161, (July 6, 2005). 

In their SIPs, States must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

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

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. The term 

‘‘BART-eligible source’’ used in the 

BART Guidelines means the collection 

of individual emission units at a facility 

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

6, 2005). In making BART 

determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of 

the CAA requires that States consider 

the following factors: (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. See 70 FR 39170, (July 6, 2005). 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a State 

has made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP, as required by CAA 

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

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

required by the RHR, general SIP 

requirements mandate that the SIP must 

also include all regulatory requirements 

related to monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting for the BART controls on 

the source. States have the flexibility to 

choose the type of control measures 

they will use to meet the requirements 

of BART. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

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

requires that States include a LTS in 

their SIPs. The LTS is the compilation 

of all control measures a State will use 

to meet any applicable RPGs. The LTS 

must include ‘‘enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures as necessary to achieve 

the reasonable progress goals’’ for all 

Class I areas within, or affected by 

emissions from, the State. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). 

When a State’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another State, the 

RHR requires the impacted State to 

coordinate with the contributing States 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. See 

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

the contributing State must demonstrate 

that it has included in its SIP all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emission reductions needed to meet 

the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between States may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two States belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, States 

must describe how each of the seven 

factors listed below is taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the State for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the State’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

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

must revise its plan to provide for 

review and revision of a coordinated 

LTS for addressing reasonably 

attributable and regional haze visibility 

impairment, and the State must submit 

the first such coordinated LTS with its 

first regional haze SIP. Future 

coordinated LTS’s, and periodic 

progress reports evaluating progress 

towards RPGs, must be submitted 

consistent with the schedule for SIP 

submission and periodic progress 

reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 

51.308(g), respectively. The periodic 

reviews of a State’s LTS must report on 

both regional haze and RAVI 

impairment and must be submitted to 

EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

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

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the State. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the IMPROVE network. 

The monitoring strategy is due with the 

first regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a State 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the State to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the State; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a State 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the State to regional haze 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11803 

4The August 2006 NESCAUM document 

‘‘Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast 

and Mid-Atlantic United States’’ has been provided 

as part of the docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other States; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the State, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A State 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

Forty CFR 51.308(f) of the RHR 

requires control strategies to cover an 

initial implementation period extending 

to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 

reassessment and revision of those 

strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years 

thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must 

meet the core requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d) with the exception of BART. 

The BART provisions of 40 CFR 

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

the first implementation period. 

Periodic SIP revisions will assure that 

the statutory requirement of reasonable 

progress will continue to be met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that States consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 

51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

State must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

State and FLMs regarding the State’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Rhode 

Island’s regional haze submittal? 

On August 7, 2009, RI DEM’s Office 

of Air Resources submitted revisions to 

the Rhode Island SIP to address regional 

haze as required by EPA’s RHR, 

specifically 40 CFR 51.308. EPA has 

reviewed Rhode Island’s submittal and 

is proposing to find that it is consistent 

with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 

as outlined in Section II. A detailed 

analysis follows. 

Rhode Island is responsible for 

developing a regional haze SIP which 

addresses Rhode Island’s impact on any 

nearby Class I areas. As Rhode Island 

has no Class I areas within its borders, 

Rhode Island is not required to address 

the following Regional Haze SIP 

elements: (a) calculation of baseline and 

natural visibility conditions, (b) 

establishment of reasonable progress 

goals, (c) monitoring requirements and 

(d) RAVI requirements. 

In addition, Rhode Island evaluated 

the major point sources in the State and 

determined that none meet the criteria 

(as discussed in Section II.D) to be 

considered BART eligible. EPA is 

proposing to approve RI DEM’s 

determination that there are no BARTeligible sources in Rhode Island. 

A. Rhode Island’s Impact on MANE–VU 

Class I Areas 

Rhode Island is a member of the 

MANE–VU RPO. The MANE–VU RPO 

contains seven Class I areas in four 

States: Moosehorn Wilderness Area, 

Acadia National Park, and Roosevelt/ 

Campobello International Park in 

Maine; Presidential Range/Dry River 

Wilderness Area and Great Gulf 

Wilderness Area in New Hampshire; 

Brigantine Wilderness Area in New 

Jersey; and Lye Brook Wilderness Area 

in Vermont. 

Through source apportionment 

modeling, MANE–VU assisted States in 

determining their contribution to the 

visibility impairment of each Class I 

area in the MANE–VU region. Rhode 

Island and the other MANE–VU States 

adopted a weight-of-evidence approach 

which relied on several independent 

methods for assessing the contribution 

of different sources and geographic 

source regions to regional haze in the 

northeastern and mid-Atlantic portions 

of the United States. Details about each 

technique can be found in the 

NESCAUM Document Contributions to 

Regional Haze in the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic United States, August 2006 

(hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Contribution Report’’).4

The source apportionment modeling 

demonstrated that the contribution of 

Rhode Island emissions to total sulfate 

(the main contributor to visibility 

impairment in the Northeast) was 

consistently determined to be no more 

than 0.31% of the total sulfate at any 

Class I area. This finding was 

consistently predicted by different 

assessment techniques that are based on 

the application of disparate chemical, 

meteorological and physical principles. 

The greatest modeled contribution from 

Rhode Island for each of the MANE–VU 

Class I areas was 0.31% sulfate at 

Acadia National Park, 0.22% sulfate at 

Moosehorn Wilderness Area and 

Roosevelt Campobello International 

Park, 0.11% sulfate at Great Gulf 

Wilderness Area and Presidential 

Range—Dry River Wilderness Area, 

0.08% sulfate at Lye Brook Wilderness 

Area, and 0.14% at Brigantine 

Wilderness Area. The impact of sulfate 

on visibility is discussed in greater 

detail below. 

The MANE–VU Class I States 

determined that any State contributing 

at least 2% of the total sulfate observed 

on the 20 percent worst visibility days 

in 2002 were contributors to visibility 

impairment at the Class I area. 

Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, 

and the District of Columbia were 

determined to contribute less than 2% 

of sulfate at any of the Class I areas in 

the Northeast. 

EPA is proposing to find that RI DEM 

has adequately demonstrated that 

emissions from Rhode Island sources do 

not cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in nearby Class I Areas. 

B. Long-Term Strategy 

As described in Section II.E of this 

action, the LTS is a compilation of 

State-specific control measures relied on 

by the State to obtain its share of 

emission reductions to support the 

RPGs established by Maine, New 

Hampshire, Vermont, and New Jersey, 

the nearby Class I area States. Rhode 

Island’s LTS for the first 

implementation period addresses the 

emissions reductions from federal, 

State, and local controls that take effect 

in the State from the baseline period 

starting in 2002 until 2018. Rhode 

Island participated in the MANE–VU 

regional strategy development process 

and supported a regional approach 

towards deciding which control 

measures to pursue for regional haze, 

which was based on technical analyses 

documented in the following reports: (a) 

The Contribution Report; (b) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11804 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Assessment of Reasonable Progress for 

Regional Haze in MANE–VU Class I 

Areas (available at www.marama.org/ 

visibility/RPG/FinalReport/ 

RPGFinalReport_070907.pdf); (c) FiveFactor Analysis of BART-Eligible 

Sources: Survey of Options for 

Conducting BART Determinations 

(available at www.nescaum.org/ 

documents/bart-final-memo-06-28- 

07.pdf); and (d) Assessment of Control 

Technology Options for BART-Eligible 

Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, 

Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and 

Paper, and Pulp Facilities (available at 

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

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 with 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The State-wide emissions inventories 

used by MANE–VU in its regional haze 

technical analyses were developed by 

MARAMA for MANE–VU with 

assistance from Rhode Island. The 2018 

emissions inventory was developed by 

projecting 2002 emissions forward 

based on assumptions regarding 

emissions growth due to projected 

increases in economic activity and 

emissions reductions expected from 

federal and State regulations. MANE– 

VU’s emissions inventories included 

estimates of NOX, coarse particulate 

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

NH3. The BART guidelines direct States 

to exercise judgment in deciding 

whether VOC and NH3 impair visibility 

in their Class I area(s). As discussed 

further in Section III.B.3 below, MANE– 

VU demonstrated that anthropogenic 

emissions of sulfates are the major 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. It 

was also determined that the total 

ammonia emissions in the MANE–VU 

region are extremely small. 

MANE–VU developed emissions 

inventories for four inventory source 

classifications: (1) Stationary point 

sources, (2) stationary area sources, (3) 

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

Department of Environmental 

Conservation also developed an 

inventory of biogenic emissions for the 

entire MANE–VU region. Stationary 

point sources are those sources that emit 

greater than a specified tonnage per 

year, depending on the pollutant, with 

data provided at the facility level. 

Stationary area sources are those 

sources whose individual emissions are 

relatively small, but due to the large 

number of these sources, the collective 

emissions from the source category 

could be significant. Non-road mobile 

sources are equipment that can move 

but do not use the roadways. On-road 

mobile source emissions are 

automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles 

that use the roadway system. The 

emissions from these sources are 

estimated by vehicle type and road type. 

Biogenic sources are natural sources like 

trees, crops, grasses, and natural decay 

of plants. Stationary point sources 

emission data is tracked at the facility 

level. For all other source types, 

emissions are summed on the county 

level. 

There are many federal and State 

control programs being implemented 

that MANE–VU and Rhode Island 

anticipate will reduce emissions 

between the baseline period and 2018. 

Emission reductions from these control 

programs in the MANE–VU region were 

projected to achieve substantial 

visibility improvement by 2018 at all of 

the MANE–VU Class I areas. To assess 

emissions reductions from ongoing air 

pollution control programs, BART, and 

reasonable progress goals, MANE–VU 

developed 2018 emissions projections 

called ‘‘Best and Final.’’ The emissions 

inventory provided by the State of 

Rhode Island for the Best and Final 

2018 projections is based on expected 

control requirements. 

Rhode Island relied on emission 

reductions from the following ongoing 

and expected air pollution control 

programs as part of the State’s long term 

strategy. For electrical generating units 

(EGUs), Rhode Island relied on Air 

Pollution Control (APC) Regulations 

Numbers 38 and 41 which limit NOX

emissions from all EGUs. The State also 

relied on source specific permit 

restrictions limiting the sulfur content 

of fuel oil to 0.05% at Dominion Energy 

Manchester Street, 0.0015% at Ocean 

State Power and 0.2% at Pawtucket 

Power. Rhode Island also relied on the 

following controls on non-EGU point 

sources in estimating 2018 emissions 

inventories: NOX SIP Call Phases I and 

II; NOX Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) in 1-hour Ozone 

SIP; NOX Ozone Transport Commission 

(OTC) 2001 Model Rule for Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) 

Boilers; VOC 2-year, 4-year, 7-year and 

10-year Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Standards; 

Combustion Turbine and Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) 

MACT; and Industrial Boiler/Process 

Heater MACT (also known as the 

Industrial Boiler MACT). 

On July 30, 2007, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

vacated and remanded the Industrial 

Boiler MACT Rule. NRDC v. EPA, 

489F.3d 1250 (DC Cir. 2007). This 

MACT was vacated since it was directly 

affected by the vacatur and remand of 

the Commercial and Industrial Solid 

Waste Incinerator (CISWI) definition 

rule. EPA proposed a new Industrial 

Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur 

on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006) and 

issued a final rule on March 21, 2011 

(76 FR 15608). On May 18, 2011, EPA 

stayed the effective date of the 

Industrial Boiler MACT pending review 

by the DC Circuit or the completion of 

EPA’s reconsideration of the rule. See 

76 FR 28662. 

On December 2, 2011, EPA issued a 

proposed reconsideration of the MACT 

standards for existing and new boilers at 

major (76 FR 80598) and area (76 FR 

80532) source facilities, and for 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incinerators (76 FR 80452). On January 

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

District of Columbia vacated EPA’s stay 

of the effectiveness date of the Industrial 

Boiler MACT, reinstating the original 

effective date and therefore requiring 

compliance with the current rule in 

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

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

Even though Rhode Island’s modeling 

is based on the old Industrial Boiler 

MACT limits Rhode Island’s modeling 

conclusions are unlikely to be affected 

because the expected reductions in SO2

and PM resulting from the vacated 

MACT rule are a relatively small 

component of the Rhode Island 

inventory and the expected emission 

reductions from the final MACT rule are 

comparable to those modeled. In 

addition, the new MACT rule requires 

compliance by 2014 and therefore the 

expected emission reductions will be 

achieved prior to the end of the first 

implementation period in 2018. Thus, 

EPA does not expect that differences 

between the old and revised Industrial 

Boiler MACT emission limits would 

affect the adequacy of the existing 

Rhode Island regional haze SIP. If there 

is a need to address discrepancies 

between projected emissions reductions 

from the old Industrial Boiler MACT 

and the Industrial Boiler MACT 

finalized in March 2011, we expect 

Rhode Island to do so in their 5-year 

progress report. 

Controls on area sources expected by 

2018 include: the OTC VOC rules for 

consumer products (APC Regulation No. 

31); architectural and industrial 

maintenance coatings (APC Regulation 

No. 33) and solvent cleaning (APC 

Regulation No. 36); mobile equipment 

repair and refinishing APC Regulation 

No. 30); VOC control measures for 

adhesive and sealants (APC Regulation 

No. 44); VOC control measures for 

emulsified and cutback asphalt paving 

(APC Regulation No. 25); and VOC 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11805 

control measures for portable fuel 

containers (contained in EPA’s Mobile 

Source Air Toxics rule). 

Controls on mobile sources expected 

by 2018 include: enhanced safety 

inspection program (Rhode Island Motor 

Vehicle Safety and Emissions Control 

Regulation No. 1); on-board diagnostics 

testing for 1996 and new vehicles (APC 

Regulation No. 34); Federal On-Board 

Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Rule; 

Federal Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Standards and Gasoline Sulfur 

Requirements; Federal Heavy-Duty 

Diesel Engine Emission Standards for 

Trucks and Buses; and Federal Emission 

Standards for Large Industrial SparkIgnition Engines and Recreation 

Vehicles. 

Controls on non-road sources 

expected by 2018 include the following 

federal regulations: Control of Air 

Pollution: Determination of Significance 

for Nonroad Sources and Emission 

Standards for New Nonroad 

Compression Ignition Engines at or 

above 37 kilowatts (59 FR 31306, June 

17, 1994); Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines 

(63 FR 56967, Oct. 23, 1998); Control of 

Emissions from Nonroad Large SparkIgnition Engines and Recreational 

Engines (67 FR 68241, Nov. 8, 2002); 

and Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines 

and Fuels (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004). 

Tables 1 and 2 are summaries of the 

2002 baseline and 2018 estimated 

emissions inventories for Rhode Island. 

The 2018 estimated emissions include 

emissions growth as well as emission 

reductions due to ongoing emission 

control strategies and reasonable 

progress goals. 

TABLE 1—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR RHODE ISLAND

[Tons per year] 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ................................................................................. 1,928 2,764 183 300 58 2,666 

Area .................................................................................. 31,402 3,886 2,064 8,295 883 4,557 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................... 12,358 16,677 211 345 853 425 

Non-Road Mobile ............................................................. 7,780 5,001 443 500 4 377 

Biogenics .......................................................................... 19,233 211 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................................................................... 72,881 28,540 2,901 9,440 1,797 8,026 

TABLE 2—2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR RHODE ISLAND

[Tons per year] 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ................................................................................. 1,841 3,018 340 473 195 1,509 

Area .................................................................................. 23,305 4,249 1,570 4,269 1,025 52 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................... 6,305 5,351 148 168 1,200 100 

Non-Road Mobile ............................................................. 5,389 2,723 303 348 5 42 

Biogenics .......................................................................... 19,233 211 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................................................................... 56,073 15,553 2,362 5,260 2,425 1,703 

2. Modeling to Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

MANE–VU performed modeling for 

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

District of Columbia. The modeling 

analysis is a complex technical 

evaluation that began with selection of 

the modeling system. MANE–VU used 

the following modeling system: 

• Meteorological Model: The FifthGeneration Pennsylvania State 

University/National Center for 

Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) 

version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic, 

prognostic meteorological model 

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

regional haze regulatory modeling 

studies. 

• Emissions Model: The Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

(SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system 

is an emissions modeling system that 

generates hourly gridded speciated 

emission inputs of mobile, non-road 

mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic 

emission sources for photochemical grid 

models. 

• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s 

Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a 

photochemical grid model capable of 

addressing ozone, PM, visibility and 

acid deposition at a regional scale. 

• Air Quality Model: The Regional 

Model for Aerosols and Deposition 

(REMSAD), is a Eulerian grid model that 

was primarily used to determine the 

attribution of sulfate species in the 

Eastern US via the species-tagging 

scheme. 

• Air Quality Model: The California 

Puff Model (CALPUFF), version 5 is a 

non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model 

used to access the contribution of 

individual States’ emissions to sulfate 

levels at selected Class I receptor sites. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in 

the MANE–VU region for 2002 and 2018 

was carried out on a grid of 12x12 

kilometer (km) cells that covers the 11 

MANE–VU States (Connecticut, 

Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont) and the District of 

Columbia and States adjacent to them. 

This grid is nested within a larger 

national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 

km grid cells that covers the continental 

United States, portions of Canada and 

Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and 

Pacific Oceans along the east and west 

coasts. Selection of a representative 

period of meteorology is crucial for 

evaluating baseline air quality 

conditions and projecting future 

changes in air quality due to changes in 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

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

selection of the entire year of 2002 

(January 1–December 31) as the best 

period of meteorology available for 

conducting the CMAQ modeling. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11806 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5See Appendix H—‘‘2018 Emissions from EGUs 

in the Eastern US’’ of the Rhode Island SIP 

submittal for a complete listing of the 167 stacks. 

MANE–VU States’ modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA’s 

Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, April 

2007 (EPA–454/B–07–002, available at 

www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/ 

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

EPA document, Emissions Inventory 

Guidance for Implementation of Ozone 

and Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations, August 2005 and updated 

November 2005 (EPA–454/R–05–001, 

available at www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ 

eidocs/eiguid/index.html) (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s Modeling 

Guidance’’). 

MANE–VU examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. MANE–VU used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once MANE–VU determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

MANE–VU used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), the State of Rhode Island 

provided the appropriate supporting 

documentation for all required analyses 

used to determine the State’s LTS. The 

technical analyses and modeling used to 

develop the glide path and to support 

the LTS are consistent with EPA’s RHR, 

and interim and final EPA Modeling 

Guidance. EPA is proposing to find the 

MANE–VU technical modeling to 

support the LTS and determine 

visibility improvement for the uniform 

rate of progress acceptable because the 

modeling system was chosen and used 

according to EPA Modeling Guidance. 

EPA agrees with the MANE–VU model 

performance procedures and results, 

and that the CMAQ is an appropriate 

tool for the regional haze assessments 

for the Rhode Island LTS and regional 

haze SIP. 

3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants 

to Visibility Impairment 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, MANE–VU 

developed emission sensitivity model 

runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility 

and air quality impacts from various 

groups of emissions and pollutant 

scenarios in the Class I areas on the 

20 percent worst visibility days. 

Regarding which pollutants are most 

significantly impacting visibility in the 

MANE–VU region, MANE–VU’s 

contribution assessment demonstrated 

that sulfate is the major contributor to 

PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at 

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

commonly account for more than 50 

percent of particle-related light 

extinction at northeastern Class I areas 

on the clearest days and for as much as, 

or more than, 80 percent on the haziest 

days. For example, at the Brigantine 

National Wildlife Refuge Class I area 

(the MANE–VU Class I area with the 

greatest visibility impairment), on the 

20 percent worst visibility days in 

2000–2004, sulfate accounted for 66 

percent of the particle extinction. After 

sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently 

accounts for the next largest fraction of 

light extinction. Organic carbon 

accounted for 13 percent of light 

extinction on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days for Brigantine, followed 

by nitrate that accounts for 9 percent of 

light extinction. 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by MANE–VU predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 

MANE–VU region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. As a 

result of the dominant role of sulfate in 

the formation of regional haze in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region, 

MANE–VU concluded that an effective 

emissions management approach would 

rely heavily on broad-based regional 

SO2 control efforts in the eastern United 

States. 

4. Reasonable Progress Goal 

Since the State of Rhode Island does 

not have a Class I area, it is not required 

to establish RPGs. However, as a 

MANE–VU member State, Rhode Island 

adopted the ‘‘Statement of MANE–VU 

Concerning a Request for a Course of 

Action by States Within MANE–VU 

Toward Assuring Reasonable Progress’’ 

on June 7, 2007. This document 

included four emission management 

strategies that will provide for 

reasonable progress towards achieving 

natural visibility at the MANE–VU Class 

I areas. These emission management 

strategies are collectively known as the 

MANE–VU ‘‘Ask,’’ and include: (a) 

Timely implementation of BART 

requirements; (b) a 90 percent reduction 

in SO2 emissions from each of the EGU 

stacks identified by MANE–VU 

comprising a total of 167 stacks 5; (c) 

adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy; and (d) continued evaluation of 

other control measures to reduce SO2

and NOX emissions. 

Rhode Island does not have any BART 

eligible units, nor does it have any EGU 

stacks identified by MANE–VU as a top 

contributor to visibility impairment in 

any of the MANE–VU Class I areas. 

The MANE–VU low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy includes: Phase I reduction of 

distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur by weight 

(500 parts per million (ppm)) by no later 

than 2014; Phase II reductions of #4 

residual oil to 0.25% sulfur by weight 

by no later than 2018; #6 residual oil to 

0.5% sulfur by weight by no later than 

2018; and further reduce the sulfur 

content of distillate oil to 15 ppm by 

2018. 

The expected reduction in SO2

emissions by 2018 from the MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask’’ will yield corresponding 

reductions in sulfate aerosol, the main 

culprit in fine-particle pollution and 

regional haze. For Rhode Island, the 

MANE–VU analysis demonstrates that 

the reduction of the sulfur content in 

fuel oil will lead to an average reduction 

of 0.25–0.36 mg/m3 in the 24 hour PM2.5

concentration within the State, 

improving health and local visibility. In 

addition, the use of low sulfur fuels will 

result in cost savings to owners/ 

operators of residential furnaces and 

boilers due to reduced maintenance 

costs and extended life of the units. 

In its August 7, 2009 SIP submittal, 

Rhode Island states that ‘‘RI DEM 

intends to adopt the low-sulfur fuel oil 

requirements by January 1, 2012 and 

will have a compliance date of 2014 for 

Phase I and 2018 for Phase II.’’ RI DEM 

continues to work toward the adoption 

of this regulation. However, in a letter 

dated January 31, 2012, RI DEM 

informed EPA that they do not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11807 

6On January 15, 2009, EPA made a finding that, 

among other States, Rhode Island had failed to 

submit a Regional Haze SIP by the required 

deadline. 74 FR 2392. We have proposed a consent 

decree to resolve a deadline suit regarding this 

finding as well as the finding of failure for 36 other 

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

Islands. National Parks Conservation Association v. 

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

Because we do not believe a low-sulfur fuel oil 

strategy is necessary for Rhode Island during this 

first implementation period, EPA is moving forward 

with this proposed approval of the State’s SIP 

submittal in order to satisfy our obligations under 

the Clean Air Act. 

7This document has been provided as part of the 

docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

anticipate being able to adopt the lowsulfur fuel oil requirements before the 

end of 2012. RI DEM articulated that 

they are still committed to adopting the 

low-sulfur oil requirements but cannot 

do so on the time line of their original 

commitment. 

EPA is today proposing approval of 

the Rhode Island Regional Haze SIP for 

the first implementation period without 

inclusion of an adopted low sulfur fuel 

oil regulation.6 As described in Section 

III.A of this notice, Rhode Island neither 

causes nor contributes to visibility 

impairment in the closest Class I areas 

located in New Jersey, Vermont, New 

Hampshire, and Maine. For each of 

these Class I areas, the contribution of 

Rhode Island’s emissions to total sulfate 

is less than the 2% threshold set by the 

MANE–VU States to determine whether 

any State contributed to visibility 

impairment. While the SO2 reductions 

being achieved by Rhode Island are 

somewhat less than the statewide 

reductions that were projected to result 

from adoption of a low-sulfur fuel oil 

strategy by 2012, this shortfall is not 

anticipated to interfere with the ability 

of other States to meet their respective 

reasonable progress goals. All emissions 

from Rhode Island contribute no more 

than 0.31% of total sulfate at any Class 

I area. We encourage adoption of a lowsulfur fuel oil strategy by Rhode Island 

as such a strategy will have local air 

quality and some, limited visibility 

benefits, however, we do not believe it 

is a necessary component of an 

approvable Regional Haze SIP for Rhode 

Island for the first implementation 

period. 

5. Additional Considerations for the 

LTS 

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

States to consider the following factors 

in developing the long term strategy: 

a. Emission reductions due to ongoing 

air pollution control programs, 

including measures to address 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment; 

b. Measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities; 

c. Emission limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the 

reasonable progress goal; 

d. Source retirement and replacement 

schedules; 

e. Smoke management techniques for 

agricultural and forestry management 

purposes including plans as currently 

exist within the State for these 

purposes; 

f. Enforceability of emissions 

limitations and control measures; and 

g. The anticipated net effect on 

visibility due to projected changes in 

point area, and mobile source emissions 

over the period addressed by the long 

term strategy. 

a. Emission reductions including RAVI 

Since Rhode Island does not contain 

any Class I areas, the State is not 

required to address RAVI, nor has any 

Rhode Island source been identified as 

subject to RAVI. A list of Rhode Island’s 

ongoing air pollution control programs 

is included in Section III.B.1. 

b. Construction Activities 

The Regional Haze Rule requires 

Rhode Island to consider measures to 

mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities on regional haze. MANE–VU’s 

consideration of control measures for 

construction activities is documented in 

‘‘Technical Support Document on 

Measures to Mitigate the Visibility 

Impacts of Construction Activities in the 

MANE–VU Region, Draft, October 20, 

2006.’’ 7

The construction industry is already 

subject to requirements for controlling 

pollutants that contribute to visibility 

impairment. For example, federal 

regulations require the reduction of SO2

emissions from construction vehicles. 

At the State level, Rhode Island Air 

Pollution Control Regulation Number 5, 

‘‘Fugitive Dust’’ regulates dust from 

construction and demolition activities. 

Section 5.3 of that regulation states, ‘‘No 

person shall cause or permit any 

materials, including but not limited to 

sand, gravel, soil, aggregate and any 

other organic or inorganic solid matter 

capable of releasing dust, to be handled, 

transported, mined, quarried, stored or 

otherwise utilized in any way so as to 

cause airborne particulate matter to 

travel beyond the property line of the 

emission source without taking 

adequate precautions to prevent 

particulate matter from becoming 

airborne.’’ 

MANE–VU’s Contribution Report 

found that, from a regional haze 

perspective, crustal material generally 

does not play a major role. On the 20 

percent best-visibility days during the 

2000–2004 baseline period, crustal 

material accounted for 6 to 11 percent 

of the particle-related light extinction at 

the MANE–VU Class I Areas. On the 20 

percent worst-visibility days, however, 

the contribution was reduced to 2 to 3 

percent. Furthermore, the crustal 

fraction is largely made up of pollutants 

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

that are not targeted under the Regional 

Haze Rule. Nevertheless, the crustal 

fraction at any given location can be 

heavily influenced by the proximity of 

construction activities; and construction 

activities occurring in the immediate 

vicinity of MANE–VU Class I area could 

have a noticeable effect on visibility. 

For this regional haze SIP, Rhode 

Island concluded that its current 

regulations are currently sufficient to 

mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities. Any future deliberations on 

potential control measures for 

construction activities and the possible 

implementation will be documented in 

the first regional haze SIP progress 

report in 2012. EPA proposes to find 

that Rhode Island has adequately 

addressed measures to mitigate the 

impacts of construction activities. 

c. Emission Limitations and Schedules 

for Compliance To Achieve the RPG 

In addition to the existing CAA 

control requirements discussed in 

Section III.B.1, Rhode Island has 

committed to adopt a low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy consistent with the MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask’’ by the end of 2012. It is expected 

that the compliance date for Phase I will 

be in 2014 and the compliance date for 

Phase II will be in 2018. As described 

in Section III.B.4 above, we do not 

believe inclusion of the low sulfur oil 

strategy is a necessary component of an 

approvable Region Haze SIP for Rhode 

Island. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

determine that Rhode Island has 

satisfactorily considered emission 

limitations and schedules as part of the 

LTS. 

d. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedule 

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

Regional Haze Rule requires Rhode 

Island to consider source retirement and 

replacement schedules in developing 

the long term strategy. Source 

retirement and replacement were 

considered in developing the 2018 

emissions. The sources in Rhode Island 

that were shut down after the 2002 base 

year and therefore were not included in 

the 2018 inventory are: Albin, Display 

World, Clariant Corporation, Leviton, 

CCL Custom Manufacturing, Eastern 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11808 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8This document has been included as part of the 

docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

9Although not included as part of the Regional 

Haze SIP, effective April 14, 2011, Rhode Island 

promulgated APC Regulation No. 48—Outdoor 

Wood Boilers which prohibits the sale or 

installation of any outdoor wood boiler on or after 

the effective date of the regulation unless it has 

been qualified by EPA to meet the Phase 2 

emissions level for particulate matter (0.3 pounds 

per million British Thermal Units output). 

10Projected visibility improvements for each 

MANE–VU Class I area can be found in the 

NESCAUM document dated May 13, 2008, ‘‘2018 

Visibility Projections’’ (www.nescaum.org/

documents/2018-visibility-projections-final-05-13- 

08.pdf/). 

Butcher Block, Fiber Mark, Metal 

Recycling Company Incorporated, Slater 

Dye Works in Cumberland, Slater Dye 

Works in Pawtucket, and Charbert 

Incorporated. EPA is proposing to 

determine that Rhode Island has 

satisfactorily considered source 

retirement and replacement schedules 

as part of the LTS. 

e. Smoke Management Techniques 

The Regional Haze Rule requires 

States to consider smoke management 

techniques related to agricultural and 

forestry management in developing the 

long-term strategy. MANE–VU’s 

analysis of smoke management in the 

context of regional haze is documented 

in ‘‘Technical Support Document on 

Agricultural and Smoke Management in 

the MANE–VU Region, September 1, 

2006.’’ 8

Rhode Island does not currently have 

a Smoke Management Program (SMP). 

However, SMPs are required only when 

smoke impacts from fires managed for 

resources benefits contribute 

significantly to regional haze. The 

emissions inventory presented in the 

above-cited document indicates that 

agricultural, managed and prescribed 

burning emissions are very minor; the 

inventory estimates that, in Rhode 

Island, those emissions from those 

source categories totaled 7.8 tons of 

PM10, 6.7 tons of PM2.5 and 0.5 tons of 

SO2 in 2002, which constitute 0.08%, 

0.2% and 0.006% of the total inventory 

for these pollutants, respectively. 

Source apportionment results show 

that wood smoke is a moderate 

contributor to visibility impairment at 

some Class I areas in the MANE–VU 

region; however, smoke is not a large 

contributor to haze in MANE–VU Class 

I areas on either the 20% best or 20% 

worst visibility days. Moreover, most of 

wood smoke is attributable to 

residential wood combustion.9

Therefore, it is unlikely that fires for 

agricultural or forestry management 

cause large impacts on visibility in any 

of the Class I areas in the MANE–VU 

region. On rare occasions, smoke from 

major fires degrades air quality and 

visibility in the MANE–VU area. 

However, these fires are generally 

unwanted wildfires that are not subject 

to SMPs. EPA proposes to approve 

Rhode Island’s decision that an 

Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Plan to address visibility 

impairment is not required at this time. 

f. Enforceability of Emission Limitations 

and Control Measures 

All emission limitations included as 

part of Rhode Island’s Regional Haze 

SIP are currently federally enforceable. 

EPA is proposing to find that Rhode 

Island has adequately addressed the 

enforceability of emission limitations 

and control measures. 

g. The Anticipated Net Effect on 

Visibility 

MANE–VU used the best and final 

emission inventory to model progress 

expected toward the goal of natural 

visibility conditions for the first regional 

haze planning period. All of the MANE– 

VU Class I areas are expected to achieve 

greater progress toward the natural 

visibility goal than the uniform rate of 

progress, or the progress expected by 

extrapolating a trend line from current 

visibility conditions to natural visibility 

conditions.10

In summary, EPA is proposing to find 

that Rhode Island has adequately 

addressed the LTS regional haze 

requirements. 

C. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

On May 10, 2006, the MANE–VU 

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

Framework that documented the 

consultation process within the context 

of regional phase planning, and was 

intended to create greater certainty and 

understanding among RPOs. MANE–VU 

States held ten consultation meetings 

and/or conference calls from March 1, 

2007 through March 21, 2008. In 

addition to MANE–VU members 

attending these meetings and conference 

calls, participants from the Visibility 

Improvement State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) 

RPO, Midwest RPO, and the relevant 

Federal Land Managers were also in 

attendance. In addition to the 

conference calls and meeting, the FLMs 

were given the opportunity to review 

and comment on each of the technical 

documents developed by MANE–VU. 

On January 26, 2009, Rhode Island 

submitted a draft Regional Haze SIP to 

the relevant FLMs for review and 

comment pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(2). The FLMs provided 

comments on the draft Regional Haze 

SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(3). The comments received 

from the FLMs were addressed and 

incorporated in Rhode Island’s SIP 

revision. Most of the comments were 

requests for additional detail as to 

various aspects of the SIP. These 

comments and Rhode Island’s response 

to comments can be found in the docket 

for this proposed rulemaking. 

On July 30, 2009, Rhode Island 

proposed its Regional Haze SIP for 

public hearing and no comments were 

received. To address the requirement for 

continuing consultation procedures 

with the FLMs under 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(4), Rhode Island commits in 

their SIP to ongoing consultation with 

the FLMs on emission strategies, major 

new source permits, assessments or 

rulemaking concerning sources 

identified as probable contributors to 

visibility impairment, any changes to 

the monitoring strategy, work on the 

periodic revisions to the SIP, and 

ongoing communications regarding 

visibility impairment. 

EPA is proposing to find that Rhode 

Island has addressed the requirements 

for consultation with the Federal Land 

Managers. 

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

Consistent with the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(g), Rhode Island has 

committed to submitting a report on 

reasonable progress (in the form of a SIP 

revision) to the EPA every five years 

following the initial submittal of its 

regional haze SIP. The reasonable 

progress report will evaluate the 

progress made towards the RPGs for the 

MANE–VU Class I areas, located in 

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and 

New Jersey. 

Forty CFR 51.308(f) requires the RI 

DEM to submit periodic revisions to its 

Regional Haze SIP by July 31, 2018, and 

every ten years thereafter. RI DEM 

acknowledges and agrees to comply 

with this schedule. 

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

DEM will also make periodic updates to 

the Rhode Island emissions inventory. 

RI DEM proposes to complete these 

updates to coincide with the progress 

reports. Actual emissions will be 

compared to projected modeled 

emissions in the progress reports. 

Lastly, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), 

RI DEM will submit a determination of 

adequacy of its regional haze SIP 

revision whenever a progress report is 

submitted. Rhode Island’s regional haze 

SIP states that, depending on the 

findings of its five-year review, Rhode 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

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

Island will take one or more of the 

following actions at that time, 

whichever actions are appropriate or 

necessary: 

• If Rhode Island determines that the 

existing State Implementation Plan 

requires no further substantive revision 

in order to achieve established goals for 

visibility improvement and emissions 

reductions, RI DEM will provide to the 

EPA Administrator a negative 

declaration that further revision of the 

existing plan is not needed. 

• If Rhode Island determines that its 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources in one or more other State(s) 

which participated in the regional 

planning process, Rhode Island will 

provide notification to the EPA 

Administrator and to those other 

State(s). Rhode Island will also 

collaborate with the other State(s) 

through the regional planning process 

for the purpose of developing additional 

strategies to address any such 

deficiencies in Rhode Island’s plan. 

• If Rhode Island determines that its 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources in another country, Rhode 

Island will provide notification, along 

with available information, to the EPA 

Administrator. 

• If Rhode Island determines that the 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources within the State, Rhode Island 

will revise its implementation plan to 

address the plan’s deficiencies within 

one year from this determination. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing approval of Rhode 

Island’s August 7, 2009 SIP revision as 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

the Regional Haze Rule found in 40 CFR 

51.308. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 13, 2012. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0599; A–1–FRL– 

9639–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire; Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of 

a revision to the New Hampshire State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services (NHDES) on 

January 29, 2010, with supplemental 

submittals on January 14, 2011, and 

August 26, 2011, that addresses regional 

haze for the first planning period from 

2008 through 2018. This revision 

addresses the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules that 

require States to prevent any future, and 

remedy any existing, manmade 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas (also referred to as the 

‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2008–0559 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0599 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS