[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11809-11826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4677]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4120332f2e2d256f202f2f24012431206f262e37"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2041524e4f4c440e414e4e45604550410e474f56">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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,

[[Page 11810]]

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post 
Office Square--Suite 100, (mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal 
hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business 
are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2008-0599. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or 
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your 
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, 
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the 
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of 
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal 
holidays.
    In addition, copies of the State submittal are also available for 
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the 
Air Resources Division, Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen 
Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA 
02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-0697, 
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#acc1cfdbc5c0c0c5cdc1df82cdc2c2c9ecc9dccd82cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="345957435d58585d5559471a555a5a51745144551a535b42">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Background Information
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
II. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
III. What is EPA's analysis of New Hampshire's regional haze SIP 
submittal?
    A. New Hampshire's Affected Class I Areas
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    C. Reasonable Progress Goals
    1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility 
Impairments
    2. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable 
Progress Controls
    3. Application of the Four Clean Air Act Factors in the 
Reasonable Progress Analysis
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    1. Identification of All BART Eligible Sources
    2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    3. New Hampshire BART Analysis Protocol
    4. Source Specific BART Determinations
    5. Enforceability of BART
    E. Long-Term Strategy
    1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility 
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
    3. Meeting the MANE-VU ``Ask''
    4. Additional Considerations for the LTS
    F. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    H. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is 
used, we mean the EPA.

I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad 
geographic area and emit fine particles and their precursors (e.g., 
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in some cases, ammonia and 
volatile organic compounds). Fine particle precursors react in the 
atmosphere to form fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) (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. PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 11811]]

that would exist under estimated natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715, 
(July 1, 1999).

B. Background Information

    In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress 
created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national 
parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a 
national goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any 
existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas 
\1\ which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 
2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment 
in Class I areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source 
or small group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment'' (RAVI). See 45 FR 80084, (Dec. 2, 1980). These regulations 
represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA 
deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of 
sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the 
relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were 
improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). 
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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 
1999 (64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule. The Regional Haze Rule 
revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the 
regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and 
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I 
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 
51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 
CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze 
requirements are summarized in Section II. The requirement to submit a 
regional haze SIP applies to all 50 States, the District of Columbia 
and the Virgin Islands. Forty CFR 51.308(b) requires States to submit 
the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility 
impairment no later than December 17, 2007. On January 15, 2009, EPA 
found that 37 States, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands failed to submit this required implementation plan. See 74 FR 
2392 (Jan. 15, 2009). In particular, EPA found that New Hampshire 
failed to submit a plan that met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. See 
74 FR 2393. On January 14, 2011, the Air Resources Division of the New 
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) submitted 
revisions to the New Hampshire State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 
address regional haze as required by 40 CFR 51.308. A revision to this 
submittal was made on August 26, 2011. EPA has reviewed New Hampshire's 
submittal and is proposing to find that it is consistent with the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 as outlined in Section II.

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 11812]]

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure 
``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of preventing and 
remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by manmade air 
pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause regional haze. 
The national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e., manmade 
sources of air pollution would no longer impair visibility in Class I 
areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program and as part of the process for 
determining reasonable progress, States must calculate the degree of 
existing visibility impairment at each Class I area within the State at 
the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically review 
progress every five years midway through each 10-year planning period. 
To do this, the RHR requires States to determine the degree of 
impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent least 
impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired (``worst'') visibility 
days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In 
addition, States must also develop an estimate of natural visibility 
conditions for the purposes of comparing progress toward the national 
goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural 
concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then 
calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. EPA has 
provided guidance to States regarding how to calculate baseline, 
natural and current visibility conditions in documents titled, Guidance 
for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze 
Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005) available at www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf (hereinafter referred to as 
``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking 
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003 (EPA-454/B-03-
004), available at www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf 
(hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for 
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of impairment for the 20 percent least 
impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days at the time the 
regional haze program was established. Using monitoring data from 2000 
through 2004, States are required to calculate the average degree of 
visibility impairment for each Class I area within the State, based on 
the average of annual values over the five year period. The comparison 
of initial baseline visibility conditions to natural visibility 
conditions indicates the amount of improvement necessary to attain 
natural visibility, while the future comparison of baseline conditions 
to the then current conditions will indicate the amount of progress 
made. In general, the 2000-2004 baseline period is considered the time 
from which improvement in visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs from the States that establish RPGs for Class I areas for each 
(approximately) 10-year planning period. The RHR does not mandate 
specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for States 
to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward 
achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility conditions for 
their Class I areas. In setting RPGs, States must provide for an 
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the 
(approximately) 10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in 
visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in the CAA and 
in EPA's RHR: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for 
compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any potentially 
affected sources. States must demonstrate in their SIPs how these 
factors are considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst 
days for each applicable Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). 
States have considerable flexibility in how they take these factors 
into consideration, as noted in EPA's July 1, 2007 memorandum from 
William L. Wehrum, Acting Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA 
Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10, entitled Guidance for 
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program (p. 
4-2, 5-1)(EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance). In setting the RPGs, 
States must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural 
visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the ``uniform rate of 
progress'' or the ``glide path'') and the emission reduction measures 
needed to achieve that rate of progress over the 10-year period of the 
SIP. The year 2064 represents a rate of progress which States are to 
use for analytical comparison to the amount of progress they expect to 
achieve. In setting RPGs, each State with one or more Class I areas 
(``Class I State'') must also consult with potentially ``contributing 
States,'' i.e., other nearby States with emission sources that may be 
contributing to visibility impairment at the Class I State's areas. See 
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs States to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, the CAA requires States to revise their SIPs to 
contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress 
towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that 
certain categories of existing stationary sources built between 1962 
and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``Best Available Retrofit 
Technology'' as determined by the State. (CAA 169A(b)(2)a)).\3\ States 
are directed to conduct BART determinations for such sources that may 
be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a 
Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, 
States also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program 
or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides 
greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 11813]]

determinations for other types of sources.
    States must address all visibility impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), 
nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), and particulate matter (PM). EPA has 
stated that States should use their best judgment in determining 
whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) 
and ammonia compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.
    The RPOs provided air quality modeling to the States to help them 
in determining whether potential BART sources can be reasonably 
expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I 
area. Under the BART Guidelines, States may select an exemption 
threshold value for their BART modeling, below which a BART eligible 
source would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility 
impairment in any Class I area. The State must document this exemption 
threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its selection 
of that value. Any source with emissions that model above the threshold 
value would be subject to a BART determination review. The BART 
Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different Class 
I areas. States should consider the number of emission sources 
affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the 
individual sources' impacts. Any exemption threshold set by the State 
should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews. See 70 FR 39161 (July 6, 
2005).
    In their SIPs, States must identify potential BART sources, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their 
BART control determination analyses. The term ``BART-eligible source'' 
used in the BART Guidelines means the collection of individual emission 
units at a facility that together comprises the BART-eligible 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.

[[Page 11814]]

    The SIP must also provide for the following:
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a State with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other States;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    Forty CFR 51.308(f) of the RHR requires control strategies to cover 
an initial implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a 
comprehensive reassessment and revision of those strategies, as 
appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must 
meet the core requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d) with the exception of 
BART. The BART provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e), as noted above, apply 
only to the first implementation period. Periodic SIP revisions will 
assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will 
continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that States consult with FLMs before adopting and 
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs 
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior 
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must 
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of 
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer 
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development 
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. 
Further, a State must include in its SIP a description of how it 
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must 
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State and 
FLMs regarding the State's visibility protection program, including 
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

III. What is EPA's analysis of New Hampshire's regional haze SIP 
submittal?

    On January 29, 2010, NHDES's Air Resources Division submitted 
revisions to the New Hampshire SIP to address regional haze as required 
by 40 CFR 51.308. Amended SIP revisions were submitted on January 14, 
2011, and August 26, 2011. EPA has reviewed New Hampshire's submittals 
and is proposing to find that it is consistent with the requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308 as outlined in Section II. A detailed analysis follows.
    New Hampshire is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP 
which addresses visibility in New Hampshire's two Class I areas. These 
areas are the Great Gulf Wilderness and the Presidential Range--Dry 
River Wilderness, both located within the White Mountains National 
Forest. The State must also address New Hampshire's impact on any other 
nearby Class I areas.

A. New Hampshire's Affected Class I Areas

    New Hampshire is home to two Class I areas: (1) Great Gulf 
Wilderness Area (Great Gulf); and (2) Presidential Range--Dry River 
Wilderness Area (Dry River).
    In addition to these areas, the MANE-VU RPO contains five other 
Class I areas in three States: Lye Brook Wilderness Area in Vermont; 
Acadia National Park, Moosehorn Wilderness Area and Roosevelt 
Campobello International Park in Maine; and the Brigantine Wilderness 
Area in New Jersey.
    The New Hampshire regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for visibility 
improvement at its Class I areas and a LTS to achieve those RPGs within 
the first regional haze implementation period ending in 2018. In 
developing the RPG for each Class I area, New Hampshire considered both 
emission sources inside and outside of New Hampshire that may cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in New Hampshire's Class I area. 
The State also identified and considered emission sources within New 
Hampshire that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in 
Class I areas in neighboring States as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 
The MANE-VU RPO worked with the State in developing the technical 
analyses used to make these determinations, including State-by-State 
contributions to visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, which 
included the two areas in New Hampshire and those areas affected by 
emissions from New Hampshire.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions

    As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, New Hampshire calculated baseline/current and 
natural conditions for its Class I areas.
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    Natural background refers to visibility conditions that existed 
before human activities affected air quality in the region. The 
national goal, as set out in the Clean Air Act, is a return to natural 
visibility conditions.
    Estimates of natural visibility conditions are based on annual 
average concentrations of fine particle components. The IMPROVE \4\ 
equation is a formula for estimating light extinction from species 
measured by the IMPROVE monitors. As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, EPA determined, with concurrence from the IMPROVE 
Steering Committee, that States may use a ``refined approach'' to the 
then current IMPROVE formula to estimate the values that characterize 
the natural visibility conditions of the Class I areas. The purpose of 
the refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more 
accurate estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation 
of light extinction. The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the 
most recent review of the science \5\ and

[[Page 11815]]

accounts for the effect of particle size distribution on light 
extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon. It also 
adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon (particulate organic 
matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms are added to the 
equation to account for light extinction by sea salt and light 
absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific values are used 
for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to atmospheric gases) 
to account for the site-specific effects of elevation and temperature. 
Separate relative humidity enhancement factors are used for small and 
large size distributions of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate and 
for sea salt. The terms for the remaining contributors, elemental 
carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine soil, and coarse mass terms, do 
not change between the original and new IMPROVE equations. New 
Hampshire opted to use this refined approach, referred to as the ``new 
IMPROVE equation,'' for its two areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 
(IMPROVE) program is a cooperative measurement effort governed by a 
steering committee composed of representatives from Federal 
(including representatives from EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The 
IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid the 
creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the 
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of 
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emission sources 
responsible for existing man-made visibility impairment. The IMPROVE 
program has also been a key participant in visibility-related 
research, including the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 
analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy formulation and 
source attribution field studies.
    \5\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is 
summarized in numerous published papers. See, eg., J. L. Hand & W. 
C. Malm, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light 
Extinction Coefficients--Final Report, March 2006 (Interagency 
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado 
State University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the 
Atmosphere, Fort Collins, CO), available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; Marc Pitchford, Natural Haze 
Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Alogrithm to Natural 
Species Concentrations Estimates: Final Report of the Natural Haze 
Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup, 
Sept. 2006, available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Natural visibility conditions using the new IMPROVE equation were 
calculated separately for each Class I area by MANE-VU. EPA is 
proposing to find that the best and worst 20 percent natural visibility 
values for Great Gulf and Dry River (shown in Table 1) were calculated 
using the EPA guidelines.
2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    Great Gulf and Dry River do not contain an IMPROVE monitor. In 
cases where onsite monitoring is not available, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) 
requires States to use the most representative monitoring available for 
the 2000-2004 period to establish baseline visibility conditions, in 
consultation with EPA. New Hampshire used, and EPA concurs with the use 
of, 2000-2004 data from the IMPROVE monitor located at Camp Dodge in 
Pinkham Notch, New Hampshire as representative of Great Gulf and Dry 
River. The Camp Dodge IMPROVE monitor is adjacent to the Great Gulf 
area.
    As explained in Section II.B, for the first regional haze SIP, 
baseline visibility conditions are the same as current conditions. A 
five-year average of the 2000-2004 monitoring data was calculated for 
each of the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days for 
Great Gulf and Dry River. IMPROVE data records for the period 2000-2004 
meet the EPA requirements for data completeness. See page 2-8 of EPA's 
2003 Tracking Progress Guidance.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    For the New Hampshire Class I areas, baseline visibility conditions 
on the 20 percent worst days are 22.8 deciviews at Great Gulf and Dry 
River. Natural visibility conditions for these areas are estimated to 
be 12.0 dv on the 20 percent worst visibility days. The natural and 
background conditions for Great Gulf and Dry River for both the 20 
percent worst and 20 percent best days are presented in Table 1 below.

                Table 1--Natural Background and Baseline Conditions for Great Gulf and Dry River
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      2000-2004 Baseline (dv)         Natural conditions (dv)
                  Class I areas                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Worst 20%       Best 20%        Worst 20%       Best 20%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Gulf and Dry River........................            22.8             7.7            12.0             3.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    In setting the RPGs, New Hampshire considered the uniform rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (``glide 
path'') and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate 
of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the requirements of 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's Reasonable Progress 
Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is not a presumptive 
target, and RPGs may be greater, lesser, or equivalent to the glide 
path.
    For Great Gulf and Dry River, the overall visibility improvement 
necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference between the 
baseline visibility of 22.8 dv and natural background visibility of 
12.0 dv, or an improvement of 10.8 dv for the 20 percent worst 
visibility days. New Hampshire must also ensure no degradation in 
visibility for the best 20 percent visibility days over the same period 
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
    New Hampshire's SIP submittal presents two graphs, one for the 20 
percent best days, and one for the 20 percent worst days, for its Class 
I areas. New Hampshire constructed the graphs for the worst days (i.e., 
the glide path) in accordance with EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress 
Guidance by plotting a straight graphical line from the baseline level 
of visibility impairment for 2000-2004 to the level of natural 
visibility conditions in 2064. For the best days, the graph includes a 
horizontal, straight line spanning from baseline conditions in 2004 out 
to 2018 to depict no degradation in visibility over the implementation 
period of the SIP. New Hampshire's SIP shows that the State's RPG for 
its Class I areas provide for improvement in visibility for the 20 
percent worst days over the period of the implementation plan and 
ensure no degradation in visibility for the 20 percent best visibility 
days over the same period in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).

C. Reasonable Progress Goals

    As a State containing two Class I areas, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) of the 
RHR requires New Hampshire to develop the reasonable progress goals for 
visibility improvement during the first planning period.
1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
    An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures 
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment 
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further 
reducing emissions from different pollutants, MANE-VU developed 
emission sensitivity model runs using EPA's Community Multiscale Air 
Quality (CMAQ) air quality model\6\

[[Page 11816]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CMAQ is a photochemical grid model. The model uses 
simulations of chemical reactions, emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors, and the Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological 
Model to produce speciated PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations. For more 
information, see www.epa.gov/asmdnerl/CMAQ/cmaq_model.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and 
Mid-Atlantic Region.\7\ Sulfate particles commonly account for more 
than 50 percent of particle-related light extinction at northeastern 
Class I areas on the clearest days and for as much as, or more than, 80 
percent on the haziest days. For example, at the Brigantine National 
Wildlife Refuge Class I area (the MANE-VU Class I area with the 
greatest visibility impairment), on the 20 percent worst visibility 
days in 2000 through 2004, sulfate accounted for 66 percent of the 
particle extinction. After sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently 
accounts for the next largest fraction of light extinction. Organic 
carbon accounted for 13 percent of light extinction on the 20 percent 
worst visibility days for Brigantine, followed by nitrate that accounts 
for 9 percent of light extinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the NESCAUM Document ``Regional Haze and Visibility in 
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States,'' January 31, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by MANE-VU predict 
that reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> control efforts in the eastern United States.
    Through source apportionment modeling, MANE-VU assisted States in 
determining their contribution to the visibility impairment of each 
Class I area in the MANE-VU region. New Hampshire and the other MANE-VU 
States adopted a weight-of-evidence approach which relied on several 
independent methods for assessing the contribution of different sources 
and geographic source regions to regional haze in the northeastern and 
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 ``Contribution Report'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This document has been provided as part of the docket to 
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MANE-VU Class I States determined that any State contributing 
at least 2% of the total sulfate observed on the 20 percent worst 
visibility days in 2002 were contributors to visibility impairment at 
the Class I area. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District 
of Columbia were determined to contribute less than 2% of sulfate at 
any of the Northeast Class I areas. States found to contribute 2% or 
more of the sulfate at any of the MANE-VU Class I areas were: Georgia, 
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
    The contribution of New Hampshire emissions to the total sulfate 
was determined to contribute to the visibility impairment in not only 
the New Hampshire Class I areas (3.95% of total sulfate), but Acadia 
National Park in Maine as well (2.25% of total sulfate). The impact of 
sulfate on visibility is discussed in greater detail below.
    EPA is proposing to find that NHDES has adequately demonstrated 
that emissions from New Hampshire sources contribute to visibility 
impairment in nearby Class I Areas.
2. Procedure for Identifying Sources to Evaluate for Reasonable 
Progress Controls
    In developing the 2018 reasonable progress goal, New Hampshire 
relied primarily upon the information and analysis developed by MANE-VU 
to meet this requirement. Based on the Contribution Report, MANE-VU 
focused on SO<INF>2</INF> as the dominant contributor to visibility 
impairment at all MANE-VU Class I areas during all seasons. In 
addition, the Contribution Report found that only 25 percent of the 
sulfate at the MANE-VU Class I areas originate in the MANE-VU States. 
Sources in the Midwest and Southeast regions were responsible for 15 to 
25 percent, respectively. Point sources dominated the inventory of 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Therefore, MANE-VU's strategy includes 
additional measures to control sources of SO<INF>2</INF> both within 
the MANE-VU region and in other States that were determined to 
contribute to regional haze at the MANE-VU Class I Areas.
    Based on information from the Contribution Report and additional 
emission inventory analysis, MANE-VU and New Hampshire identified the 
following source categories for further examination for reasonable 
controls:
    <bullet> Coal and oil-fired Electrical Generating Units (EGUs);
    <bullet> Point and area source industrial, commercial and 
institutional boilers;
    <bullet> Cement and Lime Kilns;
    <bullet> Heating Oil; and
    <bullet> Residential wood combustion.

MANE-VU analyzed these sources categories as potential sources of 
emission reductions for making reasonable progress based on the ``four 
statutory factors'' according to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(V).
3. Application of the Four Clean Air Act Factors in the Reasonable 
Progress Analysis
    As discussed in Section II.C above, New Hampshire must consider the 
following factors in developing the RPGs: (1) The cost of compliance; 
(2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 
quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining 
useful life of any potentially affected sources. MANE-VU's four factor 
analysis can be found in ``Assessment of Reasonable Progress for 
Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas,'' July 9, 2007, otherwise known 
as the Reasonable Progress Report.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This report has been included as part of the docket for this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Hampshire and the other MANE-VU States reviewed the Reasonable 
Progress Report, consulted with one another about possible control 
measures, and agreed to the following measures as recommended 
strategies for making reasonable progress: implementation of BART 
requirements; a 90 percent reduction in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from 
167 EGU emission points\10\ (or if it is infeasible to achieve that 
level of reduction from a unit, alternative measures will be pursued in 
such State); and a low sulfur fuel oil strategy. These measures are 
collectively known as the MANE-VU ``Ask.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ MANE-VU identified these 167 units based on source 
apportionment modeling using two different meteorological data sets. 
From each of the modeling runs, MANE-VU identified the top 100 units 
which contribute to visibility impairment. Differences in model 
output resulted in a total of 167 units being identified for further 
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MANE-VU used model projections to calculate the RPG for the Class I 
areas in the MANE-VU region. The projected improvement in visibility 
due to emission reductions expected by the end of the first period, 
2018, is shown in Table 2.

[[Page 11817]]



 Table 2--Projected Reasonable Progress Goal and Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) for New Hampshire Class I Areas
                              From NESCAUM 2018 Visibility Projections in Deciviews
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2000-2004                                        Natural
         Class I areas                               Baseline        2018 CMAQ          URP         background
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Gulf and Dry River......  20% Worst                   22.8           19.23            20.3            12.0
                                 Visibility Days.
                                20% Best                     7.7            7.2   ..............             3.7
                                 Visibility Days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of MANE-VU modeling (discussed in further detail in 
Section III.E.2), some of the other States with sources potentially 
impacting visibility, in the Class I areas in both New Hampshire and 
the rest of the MANE-VU domain, had not yet made final control 
determinations for BART, and thus, these controls are not included in 
the modeling prepared by MANE-VU and used by New Hampshire. This is a 
conservative approach because additional emission reductions could 
result from the application of BART controls. The modeling conducted by 
MANE-VU demonstrates that the 2018 control scenario (2018 projection) 
provides for an improvement in visibility greater than the uniform rate 
of progress for the New Hampshire Class I areas for the most impaired 
days over the period of the implementation plan and ensures no 
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same 
period.
    Consistent with EPA guidance at the time, the MANE-VU modeling 
included reductions from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in 
estimating the RPGs for 2018. The regional haze provisions specify that 
a State may not adopt a RPG that represents less visibility improvement 
than is expected to result from other CAA requirements during the 
implementation period. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, in 
estimating the RPGs for 2018, many States took into account emission 
reductions anticipated from CAIR. MANE-VU initially reduced emissions 
from highest impacting 167 EGUs by ninety percent. However, many of the 
units targeted for the 90% reduction were part of the CAIR program. 
Since the 90% reduction was larger, in total tons of emissions reduced, 
than the reductions expected from CAIR, MANE-VU added the excess 
emissions back into the inventory to account for trading of the 
emission credits across the modeling domain. This way, MANE-VU States 
would not overestimate the emission reductions or the related 
visibility improvement if States used the CAIR program as their 
response to the MANE-VU's ``Ask'' of ninety percent reduction from the 
167 EGUs in the eastern United States.
    The RPGs for Great Gulf and Dry River in New Hampshire are based on 
modeled projections of future emissions that were developed using the 
best available information at the time the analysis was completed. 
While MANE-VU's emission inventory used for modeling included estimates 
of future emission growth, projections can change as additional 
information regarding future conditions becomes available. It would be 
both impractical and resource-intensive to require a State to 
continually adjust the RPG every time an event affecting these future 
projections changed. EPA recognized the problems of a rigid requirement 
to meet a long-term goal based on modeled projections of future 
visibility conditions, and addressed the uncertainties associated with 
RPGs in several ways. EPA made clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a 
mandatory standard which must be achieved by a particular date. See 64 
FR 35733. At the same time, EPA established a requirement for a five-
year, midcourse review and, if necessary, correction of the States' 
regional haze plans. See 40 CFR 52.308(g). In particular, the RHR calls 
for a five-year progress review after submittal of the initial regional 
haze plan. The purpose of this progress review is to assess the 
effectiveness of emission management strategies in meeting the RPG and 
to provide an assessment of whether current implementation strategies 
are sufficient for the State or affected States to meet their RPGs. If 
a State concludes, based on its assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I 
area will not be met, the RHR requires the State to take appropriate 
action. See 40 CFR 52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate action will 
depend on the basis for the State's conclusion that the current 
strategies are insufficient to meet the RPGs. In its SIP submittal, New 
Hampshire commits to the midcourse review and submitting revisions to 
the regional haze plan where necessary. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
approve New Hampshire's RPG for the first regional haze planning period 
irrespective of the status of CAIR and irrespective of the associated 
issues regarding the adequacy of other State's plans. For similar 
reasons, EPA believes the approvability of the New Hampshire plan is 
not affected by the status of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, which 
was promulgated on August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), and stayed on December 
30, 2011. (EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Civ. No. 11-1302, 
slip op. (DC Cir. Dec. 30, 2011), available at www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/CourtDecision.pdf.)

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

1. Identification of All Bart Eligible Sources
    Determining BART-eligible sources is the first step in the BART 
process. The New Hampshire BART-eligible sources were identified in 
accordance with the methodology in Appendix Y of the Regional Haze 
Rule, Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule, 
Part II, How to Identify BART-Eligible Sources. See 70 FR 39158. This 
guidance consists of the following criteria:
    <bullet> The unit falls into one of the listed source categories;
    <bullet> The unit was constructed or reconstructed between 1962 and 
1977; and
    <bullet> The unit has the potential to emit over 250 tons per year 
of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, volatile 
organic compounds, or ammonia.
    The BART Guidelines requires States to address SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and particulate matter. States are allowed to use their 
best judgment in deciding whether VOC or ammonia emissions from a 
source are likely to have an impact on visibility in the area. The 
State of New Hampshire addressed SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
used particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 
(PM<INF>10</INF>) as an indicator for particulate matter to identify 
BART eligible units, as the BART Guidelines require. Consistent with 
the BART Guidelines, the State of New Hampshire did not evaluate 
emissions of VOCs and ammonia in BART determinations due to the lack of 
impact on visibility in the area due to anthropogenic sources. The 
majority of VOC emissions in New Hampshire are biogenic in nature, 
especially near the New Hampshire Class I areas. Therefore, the ability 
to further reduce total ambient VOC concentrations at Class I areas is

[[Page 11818]]

limited. Point, area, and mobile sources of VOCs in New Hampshire are 
already comprehensively controlled as part of ozone attainment and 
maintenance strategy. In respect to ammonia, the overall ammonia 
inventory is very uncertain, but the amount of anthropogenic emissions 
at sources that were BART-eligible is relatively small, and no 
additional sources were identified that had greater than 250 tons per 
year ammonia and required a BART analysis.
    The identification of BART sources in New Hampshire was undertaken 
as part of a multi-State analysis conducted by the Northeast States for 
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). NESCAUM worked with NH DES 
licensing engineers to review all sources and determine their BART 
eligibility. NH DES identified two sources as BART-eligible. These 
sources are listed below.

                                 Table 3--BART-Eligible Sources in New Hampshire
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          BART source       2002 Emissions      Base visibility
         Source and unit               Location            category            (ton/yr)           impact (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSNH--Merrimack Station, Unit     Bow, NH...........  320 MW EGU........  SO2: 20,902.......  Acadia NP: 2.25.
 MK2.                                                                     NOX: 2,871........  Great Gulf: 1.81.
                                                                          PM: 210...........  Lye Brook: 0.61.
PSNH--Newington Station, Unit     Newington, NH.....  400 MW EGU........  SO2: 5,226........  Acadia NP: 1.22.
 NT1.                                                                     NOX: 943..........  Great Gulf: 0.99.
                                                                          PM: 338...........  Lye Brook: 0.28.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    New Hampshire, working with MANE-VU, found that every MANE-VU State 
with BART-eligible sources contributes to visibility impairment at one 
or more Class I areas to a significant degree (see the Contribution 
Report). According to Section III of the 2005 Regional Haze Rule, once 
the State has compiled its list of BART-eligible sources, it needs to 
determine whether to make BART determinations for all of the sources or 
to consider exempting some of them from BART because they may not 
reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility 
impairment in a Class I area. Because both of the BART-eligible sources 
in New Hampshire contribute to visibility impairment to a significant 
degree, they are both subject to BART.
3. The New Hampshire BART Analysis Protocol
    Forty CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires that, for each BART-eligible 
source within the State, any BART determination must be based on an 
analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology 
available and the associated emission reductions achievable. In 
addition to considering available technologies, this analysis must 
evaluate five specific factors for each source: (1) The costs of 
compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the 
source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree 
of visibility improvement which may reasonably be anticipated from the 
use of BART.
    To address the fifth factor, the degree of visibility improvement 
which may be reasonably anticipated from the use of BART, NH DES 
conducted California Puff Model (CALPUFF) and CALGRID photochemical 
grid\11\ modeling analyses to assess the visibility effects of BART 
controls for both PSNH Merrimack Station Unit MK2 and PSNH Newington 
Station Unit NT1. For theses analyses, NH DES ran the CALPUFF model for 
each unit under uncontrolled (current allowable) and controlled 
conditions (post-control scenarios being assessed). Results were 
tabulated for the average of the 20% worst natural visibility days at 
each nearby Class I area and the 20% worst baseline visibility modeled 
day at each nearby Class I area. For any pair of control levels 
evaluated, the difference in the level of impairment predicted is the 
degree of improvement in visibility expected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Additional detail regarding the CALPUFF and CALGRID 
modeling is provided in Attachment X- BART Analysis for Sources in 
New Hampshire of the SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Source Specific BART Determinations
    The following section discusses the BART determinations for sources 
in New Hampshire.
a. Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) Merrimack Station
    i. Background
    PSNH Merrimack Station has two coal-fired steam-generating boilers. 
Only one of the boilers (MK2) is subject to BART, the other unit (MK1) 
was put into operation prior to 1962.
    Unit MK2 is a wet bottom, cyclone-type boiler with a heat input 
rating of 3,473 MMBtu/hr and an electrical output of 320 MW. The unit 
is currently equipped with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for 
NO<INF>X</INF> control, and two electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) 
operated in series to capture particulate matter (PM) in the flue 
gases.
ii. Boiler MK2
    (1) PM BART Review: PM levels are currently controlled with two dry 
ESPs in combination with fly ash reinjection. These existing ESPs were 
previously upgraded to include state-of-the-art electronic controls. 
Adding a third ESP was found to be unreasonable due to space 
limitations. The current permit limit for this unit is 0.227 lb of 
total suspended particulate (TSP)/million british thermal unit (MMBtu). 
Limited stack tests indicate that the actuall TSP emission rate is much 
lower, averaging 0.034 lb TSP/MMBtu. The NH DES model scenario of 
upgrading the current ESPs to 90% control resulted in a visibility 
improvement of 0.16 dv at Acadia, 0.12 dv at Great Gulf, and 0.03 dv at 
Lye Brook.
    NH DES determined that the installation of additional PM controls 
is unlikely to result in substantial visibility improvement. However, 
based on the limited available stack test data, NH DES determined that 
the current emission limit of 0.227 lb/MMBtu was not reflective of the 
performance capabilities of the control equipment. The MANE-VU 
recommended particulate matter limit for non-CAIR EGUs is 0.02-0.04 lb/
MMBtu.\12\ New Hampshire has adopted a new regulation \13\ which places 
Units MK1 and MK2 within a regulatory ``bubble'' for the purposes of 
TSP compliance. The revised emission limit is 0.08 lb TSP/MMBtu for 
both Units MK1 and MK2. New Hampshire defined this level of control as 
BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The MANE-VU Workgroup Recommended level of BART control can 
be found in Attachment W--``MANE-VU Five-Factor Analysis of BART-
eligible Sources'' of the SIP submittal.
    \13\ Env-A 2300 Mitigation of Regional Haze, effective January 
8, 2011.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 11819]]

    (2) SO2 BART Review: Emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> from MK2 are 
currently controlled by a fuel sulfur limit of 2.0 lb sulfur/MMBtu. The 
most stringent retrofit control technology for SO<INF>2</INF> controls 
is wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD). New Hampshire law requires the 
installation of a wet FGD for mercury removal \14\ on unit MK1 and MK2. 
As a co-benefit, the FGD is required to achieve at least 90% 
SO<INF>2</INF> control. Because this installation is already mandated 
and the removal rate approaches the MANE-VU recommended limit of 95% 
for non-CAIR EGUs, New Hampshire determined that the BART 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit for this unit is at least 90% control. 
Current permit conditions require the facility to submit calendar 
monthly emission rates for the preceding 12 months by December 31, 
2014. At that time, New Hampshire will determine the maximum 
sustainable rate of control. As specified by permit conditions, in no 
case may this rate be less than 90% control. In addition, emissions 
from MK1 will also be controlled via the FGD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NH RSA Chapter 125-I, Air Toxics Control Act 
(www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/x/125-i/125-i-mrg.htm), and in NH 
Code of Administrative Rules Chapter Env-A 1400, Regulated Toxic Air 
Pollutants. (http://des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/legal/rules/documents/env-a1400.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) NOX BART Review: PSNH currently operates SCR on MK2. It was 
installed in 1994 to meet other air quality requirements (ozone season 
NO<INF>X</INF>). Selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) is the only 
other post combustion control technology available for controlling 
NO<INF>X</INF> and is generally considered to be less effective. The 
existing SCR has received previous retrofits to improve performance. 
Additional upgrades would require major redesign and construction. 
Capital cost would be comparable to installing a new SCR and would 
achieve only marginal additional reduction. Because Unit MK2 has an 
existing SCR system and can operated year-round at reasonable cost, 
full time operation of the existing SCR was determined by New Hampshire 
to be BART for NO<INF>X</INF> control. In addition, New Hampshire 
reduced the permitted NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit from a 0.86 lb/
MMBtu annual average to a 0.30 lb/MMBtu 30-day rolling average.
iii. EPA Assessment
    For PM, New Hampshire decided to provide some level of flexibility 
to Merrimack Station which has a source subject to BART (MK2) and a 
source not subject to BART (MK1). If only MK1 operated, the emission 
limit required by New Hampshire would represent a decrease of 70.4% 
from the MK1 emission limit of 0.27 lb/MMBtu. At worst, when only MK2 
is operating, the emission limit represents a decrease of 64.8% from 
the currently permitted limit of 0.227 lb/MMBtu. Additionally, the 
emission limit chosen by New Hampshire also results in a lower emission 
rate from the combined units than if New Hampshire had only required 
MK2 to meet the limit suggested by MANE-VU.\15\ Therefore New 
Hampshire's proposed BART control limits for PM are reflective of the 
MANE-VU recommended limitation. Considering the current controls on 
emissions from Merrimack Station--two ESPs in series--as well as the 
reductions guaranteed by New Hampshire's limits, EPA is proposing to 
find that New Hampshire's BART limits for PM at Merrimack Station are 
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For the ``bubble,'' the combined emission rate if both 
units are operating is 377 lb/hr:
    0.08 lb/MMBtu x 4,711 MMBtu/hr = 377 lb/hr.
    Without the ``bubble,'' the sum of the individual emission rates 
applying MANE-VU's presumptive PM emission limit of 0.04 lb/MMBtu 
would be 473 lb/hr:
    (0.04 lb/MMBtu x 3,473 MMBtu/hr) + (0.27 lb/MMBtu x 1,238 MMBtu/
hr) = 473 lb/hr.
    New Hampshire's approach therefore results in a decrease of 
almost 100 lb/hr beyond what application of the MANE-VU suggested 
limit would require.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also proposing to find that New Hampshire's analyses and 
conclusions of BART emission limits for SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> for units located at the Merrimack Station facility are 
reasonable. EPA has reviewed the New Hampshire analyses and concluded 
they were conducted in a manner consistent with the RHR and EPA's BART 
Guidelines.
b. PSNH Newington Station
i. Background
    PSNH Newington is comprised of one 400 MW electrical generating 
unit, NT1. Unit NT1 is principally operated during periods of peak 
electrical demand. The unit is capable of burning oil and/or natural 
gas. However, because of physical limitations on the boiler's design, 
the unit can only operate up to 50 percent maximum heat input when 
firing only natural gas.
    Current emission controls consist of: low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners, 
an overfire air system, and water injection for NO<INF>X</INF> control; 
a sulfur in fuel oil limit of 2.0% for SO<INF>2</INF> control; and an 
ESP for PM control.
ii. Boiler NT1
    (1) PM BART Review: PM is currently controlled with an ESP. An ESP 
is considered the most stringent control available. The current permit 
limit is 0.22 lb TSP/MMBtu. A single available stack test yielded a 
controlled TSP emission rate in the vicinity of 0.06 lb TSP/MMBtu. The 
facility's Title V operating permit requires a compliance stack test 
for PM emissions be performed and the permit limit to be amended, as 
appropriate, prior to March 31, 2012.
    (2) SO<INF>2</INF> BART Review: SO<INF>2</INF> is currently 
controlled by a 2.0% sulfur by weight fuel oil limit for No. 6 oil, a 
0.4% sulfur by weight in fuel oil limit for No. 2 oil, and the use of 
natural gas. New Hampshire identified FGD, a 1.0% sulfur limit, a 0.5% 
sulfur limit, and 0.3% sulfur limit as feasible controls.
    There is little experience with the cost data for installing flue 
gas desulfurization at oil-fired power plants. Using the FGD 
installation at Merrimack station as a guide, New Hampshire estimated 
that the capital cost would roughly be $422 million.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ At this cost, conservatively assuming a 100% removal 
efficiency (NT1 emitted 5226 tons of SO<INF>2</INF> per year during 
the baseline period), the $/ton for FGD is approximately $80,750/
ton. In addition, the 2005 NESCAUM report, ``Assessment of Control 
Options for BART-Eligible Sources,'' www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-control-assessment.pdf/, estimated the cost of FGD for oil-fired 
units could be twice that of coal-fired units. EPA is proposing to 
find as reasonable New Hampshire's determination that the 
installation of FGD is cost prohibitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Hampshire analyzed switching from 2% sulfur by weight No. 6 oil 
to 1%, 0.7%, 0.5%, or 0.3% sulfur by weight No. 6 oil as potential BART 
controls. A summary of the cost, the expected visibility improvement at 
the highest visibility impacted Class I area--Acadia National Park, and 
the cumulative visibility improvement, are detailed in Table 4, below.

[[Page 11820]]



                              Table 4--Increased Cost and Visibility Improvement Expected From Installation of SO2 Controls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Increased cost/hr               $/ton SO2 reduced                          Cumulative
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------   Visibility      visibility
                        % Sulfur                                                                                            improvement     improvement
                                                                Low            High             Low            High        Acadia  (dv)        (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2% to 1%................................................           $0.00          $2,993           $0.00          $1,030            0.3             0.59
2% to 0.7%..............................................           1,346           4,712             402           1,407  ..............  ..............
2% to 0.5%..............................................           2,020           6,059             528           1,583            0.46            0.89
2% to 0.3%..............................................           2,693          11,445             627           2,664            0.52            1.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to cost and expected visibility improvement, New 
Hampshire looked at other non-environmental impacts such as fuel 
availability, current fuel oil usage, and the existing inventory. While 
0.5% sulfur by weight No. 6 fuel oil is widespread in northern New 
England, 0.3% sulfur by weight fuel oil is still very limited in 
availability. In addition, with recent utilization levels around 10% 
capacity, it is uncertain when NT1 will consume the existing supply of 
higher sulfur fuel oil stored on site.
    New Hampshire has determined that an SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit 
of 0.5 lb SO<INF>2</INF>/MMBtu is the appropriate level of BART 
control. This emission limit is comparable to requiring the use of 0.5% 
sulfur by weight No. 6 fuel oil while giving the facility flexibility 
to blend the existing fuel oil with natural gas.
    (3) NO<INF>X</INF> BART Review: NT1 currently operates low-
NO<INF>X</INF> burners, an over-fire air system, and water injection to 
minimize NO<INF>X</INF> formation. The facility's existing permit 
limits NO<INF>X</INF> emission to a daily average of 0.35 lb/MMBtu when 
burning oil and 0.25 lb/MMBtu when burning a combination of oil and 
gas. Other potential NO<INF>X</INF> controls include SNCR and SCR. New 
Hampshire estimates the cost of control to be $1,030/ton and $1,180 ton 
for SNCR and SCR, respectively. The annualized cost is $0.7 million for 
SNCR and to $1.3 million for SCR. However, both SNCR and SCR will 
increase ammonia emissions which can result in additional visibility 
impairment. Modeling indicates that the greatest expected visibility 
improvement from SCR is 0.34 dv at Acadia, with a cumulative potential 
improvement of 0.76 dv across three impacted Class I areas. New 
Hampshire determined that the current system of low-NO<INF>X</INF> 
burners, over-fire air, and water injection represents BART.
iii. EPA Assessment
    EPA is proposing to find that New Hampshire's determination of PM 
BART controls for Newington Station is reasonable. ESP is considered 
the most stringent control technology and EPA assumes that the permit 
limit set after stack testing will reflect the fullest extent of 
reductions that the facility can meet with the use of the ESP.
    While New Hampshire did not require the lowest sulfur content fuel 
potentially available, EPA believes that New Hampshire's consideration 
of additional factors, such as the limited availability of 0.3% sulfur 
No. 6 fuel oil and the limited additional improvement in visibility, is 
reasonable. Therefore EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's 
determination of SO<INF>2</INF> BART controls for Newington Station.
    Finally, while the cost per ton for the installation of SNCR or SCR 
is likely not cost prohibitive, given the limited visibility 
improvement projected as compared to the current controls and with the 
limited use of the unit, EPA is proposing to find that New Hampshire's 
determination that current controls satisfy NO<INF>X</INF> BART is 
reasonable.
5. Enforceability of BART
    As part of New Hampshire's January 14, 2011 supplemental Regional 
Haze SIP submittal, NH DES included the newly adopted ``Env-A 2300 
Mitigation of Regional Haze'' and the Merrimack Station temporary 
permit TP-0008, which detail emission limits, and recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements associated with the installation of the 
identified BART controls. EPA is proposing to approve the submitted 
rule and permit as part of this rulemaking action. If finalized, as 
proposed, these conditions will become federally enforceable.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    As described in Section II.E of this action, the LTS is a 
compilation of State-specific control measures relied on by the State 
to obtain its share of emission reductions to support the RPGs 
established by Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New Jersey (the 
nearby Class I area States). New Hampshire's LTS for the first 
implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from federal, 
State, and local controls that take effect in the State from the 
baseline period starting in 2002 until 2018. New Hampshire participated 
in the MANE-VU regional strategy development process. As a participant, 
New Hampshire supported a regional approach toward deciding which 
control measures to pursue for regional haze, which was based on 
technical analyses documented in the following reports: (a) The MANE-VU 
Contribution Report; (b) the Reasonable Progress Report; (c) Five-
Factor Analysis of BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of Options for 
Conducting BART Determinations, available at www.nescaum.org/documents/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/bart-control-assessment.pdf.
    The LTS was developed by New Hampshire, in coordination with MANE-
VU, identifying the emissions units within New Hampshire that are 
currently likely to have the largest impacts on visibility at nearby 
Class I areas, estimating emissions reductions for 2018, based on all 
controls required under federal and State regulations for the 2002-2018 
period (including BART), and comparing projected visibility improvement 
with the uniform rate of progress for the nearby Class I area.
    New Hampshire's LTS includes measures needed to achieve its share 
of emissions reductions agreed upon through the consultation process 
with MANE-VU Class I States and includes enforceable emissions 
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures necessary to 
achieve the reasonable progress goals established by Maine, Vermont, 
and New Jersey for their Class I areas.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    The State-wide emissions inventories used in the regional haze 
technical analyses were developed by MARAMA for MANE-VU with assistance 
from New Hampshire. The 2018 emissions

[[Page 11821]]

inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions forward based on 
assumptions regarding emissions growth due to projected increases in 
economic activity and emission reductions expected from federal and 
State regulations. MANE-VU's emissions inventories included estimates 
of NO<INF>X</INF>, coarse particulate matter (PM<INF>10</INF>), 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF>, VOC, and NH<INF>3</INF>. The BART 
Guidelines direct States to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC 
and NH<INF>3</INF> impair visibility in their Class I area(s). As 
discussed further in Section III.C.1 above, MANE-VU demonstrated that 
anthropogenic emissions of sulfates are the major contributor to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the 
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. It was also determined that the 
total NH<INF>3</INF> 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) on-road mobile sources. 
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation also developed an 
inventory of biogenic emissions for the entire MANE-VU region. 
Stationary point sources are those sources that emit greater than a 
specified tonnage per year, depending on the pollutant, with data 
provided at the facility level. Stationary area sources are those 
sources whose individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the 
large number of these sources, the collective emissions from the source 
category could be significant. Non-road mobile sources are equipment 
that can move but do not use the roadways. On-road mobile source 
emissions are automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway 
system. The emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type 
and road type. Biogenic sources are natural sources like trees, crops, 
grasses, and natural decay of plants. Stationary point sources emission 
data is tracked at the facility level. For all other source types, 
emissions are summed on the county level.
    There are many federal and State control programs being implemented 
that MANE-VU and New Hampshire anticipate will reduce emissions between 
the baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these control 
programs in the MANE-VU region were projected to achieve substantial 
visibility improvement by 2018 at all of the MANE-VU Class I areas. To 
assess emissions reductions from ongoing air pollution control 
programs, BART, and reasonable progress measures, MANE-VU developed 
emissions projections for 2018 called ``Best and Final.'' The emissions 
inventory provided by the State of New Hampshire for the ``Best and 
Final'' 2018 projections is based on expected control requirements.
    New Hampshire relied on emission reductions from a number of 
ongoing and expected air pollution control programs as part of the 
State's long term strategy. For electrical generating units (EGUs), New 
Hampshire's Regulation Chapter Env-A 3200, NO<INF>X</INF> Budget 
Trading Program which limits ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> emissions on 
all fossil-fuel-fired EGUs greater than 15 MW to 0.15 lb/MMBtu. 
However, a unit can meet this limit via NO<INF>X</INF> credits.
    New Hampshire also relied on the following controls on non-EGU 
point sources in estimating 2018 emissions inventories: 2-year, 4-year, 
7-year, and 10-year Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 
Standards; Combustion Turbine and Reciprocating Internal Combustion 
Engine (RICE) MACT; and Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT.
    On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court of Appeals mandated the 
vacatur and remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule. NRDC v. EPA, 
489F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007). This MACT was vacated since it was 
directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the Commercial and 
Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Definition Rule. EPA 
proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur on 
June 4, 2010, (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March 21, 2011 
(76 FR 15608). On May 18, 2011, EPA stayed the effective date of the 
Industrial Boiler MACT pending review by the D.C. Circuit or the 
completion of EPA's reconsideration of the rule. See 76 FR 28662.
    On December 2, 2011, EPA issued a proposed reconsideration of the 
MACT standards for existing and new Boilers at major (76 FR 80598) and 
area (76 FR 80532) source facilities, and for Commercial and Industrial 
Solid Waste Incinerators (76 FR 80452). On January 9, 2012, the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia vacated EPA's stay of the 
effectiveness date of the Industrial Boiler MACT, reinstating the 
original effective date and therefore requiring compliance with the 
current rule in 2014. Sierra Club v. Jackson, Civ. No. 11-1278, slip 
op. (D.D.C. Jan. 9, 2012).
    Even though New Hampshire's modeling is based on the old Industrial 
Boiler MACT limits, New Hampshire modeling conclusions are unlikely to 
be affected because the expected reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> and PM 
resulting from the new MACT are small relative to the New Hampshire 
inventory. Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that the expected 
reductions of the new rule are acceptable since the final rule requires 
compliance by 2014. This provides New Hampshire time to assure the 
required controls are in place prior to the end of the first 
implementation period in 2018. In addition, the RHR requires that any 
resulting differences between emissions projections and actual 
emissions reductions that may occur will be addressed during the five-
year review prior to the next 2018 regional haze SIP.
    Controls on area sources expected in 2018 include VOC control for 
consumer products (Env-A 4100), architectural and industrial 
maintenance coatings (Env-A 4200), portable fuel containers (Env-A 
4000), and solvent cleaning (Env-A 1221).
    Controls on mobile sources expected in 2018 include: Stage I vapor 
recovery systems at gasoline dispensing facilities in the State and 
Stage II vapor recovery at any gasoline dispensing facility in the four 
southern counties classified as ozone nonattainment areas (Rockingham, 
Strafford, Hillsborough, and Merrimack) (Env-A 1205, later re-numbered 
to Env-Wm 1404);\17\ Federal On-Board Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) 
Rule; Federal Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline 
Sulfur Requirements; Federal Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Emission 
Standards for Trucks and Buses; and Federal Emission Standards for 
Large Industrial Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreation Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ New Hampshire recently revised Env-Wm 1404 to no longer 
require Stage II vapor recovery controls as of January 1, 2012. The 
previous version of the rule, however, is still currently included 
in the New Hampshire SIP. New Hampshire DES is currently developing 
a SIP submittal for the revised rule which would ensure that Clean 
Air Act antibacksliding requirements are met. The SIP submittal must 
provide for equivalent or greater reductions than under the 
currently approved Stage II program. Therefore, consideration of 
these reductions in the model is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Controls on non-road sources expected by 2018 include the following 
federal regulations: Control of Air Pollution: Determination of 
Significance for Nonroad Sources and Emission Standards for New Nonroad 
Compression Ignition Engines at or above 37 kilowatts (59 FR 31306, 
(June 17, 1994)); Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad 
Diesel Engines (63 FR 56967, (October 23, 1998)); Control of Emissions 
from Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines (67 
FR 68241, (November 8, 2002)); and Control of Emissions of Air 
Pollution from

[[Page 11822]]

Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuels (69 FR 38958, (June 29, 2004)).
    Tables 5 and 6 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018 
estimated emissions inventories for New Hampshire. The 2018 estimated 
emissions include emissions growth as well as emission reductions due 
to ongoing emission control strategies and reasonable progress goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The 2018 SO<INF>2</INF> Emission Inventroy has been 
adjusted to account for the lack of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy. 
The State had estimated that the low sulfur fuel oil strategy would 
result in an SO<INF>2</INF> reduction of 6,449 tons from area 
sources and 2,030 ton reduction from non-EGU point sources.
    \19\ An adjustment factor was applied during the processing of 
emissions data to restate fugitive particulate matter emissions. 
Grid models have been found to overestimate fugitive dust impacts 
when compared with ambient samples; therefore, an adjustment is 
typically applied to account for the removal of particles by 
vegetation and other terrain features. The summary emissions for 
PM<INF>10</INF> in Table 6 reflect this adjustment. A comparable 
adjustment was not made to the PM<INF>10</INF> value listed in Table 
5.

                                               Table 5--2002 Emission Inventory Summary for New Hampshire
                                                                     [Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                VOC             NOX            PM10            PM2.5            SO2             NH3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................           1,599           9,759           3,332           2,938          46,560              74
Area....................................................          65,370          10,960          43,328          17,532           7,072           2,158
On-Road Mobile..........................................          16,762          33,283             814             562             777           1,447
Non-Road Mobile.........................................          22,376           9,912           1,058             965             891               9
Biogenics...............................................         141,894             482               0               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         248,001          64,396          48,532          21,997          55,300           3,688
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                               Table 6--2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for New Hampshire
                                                                     [Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                VOC             NOX            PM10            PM2.5          SO2\18\           NH3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................           1,291           4,258           3,397           3,208          13,880             184
Area....................................................          62,649          12,180          21,775          14,993           7,421           2,789
On-Road Mobile..........................................           6,564           7,671             282             263             537           1,916
Non-Road Mobile.........................................          15,003           6,344             697             634             246              11
Biogenics...............................................         141,894             482               0               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         227,401          30,935     \19\ 26,151          19,098          22,084           4,900
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for 
Uniform Rate of Progress
    MANE-VU performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 11 
Mid-Atlantic 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:
    <bullet> Meteorological Model: The Fifth-Generation 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 regional-
scale photochemical, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and regional haze regulatory 
modeling studies.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Air Quality Model: The Regional Model for Aerosols and 
Deposition (REMSAD), is a Eulerian grid model that was primarily used 
to determine the attribution of sulfate species in the Eastern U.S. via 
the species-tagging scheme.
    <bullet> 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 
in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection of the entire year of 
2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of meteorology 
available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The MANE-VU States' 
modeling was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use of 
Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality 
Goals for Ozone, PM<INF>2.5,</INF> 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

[[Page 11823]]

November 2005 (EPA-454/R-05-001), available at www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html (hereinafter referred to as '' EPA's Modeling 
Guidance'').
    MANE-VU examined the model performance of the regional modeling for 
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results 
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and 
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts 
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support 
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those 
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the 
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated 
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone, 
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks 
and databases for the 2002 base year. MANE-VU used a diverse set of 
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and 
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once MANE-VU determined the 
model performance to be acceptable, MANE-VU used the model to assess 
the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling 
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the State of New Hampshire 
provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required 
analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and 
modeling used to develop the glide path and to support the LTS are 
consistent with EPA's RHR, and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance. 
EPA is proposing to find that the MANE-VU technical modeling to support 
the LTS and determine visibility improvement for the uniform rate of 
progress is acceptable because the modeling system was chosen and used 
according to EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA agrees with the MANE-VU model 
performance procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is an appropriate 
tool for the regional haze assessments for the New Hampshire LTS and 
regional haze SIP.
2. Meeting the MANE-VU ``Ask''
    New Hampshire is home to two Class I areas, therefore it is 
required to establish RPGs. New Hampshire, in cooperation with the 
MANE-VU States, developed the MANE-VU ``Ask'' that will provide for 
reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility at the MANE-VU 
Class I area. The ``Ask'' consists of: (a) Timely implementation of 
BART requirements; (b) a 90 percent reduction in SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions from each of the EGU stacks identified by MANE-VU comprising 
a total of 167 stacks; (c) adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy; 
and (d) continued evaluation of other control measures to reduce 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions.
a. Timely Implementation of BART
    The New Hampshire BART determinations are discussed in detail in 
Section III.D. As previously noted, EPA is proposing to find that the 
BART determinations for Merrimack Station Unit MK2 and Newington 
Station NT1 are reasonable.
b. Ninety Percent Reduction in SO<INF>2</INF> Emissions From Each of 
the EGU Stacks Identified by MANE-VU Comprising a Total of 167 Stacks
    New Hampshire has three EGU stacks identified by MANE-VU as a top 
contributor to visibility impairment in any of the MANE-VU Class I 
areas: MK1 and MK2 at Merrimack Station; and NT1 at Newington Station.
    Merrimack Station is installing a wet flue gas desulfurization 
system on MK1 and MK2 which will reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions by at 
least 90%. Permit conditions require the facility to submit calendar 
monthly emission rates for the preceding 12 months by December 31, 
2014. At that time, New Hampshire will determine the maximum 
sustainable rate of control. As specified by current permit conditions, 
in no case may this rate be less than 90% control. It is expected that 
the level of control will approach 95%. The New Hampshire BART 
determination for Newington Station NT1 is an SO<INF>2</INF> emission 
limit of 0.50 lb/MMBtu. This represents a 67% reduction in 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission from NT1.
    The combination of reductions from the three identified stacks 
results in at least an overall 87% reduction in SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions, comparable to the MANE-VU projected 90% reduction.
c. Continued Evaluation of Other Control Measures To Reduce 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> Emissions Including the MANE-VU Low 
Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy
    The MANE-VU low sulfur fuel oil strategy includes: The Phase I 
reduction of distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur by weight (500 parts per 
million (ppm)) by no later than 2014; and the Phase II reductions of 
<greek-i>4 residual oil to 0.25% sulfur by weight by no later than 
2018; <greek-i>6 residual oil to 0.5% sulfur by weight by no later than 
2018; and further reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 15 ppm 
by 2018.
    The reduction in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from this low-sulfur fuel 
oil strategy by 2018 will yield corresponding reductions in sulfate 
aerosol, the main culprit in fine-particle pollution and regional haze. 
The MANE-VU analysis demonstrates that the reduction of the sulfur 
content in fuel oil will lead to an average reduction of 0.13-0.18 ug/
m\3\ in the 24 hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentration within New 
Hampshire, improving health and local visibility. In addition, the use 
of low sulfur fuels will result in cost savings to owners/operators of 
residential furnaces and boilers due to reduced maintenance costs and 
extended life of the units.
    In its August 26, 2011 submittal, New Hampshire committed to the 
``[c]ontinued evaluation of other possible control measures for haze-
causing emissions, including participation in MANE-VU's low sulfur fuel 
oil strategy by 2018.'' While New Hampshire has not yet submitted a 
federally enforceable low sulfur fuel oil strategy, in addition to 
previously discussed SO<INF>2</INF> reductions, SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions in New Hampshire have been reduced through the conversion of 
coal-fired Unit 5 at Schiller Station to a biomass-firing unit and the 
shutdown of Fraser LLC pulp and paper mill.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The annual 2002 SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from Schiller 
Station Unit 5 and Fraser LLC were 2,796 tons and 638 tons, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing approval of the New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP 
for the first implementation period without inclusion of an adopted low 
sulfur fuel oil regulation.\21\ While the additional reductions are 
somewhat less than the reductions projected to result from adoption of 
a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy, this shortfall is not anticipated to 
interfere with the ability of New Hampshire and the other Class I 
States to meet their respective reasonable progress goals. We encourage 
adoption of a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy by New Hampshire as such a 
strategy will have local air quality and some, limited visibility 
benefits, however, we do not believe it is a necessary component of an 
approvable Regional Haze SIP for New Hampshire for the first 
implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ On January 15, 2009, EPA made a finding that, among other 
States, New Hampshire had failed to submit a Regional Haze SIP by 
the required deadline. 74 FR 2392. We have proposed a consent decree 
to resolve a deadline suit regarding this finding as well as the 
finding of failure for 36 other States, the District of Columbia, 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. National Parks Conservation Association 
v. Jackson, Civ. No. 1:11-cv-1548 (D.D.C. 2011). Because we do not 
believe a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy is necessary for New 
Hampshire during this first implementation period, EPA is moving 
forward with this proposed approval of the State's SIP submittal in 
order to satisfy our obligations under the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also notes that implementation of recent federal measures, such 
as the

[[Page 11824]]

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) and the revised one hour 
SO<INF>2</INF> standard, is expected to result in further 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions during the first planning period. 
Although expected emission reductions cannot be relied upon to 
demonstrate that New Hampshire has obtained its share of the emission 
reductions needed to meet the RPG for the area, once these measures are 
implemented and the reductions quantified, EPA expects that New 
Hampshire's overall SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions will exceed 
those agreed to in the RPO process.
3. Additional Considerations for the LTS
    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires States to consider the following 
factors in developing the long term strategy:
    <bullet> Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control 
programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable 
visibility impairment;
    <bullet> Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction 
activities;
    <bullet> Emission limitations and schedules for compliance to 
achieve the reasonable progress goal;
    <bullet> Source retirement and replacement schedules;
    <bullet> Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry 
management purposes including plans as currently exist within the State 
for these purposes;
    <bullet> Enforceability of emissions limitations and control 
measures; and
    <bullet> The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected 
changes in point area, and mobile source emissions over the period 
addressed by the long term strategy.
a. Emission Reductions Including RAVI
    No source in New Hampshire has been identified as subject to RAVI. 
A list of New Hampshire's ongoing air pollution control programs is 
included in Section III.E.1.
b. Construction Activities
    The Regional Haze Rule requires New Hampshire to consider measures 
to mitigate the impacts of construction activities on regional haze. 
MANE-VU's consideration of control measures for construction activities 
is documented in ``Technical Support Document on Measures to Mitigate 
the Visibility Impacts of Construction Activities in the MANE-VU 
Region,'' Draft, October 20, 2006.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ This document has been provided as part of the docket to 
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The construction industry is already subject to requirements for 
controlling pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment. For 
example, federal regulations require the reduction of SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions from construction vehicles. At the State level, New Hampshire 
currently regulates emissions of fugitive dust through New Hampshire's 
Code of Administrative Rules Env-A 1002, Fugitive Dust, which requires 
the control of direct emissions of particulate matter from mining, 
transportation, storage, use, and removal activities.
    MANE-VU's Contribution Report found that, from a regional haze 
perspective, crustal material generally does not play a major role. On 
the 20 percent best-visibility days during the 2000-2004 baseline 
period, crustal material accounted for 6 to 11 percent of the particle-
related light extinction at the MANE-VU Class I Areas. On the 20 
percent worst-visibility days, however, the contribution was reduced to 
2 to 3 percent. Furthermore, the crustal fraction is largely made up of 
pollutants of natural origin (e.g., soil or sea salt) that are not 
targeted under the Regional Haze Rule. Nevertheless, the crustal 
fraction at any given location can be heavily influenced by the 
proximity of construction activities; and construction activities 
occurring in the immediate vicinity of MANE-VU Class I area could have 
a noticeable effect on visibility.
    For this regional haze SIP, New Hampshire concluded that its 
current regulations are currently sufficient to mitigate the impacts of 
construction activities. Any future deliberations on potential control 
measures for construction activities and the possible implementation 
will be documented in the first regional haze SIP progress report. EPA 
is proposing to find that New Hampshire has adequately addressed 
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities.
c. Emission Limitations and Schedules for Compliance To Achieve the RPG
    In addition to the existing CAA control requirements discussed in 
Section III.E.1, New Hampshire has adopted and submitted regulation 
Env-A 2300 Mitigation of Regional Haze to EPA as a SIP revision. This 
rule establishes SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and PM emission limits 
for Merrimack Station units MK1 and MK2 and Newington Station NT1. EPA 
is proposing to approve this rule as part of today's action.
d. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedule
    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) of the Regional Haze Rule requires New 
Hampshire to consider source retirement and replacement schedules in 
developing the long term strategy. Source retirement and replacement 
were considered in developing the 2018 emissions. The following sources 
in New Hampshire were shut down (or replaced) after the 2002 base year 
and therefore were not included in the 2018 inventory:
    <bullet> PSNH Schiller Station Unit No. 5 replacement (Portsmouth, 
NH),
    <bullet> Groveton Paperboard, Inc. (Groveton, NH), and
    <bullet> Wausau Paper Printing & Writing, LLC (Groveton, NH).

Since the 2002 and 2018 inventories were developed, Fraser N.H. LLC 
(Berlin, NH) also shut down.
    EPA is proposing to determine that New Hampshire has satisfactorily 
considered source retirement and replacement schedules as part of the 
LTS.
e. Smoke Management Techniques
    The Regional Haze Rule requires States to consider smoke management 
techniques related to agricultural and forestry management in 
developing the long-term strategy. MANE-VU's analysis of smoke 
management in the context of regional haze is documented in ``Technical 
Support Document on Agricultural and Smoke Management in the MANE-VU 
Region,'' September 1, 2006.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ This document has been included as part of the docket to 
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Hampshire does not currently have a Smoke Management Program 
(SMP). However, SMPs are required only when smoke impacts from fires 
managed for resources benefits contribute significantly to regional 
haze. The emissions inventory presented in the above-cited document 
indicates that agricultural, managed and prescribed burning emissions 
are very minor; the inventory estimates that, in New Hampshire, those 
emissions from those source categories totaled 498.5 tons of 
PM<INF>10</INF>, 427.6 tons of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 30.1 tons of 
SO<INF>2</INF> in 2002, which constitute 1.0%, 1.9% and 0.05% of the 
total inventory for these pollutants, respectively.
    Source apportionment results show that wood smoke is a moderate 
contributor to visibility impairment at some Class I areas in the MANE-
VU region; however, smoke is not a large contributor to haze in MANE-VU 
Class I areas on either the 20% best or 20% worst visibility days. 
Moreover, most of wood smoke is attributable to residential wood 
combustion. Therefore, it is unlikely that fires for agricultural or 
forestry management cause large impacts on visibility in any of the 
Class I areas in the MANE-VU region. On rare occasions, smoke from 
major fires

[[Page 11825]]

degrades air quality and visibility in the MANE-VU area. However, these 
fires are generally unwanted wildfires that are not subject to SMPs. 
Therefore, a SMP is not required for New Hampshire. EPA proposes to 
approve New Hampshire's decision that an Agricultural and Forestry 
Smoke Management Plan to address visibility impairment is not required 
at this time.
f. Enforceability of Emission Limitations and Control Measures
    All emission limitations included as part of New Hampshire's 
Regional Haze SIP are either currently federally enforceable or will 
become federally enforceable if this action is finalized as proposed. 
EPA is proposing to find that New Hampshire has adequately addressed 
the enforceability of emission limitations and control measures.
g. The Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility
    As explained above, New Hampshire has not adopted the low sulfur 
fuel oil strategy included in the MANE-VU ``Ask.'' However, through 
implementation of BART and the targeted EGU strategy, New Hampshire 
will achieve a greater than 60% reduction in statewide SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions. New Hampshire and EPA anticipate that the Class I areas 
impacted by New Hampshire will attain the visibility improvement 
expected for the first planning period.
    In summary, EPA is proposing to find that New Hampshire's Regional 
Haze SIP meets, or is comparable to, the MANE-VU Ask, that the controls 
proposed in the SIP are reasonable for the LTS for the first 
implementation period, and that New Hampshire adequately addressed all 
the requirements of a LTS contained in the RHR.

F. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    On May 10, 2006, the MANE-VU State Air Directors adopted the Inter-
RPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation Framework that documented the 
consultation process within the context of regional phase planning, and 
was intended to create greater certainty and understanding among RPOs. 
MANE-VU States held ten consultation meetings and/or conference calls 
from March 1, 2007, through March 21, 2008. In addition to MANE-VU 
members attending these meetings and conference calls, participants 
from the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the 
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO, Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal Land 
Managers were also in attendance. In addition to the conference calls 
and meeting, the FLMs were given the opportunity to review and comment 
on each of the technical documents developed by MANE-VU.
    On August 1, 2008, New Hampshire submitted a draft Regional Haze 
SIP to the relevant FLMs for review and comment pursuant to 40 CFR 
51.308(i)(2). The FLMs provided comments on the draft Regional Haze SIP 
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). The comments received from the 
FLMs were addressed and incorporated in New Hampshire's SIP revision. 
Most of the comments were requests for additional detail as to various 
aspects of the SIP. These comments and New Hampshire's response to 
comments can be found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
    On May 25, 2009, New Hampshire published a notice of agency 
rulemaking proposal. This initiated a 30-day comment period and a 
public hearing on June 24, 2009. On November 19, 2010, New Hampshire 
published a second notice of agency rulemaking proposal. This initiated 
a 30-day comment period and a public hearing on December 20, 2010. 
NHDES received comments from EPA, the Federal Land Managers, 
Appalachian Mountain Club, and Sierra Club. New Hampshire's response to 
comments is included as an attachment to the SIP submittal.
    To address the requirement for continuing consultation procedures 
with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), New Hampshire commits in their 
SIP to ongoing consultation with the FLMs periodically and as 
circumstances require, on the following implementation items:
    <bullet> Status of emission strategies identified in the SIP as 
contributing to improvements in the worst-day visibility;
    <bullet> Summary of major new source permits issued;
    <bullet> Status of New Hampshire's actions toward completing any 
future assessments or rulemakings on source identified as probable 
contributors to visibility impairment, but not directly addressed in 
the most recent SIP revision;
    <bullet> Any changes to the monitoring strategy or status of 
monitoring stations that might affect tracking of reasonable progress;
    <bullet> Work underway for preparing the 5-year SIP review and/or 
10-year SIP revision, including any items where the FLM's consideration 
or support is requested; and
    <bullet> Summary of topics discussed in ongoing communications 
(e.g. meetings, emails, etc.) between New Hampshire and the FLMs 
regarding implementation of the visibility improvement program.
    EPA proposes to find that New Hampshire has addressed the 
requirements for consultation with States impacting New Hampshire's 
Class I areas and with the Federal Land Managers.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional Haze Rule requires a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting 
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all 
mandatory Class I Areas within the State of New Hampshire. The 
monitoring strategy relies upon participation in the IMPROVE network.
    The State of New Hampshire participates in the IMPROVE network, and 
will evaluate the monitoring network periodically and make those 
changes needed to be able to assess whether reasonable progress goals 
are being achieved in each of New Hampshire's mandatory Class I Areas. 
In its SIP submittal, New Hampshire is committing to continued support 
of the IMPROVE network.
    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(4)(i) requires States to establish additional 
monitoring sites or equipment as needed to assess whether reasonable 
progress goals are being achieved toward visibility improvement at 
mandatory Class I areas. At this time, the current monitors are 
sufficient to make this assessment.
    In its SIP submittal, New Hampshire commits to meet the 
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv) to report to EPA visibility 
data for each of New Hampshire's Class I Areas annually.
    The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi)) requires the 
inclusion of other monitoring elements, including reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other measures, necessary to assess and report 
visibility. While the State of New Hampshire has concluded that the 
current IMPROVE network provides sufficient data to adequately measure 
and report progress toward the goals set for the MANE-VU Class I sites 
to which the State contributes, the State has also found additional 
monitoring information useful to assess visibility and fine particle 
pollution in the region in the past. Examples of these data include 
results from: The MANE-VU Regional Aerosol Intensive Network (RAIN), 
which provides continuous, speciated information on rural aerosol 
characteristics and visibility parameters; the EPA Clean Air Status and 
Trends Network (CASTNET), which has provided complementary rural fine 
particle speciation data at non-class I

[[Page 11826]]

sites; the EPA Speciation Trends Network (STN), which provides 
speciated, urban fine particle data to help develop a comprehensive 
picture of local and regional sources; state-operated rural and urban 
speciation sites using IMPROVE or STN methods; and the Supersites 
program, which has provided information through special studies that 
generally expands the understanding of the processes that control fine 
particle formation and transport in the region. New Hampshire plans to 
continue to utilize these and other data--as they are available and 
fiscal realities allow--to improve their understanding of visibility 
impairment and to document progress toward reasonable progress goals 
under the Regional Haze Rule.

H. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g), New Hampshire 
has committed to submitting a report on reasonable progress (in the 
form of a SIP revision) to the EPA every five years following the 
initial submittal of its regional haze SIP. The reasonable progress 
report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the MANE-VU 
Class I areas, located in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New 
Jersey.
    Forty CFR 51.308(f) requires New Hampshire to submit periodic 
revisions to its Regional Haze SIP by July 31, 2018, and every ten 
years thereafter. New Hampshire acknowledges and agrees to comply with 
this schedule.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v), NHDES will also make periodic 
updates to the New Hampshire emissions inventory. NHDES plans to 
complete these updates to coincide with the progress reports. Actual 
emissions will be compared to projected modeled emissions in the 
progress reports.
    Lastly, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), NHDES will submit a 
determination of adequacy of its regional haze SIP revision whenever a 
progress report is submitted. New Hampshire's regional haze SIP states 
that, depending on the findings of its five-year review, New Hampshire 
will take one or more of the following actions at that time, whichever 
actions are appropriate or necessary:
    <bullet> If New Hampshire determines that the existing State 
Implementation Plan requires no further substantive revision in order 
to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions 
reductions, NHDES will provide to the EPA Administrator a negative 
declaration that further revision of the existing plan is not needed.
    <bullet> If New Hampshire determines that its implementation plan 
is, or may be, inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of 
emissions from sources in one or more other State(s) which participated 
in the regional planning process, NHDES will provide notification to 
the EPA Administrator and to those other State(s). New Hampshire will 
also collaborate with the other State(s) through the regional planning 
process for the purpose of developing additional strategies to address 
any such deficiencies in New Hampshire's plan.
    <bullet> If New Hampshire determines that its implementation plan 
is, or may be, inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of 
emissions from sources in another country, NHDES will provide 
notification, along with available information, to the EPA 
Administrator.
    <bullet> If New Hampshire determines that the implementation plan 
is, or may be, inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of 
emissions from sources within the State, NHDES will revise its 
implementation plan to address the plan's deficiencies within one year 
from this determination.

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's January 29, 2010 
Regional Haze SIP revision, amended January 14, 2011, and August 26, 
2011, as meeting the applicable implementing regulations found in 40 
CFR 51.308. EPA is also proposing to approve, and incorporate into the 
New Hampshire SIP, New Hampshire's regulation Env-A 2300 Mitigation of 
Regional Haze and PSNH Merrimack Station Temporary Permit TP-0008 Flue 
Gas Desulfurization System dated March 9, 2009, and reissued August 2, 
2010, and July 8, 2011.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 15, 2012.
 H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2012-4677 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>