46866 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

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

7472(a)). 

2On August 22, 2012, EPA approved New 

Hampshire’s Regional Haze SIP submittal 

addressing the requirements of the first 

implementation period for regional haze. See 77 FR 

50602. 

described in the amendments to 40 CFR 

part 52 set forth below. The EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

materials generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA 

Region 8 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ 

section of this Federal Register, the EPA 

is approving the State’s SIP revision as 

a direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the agency views this as a 

noncontroversial SIP revision and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. 

If the EPA receives no adverse 

comments, the EPA will not take further 

action on this proposed rule. If the EPA 

receives adverse comments, the EPA 

will withdraw the direct final rule and 

it will not take effect. The EPA will 

address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. 

The EPA will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information, please see the ADDRESSES

section of this notice. 

Please note that if the EPA receives 

adverse comment on a distinct 

provision of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, the EPA may 

adopt as final those provisions of the 

rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. See the information 

provided in the Direct Final action of 

the same title which is located in the 

Rules and Regulations Section of this 

Federal Register. 

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

Dated: June 22, 2016. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2016–16960 Filed 7–18–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0909; FRL–9949–15– 

Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; 

Regional Haze 5-Year Report 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of New 

Hampshire on December 16, 2014. New 

Hampshire’s SIP revision addresses 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and EPA’s rules that require states to 

submit periodic reports describing 

progress toward reasonable progress 

goals (RPGs) established for regional 

haze and a determination of the 

adequacy of the State’s existing Regional 

Haze SIP. In addition, the December 16, 

2014 submittal includes a revised 

regulation that reduces the total 

suspended particulate (TSP) emission 

limit for the State’s sole TangentialFiring, Dry-Bottom Boiler. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 18, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2014–0909 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

arnold.anne@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the ‘‘For 

Further Information Contact’’ section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

Code OEP05–02), Boston, MA 02109— 

3912, telephone number (617) 918– 

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

mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Organization of this document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. Background 

II. Requirements for Regional Haze 5-Year 

Progress Report SIPs and Adequacy 

Determinations 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of New Hampshire’s SIP 

Revision 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report 

B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing 

Regional Haze Plan 

C. Revised Env–A 2302.02 Emission 

Standards Applicable to TangentialFiring, Dry-Bottom Boilers 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

States are required to submit a 

progress report in the form of a SIP 

revision every five years that evaluates 

progress towards the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I Federal area 1 (Class 

I area) within the state and in each Class 

I area outside the state which may be 

affected by emissions from within the 

state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, 

the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) 

require states to submit, at the same 

time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress 

report, a determination of the adequacy 

of the state’s existing Regional Haze SIP. 

The first progress report SIP is due five 

years after submittal of the initial 

Regional Haze SIP. On January 29, 2010, 

the New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services (NH DES) 

submitted the State’s first Regional Haze 

SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308.2

On December 16, 2014, NH DES 

submitted a revision to the New 

Hampshire SIP detailing the progress 

made in the first planning period 

toward implementation of the Long 

Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in the 

2010 Regional Haze SIP submittal, the 

visibility improvement measured at the 

State’s Class I areas, and a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

State’s existing Regional Haze SIP. EPA 

is proposing to approve New 

Hampshire’s December 16, 2014 SIP 

revision on the basis that it satisfies the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

(h). 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 46867 

3MANE–VU 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. 

4The MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ was structured around 

the finding that SO2 emissions were the dominate 

visibility impairing pollutant at the Northeastern 

Class I areas and electrical generating units 

comprised the largest SO2 emission sector. See 

‘‘Regional Haze and Visibility in the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic States,’’ January 31, 2001. 

5Memorandum from NESCAUM to MANE–VU 

‘‘Overview of State and Federal Actions Relative to 

MANE–VU Asks’’ dated March 28, 2013. http://

www.nescaum.org/documents/summary-memomane-vu-asks-20130328-final.pdf/. 

II. Requirements for Regional Haze 5- 

Year Progress Report SIPs and 

Adequacy Determinations 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), States must 

submit a regional haze progress report 

as a SIP revision every five years and 

must address the seven elements found 

in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in 

further detail in section III of this 

proposed rulemaking, 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

requires: (1) A description of the status 

of measures in the approved Regional 

Haze SIP; (2) a summary of emissions 

reductions achieved; (3) an assessment 

of visibility conditions for each Class I 

area in the state; (4) an analysis of 

changes in emissions from sources and 

activities within the state; (5) an 

assessment of any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state that have limited or 

impeded progress in Class I areas 

impacted by the state’s sources; (6) an 

assessment of the sufficiency of the 

approved Regional Haze SIP; and (7) a 

review of the state’s visibility 

monitoring strategy. 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to submit, at the same time as 

the progress report SIP, a determination 

of the adequacy of their existing 

Regional Haze SIP and to take one of the 

following four possible actions based on 

information in the progress report: (1) 

Submit a negative declaration to EPA 

that no further substantive revision to 

the state’s existing Regional Haze SIP is 

needed; (2) provide notification to EPA 

(and other state(s) that participated in 

the regional planning process) if the 

state determines that the existing 

Regional Haze SIP is, or may be, 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress at one or more Class I areas due 

to emissions from sources in other 

state(s) that participated in the regional 

haze planning process, and collaborated 

with these other state(s) to develop 

additional strategies to address 

deficiencies; (3) provide notification 

with supporting information to EPA if 

the state determines that its existing 

Regional Haze SIP is, or may be, 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress at one or more Class I areas due 

to emissions from sources in another 

county; or (4) revise its Regional Haze 

SIP to address deficiencies within one 

year if the state determines that its 

existing Regional Haze SIP is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress in one or more Class I areas 

due to emission from sources within the 

state. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of New 

Hampshire’s SIP Revision 

On December 14, 2014, New 

Hampshire submitted the ‘‘Regional 

Haze 5-Year Progress Report’’ (Progress 

Report) to EPA as a SIP revision. 

New Hampshire has two Class I areas 

within its borders: Great Gulf 

Wilderness Area (Great Gulf) and 

Presidential Range-Dry River 

Wilderness Area (Dry River), both 

located within the White Mountains 

National Forest. Emissions from New 

Hampshire’s sources were also found to 

impact visibility at one nearby Class I 

area, Acadia National Park in Maine 

(Acadia). See 77 FR 11809 (February 28, 

2012). 

Through the consultation process, 

New Hampshire agreed to pursue the 

coordinated course of action agreed to 

by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 

Union (MANE–VU) 3 to assure 

reasonable progress toward preventing 

any future, and remedying any existing, 

impairment of visibility in the 

mandatory Class I areas within the 

MANE–VU region. These measures are: 

Implementation of best available retrofit 

technology (BART) requirements; a lowsulfur fuel oil strategy; a targeted 

electricity generating unit (EGU) 

strategy; and continued evaluation of 

other control measures.4 While New 

Hampshire did not adopt a low-sulfur 

fuel oil strategy for implementation 

during the first regional haze planning 

period, the State showed in its 2010 

Regional Haze SIP that equivalent 

emission reductions were achieved 

through alternate measures such as 

recent fuel switching at a coal-fired 

power plant in the state (i.e., Schiller 

Station) and facility shutdowns. 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report 

This section summarizes each of the 

seven elements that must be addressed 

by the progress report under 40 CFR 

51.308(g), and describes how New 

Hampshire’s progress report SIP 

addresses each element. This section 

also includes EPA’s analysis of New 

Hampshire’s SIP, and our proposed 

determination as to whether the State 

satisfied each element. 

The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) 

require a description of the status of 

implementation of all measures 

included in the Regional Haze SIP for 

achieving RPGs for Class I areas both 

within and outside the state. New 

Hampshire’s 2010 Regional Haze SIP 

RPGs are based on: Control measures for 

the State’s two subject-to-BART sources; 

control measures for one additional 

EGU stack; and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emission reductions from States found 

to be contributing to the visibility 

impairment at the New Hampshire Class 

I areas. New Hampshire’s two subjectto-BART sources are Eversource Energy 

(formally Public Service of New 

Hampshire (PSNH)) Merrimack Station 

Unit MK2 and Eversource Energy 

(formally PSNH) Newington Unit NT1. 

Along with the two subject-to-BART 

units, Eversource Energy Merrimack 

Station Unit MK1 was identified as 

among the top 167 EGUs contributing to 

visibility impairment. New Hampshire’s 

2010 Regional Haze SIP included 

control measures for these three units. 

The 2014 Progress Report confirms the 

installation and use of flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) for Merrimack 

Station Units MK1 and MK2; the 

implementation of a more stringent SO2

emission limit for Newington Station; 

and the implementation of more 

stringent emission limits for the existing 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and particulate 

emission control technologies in use at 

Merrimack and Newington Stations. 

In addition, the New Hampshire 2014 

Progress Report also includes the status 

of SO2 emission reductions from the 

identified top 167 EGUs outside of New 

Hampshire.5 The MANE–VU targeted 

EGU strategy called for a 90% SO2

reduction from the top contributing 

stacks by 2018. New Hampshire reports 

SO2 scrubbers have already been placed 

on many of the 167 targeted EGUs, 

while other units have seen lower 

utilization or have been shut down 

entirely. 

EPA proposes that New Hampshire’s 

analysis adequately addresses the 

provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). 

The State demonstrates the 

implementation of measures within the 

State, including BART and targeted SO2

reductions from New Hampshire’s three 

in-state units that were part of the 

contributing 167 stacks. In addition, the 

Progress Report documents the status of 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46868 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

6New Hampshire’s progress report SIP includes 

annual unit-level emissions data for SO2 and NOX

from EGUs from EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division 

(CAMD) for the years 2002 and 2013. 

7The ‘‘most impaired days’’ and ‘‘least impaired 

days’’ in the regional haze rule refer to the average 

visibility impairment (measured in deciviews (dv)) 

for the twenty percent monitored days in the 

calendar year with the highest and lowest amount 

of visibility impairment, respectively, averaged over 

a five-year period. See 40 CFR 51.301. The lower 

the dv, the better the visibility in an area. 

8The 2002 inventory is the MANE–VU V3.3 

which is projected to 2018. The 2007 inventory is 

the MARAMA V3 inventory based on the 2007 

National Emission Inventory (NEI). The 2013 

inventory was the most recent year of Clean Air 

Markets Division (CAMD) inventory data as 

reported to EPA. 

9Mid-Atlantic Air Management Association 

(MARAMA) ‘‘Regional Emissions Trends Analysis 

for the MANE–VU States Technical Support 

Document Revision 3’’ dated March 22, 2013. 

Attachment D of the New Hampshire 2014 Progress 

Report. 

requested SO2 reductions from the 

remaining top 167 stacks outside of New 

Hampshire. 

The provision under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(2) requires a summary of the 

emission reductions achieved in the 

state through the measures subject to the 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). 

During the development of the Regional 

Haze SIP for the first planning period, 

MANE–VU and New Hampshire 

determined that SO2 was the greatest 

contributor to anthropogenic visibility 

impairment at the State’s Class I areas. 

Therefore, the bulk of visibility 

improvement achieved in the first 

planning period was expected to result 

from reductions in SO2 emissions from 

sources inside and outside of the State. 

Table 6–1 of the 2014 Progress Report 

details the SO2 emission reduction from 

the 2002 New Hampshire Regional Haze 

SIP baseline to 2013 for not only the 

targeted Merrimack Station Units MK1 

and MK2 and Newington Unit NT1, but 

all New Hampshire EGUs.6 The targeted 

EGU units subject to control through the 

installation of BART and New 

Hampshire’s LTS show an emission 

reduction from 35,882 tons SO2 in 2002 

to 1,729 tons SO2 in 2013, a reduction 

of 95%. NOX emissions from these same 

sources were reduced from 4,776 tons in 

2002 to 2,230 tons in 2013, a reduction 

of 57%. All New Hampshire EGUs 

combined showed a 92.8% reduction in 

SO2 emissions and a 61.3% reduction in 

NOXemissions for the same time period. 

EPA proposes to find that New 

Hampshire has adequately addressed 

the provision under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(2). New Hampshire has 

detailed the SO2 and NOX reduction 

from the 2002 Regional Haze baseline to 

the most recently available year of data 

at the time of the development of New 

Hampshire’s Progress Report, 2013. In 

addition, NH DES highlighted SO2 and 

NOX emissions reductions from all New 

Hampshire EGUs during this same time 

period. 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(3) require that states with 

Class I areas within their borders 

provide the following information for 

the most impaired and least impaired 

days 7 for each area, with values 

expressed in terms of five-year averages 

of these annual values: (1) Current 

visibility conditions; (2) the difference 

between current visibility conditions 

and baseline visibility conditions; and 

(3) the change in visibility impairment 

over the past five years. 

New Hampshire is home to two Class 

I areas, Great Gulf and Dry River. The 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments program 

(IMPROVE) monitor within Great Gulf is 

representative of both New Hampshire 

Class I areas. In the Progress Report, NH 

DES provides the data for the baseline 

2000–2004 5-Year Average visibility, the 

most recent 2009–2013 5-Year Average 

visibility, the 2018 RPG from the 2010 

Regional Haze SIP, and the calculated 

visibility improvement. See Table 1. 

TABLE 1—OBSERVED VISIBILITY VS. ESTABLISHED VISIBILITY GOALS (DECIVIEWS) FOR GREAT GULF WILDERNESS AREA

Baseline 

2000–2004 

5-year 

average 

visibility 

Most recent 

2009–2013 

5-year 

average 

visibility 

Visibility 

mprovement 

2018 

Reasonable 

progress 

goal 

2064 Goal 

(natural 

visibility) 

20% Most Impaired Days .................................................... 22.8 dv 16.7 dv 6.1 dv 19.1 dv 12.0 dv 

20% Least Impaired Days ................................................... 7.7 dv 5.9 dv 1.8 dv 7.2 dv 3.7 dv 

The baseline visibility for Great Gulf 

was 22.8 dv on the 20% most impaired 

days and 7.7 dv on the least impaired 

days. The most recent five-year average 

visibility data shows an improvement of 

6.1 dv on the 20% most impaired days 

and 1.8 dv improvement on the 20% 

least impaired days. The 2014 Progress 

Report also demonstrates that the State 

has already achieved and surpassed the 

2018 RPG for the 20% most impaired 

days and ensured no visibility 

degradation for the 20% least impaired 

days for the first planning period. 

EPA is proposing to find that New 

Hampshire provided the required 

information regarding visibility 

conditions to meet the requirements 

under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3), specifically 

providing baseline visibility conditions 

(2000–2004), current conditions based 

on the most recently available 

IMPROVE monitoring data (2009–2013), 

and the difference between current 

visibility conditions and baseline 

visibility conditions. 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(4) require an analysis tracking 

emissions changes of visibilityimpairing pollutants from the state’s 

sources by type or category over the past 

five years based on the most recent 

updated emissions inventory. In its 

progress report SIP to address the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), 

New Hampshire presents data from 

statewide emissions inventories 

developed for the years 2002, 2007, 

2013 (EGUs only), and projected 

inventories for 2018 for SO2, NOX, PM2.5

and Volatile Organic Compounds 

(VOC).8 9 New Hampshire’s emissions 

inventories include the following source 

classifications: Point EGUs, Point NonEGUs, Area, On-road Mobile, and Nonroad Mobile. From 2002 through 2013, 

New Hampshire’s overall EGU (the 

largest SO2 sector) emissions were 

reduced from 43,962 tons per year (tpy) 

SO2 to 3,167 tpy, surpassing the 2018 

projected goal of 10,766 tpy SO2. For 

NOX, from 2002 to 2007, the State 

achieved an overall 13% reduction from 

64,625 tpy to 56,110 tpy. NH DES is 

projecting an additional 25,000 tpy 

reduction in NOX by 2018, mostly from 

the on-road mobile sector, which would 

result in approximately 31,110 tpy NOX

in 2018. This estimate compares well 

with the 2018 projected goal of 30,369 

tpy. Finally, NH DES indicates that 

based on the 2007 emission data, the 

State has already exceeded the 2018 

emission reduction goals for direct 

PM2.5 (55% reduction) and VOCs (53% 

reduction). 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 46869 

10NESCAUM for MANE–VU, ‘‘Tracking Visibility 

Progress 2004–2011,’’ revised May 24, 2013. http:// 

www.nescaum.org/documents/manevu-trends2004-2011-report-final-20130430.pdf/view. 

EPA is proposing that New 

Hampshire has adequately addressed 

the provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(4). NH DES compared the 

most recent updated emission inventory 

data available at the time of the 

development of the Progress Report 

with the baseline emissions for the 

Regional Haze SIP. The progress report 

appropriately details the 2007 SO2, 

NOX, PM2.5 and VOC reductions 

achieved, by sector, thus far in the 

regional haze planning period. In 

addition, the State provided the most 

recent annual EGU SO2 emission data, 

the sector determined to be the greatest 

contributor to visibility impairment at 

the Class I areas in New Hampshire and 

Maine. 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(5) require an assessment of 

any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state that have occurred over 

the past five years that have limited or 

impeded progress in reducing pollutant 

emissions and improving visibility in 

Class I areas impacted by the state’s 

sources. In its progress report SIP, New 

Hampshire states that sulfates continue 

to be the biggest single contributor to 

regional haze at Great Gulf, Dry River, 

and Acadia. While New Hampshire 

mainly focused its analysis on 

addressing large SO2 emissions from 

point sources, the State did not find any 

significant changes in NOX and PM2.5

which might impede or limit progress 

during the first planning period. In 

addition, NH DES cited the 2013 

Northeast States for Coordinated Air 

Use Management (NESCAUM) report, 

discussed below, which indicates that 

all of the MANE–VU Class I areas are on 

track to meet the 2018 visibility goals 

established by the states in their 

Regional Haze SIPs.10

EPA proposes to conclude that New 

Hampshire has adequately addressed 

the provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(5). The State adequately 

demonstrated that there are no 

significant changes in emissions of SO2, 

PM2.5, or NOX within the state which 

have impeded progress in reducing 

emissions and improving visibility in 

the Class I areas impacted by New 

Hampshire sources. 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(6) require an assessment of 

whether the current Regional Haze SIP 

is sufficient to enable the state, or other 

states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas 

affected by emissions from the state. In 

its progress report SIP, NH DES states 

that it believes that the elements and 

strategies relied on in its original 

Regional Haze SIP are sufficient to 

enable New Hampshire and neighboring 

states to meet all established RPGs. To 

support this conclusion, NH DES notes 

that 2013 EGU SO2 emissions for the 

entire MANE–VU area are already less 

than the 2018 projection (315,675 tpy 

versus 365,024 tpy). In addition, New 

Hampshire discusses visibility data 

from Tracking Visibility Progress, 2004– 

2011, prepared by NESCAUM, which 

updated the progress at MANE–VU 

Class I areas during the five-year period 

ending in 2011, including information 

for the New Hampshire Class I areas, 

between 2000 and 2011 in the context 

of short- and long-term visibility goals. 

The report indicates that visibility 

impairment on the best and worst days 

from 2000 through 2011 have dropped 

at Great Gulf. New Hampshire notes the 

NESCAUM report indicates that all the 

MANE–VU Class I states continue to be 

on track to meet their 2018 RPGs for 

improved visibility and that further 

progress may occur through recently 

adopted or proposed regulatory 

programs. Based upon the NESCAUM 

report and visibility data, New 

Hampshire states in its Progress Report 

that visibility improvement at Great 

Gulf, Dry River, and Acadia has 

occurred for the most impaired days and 

no degradation of visibility has occurred 

for the least impaired days. Therefore, 

New Hampshire finds that Great Gulf, 

Dry River, and Acadia are on track to 

meet the RPGs for 2018 based on the 

observed visibility improvement. 

EPA proposes to conclude that New 

Hampshire has adequately addressed 

the provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(6). EPA views this 

requirement as an assessment that 

should evaluate emissions and visibility 

trends and other readily available 

information. In its Progress Report, New 

Hampshire described the improving 

visibility trends detailed in the 

NESCAUM report and the downward 

emissions trends in key pollutants in 

the State and the MANE–VU region. 

With a focus on SO2 emissions from 

New Hampshire EGUs, New Hampshire 

determined that the State’s Regional 

Haze SIP is sufficient for the two Class 

I areas within the state and the Class I 

area outside the state impacted by the 

state’s emissions (Acadia) to meet their 

RPGs. 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(7) require a review of the 

state’s visibility monitoring strategy and 

an assessment of whether any 

modifications to the monitoring strategy 

are necessary. New Hampshire’s 

visibility monitoring strategy relies 

upon participation in the IMPROVE 

network. The IMPROVE monitor at the 

Great Gulf area is located approximately 

1 mile east of the wilderness boundary 

and also serves as the monitor for the 

Dry River area whose northern most 

limit lies only 5 miles southwest of the 

monitor location. NH DES finds that 

there is no indication of a need for 

additional monitoring sites or 

equipment. 

EPA proposes to find that New 

Hampshire has adequately addressed 

the provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(7) by reviewing the state’s 

visibility monitoring strategy and 

assessing whether any modifications to 

the monitoring strategy are necessary. 

B. Determination of Adequacy of 

Existing Regional Haze Plan 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to take one of four possible 

actions based on the information 

gathered and conclusions made in the 

progress report SIP. In its progress 

report SIP, New Hampshire took the 

action provided for by the provisions 

under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), which allow 

a state to submit a negative declaration 

to EPA. 

In the 2014 SIP submittal, New 

Hampshire determined that the existing 

Regional Haze SIP requires no further 

substantive revision at this time to 

achieve the RPGs for Class I areas 

affected by the state’s sources. The basis 

for the State’s negative declaration is the 

finding that visibility has improved at 

all Class I areas in the MANE–VU 

region. In addition, SO2 emissions from 

the State’s EGUs have decreased beyond 

the original 2018 projections. While 

NOX reductions have yet to fully meet 

the 2018 projections, additional 

substantial NOX emission reductions are 

expected from the mobile sector over 

the next several years. Finally, New 

Hampshire expects the downward trend 

in SO2 emissions from EGUs in the 

other MANE–VU states to continue 

through 2018. 

EPA proposes to conclude that New 

Hampshire has adequately addressed 

the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) 

because the visibility and emission 

trends indicate that the Great Gulf and 

Dry River Areas, in addition to Acadia 

which is the Class I area impacted by 

New Hampshire sources, will be able to 

meet or exceed the RPGs for 2018. 

C. Revised Env-A 2302.02 Emission 

Standards Applicable to TangentialFiring, Dry-Bottom Boilers 

On August 22, 2012, EPA approved 

New Hampshire’s Env-A 2300 

Mitigation of Regional Haze into New 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46870 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

11PSNH Newington Station Unit NT1 is the only 

Tangential-Firing, Dry-Bottom Boiler in New 

Hampshire. 

Hampshire’s SIP. See 77 FR 50602. EnvA 2300 is the New Hampshire 

regulation which establishes the 

emission limits associated with control 

measures adopted through the Regional 

Haze process. In the New Hampshire 

2010 Regional Haze SIP, the current use 

of an Electrostatic Precipitator on 

Newington Station Unit NT1 11

represented BART for particulate 

control. At the time of EPA’s approval, 

a single available stack test yielded a 

controlled TSP rate in the vicinity of 

0.06 pounds TSP per million British 

thermal units (lb TSP/MMBtu) and was 

used to establish the TSP limit for NT1. 

However, the facility’s Title V operating 

permit required that a compliance stack 

test for particulate matter be performed 

and the permit limit be amended, as 

appropriate, based on the results of the 

test. Subsequent stack testing 

demonstrated that 0.04 lb TSP/MMbtu 

is a more appropriate emission limit. 

Revised Env-A 2302.02, which was 

included in New Hampshire’s December 

16, 2014 SIP submittal, reduces the TSP 

emission limit for Newington NT1 from 

0.06 lb TSP/MMbtu to 0.04 lb TSP/

MMbtu. 

EPA is proposing to find that New 

Hampshire’s revised Env-A 2302.02 

strengthens the existing SIP and is 

therefore proposing to approve, and 

incorporate into the New Hampshire 

SIP, revised Env-A 2302.02. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this notice or on 

other relevant matters. These comments 

will be considered before taking final 

action. Interested parties may 

participate in the Federal rulemaking 

procedure by submitting written 

comments to the EPA New England 

Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this Federal Register. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve New 

Hampshire’s December 16, 2014 

Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report as 

meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(g) and (h). In addition, EPA is 

proposing to approve, and incorporate 

into the New Hampshire SIP, New 

Hampshire’s revised section Env-A 

2302.02 Emission Standards Applicable 

to Tangential-Firing, Dry Bottom 

Boilers. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rulemaking, the EPA is 

proposing to include in a final EPA rule 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference New 

Hampshire’s revised Env-A 2302.02 

Emission Standards Applicable to 

Tangential-Firing, Dry-Bottom Boilers, 

effective November 22, 2014. The EPA 

has made, and will continue to make, 

these documents generally available 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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, Regional Haze, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: July 6, 2016. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2016–17063 Filed 7–18–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, and 63 

[IB Docket No. 16–155, FCC 16–79] 

Process Reform for Executive Branch 

Review of Certain FCC Applications 

and Petitions Involving Foreign 

Ownership 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) proposes changes to our 

rules and procedures related to certain 

applications and petitions for 

declaratory ruling involving foreign 

ownership (together, ‘‘applications’’). 

The Commission refers certain 

applications to the relevant Executive 

Branch agencies for their input on any 

national security, law enforcement, 

foreign policy, and trade policy 

concerns that may arise from the foreign 

ownership interests held in the 

applicants and petitioners (together, 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS