Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 88139 

1New Hampshire included a corrected Appendix 

W in a supplemental submission on September 21, 

2023. 

Captain of the Port, USCG Sector Corpus 

Christi (COTP) in the enforcement of the 

security zone. 

(2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter 

or pass through the zones must request 

permission from the COTP Sector 

Corpus Christi on VHF–FM channel 16 

or by telephone at 361–939–0450. 

(3) If permission is granted, all 

persons and vessels must comply with 

all lawful orders and directions of the 

COTP or the COTP’s designated 

representative. 

(d) Information broadcasts. The COTP 

or a designated representative will 

inform the public through Broadcast 

Notices to Mariners (BNMs) and Marine 

Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) of 

the enforcement times and dates for this 

security zone. 

Dated: November 1, 2024. 

T.H. Bertheau, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Sector Corpus Christi. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25891 Filed 11–6–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2023–0187; FRL–11554– 

02–R1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan for the Second 

Implementation Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the regional 

haze state implementation plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by New Hampshire 

on May 5, 2022, as satisfying applicable 

requirements under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule for 

the program’s second implementation 

period. New Hampshire’s SIP 

submission addresses the requirement 

that states must periodically revise their 

long-term strategies for making 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of preventing any future, 

and remedying any existing, 

anthropogenic impairment of visibility, 

including regional haze, in mandatory 

Class I Federal areas. The SIP 

submission also addresses other 

applicable requirements for the second 

implementation period of the regional 

haze program. EPA is taking this action 

pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of 

the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 9, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2023–0187. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the https://

www.regulations.gov website. 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 at https://

www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Region 1 Regional Office, Air and 

Radiation Division, 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 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and 

facility closures due to COVID–19. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Rackauskas, Air Quality Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 

100, (Mail code 5–MI), Boston, MA 

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

rackauskas.eric@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On May 5, 2022, supplemented on 

September 21, 2023,1 the New 

Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services (NHDES) 

submitted a revision to its SIP to 

address regional haze for the second 

implementation period. NHDES made 

this SIP submission to satisfy the 

requirements of the CAA’s regional haze 

program pursuant to CAA sections 169A 

and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. This 

submission included an updated 

version of Env-A 2300, Mitigation of 

Regional Haze. 

On November 20, 2023, EPA 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) in which EPA 

proposed to approve New Hampshire’s 

May 5, 2022, SIP submission 

(supplemented on September 21, 2023) 

as satisfying the regional haze 

requirements for the second 

implementation period contained in the 

CAA and 40 CFR 51.308. EPA is now 

determining that the New Hampshire 

regional haze SIP submission for the 

second implementation period meets 

the applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements and is thus approving 

New Hampshire’s submission into its 

SIP. 

Other specific requirements of the 

New Hampshire submittal and the 

rationale for EPA’s proposed action are 

explained in the NPRM and will not be 

restated here. 

II. Response to Comments 

In response to the NPRM, EPA 

received four sets of comments, 

including a comment letter signed by 

the National Parks Conservation 

Association, the Sierra Club, the 

Appalachian Mountain Club, and the 

Coalition to Protect America’s National 

Parks (collectively, the ‘‘Conservation 

Groups’’ or the ‘‘Groups’’), an 

anonymous comment, a comment letter 

from the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 

Visibility Union (MANEVU), and a 

comment letter from the North Carolina 

Department of Environmental Quality’s 

Division of Air Quality. Below, EPA 

summarizes significant comments and 

provides responses. The verbatim 

comments may be viewed under Docket 

ID Number EPA–R01–OAR–2023–0187 

on the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. 

Comment 1: The Conservation Groups 

comment that EPA improperly relied on 

the fact that the Class I areas impacted 

by New Hampshire sources are below 

their respective Uniform Rate of 

Progress (URP) glidepaths to allow New 

Hampshire to avoid a ‘‘rigorous 

analysis,’’ and that EPA allows New 

Hampshire to use being below the URP 

as a ‘‘safe harbor’’ to avoid Regional 

Haze and Clean Air Act requirements. 

Response 1: The comment appears to 

conflate two issues regarding rule 

requirements related to the URP 

glidepath. EPA has said that a Class I 

area’s position below the URP glidepath 

is not a safe harbor—that is, being below 

the glidepath cannot be a basis for 

justifying a particular set of controls or 

decision not to require any controls. 

EPA did not ‘‘rely on the fact that the 

Class I areas impacted by New 

Hampshire sources are below their 

respective URP glidepaths’’ or consider 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
88140 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

2For example, MANEVU Ask 5 resulted in 

NHDES requesting a four-factor analysis for five 

combustion turbines in the State. See Appendix T 

of the New Hampshire submittal. 

the URP glidepaths in the context of 

New Hampshire’s source selection or 

control measure determinations. Rather, 

on the only page of the NPRM the 

comment cites for support, EPA noted 

that the fact that the RPGs for the Class 

I areas are below their respective URP 

glidepaths means that the 

demonstrations that would otherwise be 

required under 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) and 

(B) are not triggered. These regulatory 

sections are, by their very terms, only 

applicable where a state establishes 

RPGs above the URP glidepath(s) for its 

Class I area(s). Thus, considering 

whether a particular Class I area is 

below the glidepath is entirely 

appropriate and, in fact, required in this 

context. 

Comment 2: The Conservation Groups 

contend that the MANEVU visibility 

modeling and source selection threshold 

‘‘used a 2% contribution threshold (or 

3.0 Mm¥1 visibility impact threshold) to 

target the largest sources of visibility 

impairment in the state.’’ Based on this 

threshold, New Hampshire identified 

only one unit at one source in the state 

for a four-factor analysis, and the 

Groups argue that EPA cannot rely on 

this source review to conduct a rigorous 

and meaningful source selection 

process. The Groups further comment 

that ‘‘EPA states multiple times in its 

proposed approval of New Hampshire’s 

SIP Revision that it does not agree with 

the State’s reliance on MANE–VU’s 

source selection threshold . . . [y]et 

. . . attempts to excuse New 

Hampshire’s flawed source selection 

process and approve the State’s SIP 

Revision anyway by claiming that New 

Hampshire analyzed additional sources 

of visibility pollution in its SIP.’’ 

Response 2: This comment also 

appears to conflate two issues—namely, 

the 2% contribution threshold 

MANEVU used to determine whether a 

state is reasonably anticipated to impact 

visibility at a Class I area and the 3.0 

inverse megameters (Mm¥1) threshold 

used in Ask 2 to target the largest 

individual sources across a multi-state 

region. To be clear, MANEVU 

considered a 2% threshold for use in 

determining whether emissions from a 

state as a whole contribute to visibility 

impairment in a Class I area. Here, New 

Hampshire concedes that emissions 

from the State exceed that threshold and 

therefore, by the State’s admission, 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas in New Hampshire, Maine, 

and New Brunswick (Canada). Thus, the 

2% contribution threshold was of little 

import to New Hampshire’s source 

selection process, as the State was above 

the threshold and did select numerous 

sources for review through the 

MANEVU Asks and federal land 

managers (FLMs) consultation process. 

As for the 3.0 Mm¥1 threshold, the 

MANEVU states used it in one of the six 

Asks as just one means of selecting 

sources in a state for four-factor 

analysis. Other MANEVU Asks 

examined sources with impacts lower 

than 3.0 Mm¥1 and, in several cases, 

resulted in New Hampshire considering 

the four factors for those sources.2

As explained in the NPRM, EPA does 

not necessarily agree that the 3.0 Mm¥1

visibility impact is a reasonable 

threshold for source selection. The RHR 

recognizes that, due to the nature of 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

numerous and sometimes relatively 

small sources may need to be selected 

and evaluated for implementation of 

control measures to make reasonable 

progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo 

at 4. As explained in the 2021 

Clarifications Memo, while states have 

discretion to choose any source 

selection threshold that is reasonable, 

‘‘[a] state that relies on a visibility (or 

proxy for visibility impact) threshold to 

select sources for four-factor analysis 

should set the threshold at a level that 

captures a meaningful portion of the 

state’s total contribution to visibility 

impairment to Class I areas.’’ 

That said, New Hampshire did not 

rely on the 3.0 Mm¥1 threshold as its 

sole means of selecting sources for 

review. As the comment itself concedes, 

New Hampshire reviewed additional 

sources under Asks 1, 4, and 5. 

Moreover, the additional sources 

reviewed under these Asks had 

estimated impacts below the 3.0 Mm¥1

threshold. And, while the comment 

generally criticizes these Asks as being 

‘‘highly limited’’ in scope and asserts 

that New Hampshire ‘‘fail[ed] to 

conduct a rigorous and meaningful 

source selection process,’’ the comment 

does not specify any additional sources 

that New Hampshire should have 

selected for further analysis. The 

comment overlooks that the sources 

New Hampshire examined under Asks 1 

and 4 employ an array of NOX controls 

and, in the case of SO2 emissions, 

generally have SO2 controls in place or 

burn low-sulfur fuels. See, e.g., New 

Hampshire Regional Haze SIP Submittal 

at 54–55, Table 4–10. Furthermore, the 

comment does not mention New 

Hampshire’s consideration of the four 

factors in Ask 5 as well as in Ask 3, 

which addressed low-sulfur fuel 

requirements and reduces SO2

emissions from a host of sources across 

the state. EPA maintains that New 

Hampshire examined a reasonable set of 

sources with the greatest modeled 

impacts on visibility, including sources 

captured by the other MANEVU Asks 

and sources flagged by the FLMs, 

provided four-factor analyses, and 

reasonably concluded that additional 

four-factor analyses for other sources 

were not necessary because the outcome 

would be that no further emission 

reductions would be reasonably 

achieved. 

Comment 3: The Conservation Groups 

state that EPA ‘‘wrongfully endorses 

New Hampshire’s decision not to 

analyze sources that are ‘Effectively 

Controlled’ under other Clean Air Act 

programs.’’ The comment states 

‘‘Nowhere in its SIP Revision did New 

Hampshire conduct any kind of sourcespecific analysis for the five facilities 

noted above [Burgess BioPower, 

Essential Power Newington, Granite 

Ridge Energy, and Wheelabrator 

Concord, and GSP Newington] 

demonstrating that further analysis of 

these facilities would be futile.’’ 

Further, ‘‘none of the Title V permit 

emission limits for these facilities are 

proposed to be included in New 

Hampshire’s SIP Revision. While the 

emission limits may be ‘federally 

enforceable’ for other purposes under 

the Clean Air Act (i.e., construction or 

operating permits), the state-issued 

permits where those emission limits are 

found can expire, and so do not meet 

the SIP requirement for permanence.’’ 

Response 3: EPA’s approval of New 

Hampshire’s regional haze SIP is based 

on its satisfaction of the applicable 

regulatory requirements for the second 

planning period in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), 

and (i). Those requirements include that 

states must evaluate and determine the 

emission reduction measures that are 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

by considering the four statutory factors, 

and that the measures that are necessary 

for reasonable progress must be in the 

SIP. EPA’s NPRM explains that New 

Hampshire’s engagement with 

MANEVU’s Asks 1, 2, 3, and 5 

adequately satisfy these requirements. 

EPA’s approval is therefore based on its 

determination that New Hampshire’s 

analysis and actions to address Asks 1, 

2, 3, and 5 satisfy the reasonable 

progress requirements. New Hampshire, 

in the SIP submittal, did not rely on any 

measures at these five facilities 

identified by the Groups as necessary 

for reasonable progress. As discussed in 

the NPRM, New Hampshire did, 

contrary to the comment, provide a 

specific analysis for each facility that 

demonstrated that these facilities were 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 88141 

3Env-A 2300 lowered the 30-day rolling average 

of allowable NOX emissions at Tamworth from 

0.265 lb/MMBtu (which was allowed under its 

previous permit established in 1987) to 0.075 lb/ 

MMBtu. 

already well controlled. Further, as 

stated in the NPRM, New Hampshire 

explained that three of these facilities 

(Burgess BioPower, Essential Power 

Newington, and Granite Ridge Energy) 

are subject to Nonattainment New 

Source Review (NNSR), and thus have 

limits that were established to meet 

Lowest Available Emission Rate (LAER) 

at the time their respective federally 

enforceable preconstruction permits 

were issued. While it is true that a 

facility’s title V operating permit expires 

and requires periodic renewal, the 

LAER limits established by the 

preconstruction permit are carried 

forward into each successive title V 

permit and do not expire until/unless a 

permit is rescinded, which may occur 

after the respective unit is 

decommissioned. See 40 CFR 70.2 

(defining ‘‘applicable requirement’’ to 

include ‘‘[a]ny term or condition of any 

preconstruction permits issued pursuant 

to regulations approved or promulgated 

through rulemaking under title I, 

including parts C or D, of the Act’’), 

70.6(a)(1) (requiring a title V operating 

permit issued by a state to include 

‘‘[e]missions limitations and standards, 

including those operational 

requirements and limitations that assure 

compliance with all applicable 

requirements’’) (emphasis added); see 

also Env-A 609.05(b) (providing in 

relevant part that ‘‘[e]ach title V 

operating permit issued [by New 

Hampshire] shall contain all of the 

elements required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)’’). 

If a title V operating permit expires 

before the permitting authority can 

reissue it, the permittee continues to be 

subject to the permit and all applicable 

requirements, as long as the permittee 

has submitted a timely and complete 

renewal application to the permitting 

authority. See 40 CFR 70.4(b)(10)(i); see 

also Env-A 609.15(c). If the permittee 

has not submitted a timely and 

complete renewal application, the 

expiration of the title V permit 

‘‘terminates the source’s right to 

operate.’’ 40 CFR 70.7(c); see also EnvA 609.15(b). The other two facilities 

(GSP Newington and Wheelabrator 

Concord) also have title V operating 

permits and have permit limits 

established in New Hampshire’s NOX

RACT program, which is in the SIP and, 

therefore, cannot be changed without a 

SIP revision. See 40 CFR 70.2 (defining 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ to include 

‘‘[a]ny standard or other requirement 

provided for in the applicable 

implementation plan approved or 

promulgated by EPA through 

rulemaking under title I of the Act that 

implements the relevant requirements of 

the Act, including any revisions to that 

plan promulgated in [40 CFR] part 52’’); 

see also Env-A 609.05(b). New 

Hampshire provided this analysis as a 

response to MANEVU Ask 1, and EPA 

finds New Hampshire provided a 

reasonable reply to this Ask (which also 

resulted in more stringent limits for 

Stored Solar Tamworth). 

Comment 4: The Conservation Groups 

comment that ‘‘New Hampshire’s SIP 

Revision embodies a largely status quo 

approach for the second planning 

period,’’ and that ‘‘New Hampshire did 

not require a single source to install new 

emission control equipment to reduce 

haze-forming pollution in the second 

planning period. Instead, New 

Hampshire’s SIP Revision incorporates 

only (1) a voluntary reduction in the 

NOX emission limit for Stored Solar 

Tamworth and (2) existing NOX

emissions limits for two units (MK1 and 

MK2) at GSP Merrimack Station 

previously adopted as part of New 

Hampshire’s most recent ozone SIP 

revision.’’ 

Response 4: New Hampshire 

submitted Env-A 2300 for approval into 

the State’s SIP, which contains a 

reduced NOX emissions limitation for 

Stored Solar Tamworth 3 and 

incorporates by reference Env-A 1300, 

which also includes lower NOX

emissions limitations for GSP 

Merrimack Station. To the extent the 

commenters are criticizing the reduced 

NOX limit at Tamworth as ‘‘voluntary,’’ 

the comment does not explain why an 

otherwise stringent, enforceable limit is 

less legitimate when a facility does not 

oppose it. The limits were deemed 

necessary for reasonable progress by the 

State, and thus were submitted to EPA 

as part of Env-A 2300 for SIP inclusion 

as required by the Clean Air Act. 

As for NOX emissions at Merrimack 

Station, the facility currently employs 

highly effective selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) NOX control devices on 

both of its coal-fired boilers. New 

Hampshire also recently lowered the 

NOX limits applicable to this facility as 

part of a reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) SIP revision (Env-A 

1300) submitted to EPA in 2018 

(effective in the State on August 15, 

2018) and approved by EPA on April 30, 

2024 (89 FR 34137). EPA’s approval of 

Env-A 1300 includes an analysis of the 

state’s evaluation of whether additional 

NOX control equipment, including a 

sorbent injection system, should be 

required to further reduce NOX

emissions from the facility. New 

Hampshire also amended its regulations 

at Env-A 2300, ‘‘Mitigation of Regional 

Haze,’’ to incorporate the more stringent 

NOX limits in Env-A 1300 and 

submitted Env-A 2300 to EPA with its 

Regional Haze Plan for approval into the 

SIP. As EPA proposed in the NPRM, 

EPA is approving the revised state rule 

Env-A 2300, ‘‘Mitigation of Regional 

Haze,’’ into the SIP. Additionally, EPA 

guidance recommends that states 

evaluate controls from other programs 

when considering source selection. ‘‘It 

may be reasonable for a state not to 

select an effectively controlled source. A 

source may already have effective 

controls in place as a result of a 

previous regional haze SIP or to meet 

another CAA requirement.’’ EPA’s 2019 

Regional Haze Guidance at 22 (emphasis 

added). That the regulations in Env-A 

1300 were originally adopted to provide 

for control of ozone-forming pollutants 

to meet requirements for a health-based 

standard does not make them any less 

effective in preventing future, or 

remedying existing, visibility 

impairment in Class I areas. Indeed, as 

the commenters themselves recognize, 

‘‘the same pollutants that mar scenic 

views at national parks and wilderness 

areas also cause significant public 

health impacts.’’ Comments at 22. In 

short, EPA finds that New Hampshire 

adequately evaluated control measures 

at existing sources and provided a 

satisfactory demonstration that meets 

the regional haze requirements. 

Comment 5: The Conservation Groups 

state that the NOX limits applicable to 

the coal units at GSP Merrimack Station 

are too high and ‘‘inconsistent with 

Regional Haze requirements’’ because 

they ‘‘appear to be little more than 

improper rubberstamping of existing 

behavior at Merrimack’’ and are 

‘‘completely out of step with what other 

states—and with what EPA—considers 

to be achievable by SCR-equipped units 

like those at Merrimack.’’ The Groups 

comment that both units at GSP 

Merrimack Station are fully capable of 

achieving lower NOX emission rates. 

Response 5: The Conservation Groups 

copied this portion of their comments 

(with only nominal change) directly 

from comments the Sierra Club 

submitted to EPA during the comment 

period on EPA’s proposal to approve 

New Hampshire’s latest NOX RACT SIP 

revision. 88 FR 43483 (July 10, 2023). 

EPA previously responded to those 

comments in a final rulemaking for that 

notice, 89 FR 34137 (April 30, 2024), 

and incorporates those previous 

responses herein by reference. 

As noted, the new NOX limits in EnvA 1300 discussed in the comment were 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
88142 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

4Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet: 

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR); EPA–452/F– 

03–032. 

5Under either scenario, both units would cease 

operating during the second planning period of the 

Regional Haze program. Copies of the press releases 

from Sierra Club, GSP, and the Conservation Law 

Foundation (‘‘CLF’’) (who participated with Sierra 

Club in the settlement) announcing the agreement 

are included in the docket for the rule. 

developed as part of the RACT program 

for NOX control. In the April 30, 2024, 

final rule, EPA notes that the emissions 

limits New Hampshire selected for the 

coal-fired units at Merrimack Station of 

0.22 lbs NOX/MMBtu, on a 24-hour 

basis, represent emission reductions of 

83% and 91% from uncontrolled levels 

for MK1 and MK2, respectively, which 

is a high level of control. Given MK2’s 

larger size and emissions, the emissions 

weighted average reduction from 

uncontrolled levels for both units 

combined is 88% based on recent 

emissions data. This level of control is 

near the upper end of the emission 

reduction capability of SCR control 

systems.4 In the Regional Haze action, 

New Hampshire incorporated the new 

lower NOX limits for Merrimack into 

Env-A 2300, which it submitted with its 

Regional Haze plan for incorporation 

into the SIP. While the commenters 

assert that the new limits are also 

‘‘inconsistent with Regional Haze 

requirements,’’ the comment—lifted as 

it is from one of the commenters’ earlier 

comments related to the RACT 

program—does not provide an 

explanation to support this conclusion, 

claiming only that, from a technical 

perspective, Merrimack is capable of 

doing better and that limits applicable 

to similar sources in other states are 

lower. EPA has already addressed these 

technical claims. 89 FR 34137. 

Furthermore, similar to the new lower 

limits in Env-A 2300 applicable to 

Stored Solar Tamworth, it is not 

inconsistent with Regional Haze 

requirements for New Hampshire to 

compare actual emission rates at 

Merrimack to rates currently allowed 

and to ‘‘lock-in’’ lower emissions rates. 

Based on the analysis New Hampshire 

provided with its Regional Haze 

submittal, EPA determined those new 

rates to be reasonable, as explained in 

EPA’s earlier responses. Finally, EPA 

also notes that, since publication of the 

NPRM in this Regional Haze action, the 

Sierra Club, GSP, and EPA executed a 

settlement agreement in another matter 

that requires that GSP permanently 

cease operation of both coal-fired boilers 

at Merrimack Station by no later than 

June 1, 2028, or even by June 1, 2027, 

if certain events occur.5 While New 

Hampshire’s SIP submittal does not rely 

on this closure as necessary to make 

reasonable progress, it is enforceable by 

the Sierra Club—the original author of 

this comment. 

Comment 6: The Conservation Groups 

comment that EPA should require New 

Hampshire to include Schiller Station’s 

current non-operational status as a 

federally enforceable SIP provision. 

Response 6: EPA did not rely on 

Schiller’s more than four-year (and 

counting) outage to approve New 

Hampshire’s SIP submission. Rather, 

EPA referred to this long-term outage 

when discussing the State’s conclusion 

that ‘‘no additional updates were 

needed to meet Ask 4,’’ 88 FR at 80673, 

which requested that states ‘‘pursue 

updating permits, enforceable 

agreements, and/or rules to lock-in 

lower emission rates for sources larger 

than 250 MMBtu per hour that have 

switched to lower emitting fuels.’’ Id. As 

noted in the NPRM, the only source 

covered by this Ask in New Hampshire 

appears to be Schiller, in that one of its 

three steam units ‘‘technically maintains 

the ability to operate by burning coal.’’ 

Id. As EPA also noted in the NPRM, 

however, this steam unit has not burned 

coal in over 17 years when it was 

converted to wood-fired, id. at 80669, 

80673, and that, notwithstanding New 

Hampshire’s decision not to lock in the 

emissions limits associated with 

burning wood, ‘‘it is reasonable to 

conclude, for a number of reasons— 

including historic operation, financial 

viability, fuel availability, and the 

overall direction of the fuels market— 

that it is unlikely that this source will 

ever burn coal again,’’ id. at 80673. In 

other words, locking in the woodburning limits is unlikely to have any 

impact on actual emissions from 

Schiller. EPA also noted that the length 

of Schiller’s recent outage and other 

related events also suggest that it may 

never run in any capacity again, 

including using wood. EPA noted all of 

these facts but, as the comment 

recognizes, did not agree that New 

Hampshire had met Ask 4. In this 

instance, Ask 4 is not necessarily 

required for New Hampshire’s Regional 

Haze SIP to fulfill the requirements of 

the Regional Haze Rule. As EPA noted 

in the NPRM, New Hampshire satisfied 

the requirements of the Regional Haze 

Rule through its analysis and actions 

addressing Asks 1, 2, 3, and 5. 88 FR at 

80671. Thus, EPA does not rely on New 

Hampshire’s approach to Ask 4 to 

approve the Regional Haze SIP 

submission. Neither New Hampshire 

nor EPA found that the closure of Unit 

5 is necessary for reasonable progress 

and, therefore, adding a closure date to 

the SIP is not required. In any event, 

EPA also notes that Unit 5 and the two 

coal-only units (Units 4 and 6) are all 

part of the previously discussed 

settlement among GSP, EPA, the Sierra 

Club, and CLF that was reached in 

another matter after the NPRM issued. 

Under that agreement, GSP shall 

permanently cease operation of the 

boilers at Schiller Unit 4, Unit 5, and 

Unit 6 by no later than December 31, 

2025. See, e.g., CLF Press Release at 1. 

Comment 7: The Conservation Groups 

comment that, for proposed actions on 

SIPs, CAA § 307(d)(2)–(3) requires EPA 

to create a docket containing all the 

information on which the proposal 

relies. Moreover, to incorporate any 

rules by reference into a proposed 

action, EPA must explain ‘‘the ways that 

the materials it proposes to incorporate 

by reference are reasonably available to 

interested parties or how it worked to 

make those materials reasonably 

available to interested parties.’’ 1 CFR 

51.5(a)(1)–(2). Because EPA relies on, 

incorporates by reference, and seeks to 

approve revisions to Env-A 2300, EPA 

should have made Env-A 2300 publicly 

available in the electronic docket for 

this action. EPA also should have 

included Env-A 1300 in the electronic 

docket because EPA stated in the NPRM 

that Env-A 2300 incorporates Env-A 

1300 by reference. Further, EPA did not 

explain in the NPRM whether Env-A 

1300 and 2300 include required 

monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping 

requirements, and if not, where those 

SIP elements can be found. (citing 40 

CFR part 51, appendix V). EPA must 

provide the public with an opportunity 

to review and comment on Env-A 1300 

and 2300 and the SIP provisions New 

Hampshire will rely on for monitoring, 

reporting and record keeping to track 

compliance with the emission limits, to 

ensure the State’s SIP Revision and 

EPA’s proposed approval comply with 

the CAA and RHR. Because EPA did not 

include Env-A 1300 and 2300 in the 

electronic docket, the public, including 

the commenters, were unable to review 

these provisions or provide comment on 

whether they satisfy the CAA or the 

RHR. EPA must add Env-A 1300 and 

2300 to the electronic docket and renotice the proposed action on the SIP 

Revision. 

Response 7: EPA acknowledges the 

oversight that Env-A 2300 was not 

included in the proposal’s electronic 

docket on www.regulations.gov but does 

not agree that re-noticing the proposal is 

necessary to remedy that harmless error. 

In short, EPA disagrees that the 

inadvertent omission of Env-A 2300 

from the electronic docket prevented the 

commenters or other members of the 

public from reviewing Env-A 2300 or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 88143 

6The Act provides that § 307(d) applies to 

‘‘promulgation or revision of regulations under part 

C of subchapter I (relating to prevention of 

significant deterioration of air quality and 

protection of visibility),’’ 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(J), 

but EPA is not, in today’s action, promulgating or 

revising regulations under part C of the Act. Nor is 

EPA promulgating or revising a federal 

implementation plan under § 110(c). Id. 

§ 7607(d)(1)(B). Rather, as noted above, EPA is 

approving a state’s Regional Haze SIP submission. 

See, e.g., WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 759 F.3d 

1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 2014) (reviewing a Regional 

Haze SIP approval pursuant to the Administrative 

Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’), not CAA § 307(d)). 

7Similarly, where § 307(d)(2)–(3) is not 

applicable, a harmless error rule also exists under 

the APA. Am. Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC, 524 

F.3d 227, 237 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘The failure to 

disclose for public comment is subject . . . to the 

rule of prejudicial error . . . .’’); PDK Lab’ys Inc. v. 

U.S. D.E.A., 362 F.3d 786, 799 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (‘‘In 

administrative law . . . there is a harmless error 

rule . . . .’’) (citing 5 U.S.C. 706). 

8See, for example, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ 

regulations/new-hampshire/title-Env/subtitle-EnvA/chapter-Env-A-2300 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024). 

9See, for example, https://www.des.nh.gov/air 

(last visited Sept. 16, 2024). 

10 In addition, EPA included Env-A 1300 in the 

electronic docket for that action and included a 

Federal Register citation to that action in the NPRM 

for this Regional Haze action, see 88 FR at 80669 

n.63, meaning that the other signatories to the 

comment letter (or anyone else for that matter) 

could also have obtained Env-A 1300 by accessing 

the electronic docket for the NOX RACT action. 

(Alternatively, the other signatories could simply 

have asked their co-commenter, the Sierra Club, for 

a copy of Env-A 1300). Furthermore, the Sierra 

Club’s comments in the NOX RACT action assert 

that the emission limits in Env-A 1300 ‘‘are 

inconsistent with both RACT and Regional Haze 

requirements,’’ Sierra Club’s NOX RACT Comments 

at 4 (emphasis added), indicating that the Sierra 

Club was even at that time well aware of the 

provisions of Env-A 1300 and their applicability to 

the state’s Regional Haze plan. 

11And while the commenters also state that ‘‘the 

public’’ was also prevented from reviewing the state 

regulations, the public, like the commenters, could 

also have obtained the state regulations through one 

or more of the methods noted earlier. 

Env-A 1300 or providing comment on 

whether they satisfy the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act or the RHR, because 

these state regulations are widely 

available and, therefore, could have 

been easily obtained through other 

means during the comment period. 

Moreover, other documents in the 

record indicate that at least one of the 

signatories to the comment letter— 

Sierra Club—already had Env-A 1300 in 

its possession. 

In the NPRM, EPA stated that the 

state’s Regional Haze submission 

‘‘included the revised New Hampshire’s 

Code of Administrative Rules Env-A 

2300, ‘Mitigation of Regional Haze,’ 

which contains updated emissions 

limits for certain facilities located in the 

State.’’ 88 FR at 80664; see also id. at 

80669. EPA also noted that ‘‘Env-A 2300 

incorporates by reference NOX limits in 

Env-A 1300’’ that NHDES had revised as 

part of a SIP submittal for the 2008 and 

2015 8-hr ozone standards related to 

NOX RACT, limits that are applicable 

only to Merrimack Station. Id. at 80669 

n.63. EPA also noted that it had recently 

proposed in that NOX RACT SIP action 

to approve Env-A 1300 into New 

Hampshire’s SIP. Id. (citing 88 FR 43483 

(July 10, 2023)). Finally, EPA proposed 

to add the revised Env-A 2300 to New 

Hampshire’s SIP. Id. at 80671; see also 

id. at 80679. While EPA stated that it 

was making Env-A 2300 available 

through regulations.gov and at the 

Region 1 office, the commenters 

correctly observe that Env-A 2300 was 

not included in the electronic docket. 

The comment states that CAA 

§ 307(d)(2)–(3) require that EPA make 

Env-A 2300 and Env-A 1300 publicly 

available in the electronic docket 

because EPA relies on Env-A 2300 and, 

by reference, Env-A 1300 to approve 

New Hampshire’s Regional Haze SIP 

with respect to NOX limits applicable to 

two facilities—Stored Solar Tamworth 

and Merrimack Station. The comment 

further states that, because the state 

regulations were not included in the 

electronic docket, EPA must add them 

and re-notice the proposal to allow the 

commenters to review the regulations. 

EPA does not agree that re-noticing is 

necessary. 

First, § 307(d) is not applicable to this 

SIP action, nor do the commenters 

explain why they conclude that it is. By 

its terms, CAA § 307(d) applies only to 

particular types of actions taken by EPA, 

none of which expressly include EPA 

actions to approve a state Regional Haze 

SIP submission. 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1).6

Section 307(d) may also be applied to 

‘‘such other actions as the Administrator 

may determine,’’ id. § 7607(d)(1)(V), but 

EPA never indicated in the NPRM that 

it had determined to apply § 307(d) to 

this SIP approval action. Thus, the 

comment’s reliance on § 307(d)(2)-(3) is 

misplaced. 

Second, even if § 307(d) were 

applicable to this action, the inadvertent 

omission of Env-A 2300 from the 

electronic docket would be a harmless 

procedural error and does not 

necessitate re-noticing and re-opening 

the comment period, because the state 

regulations are publicly available. See 

42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(8), (9)(D)(iii).7 In 

contrast, this is not a case where an 

agency relied on internal information 

known only to it. See, e.g., Penobscot 

Indian Nation v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & 

Urb. Dev., 539 F. Supp. 2d 40, 48–51 

(D.D.C. 2008). The commenters could 

have obtained the state regulations 

through a number of publicly available 

methods, including, for instance, a 

simple internet search,8 visiting the 

New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services’ (NHDES) web 

page,9 or contacting the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT EPA listed in the 

NPRM. See 88 FR at 80655, 80679. The 

regulations’ absence from the electronic 

docket therefore did not preclude the 

commenters from providing meaningful 

comment on EPA’s proposed approval. 

Moreover, the Sierra Club (one of the 

signatories to the comment letter on the 

NPRM for New Hampshire’s Regional 

Haze SIP) submitted detailed comments 

to EPA on Env-A 1300 in the context of 

the above-referenced NOX RACT SIP 

action—comments that demonstrate the 

Sierra Club had reviewed Env-A 1300 

for that action.10 See ‘‘Sierra Club 

Comments on U.S. EPA, Air Plan 

Approval; New Hampshire; Reasonably 

Available Control Technology for the 

2008 and 2015 Ozone Standards [EPA– 

R01–OAR–2023–0188]’’ (August 9, 

2023), hereinafter ‘‘Sierra Club’s NOX

RACT Comments.’’ Notably, the 

commenters on today’s Regional Haze 

SIP action copied a portion of these 

earlier Sierra Club comments relating to 

Env-A 1300 and pasted it directly into 

their comments on the Regional Haze 

NPRM, altering them only slightly, 

including by correcting typos and, 

notably, removing the citations to EnvA 1300. Compare Conservation Groups’ 

Regional Haze Comments at 12–19 with 

Sierra Club’s NOX RACT Comments at 

4–12. Thus, to the extent EPA 

committed any error by not including 

Env-A 1300 in the electronic docket, it 

would be harmless for the additional 

reason that the commenters already had 

Env-A 1300. See Small Refiner Lead 

Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 

F.2d 506, 549 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (‘‘Our 

cases recognize that even if the agency 

has not given notice in the statutorily 

prescribed fashion, actual notice will 

render the error harmless.’’) (citing 

Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 355, 

360, 398–99). In short, we disagree that 

the omission of widely available state 

regulations rendered the commenters 

‘‘unable to review the revised 

administrative code or provide 

comment on whether that code satisfies 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act or 

the RHR.’’ 11 Re-opening the comment 

period so that the commenters can 

review state regulations only via a copy 

posted to the electronic docket is, 

therefore, unnecessary. Cf. Pharm. 

Research & Mfrs. of Am. v. FTC, 790 

F.3d 198, 211 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (rejecting 

as ‘‘spurious’’ a plaintiff’s claim that it 

did not have access to certain 

information that was publicly available 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
88144 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

12Moreover, the argument advanced by the 

commenters would lead to unnecessary delay based 

on harmless error, even where two of these 

commenters filed a lawsuit to compel EPA to take 

final action on Regional Haze SIPs submitted by 

numerous states, including New Hampshire. 

13To the extent the commenters also rely on 1 

CFR 51.5(a)(1)–(2) to support their comment that 

EPA must re-open the comment period, nothing in 

that section demands that the inadvertent omission 

of widely available state regulations from the 

electronic docket at the proposal stage requires renoticing. See also 1 CFR 51.3(a)(2). 

14 See EPA Legal Tools to Advance 

Environmental Justice, at 35–36 (May 2022), 

available at https://www.epa.gov/ogc/epa-legaltools-advance-environmental-justice. 

and that it had ‘‘actually used’’ in 

formulating its comments).12

EPA does not contend that Env-A 

2300 does not belong in the 

administrative record for this action— 

indeed, we have since placed it in the 

electronic docket. EPA observes only 

that the Region’s oversight in not 

placing it in the electronic docket in 

time for the public comment period 

does not necessitate re-noticing the 

proposed approval for additional public 

comment.13 The purpose of the noticeand-comment requirement is to ‘‘allow 

interested members of the public to 

communicate information, concerns, 

and criticisms to the agency during the 

rule-making process.’’ Conn. Light & 

Power Co. v. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, 

673 F.2d 525, 530 (D.C. Cir. 1982). That 

purpose is served if ‘‘interested parties 

[are afforded] a reasonable opportunity 

to participate in the rulemaking process 

and if the parties have not been 

deprived of the opportunity to present 

relevant information by lack of notice 

that the issue was there.’’ WJG Tel. Co. 

v. FCC, 675 F.2d 386, 389 (D.C. Cir. 

1982) (internal citations and quotation 

marks omitted). Here, as the comment 

itself notes, EPA informed the public 

that the agency was proposing to 

approve the state’s plan based in part on 

Env-A 2300 and that the agency would 

add the regulations to New Hampshire’s 

SIP. Because the state regulations are 

easily obtainable through public means 

and at least in the case of Env-A 1300 

already in the possession of the 

commenters, the commenters have not 

been deprived of the opportunity to 

participate meaningfully in the 

rulemaking process or to present 

relevant information to the agency 

regarding the state regulations. That the 

commenters chose not to submit 

specific comments on Env-A 2300 when 

they easily could have does not require 

re-opening the comment period. 

Finally, the comment also asserts that 

EPA must re-notice the proposal 

because, according to the commenters 

‘‘it is unclear whether Env-A 2300 also 

sets out the required monitoring, 

reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements for the SIP Revision’’ with 

respect to Stored Solar Tamworth and 

Merrimack Station. For both facilities, 

Env-A 2300 requires that NOX emissions 

be recorded by a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) and provides 

for monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping by referencing the 

requirements of Env-A 800, Testing and 

Monitoring Procedures, and Env-A 900, 

Owner or Operator Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Obligations, both of which 

regulations are already in New 

Hampshire’s SIP. See Env-A 2302.01, 

2302.03, 2303.01. In addition, New 

Hampshire included in the submission, 

and EPA included in the electronic 

docket, title V permits for both facilities, 

which include detailed monitoring, 

reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements. See NH Reg’l Haze SIP 

Sub, App. V (Stored Solar Tamworth 

Title V Operating Permit, at 12–33) 

(Merrimack Station Title V Operating 

Permit, at 30–72). EPA does not agree 

that re-noticing is necessary for this 

purpose, because, as already discussed, 

the omission of Env-A 2300 from the 

electronic docket did not prevent the 

commenters or other members of the 

public from reviewing the monitoring, 

reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements in the state regulations or 

such requirements in the title V permits, 

which were included in the electronic 

docket. 

Comment 8: The Conservation Groups 

argue that EPA must consider the 

environmental justice implications of 

New Hampshire’s SIP revision. The 

Groups cite EPA Regional Haze 

guidance and 1994 and 2023 Executive 

Orders addressing environmental justice 

and use EPA EJ Screen tool to identify 

communities near the Merrimack and 

Schiller facilities that may have higher 

percentages of low-income populations 

and people of color than the rest of the 

state as a whole. 

Response 8: The regional haze 

statutory provisions do not explicitly 

address considerations of environmental 

justice, and neither do the regulatory 

requirements of the second planning 

period in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i). 

However, the lack of explicit direction 

does not preclude the State from 

addressing EJ in the State’s SIP 

submission. As explained in ‘‘EPA Legal 

Tools to Advance Environmental 

Justice’’ 14 and EPA Regional Haze 

guidance, see 2021 Clarifications Memo 

at 21, the CAA provides states with the 

discretion to consider environmental 

justice in developing rules and 

measures related to regional haze. While 

a State may consider environmental 

justice under the reasonable progress 

factors, neither the statute nor the 

regulation compels states or EPA to 

conduct an environmental justice 

analysis in developing or evaluating a 

SIP submission. Therefore, 

environmental justice considerations do 

not serve as a basis for the EPA’s 

decision to approve New Hampshire’s 

SIP. 

In this instance, New Hampshire 

explained that its SIP submission ‘‘does 

not specifically add new climate change 

or environmental justice initiatives. The 

regional haze long-term strategy 

includes measures that will ultimately 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions and 

improve air quality in environmental 

justice regions.’’ NHDES noted that the 

State has more appropriate programs to 

address environmental justice issues, 

such as the State’s ‘‘participation in a 

cap and trade program for greenhouse 

gas emissions . . . and creation of a 

NHDES environmental justice team. In 

2021, the Title VI Nondiscrimination/ 

Environmental Justice Team was formed 

to ensure compliance with Title VI 

nondiscrimination legal requirements 

and in incorporating the non-regulatory 

environmental justice principles of fair 

and equitable treatment that encourages 

meaningful involvement of impacted 

communities into agency programs, 

practices, and policies. Through its 

efforts, the team seeks to reduce 

disparities that result in vulnerable 

populations in NH bearing a 

disproportionate impact relative to the 

implementation of programs, policies 

and practices related to the 

environment.’’ NH Regional Haze 

Submittal, App. W, Response to 

Comments. 

The commenter also refers to 

additional information it provided to 

New Hampshire from an EJ Screen 

analysis that the State did not consider 

as part of its regional haze decision 

making. EPA acknowledges the EJ 

Screen information provided as part of 

the comment during the State public 

participation process, which identifies 

certain demographic and environmental 

information regarding areas across New 

Hampshire. The focus of the SIP at issue 

here, the regional haze SIP for New 

Hampshire, is SO2 and NOX emissions 

and their impacts on visibility 

impairment at the 156 mandatory 

federal Class I areas. This action 

addresses New Hampshire’s choices to 

reduce these emissions at several EGUs 

and other sources of air pollution across 

the State. As discussed in the NPRM 

and in this notice of final rulemaking, 

EPA has evaluated New Hampshire’s 

SIP submission against the statutory and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 88145 

15 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

regulatory regional haze requirements 

and determined that it satisfies those 

minimum requirements. As stated 

below, due to the nature of the action 

being taken here, this action is expected 

to have a neutral to positive impact on 

the air quality of the affected area. The 

CAA and applicable implementing 

regulations neither prohibit nor require 

an evaluation of environmental justice 

with a SIP. EPA reiterates that it is not 

identifying environmental justice as a 

basis for its decision to approve New 

Hampshire’s SIP. With respect to EPA’s 

adherence with the Executive Orders, 

see Section V below. 

Comment 9: An anonymous 

commenter supported the proposed 

rule, but stated: ‘‘The only thing that I 

would change is making the goal of 

improving air quality not be focused on 

reducing regional [h]aze, but on the 

other massive health and environmental 

improvements that would naturally 

arise from this proposal.’’ 

Response 9: EPA acknowledges the 

commenter’s support and notes that 

Congress created the regional haze 

program with the goal of improving 

visibility at Class 1 Federal areas. Thus, 

the Clean Air Act requires the SIP 

submittal to focus on reducing regional 

haze. EPA agrees, however, that 

reductions in emissions for the regional 

haze program have the benefit of 

improving public health, too, and that 

many of the state regulations included 

in the New Hampshire submittal 

provide public health and 

environmental benefits. 

Comment 10: MANEVU commented 

in support of EPA’s proposal to approve 

New Hampshire’s regional haze SIP. 

MANEVU also stated that it supports 

EPA’s thorough approach in reviewing 

New Hampshire’s SIP, including its 

response to each MANEVU Ask. 

Response 10: EPA acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment 11: The North Carolina 

Division of Air Quality commented to 

acknowledge EPA’s assessment and 

agree with EPA’s determination that the 

Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) 

cannot include strategies for upwind 

states that those upwind states have not 

adopted. 

Response 11: As noted in the NPRM, 

§ 51.308(f)(3)(i) specifies that RPGs must 

reflect ‘‘enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures required under 

paragraph (f)(2) of this section’’ 

(emphasis added). RPGs are intended to 

provide a snapshot of projected 

visibility conditions at the end of the 

implementation period, assuming all 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress at a given class I 

area are being implemented. The 

emission reduction measures that must 

be reflected in RPGs include adopted 

regulations and measures that both the 

downwind and upwind states have 

identified as necessary and that will be 

implemented by 2028. However, EPA 

interprets this provision to exclude 

emission reduction measures that 

downwind states believe are necessary 

to make reasonable progress but that 

upwind states have not, at the time of 

plan submission, determined are 

necessary pursuant to § 51.308(f)(2). 

This ensures that RPGs include only 

those measures that are reasonably 

certain to be implemented. EPA also 

notes that New Hampshire clarified (in 

a response to comment) that the State’s 

RPGs do not include reductions from 

emissions from upwind states. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving New Hampshire’s 

May 5, 2022, supplemented on 

September 21, 2023, SIP submission as 

satisfying the regional haze 

requirements for the second 

implementation period contained in 40 

CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i). Additionally, 

EPA is approving the revised state rule 

Env–A 2300, ‘‘Mitigation of Regional 

Haze,’’ into the SIP. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of the New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services 

Env-A 2300 in its entirety for updates to 

the Regional Haze program, described in 

the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set 

forth below. EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available through https://

www.regulations.gov and at EPA Region 

1 Office (please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

Therefore, these materials have been 

approved by EPA for inclusion in the 

State implementation plan, have been 

incorporated by reference by EPA into 

that plan, are fully federally enforceable 

under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA 

as of the effective date of the final 

rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will 

be incorporated by reference in the next 

update to the SIP compilation.15

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 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 action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
88146 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. EPA defines EJ as 

‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income 

with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies.’’ EPA further defines the term 

fair treatment to mean that ‘‘no group of 

people should bear a disproportionate 

burden of environmental harms and 

risks, including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services did not evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ 

analysis and did not consider EJ in this 

action. Due to the nature of the action 

being taken here, this action is expected 

to have a neutral to positive impact on 

the air quality of the affected area. 

Consideration of EJ is not required as 

part of this action, and there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of 

achieving environmental justice for 

communities with EJ concerns. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 6, 2025. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

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. 

Dated: October 30, 2024. 

David Cash, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart EE—New Hampshire 

■ 2. In § 52.1520: 

■ a. Amend the table in paragraph (c) by 

revising the entry ‘‘Env-A 2300’’. 

■ b. Amend the table in paragraph (e) by 

adding an entry for ‘‘New Hampshire 

Regional Haze Plan Periodic 

Comprehensive Revision’’ at the end of 

the table. 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NEW HAMPSHIRE REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date 1 Explanations 

*******

Env-A 2300 ....... Mitigation of 

Regional 

Haze.

8/25/2021 11/7/2024 [Insert Federal Register citation].Env-A 2300 revision approved entirely for updates to Regional 

Haze program. 

*******

1 In order to determine EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column 

for the particular provision. 

(e) * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 88147 

NEW HAMPSHIRE NONREGULATORY

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal date/effective date EPA approved 

date Explanations 

*******

New Hampshire Regional Haze 

Plan Periodic Comprehensive Revision for 2nd planning period 

2018–2028.

Statewide ................... Submitted May 6, 2022 

(supplemented September 21, 2023).

11/7/2024 [Insert 

Federal Register citation].

Approves full plan including supplemental submission containing 

updated Appendix W. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25679 Filed 11–6–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

45 CFR Part 2584 

RIN 3045–AA60 

Protection of Human Subjects 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (operating as 

AmeriCorps) is correcting a final rule 

that appeared in the Federal Register on 

October 29, 2024. These corrections do 

not include any substantive changes to 

the final rule. The final rule adopted the 

Federal Policy for Protection of Human 

Subjects (referred to as the Common 

Rule). 

DATES: Effective on November 29, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Hyde, Ph.D., Director, AmeriCorps 

Office of Research and Evaluation, at 

(202) 606–6834 or mhyde@

americorps.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 

2024–24517 beginning on page 85870 in 

the Federal Register of October 29, 

2024, the following corrections are 

made: 

§ 2584.102 [Corrected] 

■ 1. Beginning on page 85870, in the 

third column, and continuing onto page 

85871, in the first and second columns, 

correct § 2584.102 by removing the 

paragraph designations (f) through (m). 

§ 2584.103 [Corrected] 

■ 2. On page 85871, in the second 

column, the section number ‘‘2558.103’’ 

in the section heading is corrected to 

read ‘‘2584.103’’. 

§ 2584.104 [Corrected] 

■ 3. On page 85873, in the first column, 

in § 2584.104(d)(8)(i), the language 

‘‘§ 2584.116(a)(1) through (4) and (6) 

and (d)’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘§ 2584.116(a)(1) through (4), (a)(6), and 

(d)’’. 

§ 2584.111 [Corrected] 

■ 4. On page 85874, in the second 

column, the section number ‘‘2258.111’’ 

in the section heading is corrected to 

read ‘‘2584.111’’ and on page 85874, in 

the third column, in § 2584.111(a)(8)(i), 

the language ‘‘§ 2584.116(a)(1) through 

(4) and (6) and (d)’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘§ 2584.116(a)(1) through (4), (a)(6), and 

(d)’’. 

§ 2584.113 [Corrected] 

■ 5. On page 85875, in the first column, 

the section number ‘‘2258.113’’ in the 

section heading is corrected to read 

‘‘2584.113’’. 

Andrea Grill, 

Acting General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25881 Filed 11–6–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6050–28–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 32 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–NWRS–2024–0034; 

FXRS12610900000–245–FF09R20000] 

RIN 1018–BH17 

National Wildlife Refuge System; 2024– 

2025 Station-Specific Hunting and 

Sport Fishing Regulations 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), open or 

expand hunting opportunities on 12 

National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). We 

also close hunting on 111 acres at Crab 

Orchard NWR so that the area can be 

repurposed for other recreational uses, 

including camping. We also make 

changes to existing station-specific 

regulations in order to reduce the 

regulatory burden on the public, 

increase access for hunters and anglers 

on Service lands and waters, and 

comply with a Presidential mandate for 

plain-language standards. Finally, the 

best available science, analyzed as part 

of this rulemaking, indicates that lead 

ammunition and tackle have negative 

impacts on both wildlife and human 

health. With this final rule, Canaan 

Valley NWR in West Virginia will 

require lead-free ammunition for all 

hunting on the new Big Cove Unit. 

Additionally, Des Lacs, J. Clark Salyer, 

Lostwood, and Upper Souris NWRs in 

North Dakota will require lead-free 

ammunition for newly opened elk 

hunting. While the Service continues to 

evaluate the future of lead use in 

hunting and fishing on Service lands 

and waters, this rulemaking does not 

include any opportunities that increase 

or authorize the new use of lead. 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

6, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christian Myers, (571) 422–3595. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd–668ee), as amended 

(Administration Act), closes NWRs in 

all States except Alaska to all uses until 

opened. The Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary) may open refuge areas to any 

use, including hunting and/or sport 

fishing, upon a determination that the 

use is compatible with the purposes of 

the refuge and National Wildlife Refuge 

System (Refuge System) mission. The 

action also must be in accordance with 

provisions of all laws applicable to the 

areas, developed in coordination with 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1