Document ID: EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0909-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New Hampshire; Regional Haze 5-Year Report
Posted Date: 2016-07-19T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46866-46870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17063]

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

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 
Tangential-Firing, 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 
Tangential-Firing, 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
    \2\ On 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).

[[Page 46867]]

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 low-sulfur 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ MANE-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.
    \4\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 subject-to-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Memorandum 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-memo-mane-vu-asks-20130328-final.pdf/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 46868]]

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

    \6\ New 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \7\ The ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-    Most recent
                                    2004 5-year    2009-2013 5-     Visibility         2018          2064 Goal
                                      average      year average     mprovement      Reasonable       (natural
                                    visibility      visibility                     progress goal    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 visibility-impairing 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 Non-EGUs, Area, On-road Mobile, and Non-road 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 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.
    \9\ Mid-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.

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

[[Page 46869]]

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NESCAUM for MANE-VU, ``Tracking Visibility Progress 2004-
2011,'' revised May 24, 2013. http://www.nescaum.org/documents/manevu-trends-2004-2011-report-final-20130430.pdf/view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Tangential-
Firing, Dry-Bottom Boilers

    On August 22, 2012, EPA approved New Hampshire's Env-A 2300 
Mitigation of Regional Haze into New

[[Page 46870]]

Hampshire's SIP. See 77 FR 50602. Env-A 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ PSNH Newington Station Unit NT1 is the only Tangential-
Firing, Dry-Bottom Boiler in New Hampshire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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