[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11809-11826]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4677]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0599; A-1-FRL-9639-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Hampshire; Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of a revision to the New Hampshire
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) on January 29, 2010, with
supplemental submittals on January 14, 2011, and August 26, 2011, that
addresses regional haze for the first planning period from 2008 through
2018. This revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and EPA's rules that require States to prevent any future, and
remedy any existing, manmade impairment of visibility in mandatory
Class I areas (also referred to as the ``regional haze program'').
States are required to assure reasonable progress toward the national
goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2008-0559 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0599 Anne
Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5
Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA
02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

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

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

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles and their precursors (e.g.,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in some cases, ammonia and
volatile organic compounds). Fine particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
which also impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light.
Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance
that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious health
effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental
effects such as acid deposition.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas (i.e.,
national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international
parks meeting certain size criteria) in the Western United States is
100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range
that would exist without manmade air pollution. In most of the eastern
Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is less
than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range

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

B. Background Information

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

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 69122,
November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). Although States and Tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager'' (FLM). (42 U.S.C.
7602(i)). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we
mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among States, tribal governments and
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, States need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the States and Tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their States and Tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and other pollutants
leading to regional haze.
    The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO is a
collaborative effort of State governments, tribal governments, and
various federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate
activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility
and other air quality issues in the Northeastern United States. Member
State and Tribal governments include: Connecticut, Delaware, the
District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode
Island, and Vermont.

II. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require States to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for the purpose of eliminating or
reducing visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP
requirements are discussed in further detail below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for
measuring visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes
in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions.
Visibility is determined by measuring the visual range (or deciview),
which is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark
object can be viewed against the sky. The deciview is a useful measure
for tracking progress in improving visibility, because each deciview
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The deciview is used in expressing Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
(which are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national
visibility goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions,
and tracking changes

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

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

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

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

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

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

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
States in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART applicability determination
for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total
generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a State must use
the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A State is encouraged,
but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART

determinations for other types of sources.
    States must address all visibility impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate matter (PM). EPA has
stated that States should use their best judgment in determining
whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH3)
and ammonia compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.
    The RPOs provided air quality modeling to the States to help them
in determining whether potential BART sources can be reasonably
expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I
area. Under the BART Guidelines, States may select an exemption
threshold value for their BART modeling, below which a BART eligible
source would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in any Class I area. The State must document this exemption
threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its selection
of that value. Any source with emissions that model above the threshold
value would be subject to a BART determination review. The BART
Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different Class
I areas. States should consider the number of emission sources
affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the
individual sources' impacts. Any exemption threshold set by the State
should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews. See 70 FR 39161 (July 6,
2005).
    In their SIPs, States must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. The term ``BART-eligible source''
used in the BART Guidelines means the collection of individual emission
units at a facility that together comprises the BART-eligible source.
See 70 FR 39161 (July 6, 2005). In making BART determinations, section
169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that States consider the following
factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life
of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which
may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such
technology. States are free to determine the weight and significance to
be assigned to each factor. See 70 FR 39170 (July 6, 2005).
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
State has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP, as required by CAA (section 169(g)(4)) and the RHR (40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to what is required by the RHR, general
SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for
the BART controls on the source. States have the flexibility to choose
the type of control measures they will use to meet the requirements of
BART.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that States include a
LTS in their SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all control measures a
State will use to meet any applicable RPGs. The LTS must include
``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals'' for
all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the State. See
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a State's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another State, the RHR requires the impacted State to coordinate with
the contributing States in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing State must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between States may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two States
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, States must describe how
each of the seven factors listed below is taken into account in
developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3)
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG;
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including
plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; (7) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point,
area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS.
See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the State's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the State must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing reasonably attributable and regional
haze visibility impairment, and the State must submit the first such
coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated
LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs,
must be submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and
periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g),
respectively. The periodic reviews of a State's LTS must report on both
regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the State. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation
in the IMPROVE network. The monitoring strategy is due with the first
regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. The
monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring sites
if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will
be met.

    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a State with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the State;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a State with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other States;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the State, and
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A State must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    Forty CFR 51.308(f) of the RHR requires control strategies to cover
an initial implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a
comprehensive reassessment and revision of those strategies, as
appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must
meet the core requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d) with the exception of
BART. The BART provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e), as noted above, apply
only to the first implementation period. Periodic SIP revisions will
assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will
continue to be met.

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

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

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

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

A. New Hampshire's Affected Class I Areas

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

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Reasonable Progress Goals

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

to evaluate visibility and air quality impacts from various groups of
emissions and pollutant scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20
percent worst visibility days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CMAQ is a photochemical grid model. The model uses
simulations of chemical reactions, emissions of PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors, and the Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological
Model to produce speciated PM2.5 concentrations. For more
information, see www.epa.gov/asmdnerl/CMAQ/cmaq_model.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting
visibility in the MANE-VU region, MANE-VU's contribution assessment
demonstrated that sulfate is the major contributor to PM2.5
mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic Region.\7\ Sulfate particles commonly account for more
than 50 percent of particle-related light extinction at northeastern
Class I areas on the clearest days and for as much as, or more than, 80
percent on the haziest days. For example, at the Brigantine National
Wildlife Refuge Class I area (the MANE-VU Class I area with the
greatest visibility impairment), on the 20 percent worst visibility
days in 2000 through 2004, sulfate accounted for 66 percent of the
particle extinction. After sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently
accounts for the next largest fraction of light extinction. Organic
carbon accounted for 13 percent of light extinction on the 20 percent
worst visibility days for Brigantine, followed by nitrate that accounts
for 9 percent of light extinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by MANE-VU predict
that reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU
industrial point sources will result in the greatest improvements in
visibility in the Class I areas in the MANE-VU region, more than any
other visibility-impairing pollutant. As a result of the dominant role
of sulfate in the formation of regional haze in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic Region, MANE-VU concluded that an effective emissions
management approach would rely heavily on broad-based regional
SO2 control efforts in the eastern United States.
    Through source apportionment modeling, MANE-VU assisted States in
determining their contribution to the visibility impairment of each
Class I area in the MANE-VU region. New Hampshire and the other MANE-VU
States adopted a weight-of-evidence approach which relied on several
independent methods for assessing the contribution of different sources
and geographic source regions to regional haze in the northeastern and
mid-Atlantic portions of the United States. Details about each
technique can be found in the NESCAUM Document Contributions to
Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States, August
2006 (hereinafter referred to as ``Contribution Report'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MANE-VU Class I States determined that any State contributing
at least 2% of the total sulfate observed on the 20 percent worst
visibility days in 2002 were contributors to visibility impairment at
the Class I area. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District
of Columbia were determined to contribute less than 2% of sulfate at
any of the Northeast Class I areas. States found to contribute 2% or
more of the sulfate at any of the MANE-VU Class I areas were: Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
    The contribution of New Hampshire emissions to the total sulfate
was determined to contribute to the visibility impairment in not only
the New Hampshire Class I areas (3.95% of total sulfate), but Acadia
National Park in Maine as well (2.25% of total sulfate). The impact of
sulfate on visibility is discussed in greater detail below.
    EPA is proposing to find that NHDES has adequately demonstrated
that emissions from New Hampshire sources contribute to visibility
impairment in nearby Class I Areas.
2. Procedure for Identifying Sources to Evaluate for Reasonable
Progress Controls
    In developing the 2018 reasonable progress goal, New Hampshire
relied primarily upon the information and analysis developed by MANE-VU
to meet this requirement. Based on the Contribution Report, MANE-VU
focused on SO2 as the dominant contributor to visibility
impairment at all MANE-VU Class I areas during all seasons. In
addition, the Contribution Report found that only 25 percent of the
sulfate at the MANE-VU Class I areas originate in the MANE-VU States.
Sources in the Midwest and Southeast regions were responsible for 15 to
25 percent, respectively. Point sources dominated the inventory of
SO2 emissions. Therefore, MANE-VU's strategy includes
additional measures to control sources of SO2 both within
the MANE-VU region and in other States that were determined to
contribute to regional haze at the MANE-VU Class I Areas.
    Based on information from the Contribution Report and additional
emission inventory analysis, MANE-VU and New Hampshire identified the
following source categories for further examination for reasonable
controls:
     Coal and oil-fired Electrical Generating Units (EGUs);
     Point and area source industrial, commercial and
institutional boilers;
     Cement and Lime Kilns;
     Heating Oil; and
     Residential wood combustion.

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

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

    New Hampshire and the other MANE-VU States reviewed the Reasonable
Progress Report, consulted with one another about possible control
measures, and agreed to the following measures as recommended
strategies for making reasonable progress: implementation of BART
requirements; a 90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions from
167 EGU emission points\10\ (or if it is infeasible to achieve that
level of reduction from a unit, alternative measures will be pursued in
such State); and a low sulfur fuel oil strategy. These measures are
collectively known as the MANE-VU ``Ask.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

1. Identification of All Bart Eligible Sources
    Determining BART-eligible sources is the first step in the BART
process. The New Hampshire BART-eligible sources were identified in
accordance with the methodology in Appendix Y of the Regional Haze
Rule, Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule,
Part II, How to Identify BART-Eligible Sources. See 70 FR 39158. This
guidance consists of the following criteria:
     The unit falls into one of the listed source categories;
     The unit was constructed or reconstructed between 1962 and
1977; and
     The unit has the potential to emit over 250 tons per year
of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, volatile
organic compounds, or ammonia.
    The BART Guidelines requires States to address SO2,
NOX, and particulate matter. States are allowed to use their
best judgment in deciding whether VOC or ammonia emissions from a
source are likely to have an impact on visibility in the area. The
State of New Hampshire addressed SO2, NOX, and
used particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
(PM10) as an indicator for particulate matter to identify
BART eligible units, as the BART Guidelines require. Consistent with
the BART Guidelines, the State of New Hampshire did not evaluate
emissions of VOCs and ammonia in BART determinations due to the lack of
impact on visibility in the area due to anthropogenic sources. The
majority of VOC emissions in New Hampshire are biogenic in nature,
especially near the New Hampshire Class I areas. Therefore, the ability
to further reduce total ambient VOC concentrations at Class I areas is

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

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

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

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

4. Source Specific BART Determinations
    The following section discusses the BART determinations for sources
in New Hampshire.
a. Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) Merrimack Station
    i. Background
    PSNH Merrimack Station has two coal-fired steam-generating boilers.
Only one of the boilers (MK2) is subject to BART, the other unit (MK1)
was put into operation prior to 1962.
    Unit MK2 is a wet bottom, cyclone-type boiler with a heat input
rating of 3,473 MMBtu/hr and an electrical output of 320 MW. The unit
is currently equipped with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for
NOX control, and two electrostatic precipitators (ESPs)
operated in series to capture particulate matter (PM) in the flue
gases.
ii. Boiler MK2
    (1) PM BART Review: PM levels are currently controlled with two dry
ESPs in combination with fly ash reinjection. These existing ESPs were
previously upgraded to include state-of-the-art electronic controls.
Adding a third ESP was found to be unreasonable due to space
limitations. The current permit limit for this unit is 0.227 lb of
total suspended particulate (TSP)/million british thermal unit (MMBtu).
Limited stack tests indicate that the actuall TSP emission rate is much
lower, averaging 0.034 lb TSP/MMBtu. The NH DES model scenario of
upgrading the current ESPs to 90% control resulted in a visibility
improvement of 0.16 dv at Acadia, 0.12 dv at Great Gulf, and 0.03 dv at
Lye Brook.
    NH DES determined that the installation of additional PM controls
is unlikely to result in substantial visibility improvement. However,
based on the limited available stack test data, NH DES determined that
the current emission limit of 0.227 lb/MMBtu was not reflective of the
performance capabilities of the control equipment. The MANE-VU
recommended particulate matter limit for non-CAIR EGUs is 0.02-0.04 lb/
MMBtu.\12\ New Hampshire has adopted a new regulation \13\ which places
Units MK1 and MK2 within a regulatory ``bubble'' for the purposes of
TSP compliance. The revised emission limit is 0.08 lb TSP/MMBtu for
both Units MK1 and MK2. New Hampshire defined this level of control as
BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    (3) NOX BART Review: PSNH currently operates SCR on MK2. It was
installed in 1994 to meet other air quality requirements (ozone season
NOX). Selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) is the only
other post combustion control technology available for controlling
NOX and is generally considered to be less effective. The
existing SCR has received previous retrofits to improve performance.
Additional upgrades would require major redesign and construction.
Capital cost would be comparable to installing a new SCR and would
achieve only marginal additional reduction. Because Unit MK2 has an
existing SCR system and can operated year-round at reasonable cost,
full time operation of the existing SCR was determined by New Hampshire
to be BART for NOX control. In addition, New Hampshire
reduced the permitted NOX emission limit from a 0.86 lb/
MMBtu annual average to a 0.30 lb/MMBtu 30-day rolling average.
iii. EPA Assessment
    For PM, New Hampshire decided to provide some level of flexibility
to Merrimack Station which has a source subject to BART (MK2) and a
source not subject to BART (MK1). If only MK1 operated, the emission
limit required by New Hampshire would represent a decrease of 70.4%
from the MK1 emission limit of 0.27 lb/MMBtu. At worst, when only MK2
is operating, the emission limit represents a decrease of 64.8% from
the currently permitted limit of 0.227 lb/MMBtu. Additionally, the
emission limit chosen by New Hampshire also results in a lower emission
rate from the combined units than if New Hampshire had only required
MK2 to meet the limit suggested by MANE-VU.\15\ Therefore New
Hampshire's proposed BART control limits for PM are reflective of the
MANE-VU recommended limitation. Considering the current controls on
emissions from Merrimack Station--two ESPs in series--as well as the
reductions guaranteed by New Hampshire's limits, EPA is proposing to
find that New Hampshire's BART limits for PM at Merrimack Station are
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA is also proposing to find that New Hampshire's analyses and
conclusions of BART emission limits for SO2 and
NOX for units located at the Merrimack Station facility are
reasonable. EPA has reviewed the New Hampshire analyses and concluded
they were conducted in a manner consistent with the RHR and EPA's BART
Guidelines.
b. PSNH Newington Station
i. Background
    PSNH Newington is comprised of one 400 MW electrical generating
unit, NT1. Unit NT1 is principally operated during periods of peak
electrical demand. The unit is capable of burning oil and/or natural
gas. However, because of physical limitations on the boiler's design,
the unit can only operate up to 50 percent maximum heat input when
firing only natural gas.
    Current emission controls consist of: low-NOX burners,
an overfire air system, and water injection for NOX control;
a sulfur in fuel oil limit of 2.0% for SO2 control; and an
ESP for PM control.
ii. Boiler NT1
    (1) PM BART Review: PM is currently controlled with an ESP. An ESP
is considered the most stringent control available. The current permit
limit is 0.22 lb TSP/MMBtu. A single available stack test yielded a
controlled TSP emission rate in the vicinity of 0.06 lb TSP/MMBtu. The
facility's Title V operating permit requires a compliance stack test
for PM emissions be performed and the permit limit to be amended, as
appropriate, prior to March 31, 2012.
    (2) SO2 BART Review: SO2 is currently
controlled by a 2.0% sulfur by weight fuel oil limit for No. 6 oil, a
0.4% sulfur by weight in fuel oil limit for No. 2 oil, and the use of
natural gas. New Hampshire identified FGD, a 1.0% sulfur limit, a 0.5%
sulfur limit, and 0.3% sulfur limit as feasible controls.
    There is little experience with the cost data for installing flue
gas desulfurization at oil-fired power plants. Using the FGD
installation at Merrimack station as a guide, New Hampshire estimated
that the capital cost would roughly be $422 million.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ At this cost, conservatively assuming a 100% removal
efficiency (NT1 emitted 5226 tons of SO2 per year during
the baseline period), the $/ton for FGD is approximately $80,750/
ton. In addition, the 2005 NESCAUM report, ``Assessment of Control
Options for BART-Eligible Sources,'' www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-control-assessment.pdf/, estimated the cost of FGD for oil-fired
units could be twice that of coal-fired units. EPA is proposing to
find as reasonable New Hampshire's determination that the
installation of FGD is cost prohibitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    In addition to cost and expected visibility improvement, New
Hampshire looked at other non-environmental impacts such as fuel
availability, current fuel oil usage, and the existing inventory. While
0.5% sulfur by weight No. 6 fuel oil is widespread in northern New
England, 0.3% sulfur by weight fuel oil is still very limited in
availability. In addition, with recent utilization levels around 10%
capacity, it is uncertain when NT1 will consume the existing supply of
higher sulfur fuel oil stored on site.
    New Hampshire has determined that an SO2 emission limit
of 0.5 lb SO2/MMBtu is the appropriate level of BART
control. This emission limit is comparable to requiring the use of 0.5%
sulfur by weight No. 6 fuel oil while giving the facility flexibility
to blend the existing fuel oil with natural gas.
    (3) NOX BART Review: NT1 currently operates low-
NOX burners, an over-fire air system, and water injection to
minimize NOX formation. The facility's existing permit
limits NOX emission to a daily average of 0.35 lb/MMBtu when
burning oil and 0.25 lb/MMBtu when burning a combination of oil and
gas. Other potential NOX controls include SNCR and SCR. New
Hampshire estimates the cost of control to be $1,030/ton and $1,180 ton
for SNCR and SCR, respectively. The annualized cost is $0.7 million for
SNCR and to $1.3 million for SCR. However, both SNCR and SCR will
increase ammonia emissions which can result in additional visibility
impairment. Modeling indicates that the greatest expected visibility
improvement from SCR is 0.34 dv at Acadia, with a cumulative potential
improvement of 0.76 dv across three impacted Class I areas. New
Hampshire determined that the current system of low-NOX
burners, over-fire air, and water injection represents BART.
iii. EPA Assessment
    EPA is proposing to find that New Hampshire's determination of PM
BART controls for Newington Station is reasonable. ESP is considered
the most stringent control technology and EPA assumes that the permit
limit set after stack testing will reflect the fullest extent of
reductions that the facility can meet with the use of the ESP.
    While New Hampshire did not require the lowest sulfur content fuel
potentially available, EPA believes that New Hampshire's consideration
of additional factors, such as the limited availability of 0.3% sulfur
No. 6 fuel oil and the limited additional improvement in visibility, is
reasonable. Therefore EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's
determination of SO2 BART controls for Newington Station.
    Finally, while the cost per ton for the installation of SNCR or SCR
is likely not cost prohibitive, given the limited visibility
improvement projected as compared to the current controls and with the
limited use of the unit, EPA is proposing to find that New Hampshire's
determination that current controls satisfy NOX BART is
reasonable.
5. Enforceability of BART
    As part of New Hampshire's January 14, 2011 supplemental Regional
Haze SIP submittal, NH DES included the newly adopted ``Env-A 2300
Mitigation of Regional Haze'' and the Merrimack Station temporary
permit TP-0008, which detail emission limits, and recordkeeping and
reporting requirements associated with the installation of the
identified BART controls. EPA is proposing to approve the submitted
rule and permit as part of this rulemaking action. If finalized, as
proposed, these conditions will become federally enforceable.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    As described in Section II.E of this action, the LTS is a
compilation of State-specific control measures relied on by the State
to obtain its share of emission reductions to support the RPGs
established by Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New Jersey (the
nearby Class I area States). New Hampshire's LTS for the first
implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from federal,
State, and local controls that take effect in the State from the
baseline period starting in 2002 until 2018. New Hampshire participated
in the MANE-VU regional strategy development process. As a participant,
New Hampshire supported a regional approach toward deciding which
control measures to pursue for regional haze, which was based on
technical analyses documented in the following reports: (a) The MANE-VU
Contribution Report; (b) the Reasonable Progress Report; (c) Five-
Factor Analysis of BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of Options for
Conducting BART Determinations, available at www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-final-memo-06-28-07.pdf; and (d) Assessment of Control Technology
Options for BART-Eligible Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial
Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper, and Pulp Facilities, available at
www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-control-assessment.pdf.
    The LTS was developed by New Hampshire, in coordination with MANE-
VU, identifying the emissions units within New Hampshire that are
currently likely to have the largest impacts on visibility at nearby
Class I areas, estimating emissions reductions for 2018, based on all
controls required under federal and State regulations for the 2002-2018
period (including BART), and comparing projected visibility improvement
with the uniform rate of progress for the nearby Class I area.
    New Hampshire's LTS includes measures needed to achieve its share
of emissions reductions agreed upon through the consultation process
with MANE-VU Class I States and includes enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures necessary to
achieve the reasonable progress goals established by Maine, Vermont,
and New Jersey for their Class I areas.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
    The State-wide emissions inventories used in the regional haze
technical analyses were developed by MARAMA for MANE-VU with assistance
from New Hampshire. The 2018 emissions

inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions forward based on
assumptions regarding emissions growth due to projected increases in
economic activity and emission reductions expected from federal and
State regulations. MANE-VU's emissions inventories included estimates
of NOX, coarse particulate matter (PM10),
PM2.5, and SO2, VOC, and NH3. The BART
Guidelines direct States to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC
and NH3 impair visibility in their Class I area(s). As
discussed further in Section III.C.1 above, MANE-VU demonstrated that
anthropogenic emissions of sulfates are the major contributor to
PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. It was also determined that the
total NH3 emissions in the MANE-VU region are extremely
small.
    MANE-VU developed emissions inventories for four inventory source
classifications: (1) Stationary point sources; (2) stationary area
sources; (3) non-road mobile sources; and (4) on-road mobile sources.
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation also developed an
inventory of biogenic emissions for the entire MANE-VU region.
Stationary point sources are those sources that emit greater than a
specified tonnage per year, depending on the pollutant, with data
provided at the facility level. Stationary area sources are those
sources whose individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the
large number of these sources, the collective emissions from the source
category could be significant. Non-road mobile sources are equipment
that can move but do not use the roadways. On-road mobile source
emissions are automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway
system. The emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type
and road type. Biogenic sources are natural sources like trees, crops,
grasses, and natural decay of plants. Stationary point sources emission
data is tracked at the facility level. For all other source types,
emissions are summed on the county level.
    There are many federal and State control programs being implemented
that MANE-VU and New Hampshire anticipate will reduce emissions between
the baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these control
programs in the MANE-VU region were projected to achieve substantial
visibility improvement by 2018 at all of the MANE-VU Class I areas. To
assess emissions reductions from ongoing air pollution control
programs, BART, and reasonable progress measures, MANE-VU developed
emissions projections for 2018 called ``Best and Final.'' The emissions
inventory provided by the State of New Hampshire for the ``Best and
Final'' 2018 projections is based on expected control requirements.
    New Hampshire relied on emission reductions from a number of
ongoing and expected air pollution control programs as part of the
State's long term strategy. For electrical generating units (EGUs), New
Hampshire's Regulation Chapter Env-A 3200, NOX Budget
Trading Program which limits ozone season NOX emissions on
all fossil-fuel-fired EGUs greater than 15 MW to 0.15 lb/MMBtu.
However, a unit can meet this limit via NOX credits.
    New Hampshire also relied on the following controls on non-EGU
point sources in estimating 2018 emissions inventories: 2-year, 4-year,
7-year, and 10-year Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
Standards; Combustion Turbine and Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engine (RICE) MACT; and Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT.
    On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court of Appeals mandated the
vacatur and remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule. NRDC v. EPA,
489F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007). This MACT was vacated since it was
directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Definition Rule. EPA
proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur on
June 4, 2010, (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March 21, 2011
(76 FR 15608). On May 18, 2011, EPA stayed the effective date of the
Industrial Boiler MACT pending review by the D.C. Circuit or the
completion of EPA's reconsideration of the rule. See 76 FR 28662.
    On December 2, 2011, EPA issued a proposed reconsideration of the
MACT standards for existing and new Boilers at major (76 FR 80598) and
area (76 FR 80532) source facilities, and for Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incinerators (76 FR 80452). On January 9, 2012, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia vacated EPA's stay of the
effectiveness date of the Industrial Boiler MACT, reinstating the
original effective date and therefore requiring compliance with the
current rule in 2014. Sierra Club v. Jackson, Civ. No. 11-1278, slip
op. (D.D.C. Jan. 9, 2012).
    Even though New Hampshire's modeling is based on the old Industrial
Boiler MACT limits, New Hampshire modeling conclusions are unlikely to
be affected because the expected reductions in SO2 and PM
resulting from the new MACT are small relative to the New Hampshire
inventory. Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that the expected
reductions of the new rule are acceptable since the final rule requires
compliance by 2014. This provides New Hampshire time to assure the
required controls are in place prior to the end of the first
implementation period in 2018. In addition, the RHR requires that any
resulting differences between emissions projections and actual
emissions reductions that may occur will be addressed during the five-
year review prior to the next 2018 regional haze SIP.
    Controls on area sources expected in 2018 include VOC control for
consumer products (Env-A 4100), architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings (Env-A 4200), portable fuel containers (Env-A
4000), and solvent cleaning (Env-A 1221).
    Controls on mobile sources expected in 2018 include: Stage I vapor
recovery systems at gasoline dispensing facilities in the State and
Stage II vapor recovery at any gasoline dispensing facility in the four
southern counties classified as ozone nonattainment areas (Rockingham,
Strafford, Hillsborough, and Merrimack) (Env-A 1205, later re-numbered
to Env-Wm 1404);\17\ Federal On-Board Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR)
Rule; Federal Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline
Sulfur Requirements; Federal Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Emission
Standards for Trucks and Buses; and Federal Emission Standards for
Large Industrial Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreation Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    \18\ The 2018 SO2 Emission Inventroy has been
adjusted to account for the lack of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy.
The State had estimated that the low sulfur fuel oil strategy would
result in an SO2 reduction of 6,449 tons from area
sources and 2,030 ton reduction from non-EGU point sources.
    \19\ An adjustment factor was applied during the processing of
emissions data to restate fugitive particulate matter emissions.
Grid models have been found to overestimate fugitive dust impacts
when compared with ambient samples; therefore, an adjustment is
typically applied to account for the removal of particles by
vegetation and other terrain features. The summary emissions for
PM10 in Table 6 reflect this adjustment. A comparable
adjustment was not made to the PM10 value listed in Table
5.

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

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

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
    MANE-VU performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 11
Mid-Atlantic and Northeast States and the District of Columbia. The
modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with
selection of the modeling system. MANE-VU used the following modeling
system:
     Meteorological Model: The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania
State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic,
prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional-
scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze regulatory
modeling studies.
     Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions (SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system is an emissions modeling
system that generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of
mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission
sources for photochemical grid models.
     Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale
Air Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model capable
of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a regional
scale.
     Air Quality Model: The Regional Model for Aerosols and
Deposition (REMSAD), is a Eulerian grid model that was primarily used
to determine the attribution of sulfate species in the Eastern U.S. via
the species-tagging scheme.
     Air Quality Model: The California Puff Model (CALPUFF),
version 5 is a non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model used to access
the contribution of individual States' emissions to sulfate levels at
selected Class I receptor sites.
    CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the MANE-VU region for 2002 and
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer (km) cells that
covers the 11 MANE-VU States (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia and States adjacent
to them. This grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling
grid of 36x36 km grid cells that covers the continental United States,
portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection of a representative
period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline air quality
conditions and projecting future changes in air quality due to changes
in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. MANE-VU conducted an
in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection of the entire year of
2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of meteorology
available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The MANE-VU States'
modeling was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use of
Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality
Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, April 2007 (EPA-
454/B-07-002), available at www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, and EPA document, Emissions Inventory Guidance
for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, August 2005
and updated

November 2005 (EPA-454/R-05-001), available at www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html (hereinafter referred to as '' EPA's Modeling
Guidance'').
    MANE-VU examined the model performance of the regional modeling for
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone,
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks
and databases for the 2002 base year. MANE-VU used a diverse set of
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once MANE-VU determined the
model performance to be acceptable, MANE-VU used the model to assess
the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the State of New Hampshire
provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required
analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and
modeling used to develop the glide path and to support the LTS are
consistent with EPA's RHR, and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance.
EPA is proposing to find that the MANE-VU technical modeling to support
the LTS and determine visibility improvement for the uniform rate of
progress is acceptable because the modeling system was chosen and used
according to EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA agrees with the MANE-VU model
performance procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is an appropriate
tool for the regional haze assessments for the New Hampshire LTS and
regional haze SIP.
2. Meeting the MANE-VU ``Ask''
    New Hampshire is home to two Class I areas, therefore it is
required to establish RPGs. New Hampshire, in cooperation with the
MANE-VU States, developed the MANE-VU ``Ask'' that will provide for
reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility at the MANE-VU
Class I area. The ``Ask'' consists of: (a) Timely implementation of
BART requirements; (b) a 90 percent reduction in SO2
emissions from each of the EGU stacks identified by MANE-VU comprising
a total of 167 stacks; (c) adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy;
and (d) continued evaluation of other control measures to reduce
SO2 and NOX emissions.
a. Timely Implementation of BART
    The New Hampshire BART determinations are discussed in detail in
Section III.D. As previously noted, EPA is proposing to find that the
BART determinations for Merrimack Station Unit MK2 and Newington
Station NT1 are reasonable.
b. Ninety Percent Reduction in SO2 Emissions From Each of
the EGU Stacks Identified by MANE-VU Comprising a Total of 167 Stacks
    New Hampshire has three EGU stacks identified by MANE-VU as a top
contributor to visibility impairment in any of the MANE-VU Class I
areas: MK1 and MK2 at Merrimack Station; and NT1 at Newington Station.
    Merrimack Station is installing a wet flue gas desulfurization
system on MK1 and MK2 which will reduce SO2 emissions by at
least 90%. Permit conditions require the facility to submit calendar
monthly emission rates for the preceding 12 months by December 31,
2014. At that time, New Hampshire will determine the maximum
sustainable rate of control. As specified by current permit conditions,
in no case may this rate be less than 90% control. It is expected that
the level of control will approach 95%. The New Hampshire BART
determination for Newington Station NT1 is an SO2 emission
limit of 0.50 lb/MMBtu. This represents a 67% reduction in
SO2 emission from NT1.
    The combination of reductions from the three identified stacks
results in at least an overall 87% reduction in SO2
emissions, comparable to the MANE-VU projected 90% reduction.
c. Continued Evaluation of Other Control Measures To Reduce
SO2 and NOX Emissions Including the MANE-VU Low
Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy
    The MANE-VU low sulfur fuel oil strategy includes: The Phase I
reduction of distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur by weight (500 parts per
million (ppm)) by no later than 2014; and the Phase II reductions of
4 residual oil to 0.25% sulfur by weight by no later than
2018; 6 residual oil to 0.5% sulfur by weight by no later than
2018; and further reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 15 ppm
by 2018.
    The reduction in SO2 emissions from this low-sulfur fuel
oil strategy by 2018 will yield corresponding reductions in sulfate
aerosol, the main culprit in fine-particle pollution and regional haze.
The MANE-VU analysis demonstrates that the reduction of the sulfur
content in fuel oil will lead to an average reduction of 0.13-0.18 ug/
m\3\ in the 24 hour PM2.5 concentration within New
Hampshire, improving health and local visibility. In addition, the use
of low sulfur fuels will result in cost savings to owners/operators of
residential furnaces and boilers due to reduced maintenance costs and
extended life of the units.
    In its August 26, 2011 submittal, New Hampshire committed to the
``[c]ontinued evaluation of other possible control measures for haze-
causing emissions, including participation in MANE-VU's low sulfur fuel
oil strategy by 2018.'' While New Hampshire has not yet submitted a
federally enforceable low sulfur fuel oil strategy, in addition to
previously discussed SO2 reductions, SO2
emissions in New Hampshire have been reduced through the conversion of
coal-fired Unit 5 at Schiller Station to a biomass-firing unit and the
shutdown of Fraser LLC pulp and paper mill.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The annual 2002 SO2 emissions from Schiller
Station Unit 5 and Fraser LLC were 2,796 tons and 638 tons,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) and the revised one hour
SO2 standard, is expected to result in further
SO2 emission reductions during the first planning period.
Although expected emission reductions cannot be relied upon to
demonstrate that New Hampshire has obtained its share of the emission
reductions needed to meet the RPG for the area, once these measures are
implemented and the reductions quantified, EPA expects that New
Hampshire's overall SO2 emission reductions will exceed
those agreed to in the RPO process.
3. Additional Considerations for the LTS
    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires States to consider the following
factors in developing the long term strategy:
     Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control
programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable
visibility impairment;
     Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities;
     Emission limitations and schedules for compliance to
achieve the reasonable progress goal;
     Source retirement and replacement schedules;
     Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry
management purposes including plans as currently exist within the State
for these purposes;
     Enforceability of emissions limitations and control
measures; and
     The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected
changes in point area, and mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the long term strategy.
a. Emission Reductions Including RAVI
    No source in New Hampshire has been identified as subject to RAVI.
A list of New Hampshire's ongoing air pollution control programs is
included in Section III.E.1.
b. Construction Activities
    The Regional Haze Rule requires New Hampshire to consider measures
to mitigate the impacts of construction activities on regional haze.
MANE-VU's consideration of control measures for construction activities
is documented in ``Technical Support Document on Measures to Mitigate
the Visibility Impacts of Construction Activities in the MANE-VU
Region,'' Draft, October 20, 2006.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The construction industry is already subject to requirements for
controlling pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment. For
example, federal regulations require the reduction of SO2
emissions from construction vehicles. At the State level, New Hampshire
currently regulates emissions of fugitive dust through New Hampshire's
Code of Administrative Rules Env-A 1002, Fugitive Dust, which requires
the control of direct emissions of particulate matter from mining,
transportation, storage, use, and removal activities.
    MANE-VU's Contribution Report found that, from a regional haze
perspective, crustal material generally does not play a major role. On
the 20 percent best-visibility days during the 2000-2004 baseline
period, crustal material accounted for 6 to 11 percent of the particle-
related light extinction at the MANE-VU Class I Areas. On the 20
percent worst-visibility days, however, the contribution was reduced to
2 to 3 percent. Furthermore, the crustal fraction is largely made up of
pollutants of natural origin (e.g., soil or sea salt) that are not
targeted under the Regional Haze Rule. Nevertheless, the crustal
fraction at any given location can be heavily influenced by the
proximity of construction activities; and construction activities
occurring in the immediate vicinity of MANE-VU Class I area could have
a noticeable effect on visibility.
    For this regional haze SIP, New Hampshire concluded that its
current regulations are currently sufficient to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities. Any future deliberations on potential control
measures for construction activities and the possible implementation
will be documented in the first regional haze SIP progress report. EPA
is proposing to find that New Hampshire has adequately addressed
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities.
c. Emission Limitations and Schedules for Compliance To Achieve the RPG
    In addition to the existing CAA control requirements discussed in
Section III.E.1, New Hampshire has adopted and submitted regulation
Env-A 2300 Mitigation of Regional Haze to EPA as a SIP revision. This
rule establishes SO2, NOX and PM emission limits
for Merrimack Station units MK1 and MK2 and Newington Station NT1. EPA
is proposing to approve this rule as part of today's action.
d. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedule
    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) of the Regional Haze Rule requires New
Hampshire to consider source retirement and replacement schedules in
developing the long term strategy. Source retirement and replacement
were considered in developing the 2018 emissions. The following sources
in New Hampshire were shut down (or replaced) after the 2002 base year
and therefore were not included in the 2018 inventory:
     PSNH Schiller Station Unit No. 5 replacement (Portsmouth,
NH),
     Groveton Paperboard, Inc. (Groveton, NH), and
     Wausau Paper Printing & Writing, LLC (Groveton, NH).

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

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

    New Hampshire does not currently have a Smoke Management Program
(SMP). However, SMPs are required only when smoke impacts from fires
managed for resources benefits contribute significantly to regional
haze. The emissions inventory presented in the above-cited document
indicates that agricultural, managed and prescribed burning emissions
are very minor; the inventory estimates that, in New Hampshire, those
emissions from those source categories totaled 498.5 tons of
PM10, 427.6 tons of PM2.5 and 30.1 tons of
SO2 in 2002, which constitute 1.0%, 1.9% and 0.05% of the
total inventory for these pollutants, respectively.
    Source apportionment results show that wood smoke is a moderate
contributor to visibility impairment at some Class I areas in the MANE-
VU region; however, smoke is not a large contributor to haze in MANE-VU
Class I areas on either the 20% best or 20% worst visibility days.
Moreover, most of wood smoke is attributable to residential wood
combustion. Therefore, it is unlikely that fires for agricultural or
forestry management cause large impacts on visibility in any of the
Class I areas in the MANE-VU region. On rare occasions, smoke from
major fires

degrades air quality and visibility in the MANE-VU area. However, these
fires are generally unwanted wildfires that are not subject to SMPs.
Therefore, a SMP is not required for New Hampshire. EPA proposes to
approve New Hampshire's decision that an Agricultural and Forestry
Smoke Management Plan to address visibility impairment is not required
at this time.
f. Enforceability of Emission Limitations and Control Measures
    All emission limitations included as part of New Hampshire's
Regional Haze SIP are either currently federally enforceable or will
become federally enforceable if this action is finalized as proposed.
EPA is proposing to find that New Hampshire has adequately addressed
the enforceability of emission limitations and control measures.
g. The Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility
    As explained above, New Hampshire has not adopted the low sulfur
fuel oil strategy included in the MANE-VU ``Ask.'' However, through
implementation of BART and the targeted EGU strategy, New Hampshire
will achieve a greater than 60% reduction in statewide SO2
emissions. New Hampshire and EPA anticipate that the Class I areas
impacted by New Hampshire will attain the visibility improvement
expected for the first planning period.
    In summary, EPA is proposing to find that New Hampshire's Regional
Haze SIP meets, or is comparable to, the MANE-VU Ask, that the controls
proposed in the SIP are reasonable for the LTS for the first
implementation period, and that New Hampshire adequately addressed all
the requirements of a LTS contained in the RHR.

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

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

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

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

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

H. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

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