Technical Support Document

Reducing Emissions to Support Reasonable Progress Goals

in New York’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 2

April 2012

INTRODUCTION

Technical Support Document

This Technical Support Document (TSD) describes EPA’s supporting
documentation for its proposed actions on the reasonable progress
section of New York’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP).
In addition, EPA should propose approval of New York’s Subchapter 249,
which required eligible facilities to evaluate the need for Best
Available Retrofit Technology.  EPA reviewed the application of
Subchapter 249 by New York in our evaluation of BART requirements for
BART-eligible sources in New York.  Evaluations of New York’s BART
determinations are found in EPA’s docket for this action.

Overview of New York’s State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze

Regional Haze State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are required by the
Clean Air Act to reduce the effects of anthropogenic pollution on scenic
views in areas designated at the Clean Air Act as Class I areas, at
major National Parks and wilderness areas.

The point of having a Regional Haze Plan is to show that each state is
doing its share toward improving these scenic views.  New York does not
have a Class I in its state, but, according to the list in its SIP, New
York’s emissions impact protected areas in nearby states:

Lye Brook Wilderness Area, VT

Brigantine Wildlife Refuge, NJ

Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness Area and Great Gulf Wilderness
Area, NH

Roosevelt-Campobello International Park,

Acadia National Park, ME

Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge, ME,

Shenandoah National Park, VA

The techniques used to determine if New York’s emissions impact Class
I areas is discussed later in this section and some of the models used
are in the section that reviews the use of air quality models in the
SIP.

The states and tribes in the northeastern United States worked together
as the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) to determine
the amount of emission reductions needed in the first ten year period
ending in 2018.  The amount of reductions needed by 2018 was calculated
based on the need to insure steady progress toward the goal of no
anthropogenic impairment of visibility in Class I areas by 2064.
MANE-VU states agreed to a set of reasonably implementable emission
reduction programs that, when modeled with other existing measures, are
forecast to meet the projected visibility improvement target by 2018.

New York’s SIP includes emission controls measures that will reduce
pollutants that impair the view at National Parks and wilderness areas
in nearby states.  Some of these emission controls are part of its
Regional Haze SIP and other controls listed in the SIP were recently
adopted separately from this SIP or already existed in other plans.  Air
quality models show that many of these measures also reduce haze.  This
portion of the TSD evaluates whether New York adopted the measures that
the modeling shows will reduce impairments to visibility at protected
areas.

Material Submitted by New York

New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) prepared the
Regional Haze SIP, which the Commissioner submitted for the State.  The
main submittal was on March 15, 2010, containing the main document,
Appendices A through X.  The SIP was automatically declared complete six
months after New York’s submittal.  New York submitted its Part 249
rule for BART-eligible sources to determine BART controls on August 10,
2010.  New York provided additional information about its BART sources
on March 2, 2011.  The public hearing on the SIP was held on January 5,
2010 and New York provided EPA with records from the hearing and
associated comment period.

As of April 16, 2011, New York had not submitted the permit
modifications needed for federal approval of its BART determinations.
From discussions with the staff of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, EPA understood that New York had planned to
submit a letter to EPA describing how it would enforce its
sulfur-in-fuel legislation and a commitment to expand its sulfur-in-fuel
limits via regulation.  The upcoming regulation would complete New
York’s effort to meet the sulfur-in-fuel limits specified in the
measures MANE-VU agreed to in order to achieve reasonable progress
toward improving visibility in Class I areas. New York also planned to
provide the BART permits that it had finalized to this point, but they
have not arrived either.

 The MANE-VU states showed, using models that combine meteorology,
mathematics and emissions, that existing measures and emission
reductions adopted for this Regional Haze SIP will provide adequate
progress toward the 2064 Clean Air Act goal of no anthropogenic
impairment to visibility in protected parks and wilderness areas.  The
specific measures to be adopted by the states include:  implementing
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) per EPA guidelines on old
sources, reducing emissions from 167 Electric Generating Units by an
average of ninety percent or more, and implementing a
geographically-specified program reducing sulfur in fuel oil.

Specifically, New York’s Plan reduced emissions from its sub-set of
the 167 EGUs by a small amount less than ninety percent for its set of
EGUs.  New York’s legislature enacted a sulfur-in-fuel reduction
program for number 2 fuel oil that takes effect in 2012.  New York has
proposed to the public, and in some cases, taken final action on,
control of sources subject to BART requirements.  Overall, these
measures, combined with other reductions in emissions, provide a
sufficient quantity of reduction of visibility-impairing pollutants to
meet its contribution to improving visibility at Class I areas affected
by New York’s emissions.

Background Information on the Nature of Regional Haze

Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude
of sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic
area. These sources emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates,
nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their
precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and in
some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)).  Fine
particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine particulate
matter which impairs 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 and eutrophication.

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 eastern United States, is less than 30
kilometers or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under
estimated natural conditions (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999).  In section
169A of the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (the Act), Congress
created a program for protecting visibility in the nation’s national
parks and wilderness areas.  This section of the Act 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
which impairment results from manmade air pollution.”  On December 2,
1980, the Environmental Protection Agency (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” (45 FR 80084).
These regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility
impairment.

The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states,
the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.  Section 51.308(b)
requires states to submit the first implementation plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
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.

Determination that New York State Impacts Visibility in Class I Areas

New York State listed the Class I areas where its emissions have an
impact based on the analyses in the report Contributions to Regional
Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States prepared by NESCAUM
(Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management).  The report used
a variety of techniques, listed below, for determining the relative
contributions of its states to visibility impairment in Class I areas.

Since sulfate typically accounts for 70–82 percent of estimated
particle-induced light extinction at northeastern and mid-Atlantic Class
I sites, the report used the effect of each state’s emissions on
sulfate concentrations in the Class I area as a surrogate for
transported pollutants that impair visibility. Using sulfates as an
indicator of effect on visibility in Class I areas is acceptable in this
round of visibility improvement because states agreed to measures that
focused on removing sulfates from emissions. The methods for attributing
state effects on Class I areas used emissions, distance from the Class I
area and the effects of weather patterns.  The report found a high level
of overall consistency among the different methods listed here.

Technical approaches for attributing state contributions to observed
sulfate in MANE-VU Class I areas:

Analytical technique 				Approach

Emissions divided by distance 			Empirical

Incremental probability 				Lagrangian trajectory technique

Cluster-weighted probability 				Lagrangian trajectory technique

Emissions times upwind probability 			Empirical/trajectory hybrid

Source apportionment approaches 			Receptor model/trajectory hybrid

REMSAD tagged species 				Eulerian source model

CALPUFF with MM5-based meteorology 		Lagrangian source dispersion model

CALPUFF with observation-based meteorology 	Lagrangian source dispersion
model

New York is ranked in the top five states for several of these
approaches and contributes a large percentage of visibility-impairing
sulfate to several Class I areas, making control if its contributions
essential to reducing impairment to visibility at Class I areas in the
northeast and mid-atlantic states.

STATE’S SUBMITTAL

The SIP revision addresses regional haze for the first implementation
period, ending in 2018.  New York’s emissions affect air quality in
Class I areas in nearby states.  But since New York does not have a
Class I areas within its borders, it uses the baseline and natural
visibility conditions and reasonable progress goals established by
states with the Class I area.  These goals were developed by states with
Class I areas, in consultation with states that affect visibility in the
Class I areas.  It follows that New York also does not have to address
monitoring requirements, or meeting RAVI requirements for Class I areas.
 But, New York is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that
addresses its impact on nearby Class I areas, with a long-term emission
strategy, describing its role in the consultation processes, and how the
SIP meets the other requirements in EPA’s regional haze regulations.

Measures Adopted to Address Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

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 the Class I states.  New York’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 year of 2002 until the end of the first period in 2018.

The LTS was developed by Class I states in coordination with other
states working together as the Mid-Atlantic NorthEast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU), as they identified emission controls that were reasonable and
addressed the goal of meeting the RPG in Class I areas across the
northeastern United States.

On June 20, 2007, the MANE-VU states agreed to adopt emission control
strategies that MANE-VU modeled to determine the amount of progress that
the MANE-VU states would make toward improving visibility by the end of
the first control period, ending in 2018.

By adopting all the measures identified in the MANE-VU analysis and
applying BART to eligible sources, New York LTS would achieve its share
of emissions reductions that are reasonable and, according to the
results of atmospheric modeling, will achieve the reasonable progress
goals for the nearby Class I areas.  The following chart compares
measures adopted by New York with the measures agreed to by the MANE-VU
states (often referred to as the MANE-VU ‘ask’).

MANE-VU ‘Ask’ Measures*

	Measures Adopted or Action Taken by New York

Timely implementation of BART on all sources identified as BART
–eligible	Implementing BART on all eligible sources, except those that
do not meet BART eligibility or have emission limits less than the 250
tons per year BART eligibility thresholds in their permits.

Low sulfur fuel oil strategy: for NY: distillate oil to 0.05% (500pmm)
sulfur by 2012 and to 15ppm by 2016, #4 residual oil to 0.25% sulfur no
later than 2012, #6 residual oil to 0.3 to 0.5% by 2012 	New York State
Law:  No. 2 reduced to 15 ppm by 2012

New York City has adopted:

No. 2:  15 ppm by 2012 (following state law)

No. 4: 0.15 percent by 2012

No. 5, No. 6 & heavier: 0.30 percent by 2012.

All lower sulfur targets to be met well before 2018.

NYS planned to enact statewide limits on number 4 and 6 oil in upcoming
regulations.

90% or more reduction in SO2 emissions from 167 stacks or alternative
measures	Reductions of sulfur emissions at New York’s nineteen out of
the 167 stacks, plus additional reductions on two non-EGU BART sources

Continued evaluation of other measures, including energy efficiency,
alternative clean fuels, reduce SO2 and NOx from coal units by 2018 and
NSPS for wood combustion if reasonable and cost-effective	Emission
reductions included in ozone and particulate matter SIPs (included in
modeling). These strategies were not specifically modeled and are not
binding commitments on the part of NYS:

• The revisions for RACT for major sources of PM2.5 greater than 100
tons per year

• New Source Review in Nonattainment Areas and Ozone Transport Region
(revisions adopted January 15, 2009),

• MACT under Section 112 of the 1990 CAA Amendments,

• NOx RACT measures for High Electricity Demand Day Units,

• Emission reductions resulting from consent orders, and

• The continued evaluation of other control measures including energy
efficiency, alternative clean fuels, and other approaches.

*Measures agreed-to by MANE-VU states and tribes on June 20, 2007 and
included in the modeling that predicted visibility in Class I areas
reaching reasonable progress goals by 2018.

• BART Controls

A more detailed review of New York’s implementation of BART is found
in documents in EPA’s docket on this proposed action.

In summary, New York identified twenty sources that could be subject to
BART.  Thirteen sources were EGUs and seven were other major sources.
All these sources were included in the regional haze modeling, but since
New York had not identified its BART-eligible sources at that time, the
reduced emissions due to BART controls were not included in the modeling
for the 2018 future case.  (EGUs that are part of the 167 sources were
modeled with 90 percent reductions.  Only two BART sources in New York,
both non-EGUs had their potential BART controls included in the
modeling.)

As of the date of the signed Federal Register notice, New York had not
sent its finalized permits for these sources, as the permits with the
reductions need to be submitted to EPA as SIP revisions to become
effective.  EPA is discussing the potential approvability of these SIP
revisions in the proposed action, based on public notices on the
permits.  Since New York has yet to submit these permits as SIP
revisions, and EPA was compelled to take action at that time, EPA has
proposed that the appropriate pollution control measures as part of a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for New York.  If New York submits
these permits as SIP revisions in time for EPA to review and process
before the final action is needed on this SIP by August 16, 2012, EPA
may be able to approve these measures as part of New York’s SIP.

• Electric Generating Units

New York is home to nine of the 105 power plants that make up the 167
EGU stacks identified when MANE-VU states set the 2018 reasonable
progress goals for the five Class I areas in MANE-VU. New York has
addressed emission changes from these nine sources, with nineteen
stacks, in Table 9-4 in Section 9 of its Regional Haze Plan.

EPA proposed that states could use their involvement under the Clean Air
Interstate Rule to fulfill their commitment to implementing controls on
EGUs for sulfur and nitrogen.  While New York adopted CAIR, it chose to
insure that the modeled improvement in visibility would occur even in
case of emissions trading by sources under CAIR.  So, New York chose to
evaluate controls on each of its EGUs, outside of EPA’s CAIR.  Thus
the court remand of CAIR, and EPA’s development of an improved
transport rule to replace CAIR, does not affect the amount of control
that New York implemented for its sources and has no negative impact on
New York’s efforts to meet the visibility Progress Goals.

The key issue is to determine if New York’s controls on its share for
167 EGU stacks amounts to the ninety percent SO2 emission reduction
agreed to in the MANE-VU ‘ask’. The MANE-VU set of control measures
are important because modeling shows that they produce an improvement in
visibility that puts the Class I areas in the MANE-VU domain on the path
to reaching the 2064 goal of no anthropogenic interference with
visibility.

The calculations that document New York’s ability to reach the ninety
percent emission reduction target are found in the spreadsheet below.
Based on data from the MANE-VU modeling, and New York’s commitments to
implement controls on these sources, EPA can calculate the total percent
sulfur reductions from its share of the 167 sources to be about 83
percent.  This means that 9,110 tons per year of sulfur emissions must
be available, above and beyond the reductions required for other parts
of the Regional Haze SIP, to fulfill this MANE-VU agreement for ninety
percent control of these EGU emissions.

Additional reductions are available to New York.  The two non-EGU
sources eligible for BART controls, and modeled at estimated BART levels
of control, will be shutdown.  The MANE-VU modeling included the
estimate of BART reductions for those two non-EGU sources in New York
State, Kodak and LaFarge Cement.  Table 9-6 of New York’s Haze SIP
includes this information for these two sources, from the MANE-VU final
modeling.  Kodak unit U15 was estimated to emit 14,216 tons of sulfur
dioxide after BART controls. After further analysis, with changes to a
number of sources in the Kodak complex, this unit is planned to be shut
down, with another 6,745 tons per year eliminated.  At LaFarge Building
Materials, 4,400 tons per year of sulfur were to be emitted in the
estimated BART analysis used in the modeling.  LaFarge will cease
operations.  Therefore, the additional reductions beyond the BART
reductions already in the model total 11,195 tons per year from Kodak
and LaFarge combined.  These reductions are beyond the emission
reductions from New York State’s sources used in the MANE-VU modeling
for the Class I areas.  These reductions can be used to supplement and
complete New York’s State’s quest for a ninety percent reduction in
major source sulfur emissions.  As seen in this spreadsheet’s
calculations, NYSDEC overall reduction in sulfur emissions from the
nineteen stacks plus the sources with emission controls beyond the
originally planned BART is 2,074 tons per year more than needed to meet
the ninety percent requirement.  Thus, New York’s emissions of sulfur
dioxide from point sources exceed their contribution to meeting the
reasonable progress requirement.

• Sulfur in Fuel Oil

Under the MANE-VU agreement to reduce emissions of sulfur in fuel oil,
Phase 1 of the proposed standards establishes limits of:

0.05 percent sulfur by weight (500 ppm) for distillate oil (No. 2 and
lighter);

0.25 percent sulfur by weight (2,500 ppm) for No. 4 residual oil;

and between 0.3 and 0.5 percent sulfur by weight (3,000 to 5,000 ppm)
for No. 6 residual oil.  These standards are to go into effect no later
than 2012.

In addition, the MANE-VU strategy provides for a phase two reductions
for distillate oil (No. 2 and lighter) to 15 ppm by 2016.

The lower sulfur limits in New York’s sulfur-in-fuel law are effective
in 2012.

New York State’s Environmental Conservation Law, section 19-0325:
Sulfur reduction requirements: limits the sulfur content of number two
heating oil to fifteen parts per million by 2012.  This requirement is
one portion of the control strategies agreed to by the MANE-VU states.
However, the final modeling included reductions in number four and six
oil to .25% and .6%, respectively.  These reductions are not in place
statewide, except for limits of 0.15% to be effective in New York City
by 2012.

EPA estimates a reduction in sulfur emissions from the sulfur-in-fuel
program in section 9.4.2 of the Haze Plan and the MANE-VU modeling
inventory.  The MANE-VU modeling included a reduction of sulfur
emissions in New York State of 91,701 tons per year for BART and
implementing the MANE-VU sulfur-in-fuel agreement, combined.  Since the
BART emission reduction, from the two non-EGU BART-eligible sources, was
19,942 tons per year of sulfur, the emission reductions expected from
the sulfur-in-fuel program is 71,759 tons.  From the data in New
York’s SIP, EPA calculates that the new sulfur-in-fuel law will reduce
emissions by 54,090 tons per year.  That would leave 17,669 tons per
year for New York to obtain through expansion of its limits on lower
sulfur oil.

There are at least two ways that the need to include 17,669 tons in this
plan can be addressed.  First of all, when New York State adopts the
rest of its sulfur-in-fuel program to meet the MANE-VU ask, its emission
reductions would be the same tonnage as in the MANE-VU modeling, since
New York’s program would be the same as modeled by MANE-VU.  Second,
MANE-VU modeling, after modeling the ‘ask’ and all its measures, put
back 23,100 tons of New York’s sulfur emissions into the emissions
inventory to better approximate the results of EPA’s transport rule
programs. Even with the 23,100 tons returned to the atmosphere,
MANE-VU’s model predicted that the Class I areas in the northeast and
mid-atlantic states would still meet the progress goal set for
visibility in 2018.  This 23,100 tons of sulfur emissions, is more than
the 17,699 tons expected from the expansion of New York’s sulfur in
fuel rule that has not been adopted yet.

EPA should propose that, based on calculations from the MANE-VU modeling
inventory, and because New York has a sulfur-in-fuel law that is in
force for New York State and adopted as regulation in New York City, EPA
should approve this portion of New York’s Haze Plan as sufficient to
reduce haze in the affected Class I areas in the region by the amount
specified in the MANE-VU modeling.

• Additional Measures

The following additional measures also are part of New York’s Regional
Haze Plan, but were not adopted specifically for the Plan.  The
following list is excerpted from New York’s Regional Haze Plan,
February 2010:

• The revisions to 6 NYCRR Part 227 that will require RACT for major
sources of PM2.5 (those greater than 100 tpy),

• Part 231: New Source Review in Nonattainment Areas and Ozone

Transport Region (revisions adopted January 15, 2009),

• MACT under Section 112 of the 1990 CAA Amendments,

• NOx RACT measures for High Electricity Demand Day Units,

• Emission reductions resulting from consent orders, and

• The continued evaluation of other control measures including energy
efficiency, alternative clean fuels, and other approaches.

Emissions Inventory for 2018 with Federal and State Control Requirements

The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical analyses was
developed by Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA)
for MANE-VU with assistance from the MANE-VU states.  The 2018 emissions
inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions, assuming emissions
growth due to projected increases in economic activity, as well as
applying reductions expected from federal and state regulations
affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants
NOx, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2.  The BART guidelines direct states to
exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3 impair visibility in
their Class I area(s).  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 ammonia emissions in the
MANE-VU region are extremely small. In addition, VOC emissions are
aggressively controlled through New York’s ozone SIPs.  Therefore, the
pollutants New York considered under BART are NOx, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2.

New York’s emission inventory for its Haze SIP was taken from the
MANE-VU emissions inventory used for the modeling analysis for regional
haze and ozone and particulate matter SIP.  The inventory was used for,
and approved for New York’s ozone modeling and particulate matter SIP,
is approvable for use in the regional haze SIP.

However, there was a typo in the original table in New York’s SIP.
New York used the opportunity to make some minor changes to the
inventory to bring it more in line with the changes in emissions from
planned reductions due to its sulfur-in-fuel legislation and New
York’s planned sulfur-in-fuel rule.

Modeling to Support the Long Term Strategy and to 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 and REMSAD modeling system 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), version 8 is a Eulerian grid model used for a source
apportionment analysis.

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.

The MANE-VU was tasked with the assignment of preparing a PM2.5 modeling
platform that all member states could use to model their LTSs to
demonstrate reasonable progress by 2018 in meeting the ultimate goal of
natural visibility conditions by 2064.  The New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) was the lead agency for coordinating
and running the modeling platform used by the MANE-VU RPO.  Modeling
centers responsible for running the platform included the NYSDEC, the
University of Maryland at College Park (UMD), the Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJ DEP), and the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VA DEQ).  Each modeling center was responsible
for installing the modeling platform, conducting diagnostic tests and
completing a benchmark run to ensure accurate, consistent results.

MANE-VU used the CMAQ version 4.5.1 as its photochemical grid model.
The model uses simulations of chemical reactions, emission of PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursors and a sophisticated meteorological model (The
Pennsylvania State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research
Mesoscale Meteorological Model) to produce speciated PM2.5
concentrations over the eastern United States.  The meteorological data
used in the meteorological model was for the 2002 base year.  The
photochemical grid model was run with the base year meteorology and base
year emissions to determine if the model performance was satisfactory.
Once the model performance was determined to be adequate, PM 2.5
concentrations were modeled by running the model with projected
emissions for 2018 and the original 2002 meteorology. The meteorology
was held constant so that the results of changing the emissions would
not be influenced by changing meteorology.

Conceptual Description of the Modeling Situation

A conceptual model describes how weather patterns affect the formation
and transport of PM2.5, accounting for emissions and photochemistry. In
the case of regional haze, emissions of sulfur, nitrogen and carbon,
especially sulfur, react in the atmosphere to form fine particles that
are large enough to scatter visible light.  This scattering reduces the
contrast of distant objects and makes them less visible.

New York’s SIP includes, in Section 1.1, a description of how reduced
visibility occurs in New York and how it affects its wilderness and
scenic areas.  Section 1.3 lists the areas that affect visibility at
Class I locations in MANE-VU and Section 1.4 lists the Class I areas
where New York’s emissions affect visibility.

Appendix A is a document prepared by MANE-VU that includes numerous
methods that provide information about how haze occurs in the northeast
United States and the sources of haze.  The methods include emissions
information (and the distance to sources), trajectory analyses, and
impacts predicted by dispersion and various grid models.  Monitoring
data is used to show that sulfates are the predominate species that
reduce visibility at the Class I areas in MANE-VU.

The various models support the hypothesis that many sources across a
wide range of states in the eastern United States contribute to haze in
New York and at areas in MANE-VU where visibility is a protected value.

Modeling Platforms

Two  regional-scale air quality models were evaluated and used by
NESCAUM to perform air quality simulations. These are the Community
Multi-scale Air Quality modeling system (CMAQ; Byun and Ching, 1999) and
the Regional Modeling System for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD; SAI,
2002). CMAQ was developed by EPA, while REMSAD was developed by ICF
Consulting/Systems Applications International (ICF/SAI) with EPA
support.  CMAQ has undergone extensive community development and peer
review (Amar et al., 2005) and has been successfully used in a number of
regional air quality studies (Bell and Ellis, 2003;

Hogrefe et al., 2004; Jimenez and Baldasano, 2004; Mao and Talbot, 2003;
Mebust et al., 2003). REMSAD has also has been peer reviewed (Seigneur
et al., 1999) and used by EPA for regulatory applications (
www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hd2007/frm/r00028.pdf and

 HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/air_quality_tech.html"
www.epa.gov/clearskies/air_quality_tech.html ) to study ambient
concentrations and deposition of sulfate and other PM species.

Five modeling centers worked collectively to maximize efficiency of
computing resources in MANE-VU for SIP modeling.  These centers include
NY DEC, NJ DEP/Rutgers, VA DEQ, UMD, and NESCAUM.

Use of Air Quality Models:  Contribution Assessment

The 1999 Regional Haze Rule requires States and Tribes to submit State
Implementation Plans to EPA for approval by January 2008 at the latest.
The haze SIPs must include a “contribution assessment” to identify
those states or regions that may be influencing specially protected
federal lands known as Federal Class I areas. These states or regions
would then be subject to the consultation provisions of the Haze Rule.
The Haze Rule also requires a “pollution apportionment” analysis as
part of the long-term emissions management strategy for each site.

As described in the Conceptual Description portion of this TSD, sulfate
alone accounts for anywhere from one-half to two-thirds of total fine
particle mass on the 20 percent haziest days at MANE-VU Class I sites.
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.

Use of Air Quality Models:  Area of Influence for MANE-VU Class I Areas

States with Class I areas calculate the baseline and natural visibility
for their Class I areas, and the determination of reasonable progress
goals.

Class I States calculate baseline visibility conditions for the period
between 2002 and 2004. The average impairment for the most and least
impaired days are determined for each calendar year and compiled into
the average of three annual averages (40 CFR 51.308 (d)(2)(i)). The
natural visibility conditions are determined for the same baseline
period with the most and least impaired days determined by available
monitoring data or an appropriate data analysis technique (40 CFR 51.308
(d)(iii-iv)).

There are seven Class I areas located in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.
 In order to identify states whose emissions are most likely to
influence visibility in MANE-VU Class I areas, MANE-VU prepared the
Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United
States (Contribution Assessment). The full report can be found in
Appendix A of the New York Regional Haze SIP.

Based on that work, MANE-VU concluded that it was appropriate to define
an “Area of Influence” (AOI) including all of the states
participating in MANE-VU plus other states outside MANE-VU for which
modeling indicated they contributed at least two percent (2%) of the
sulfate ion in MANE-VU Class I areas in 2002. The Visibility Improvement
State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) also conducted an
AOI analysis, which used a level of one percent (1%) to assess whether
an upwind state significantly contributed. The VISTAS AOI did not show
New York to be a contributor to any VISTAS Class I area.

The primary contribution assessment tool used for the New York Regional
Haze SIP was the Regional Modeling System for Aerosols and Deposition
(REMSAD) (SAI, 2002). A significant feature of the REMSAD work used to
evaluate regional contributions is that NESCAUM reprocessed the SO2
emission data from each state to take advantage of REMSAD’s tagging
capabilities. Thus, all SO2 emissions included in the model for the
eastern half of the country were tagged according to state of origin,
and emissions from Canada and the boundary conditions were also tagged.
This allowed for a rough estimation of the total contribution from
elevated point sources in each state to simulated sulfate concentrations
at eastern receptor sites. Using identical emission and meteorological
inputs to those prepared for the CMAQ SIP modeling platform, described
earlier in this TSD, REMSAD was used to simulate the annual average
impact of each state’s SO2 emission sources on the sulfate fraction of
PM2.5 over the northeastern United States.  A more in-depth description
of the REMSAD modeling used for contribution assessment can be found in
Appendix A of New York’s SIP.

The REMSAD contribution assessment modeling used for New York’s
Regional Haze SIP conforms to EPA modeling requirements and is
acceptable to EPA.

Use of Air Quality Models:  REMSAD Contribution Assessment Results

MANE-VU States decided that any state or region that contributed at
least 2 percent of total sulfate observed on 20 percent worst visibility
days in 2002 is contributing significantly to the haze problem in that
particular Class I area.  With respect to sulfate, the Contribution
Assessment estimated emissions from within MANE-VU in 2002 were
responsible for about 25-30 percent of the sulfate at Class I areas
located within and nearby to the MANE-VU region. The contribution of
sulfate at these Class I areas from other regions, Canada, and outside
the modeling domain were also significant.

Use of Air Quality Models:  CMAQ Modeling of 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 CMAQ 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.

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.
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. In particular, for the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge Class I
area, on the 20 percent worst visibility days in 2000 – 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.

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.

Use of CMAQ Modeling to Develop 2018 Control Case Predictions:

Meteorological Time Periods Used in the Modeling

All of 2002, which represents the baseline period from 2000 to 2004, was
included in CMAQ modeling.  2002 was divided into five periods. UMD is
responsible for modeling the period from January 1 to February 28; NJ
DEP/Rutgers are responsible for the period from March 1 to May 14; NY
DEC is responsible for the period from May 15 to September 30; VA DEQ is
responsible for the period from October 1 to October 31; and NESCAUM is
responsible for the period from November 1 to December 31. Each period
uses a 15 day spin up run to minimize the impact of the default initial
concentration fields. Each group performs CMAQ simulations on its period
for a series of scenarios including 2002 Base Case, 2009 Base Case, 2018
Base Case, 2009 Control Case, and 2018 Control Case. All scenarios adopt
the same meteorological field (2002) and boundary conditions, varying
only emission inputs. To ensure consistency between modeling groups, a
benchmark test was conducted by each group.

Meteorological Data Used in the CMAQ Air Quality Model

The MANE-VU states decided to use a prognostic meteorological model that
provides life-like meteorological inputs to the photochemical grid
model.  The Pennsylvania State University/National Center for
Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model version 3.6 was
chosen for the modeling analysis.  The MM5 model provides a reasonable
representation of weather conditions at the surface and aloft.

Use of CMAQ Modeling to Develop 2018 Control Case Predictions:

Domain of the Model, Horizontal/Vertical Resolution and the Initial and
Boundary Conditions

MANE-VU adopted the Inter-RPO domain description for its modeling runs.
This 36-km domain covers the continental United States, southern Canada
and northern Mexico. The dimensions of this domain are 145 and 102 cells
in the east-west and north-south directions, respectively. A 12-km inner
domain was selected to better characterize air quality in MANE-VU and
surrounding RPO regions. This domain covers the eastern region, which
includes the northeastern, central, and southeastern U.S., as well as
southeastern Canada. It extends from 66W - 94W in longitude and 29N -
50N in latitude with 172 × 172 grid cells.

Vertical resolution is the number of layers and the size of each layer
in the model.  The layers in the photochemical grid model were set up to
be compatible with the model that produced weather conditions for the
photochemical grid model.  The vertical resolution used in the modeling
exercise followed EPA’s modeling guidance and therefore adequately
represents the atmosphere where PM2.5 is emitted, forms and is
transported.

Baseline and Future Year Emission Inventories for CMAQ Modeling

Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) of EPA’s Regional Haze Rule requires the
States to identify the baseline emission inventory on which strategies
are based. The baseline inventory is intended to be used to assess
progress in making emission reductions. Based on EPA guidance entitled,
2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hour Ozone, PM 2.5,
and Regional Haze Programs, which identifies 2002 as the anticipated
baseline emission inventory year for regional haze, MANE-VU and New York
are using 2002 as the baseline year. Future year inventories were
developed for the years 2009, 2012 and 2018 based on the 2002 base year.
These future year emission inventories include emissions growth due to
projected increases in economic activity as well as the emissions
reductions due to the implementation of control measures.

The 2002 emissions were first generated by the individual states in the
MANE-VU area. MARAMA then coordinated and quality assured the 2002
inventory data. The 2002 emissions from non-MANE-VU areas within the
modeling domain were obtained from other Regional Planning Organizations
for their corresponding areas. These Regional Planning Organizations
included the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS), the Midwest Regional Planning Organization and the
Central Regional Air Planning Association.

Version 3 of the 2002 base year emission inventory was used in the
regional modeling exercise. Technical support documentation for the
MANE-VU 2002 base inventory is presented in Technical Support Document
for 2002 MANE-VU SIP Modeling Inventories, Version 3, which is Appendix
H of the New York SIP.  This document explains the data sources,
methods, and results for preparing this version of the 2002 base year
criteria air pollutant and ammonia emissions inventory. Documentation
for the future year estimations of EGUs is presented in Appendix E of
the SIP – MARAMA’s Development of Emission Projections for 2009,
2012, and 2018 for Non-EGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Source in the
MANE-VU Region Final Report, February, 2007.

CMAQ Model Performance Evaluation

The modeling is described in MANE-VU Modeling for Reasonable Progress
Goals, prepared by NESCAUM, listed as Appendix R of New York’s SIP.

NESCAUM evaluated the 2002 annual 12 km resolution meteorological fields
generated by MM5 using ENVIRON's METSTAT program. Model results of
surface wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and humidity were
paired with measurements from EPA’s Clean Air  Status and Trends
Network (CASTNET) and National Center for Atmospheric Research’s
Techniques Data Laboratory (TDL) network by hour and by location and
then statistically compared. Based on this statistical comparison
between model prediction and data from the two networks for wind speed,
wind direction, temperature, and humidity, MM5 performs well. An
acceptable small bias, high index of agreement and strong correlation
with CASTNET and TDL data are shown. Since MM5 uses TDL data for
nudging, the model predictions are in better agreement with TDL data
than with CASTNET data. MM5 performs better in Midwest and Northeast
than Southeastern US.

CMAQ modeling was conducted for year 2002 by cooperative modeling
efforts from NYDEC, UMD, NJDEP, Rutgers, VADEP, and NESCAUM.  CMAQ
Performance for PM2.5 species and visibility was examined based on this
CMAQ run on a 12 km resolution domain. Measurements from IMPROVE and STN
networks were paired with model predictions by location and time for
evaluation. The goal and the criteria for PM2.5 evaluation suggested by
Boylan and Baker (2004) were adopted by every RPO for SIP modeling. The
performance goals are: Mean Fractional Error (MFE) ≤ +50%, and Mean
Fraction Bias (MFB) ≤ ±30%; while the criteria are proposed as: MFE
≤ +75%, and MFB ≤ ±60%. CMAQ prediction of PM2.5 species from 40
STN sites and 17 IMPROVE sites within the MANE-VU Region were paired
with measurements and statistically analyzed to generate MFE and MFB
values. Considering CMAQ performance in terms of MFE and MFB goals,
sulfate, nitrate, OC, EC, and PM2.5 all had the majority of data points
within the goal curve, some were between the goal and acceptable
criteria, and only a few were outside the criteria curve. Only fine soil
has the majority of points outside the criteria curve, but there were
some sites still within the goal. For the MANE-VU region, CMAQ performs
best for PM2.5 sulfate, followed by PM2.5, EC, nitrate, OC, and then
fine soil. Regional haze modeling also requires CMAQ performance
evaluation for aerosol extinction coefficient (Bext) and the haze index.
 Modeled daily aerosol extinction at each improve site was calculated
following the IMPROVE formula with modeled daily PM2.5 species
concentration and relative humidity factors from IMPROVE. The approach
used natural background visibility estimates and the haze index
following EPA Guidance. The modeled Bext showed a near 1:1 linear
relationship (slope of 0.78 and r2 of 0.46) with IMPROVE observed Bext.
The regression excluded three points from July 7, 2002; the monitors
were directly impacted by Canadian fires whose emissions were not
modeled.

How to Calculate Uniform Rate of Progress Goals

The key difference between SIPs from States with Class I areas and those
States without Class I areas, but may have sources that impact
visibility on Class I areas, is the calculation of the baseline and
natural visibility for their Class I areas and the determination of
uniform rate of progress goals - expressed in deciviews - that provide
for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility by 2064.
It is the Class I states responsibility assess these calculations. The
Class I States must also consult with those States, which may reasonably
be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in their
Class I areas (40 CFR 51.308 (d)(1)(i-vi)).

The baseline visibility conditions are calculated for the baseline
period between 2002 and 2004. The average impairment for the 20 most and
20 least impaired days are determined for each calendar year and
compiled into the average of three annual averages (40 CFR 51.308
(d)(2)(i)). The natural visibility conditions are determined for the
same baseline period with the most and least impaired days determined by
available monitoring data or an appropriate data analysis technique (40
CFR 51.308 (d)(iii-iv)).

The calculations used to determine the natural conditions used as the
2064 visibility goal are described at the MANE-VU SIP Template document,
June 10, 2004:  Natural Background Visibility Conditions Considerations
And Proposed Approach To The Calculation Of Natural Background
Visibility Conditions At Mane-Vu Class I Areas, following EPA’s
guidance at: U.S. EPA (2003). Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
Conditions under the Regional Haze Rule. EPA-454/B-03-005. September
2003.

EPA released guidance on June 7, 2007 to use in setting reasonable
progress goals. The goals must provide improvement in visibility for the
most impaired days, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
least impaired days over the SIP period. The following figure
illustrates an example of how Uniform Rate of Progress is calculated.

Example Calculation of Uniform Rate of Progress

CMAQ Modeled Visibility Projections for 2018

The CMAQ air quality model was used to simulate base period emissions
and future emissions.  The modeling results for the base year period
(2002) and the year representing the end of the first planning period
(2018) are used to develop relative response factors (RRF) for each
component of particulate matter identified previously in this TSD.  The
relative response factors are multiplied by the measured species
concentration data during the base period (for the measured 20% best and
worst days). This results in daily future year species concentrations
data. The projected concentrations are then used to derive daily
visibility in deciviews and are averaged across all best and worst days
to create the projected future visibility.

Brigantine in New Jersey is one of the Class I areas that New York
affects.   As an example, the results of this procedure are plotted
along with the uniform progress glide slope below, and in Table 8.4 and
Figure 8.1 in New Jersey’s SIP, taken from Figure 3-2, and 4-1B in
2018 Visibility Projections, Appendix J-1 in New Jersey’s SIP.

Reasonable Progress Goals and Projected Future Visibility for the
Brigantine Wilderness Area

	Baseline Visibility

(2000-2004)	Natural Background Conditions for 2064	Reasonable Progress
Goal for 2018 	2018 CMAQ Projections

20% Worst Days 	29.0 	12.2 	25.1 	25.1

20% Best Days 	14.3 	5.5 	14.3 	12.2

(All values expressed as deciviews – lower deciviews means better
visibility.)

From:  2018 Visibility Projections (NESCAUM for MANE-VU States, May
2008), Appendix J-1 in New Jersey’s SIP.

By interpolating between the base year of 2004 and the natural
background year of 2064, the Progress Goal for 2018 is 25.1 deciviews,
3.9 deciviews lower than 29.0 deciviews starting point.  State plans
must adopt all reasonable controls, with the objective of improving
visibility to equal to, or better than, the Progress Goal.  MANE-VU
modeled the effects of reducing emissions on air quality and visibility.
 Based on the emission controls agreed-to by the MANE-VU states,
visibility at the Brigantine Class I area is forecast to improve to 25.1
deciviews in 2018, meeting the Progress Goal.

The modeling results presented in 2018 Visibility Projections, Appendix
V in New York’s SIP, show all MANE-VU sites are projected to meet or
exceed the uniform rate of progress goals for 2018 on the 20 percent
worst days. In addition, no site anticipates increases in visibility
impairment relative to the baseline on the 20 percent best days.

Additional examples of the Rate of Progress tables and graphs for other
Class I areas affected by emissions from New York follow.

Summary of Photochemical Grid Modeling Results

In summary, the photochemical grid modeling, documented in New York’s
Regional Haze SIP, follows EPA’s modeling guidance and is acceptable
to EPA.  All MANE-VU Class I area sites impacted by New York are
projected to meet or exceed the uniform rate of progress goal for 2018
on the 20 percent worst days. In addition, no site anticipates increased
visibility impairment relative to the baseline on the 20 percent best
days.

Monitoring and Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI)

Since New York does not have any Class I areas, the requirements to
operate and maintain monitoring sites and assessing visibility
impairment do not apply to New York.

Public Hearing and Response to Comments and Consultation with Federal
Land Manager

New York State listed the Federal Land Manager’s concerns about New
York’s Plan in their public notice of December 2, 2009.  This notice
also announced their public hearing on the plan, held January 5, 2010 at
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s offices
in Albany, New York.  Written comments were accepted though January 12,
2010.  Comments were submitted by representatives of two power producing
organizations.  Comments and New York’s responses to those comments
were submitted as part of its SIP submission as an attachment
(unnumbered) to its letter of March 15, 2010 submitting the SIP.

Previously, New York held a hearing and responded to comments, as
reported in Appendix B of New York’s Regional Haze SIP, where New York
addressed the comments from the public, stakeholders, EPA and the
Federal Land Manager. These actions were outlined in its letter of
August 2, 2010.

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 conference calls participants from
VISTAS, Midwest RPO and relevant Federal Land Managers were also in
attendance at many of these meetings and conference calls.  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.

 New York commits in section 10 of the Regional Haze SIP to ongoing
consultation with the FLMs on Regional Haze issues throughout the
implementation of the SIP as required in 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4).

Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g), New York committed
to submitting a report on its contribution to reasonable progress (in
the form of a SIP revision) to the EPA every five years following the
initial submittal of its regional haze SIP

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

The overall reductions in emissions from New York’s Regional Haze SIP
are sufficient to meet the requirements for New York’s contribution
toward meeting the reasonable progress goals for Class I areas in the
northeastern United States that are affected by New York’s emissions.
Thus, EPA should approve New York Long Term Strategy to reduce regional
haze for the first progress period ending in 2018.

In order for EPA to give final approval to New York’s SIP, New York
needs to submit the revised permits that include the appropriate levels
of BART controls as described in the BART Technical Support Document.
If New York does not submit its permits in a timely manner, EPA is
proposing Federal Implementation Plans (FIPssss0 for these sources.
Since EPA is including reductions from these sources in our potential
FIP, these reductions will contribute to New York’s reaching its goal
of meeting its contribution to reducing regional haze in the first
planning period ending in 2018.

EPA is also proposing alternative BART controls for two sources, as
documented in materials in EPA’s docket for this proposed action.  EPA
is proposing to implement these controls, if in our final notice we
believe they are appropriate, via a FIP.  EPA should approve New
York’s Part 249, which it used to request BART analyses from sources
in New York. EPA, in documents in the docket for this action, evaluates
New York’s analysis of BART requirements for these sources, following
EPA’s BART guidelines published at 70 FR 39158-39161; July 6, 2005.

In summary, the TSD recommends that EPA approve the portion of New
York’s Regional Haze SIP that provides its contribution to meeting the
reasonable progress goals for the affected Class I areas; and approve
the BART determinations that meet the BART guidance if New York submits
final permits as revisions to the New York State Implementation Plan.
In the alternative, EPA should prepare proposed FIPs in case New York
does not finalize and submit their BART-affected permits and propose
FIPs for the two sources that EPA is proposing alternatives to New
York’s BART recommendations.

Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which
a dark object can be viewed against the sky.

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.’’  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.”

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit a regional
haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)
of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under the New Mexico Air
Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).

;

<

=

€

®

Í

4

7

8

:

;

<

=

M

T

m

€

£

©

°

Ò

)

.

]

g

u

®

Ì

Í

옍)

 h™

hsL

h™

hsL

hsL

h™

摧䱳

äý\

h™

h™

hsL

hsL

hsL

äý\

h™

h™

hà

hà

 h

h9

 hk

␷㠀$⑈最ﱤ漪洀ĤЀ 摧冑ᜀPresidential Range – Dry River
Wilderness, New Hampshire; and Roosevelt Campobello International Park,
New Brunswick.

 VISTAS is comprised of the following states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, West Virginia, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and Knox
County, TN

 PAGE

 PAGE

 PAGE   20

  NYSDEC SIP includes this table as Table 9-6, from the MANE-VU SIP
Template: Long Term Strategy, Table 10.4 in the July21, 2008 draft.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 67467]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24279]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15235-000]

Nature and People First Arizona PHS, LLS; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On October 5, 2021, Nature and People First Arizona PHS, LLC (NFPA)
filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f)
of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of
Black Mesa Pumped Storage Project South to be located in Navajo and
Apache Counties, Arizona. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) a new
upper reservoir with a surface area of 8,200 acres and a total storage
capacity of 250,000 acre-feet at a normal maximum operating elevation
of 7,610 feet average mean sea level (msl); (2) a new lower reservoir
with a surface area of 14,500 acres and a total storage capacity of
250,000 acre-feet at a normal maximum operating elevation of 5,810 feet
msl; (3) a 13,700-foot-long, 23-foot-diameter concrete lined tunnel and
3,800-foot-long with three 18-foot-diameter concrete lined draft tube
tunnel penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoir north to the
powerhouse; (4) a 15,400-foot-long, 23-foot-diameter concrete lined
tunnel and 2,700-foot-long with three 18-foot-diameter concrete lined
draft tube tunnel penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoir
middle to the powerhouse; (5) a 17,500-foot-long, 23-foot-diameter
concrete lined tunnel and 4,700-foot-long with three 18-foot-diameter
concrete lined draft tube tunnel penstock connecting the upper and
lower reservoir south to the powerhouse; (6) three 320-foot-long, 60-
foot-wide and 100-foot-high new underground powerhouses containing
three turbine-generator units each with a total rated capacity of 2,250
megawatts; (7) a new 110-mile-long, 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line
connecting the powerhouses to existing San Juan substation; and (8)
appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual power generation at the
Black Mesa Pumped Storage South would be 4,027.5 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Denis Payre, President and CEO, Nature and
People First Arizona PHS, LLC, 405 Waltham St., Suite 145, Lexington,
MA 02421. [email protected].
    FERC Contact: Ousmane Sidibe; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-15235-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's website at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/elibrary/overview. Enter the docket number (P-15235) in the docket number field
to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: November 1, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-24279 Filed 11-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 235 (Friday, December 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85636-85638]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27015]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-4973]

Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.; Withdrawal of
Approval of CIPRO (Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride) Oral Tablet, Equivalent
to 100 Milligrams Base, and Five Generic Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride,
Oral Tablet, Equivalent to 100 Milligrams Base Drug Products

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is

withdrawing the approval of CIPRO (ciprofloxacin hydrochloride (HCl))
oral tablet, equivalent to (EQ) 100 milligrams (mg) base under new drug
application (NDA) 019537 and five generic ciprofloxacin HCl, oral
tablet, EQ 100 mg base products which referenced it as their basis of
submission. The holders of the applications requested withdrawal of the
100 mg strength products and waived their opportunity for a hearing.

DATES: Approval is withdrawn as of December 8, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ayako Sato, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 6206, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 22, 1987, FDA approved NDA 019537
for CIPRO (ciprofloxacin HCl) oral tablet, EQ 250 mg, 500 mg, and 750
mg base. On April 8, 1996, FDA approved a supplement to NDA 019537 to
add the oral tablet, EQ 100 mg base to treat acute uncomplicated
cystitis in adult females to be supplied as a cystitis pack containing
six 100 mg oral tablets with a dosing regimen of 100 mg twice daily for
3 days. FDA approved the following generic ciprofloxacin HCl, oral
tablet, EQ 100 mg base products under section 505(j) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) which identified as their
reference listed drug (RLD) the 100 mg strength tablet approved in NDA
019537: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ANDA 076426 for ciprofloxacin HCl, oral tablet, EQ 100 mg
was approved on June 15, 2005. In the Federal Register of October 4,
2016, FDA announced it was withdrawing the approval of ANDA 076426
upon request by the applicant under 21 CFR 314.150(c) (see 81 FR
68427, October 4, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ANDA 075593 approved on June 9, 2004;
     ANDA 075817 approved on June 25, 2007;
     ANDA 075939 approved on March 3, 2005;
     ANDA 076794 approved on February 10, 2005; and
     ANDA 076912 approved on February 18, 2005.
    On May 18, 2005, FDA approved labeling revisions for NDA 019537,
including updates to reflect that the 100 mg oral tablet product was no
longer being marketed. Subsequently, the Agency made a safety and
effectiveness determination that CIPRO (ciprofloxacin HCl) oral tablet,
EQ 100 mg base was not discontinued for reasons of safety or
effectiveness, which was later published in the Federal Register on
October 1, 2019 (84 FR 52113). Since the Agency's initial safety and
effectiveness determination, new information related to the safe and
effective use of ciprofloxacin HCl, oral tablet, EQ 100 mg base for its
indication has become available.
    The resistance of Escherichia coli (E. coli), the main causative
pathogen for acute uncomplicated cystitis, to ciprofloxacin has been
increasing since CIPRO (ciprofloxacin HCl) oral tablet, EQ 100 mg base
for the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis was removed from the
product labeling in 2005. The effectiveness of CIPRO (ciprofloxacin
HCl) oral tablet, EQ 100 mg base and ciprofloxacin HCl, oral tablet, EQ
100 mg base for the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis is not
supported by the current ciprofloxacin Susceptibility Test Interpretive
Criteria (STIC) (a.k.a., breakpoints),\2\ established by the Clinical
and Laboratory Standards Institute and recognized by FDA on June 10,
2019.\3\ Recent pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses conducted by
FDA indicated that the dosage regimen of ciprofloxacin HCl oral tablet,
100 mg twice daily for 3 days may not be effective for the treatment of
acute uncomplicated cystitis. A review of published literature also
showed that more contemporary studies of the treatment of acute
uncomplicated cystitis with ciprofloxacin were conducted with the
dosage of 250 mg twice daily or 500 mg extended-release tablet daily. A
literature search produced no studies comparing the efficacy of
ciprofloxacin 100 mg twice daily versus ciprofloxacin 250 mg twice
daily or 500 mg extended-release tablet daily in treatment of acute
uncomplicated cystitis. Finally, significant adverse reactions
associated with the use of fluoroquinolones, including ciprofloxacin
HCl, have been identified.\4\ Given that the safe and effective use of
ciprofloxacin hydrochloride tablets, 100 mg twice daily for 3 days for
the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis is not supported by its
current STIC, and considering the risks of serious adverse reactions
along with the increased resistance of E. coli to ciprofloxacin, FDA
believes that the potential problems associated with ciprofloxacin
hydrochloride tablets, 100 mg are sufficiently serious that the product
should be removed from the market under Sec.  314.150(d) (21 CFR
314.150(d)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Ciprofloxacin Oral, Injection products, available at
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/ciprofloxacin-oral-injection-products. Note E. coli is within the family of
Enterobacteriaceae.
    \3\ 21st Century Cures Act: Annual Compilation of Notices of
Updates from the Susceptibility Test Interpretive Criteria web page;
Request for Comments, 85 FR 67353 at 67354-55, recognizing on June
10, 2019, updated standard susceptibility test interpretive criteria
for ciprofloxacin.
    \4\ Fluoroquinolone Antimicrobial Drugs Information, available
at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-drug-class/fluoroquinolone-
antimicrobial-drugs-
information#:~:text=Fluoroquinolones%20are%20drugs%20approved%20for,s
uch%20as%20colds%20or%20flu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 16, 2023, the Agency notified Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc. that it believes the potential problems associated
with the drug are sufficiently serious that the 100 mg strength product
should be removed from the market pursuant to Sec.  314.150(d). Bayer
requested in a letter dated July 7, 2023, that FDA withdraw approval of
the 100 mg strength product in NDA 019537 under Sec.  314.150(d) and
waived its opportunity for a hearing.
    FDA also notified abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) 075593,
075817, 075939 and 076794 on June 16, 2023, and ANDA 076912 on June 21,
2023. FDA asked the ANDA holders to request withdrawal of approval
under Sec.  314.150(d) of the generic versions of ciprofloxacin HCl
oral tablet, EQ 100 mg base, and to waive their opportunity for a
hearing. In a letter dated June 26, 2023, Rising Pharma Holdings, Inc.,
requested that FDA withdraw approval of the 100 mg strength product in
ANDA 075817 under Sec.  314.150(d) and waived its opportunity for a
hearing. In a letter dated June 30, 2023, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC
requested that FDA withdraw approval of the 100 mg strength product in
ANDA 075939 under Sec.  314.150(d) and waived its opportunity for a
hearing. In separate letters dated July 7, 2023, Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories and Watson Laboratories, Inc. requested that FDA withdraw
approval of their 100 mg strength products in ANDA 075593 and in ANDA
076794, respectively, under Sec.  314.150(d) and waived their
opportunity for a hearing. In a letter dated July 12, 2023, Taro
Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., requested that FDA withdraw approval
of the 100 mg strength product in ANDA 076912 under Sec.  314.150(d)
and waived its opportunity for a hearing.
    For the reasons discussed above, which Bayer and the ANDA holders
do not dispute in their withdrawal request letters, and pursuant to the
applicants' requests, FDA is withdrawing approval of the 100 mg
strength product from one NDA and from the five ANDAs listed in the
table below under Sec.  314.150(d). This notice is limited to CIPRO
(ciprofloxacin HCl) oral tablet, EQ 100 mg base and ciprofloxacin HCl,
oral tablet, EQ 100 mg base for the treatment of acute uncomplicated
cystitis. Other products approved in NDA 019537 for CIPRO
(ciprofloxacin HCl) oral tablet or

related ANDAs for ciprofloxacin HCl, oral tablet (e.g., the 250 mg
base, 500 mg base, or 750 mg base strength products) remain approved.
Distribution of CIPRO (ciprofloxacin HCl) oral tablet, EQ 100 mg base
and ciprofloxacin HCl, oral tablet, EQ 100 mg base in interstate
commerce without an approved application is illegal and subject to
regulatory action (see sections 505(a) and 301(d) of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 355(a) and 331(d)).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Application No.               Drug                 Applicant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 019537...............  CIPRO                Bayer Healthcare
                            (ciprofloxacin       Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
                            HCl) oral tablet,    100 Bayer Blvd., P.O.
                            EQ 100 mg base.      Box 915, Whippany, NJ
                                                 07981-0915.
ANDA 075593..............  Ciprofloxacin HCl,   Dr. Reddy's Laboratories
                            oral tablet, EQ      Ltd., 107 College Rd.
                            100 mg base.         East, 2nd Floor
                                                 Princeton, NJ 08540.
ANDA 075817..............  Ciprofloxacin HCl,   Rising Pharma Holdings,
                            oral tablet, EQ      Inc., 2 Tower Center
                            100 mg base.         Blvd., Suite 1401A,
                                                 East Brunswick, NJ
                                                 08816.
ANDA 075939..............  Ciprofloxacin HCl,   Amneal Pharmaceuticals,
                            oral tablet, EQ      LLC, 50 Horseblock Rd.,
                            100 mg base.         Brookhaven, NY 11719.
ANDA 076794..............  Ciprofloxacin HCl,   Watson Laboratories,
                            oral tablet, EQ      Inc., 400 Interpace
                            100 mg base.         Pkwy., Building A,
                                                 Parsippany, NJ 07054.
ANDA 076912..............  Ciprofloxacin HCl,   Taro Pharmaceutical
                            oral tablet, EQ      Industries, Ltd., 1600
                            100 mg base.         Stewart Ave., Suite
                                                 604, Westbury, NY
                                                 11590.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: December 5, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-27015 Filed 12-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 178 (Tuesday, September 15, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55285-55286]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23233]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2009-0038]

49 CFR Part 271

RIN 2130-AC11

Risk Reduction Program

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of comment period reopening.

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

SUMMARY: On February 27, 2015, FRA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) that would require certain railroads to develop a
Risk Reduction Program (RRP). On August 27, 2015, FRA held a public
hearing to provide interested persons an opportunity to provide oral
comments on the proposal. FRA is reopening the comment period for this
proceeding to allow additional time for interested parties to submit
written comments in response to views or information provided at the
public hearing.

DATES: The comment period for this proceeding, consisting of the
proposed rule published February 27, 2015, at 80 FR 10950, and the
August 27, 2015, hearing, announced at 80 FR 45500, July 30, 2015, is
reopened. Written comments must be received by September 18th, 2015.
Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent
possible without incurring additional expense or delay.

ADDRESSES: Written comments related to Docket No. FRA-2009-0038 may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: The Federal eRulemaking Portal, http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web site's online instructions for
submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, Washington,
DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket
name, and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for
this rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act
information related to any submitted comments or materials.
    Docket: FRA has posted a transcript of the August 27, 2015, public
hearing to the public docket in this proceeding. For access to the
docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, Room W-12-140 on the ground level of the West
Building, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Miriam Kloeppel, Staff Director, Risk
Reduction Program Division, Office of Safety Analysis, FRA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Elizabeth Gross, Trial Attorney, Office of
Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 10,
Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008
requires the development and implementation of railroad safety risk
reduction programs. Risk reduction is a comprehensive, system-oriented
approach to safety that (1) determines an operation's level of risk by
identifying and analyzing applicable hazards and (2) involves the
development of plans to mitigate that risk. Each RRP is statutorily
required to be supported by a risk analysis and a Risk Reduction
Program Plan, which must include a Technology Implementation Plan and a
Fatigue Management Plan.
    FRA held a public hearing on August 27, 2015, to receive oral
comments in response to an NPRM requesting public comment on a proposed
risk reduction rulemaking. See 80 FR 10950, Feb. 27, 2015 and 80 FR
45500, July 30, 2015. FRA also reopened the comment period to allow
time for interested parties to submit written comments after the public
hearing, and comments were due September 10, 2015. To afford interested
parties additional time and opportunity to submit written comments in
response to views or information provided at the public hearing, FRA is
again reopening the comment period in this proceeding.

Written comments must be received by September 18th, 2015.

Privacy Act Statement

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 11th, 2015.
Patrick T. Warren,
Acting Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety and Chief Safety
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-23233 Filed 9-11-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27982-27984]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11232]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2012-1095]

U.S. Flag Compliance With MARPOL Annex VI International Energy
Efficiency (IEE) Requirements

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of International Standards.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that International Maritime
Organization (IMO) Resolution MEPC.203(62) amended Annex VI to the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL). On July 15, 2011, the IMO formally adopted Resolution
MEPC.203(62), which entered into force on January 1, 2013, and amends
MARPOL Annex VI by adding Chapter 4 and amending existing regulations
in Annex VI. These amendments require the issuance of an International
Energy Efficiency Certificate and the preparation of a Ship Energy
Efficiency Management Plan for both new and

existing ships. To obtain the certificate, (1) new ships, (2) new ships
when they undergo a major conversion, and (3) existing ships that
undergo a major conversion after January 1, 2013, so extensive that it
is regarded as a newly constructed ship, must first have an Attained
Energy Efficiency Design Index. These requirements apply to all U.S.
flag ships 400 gross tonnage and above that engage in voyages to ports
or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of other Parties to
MARPOL. The Coast Guard Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance has
issued Policy Letter 13-02 to provide amplifying guidance on U.S.
implementation of MARPOL Annex VI Chapter 4 and associated
requirements.

DATES: The amendments in IMO Resolution MEPC.203(62) became effective
on January 1, 2013. The requirements and implementation schedule for
existing ships and new ships are provided below in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.

ADDRESSES: To view the documents mentioned in this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov. In the ``Search'' box, insert ``USCG-2012-1095''
and click ``Search.'' If you do not have access to the Internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to
use the Docket Management Facility.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Mr. Timothy Brown, U.S. Coast Guard, Commercial Vessel
Compliance Division (CG-CVC-1), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to
the docket, call Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The International Maritime Organization
(IMO) established new MARPOL Annex VI requirements to improve the
energy efficiency of ships. These new Annex VI standards were adopted
on July 15, 2011, and are contained in IMO Resolution MEPC.203(62). The
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901, et. seq.) requires
compliance with Annex VI, which now includes the new Annex VI energy
efficiency requirements discussed below. The Coast Guard is currently
developing regulations to facilitate compliance with the amendments in
Resolution MEPC.203(62), which came into force for the U.S. on January
1, 2013. The lack of updated regulations does not exempt ships from
meeting the requirements of the amended MARPOL Annex VI.
    Effective as of January 1, 2013, IMO Resolution MEPC.203(62)
amended MARPOL Annex VI and requires energy efficiency surveys and the
issuance of an International Energy Efficiency (IEE) Certificate (Annex
VI, Regs. 5.4 & 6.4), in addition to the preparation of a Ship Energy
Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for both new and existing ships
(Annex VI, Reg. 22). Additionally, IMO Resolution MEPC.203(62) adds new
Chapter 4 to Annex VI, establishing a set of efficiency performance
standards intended to reduce air pollution emissions from ships burning
fuel oil, including distillate and residual fuels, for purposes of
propulsion or operation on board a ship. Also, new Annex VI Regulations
20 and 21 require an Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for (1) new
ships, (2) new ships when they undergo a major conversion, and (3)
existing ships that undergo a major conversion after January 1, 2013,
so extensive that it is regarded as a newly constructed ship (see
definition of ``major conversion'' in Regulation 2(24)). Regulations 5
and 6 make mandatory for new ships to which Chapter 4 of MARPOL Annex
VI applies, the preparation of and issuance of an IEE Certificate which
includes a Supplement. The Coast Guard or a recognized classification
society (RCS) would issue the IEE Certificate.
    New Regulation 6.4 requires the issuance of an IEE Certificate to
ships 400 gross tonnage and above that have been surveyed in accordance
with the provisions of Regulation 5.4. The tonnage referenced here is
gross tonnage measured in accordance with the tonnage measurement
regulations contained in Annex I to the International Convention on
Tonnage Measurements of Ships, 1969 or any successor Convention (GT
ITC) (see Regulation 2.10). Regulation 6.4 also specifies that such
ships not engage in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the
jurisdiction of other countries that are Parties to MARPOL before they
obtain an IEE Certificate. For existing ships, the verification of the
requirement to have a SEEMP on board according to new Regulation 22
will take place at the first intermediate or renewal International Air
Pollution Prevention (IAPP) Certificate survey, whichever is first, on
or after January 1, 2013. The SEEMP itself does not have to be approved
by the Coast Guard or a RCS, but must follow the guidelines for
preparation of a SEEMP in IMO Resolution MEPC.213(63) (see Regulation
22.2 and 33 U.S.C. 1908). RCSs will issue IEE Certificates to existing
ships to which the RCS also issued an International Air Pollution
Prevention (IAPP) Certificate after completion of the required surveys.
All new ships as defined in Annex VI Regulation 2 should make
arrangements with an RCS to complete the requirements for IEE
Certificate issuance. Existing ships that received their IAPP
Certificate from the Coast Guard should contact the cognizant Officer
in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) to obtain their IEE Certificate.
Once issued, the IEE Certificate is valid for the life of the ship
unless the ship is withdrawn from service, a new certificate is issued
following a ``major conversion'' as defined in Annex VI Regulation 2,
or the ship is transferred to the flag of another State (see
Regulations 9.10 and 9.11).
    The term ``new ship'' means a ship for which the building contract
is placed on or after January 1, 2013; or in the absence of a building
contract, the keel of which is laid or which is at a similar stage of
construction on or after July 1, 2013; or the delivery of which is on
or after July 1, 2015 (see Regulation 2.23). The requirements for new
ships also apply to ships that undergo a major conversion as defined in
Annex VI Regulation 2. In addition to a SEEMP (Regulation 22), new
ships and those that have undergone a major conversion must have an
Attained Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) (see Regulation 20). IMO
Resolution MEPC.212(63) provides guidance to ship owners and designers
regarding the calculation of the EEDI. An EEDI technical file should be
prepared during the design of the ship and submitted to the Coast Guard
or RCS for preliminary verification along with the rest of the ship's
drawings and particulars during the existing plan approval process.
Final verification of the EEDI technical file is conducted following
RCS surveyor observance of a sea trial.
    IMO Resolution MEPC.214(63) provides survey and certification
guidelines. If the results of the sea trial are inconsistent with the
preliminary contents of the EEDI technical file, the ship owner or
designer may be required to revise the EEDI technical file prior to
issuance of the IEE Certificate. Following the final verification of
the EEDI technical file a Record of Construction Relating to Energy
Efficiency (Supplement to the IEE Certificate) and IEE Certificate will
be issued.
    On December 10, 2012, the Coast Guard published a final rule to
amend 46 CFR 8.320. That rule, which became

effective January 9, 2013, permits classification societies to apply to
issue IEE Certificates on behalf of the Coast Guard (see 77 FR 73334,
Dec. 10, 2012). We anticipate that classification societies that
applied to issue IAPP Certificates will also apply to issue IEE
Certificates. Because the Coast Guard has authorized RCSs to issue the
Record of Construction Relating to Energy Efficiency (Supplement to the
IEE Certificate), EEDI review and approval will not be completed
directly by the Coast Guard (see 77 FR 73334, Dec. 10, 2012).
    Annex VI exempts ships using diesel-electric, turbine or hybrid
propulsion systems from the requirements to prepare an EEDI technical
file and obtain an IEE Supplement regardless of build date. In
addition, the Coast Guard may waive the requirements for new ships to
prepare an EEDI technical file and obtain an IEE Supplement in certain
cases described in Annex VI Regulation 19. Ship operator requests for
waivers should be directed to the appropriate Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection; those requests will then be routed through the District
Commander to CG-CVC-1 for approval. RCSs should submit requests for
waivers directly to CG-CVC-1.

Authority

    This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 33
U.S.C. 1901(a)(5), 1903, and 1907(a).

    Dated: May 5, 2013.
Paul F. Thomas,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director, Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-11232 Filed 5-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P