Rule2024-25679
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Hampshire; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 7, 2024
Effective
December 9, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by New Hampshire on May 5, 2022, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule for the program's second implementation period. New Hampshire's SIP submission addresses the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze program. EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 88139-88147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25679]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0187; FRL-11554-02-R1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Hampshire; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by New
Hampshire on May 5, 2022, as satisfying applicable requirements under
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule for the program's
second implementation period. New Hampshire's SIP submission addresses
the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term
strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national goal of
preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic
impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I
Federal areas. The SIP submission also addresses other applicable
requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze
program. EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of
the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective December 9, 2024.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0187. All documents in the docket
are listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Rackauskas, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 5-MI), Boston, MA 02109--3912, tel. (617)
918-1628, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#651704060e0410160e04164b00170c06250015044b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ccbeadafa7adb9bfa7adbfe2a9bea5af8ca9bcade2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On May 5, 2022, supplemented on September 21, 2023,\1\ the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) submitted a
revision to its SIP to address regional haze for the second
implementation period. NHDES made this SIP submission to satisfy the
requirements of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to CAA
sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. This submission included an
updated version of Env-A 2300, Mitigation of Regional Haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New Hampshire included a corrected Appendix W in a
supplemental submission on September 21, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 20, 2023, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) in which EPA proposed to approve New Hampshire's May 5, 2022,
SIP submission (supplemented on September 21, 2023) as satisfying the
regional haze requirements for the second implementation period
contained in the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308. EPA is now determining that the
New Hampshire regional haze SIP submission for the second
implementation period meets the applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements and is thus approving New Hampshire's submission into its
SIP.
Other specific requirements of the New Hampshire submittal and the
rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will
not be restated here.
II. Response to Comments
In response to the NPRM, EPA received four sets of comments,
including a comment letter signed by the National Parks Conservation
Association, the Sierra Club, the Appalachian Mountain Club, and the
Coalition to Protect America's National Parks (collectively, the
``Conservation Groups'' or the ``Groups''), an anonymous comment, a
comment letter from the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANEVU), and a comment letter from the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality's Division of Air Quality. Below, EPA summarizes
significant comments and provides responses. The verbatim comments may
be viewed under Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0187 on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website.
Comment 1: The Conservation Groups comment that EPA improperly
relied on the fact that the Class I areas impacted by New Hampshire
sources are below their respective Uniform Rate of Progress (URP)
glidepaths to allow New Hampshire to avoid a ``rigorous analysis,'' and
that EPA allows New Hampshire to use being below the URP as a ``safe
harbor'' to avoid Regional Haze and Clean Air Act requirements.
Response 1: The comment appears to conflate two issues regarding
rule requirements related to the URP glidepath. EPA has said that a
Class I area's position below the URP glidepath is not a safe harbor--
that is, being below the glidepath cannot be a basis for justifying a
particular set of controls or decision not to require any controls. EPA
did not ``rely on the fact that the Class I areas impacted by New
Hampshire sources are below their respective URP glidepaths'' or
consider
[[Page 88140]]
the URP glidepaths in the context of New Hampshire's source selection
or control measure determinations. Rather, on the only page of the NPRM
the comment cites for support, EPA noted that the fact that the RPGs
for the Class I areas are below their respective URP glidepaths means
that the demonstrations that would otherwise be required under
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) are not triggered. These regulatory
sections are, by their very terms, only applicable where a state
establishes RPGs above the URP glidepath(s) for its Class I area(s).
Thus, considering whether a particular Class I area is below the
glidepath is entirely appropriate and, in fact, required in this
context.
Comment 2: The Conservation Groups contend that the MANEVU
visibility modeling and source selection threshold ``used a 2%
contribution threshold (or 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> visibility impact
threshold) to target the largest sources of visibility impairment in
the state.'' Based on this threshold, New Hampshire identified only one
unit at one source in the state for a four-factor analysis, and the
Groups argue that EPA cannot rely on this source review to conduct a
rigorous and meaningful source selection process. The Groups further
comment that ``EPA states multiple times in its proposed approval of
New Hampshire's SIP Revision that it does not agree with the State's
reliance on MANE-VU's source selection threshold . . . [y]et . . .
attempts to excuse New Hampshire's flawed source selection process and
approve the State's SIP Revision anyway by claiming that New Hampshire
analyzed additional sources of visibility pollution in its SIP.''
Response 2: This comment also appears to conflate two issues--
namely, the 2% contribution threshold MANEVU used to determine whether
a state is reasonably anticipated to impact visibility at a Class I
area and the 3.0 inverse megameters (Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>) threshold used in
Ask 2 to target the largest individual sources across a multi-state
region. To be clear, MANEVU considered a 2% threshold for use in
determining whether emissions from a state as a whole contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area. Here, New Hampshire concedes
that emissions from the State exceed that threshold and therefore, by
the State's admission, contribute to visibility impairment in Class I
areas in New Hampshire, Maine, and New Brunswick (Canada). Thus, the 2%
contribution threshold was of little import to New Hampshire's source
selection process, as the State was above the threshold and did select
numerous sources for review through the MANEVU Asks and federal land
managers (FLMs) consultation process. As for the 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>
threshold, the MANEVU states used it in one of the six Asks as just one
means of selecting sources in a state for four-factor analysis. Other
MANEVU Asks examined sources with impacts lower than 3.0
Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> and, in several cases, resulted in New Hampshire
considering the four factors for those sources.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, MANEVU Ask 5 resulted in NHDES requesting a
four-factor analysis for five combustion turbines in the State. See
Appendix T of the New Hampshire submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the NPRM, EPA does not necessarily agree that the
3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> visibility impact is a reasonable threshold for
source selection. The RHR recognizes that, due to the nature of
regional haze visibility impairment, numerous and sometimes relatively
small sources may need to be selected and evaluated for implementation
of control measures to make reasonable progress. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 4. As explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo,
while states have discretion to choose any source selection threshold
that is reasonable, ``[a] state that relies on a visibility (or proxy
for visibility impact) threshold to select sources for four-factor
analysis should set the threshold at a level that captures a meaningful
portion of the state's total contribution to visibility impairment to
Class I areas.''
That said, New Hampshire did not rely on the 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>
threshold as its sole means of selecting sources for review. As the
comment itself concedes, New Hampshire reviewed additional sources
under Asks 1, 4, and 5. Moreover, the additional sources reviewed under
these Asks had estimated impacts below the 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>
threshold. And, while the comment generally criticizes these Asks as
being ``highly limited'' in scope and asserts that New Hampshire
``fail[ed] to conduct a rigorous and meaningful source selection
process,'' the comment does not specify any additional sources that New
Hampshire should have selected for further analysis. The comment
overlooks that the sources New Hampshire examined under Asks 1 and 4
employ an array of NO<INF>X</INF> controls and, in the case of
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, generally have SO<INF>2</INF> controls in
place or burn low-sulfur fuels. See, e.g., New Hampshire Regional Haze
SIP Submittal at 54-55, Table 4-10. Furthermore, the comment does not
mention New Hampshire's consideration of the four factors in Ask 5 as
well as in Ask 3, which addressed low-sulfur fuel requirements and
reduces SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from a host of sources across the
state. EPA maintains that New Hampshire examined a reasonable set of
sources with the greatest modeled impacts on visibility, including
sources captured by the other MANEVU Asks and sources flagged by the
FLMs, provided four-factor analyses, and reasonably concluded that
additional four-factor analyses for other sources were not necessary
because the outcome would be that no further emission reductions would
be reasonably achieved.
Comment 3: The Conservation Groups state that EPA ``wrongfully
endorses New Hampshire's decision not to analyze sources that are
`Effectively Controlled' under other Clean Air Act programs.'' The
comment states ``Nowhere in its SIP Revision did New Hampshire conduct
any kind of source-specific analysis for the five facilities noted
above [Burgess BioPower, Essential Power Newington, Granite Ridge
Energy, and Wheelabrator Concord, and GSP Newington] demonstrating that
further analysis of these facilities would be futile.'' Further, ``none
of the Title V permit emission limits for these facilities are proposed
to be included in New Hampshire's SIP Revision. While the emission
limits may be `federally enforceable' for other purposes under the
Clean Air Act (i.e., construction or operating permits), the state-
issued permits where those emission limits are found can expire, and so
do not meet the SIP requirement for permanence.''
Response 3: EPA's approval of New Hampshire's regional haze SIP is
based on its satisfaction of the applicable regulatory requirements for
the second planning period in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i). Those
requirements include that states must evaluate and determine the
emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress by considering the four statutory factors, and that the
measures that are necessary for reasonable progress must be in the SIP.
EPA's NPRM explains that New Hampshire's engagement with MANEVU's Asks
1, 2, 3, and 5 adequately satisfy these requirements. EPA's approval is
therefore based on its determination that New Hampshire's analysis and
actions to address Asks 1, 2, 3, and 5 satisfy the reasonable progress
requirements. New Hampshire, in the SIP submittal, did not rely on any
measures at these five facilities identified by the Groups as necessary
for reasonable progress. As discussed in the NPRM, New Hampshire did,
contrary to the comment, provide a specific analysis for each facility
that demonstrated that these facilities were
[[Page 88141]]
already well controlled. Further, as stated in the NPRM, New Hampshire
explained that three of these facilities (Burgess BioPower, Essential
Power Newington, and Granite Ridge Energy) are subject to Nonattainment
New Source Review (NNSR), and thus have limits that were established to
meet Lowest Available Emission Rate (LAER) at the time their respective
federally enforceable preconstruction permits were issued. While it is
true that a facility's title V operating permit expires and requires
periodic renewal, the LAER limits established by the preconstruction
permit are carried forward into each successive title V permit and do
not expire until/unless a permit is rescinded, which may occur after
the respective unit is decommissioned. See 40 CFR 70.2 (defining
``applicable requirement'' to include ``[a]ny term or condition of any
preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations approved or
promulgated through rulemaking under title I, including parts C or D,
of the Act''), 70.6(a)(1) (requiring a title V operating permit issued
by a state to include ``[e]missions limitations and standards,
including those operational requirements and limitations that assure
compliance with all applicable requirements'') (emphasis added); see
also Env-A 609.05(b) (providing in relevant part that ``[e]ach title V
operating permit issued [by New Hampshire] shall contain all of the
elements required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)''). If a title V operating permit
expires before the permitting authority can reissue it, the permittee
continues to be subject to the permit and all applicable requirements,
as long as the permittee has submitted a timely and complete renewal
application to the permitting authority. See 40 CFR 70.4(b)(10)(i); see
also Env-A 609.15(c). If the permittee has not submitted a timely and
complete renewal application, the expiration of the title V permit
``terminates the source's right to operate.'' 40 CFR 70.7(c); see also
Env-A 609.15(b). The other two facilities (GSP Newington and
Wheelabrator Concord) also have title V operating permits and have
permit limits established in New Hampshire's NO<INF>X</INF> RACT
program, which is in the SIP and, therefore, cannot be changed without
a SIP revision. See 40 CFR 70.2 (defining ``applicable requirements''
to include ``[a]ny standard or other requirement provided for in the
applicable implementation plan approved or promulgated by EPA through
rulemaking under title I of the Act that implements the relevant
requirements of the Act, including any revisions to that plan
promulgated in [40 CFR] part 52''); see also Env-A 609.05(b). New
Hampshire provided this analysis as a response to MANEVU Ask 1, and EPA
finds New Hampshire provided a reasonable reply to this Ask (which also
resulted in more stringent limits for Stored Solar Tamworth).
Comment 4: The Conservation Groups comment that ``New Hampshire's
SIP Revision embodies a largely status quo approach for the second
planning period,'' and that ``New Hampshire did not require a single
source to install new emission control equipment to reduce haze-forming
pollution in the second planning period. Instead, New Hampshire's SIP
Revision incorporates only (1) a voluntary reduction in the
NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit for Stored Solar Tamworth and (2)
existing NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits for two units (MK1 and MK2) at
GSP Merrimack Station previously adopted as part of New Hampshire's
most recent ozone SIP revision.''
Response 4: New Hampshire submitted Env-A 2300 for approval into
the State's SIP, which contains a reduced NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
limitation for Stored Solar Tamworth \3\ and incorporates by reference
Env-A 1300, which also includes lower NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
limitations for GSP Merrimack Station. To the extent the commenters are
criticizing the reduced NO<INF>X</INF> limit at Tamworth as
``voluntary,'' the comment does not explain why an otherwise stringent,
enforceable limit is less legitimate when a facility does not oppose
it. The limits were deemed necessary for reasonable progress by the
State, and thus were submitted to EPA as part of Env-A 2300 for SIP
inclusion as required by the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Env-A 2300 lowered the 30-day rolling average of allowable
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions at Tamworth from 0.265 lb/MMBtu (which was
allowed under its previous permit established in 1987) to 0.075 lb/
MMBtu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for NO<INF>X</INF> emissions at Merrimack Station, the facility
currently employs highly effective selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
NO<INF>X</INF> control devices on both of its coal-fired boilers. New
Hampshire also recently lowered the NO<INF>X</INF> limits applicable to
this facility as part of a reasonably available control technology
(RACT) SIP revision (Env-A 1300) submitted to EPA in 2018 (effective in
the State on August 15, 2018) and approved by EPA on April 30, 2024 (89
FR 34137). EPA's approval of Env-A 1300 includes an analysis of the
state's evaluation of whether additional NO<INF>X</INF> control
equipment, including a sorbent injection system, should be required to
further reduce NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the facility. New
Hampshire also amended its regulations at Env-A 2300, ``Mitigation of
Regional Haze,'' to incorporate the more stringent NO<INF>X</INF>
limits in Env-A 1300 and submitted Env-A 2300 to EPA with its Regional
Haze Plan for approval into the SIP. As EPA proposed in the NPRM, EPA
is approving the revised state rule Env-A 2300, ``Mitigation of
Regional Haze,'' into the SIP. Additionally, EPA guidance recommends
that states evaluate controls from other programs when considering
source selection. ``It may be reasonable for a state not to select an
effectively controlled source. A source may already have effective
controls in place as a result of a previous regional haze SIP or to
meet another CAA requirement.'' EPA's 2019 Regional Haze Guidance at 22
(emphasis added). That the regulations in Env-A 1300 were originally
adopted to provide for control of ozone-forming pollutants to meet
requirements for a health-based standard does not make them any less
effective in preventing future, or remedying existing, visibility
impairment in Class I areas. Indeed, as the commenters themselves
recognize, ``the same pollutants that mar scenic views at national
parks and wilderness areas also cause significant public health
impacts.'' Comments at 22. In short, EPA finds that New Hampshire
adequately evaluated control measures at existing sources and provided
a satisfactory demonstration that meets the regional haze requirements.
Comment 5: The Conservation Groups state that the NO<INF>X</INF>
limits applicable to the coal units at GSP Merrimack Station are too
high and ``inconsistent with Regional Haze requirements'' because they
``appear to be little more than improper rubberstamping of existing
behavior at Merrimack'' and are ``completely out of step with what
other states--and with what EPA--considers to be achievable by SCR-
equipped units like those at Merrimack.'' The Groups comment that both
units at GSP Merrimack Station are fully capable of achieving lower
NO<INF>X</INF> emission rates.
Response 5: The Conservation Groups copied this portion of their
comments (with only nominal change) directly from comments the Sierra
Club submitted to EPA during the comment period on EPA's proposal to
approve New Hampshire's latest NO<INF>X</INF> RACT SIP revision. 88 FR
43483 (July 10, 2023). EPA previously responded to those comments in a
final rulemaking for that notice, 89 FR 34137 (April 30, 2024), and
incorporates those previous responses herein by reference.
As noted, the new NO<INF>X</INF> limits in Env-A 1300 discussed in
the comment were
[[Page 88142]]
developed as part of the RACT program for NO<INF>X</INF> control. In
the April 30, 2024, final rule, EPA notes that the emissions limits New
Hampshire selected for the coal-fired units at Merrimack Station of
0.22 lbs NO<INF>X</INF>/MMBtu, on a 24-hour basis, represent emission
reductions of 83% and 91% from uncontrolled levels for MK1 and MK2,
respectively, which is a high level of control. Given MK2's larger size
and emissions, the emissions weighted average reduction from
uncontrolled levels for both units combined is 88% based on recent
emissions data. This level of control is near the upper end of the
emission reduction capability of SCR control systems.\4\ In the
Regional Haze action, New Hampshire incorporated the new lower
NO<INF>X</INF> limits for Merrimack into Env-A 2300, which it submitted
with its Regional Haze plan for incorporation into the SIP. While the
commenters assert that the new limits are also ``inconsistent with
Regional Haze requirements,'' the comment--lifted as it is from one of
the commenters' earlier comments related to the RACT program--does not
provide an explanation to support this conclusion, claiming only that,
from a technical perspective, Merrimack is capable of doing better and
that limits applicable to similar sources in other states are lower.
EPA has already addressed these technical claims. 89 FR 34137.
Furthermore, similar to the new lower limits in Env-A 2300 applicable
to Stored Solar Tamworth, it is not inconsistent with Regional Haze
requirements for New Hampshire to compare actual emission rates at
Merrimack to rates currently allowed and to ``lock-in'' lower emissions
rates. Based on the analysis New Hampshire provided with its Regional
Haze submittal, EPA determined those new rates to be reasonable, as
explained in EPA's earlier responses. Finally, EPA also notes that,
since publication of the NPRM in this Regional Haze action, the Sierra
Club, GSP, and EPA executed a settlement agreement in another matter
that requires that GSP permanently cease operation of both coal-fired
boilers at Merrimack Station by no later than June 1, 2028, or even by
June 1, 2027, if certain events occur.\5\ While New Hampshire's SIP
submittal does not rely on this closure as necessary to make reasonable
progress, it is enforceable by the Sierra Club--the original author of
this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet: Selective
Catalytic Reduction (SCR); EPA-452/F-03-032.
\5\ Under either scenario, both units would cease operating
during the second planning period of the Regional Haze program.
Copies of the press releases from Sierra Club, GSP, and the
Conservation Law Foundation (``CLF'') (who participated with Sierra
Club in the settlement) announcing the agreement are included in the
docket for the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: The Conservation Groups comment that EPA should require
New Hampshire to include Schiller Station's current non-operational
status as a federally enforceable SIP provision.
Response 6: EPA did not rely on Schiller's more than four-year (and
counting) outage to approve New Hampshire's SIP submission. Rather, EPA
referred to this long-term outage when discussing the State's
conclusion that ``no additional updates were needed to meet Ask 4,'' 88
FR at 80673, which requested that states ``pursue updating permits,
enforceable agreements, and/or rules to lock-in lower emission rates
for sources larger than 250 MMBtu per hour that have switched to lower
emitting fuels.'' Id. As noted in the NPRM, the only source covered by
this Ask in New Hampshire appears to be Schiller, in that one of its
three steam units ``technically maintains the ability to operate by
burning coal.'' Id. As EPA also noted in the NPRM, however, this steam
unit has not burned coal in over 17 years when it was converted to
wood-fired, id. at 80669, 80673, and that, notwithstanding New
Hampshire's decision not to lock in the emissions limits associated
with burning wood, ``it is reasonable to conclude, for a number of
reasons--including historic operation, financial viability, fuel
availability, and the overall direction of the fuels market--that it is
unlikely that this source will ever burn coal again,'' id. at 80673. In
other words, locking in the wood-burning limits is unlikely to have any
impact on actual emissions from Schiller. EPA also noted that the
length of Schiller's recent outage and other related events also
suggest that it may never run in any capacity again, including using
wood. EPA noted all of these facts but, as the comment recognizes, did
not agree that New Hampshire had met Ask 4. In this instance, Ask 4 is
not necessarily required for New Hampshire's Regional Haze SIP to
fulfill the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. As EPA noted in the
NPRM, New Hampshire satisfied the requirements of the Regional Haze
Rule through its analysis and actions addressing Asks 1, 2, 3, and 5.
88 FR at 80671. Thus, EPA does not rely on New Hampshire's approach to
Ask 4 to approve the Regional Haze SIP submission. Neither New
Hampshire nor EPA found that the closure of Unit 5 is necessary for
reasonable progress and, therefore, adding a closure date to the SIP is
not required. In any event, EPA also notes that Unit 5 and the two
coal-only units (Units 4 and 6) are all part of the previously
discussed settlement among GSP, EPA, the Sierra Club, and CLF that was
reached in another matter after the NPRM issued. Under that agreement,
GSP shall permanently cease operation of the boilers at Schiller Unit
4, Unit 5, and Unit 6 by no later than December 31, 2025. See, e.g.,
CLF Press Release at 1.
Comment 7: The Conservation Groups comment that, for proposed
actions on SIPs, CAA Sec. 307(d)(2)-(3) requires EPA to create a
docket containing all the information on which the proposal relies.
Moreover, to incorporate any rules by reference into a proposed action,
EPA must explain ``the ways that the materials it proposes to
incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties
or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to
interested parties.'' 1 CFR 51.5(a)(1)-(2). Because EPA relies on,
incorporates by reference, and seeks to approve revisions to Env-A
2300, EPA should have made Env-A 2300 publicly available in the
electronic docket for this action. EPA also should have included Env-A
1300 in the electronic docket because EPA stated in the NPRM that Env-A
2300 incorporates Env-A 1300 by reference. Further, EPA did not explain
in the NPRM whether Env-A 1300 and 2300 include required monitoring,
reporting, or recordkeeping requirements, and if not, where those SIP
elements can be found. (citing 40 CFR part 51, appendix V). EPA must
provide the public with an opportunity to review and comment on Env-A
1300 and 2300 and the SIP provisions New Hampshire will rely on for
monitoring, reporting and record keeping to track compliance with the
emission limits, to ensure the State's SIP Revision and EPA's proposed
approval comply with the CAA and RHR. Because EPA did not include Env-A
1300 and 2300 in the electronic docket, the public, including the
commenters, were unable to review these provisions or provide comment
on whether they satisfy the CAA or the RHR. EPA must add Env-A 1300 and
2300 to the electronic docket and re-notice the proposed action on the
SIP Revision.
Response 7: EPA acknowledges the oversight that Env-A 2300 was not
included in the proposal's electronic docket on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> but
does not agree that re-noticing the proposal is necessary to remedy
that harmless error. In short, EPA disagrees that the inadvertent
omission of Env-A 2300 from the electronic docket prevented the
commenters or other members of the public from reviewing Env-A 2300 or
[[Page 88143]]
Env-A 1300 or providing comment on whether they satisfy the
requirements of the Clean Air Act or the RHR, because these state
regulations are widely available and, therefore, could have been easily
obtained through other means during the comment period. Moreover, other
documents in the record indicate that at least one of the signatories
to the comment letter--Sierra Club--already had Env-A 1300 in its
possession.
In the NPRM, EPA stated that the state's Regional Haze submission
``included the revised New Hampshire's Code of Administrative Rules
Env-A 2300, `Mitigation of Regional Haze,' which contains updated
emissions limits for certain facilities located in the State.'' 88 FR
at 80664; see also id. at 80669. EPA also noted that ``Env-A 2300
incorporates by reference NO<INF>X</INF> limits in Env-A 1300'' that
NHDES had revised as part of a SIP submittal for the 2008 and 2015 8-hr
ozone standards related to NO<INF>X</INF> RACT, limits that are
applicable only to Merrimack Station. Id. at 80669 n.63. EPA also noted
that it had recently proposed in that NO<INF>X</INF> RACT SIP action to
approve Env-A 1300 into New Hampshire's SIP. Id. (citing 88 FR 43483
(July 10, 2023)). Finally, EPA proposed to add the revised Env-A 2300
to New Hampshire's SIP. Id. at 80671; see also id. at 80679. While EPA
stated that it was making Env-A 2300 available through <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>
and at the Region 1 office, the commenters correctly observe that Env-A
2300 was not included in the electronic docket.
The comment states that CAA Sec. 307(d)(2)-(3) require that EPA
make Env-A 2300 and Env-A 1300 publicly available in the electronic
docket because EPA relies on Env-A 2300 and, by reference, Env-A 1300
to approve New Hampshire's Regional Haze SIP with respect to
NO<INF>X</INF> limits applicable to two facilities--Stored Solar
Tamworth and Merrimack Station. The comment further states that,
because the state regulations were not included in the electronic
docket, EPA must add them and re-notice the proposal to allow the
commenters to review the regulations. EPA does not agree that re-
noticing is necessary.
First, Sec. 307(d) is not applicable to this SIP action, nor do
the commenters explain why they conclude that it is. By its terms, CAA
Sec. 307(d) applies only to particular types of actions taken by EPA,
none of which expressly include EPA actions to approve a state Regional
Haze SIP submission. 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1).\6\ Section 307(d) may also
be applied to ``such other actions as the Administrator may
determine,'' id. Sec. 7607(d)(1)(V), but EPA never indicated in the
NPRM that it had determined to apply Sec. 307(d) to this SIP approval
action. Thus, the comment's reliance on Sec. 307(d)(2)-(3) is
misplaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Act provides that Sec. 307(d) applies to ``promulgation
or revision of regulations under part C of subchapter I (relating to
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and
protection of visibility),'' 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(J), but EPA is
not, in today's action, promulgating or revising regulations under
part C of the Act. Nor is EPA promulgating or revising a federal
implementation plan under Sec. 110(c). Id. Sec. 7607(d)(1)(B).
Rather, as noted above, EPA is approving a state's Regional Haze SIP
submission. See, e.g., WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 759 F.3d 1064,
1069 (9th Cir. 2014) (reviewing a Regional Haze SIP approval
pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''), not CAA
Sec. 307(d)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, even if Sec. 307(d) were applicable to this action, the
inadvertent omission of Env-A 2300 from the electronic docket would be
a harmless procedural error and does not necessitate re-noticing and
re-opening the comment period, because the state regulations are
publicly available. See 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(8), (9)(D)(iii).\7\ In
contrast, this is not a case where an agency relied on internal
information known only to it. See, e.g., Penobscot Indian Nation v.
U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 539 F. Supp. 2d 40, 48-51 (D.D.C.
2008). The commenters could have obtained the state regulations through
a number of publicly available methods, including, for instance, a
simple internet search,\8\ visiting the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services' (NHDES) web page,\9\ or contacting the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT EPA listed in the NPRM. See 88 FR at 80655,
80679. The regulations' absence from the electronic docket therefore
did not preclude the commenters from providing meaningful comment on
EPA's proposed approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Similarly, where Sec. 307(d)(2)-(3) is not applicable, a
harmless error rule also exists under the APA. Am. Radio Relay
League, Inc. v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227, 237 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (``The
failure to disclose for public comment is subject . . . to the rule
of prejudicial error . . . .''); PDK Lab'ys Inc. v. U.S. D.E.A., 362
F.3d 786, 799 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (``In administrative law . . . there
is a harmless error rule . . . .'') (citing 5 U.S.C. 706).
\8\ See, for example, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-hampshire/title-Env/subtitle-Env-A/chapter-Env-A-2300">https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-hampshire/title-Env/subtitle-Env-A/chapter-Env-A-2300</a> (last
visited Sept. 16, 2024).
\9\ See, for example, <a href="https://www.des.nh.gov/air">https://www.des.nh.gov/air</a> (last visited
Sept. 16, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the Sierra Club (one of the signatories to the comment
letter on the NPRM for New Hampshire's Regional Haze SIP) submitted
detailed comments to EPA on Env-A 1300 in the context of the above-
referenced NO<INF>X</INF> RACT SIP action--comments that demonstrate
the Sierra Club had reviewed Env-A 1300 for that action.\10\ See
``Sierra Club Comments on U.S. EPA, Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire;
Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone
Standards [EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0188]'' (August 9, 2023), hereinafter
``Sierra Club's NO<INF>X</INF> RACT Comments.'' Notably, the commenters
on today's Regional Haze SIP action copied a portion of these earlier
Sierra Club comments relating to Env-A 1300 and pasted it directly into
their comments on the Regional Haze NPRM, altering them only slightly,
including by correcting typos and, notably, removing the citations to
Env-A 1300. Compare Conservation Groups' Regional Haze Comments at 12-
19 with Sierra Club's NO<INF>X</INF> RACT Comments at 4-12. Thus, to
the extent EPA committed any error by not including Env-A 1300 in the
electronic docket, it would be harmless for the additional reason that
the commenters already had Env-A 1300. See Small Refiner Lead Phase-
Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 549 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (``Our cases
recognize that even if the agency has not given notice in the
statutorily prescribed fashion, actual notice will render the error
harmless.'') (citing Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 355, 360, 398-
99). In short, we disagree that the omission of widely available state
regulations rendered the commenters ``unable to review the revised
administrative code or provide comment on whether that code satisfies
the requirements of the Clean Air Act or the RHR.'' \11\ Re-opening the
comment period so that the commenters can review state regulations only
via a copy posted to the electronic docket is, therefore, unnecessary.
Cf. Pharm. Research & Mfrs. of Am. v. FTC, 790 F.3d 198, 211 (D.C. Cir.
2015) (rejecting as ``spurious'' a plaintiff's claim that it did not
have access to certain information that was publicly available
[[Page 88144]]
and that it had ``actually used'' in formulating its comments).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In addition, EPA included Env-A 1300 in the electronic
docket for that action and included a Federal Register citation to
that action in the NPRM for this Regional Haze action, see 88 FR at
80669 n.63, meaning that the other signatories to the comment letter
(or anyone else for that matter) could also have obtained Env-A 1300
by accessing the electronic docket for the NO<INF>X</INF> RACT
action. (Alternatively, the other signatories could simply have
asked their co-commenter, the Sierra Club, for a copy of Env-A
1300). Furthermore, the Sierra Club's comments in the NO<INF>X</INF>
RACT action assert that the emission limits in Env-A 1300 ``are
inconsistent with both RACT and Regional Haze requirements,'' Sierra
Club's NO<INF>X</INF> RACT Comments at 4 (emphasis added),
indicating that the Sierra Club was even at that time well aware of
the provisions of Env-A 1300 and their applicability to the state's
Regional Haze plan.
\11\ And while the commenters also state that ``the public'' was
also prevented from reviewing the state regulations, the public,
like the commenters, could also have obtained the state regulations
through one or more of the methods noted earlier.
\12\ Moreover, the argument advanced by the commenters would
lead to unnecessary delay based on harmless error, even where two of
these commenters filed a lawsuit to compel EPA to take final action
on Regional Haze SIPs submitted by numerous states, including New
Hampshire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA does not contend that Env-A 2300 does not belong in the
administrative record for this action--indeed, we have since placed it
in the electronic docket. EPA observes only that the Region's oversight
in not placing it in the electronic docket in time for the public
comment period does not necessitate re-noticing the proposed approval
for additional public comment.\13\ The purpose of the notice-and-
comment requirement is to ``allow interested members of the public to
communicate information, concerns, and criticisms to the agency during
the rule-making process.'' Conn. Light & Power Co. v. Nuclear Regul.
Comm'n, 673 F.2d 525, 530 (D.C. Cir. 1982). That purpose is served if
``interested parties [are afforded] a reasonable opportunity to
participate in the rulemaking process and if the parties have not been
deprived of the opportunity to present relevant information by lack of
notice that the issue was there.'' WJG Tel. Co. v. FCC, 675 F.2d 386,
389 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Here, as the comment itself notes, EPA informed the public that the
agency was proposing to approve the state's plan based in part on Env-A
2300 and that the agency would add the regulations to New Hampshire's
SIP. Because the state regulations are easily obtainable through public
means and at least in the case of Env-A 1300 already in the possession
of the commenters, the commenters have not been deprived of the
opportunity to participate meaningfully in the rulemaking process or to
present relevant information to the agency regarding the state
regulations. That the commenters chose not to submit specific comments
on Env-A 2300 when they easily could have does not require re-opening
the comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ To the extent the commenters also rely on 1 CFR 51.5(a)(1)-
(2) to support their comment that EPA must re-open the comment
period, nothing in that section demands that the inadvertent
omission of widely available state regulations from the electronic
docket at the proposal stage requires re-noticing. See also 1 CFR
51.3(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the comment also asserts that EPA must re-notice the
proposal because, according to the commenters ``it is unclear whether
Env-A 2300 also sets out the required monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements for the SIP Revision'' with respect to
Stored Solar Tamworth and Merrimack Station. For both facilities, Env-A
2300 requires that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions be recorded by a continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) and provides for monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping by referencing the requirements of Env-A
800, Testing and Monitoring Procedures, and Env-A 900, Owner or
Operator Recordkeeping and Reporting Obligations, both of which
regulations are already in New Hampshire's SIP. See Env-A 2302.01,
2302.03, 2303.01. In addition, New Hampshire included in the
submission, and EPA included in the electronic docket, title V permits
for both facilities, which include detailed monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements. See NH Reg'l Haze SIP Sub, App. V (Stored
Solar Tamworth Title V Operating Permit, at 12-33) (Merrimack Station
Title V Operating Permit, at 30-72). EPA does not agree that re-
noticing is necessary for this purpose, because, as already discussed,
the omission of Env-A 2300 from the electronic docket did not prevent
the commenters or other members of the public from reviewing the
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements in the state
regulations or such requirements in the title V permits, which were
included in the electronic docket.
Comment 8: The Conservation Groups argue that EPA must consider the
environmental justice implications of New Hampshire's SIP revision. The
Groups cite EPA Regional Haze guidance and 1994 and 2023 Executive
Orders addressing environmental justice and use EPA EJ Screen tool to
identify communities near the Merrimack and Schiller facilities that
may have higher percentages of low-income populations and people of
color than the rest of the state as a whole.
Response 8: The regional haze statutory provisions do not
explicitly address considerations of environmental justice, and neither
do the regulatory requirements of the second planning period in 40 CFR
51.308(f), (g), and (i). However, the lack of explicit direction does
not preclude the State from addressing EJ in the State's SIP
submission. As explained in ``EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental
Justice'' \14\ and EPA Regional Haze guidance, see 2021 Clarifications
Memo at 21, the CAA provides states with the discretion to consider
environmental justice in developing rules and measures related to
regional haze. While a State may consider environmental justice under
the reasonable progress factors, neither the statute nor the regulation
compels states or EPA to conduct an environmental justice analysis in
developing or evaluating a SIP submission. Therefore, environmental
justice considerations do not serve as a basis for the EPA's decision
to approve New Hampshire's SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice, at
35-36 (May 2022), available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ogc/epa-legal-tools-advance-environmental-justice">https://www.epa.gov/ogc/epa-legal-tools-advance-environmental-justice</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this instance, New Hampshire explained that its SIP submission
``does not specifically add new climate change or environmental justice
initiatives. The regional haze long-term strategy includes measures
that will ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air
quality in environmental justice regions.'' NHDES noted that the State
has more appropriate programs to address environmental justice issues,
such as the State's ``participation in a cap and trade program for
greenhouse gas emissions . . . and creation of a NHDES environmental
justice team. In 2021, the Title VI Nondiscrimination/Environmental
Justice Team was formed to ensure compliance with Title VI
nondiscrimination legal requirements and in incorporating the non-
regulatory environmental justice principles of fair and equitable
treatment that encourages meaningful involvement of impacted
communities into agency programs, practices, and policies. Through its
efforts, the team seeks to reduce disparities that result in vulnerable
populations in NH bearing a disproportionate impact relative to the
implementation of programs, policies and practices related to the
environment.'' NH Regional Haze Submittal, App. W, Response to
Comments.
The commenter also refers to additional information it provided to
New Hampshire from an EJ Screen analysis that the State did not
consider as part of its regional haze decision making. EPA acknowledges
the EJ Screen information provided as part of the comment during the
State public participation process, which identifies certain
demographic and environmental information regarding areas across New
Hampshire. The focus of the SIP at issue here, the regional haze SIP
for New Hampshire, is SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and
their impacts on visibility impairment at the 156 mandatory federal
Class I areas. This action addresses New Hampshire's choices to reduce
these emissions at several EGUs and other sources of air pollution
across the State. As discussed in the NPRM and in this notice of final
rulemaking, EPA has evaluated New Hampshire's SIP submission against
the statutory and
[[Page 88145]]
regulatory regional haze requirements and determined that it satisfies
those minimum requirements. As stated below, due to the nature of the
action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to
positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. The CAA and
applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require an
evaluation of environmental justice with a SIP. EPA reiterates that it
is not identifying environmental justice as a basis for its decision to
approve New Hampshire's SIP. With respect to EPA's adherence with the
Executive Orders, see Section V below.
Comment 9: An anonymous commenter supported the proposed rule, but
stated: ``The only thing that I would change is making the goal of
improving air quality not be focused on reducing regional [h]aze, but
on the other massive health and environmental improvements that would
naturally arise from this proposal.''
Response 9: EPA acknowledges the commenter's support and notes that
Congress created the regional haze program with the goal of improving
visibility at Class 1 Federal areas. Thus, the Clean Air Act requires
the SIP submittal to focus on reducing regional haze. EPA agrees,
however, that reductions in emissions for the regional haze program
have the benefit of improving public health, too, and that many of the
state regulations included in the New Hampshire submittal provide
public health and environmental benefits.
Comment 10: MANEVU commented in support of EPA's proposal to
approve New Hampshire's regional haze SIP. MANEVU also stated that it
supports EPA's thorough approach in reviewing New Hampshire's SIP,
including its response to each MANEVU Ask.
Response 10: EPA acknowledges the comment.
Comment 11: The North Carolina Division of Air Quality commented to
acknowledge EPA's assessment and agree with EPA's determination that
the Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) cannot include strategies for
upwind states that those upwind states have not adopted.
Response 11: As noted in the NPRM, Sec. 51.308(f)(3)(i) specifies
that RPGs must reflect ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures required under paragraph (f)(2) of this
section'' (emphasis added). RPGs are intended to provide a snapshot of
projected visibility conditions at the end of the implementation
period, assuming all measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress at a given class I area are being implemented. The emission
reduction measures that must be reflected in RPGs include adopted
regulations and measures that both the downwind and upwind states have
identified as necessary and that will be implemented by 2028. However,
EPA interprets this provision to exclude emission reduction measures
that downwind states believe are necessary to make reasonable progress
but that upwind states have not, at the time of plan submission,
determined are necessary pursuant to Sec. 51.308(f)(2). This ensures
that RPGs include only those measures that are reasonably certain to be
implemented. EPA also notes that New Hampshire clarified (in a response
to comment) that the State's RPGs do not include reductions from
emissions from upwind states.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving New Hampshire's May 5, 2022, supplemented on
September 21, 2023, SIP submission as satisfying the regional haze
requirements for the second implementation period contained in 40 CFR
51.308(f), (g), and (i). Additionally, EPA is approving the revised
state rule Env-A 2300, ``Mitigation of Regional Haze,'' into the SIP.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Env-A 2300 in its
entirety for updates to the Regional Haze program, described in the
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and at EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have
been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan,
have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
<bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
[[Page 88146]]
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on communities with environmental justice
(EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines EJ as ``the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.'' EPA further defines
the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies.''
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services did not
evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of
the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral
to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of
E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for communities with EJ
concerns.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 6, 2025. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: October 30, 2024.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart EE--New Hampshire
0
2. In Sec. 52.1520:
0
a. Amend the table in paragraph (c) by revising the entry ``Env-A
2300''.
0
b. Amend the table in paragraph (e) by adding an entry for ``New
Hampshire Regional Haze Plan Periodic Comprehensive Revision'' at the
end of the table.
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 52.1520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved New Hampshire Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State EPA approval date
State citation Title/subject effective date \1\ Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Env-A 2300.............. Mitigation of 8/25/2021 11/7/2024 [Insert Env-A 2300 revision approved
Regional Haze. Federal Register entirely for updates to
citation]. Regional Haze program.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to determine EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal
Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
(e) * * *
[[Page 88147]]
New Hampshire NonRegulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State submittal
Name of nonregulatory SIP Applicable geographic or date/effective EPA approved Explanations
provision nonattainment area date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
New Hampshire Regional Haze Statewide.................. Submitted May 6, 11/7/2024 Approves full
Plan Periodic Comprehensive 2022 [Insert Federal plan including
Revision for 2nd planning (supplemented Register supplemental
period 2018-2028. September 21, citation]. submission
2023). containing
updated
Appendix W.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2024-25679 Filed 11-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 7, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.