Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Reasonably Available Control Technology Orders
| Published date | 12 September 2019 |
| Citation | 84 FR 48068 |
| Record Number | 2019-19510 |
| Section | Rules and Regulations |
| Court | Environmental Protection Agency |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48068-48071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19510]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0179; FRL-9999-13-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Reasonably Available Control
Technology Orders
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of New
Hampshire. These revisions consist of single source Orders that New
Hampshire adopted to meet reasonably
[[Page 48069]]
available control technology (RACT) requirements, and requests made by
New Hampshire to withdraw from its SIP a number of previously issued
RACT Orders. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on October 15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0179. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air and Radiation Division (Mail Code 05-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
Massachusetts 02109-3912; (617) 918-1046.
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 July 12, 2019 (84 FR 33198), EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of New Hampshire. The NPRM proposed
approval of the following items into the New Hampshire SIP: A single
source NOX RACT Order for Schiller Station; a revised single
source NOX RACT Order for Anheuser Busch; a revised single
source VOC RACT Order for Metal Works Incorporated; a revised single
source VOC RACT Order for Polyonics, Inc., and; a single source VOC
RACT Order for Complete Coverage Woodpriming, LLC. EPA also proposed to
withdraw from the New Hampshire SIP previously approved RACT Orders for
the L.W. Packard Company, the Groveton Paperboard Company, the
Hampshire Chemical Company, the Waterville Valley Ski Resort, and the
Concord Litho Group, Incorporated. We note that although our NPRM
mentioned that New Hampshire's September 5, 2018 submittal request
included a request to withdraw from the SIP two RACT orders previously
issued to the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH), our NPRM
did not propose action on that request. We will take action on the
State's request regarding withdrawal of the RACT orders for PSNH in a
future rulemaking. Other specific requirements of the State's
submittals and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in
the NPRM and will not be restated here. We received one set of comments
on the NPRM, which we have summarized and responded to in section II
below.
II. Response to Comments
We received one comment letter containing three comments on the
NPRM. A summary of the comments, and our responses, follows.
Comment 1: The RACT Order for the Metal Works facility should not
be approved because, by definition, RACT is the lowest achievable
emission limit capable of being met by application of technological and
economical control technology. Purchasing of emission reduction credits
is not an emission limit and thus cannot be approved as RACT. EPA has
no precedent that allows this and directly goes against settled case
law. RACT must be an emission limit, and that limit must be met with
technologically and economically feasible control equipment.
Response: Contrary to the commenter's assertion, EPA has long held
that compliance with RACT can be achieved via the purchase of emission
reduction credits (ERCs), and so does not need to be met exclusively by
the establishment of emission limits applicable to all RACT-subject
sources. In 1986, EPA issued its Emission Trading Policy Statement
(ETPS). See 51 FR 43814; December 4, 1986. Subsequently, on April 7,
1994, pursuant to Section 182(g)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act, EPA
promulgated its Economic Incentive Program (EIP) Rules (see 59 FR
16690; April 7, 1994), and updated the EIP in 2001.\1\ The ETPS and the
EIP rules contain guidelines for the generation and use of ERCs. In New
Hampshire's case, although the state has adopted an emission credit
trading rule, Env-A 3100, Discrete Emission Reduction Trading Program,
we have not approved that rule into the New Hampshire SIP. Therefore,
we evaluate the generation and use of ERCs for RACT compliance in New
Hampshire on a case by case basis. See, for example, our final rule for
New Hampshire from November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66391). In this particular
case, we agree with New Hampshire's determination that the ERCs to be
used by the Metal Works facility meet the key aspects of the ETPS and
EIP rules, namely that they are surplus, enforceable, permanent, and
quantifiable, and therefore are appropriate for use in trading to meet
RACT requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs; EPA-
452/R-01-001; January, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: For Polyonics, EPA is proposing to establish the sale of
emission reduction credits as representing RACT, but the sale of
emission credits cannot possibly represent the application of
technological and economically feasible control technology. The same
emission limit that applied before the order was amended should
``continue to represent RACT''
Response: The commenter misinterprets our proposed action with
regard to the Polyonics facility. The same emission limits within the
pre-existing RACT order do continue to apply to the facility. The
amendment to the Order just added the capability for the source to
generate ERCs.
Comment 3: For L.W. Packard, Groveton Paperboard, Hampshire
Chemical Corp, and Concord Litho Group, EPA states that these
facilities ``ceased operations'' as of various dates in the past. EPA
must only allow removal of these orders if the state has fully
rescinded their operating permits and the facilities are unable to be
reactivated under their current Title V operating permit.
Response: The Hampshire Chemical Corporation closed and surrendered
its operating permit in 2004; the L.W. Packard Company and Groveton
Paperboard both closed and surrendered their operating permits in 2008.
On October 29, 2018, the Concord Litho Group requested that New
Hampshire terminate its operating permit because it had ceased printing
operations, which had been the subject of its operating permit
requirements, and New Hampshire complied with that request. We note
that our NPRM incorrectly indicated the facility had closed; other
operations at the facility remain in
[[Page 48070]]
existence, but due to their minimal emissions do not require issuance
of a state operating permit or RACT order from the State.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the following RACT orders and RACT order
withdrawals as revisions to the New Hampshire SIP: A single source
NOX RACT Order for Schiller Station; a revised single source
NOX RACT Order for Anheuser Busch; a revised single source
VOC RACT Order for Metal Works Incorporated; a revised single source
VOC RACT Order for Polyonics, Inc., and a single source VOC RACT Order
for Complete Coverage Woodpriming, LLC. We are also withdrawing from
the New Hampshire SIP previously approved RACT Orders for the L.W.
Packard Company, the Groveton Paperboard Company, the Hampshire
Chemical Company, the Waterville Valley Ski Resort, and the Concord
Litho Group, Incorporated.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
following RACT Orders issued by New Hampshire: NOX RACT
Order RO-003 for Schiller Station; NOX RACT Order ARD-05-001
for Anheuser Busch; VOC RACT Order ARD-05-001 for Metal Works
Incorporated; VOC RACT Order ARD 07-004 for Polyonics, Inc., and; VOC
RACT Order RO-0004 for Complete Coverage Wood Priming, LLC. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available
through https://www.regulations.gov and at the 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.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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:
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);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because
this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
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 November 12, 2019. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 28, 2019.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting 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. Section 52.1520(d) is amended by:
[[Page 48071]]
0
a. Removing the entries for ``Source specific NOX RACT order
for Groveton Paperboard Corp., Groveton, NH''; ``Source specific
NOX RACT order for Waterville Valley Ski Area Ltd.,
Waterville Valley, NH''; ``VOC RACT for L.W. Packard and Company, Inc.
Ashland, NH''; ``Source specific NOX RACT order for
Hampshire Chemical Corporation, Nashua, NH''; ``Concord Litho Group--
Permit No. ARD-07-003''; ``Metal Works''; ``Polyonics''; ``Anheuser
Busch''; ``PSNH, Schiller Station''; and ``Concord Litho Group--Permit
No. ARD-07-003A''; and b. Adding entries for ``Schiller Station'';
``Anheuser Busch''; ``Metal Works''; ``Polyonics''; and ``Complete
Coverage Woodpriming'' in numerical order.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved New Hampshire Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
Name of source Permit No. State EPA approval date explanations/Sec.
effective date \2\ 52.1535 citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Schiller Station................. NOx RACT Order RO- 9/6/2018 9/12/2019 [Insert Order contains NOx
003. Federal Register emission limits
citation]. for emission units
SR4 and SR6.
Anheuser Busch................... NOx RACT Order ARD- 1/17/2018 9/12/2019 [Insert Revisions made to
05-001. Federal Register testing
citation]. requirements for
two boilers.
Metal Works...................... VOC RACT Order ARD- 8/16/2018 9/12/2019 [Insert Order allows for
05-001. Federal Register compliance via
citation]. purchase of
emission reduction
credits.
Polyonics........................ VOC RACT Order 8/28/2018 9/12/2019 [Insert Order allows
ARD07-004. Federal Register facility to
citation]. generate emission
reduction credits.
Complete Coverage Woodpriming.... VOC RACT Order RO- 3/14/2019 9/12/2019 [Insert Order provides a
0004. Federal Register VOC content limit
citation]. for stain blocker
used by the
facility.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
* * * * *
Sec. 52.1525 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 52.1525, amend the table by removing the entries with the
following State citation chapter: ``Order ARD-94-001''; ``Order ARD-95-
001''; ``Order ARD-95-003''; ``Order ARD-95-011''; and ``Order ARD-00-
001''.
[FR Doc. 2019-19510 Filed 9-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
