[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26455-26460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12716]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NH31-1-7160a; FRL-6010-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Reasonably Available Control Technology for Nitrogen Oxides for the 
State of New Hampshire

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the State of New Hampshire. This revision establishes and 
requires Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) at three 
stationary sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX). The intended 
effect of this action is to approve source specific orders which 
require major stationary sources of NOX to reduce their 
emissions in accordance with requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 13, 1998 without further notice 
unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by June 12, 1998. 
Should the

[[Page 26456]]

Agency receive such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of 
this direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public 
that the rule did not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, 
Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAA), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-
2211. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for 
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment, at the 
Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA; as well as the 
Air Resources Division, New Hampshire Department of Environmental 
Services, 64 North Main Street, Caller Box 2033, Concord, NH 03302-
2033.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven A. Rapp, Environmental 
Engineer, Air Quality Planning Unit (CAQ), U.S. EPA, Region I, JFK 
Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211; (617) 565-2773; 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that States develop RACT 
regulations for all major stationary sources of NOX in areas 
which have been classified as ``moderate,'' ``serious,'' ``severe,'' 
and ``extreme'' ozone nonattainment areas, and in all areas of the 
Ozone Transport Region (OTR). EPA has defined RACT as the lowest 
emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by 
the application of control technology that is reasonably available 
considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762; 
September 17, 1979). This requirement is established by sections 
182(b)(2), 182(f), and 184(b) of the CAA.
    These CAA NOX requirements are further described by EPA 
in a notice entitled, ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides 
Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 
Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,'' published November 25, 1992 
(57 FR 55620). The November 25, 1992 notice, also known as the 
NOX Supplement, should be referred to for more detailed 
information on NOX requirements. Additional EPA guidance 
memoranda, such as those included in the ``NOX Policy 
Document for the Clean Air Act of 1990,'' also known as the 
NOX Policy Document, (EPA-452/R-96-005, March 1996), should 
also be referred to for more information on NOX 
requirements. Similarly, the ``Economic Incentive Program Rules,'' or 
EIP (67 FR 16690, April 7, 1997), and the Emissions Trading Policy 
Statement, or ETPS (51 FR 43814, December 4, 1986), should be referred 
to for information on EPA's policy concerning emissions averaging and/
or trading by sources subject to NOX RACT.
    New Hampshire has three designated ozone nonattainment areas. 
First, the area which includes all of Merrimack County, part of 
Hillsborough County, and part of Rockingham County is classified as a 
marginal nonattainment area (see 40 CFR Part 81 for the list of 
affected towns). Second, all of Strafford County and part of Rockingham 
County is classified as a serious non-attainment area (see 40 CFR Part 
81, Sec. 81.330 for the list of affected towns). Third, the part of 
southern New Hampshire that is located within the Boston-Lawrence-Salem 
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) is also classified as 
a serious nonattainment area (see 40 CFR Part 81, Sec. 81.330 for the 
list of affected towns). Additionally, section 184(a) of the CAA also 
establishes the northeastern United States, which includes all of the 
State of New Hampshire, as part of the OTR.
    Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires States to require 
implementation of RACT with respect to all major sources of volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs). This RACT requirement also applies to all 
major sources in ozone nonattainment areas with higher than moderate 
nonattainment classifications. Section 182(f) states that, ``the plan 
provisions required under this subpart for major stationary sources of 
volatile organic compounds shall also apply to major stationary sources 
(as defined in section 302 and subsections (c), (d), and (e) of the 
section) of oxides of nitrogen.'' Additionally, section 184(b)(2) 
requires major stationary sources in the OTR to meet the requirements 
applicable to major sources if the area were classified as a moderate 
nonattainment area, unless already classified at a higher nonattainment 
level. These sections of the CAA, taken together, establish the 
requirements for New Hampshire to submit a NOX RACT 
regulation which covers major sources.
    Section 302 of the CAA generally defines ``major stationary 
source'' as a facility or source of air pollution which has the 
potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of air pollution. This 
definition applies unless another provision of the CAA explicitly 
defines major source differently. Therefore, for NOX, a 
major source is one with the potential to emit 100 tons per year or 
more in marginal and moderate areas, as well as in attainment areas in 
the OTR. However, for serious nonattainment areas, a major source is 
defined by section 182(c) as a source that has the potential to emit 50 
tons per year or more.
    In New Hampshire's Strafford County, in the part of Rockingham 
County that is a classified as serious nonattainment, and in the 
Boston-Lawrence-Salem CMSA, a major stationary source of NOX 
is a facility which has a potential to emit of 50 tons per year or more 
of NOX. Throughout the rest of the State, a major stationary 
source of NOx is a facility with the potential to emit 100 tons or more 
per year of NOx. Such facilities are subject to NOX RACT 
requirements.

II. State Submittal

    On April 14, 1997, May 6, 1997, and September 24, 1997, the New 
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) submitted 
revisions to its SIP concerning Public Service Company of New Hampshire 
(PSNH), Hampshire Chemical Corporation (HCC), and Crown Vantage 
(Crown), respectively. The Crown and HCC SIP submittals define RACT for 
various pieces of equipment at their facilities which are subject to 
the miscellaneous RACT provisions of New Hampshire's NOX 
RACT regulation ``Env-A 1211 Nitrogen Oxides'' (Env-A 1211). The 
submittal for Crown also defines alternative emission limits for two 
industrial boilers at the Berlin facility. The PSNH SIP submittal 
establishes an emissions averaging plan for the two utility boilers at 
PSNH's Merrimack Station (Merrimack). Additionally, the submittal for 
Merrimack involves an emission quantification protocol for the creation 
and/or use of discrete emission reductions.
    Previously, DES submitted regulation Part Env-A 1211 and a source-
specific NOX RACT determination as a SIP revision in 
response to the CAA requirements that RACT be required for all major 
sources of NOX. On April 9, 1997, EPA published a Federal 
Register notice approving those NOX RACT submittals. See 62 
FR 17137. That notice, however, stated that RACT determinations were 
still outstanding for Crown and HCC. Subsequently, DES submitted 
NOX RACT determinations to EPA for Crown and HCC on 
September 24, 1997 and May 6, 1997, respectively. Additionally, on 
April 14, 1997 DES submitted an emissions averaging plan and emission 
credit quantification protocol for PSNH as an alternative RACT 
determination and economic incentive program revision to the SIP.

[[Page 26457]]

III. Description of Submittal

    The following is a description of the three SIP actions. For a more 
detailed description of these RACT related actions, the reader should 
refer to the technical support document and attachment and/or to the 
RACT orders themselves, located at the addresses listed above. The 
orders have been evaluated against the relevant EPA guidance documents, 
including the NOX Supplement, the NOX Policy 
Document, the EIP, and the ETPS.

A. Crown Vantage

    There are a number of devices at Crown's Berlin facility which fall 
under the miscellaneous NOX RACT requirements of Env-A 
1211.02(l), i.e., the Chemical Recovery Unit #11, the #2 lime kiln, and 
four space heaters. The space heaters each have heat input capacities 
of less than 2 million Btu per hour (mmBtu/hr). Because these units 
operate only during the heating season and have relatively small 
NOX emissions, it has been determined that emission controls 
for this unit size would not be cost effective. Therefore, RACT for 
these units has been defined as no additional controls. For the 
Chemical Recovery Unit #11, RACT has been defined as a NOX 
limitation of 120 parts per million on a wet volume basis (ppmv), 
corrected to 8% oxygen, on a 24 hour calendar day basis. For the #2 
lime kiln, RACT has been defined as an emission limitation of 120 ppmv, 
corrected to 10% oxygen, on a 24 hour calendar day basis. These limits 
are comparable to RACT limits established for similar types of 
equipment in other States in the northeastern United States.
    Additionally, there are a number of devices at the Crown facility 
for which it has been demonstrated that meeting the emission limits of 
Env-A 1211 is not economically or technically feasible. Subsequently, 
alternative emission limitations have been determined pursuant to Env-A 
1211.17 for these units, i.e., Boiler #3 and Boiler #12. Crown has 
demonstrated that for Boiler #3, low NOX burners (LNB) would 
reduce NOX at a cost-effectiveness of almost $4700 per ton 
of NOX reduced. Similarly, they have shown that for Boiler 
#12, the cost-effectiveness would be approximately $8800 per ton of 
NOX reduced. The costs required to achieve these reductions 
are considerably higher than the high end of the cost-effectiveness 
range recommended by EPA (see ``NOX Policy Document for the 
Clean Air Act of 1990,'' (EPA-452/R-96-005, March 1996)). Therefore, 
for Boiler #3, Final RACT Order ARD-97-003 sets a NOX 
emission limit of 0.45 pounds/million Btu (lb/mmBtu) on an annual basis 
and 0.60 lb/mmBtu on a 24 hour basis. For Boiler #12, Final RACT Order 
ARD-97-0903 sets a NOX emission limitation of 0.45 lb/mmBtu. 
These limits are acceptable as alternative RACT emission limits. In 
addition, the facility must meet the record keeping and reporting 
requirements of Env-A 901.06 and Env-A 901.07.
    On June 10, 1997, DES proposed RACT Order ARD-97-003. On July 23, 
1997, DES held a public hearing. On June 26, 1997, EPA submitted 
written comments to the public record. On September 24, 1997, DES 
submitted Final RACT Order ARD-97-003, including the miscellaneous and 
alternative RACT determinations, to EPA as a revision to the New 
Hampshire SIP. On October 16, 1997, EPA deemed the package 
administratively and technically complete.

B. Hampshire Chemical Corporation

    There are a number of devices at HCC's Nashua facility which fall 
under the miscellaneous NOX RACT requirements of Env-A 
1211.02(l), i.e., a hot oil heater and six kilns. All of the kilns are 
small units, having heat input capacities of less than 5 mmBtu/hr. 
Therefore, RACT for these units has been defined as no additional 
NOX controls. The hot oil heater has a heat input capacity 
of 13.3 mmBtu/hr. Although technically the unit is not a boiler, it has 
similar mechanical and thermal characteristics. Therefore, RACT for the 
oil heater has been defined as an annual tune-up, which is also 
required of industrial boilers of the same size under Env-A 1211.05. In 
addition, the facility must meet the record keeping and reporting 
requirements of Env-A 901.06 and Env-A 901.07.
    New Hampshire formally proposed RACT Order ARD-95-011 on December 
4, 1995 and held a public hearing on January 9, 1996. EPA submitted 
written comments on that proposal on January 16, 1996. New Hampshire 
submitted Final RACT Order ARD-95-011 on May 6, 1997. EPA deemed the 
submittal administratively and technically complete on May 28, 1997.

C. Public Service of New Hampshire's Merrimack Station

    During 1995 and 1996, EPA received and commented on several draft 
RACT orders concerning PSNH's Merrimack facility. These draft orders 
proposed to allow PSNH to meet the NOX emission limitations 
of Env-A 1211.03(c)(1)(b) at units 1 (MK1) and 2 (MK2) through the use 
of emissions averaging, or bubbling, as provided for in Env-A 1211.13. 
In an effort to comply with the emission limitations of Env-A 
1211.03(c)(1)(b), PSNH had installed NOX control systems on 
both units in 1995. The selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) 
controls on MK1, however, did not reduce emissions as well as expected 
and the unit was unable to meet the emission rate limitation set by 
Env-A 1211. Fortunately, the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 
NOX control system on MK2 performed better than expected. 
This reduction allowed MK2 to run at emission rates lower than its 
limits in Env-A 1211. The enhanced performance of MK2 makes emissions 
averaging or trading a viable means of achieving the NOX 
reductions anticipated by RACT regulations.
    Basically, the bubble for Merrimack requires MK1 and MK2 to meet 
daily emissions caps as well as emission rate limitations. The first 
cap applies to the emissions of the two units combined. The second cap 
applies only to the emissions of MK1 when MK2 is not at full capacity. 
The order also adds a weekly emission rate limitation on MK1. MK2 
remains subject to a daily emission cap and emission rate limitation 
under Env-A 1211.
    More specifically, MK1 and MK2 are required to meet a combined 
daily emission cap which achieves an equivalent level of NOX 
reduction that would be achieved if both units met the applicable 
emission limitations in Env-A 1211.03(c)(1)(b), (d), and (f). This 
combined emissions cap is in addition to the emissions cap on MK2 
imposed by Env-A 1211.03 (d) and (f). The order also imposes a separate 
emissions cap on MK1 when MK2 is not operating during all 24 hours of a 
day. This second cap is equal to a historical actual emission rate 
(i.e., the sixth highest average weekly value from January to October 
1996) of MK1 multiplied by its throughput capacity. As described in the 
ETPS, because the use of emissions averaging should not result in an 
increase in total emissions, the second cap is needed to ensure that 
MK1 will not exceed its historical level of emissions during days when 
MK2 is not at full capacity. Similarly, the order adds a weekly 
emission rate limitation (i.e., the sixth highest value from January to 
October 1996) to ensure that the emission rate from MK1 does not exceed 
historical rates of emissions experienced during the operation of the 
NOX control system on MK1.
    Additionally, the PSNH SIP submittal includes an emission 
quantification protocol for the creation or use of discrete emission 
reductions (DERs) of NOX at Merrimack. Basically, the

[[Page 26458]]

protocol describes a method for quantifying the difference between the 
daily unit-specific RACT emission limitations (baseline), as 
established in Env-A 1211.03, and the actual daily average emission 
rate that each unit achieves for the hours that the unit operated. The 
protocol requires that actual emissions be measured by a continuous 
emission monitoring systems (CEMS). For MK1, the more stringent 
emission rate limitation of Env-A 1211.03(c)(1)(b) is used as the 
baseline to yield the fewest number of credits and the greatest number 
of debits. For MK2, which is subject to both an emission rate 
limitation under Env-A 1211.03(c)(1)(b) and an emissions cap under Env-
A 1211.03(d), the protocol requires that the calculation be done using 
each of the two RACT limits and that the lesser quantity of DERs 
calculated be considered creditable.
    The SIP submittal also includes data documenting that the protocol 
was used to quantify the creation of 142.5 DERs at Merrimack from June 
1, 1995 to September 30, 1995. The documentation shows that the 
quantity is above and beyond any DERs that were used for RACT 
compliance at either MK1 or MK2 during that time period. The protocol 
is intended as a methodology to calculate the generation or use of DERs 
for RACT compliance, either by PSNH or by others who would purchase the 
DERs from PSNH. The order requires that prior to the use of the PSNH 
DERs by others, however, a DER use protocol (if different from the 
method described in the attachment to the order) be approved by DES and 
EPA, either on a case-by-case basis or by approval of New Hampshire's 
emissions trading regulations Env-A 3000 and 3100. EPA has not yet 
acted on those regulations and will do so in a future notice.
    The order also discusses the use of the DERs as early reduction 
allowances as part of the Ozone Transport Commission's NOX 
budget and allowance trading program. New Hampshire has not yet adopted 
this regulation. Therefore, EPA cannot judge the compatibility of these 
provisions with the allowance trading program at this time. The order 
does, however, discuss the potential for double-counting the emission 
reductions under both programs. The order commits DES to taking steps 
in the future to avoid such double-counting.
    New Hampshire proposed RACT Order ARD-97-001 for Merrimack on 
January 28, 1997. EPA provided written comments to DES concerning that 
proposal on March 11, 1997. On April 14, 1997, DES submitted Final RACT 
Order ARD-97-001 as a revision to the SIP. On May 28, 1997, EPA sent a 
letter to DES deeming the submittal administratively and technically 
complete.

IV. Issues

    The final RACT order for PSNH includes a protocol for the creation 
and/or use of credits for compliance at Merrimack. This protocol would 
allow the use of one-time or carry over credits during time periods 
other than when they were generated (i.e., the intertemporal use of 
credits). The credits produced at Merrimack, however, are the result of 
the operation of extra control capacity on MK2. This means that at any 
given time, extra reductions are balancing the use of earlier credits. 
In this way, the generation or use of credits from Merrimack should 
produce no increase in NOX emissions, or ``spiking,'' due to 
the use of credits for compliance with RACT limits. Therefore, the use 
of these credits is consistent with the requirements of the New 
Hampshire SIP, RFP and ROP plans, and area-wide RACT requirements.

V. Final Action

    EPA review of the NOX RACT SIP submittals, including the 
miscellaneous NOX RACT submittals for HCC and Crown, 
indicates that New Hampshire has sufficiently defined the 
NOX RACT requirements for these sources. Additionally, EPA 
review of the emissions averaging plan and emissions quantification 
protocol for PSNH's Merrimack facility indicates that these economic 
incentive programs meet applicable EPA guidance. Therefore, EPA is 
approving these submittals into the New Hampshire SIP as meeting the 
requirements of the CAA.
    EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal should relevant adverse comments be 
filed. This rule will become effective on July 13, 1998 without further 
notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comment by June 12, 
1998.
    Should the Agency receive such comments, it will publish a timely 
document in the Federal Register withdrawing the final rule and 
informing the public that this rule did not take effect. All public 
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on this action serving as a proposed rule. EPA will not institute 
a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in 
commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such 
comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be 
effective on July 13, 1998 and no further action will be taken on the 
proposed rule.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any State Implementation Plan. Each request for revision to 
the State Implementation Plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve 
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the 
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, the 
Administrator certifies that it does not have a significant impact on 
any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the 
Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility 
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base 
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. 
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

    To reduce the burden of Federal regulations on States and small 
governments, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12875 on October 
26, 1993, entitled ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership.'' 
Under

[[Page 26459]]

Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation which is not 
required by statute unless the Federal Government provides the 
necessary funds to pay the direct costs incurred by the State and small 
governments or EPA provides OMB with a description of the prior 
consultation and communications the Agency has had with representatives 
of State and small governments and a statement supporting the need to 
issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA 
to develop an effective process permitting elected and other 
representatives of State and small governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing 
significant unfunded mandates.''
    The present action satisfies the requirements of Executive Order 
12875 because it is required by statute and because it does not contain 
a significant unfunded mandate. Section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act 
requires that EPA act on implementation plans submitted by States. This 
rulemaking implements that statutory command. In addition, this rule 
approves preexisting state requirements and does not impose new Federal 
mandates that bind State or small governments.
    Under Sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate which may result in 
estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under 
Section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is 
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to 
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that 
may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law and imposes no new 
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

D. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).
    EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's 
action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular 
applicability. This rule only affects three specifically-named 
entities, PSNH's Merrimack facility in Bow, New Hampshire, HCC in 
Nashua, New Hampshire, and Crown in Berlin, New Hampshire.

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 July 13, 1998. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule 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).) EPA encourages 
interested parties to comment in response to the proposed rule rather 
than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after 
the comment period allowed for in the proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the State of New Hampshire was approved by the Director of 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: April 21, 1998.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart EE--New Hampshire

    2. Section 52.1520 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(54) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (54) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the 
New Hampshire Air Resources Division on April 14, 1997, May 6, 1997, 
and September 24, 1997.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letters from the New Hampshire Air Resources Division dated 
April 14, 1997, May 6, 1997, and September 24, 1997 submitting 
revisions to the New Hampshire State Implementation Plan.
    (B) New Hampshire NOX RACT Order ARD-97-001, concerning 
Public Service Company of New Hampshire in Bow, effective on April 14, 
1997.
    (C) New Hampshire NOX RACT Order ARD-95-011, concerning 
Hampshire Chemical Corporation, effective on May 6, 1997.
    (D) New Hampshire NOX RACT Order ARD-97-003, concerning 
Crown Vantage, effective September 24, 1997.
    3. In Sec. 52.1525 Table 52.1525 is amended by adding new state 
citations for ``Final RACT Order ARD-97-001,'' ``Final RACT Order ARD-
95-011,'' and ``Final RACT Order ARD-97-003,'' to read as follows:


Sec. 52.1525  EPA--approved New Hampshire state regulations

* * * * *

[[Page 26460]]



                                           Table 52.1525.--EPA--Approved Rules and Regulations--New Hampshire                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      State citation      Date adopted    Date approved    Federal Register                                             
          Title/subject                   chapter           by State         by EPA            citation            52.1520              Comments        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
          *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                           
Source specific order............  Order ARD-97-001....        04/14/97         5/13/98  [Insert FR citation   (c)(54)........  Source specific NOX RACT
                                                                                          from published                         order for Public       
                                                                                          date].                                 Service of New         
                                                                                                                                 Hampshire in Bow, NH.  
Source specific order............  Order ARD-95-011....        05/06/97         5/13/98  [Insert FR citation   (c)(54)........  Source specific NOX RACT
                                                                                          from published                         order for Hampshire    
                                                                                          date].                                 Chemical Corporation in
                                                                                                                                 Nashua, NH.            
Source specific order............  Order ARD-97-003....         9/24/97         5/13/98  [Insert FR citation   (c)(54)........  Source specific NOX RACT
                                                                                          from published                         order for Crown Vantage
                                                                                          date].                                 in Berlin, NH.         
                                                                                                                                                        
          *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 98-12716 Filed 5-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P