[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 16, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18493-18497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-9066]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NH-046b; A-1-FRL-7171-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
New Hampshire; Post-1996 Rate of Progress Plans

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 
post-1996 rate of progress (ROP) emission reduction plans for the 
Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester serious ozone nonattainment area, and the 
New Hampshire portion of the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester serious area. 
The intended effect of this action is to approve this SIP revision as 
meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on June 17, 2002 without 
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 16, 2002. If 
EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public 
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air 
Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-New England, One Congress Street, 
Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023. 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, EPA-New England, One Congress Street, 
11th floor, Boston, MA, and at the Air Resources Division, New 
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, Concord, 
NH 03302-0095.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McConnell, (617) 918-1046.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 27, 1996, the State of New 
Hampshire submitted a formal revision to its SIP. The SIP revision 
consisted of post-1996 rate-of-progress (ROP) plans for the Portsmouth-
Dover-Rochester and the New Hampshire portion of the Boston-Lawrence-
Worcester serious areas.
    This Supplementary Information section is organized as follows:

A. What action is EPA taking today?
B. Why was New Hampshire required to reduce emissions of ozone 
forming pollutants?
C. Which specific air pollutants are targeted by this emission 
reduction plan?
D. What are the sources of these pollutants?
E. What harmful effects can these pollutants produce?
F. Should I be concerned if I live near an industry that emits a 
significant amount of these pollutants?
G. To what degree does New Hampshire's plan reduce emissions?
H. How will New Hampshire achieve these emission reductions?
I. Have these emission reductions improved air quality in New 
Hampshire?
J. Has New Hampshire met its contingency measure obligation?
K. Are conformity budgets contained in the plan?

A. What action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is approving post-1996 ROP emission reduction plans submitted 
by the State of New Hampshire for the Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester area, 
and the state's portion of the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (Boston area) 
as a revision to the state's SIP. New Hampshire did not enter into an 
agreement with Massachusetts to do a multi-state ROP plan, and 
therefore submitted a plan to reduce emissions only in the New 
Hampshire portion of the Boston area. EPA is taking action today only 
on the New Hampshire portion of the Boston area post-1996 plan.
    The post-1996 ROP plans document how New Hampshire complied with 
the provisions of section 182 (c)(2)(B) of the Federal Clean Air Act 
(the Act). 42 U.S.C. 7511a(c)(2)(B). This section of the Act requires 
states containing certain ozone nonattainment areas to develop 
strategies that reduce emissions of the pollutants that react to form 
ground level ozone.

B. Why Was New Hampshire Required To Reduce Emissions of Ozone 
Forming Pollutants?

    New Hampshire was required to develop plans to reduce ozone 
precursor emissions because it contains ozone nonattainment areas. A 
final rule published by EPA on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694) 
designated portions of the state as nonattainment for ozone, and 
classified two of these areas as serious.

[[Page 18494]]

    Section 182 (c)(2)(B) of the Act requires that serious ozone 
nonattainment areas develop ROP plans to reduce ozone forming pollutant 
emissions by 3 percent a year, averaged over each consecutive 3 year 
period beginning in 1996, until the area reaches its attainment date. 
The first set of emission reductions are required to occur between 
November 1996 and November 1999, and are referred to as post-1996 ROP 
plan reductions, which will yield an overall reduction of nine percent 
of the combined 1990 VOC and NOX emission levels. Although 
these areas attained the one hour ozone national ambient air quality 
standard for the period from 1998 through 2000, monitoring data for the 
summer of 2001 indicate that the Boston area once again has violated 
the standard. Therefore, the Act continues to require a ROP plan for 
this area.

C. Which Specific Air Pollutants Are Targeted by This Emission 
Reduction Plan?

    The state's post-1996 plans are geared towards reducing emissions 
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides 
(NOX). These compounds react in the presence of heat and 
sunlight to form ozone, which is a primary ingredient of smog.

D. What Are the Sources of These Pollutants?

    VOCs are emitted from a variety of sources, including motor 
vehicles, a variety of consumer and commercial products such as paints 
and solvents, chemical plants, gasoline stations, and other industrial 
sources. NOX is emitted from motor vehicles, power plants, 
and other sources that burn fossil fuels.

E. What Harmful Effects Can These Pollutants Produce?

    VOCs and NOX react in the atmosphere to form ozone, the 
prime ingredient of smog in our cities and many rural areas of the 
country. Though ozone occurs naturally high in our atmosphere, at 
ground level it is harmful to health. When inhaled, even at very low 
levels, ozone can:
    Cause acute respiratory problems;
    Aggravate asthma;
    Cause significant temporary decreases in lung capacity in some 
healthy adults;
    Cause inflammation of lung tissue;
    Lead to hospital admissions and emergency room visits; and
    Impair the body's immune system defenses.

F. Should I Be Concerned If I Live Near an Industry That Emits a 
Significant Amount of These Pollutants?

    Industrial facilities that emit large amounts of these pollutants 
are monitored by the state's environmental agency, the Department of 
Environmental Services (NH-DES). Many facilities are required to emit 
air pollutants through stacks to ensure that high concentrations of 
pollutants do not exist at ground level. Permits issued to these 
facilities include information on which pollutants are being released, 
how much may be released, and what steps the source's owner or operator 
is taking to reduce pollution. The NH-DES makes permit applications and 
permits readily available to the public for review. You can contact the 
NH-DES for more information about air pollution emitted by industrial 
facilities in your neighborhood.

G. To What Degree Does New Hampshire's Plan Reduce Emissions?

    By 1999, New Hampshire's ROP plans will reduce VOC emissions by 31 
percent and NOX emissions by 28 percent compared to 1990 
emission levels. This reduction is attributable to the control strategy 
outlined in the state's post-1996 plans, and in New Hampshire's ROP 
plans for the years 1990 to 1996 that achieved a 15 percent reduction 
in VOC emissions. The reduction is also partly attributable to the 
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP). Not all emission 
reductions from the FMVCP program are creditable towards ROP emission 
reductions, and New Hampshire's ROP plans accurately account for this. 
EPA approved New Hampshire's 15 percent ROP plans on December 7, 1998 
(63 FR 67405).
    New Hampshire used the appropriate EPA guidance to calculate the 
1999 VOC and NOX emission target levels, and the amount of 
reductions needed to achieve its emission target levels. Under section 
182(c)(2)(C) of the Act, NOX reductions can be used to meet 
this emission reduction obligation in some circumstances. Available 
modeling indicates that NOX emission reductions are clearly 
beneficial in New Hampshire, and so as outlined in EPA's NOX 
substitution guidance dated December 15, 1993, use of NOX 
emission reductions to meet post-96 emission reduction obligations is 
appropriate in the state.
    The manner in which states are to determine the required level of 
emission reductions is described in an EPA guidance document entitled, 
``Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan and the Attainment 
Demonstration'' (EPA 452-93-015.) The calculation procedure is similar 
to the one used to determine the 15 percent emission reduction 
obligation. Table 1 below illustrates the steps New Hampshire used to 
derive its 1999 emission target levels for VOC and NOX. The 
ROP plan indicates that 1999 projected, controlled emissions are below 
the target levels for the state's two serious nonattainment areas. The 
analysis presented in Table 1 for the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester area 
includes substitution of NOX emissions from outside of that 
nonattainment area, and is further discussed later in this document. 
Additionally, Table 1 contains an evaluation of the effect that removal 
of acetone would have on the state's ROP demonstration, which is also 
discussed further in this document. Emissions in parenthesis reflect 
subtraction of acetone from the base year VOC inventory, and are the 
values we are approving today.

                                                     Table 1
                                         [Units are tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Description            Por-Dov-Roc  VOC    Por-Dov-Roc  NOX    Bos-Law-Wor  VOC     Bos-Law-Wor  NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1--Calculate 1990 Base     76.0                46.5                91.9               59.7 (includes 26.3
 Year Inventory.                                                                            from a source
                                                                                            outside the area)
Step 2--Develop Rate-of         Bio: -35.0          46.5                Bio: -36.1         59.7
 Progress Inventory (by         Acet: -0.3                              Acet: -0.5
 subtracting biogenics and non- = 41.0                                  = 55.9
 reactives).                    (40.7)                                  (55.4)

[[Page 18495]]

 
Step 3--Develop Adjusted Base   -6.5                -4.0                -9.4               -5.5
 Year Inventory by subtracting  =34.5               =42.5               =46.5              =54.2
 non-creditable FMVCP/RVP       (34.2)                                  (46.0)
 rdxns. between 1990-1999.
Step 4--Calculate Required      3.0%                9.0%                0.9%               11.1%
 Reduction {state added the 3%  =1.0                =3.8                =0.4               =6.0
 contingency obligation to the  (1.0)                                   (0.4)
 ROP reductions calculation,
 so total required is 12%
 reduction}.
Step 5--Calculate total         6.5+                4.0+                9.4+               5.5+
 expected reduction: For VOC,   1.0+                3.8=                0.4+               6.0
 sum of steps 3 and 4, +15%     5.3=                                    7.2=
 VOC reduction from 1990 to     12.8                7.8                 17.0               11.5
 1996, which was 5.3 tpsd for
 Por-Dov-Roc area, and 7.2
 tpsd for Bos-Law-Wor area.
Step 6--Set Target Level for    28.2                38.7                38.9               48.2
 1999: Step 2--Step 5.          (27.9)                                  (38.4)
Step 7--Project Emissions to    37.7                45.4                53.3               58.9
 1999.                          (37.4)                                  (52.8)
Step 8--Projected, Controlled   28.1                36.1                38.7               40.0
 1999 Emissions.                (27.9)                                  (38.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Hampshire projected its base year stationary and non-road 
mobile source emissions to 1999 by using the Economic Growth and 
Analysis System, which contains growth assumptions for specific 
geographic areas in the U.S. that are based on forecasts of economic 
activity. Estimates of growth in VMT were obtained from the New 
Hampshire Department of Transportation.
    On June 16, 1995, EPA published a final rule in the Federal 
Register that added acetone to the federal list of compounds with 
negligible photochemical reactivity (60 FR 31633). As a result of that 
action, states could no longer consider acetone a VOC, and so emission 
reductions of acetone are not creditable towards ROP plan reductions. 
The state's post-96 ROP plan does not indicate that acetone was removed 
from the New Hampshire 1990 base year inventory prior to calculation of 
the emission target levels. Therefore, we performed an analysis to 
remove acetone from the base year emission estimates of two area source 
categories whose emissions contained significant amounts of acetone: 
the surface coatings category and the graphic arts category. The 
details of our analysis are available in the technical support document 
included in the docket supporting this action; the results of that 
analysis are shown in parenthesis in Table 1.
    Table 1 indicates that sufficient VOC and NOX emission 
reductions exist in the Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester area to meet that 
area's ROP obligation through 1999. Information presented in the 
state's ROP submittal indicates that this is not the case for the New 
Hampshire portion of the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester area. Therefore, as 
shown in Table I, baseline and projected, controlled NOX 
emissions from a source outside of the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester area 
were added to that area's ROP analysis so that the substantial emission 
reductions achieved by the source could be credited towards the area's 
ROP emission reduction obligation.
    EPA believes this substitution is appropriate. The state's ROP plan 
documents that the emissions from the substituted source, the Public 
Service Company of New Hampshire's Merrimack Station electric 
generating plant in Bow, impacts the New Hampshire portion of the 
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester area, and therefore emission reductions from 
this facility should help improve air quality in New Hampshire's 
portion of the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester area. A December 1997 
memorandum from Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation to the Regional Administrators contains a policy 
recommendation that substitution of emission reduction credits from 
outside of a nonattainment area for ROP purposes be allowed if certain 
criteria are met. Two central components of that policy are that a 
source lending NOX emission reductions be no more than 200 
kilometers from the recipient nonattainment area, and the lending 
source's emissions must be included in the recipient area's baseline 
and ROP emission calculations. New Hampshire's proposed emission 
reduction substitution meets the criteria outlined in the December 1997 
memorandum.

H. How Will New Hampshire Achieve These Emission Reductions?

    New Hampshire's post-1996 control strategy matches the control 
strategy described in the EPA's December 7, 1998 approval of the 
state's 15 percent plan, and also includes additional emission 
reductions from regulations limiting NOX emissions from 
stationary point sources described below.

NOX RACT

    The Act requires that states develop Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (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. New 
Hampshire submitted its NOX RACT regulation in various 
pieces between 1992 and 1995 as a revision to the state's SIP. On April 
9, 1997, EPA approved the state's NOX RACT rule through a 
direct final action in the Federal Register (62 FR 17087.)

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) Phase II NOX Requirements

    On July 27, 1998, New Hampshire submitted a request to revise its 
SIP by adding Chapter Env-A 3200, ``NOX Budget Trading 
Program'' and Final RACT Order, ARD-98-001. The state's submittal 
contains emission limits consistent with both Phase II and Phase III 
requirements of the OTC NOX MOU. Facilities covered by the 
rule needed to comply by the 1999 ozone season. Additionally, Final 
RACT Order ARD-98-001 contains emission limits for unit # 2 at 
Merrimack Station, with a May 31, 1999 effective date. EPA approved 
both of these submittals in a direct final

[[Page 18496]]

action published in the Federal Register on November 14, 2000 (65 FR 
68078).
    New Hampshire projects that in 1999 NOX emissions from 
point sources in the two serious nonattainment areas, combined with the 
emissions added from Merrimack Station, will be 25 tons per day lower 
than 1990 emission levels due to the above two NOX control 
measures.
    The New Hampshire post-1996 ROP plan demonstrates that the VOC and 
NOX emission reductions from the control strategy will 
achieve sufficient emission reductions to lower 1999 emission levels 
below the target levels calculated for each pollutant.

I. Have These Emission Reductions Improved Air Quality in New 
Hampshire?

    Ozone levels have decreased in New Hampshire during the 1990's, due 
in part to emission reductions achieved by the state's plans. Pollution 
control measures implemented by states upwind of New Hampshire have 
also helped ozone levels decline in the state.

J. Has New Hampshire Met Its Contingency Measure Obligation?

    Ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or above must 
submit to the EPA, pursuant to section 182(c)(9) of the Act, 
contingency measures to be implemented if an area misses an ozone SIP 
milestone. New Hampshire's contingency plan consists of surplus 
NOX emission reductions generated by the control programs in 
its ROP plans. New Hampshire incorporated the 3% contingency reduction 
obligation in its derivation of 1999 emission target levels. Table I 
illustrates that the 1999 emission target levels are met for both 
pollutants in both areas, thereby demonstrating that the 3% contingency 
obligation has been met. We are approving the state's demonstration 
that it meets the contingency measure requirement of section 182(c)(9) 
of the Act.

K. Are Conformity Budgets Contained in the Plan?

    Section 176(c) of the Act, and 40 CFR 51.452(b) of the federal 
transportation conformity rule require states to establish motor 
vehicle emissions budgets in any control strategy SIP that is submitted 
for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. New Hampshire will use 
such budgets to determine whether proposed projects that attract 
traffic will ``conform'' to the emissions assumptions in the SIP.
    New Hampshire's post-1996 plans include motor vehicle emission 
budgets for 1999. However, New Hampshire submitted an ozone attainment 
demonstration SIP revision to EPA on June 30, 1998. The ozone 
attainment demonstration establishes the VOC and NOX 
emission budgets for 2003 shown in Table 2.

    Table 2.--2003 Emission Budgets for On-road Mobile Sources (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2003     2003
                         Area                             VOC      NOX
                                                         budget   budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NH portion of Bos-Law-Wor area........................    10.72    21.37
Por-Dov-Roc area......................................     6.97    13.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------

By letter dated August 19, 1998, we informed New Hampshire that the 
motor vehicle budgets contained within the state's ozone attainment 
demonstration were adequate for conformity purposes. The 2003 VOC and 
NOX budgets established by the New Hampshire ozone 
attainment demonstration are currently the controlling budgets for 
conformity determinations for 2003 and later years.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving the New Hampshire post-1996 rate-of-progress 
emission reduction plans and contingency plan as a revision to the 
state's SIP. The 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 to approve the SIP revision 
should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective 
June 17, 2002 without further notice unless the Agency receives 
relevant adverse comments by May 16, 2002.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice 
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will 
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in 
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. Only parties 
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this 
time. If EPA receives no such comments, the Agency advises the public 
that this rule will be effective on June 17, 2002 and no further action 
will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives 
adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and 
if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA 
may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the 
subject of an adverse comment.

III. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
states, on the relationship between the national government and the 
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule 
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices,

[[Page 18497]]

provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
    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 rule 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 June 17, 2002. Interested 
parties should 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. 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 4, 2002.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

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 52.1534 is added to subpart EE to read as follows:


Sec. 52.1534  Control strategy: Ozone.

    (a) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the New 
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services on September 27, 1996. 
These revisions are for the purpose of satisfying the rate of progress 
requirement of section 182(c)(2)(B), and the contingency measure 
requirements of section 182(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act, for the 
Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester serious area, and the New Hampshire portion 
of the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester serious area.

[FR Doc. 02-9066 Filed 4-15-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P