22956 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

include the officers and employees of 

related entities as provided in 

§ 1.367(a)–2T(b)(3). 

(2) Insurance business. The term 

insurance business means the business 

of issuing insurance and annuity 

contracts and the reinsuring of risks 

underwritten by insurance companies, 

together with those investment activities 

and administrative services that are 

required to support or are substantially 

related to insurance and annuity 

contracts issued or reinsured by the 

foreign corporation. For purposes of the 

preceding sentence— 

(i) An investment activity is any 

activity engaged in by the foreign 

corporation to produce income of a kind 

that would be foreign personal holding 

company income as defined in section 

954(c); and 

(ii) Investment activities are required 

to support or are substantially related to 

insurance and annuity contracts issued 

or reinsured by the foreign corporation 

to the extent that income from the 

activities is earned from assets held by 

the foreign corporation to meet 

obligations under the contracts. 

(c) Effective/applicability date. These 

regulations apply beginning 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 

John M. Dalrymple, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09630 Filed 4–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0796; EPA–R01– 

OAR–2014–0862; FRL–9926–73–Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire; Nonattainment New 

Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

conditionally approve the New 

Hampshire November 15, 2012 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions that 

are intended to ensure that the State’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR) programs are consistent 

with the federal PSD and NNSR 

program requirements. In a letter dated 

March 20, 2015, the New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services 

(NH DES) committed to revising its 

regulations no later than one year from 

the date when EPA publishes a notice 

of final conditional approval, and to 

submitting the revised regulations to 

EPA for approval into the SIP. EPA is 

also proposing to fully approve a July 1, 

2003 SIP revision that clarifies two 

definitions related to New Hampshire’s 

permitting programs. These actions are 

being taken in accordance with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 26, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2014–0796 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: mcdonnell.ida@epa.gov 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0653 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0796’’, 

Ida McDonnell, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and 

Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Ida McDonnell, 

Manager, Air Permits, Toxics, and 

Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

legal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2014– 

0796. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. 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 either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Air Permits, Toxics and 

Indoor Programs Unit, 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. 

In addition, copies of the state 

submittal and EPA’s proposed approval 

and technical support document are 

also available for public inspection 

during normal business hours, by 

appointment at the Air Resources 

Division, New Hampshire Department 

of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen 

Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302– 

0095. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brendan McCahill, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and 

Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912, telephone 

number (617) 918–1652, Fax number 

(617) 918–0652, email 

mccahill.brendan@EPA.GOV. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22957 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Organization of this document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing in this 

document? 

II. Why is EPA reproposing its January 21, 

2015 proposed approval of New 

Hampshire’s November 15, 2012 PSD 

program SIP submittal? 

III. What comments did EPA receive during 

the comment period for New 

Hampshire’s PSD proposed program 

approval? 

IV. What action is EPA proposing for New 

Hampshire’s NNSR SIP submittal? 

A. What is the background for New 

Hampshire’s November 15, 2012 NNSR 

program SIP submittal? 

B. What revisions did EPA make in 

December 31, 2002? 

C. What revisions did EPA make in May 16, 

2008? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of New 

Hampshire’s proposed NNSR program 

SIP revisions? 

A. What requirements did EPA apply in 

deciding to propose conditional 

approval of some of New Hampshire’s 

SIP submittal? 

B. What provisions did New Hampshire 

include in its November 15, 2012 NNSR 

SIP submittal? 

C. How did the New Hampshire November 

15, 2012 NNSR SIP submittal meet new 

and existing NNSR program 

requirements? 

D. How did New Hampshire demonstrate 

that the definitions of ‘‘Baseline actual 

emissions’’ and ‘‘Reasonable period’’ are 

as stringent as the corresponding federal 

definitions? 

E. What are the provisions that New 

Hampshire needs to submit in order for 

the conditional approval to become a full 

approval? 

VI. What action is EPA proposing for New 

Hampshire’s July 21, 2003 SIP submittal 

to its PART Env-A 101: Permit 

definitions? 

VII. Proposed Action 

VIII. Incorporation by Reference 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing in this 

document? 

EPA is proposing three actions in this 

document. First, EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve revisions to the 

New Hampshire PSD program under 

PART Env-A 619, ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration.’’ EPA 

originally proposed approval of the 

State’s PSD program revisions on 

January 21, 2015. See 80 FR 2860. EPA 

is reproposing to approve the State’s 

PSD program as a conditional approval 

because subsequent to EPA’s January 21, 

2015 Federal Register document, EPA 

concluded that New Hampshire’s 

regulations did not contain a provision, 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), 

requiring notice of a draft PSD permit to 

state air agencies whose lands may be 

affected by emissions from the 

permitted source. In a letter from New 

Hampshire dated March 20, 2015, the 

State committed to revise its 

regulations, no later than one year from 

EPA’s notice of a final conditional 

approval, to include the additional 

public notice procedure in its 

regulations and to submit the revision to 

EPA for approval into the SIP. 

EPA is also proposing to conditionally 

approve revisions to New Hampshire’s 

NNSR program SIP submitted on 

November 15, 2012. The approval is 

conditioned on New Hampshire 

submitting in a timely manner two 

requirements missing from its rules: (1) 

Provisions that meet the federal 

regulations for ‘‘reasonable possibility,’’ 

applicable to projects at major stationary 

sources that are not major modifications 

based on the actual-to-projected actual 

test but have a ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ 

of resulting in a significant emission 

increase; and (2) provisions stating that 

approval to construct shall not relieve 

any owner or operator of the 

responsibility to comply fully with 

applicable provisions of the plan and 

any other requirements under local, 

state or federal law. In a letter dated 

March 20, 2015, the NH DES committed 

to revising its NNSR regulations to 

include the requirements above and to 

submitting the revised regulations to 

EPA for approval into the SIP. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 

New Hampshire’s July 1, 2003 SIP 

revision that modifies two definitions in 

PART Env-A 101, ‘‘Permit definitions:’’ 

(1) ‘‘minor permit amendment,’’ and (2) 

‘‘state permit to operate.’’ These 

revisions are intended to clarify the 

State’s definitions relevant to certain 

permitting transactions and to render 

them consistent with the requirements 

in the State’s permitting rules. 

II. Why is EPA reproposing its January 

21, 2015 proposed approval of New 

Hampshire’s November 15, 2012 PSD 

program SIP submittal? 

EPA’s original proposal to approve 

the November 15, 2012 revisions to New 

Hampshire’s PSD program is described 

in detail in the January 21, 2015 Federal 

Register document. See 80 FR 2860. In 

the document, EPA noted that public 

participation requirements for New 

Hampshire’s PSD program were first 

approved in October 28, 2002. In the 

November 15, 2012 submittal, New 

Hampshire renumbered its State citation 

for the public notice procedures but did 

not include any substantive revisions to 

the language. However, after reviewing 

New Hampshire’s rules to determine 

compliance with the federal 

infrastructure SIP requirements under 

CAA section 110, EPA concluded that 

New Hampshire’s regulations did not 

contain a provision, consistent with 40 

CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), requiring notice of 

a draft PSD permit to be sent to state air 

agencies whose lands may be affected 

by emissions from the permitted source. 

As noted above, EPA is now proposing 

to conditionally approve New 

Hampshire’s PSD program based on the 

State’s commitment to revise its 

regulation and to submit it to EPA for 

approval into the SIP. 

III. What comments did EPA receive 

during the comment period for New 

Hampshire’s PSD proposed program 

approval? 

EPA received one comment from 

Earthjustice during the comment period 

for the proposed approval of the PSD 

program. Earthjustice commented that 

EPA’s January 21, 2015 document 

proposing approval for the State’s PSD 

program was confusing and should have 

more clearly stated that New Hampshire 

did not incorporate by reference the 

significant impact levels (SILs) for 

Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns 

(PM2.5) into its PSD SIP. EPA agrees that 

its January 21, 2015 document should 

have been written more clearly on that 

point. On January 22, 2013, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit granted a request 

from EPA to vacate and remand the 

portions of the PM2.5 PSD IncrementSILs-SMC Rule (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 

40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) addressing the SILs 

for PM2.5 so that EPA could voluntarily 

correct an error in these provisions. See 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 463– 

66 (D.C. Cir. 2013). (The court declined 

to vacate the SILs provision at 40 CFR 

51.165(b)(2) that did not contain that 

same error. Id.) EPA here confirms that 

New Hampshire’s November 12, 2012 

proposed PSD revisions did not 

incorporate by reference the PM2.5 SIL 

provision under 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2). 

EPA is also confirming that we are not 

approving 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) into the 

SIP. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing for 

New Hampshire’s NNSR SIP submittal? 

New Hampshire’s November 15, 2012 

SIP submittal also included revisions to 

the State’s NNSR program at PART EnvA 618, ‘‘Nonattainment New Source 

Review.’’ The revisions incorporated by 

reference into the State’s regulations, at 

PART Env-A 618 ‘‘Nonattainment New 

Source Review,’’ consist of many of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22958 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

provisions of the federal NNSR program 

codified in the July 1, 2011 edition of 40 

CFR 51.165. New Hampshire 

incorporated those provisions which are 

appropriate for state implementation 

(with the exception of certain permit 

application and public notice 

requirements for which New Hampshire 

submitted its own equivalent language 

and with the exception of two 

definitions for which New Hampshire 

established its own language, as 

described below). EPA’s Technical 

Support Document (TSD) sets forth in 

detail which provisions of 40 CFR 

51.165 were incorporated by the State 

and which were not. EPA’s TSD is 

available as part of the docket and 

administrative record for this action. 

The State’s NNSR submittal requested 

that EPA approve the revisions into the 

State’s SIP-approved NNSR program. 

The State’s submitted NNSR program 

includes provisions that comply with 

the requirements in EPA’s December 31, 

2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules and 

EPA’s May 16, 2008 Final Rules 

Governing the Implementation of NSR 

for Fine Particulate Matter (i.e., 

particulate matter less than 2.5 

micrometers (PM2.5)). EPA is proposing 

to conditionally approve PART Env-A 

618 because the State’s submittal did 

not include: (1) provisions for 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ established in 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and (a)(7); and (2) 

provisions required under 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(5)(i) providing that approval 

to construct shall not relieve any owner 

or operator of the responsibility to 

comply fully with applicable provisions 

of the plan and any other requirements 

under local, State or Federal law. By 

letter dated March 20, 2015, the State 

committed to revise its regulations and 

to submit them to EPA for approval into 

the SIP no later than one year from the 

date of EPA’s notice of a final 

conditional approval. We also note that 

PART Env-A 618, on which EPA is 

today taking action, will supersede all 

other versions of the NNSR rules earlier 

approved by EPA into New Hampshire’s 

SIP. 

A. What is the background for New 

Hampshire’s November 15, 2012 NNSR 

program SIP submittal? 

New Hampshire’s November 15, 2012 

SIP submittal adopting provisions from 

the July 1, 2011 edition of 40 CFR 

51.165 (with the exceptions mentioned 

above and described in more detail in 

EPA’s TSD) into the SIP, involves the 

addition of several major changes to the 

State’s NNSR rules since EPA last 

approved the State’s NNSR program on 

July 27, 2001. As mentioned earlier, the 

exact provisions of the federal 

regulations which are and are not being 

incorporated by reference into the New 

Hampshire SIP in this action are 

contained in EPA’s TSD for this 

rulemaking. The new NNSR provisions, 

i.e., those that are different than the 

NNSR provisions earlier approved by 

EPA into New Hampshire’s SIP, are 

summarized below in the next two 

sections (IV.B. and IV.C) of this 

document. The State’s November 15, 

2012 SIP submittal retains much of the 

substantive content of the major NNSR 

rule provisions last approved into the 

SIP on July 27, 2001 but also 

incorporates changes to the federal 

regulations that occurred since that 

time, i.e. in December 2002. The already 

existing provisions include, among 

other things, requirements for major 

stationary sources to obtain emission 

reductions (‘‘offsets’’) from existing 

stationary sources to ensure new 

stationary sources do not interfere with 

state plans to achieve the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and requirements that major 

stationary sources apply emissions 

controls that constitute the lowest 

achievable emission rate (LAER) which 

is derived from the most stringent 

emission limitation contained in any 

state implementation plan or achieved 

in practice for that class or category of 

stationary source. 

B. What revisions did EPA make in 

December 31, 2002? 

EPA issued a Final Rule entitled, 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR): Baseline Emissions 

Determination, Actual-to-Future-Actual 

Methodology, Plantwide Applicability 

Limitations, Clean Units, Pollution 

Control Projects’’ (67 FR 80185, 

December 31, 2002). The rule made a 

number of changes to the applicability 

requirements of the federal NNSR rule 

including the following: 

• A new definition of ‘‘actual 

emission baseline’’ that defines an 

emission unit’s pre-modification actual 

emissions; 

• New ‘‘Applicability Procedures’’ 

under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2) that define 

the test method used to calculate the 

emission increase from the construction 

or modification of new or existing 

emission units; 

• The expansion of the ‘‘Actual-toProjected Actual’’ applicability test to 

determine if projects at non-Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units (nonEUSGU) are major modifications. (The 

pre-2002 federal NSR regulations 

restricted the Actual-to-Projected Actual 

applicability test to EUSGUs only); 

• New procedures requiring 

stationary sources to monitor, keep 

records and report emissions from 

projects at existing emission units if 

there is a reasonable possibility (as 

defined in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6)(vi)) that 

a project that is determined preconstruction not to be a major 

modification may actually in the future 

result in a significant emission increase; 

and 

• The addition of the optional 

‘‘Plantwide Applicability Test’’ (PAL) 

for all source categories. 

The Federal Register document for 

the December 2002 NSR rule gave state 

permitting agencies until January 2, 

2006 to submit SIP amendments that 

implemented the new federal revisions 

or, if a state permitting agency did not 

submit any SIP amendments or 

submitted amendments that differed 

from the federal rules, a demonstration 

showing that its existing permitting 

program or amended permitting 

program is at least as stringent as EPA’s 

revised program. In addition, federal 

regulations governing SIP-approved 

NNSR rules at 40 CFR 51.165 ‘‘Permit 

Requirements’’ require that all state 

plans use the specific definitions as 

promulgated by EPA. Deviations from 

the federal definitions will be 

approvable by EPA only if the state 

specifically demonstrates that the 

submitted definition is more stringent 

than, or at least as stringent in all 

respects as, the corresponding federal 

definition. 

The final document for the December 

2002 NSR rule at http://www.epa.gov/

NSR/fr/20021231_80186.pdf provides a 

full description of the NSR 

improvements, the requirements for SIP 

submittals, and the final amended 

federal rule for SIP-approved NNSR 

programs at 40 CFR 51.165 ‘‘Permit 

Requirements.’’ 

C. What revisions did EPA make in May 

16, 2008? 

EPA issued a Final Rule governing the 

implementation of NSR for PM2.5. (73 

FR 28321, May 16, 2008). The rule 

includes the new major stationary 

source applicability threshold level for 

major stationary sources of PM2.5. A 

stationary source is defined as a major 

stationary source and subject to the 

PM2.5 NNSR requirements if it emits 100 

or more tons per year (tpy) of PM2.5. 

The rule also identified the following 

list of pollutants that contribute to PM2.5

formation and a description of whether 

the pollutant, as a precursor to PM2.5, is 

regulated under the NNSR rules. 

• Direct emissions of PM2.5— 

regulated under the NNSR rule; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22959 

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2)—regulated 

under the NNSR rule; 

• Nitrogen oxides (NOX)—regulated 

under the NNSR rule unless the state 

demonstrates that NOX emissions are 

not a significant contributor to the 

formation of PM2.5 for an area(s) in the 

state; 

• Volatile organic compounds 

(VOC)—not regulated under the NNSR 

rule unless the state demonstrates that 

VOC emissions are a significant 

contributor to the formation of PM2.5 for 

an area(s) in the state; and 

• Ammonia—not regulated under the 

NNSR rule unless the state demonstrates 

that ammonia emissions are a 

significant contributor to the formation 

of PM2.5 for an area(s) in the state. 

The rule also identifies the following 

significant emission rates used to 

determine if increases in direct 

emissions of PM2.5 or increases in PM2.5

precursors from a construction project at 

an existing facility result in major 

modifications that are then subject to 

the NNSR rule: 

• Direct PM2.5 emissions—10 tons per 

year (tpy) 

• SO2 emissions—40 tpy 

• NOX emissions—40 tpy 

• VOC emissions (if regulated) 40 tpy 

unless the state demonstrates that a 

lower rate is appropriate. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of New 

Hampshire’s proposed NNSR program 

SIP revisions? 

A. What requirements did EPA apply in 

deciding to propose conditional 

approval of New Hampshire’s SIP 

submittal? 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

each state to submit to EPA a plan 

which provides for the implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of each 

NAAQS. These plans, generally referred 

to as the SIP, include numerous air 

quality monitoring, emission inventory, 

and emission control requirements 

designed to obtain and maintain the 

NAAQS within the state. The CAA 

requires states to adopt SIP revisions 

into state regulations and to submit the 

revisions to EPA for approval into the 

state’s SIP. Section 110(l) of the CAA 

states that EPA shall not approve a 

revision to the SIP if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment (of 

the NAAQS) and reasonable further 

progress (as defined in CAA section 

7501) or any other requirement of the 

CAA. 

B. What provisions did New Hampshire 

include in its November 15, 2012 NNSR 

SIP submittal? 

New Hampshire’s November 15, 2012 

SIP submittal added or revised the 

following provisions to its NNSR 

Program under PART Env-A 618 

Nonattainment New Source Review. The 

provisions include requirements from 

40 CFR 51.165 previously incorporated 

by reference into New Hampshire’s SIP 

on July 27, 2001, additional or amended 

requirements contained in the July 2011 

version of 40 CFR 51.165, and certain 

new and previously approved state 

permit program requirements, including 

permit application and permit issuance 

procedures and other requirements 

necessary to implement the NNSR 

program. 

• PART Env-A 618.01: Purpose 

• PART Env-A 618.02: Applicability 

• PART Env-A 618.03: Definitions 

• PART Env-A 618.04: Owner or 

Operator Obligations 

• PART Env-A 618.05 Implementation 

Plan Requirements 

• PART Env-A 618.06: Permit 

Application Requirements 

• PART Env-A 618.07: Emission Offset 

Requirements 

• PART Env-A 618.08: Procedure for 

acquiring and Implementing Emission 

Offsets 

• PART Env-A 618.09: Establishing a 

PAL 

• PART Env-A 618.10 Department 

Review and Public Notice 

The following is a description of each 

section. 

PART Env-A 618.01 Purpose defines 

the purpose of the part to implement the 

NNSR program as set forth in sections 

171 through 193 of the CAA and the 

July 1, 2011 edition of 40 CFR 51.165. 

PART Env-A 618.02 Applicability 

identifies the stationary sources subject 

to the state NNSR program: New major 

stationary source or major modifications 

of a regulated NSR pollutant located in 

an area designated as nonattainment 

under 40 CFR 81.330, or new major 

stationary sources or major 

modifications for NOX or VOC if the 

stationary source is located in the 

Northeast Ozone Transport region (OTR) 

as defined in PART Env-A 618.03(b)(3). 

The section also requires projects to 

use emission calculations described in 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(2)(ii)(A) through (F) to 

determine if the project is a new major 

stationary source or new major 

modification. 

In addition, if a new stationary source 

or modification is determined to be a 

major stationary source or major 

modification solely by virtue of a 

relaxation in any enforceable limitation 

established after August 7, 1980 on the 

capacity of the stationary source or 

modification otherwise to emit a 

pollutant, such as a restriction on hours 

of operation, then the provisions of this 

part shall apply to the stationary source 

or modification as though construction 

had not yet commenced on the 

stationary source or modification. 

PART Env-A 618.03 Definitions 

adopts the specific definitions 

contained in the July 1, 2011 edition of 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(1) and (f)(2) with the 

following clarifications: The NH DES 

revised the federal definitions of 

‘‘Baseline actual emissions’’ and 

‘‘Reasonable period.’’ An analysis of the 

State’s revisions to the federal 

definitions of the terms ‘‘Baseline actual 

emissions’’ and ‘‘Reasonable period’’ is 

found in section V.D of this document. 

The section also included five 

additional definitions not specifically 

defined in the federal NNSR regulations, 

but relevant to the program: ‘‘Emission 

offset,’’ ‘‘Emission offset ratio,’’ 

‘‘Northeast Ozone Transport Region,’’ 

‘‘Offset source,’’ and ‘‘Ozone season.’’ 

PART Env-A 618.04 Owner or 

Operator Obligations includes the 

following requirements: 

• The owner or operator of any new 

major stationary source or major 

modification subject to this part shall 

comply with LAER; 

• obtain offsets for the increase in 

emissions for the project in accordance 

with PART Env-A 618.07; and 

• obtain a NNSR permit prior to 

commencement of construction. 

In addition, the owner or operator of 

an existing major stationary source with 

a Plantwide applicability limit (PAL) 

shall comply with the provisions of its 

PAL. 

PART Env-A 618.05 Implementation 

Plan Requirements ensures, in 

accordance with section 173(a)(4) of the 

CAA, that NH DES will not issue a 

permit or permits to a stationary source 

to which the requirements of PART EnvA 618 apply if the EPA Administrator 

has determined that the applicable 

implementation plan is not being 

adequately implemented for the 

nonattainment area in which the 

proposed stationary source is to be 

constructed or modified. 

PART Env-A 618.06 Permit 

Application Requirements identifies the 

procedures to file with NH DES, NNSR 

and PAL permit applications. The 

section also identifies the items that 

should be included in an application 

including: (1) A control technology 

evaluation to demonstrate that a new 

major stationary source or major 

modification will meet LAER; (2) a 

documented plan to obtain creditable 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22960 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1New Hampshire’s few changes to definitions 

used in the federal regulations and use of several 

additional clarifying definitions, as explained in 

this document, are also approvable because they are 

consistent with all CAA requirements for approval 

into the SIP. 

emission reduction offsets in 

accordance with PART Env-A 618.07; 

(3) a demonstration showing that all 

major stationary sources in New 

Hampshire under common ownership 

are in compliance; and (4) an analysis 

of alternative sites, sizes, production 

processes, and an environmental control 

techniques demonstration showing the 

benefits of the proposed stationary 

source significantly outweigh the 

environmental and social costs imposed 

as a result of its location, construction, 

or modification. In addition, a PAL 

application shall contain information 

required pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.165(f)(3). 

PART Env-A 618.07 Emission Offset 

Requirements identifies the 

requirements for offsets including, but 

not limited to, defining: (1) the use of 

actual emissions from the stationary 

source providing offset credits as the 

baseline for determining emission 

offsets; (2) the offset ratio requirements 

for different ozone nonattainment 

designations; and (3) the location 

requirements restricting where a 

stationary source may obtain offsets. 

The section includes requirements for a 

stationary source seeking offsets to 

demonstrate that the stationary source 

of the offsets causes or contributes to a 

violation of a NAAQS in the 

nonattainment area which the new or 

modified stationary source is proposed 

to be located. The section also requires 

that offsets obtained outside of New 

Hampshire be subject to a federally 

enforceable permit or other federally 

enforceable document approved by the 

state or governing jurisdiction in which 

the offset stationary source is located. 

The section also states that offsets 

shall not include: (1) Any reductions 

from compliance, or scheduled 

compliance, with applicable rules in 

effect prior to the permit application of 

the new or modified stationary source; 

(2) Reductions required to meet RACT 

or acid deposition provisions of the Act, 

as stipulated in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 

FR 13553, III.G.2.e; or 3) Reductions 

required to meet any other provisions of 

Env-A 100 et seq. and the Act. 

PART Env-A 618.08 Procedures for 

Acquiring and Implementing Emission 

Offsets identifies requirements for 

owners and operators to document the 

offset pollutant, actual and potential 

estimates of each new pollutant, the 

offset stationary source and location, the 

actual and allowable annual estimate of 

each pollutant for the offset stationary 

source prior to the effective date of the 

offset, potential annual estimates of 

each pollutant of the new stationary 

source after the effective date of the 

offset, and for NOX and VOC emissions, 

the ozone season annual emissions 

estimate from the new stationary source. 

The section also requires stationary 

sources obtaining offsets from outside 

New Hampshire to file documentation 

with the NH DES verifying that the 

offset stationary source has obtained a 

federally enforceable permit or other 

federally enforceable documentation for 

the emission reduction control measures 

pertaining to the offsets for the new 

stationary source. 

The section also allows the use of 

emission reduction credits (ERCs) in 

accordance to PART Env-A 3006.04 to 

satisfy NNSR emissions offset 

requirements. Stationary sources may 

also use discrete emission reductions 

(DERs) to meet the offset requirements 

provided the DERs comply with the 

requirements of section 173 of the Act, 

40 CFR 51.165(a) and PART Env-A 

3108.02. 

Env A 618.09 Establishing a PAL 

identifies the requirements to establish 

and implement a PAL in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.165(f)(1), (4) and (6) 

through (14) except that public 

participation procedures identified in 

PART Env-A 618.10(b) and (c) shall be 

used. 

PART Env-A 618.10 Department 

Review and Public Notice requires 

stationary sources applying for a PAL 

permit to file an application. The 

regulation specifies that NH DES will 

address all material comments received 

during the comment period before 

taking a final action on a PAL permit 

application. Applications to comply 

with NNSR or to establish a PAL permit 

shall be subject to the public notice 

procedures specified in PART Env-A 

621.04 including the requirement for a 

30-day public notice and comment 

period and permit appeal procedures 

under the state judicial review 

regulations. 

C. How did the New Hampshire 

November 15, 2012 NNSR SIP submittal 

meet new and existing NNSR program 

requirements? 

With the exception of the definitions 

of the terms ‘‘Baseline actual emissions’’ 

and ‘‘Reasonable period,’’ the NH DES’s 

November 15, 2012 SIP submittal 

incorporated by reference into the State 

regulation the definitions for a SIPapproved nonattainment NSR program 

under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1) and the 

definitions for PALs under 40 CFR 

51.165(f)(2). The submittal also 

included five additional definitions: 

‘‘Emission offset,’’ ‘‘Emission offset 

ratio,’’ ‘‘Northeast Ozone Transport 

Region,’’ ‘‘Offset source,’’ and ‘‘Ozone 

season’’ for the purpose of clarifying the 

State’s NNSR requirements. The 

definitions for ‘‘Emission offset,’’ 

‘‘Emission offset ratio’’ and ‘‘Ozone 

season’’ were previously approved by 

EPA into the SIP and clarify the offset 

requirements under New Hampshire’s 

NNSR program. The definition for the 

‘‘Northeast Ozone Transport Region’’ 

was also previously approved by EPA 

into the SIP and means the same 

geographical area as defined under 

Section 184(a) of the CAA. The 

definition of ‘‘Offset source’’ replaces 

the previously approved SIP definition 

of ‘‘Offset donor source’’ and identifies 

potential sources of emissions from 

which a new or modified stationary 

source may obtain emission offsets. The 

additional definitions help clarify the 

offset requirements under New 

Hampshire’s NNSR program and are 

consistent with all federal requirements 

under the CAA for approval into the 

SIP. 

By incorporating by reference the 

federal provisions under 40 CFR 51.165 

(with the exceptions noted earlier and 

in EPA’s TSD) the vast majority of the 

State’s proposed SIP revisions satisfy 

the existing SIP-approved NNSR 

program requirements approved on July 

27, 2001, the December 31, 2002 NSR 

Improvement Rule, and the May 16, 

2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule.1 The two 

conditional approval issues that are 

missing from New Hampshire’s 

submittal are described earlier and later 

in this document. 

The NH DES submittal also expanded 

upon the emissions offset provisions 

previously approved into the SIP. As 

noted, the submittal includes a new 

definition for ‘‘Emission offset’’ under 

PART Env-A 618.03 requiring 

reductions in pollutants achieved at an 

existing stationary source to meet 

criteria specified in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3). 

The NH DES also included two new 

sections in the NNSR program; Env 

618.07, ‘‘Emission Offset Requirements’’ 

and Section PART Env-A 618.08, 

‘‘Procedure for Acquiring and 

Implementing Emissions Offsets.’’ 

As described above, PART Env-A 

618.07 identifies the specific provisions 

applicable to all offset emissions. These 

provisions include requirements that 

offsets: (1) Be surplus; (2) obtained from 

an area designated with an equal or 

higher nonattainment classification; (3) 

obtained in an amount equal to or 

exceeding a one-to one ratio, or another 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22961 

ratio as required by the nonattainment 

designation; and, 4) if obtained outside 

the designated area where the new 

stationary source or modification is to 

be constructed, a demonstration that the 

offsets cause or contribute to a violation 

of the NAAQS in which the stationary 

source or modification is to be 

constructed, as allowed under section 

173(c)(1) of the CAA. 

PART Env-A 618.08 identifies the 

procedures for documenting emission 

reductions used for offsets. Among other 

requirements, the section allows 

stationary sources subject to the offset 

provisions to use ERCs in accordance 

with PART Env-A 3006.04. The section 

also allows DERs to meet the offset 

requirements, provided the DERs 

comply with the requirements of section 

173 of the CAA, 40 CFR 51.165(a) and 

PART Env-A 3108.02. As explained 

below, EPA previously has allowed the 

use of DERs to meet a CAA emissions 

requirement. EPA has determined, given 

the procedures that will apply to the use 

of DERs and ERCs to meet the NNSR 

emissions offset requirements, that it is 

appropriate and consistent with CAA 

requirements to approve these 

provisions into New Hampshire’s SIP. 

In EPA’s approval of New 

Hampshire’s Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for Nitrogen 

Oxide (NOX) and Volatile Organic 

Compounds (79 FR 49458, August 21 

2014), EPA allowed stationary sources 

subject to the State’s RACT rule to 

comply by the purchase and generation 

of DER credits pursuant to PART EnvA 3100. The approval further states, 

since PART Env-A 3100 has not been 

approved into the SIP, any order issued 

by New Hampshire that allows the use 

of PART Env-A 3100 to comply with 

NOX RACT will need to be approved 

into New Hampshire’s SIP as a source 

specific SIP revision. 

Similar to the RACT rule, since PART 

Env-A 3000 and PART Env-A 3100 have 

not been approved by EPA into the SIP, 

any NNSR permit issued by New 

Hampshire that allows for the use of 

ERCs and/or DERs to meet an offset 

requirement would first need the ERC or 

DER offset to be approved by EPA into 

the SIP before the NNSR permit could 

be issued. Each individual SIP approval 

of a stationary source’s use of DERs and/ 

or ERCs for the purpose of meeting the 

NNSR emissions offset requirement, 

would be required to meet the 

requirements identified in PART Env-A 

618.07 and PART Env-A 618.08 and to 

satisfy all offset and any other relevant 

requirements of the CAA before EPA 

would be able to approve the use of the 

DERs and/or ERCs into the SIP for a 

specific proposed new major stationary 

source or modification. 

D. How did New Hampshire 

demonstrate that the definitions of 

‘‘Baseline actual emissions’’ and 

‘‘Reasonable period’’ are as stringent as 

the corresponding federal definitions? 

1. ‘‘Baseline Actual Emissions’’ Analysis 

The ‘‘Baseline actual emissions’’ 

definition is used in all major stationary 

source applicability tests and defines 

the actual emissions from a stationary 

source before the project. The difference 

between the pre-project ‘‘actual 

emission baseline’’ and the post-project 

‘‘projected actual emissions’’ determines 

the emission increase from a project. 

The federal definition of ‘‘Baseline 

actual emissions’’ at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxv) defines separate 

baseline emissions calculations for 

existing electric utility steam generating 

units (EUSGU) and all other existing 

emission units other than EUSGU. The 

key elements of the definition relevant 

to this document are as follows: 

• Existing EUSGU: The owner/

operator may select any consecutive 24- 

month period for each pollutant, 

without the need for a demonstration, 

within the 5-year period immediately 

preceding when the owner/operator 

begins actual construction of the project. 

The reviewing authority may allow the 

use of a different time period upon a 

determination showing the time period 

is more representative of normal 

stationary source operations. A different 

consecutive 24-month period can be 

used for each regulated pollutant. 

• All other existing emission units: 

The owner/operator may select any 

consecutive 24-month period in the 10- 

year period immediately preceding 

either the date the owner/operator 

begins actual construction or the date a 

completed permit application is 

received by the reviewing authority for 

a permit, whichever is earlier. No other 

different time period is allowed. A 

different consecutive 24-month period 

can be used for each regulated pollutant. 

The NH DES definition tracks the 

requirements in 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxv) except for the 

following differences: 

• Unlike the federal definitions, the 

State uses the same definition for 

EUSGUs and non-EUSGUs. 

• Under the State’s definition, in 

establishing baseline actual emissions 

for a project, the owner/operator 

presumptively shall select the same 

consecutive 24-month period for all 

pollutants; and the consecutive 24- 

month period shall be selected from 

within the 5-year period immediately 

preceding the date when the owner/

operator begins actual construction of 

the project. However, the NH DES shall 

allow the use of a different consecutive 

24-month time period for all pollutants, 

up to 10 years immediately preceding 

the date when the owner/operator 

begins actual construction of the project, 

or allow the use of a different 

consecutive 24-month period for 

different pollutants within that 10 year 

period, upon determining (after 

adequate demonstration by the 

applicant) that the alternative time 

period is more representative of normal 

stationary source operations. 

Forty CFR 51.165(a)(1) requires that 

all state plans use the specific 

definitions as promulgated by EPA. 

Deviations from the federal wording for 

each definition will be approved only if 

the state specifically demonstrates that 

the submitted definition is more 

stringent, or at least as stringent in all 

respects, as the corresponding federal 

definition. 

As part of the December 2002 NSR 

final rule, EPA prepared a November 21, 

2002, ‘‘Supplemental Analysis of the 

Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final 

NSR Improvement Rules (Supplemental 

Analysis).’’ The Supplemental Analysis 

provided a description of the NSR 

reform rules and an analysis 

demonstrating that the reform rule’s 

environmental benefits were equivalent 

to or more stringent than the existing 

pre-reform rules. For the addition of the 

definition of ‘‘Baseline actual 

emissions,’’ EPA concluded that the use 

of a 10 year period to select a baseline 

is a reasonable period considering the 

variability of different business cycles. 

EPA believes the effect from the new 

definition is small and would not alter 

the baseline for 90% of the stationary 

sources. For the remaining 10%, EPA 

cannot draw general conclusions about 

how many stationary sources would or 

would not receive an alternative 

baseline nor estimate what emission 

consequences would result. EPA’s 

complete analysis of the definition of 

‘‘Baseline Actual Emissions’’ can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/

documents/nsr-analysis.pdf. 

The NH DES included as part of its 

SIP submittal a November 16, 2012 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Supplemental 

Information for SIP Revision Request 

Parts of PART Env-A 600, Statewide 

Permit System.’’ Similar to the EPA’s 

study and analysis summarized above in 

the previous paragraph, the State’s 

memorandum described the differences 

between the federal and state ‘‘Baseline 

actual emissions’’ definitions and 

described an emissions study that 

compares the effects of the state and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22962 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

federal definition on emission changes 

to actual stationary sources located in 

New Hampshire. The NH DES’s analysis 

looked at the federal definition of 

baseline actual emission, the State’s 

presumptive or default baseline actual 

emission method (i.e., 24 consecutive 

months selected from the 5 years 

preceding actual construction for all 

regulated pollutants), and the State’s 

allowed alternative emission baseline if 

the owner/operator could demonstrate 

normal stationary source operations are 

better represented by: 

• Use of an alternative 24-consecutive 

month period selected from the period 

between 5 to 10 years immediately 

preceding beginning actual 

construction, and 

• use of different 24-consecutive 

month periods for different regulated 

pollutants, within the period between 5 

and 10 years immediately preceding 

beginning actual construction. 

For the majority of changes occurring 

at any type of stationary source, the 

State’s presumptive or default baseline 

actual emissions method (using a 24- 

consecutive month period during the 5 

year period immediately preceding 

beginning actual construction) resulted 

in the same or lower baseline emissions 

as compared to the federal definition. 

For owner/operators that could 

demonstrate that normal stationary 

source operations were better 

represented by 24 consecutive months 

selected from the 5 to 10 year period 

preceding beginning actual construction 

or that different consecutive 24-month 

periods for different regulated 

pollutants better represent normal 

stationary source operations, the 

analysis showed that the State’s 

definition resulted in baseline emissions 

that were at least as stringent in all cases 

to the federal definition. 

EPA therefore concludes that the NH 

DES’s definition of ‘‘Baseline actual 

emissions’’ is as stringent in all respects 

as the federal definition. The State’s 

definition results in the same emission 

baseline for new emission units, 

changes to existing EUSGUs, and 

changes at existing units that emit one 

pollutant and with high utilization rates 

within the last 5 years. For all other 

changes, the State’s definition allows 

the use of baselines selected outside of 

5 years (but before 10 years) and 

baselines for each regulated pollutant 

where appropriately demonstrated to be 

as stringent. As a result, any difference 

in the application of the state and 

federal definitions on the selection of 

baseline actual emissions would be 

insignificant at worst and would 

therefore result in permit applicability 

decisions, emissions limitations or 

emissions control requirements that are 

equally stringent. 

2. Reasonable Period Analysis 

The NH DES’s submittal also revised 

the definition for ‘‘Reasonable period.’’ 

The term ‘‘Reasonable period’’ is used 

in the definition for ‘‘Net emissions 

increase’’ and defines the 

contemporaneous period for the 

emission increases and decreases that 

are used in the calculation determining 

applicability of the NNSR regulations to 

a particular project. Under 

§ 51.165(a)(1)(vi)(C)(1), the reviewing 

authority is authorized to specify the 

applicable ‘‘Reasonable period.’’ 

Reviewing authorities typically use the 

period defined in the federal Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permitting program. That period begins 

five years before the date construction of 

the project commences and ends when 

the emissions increase from the project 

actually occurs. 

The NH DES’s definition for 

‘‘reasonable period’’ uses a period that 

begins five years from the date the NH 

DES receives a complete permit 

application for a project and ends upon 

the ‘‘expiration date’’ of the preconstruction permit issued for the 

project (at which time a NH DES-issued 

state operating permit for the project 

becomes effective). A ‘‘Reasonable 

period’’ based on a fixed date (i.e., the 

receipt of a complete permit 

application) ensures the stationary 

source, the permitting authority and the 

public that the NNSR applicability 

determination for a stationary source or 

modification will not change after the 

state has reviewed a permit application 

and made a permit decision. Since the 

5 year period will not change after the 

complete permit application is received, 

all contemporaneous emission increases 

and decreases used by the stationary 

source and state to determine NSR 

applicability will remain in effect. 

Under the federal definition, the 5- 

year period is based on the date 

construction commences, a date that 

may change significantly based on the 

many factors that could delay 

construction. As a result, the five year 

contemporaneous period would also be 

delayed. Emission increases previously 

within the contemporaneous period 

could fall outside the contemporaneous 

period and change the applicability of 

the stationary source or modification. In 

addition, the NH DES version of 

‘‘Reasonable period’’ extends out to the 

expiration date of the ‘‘temporary’’ or 

preconstruction air permit issued for the 

project, a date compatible with the NH 

DES’s air permitting program. Under the 

NH DES’s permit program, the initial 

preconstruction permit required before 

construction begins is referred to as a 

temporary permit. Temporary permits 

expire after 18 months. Before 

expiration, stationary sources must 

complete construction and begin 

operational testing or, if construction 

has not commenced with the 18 months, 

reapply for a new temporary permit. For 

those cases where a stationary source 

has completed construction and has 

begun to operate, the state and federal 

terms provide equivalent results. 

However, for stationary sources and 

permitting agencies that may have 

difficulty determining when a new 

stationary source has begun operating 

due to various stationary source startup 

issues, defining the end date of 

reasonable period in relation to a fixed 

permit expiration date (and 

corresponding permit to operate 

issuance date) ensures the state agency 

and the stationary source that NNSR 

program applicability will not change 

after initial permit decisions have been 

reviewed and approved. Considering the 

benefits of the NH DES’s version of 

‘‘Reasonable period’’ noted above, EPA 

concludes the State’s term for 

‘‘reasonable period’’ is approvable and 

is as stringent as the federal definition. 

E. What are the provisions that New 

Hampshire needs to submit in order for 

the conditional approval to become a 

full approval? 

The State’s proposed SIP revision did 

not include two provisions that 

preclude EPA from fully approving the 

State’s proposed NNSR SIP revisions. 

The first missing provision applies to 

any regulated NSR pollutant emitted 

from projects at existing emission units 

at a major stationary source (other than 

projects at a source with a PAL) in 

circumstances where there is a 

reasonable possibility, within the 

meaning of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6)(vi), that 

a project not a part of a major 

modification may result in a significant 

emissions increase of such pollutant, 

and the owner or operator elects to use 

the projected actual method specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(xxviii)(B)(1) through 

(3) for calculating projected actual 

emissions. These specific procedures 

include additional monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting for those 

projects that exceed 50% of the 

significant emission increase and 

significant net emission increase for the 

applicable pollutant. The NH DES has 

committed by letter dated March 20, 

2015 to submit for EPA approval into 

the SIP in a timely manner provisions 

that meet the requirements at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(6) and (a)(7) so that EPA may 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22963 

at that time fully approve the NH DES’s 

NNSR program. 

The second missing provision from 

NH DES’s submittal is the requirement 

at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i) that a State 

approval to construct shall not relieve 

any owner or operator of the 

responsibility to comply fully with 

applicable provisions of the plan and 

any other requirements under local, 

State or Federal law. This provision, 

originally part of the SIP and 

unintentionally left out of the November 

15, 2012 SIP submittal, affirms that 

sources subject to the NNSR program 

must continue to comply with all other 

applicable state and federal 

requirements. The NH DES has 

committed by letter dated March 20, 

2015 to submit for EPA approval into 

the SIP in a timely manner provisions 

that meet the requirements at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(5)(i) so that EPA may at that 

time fully approve the NH DES’s NNSR 

program. 

VI. What action is EPA proposing for 

New Hampshire’s s July 21, 2003 SIP 

submittal to its PART Env-A 101: 

Permit definitions? 

New Hampshire July 23, 2003 SIP 

submittal clarifies how the State 

addresses minor changes to the permit 

terms contained in ‘‘Temporary 

Permits’’ (i.e., preconstruction air 

quality permits) and ‘‘State Permits to 

Operate’’ issued under the State’s PART 

Env-A 600, Statewide Permit System. 

The current SIP-approved rules do not 

have definitions sufficient to address 

minor changes to existing permit terms 

or conditions for stationary sources, 

where the changes would not: (a) result 

in an increase in the amount of a 

specific air pollutant emitted by the 

source or device; (b) result in the 

emission of any additional air pollutant; 

or (c) necessitate the use of permit 

notice and hearing procedures. 

To address such minor changes to 

existing permit terms, the SIP submittal 

included definitions for the terms for 

‘‘minor permit amendment’’ and ‘‘state 

permit to operate.’’ The term ‘‘minor 

permit amendment’’ provides for minor 

changes to conditions in permits other 

than Title V permits (which are not 

issued pursuant to SIP regulations). The 

term ‘‘state permit to operate’’ means a 

non-Title V operating permit issued 

prior to operation or material 

modification of a stationary source, area 

stationary source or device. Both 

definitions are consistent with all 

federal requirements under the CAA for 

approval into the SIP. 

VII. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve the NH DES’s November 15, 

2012 PSD Program submittal originally 

proposed to be fully approved by EPA 

on January 21, 2015. The reproposed, 

conditional approval of the PSD 

program is conditioned on the State 

submitting in a timely manner a SIP 

revision that adds a provision, 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), 

requiring notice of a draft PSD permit to 

state air agencies whose lands may be 

affected by emissions from the 

permitted source. 

EPA is also proposing to conditionally 

approve PART Env-A 618 

‘‘Nonattainment New Source Review,’’ 

because the NH DES must submit to 

EPA in a timely manner additional 

provisions that comply with 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(6) and (a)(7) and 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(5)(i), i.e., 1) provisions for 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ established in 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and (a)(7); and 2) 

provisions required under 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(5)(i) providing that approval 

to construct shall not relieve any owner 

or operator of the responsibility to 

comply fully with applicable provisions 

of the plan and any other requirements 

under local, State or Federal law. 

Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, 

EPA may conditionally approve a 

State’s plan based on a commitment 

from the State to adopt specific 

enforceable measures by a date certain, 

but not later than 1 year from the date 

of final conditional approval. By letter 

dated March 20, 2015 New Hampshire 

has committed to revising its regulations 

to be consistent with EPA’s regulations 

not later than one year after EPA’s 

publication of a notice of final 

conditional approval. If the State fails to 

do so in a timely manner, this 

conditional approval will, by operation 

of law, become a disapproval one year 

from publication of that notice of final 

conditional approval. At that time, the 

conditionally approved SIP revisions 

would not be part of New Hampshire’s 

approved SIP. If that were to occur, EPA 

would then also notify the State by 

letter. EPA subsequently would publish 

a notice in the Federal Register 

notifying the public that the conditional 

approval automatically converted to a 

disapproval. If the State meets its 

commitment within the applicable time 

frame, however, EPA would 

subsequently publish a notice in the 

Federal Register notifying the public 

that EPA intends to take final action to 

approve or disapprove the State’s 

revised regulations. If EPA were to 

approve the revised regulations, the 

regulations would be fully approved in 

their entirety and replace the 

conditionally approved provisions of 

the State’s SIP regulations. Finally, EPA 

is proposing to fully approve the 

definitions at PART Env-A 101.174 

‘‘Minor permit amendment’’ and PART 

Env-A 101.262 ‘‘State permit to operate’’ 

submitted to EPA on July 21, 2003. 

VIII. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the following NH DES rules: the PSD 

rules at PART Env-A 619, ‘‘Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration’’ (originally 

proposed on January 21, 2015) as 

discussed in Section IV of the preamble; 

the NNSR rules at PART Env-A 618, 

‘‘Nonattainment New Source Review’’ 

discussed in Section V of the preamble; 

and the definitions for ‘‘minor permit 

amendment’’ and ‘‘state permit to 

operate’’ under PART Env-A 101, 

‘‘Permit Definitions’’ as discussed in 

section VI of the preamble. EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Permits, Toxics and 

Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912 

IX. 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 proposed 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 proposed action: 

• is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22964 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 (Public Law 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, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

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: April 8, 2015. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09372 Filed 4–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 192 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0788; FRL–9926–76– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AP43 

Health and Environmental Protection 

Standards for Uranium and Thorium 

Mill Tailings; Extension of Comment 

Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency is announcing an 

extension of the public comment period 

for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) requesting public comment and 

information on revisions to the EPA’s 

‘‘Health and Environmental Protection 

Standards for Uranium and Thorium 

Mill Tailings.’’ The EPA published the 

NPRM on January 26, 2015 in the 

Federal Register (80 FR 4156), which 

included a request for comments on or 

before April 27, 2015. The purpose of 

this action is to extend this comment 

period an additional 30 days. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0788, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: Air and Radiation Docket, 

EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2012–0788, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a total of two 

copies. 

Hand Delivery: In person or by 

courier, deliver comments to: EPA 

Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0788, EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. Please 

include a total of two copies. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0788. The Agency’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/

dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Docket Center is (202) 

566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ingrid Rosencrantz, EPA Office of 

Radiation and Indoor Air; telephone 

number: (202) 343–9286; email address: 

rosencrantz.ingrid@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS