17084 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[A–1–FRL–5801–9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Vermont; Reasonably Available

Control Technology for Major

Stationary Sources of Nitrogen Oxides

and Volatile Organic Compounds not

Covered by Other Category-Specific

Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Vermont. This

revision establishes and requires

Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) at major stationary

sources of nitrogen oxide (NOX)

emissions and major stationary sources

of volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions which are not subject to other

category-specific VOC control

regulations in Vermont. The intended

effect of this action is to approve a

number of regulatory amendments and

source-specific RACT determinations in

accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This action will become effective

June 9, 1997, unless notice is received

by May 9, 1997 that adverse or critical

comments will be submitted. If the

effective date is delayed, timely notice

will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, Office

of Ecosystem Protection (mail code

CAA), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Building,

Boston, MA 02203. Copies of the

documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment

at the Office Ecosystem Protection, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA and the Air Pollution

Control Division, Agency of Natural

Resources, Building 3 South, 103 South

Main Street, Waterbury, VT 05676.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven A. Rapp, (617) 565–2773, or

Rapp.Steve@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

9, 1993, the Vermont Agency of Natural

Resources (‘‘Vermont’’ or ‘‘VT ANR’’)

submitted to EPA a number of revisions

to its State implementation plan (SIP).

EPA is acting on several of those

submittals. First, section 5–101 was

amended to add a definition of

‘‘Reasonably Available Control

Technology.’’ Second, subsection 5–

251(2), ‘‘Reasonably available control

technology for large stationary sources’’

was added which requires major

stationary sources of NOX to install,

maintain, and use NOX RACT. And

third, Vermont also added subsection 5–

253.20, ‘‘Other Sources That Emit

Volatile Organic Compounds,’’ which

defines RACT requirements for major

stationary sources of VOC which are not

subject to any other VOC regulations

under Section 5–253.

Regarding NOx RACT, there are three

major stationary sources of NOX

emissions in Vermont. Two of the NOX

facilities are covered by federally

enforceable permits which define ‘‘most

stringent emission rate’’ (MSER) NOX

limitations. MSER limitations are not

always considered equivalent to RACT

limits. However, on June 6, 1994,

Vermont submitted to EPA copies of the

permits for Ryegate Power Station and

Burlington Electric Department and EPA

determined that these MSER limits were

equivalent to, or more stringent than,

NOX RACT limits and technology

standards. For the third major stationary

NOX source, on March 20, 1995,

Vermont submitted a source-specific

consent order which defined NOX RACT

for Simpson Paper Company’s Gilman

facility to EPA as a SIP revision.

Regarding VOC RACT, section 5–253

contains a number of VOC control

regulations which were developed in

response to EPA’s issuance of control

technique guideline (CTG) documents.

These regulations define RACT for

various categories of VOC sources.

However, subsection 5–253.20 applies

to major stationary sources of VOCs

which are not covered by the CTG-based

rules. In other words, subsection 5–

253.20 is a non-CTG VOC RACT

regulation. This regulation only applies

to U.S. Samaica Corporation in Rutland,

Vermont. On March 20, 1995, Vermont

submitted a source-specific SIP revision

defining non-CTG VOC RACT for U.S.

Samaica’s Rutland facility.

By this action, EPA is approving

section 5–101, subsection 5–251(2),

subsection 5–253.20, the source-specific

NOX RACT determination for Simpson

Paper Company, and the source-specific

VOC RACT determination for U.S.

Samaica, and incorporating them into

the Vermont SIP. This action will have

a beneficial effect on air quality. It is

expected to reduce NOX emissions at

Simpson Paper by 30 to 50%, and VOC

by at least 81% at U.S. Samaica from an

uncontrolled baseline. This action is

being taken under Section 110 of the

Clean Air Act.

I. Summary of SIP Revision

A. Clean Air Act Requirements

Sections 182(b)(2), 182(f), and 184(b)

of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require

States to develop Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) regulations

for all major stationary sources of NOX

and VOC emissions in areas classified as

‘‘moderate,’’ ‘‘serious,’’ ‘‘severe,’’ and

‘‘extreme’’ ozone nonattainment areas,

as well as in all areas of the Ozone

Transport Region. These sections of the

CAA, taken together, establish the

requirements for Vermont to submit

RACT regulations which cover major

sources of VOC and NOX statewide.

Section 182(b)(2) requires States

located in areas classified as moderate

ozone nonattainment areas to require

implementation of RACT with respect to

all major sources of volatile organic

compounds (VOC). Additionally,

section 182(f) states that, ‘‘The plan

provisions required under this subpart

for major stationary sources of volatile

organic compounds shall also apply to

major stationary sources (as defined in

section 302 and subsections (c), (d), and

(e) of the section) of oxides of nitrogen.’’

This RACT requirement also applies to

all major sources in ozone

nonattainment areas with higher than

moderate nonattainment classifications.

Unless already classified at a higher

nonattainment level, section 184(b)(2)

requires major stationary sources in the

Ozone Transport Region to meet the

requirements which would be

applicable to major sources if the area

were classified as a moderate

nonattainment area. The State of

Vermont is currently in attainment of

the ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS). However, section

184(a) of the CAA defines an Ozone

Transport Region within the

northeastern United States, which

includes Vermont.

Section 302 of the CAA generally

defines ‘‘major stationary source’’ as a

facility or source of air pollution which

has the potential to emit 100 tons per

year or more of air pollution. This

definition applies unless another

provision of the CAA explicitly defines

major source differently. Therefore, for

NOX, a major source is one with the

potential to emit 100 tons per year or

more in marginal and moderate areas, as

well as in attainment areas in the OTR.

For VOC emissions, section 184(b)(2)

specifies that in the OTR a major

stationary source is one with the

potential to emit of 50 tons per year or

more.

The amendments to section 5–101,

section 5–251, and section 5–253, as

well as the source-specific RACT
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 17085

determinations for Simpson Paper and

U.S. Samaica were submitted in

response to the CAA requirements.

B. Regulatory Background

On January 23, 1991, EPA sent a letter

notifying Vermont that the CAA

mandated that within 2 years of

enactment, States submit SIP revisions

which require the implementation of

RACT for all major stationary sources of

VOC and NOX. On January 26, 1993, the

VT ANR submitted proposed

amendments to sections 5–101, 5–251

and 5–253 of the Regulations to EPA for

comment. Vermont held a public

hearing on these rules on March 10,

1993. EPA submitted written comments

on the proposed regulations on March

18, 1993. The regulations were adopted

on July 9, 1993 and became effective on

August 13, 1993.

Vermont submitted the adopted

definition, non-CTG VOC RACT, and

NOX RACT regulations as a formal SIP

submittal to EPA on August 9, 1993. On

October 25, 1993, EPA sent Vermont a

letter requesting that Vermont commit

to submitting to EPA for approval

source-specific RACT determinations

for the RACT-subject sources as well.

The SIP submittals for the RACT

regulations were deemed technically

and administratively complete by

operation of law on February 10, 1994.

Subsequently, on March 20, 1995,

Vermont submitted 2 case-specific SIP

revisions, defining NOX RACT

requirements at Simpson Paper

Company’s Gilman facility, and VOC

RACT at U.S. Samaica’s Rutland facility.

On September 15, 1995, EPA sent a

letter to Vermont deeming both casespecific submittals technically and

administratively complete.

C. Description of Submittal

In this submittal, Vermont amended

section 5–101 to include a definition for

‘‘Reasonably Available Control

Technology.’’ Vermont also added

subsection 5–251(2), ‘‘Reasonably

available control technology for large

stationary sources,’’ which establishes a

requirement that RACT be installed and

operated at all major stationary sources

of NOX by May 31, 1995. Additionally,

Vermont added subsection 5–253.20,

‘‘Other Sources That Emit Volatile

Organic Compounds,’’ which defines

RACT requirements for major stationary

sources of VOCs which are not covered

by other VOC regulations in Vermont.

Regarding NOX RACT, subsection 5–

251(2) is completely generic, meaning

that the rule does not set emission

limitations or technology standards for

any sources. Instead, the regulation

requires sources to submit compliance

plans to the State by November 15, 1993

and to install and operate RACT by May

31, 1995. Subsection 5–251(2)(d) allows

equipment subject to a federally

enforceable ‘‘most stringent emission

rate’’ (MSER) NOX limitation, which is

similar to EPA’s ‘‘Best Available Control

Technology’’ (BACT) under 40 CFR

51.166, to be exempt from the RACT

requirements. Since the regulation lacks

specific NOX emission limitations,

technology standards, and compliance

assurance requirements, all sources

subject to subsection 5–251(2) must

have RACT defined on a case-by-case

basis by VT ANR. Such case-specific

RACT determinations must then be

approved by EPA as revisions to

Vermont’s SIP.

Although generic RACT rules would

generally mean many source-specific

SIP revisions, Vermont’s NOX RACT

rules only apply to two wood fired

boilers and one wood/gas fired boiler.

Two of these sources are currently

subject to federally enforceable MSER

permit limits. First, a wood fired boiler

using flue gas recirculation (FGR) in

combination with selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) is required to

meet an emission limit of 0.13 pound

NOX per million Btu (#NOX/MBtu) heat

input on an hourly basis, demonstrated

with a continuous emission monitoring

system (CEMS). And second, a wood/

gas fired boiler using FGR and low-NOX

burners for gas firing and FGR and good

combustion practices for wood firing is

required to meet emission limitations of

0.25 #NOX/MBtu for wood and 0.12

#NOX/MBtu for gas on an hourly basis,

demonstrated by CEMS.

The emission limits to which these

sources are subject are consistent with

EPA and the Northeast States for

Coordinated Air Use Management

(NESCAUM) recommendations for

natural gas firing (i.e., 0.20 #/MBtu) at

utility boilers. Although neither EPA or

NESCAUM have developed

recommended emission limits for wood

firing, the current MSER limits (0.13

#NOX/MBtu and 0.25 #NOX/MBtu) are

reasonable when compared to the EPA

and NESCAUM recommendations for

gas and oil firing, which range from 0.20

#NOX/MBtu to 0.43 #NOX/MBtu. These

MSER limits can be considered to be at

least as stringent as RACT for these

sources. Therefore, the exemption under

subsection 5–251(2)(d) is approvable.

The third major stationary source of

NOX in Vermont, Simpson Paper

Company’s Gilman facility, is subject to

the NOX RACT requirement of

subsection 5–251(2). On January 4,

1995, VT ANR issued an administrative

order defining NOX RACT for this

facility. This NOX RACT determination

consists of emission limitations and

control technology requirements for the

Zurn wood-fired boiler and, no

additional control requirements for the

four Babcock and Wilcox residual oil

fired auxiliary boilers.

For the Zurn boiler, RACT was

determined to be an emission rate

limitation of 0.30 #NOX/MBtu and a

mass discharge rate limitation of 54

#NOX/hour. These emission limitations

must be met on a 24 hour rolling

average. Compliance with the

limitations is determined by a NOX

CEMS. Records are required to be kept

for five years and quarterly reports to

the VT ANR are also required. For

Simpson’s four oil-fired boilers, since

they have historically operated at less

than 1% of their capacity, Vermont has

determined that they are auxiliary

boilers and additional NOX controls

would not be cost effective.

Although neither EPA or NESCAUM

have developed recommended emission

limits for wood firing, limit of 0.30

#NOX/MBtu are reasonable when

compared to the EPA and NESCAUM

recommendations for gas and oil firing,

which range from 0.20 #/MBtu to 0.43

#/MBtu. Also, although 0.30 #NOX/

MBtu is higher than the two NOX MSER

limits mentioned above, as described

earlier in the notice, the lower MSER

limits were determined as part of the

construction permit process for new

emission units. The higher NOX limit

for the Zurn boiler is reasonable

considering the technical and economic

feasibility of retrofitting an older

existing boiler.

Regarding VOC RACT, subsection 5–

253.20 of the Vermont Regulations

applies to stationary sources with the

potential to emit of at least 50 tons of

VOC which are not subject to other VOC

regulations in section 5–253, which

have been developed subsequent to

EPA’s development of Control

Technique Guideline (CTG) documents.

This non-CTG regulation defines RACT

as either an overall reduction in

uncontrolled VOC emissions of at least

81% by weight, or, for coating units, a

daily weighted average of VOC content

in the coatings of 3.5 pounds of VOC per

gallon of coating applied (excluding

exempt solvents). The rule also sets out

process by which a facility can apply for

an alternative RACT limit. However,

subsection 5–253.20 does not contain

specific compliance assurance

requirements, such as emissions testing,

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements, which are

required as part of an approvable RACT

regulation. Therefore, for all sources

subject to this regulation, Vermont must

define these specific compliance
17086 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

assurance requirements as part of casespecific RACT determinations and

submit such determinations to EPA as

revisions for approval into the Vermont

SIP.

On November 15, 1993, Vermont sent

a letter to EPA committing the State to

submitting a case-specific SIP revision

for the one major non-CTG VOC source

subject to subsection 5–253.20.

Accordingly, on March 20, 1995,

Vermont submitted to EPA an

administrative order for U.S. Samaica

Corporation which requires the

company to use incineration control

devices, which achieve an 81% overall

VOC control, on two of their process

lines and to shut down their third

process line by May 31, 1995. The

administrative order also contains

enforceable emissions testing,

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements.

II. Final Action

EPA is approving the following

regulatory amendments into the

Vermont SIP at this time. First, EPA is

approving the amendment to section 5–

101, which adds a definition for RACT

to the Vermont regulations. Second,

EPA is approving the addition of

subsection 5–251(2), as well as the

source-specific RACT determination for

Simpson Paper Company, which

together define NOx RACT for Vermont.

And finally, EPA is approving the

addition of subsection 5–253.20, as well

as the source-specific RACT

determination for U.S. Samaica

Corporation, which together define nonCTG VOC RACT for the State.

EPA is publishing this action without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective June 9, 1997

unless adverse or critical comments are

received by May 9, 1997.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by simultaneously

publishing a subsequent document that

will withdraw the final action. All

public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

action will be effective on June 9, 1997.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any State

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the State implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Sections 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, as added by

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by June 9, 1997.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).) EPA encourages interested

parties to comment on the proposed rule

rather than filing a petition for judicial

review challenging the final rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 17087

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

Vermont was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: March 8, 1997.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart UU—Vermont

2. Section 52.2370 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(22) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2370 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(22) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

Vermont Air Pollution Control Division

on August 9, 1993 and March 20, 1995.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letters from the Vermont Air

Pollution Control Division dated August

9, 1993 and March 20, 1995 submitting

revisions to the Vermont State

Implementation Plan.

(B) Regulations, including section 5–

101, ‘‘Definitions,’’ subsection 5–251(2),

‘‘Reasonably available control

technology for large stationary sources,’’

and, subsection 5–253.20, ‘‘Other

Sources That Emit Volatile Organic

Compounds,’’ adopted on July 9, 1993

and effective on August 13, 1993.

(C) Administrative orders for Simpson

Paper Company, in Gilman, Vermont,

and, U.S. Samaica Corporation, in

Rutland, Vermont, both adopted and

effective on January 4, 1995.

3. In § 52.2381, Table 52.2381 is

amended by adding a new entry to the

end of existing state citation for section

5–101, ‘‘Definitions,’’; adding two new

entries to the end of the existing state

citation for section 5–251, ‘‘Control of

Nitrogen Oxides Emissions,’’ and by

adding new state citation for section 5–

253.20, ‘‘Other Sources That Emit

Volatile Organic Compounds,’’ to read

as follows:

§ 52.2381 EPA—approved Vermont State

regulations.

* * * * *

TABLE 52.2381.—EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS

[Vermont SIP regulations 1972 to present]

State citation, title and subject

Date

adopted by

State

Date approved by

EPA

Federal Register citation 52.2370 Comments and unapproved sections

* * * * * * *

Section 5–101 Definitions 7/9/93 4/9/97 62 FR 17087 ..................... (c)(22) ................................ Adds definition of reasonably available control

technology (RACT).

* * * * * * *

Section 5–251 Control of

nitrogen oxides emissions.

7/9/93 4/9/97 62 FR 17087 ..................... (c)(22) ................................ Requires RACT for major

stationary sources of

NOX.

1/4/95 4/9/97 62 FR 17087 ..................... (c)(22) ................................ NOX RACT for Simpson

Paper Company’s Gilman facility

Section 5–253 control of

volatile organic compounds.

7/9/93 4/9/97 62 FR 17087 ..................... (c)(22) ................................ Requires RACT at nonCTG VOC sources.

1/4/95 4/9/97 62 FR 17087 ..................... (c)(22) ................................ Non-CTG VOC RACT for

U.S. Samaica Corporation’s Rutland facility.

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–9014 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL–5801–1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Reasonably Available Control

Technology for Nitrogen Oxides for the

State of New Hampshire

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of New

Hampshire. This revision establishes

and requires Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) at

stationary sources of nitrogen oxides

(NOX). The intended effect of this action

is to approve regulatory provisions and

source specific orders which require

major stationary sources of NOX to

reduce their emissions statewide in

accordance with requirements of the

Clean Air Act.

DATES: This action is effective June 9,

1997, unless notice is received by May