Document ID: EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0188-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New Hampshire; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone Standards
Posted Date: 2023-07-10T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43483-43489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14535]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0188; FRL-11025-01-R1]

Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Reasonably Available Control 
Technology for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 
State of New Hampshire. These revisions provide certifications that the 
State has adopted regulations meeting the requirements for reasonably 
available control technology (RACT) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). We are also proposing 
approval of amendments to a related regulation that New Hampshire 
revised as part of its RACT certifications for these two NAAQS, a 
revision to the State's definition of emergency generator, and removal 
from the SIP of two previously issued RACT orders. This action is being 
taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 9, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2023-0188 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to: 
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly 
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov 
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional 
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, 
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the 
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
schedule your inspection. The Regional

[[Page 43484]]

Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and facility closures due 
to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer, 
Air and Radiation Division (Mail Code 5-MD), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, 
Massachusetts 02109-3912; (617) 918-1046, email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Description and Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Submittals
    1. RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone NAAQS
    a. Description of RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015 
Ozone Standards
    b. Evaluation of RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone 
Standards
    2. Update to NOX RACT Regulation
    3. Update to Definition of Emergency Generator
    4. Withdrawal of RACT Orders Issued to Public Service of New 
Hampshire
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require 
States to implement RACT in areas classified as Moderate (and higher) 
non-attainment for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA 
requires RACT in States located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). 
Specifically, these areas are required to implement RACT for all major 
emission sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen 
oxides (NOX) and for all sources covered by a Control 
Techniques Guideline (CTG). A CTG is a document issued by EPA which 
provides guidance to States when determining RACT for specific VOC 
sources. A related set of documents, Alternative Control Techniques 
(ACT), exists primarily for NOX control requirements. States 
must submit RACT rules for sources covered by CTGs, or negative 
declarations when no such sources exist for a CTG, but negative 
declarations are not required for sources in ACT categories. However, 
RACT must be imposed on major sources of NOX, and some of 
those major sources may be within a category covered by an ACT 
document.
    In 2008, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS, or standards) for ozone, setting it at 0.075 parts 
per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA determined 
that the revised 8-hour standard would be more protective of human 
health, especially with regard to children and adults who are active 
outdoors and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease such 
as asthma.
    On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264), EPA published a final rule that 
outlined the obligations that areas found to be in nonattainment of the 
2008 ozone standard needed to address. This rule, herein referred to as 
the ``2008 ozone implementation rule,'' contained, among other things, 
a description of EPA's expectations for States with RACT obligations. 
The 2008 ozone implementation rule indicated that States could meet 
RACT through the establishment of new or more stringent requirements 
that meet RACT control levels, through a certification that previously 
adopted RACT controls in their SIP approved by EPA under a prior ozone 
NAAQS represent adequate RACT control levels for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 
or with a combination of these two approaches. In addition, a State 
must submit a negative declaration in instances where, for a particular 
CTG, there are no sources within the State covered by that CTG. On 
February 3, 2017, EPA issued findings of failure to submit for a number 
of required SIP submittals for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including RACT for 
States within the OTR. See 82 FR 9158. By that action, New Hampshire 
received a finding of failure to submit a RACT SIP for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS, which it subsequently rectified with the submittal we are 
proposing approval of in this action.
    In 2015, the EPA promulgated another revision to the ozone NAAQS 
(2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and 
secondary standards to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292; October 26, 2015. 
Subsequently, on December 6, 2018, EPA published a final rule that 
outlined the obligations that States in the OTR and areas found to be 
in nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS needed to address, including 
similar requirements for RACT as were contained in the 2008 ozone 
implementation rule. See 83 FR 62998. We herein refer to this rule as 
the 2015 ozone implementation rule.
    In order to meet the RACT requirements for the 2008 and 2015 ozone 
NAAQS, the New Hampshire Air Resources Division submitted a RACT 
certification for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS on September 6, 2018. 
Under a separate cover letter, NH also submitted on September 6, 2018, 
a revision to the State's previously approved NOX RACT 
regulation, Env-A 1300, and a revision to the term ``emergency 
generator'' as contained within the State regulation Env-A 100, 
Purpose; Definitions. New Hampshire submitted an additional amendment 
to Env-A 1300 on March 28, 2023. On August 16, 2018, New Hampshire 
submitted a request to remove from their SIP two RACT orders containing 
requirements that were superseded by more stringent requirements 
contained within the State's September 6, 2018, submittal of revised 
Env-A 1300, NOX RACT.

II. Description and Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Revisions

1. RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone NAAQS

a. Description of RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone 
Standards
    On September 6, 2018, New Hampshire submitted a demonstration that 
its set of SIP approved VOC and NOX control regulations and 
single source RACT orders issued to major stationary sources meets the 
criteria for RACT for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. This submittal 
rectified the finding of failure to submit that EPA issued on February 
3, 2017, described above. New Hampshire's RACT submittal notes that its 
prior designation as a nonattainment area for the 1979 and 1997 ozone 
standards resulted in the adoption of stringent controls for major 
sources of VOC and NOX, including RACT level controls. 
Therefore, as allowed for within the 2008 and 2015 ozone implementation 
rules, much of New Hampshire's submittal consists of a review of RACT 
controls adopted under previous ozone standards and an indication of 
whether those previously adopted controls still represent RACT for the 
2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. New Hampshire's RACT certification submittal 
also notes the substantial declines in NOX and VOC emissions 
from RACT sources that has occurred due to the implementation of RACT 
for the prior ozone standards. For additional context, New Hampshire's 
submittal notes that EPA designated all areas of the State as 
unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, and that a 
RACT submittal is only required pursuant to the Ozone Transport Region 
(OTR) requirements of section 184(b) of the Clean Air Act. New 
Hampshire's submittal also notes that VOC and NOX emissions 
from sources subject to RACT have declined substantially in recent 
years. For example, between 2005 and 2017, NOX emissions 
from these sources declined

[[Page 43485]]

82%, and VOC emission declined 58%, due in part to New Hampshire's RACT 
requirements for these facilities. More recently, information contained 
within EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database for 2020 
indicates only 1 stationary point source in New Hampshire emitted more 
than 50 tons of VOC that year, and only 8 stationary point sources 
emitted more than 50 tons of NOX.
    The State's September 6, 2018 submittal identifies the specific 
control measures that it previously adopted to control emissions from 
major sources of VOC emissions, reaffirms negative declarations for 
some CTG categories, and describes updates New Hampshire made to 
existing requirements to strengthen them so that they would continue to 
represent RACT. Table 5-1 of New Hampshire's submittal contains a 
detailed listing of the State regulations for each of the CTG and ACT 
categories for which sources exist in the State. The table identifies 
the specific State rule that is in place, the rule's effective date, 
and the date that EPA approved the rule into the New Hampshire SIP. New 
Hampshire notes that major sources of VOC and NOX are 
defined, for purposes of New Hampshire's RACT regulations, as sources 
with the potential to emit 50 tons per year or more of these 
pollutants. For some CTG categories such as surface coating sources, 
New Hampshire's rules include lower applicability thresholds consistent 
with the relevant CTGs. New Hampshire's submittal includes the State's 
response to EPA's issuance of new VOC RACT CTGs in 2006, 2007, and 
2008, which included adoption of a number of new regulations. EPA 
approved the State's SIP revisions addressing the 2006, 2007, and 2008 
CTGs on November 8, 2012. See 77 FR 66921. Additionally, on December 
17, 2019, New Hampshire submitted a negative declaration for a CTG that 
EPA issued in 2016 regarding the oil and gas industry. EPA approved 
that negative declaration on July 13, 2020. See 85 FR 41920.
    As required, New Hampshire's submittal addresses NOX 
emissions as well as VOC emissions. Section 5.2 of the State's 
submittal identifies the control requirement or single source Order 
that sets forth RACT for major sources of NOX. Specifically, 
New Hampshire notes that major sources of NOX are subject to 
Env-A 1300, Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) RACT. This regulation 
includes a NOX RACT emission limit applicable to municipal 
waste combustors. New Hampshire reviewed Env-A 1300 and determined that 
certain aspects of that regulation needed to be updated in order to 
represent RACT for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. This determination 
was informed by comments the State received from EPA within a letter 
dated April 18, 2014. That EPA comment letter was sent in response to a 
draft RACT certification SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that New 
Hampshire had submitted to EPA for review. EPA's comment letter noted 
that New Hampshire's draft RACT certification lacked adequate 
justification as to how the State's NOX RACT regulations 
represented a RACT level of control, and the correspondence also 
provided information indicating that strengthening some aspects of 
these regulations, in particular those limiting emissions from coal-
fired electric utility boilers and municipal waste combustors, was 
likely needed in order to satisfy the State's RACT obligation. EPA's 
comment letter is included in the docket for this action. Accordingly, 
on September 6, 2018, New Hampshire submitted an updated version of 
Env-A 1300 as a SIP revision. The updated regulation includes a 
tightened NOX emission limit for incinerators which is 
applicable to municipal waste combustors in the State, lower 
NOX emission limits for older gas and older oil-fired 
engines, and lower NOX emission limits for coal fired 
utility boilers. Additionally, New Hampshire submitted updated single 
source Orders containing NOX RACT requirements for the 
Anheuser Busch Company and for the Schiller Station electrical 
generating station.
    New Hampshire has adopted State regulations for the CTG categories 
for which sources exist in the State and has reviewed and strengthened 
portions of Env-A 1300, NOX RACT. In most cases New 
Hampshire determined that sources already addressed by RACT 
determinations for the 1-hour and/or 1997 ozone NAAQS do not need to 
implement additional controls to meet the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS RACT 
requirement primarily because RACT for the more recent standards is the 
same control technology as required by the initial RACT determination 
made under the 1-hour or 1997 standard because the fundamental control 
techniques, as described in the CTGs and ACTs, are still what is 
reasonably available. New Hampshire did not receive any comments during 
the public hearing process disagreeing with the State's conclusion that 
it has adopted regulations governing major sources of VOC and 
NOX that constitute RACT.
    New Hampshire's review of its control program for major sources of 
VOC and NOX thus concludes that upon completion of its 
intended updates to Env-A 1300 and submittal of the single source 
NOX RACT Orders mentioned above, all major sources in the 
State will be meeting the RACT requirements of the 2008 and 2015 ozone 
standards.
b. Evaluation of RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone 
Standards
    EPA has reviewed New Hampshire's determination that it has adopted 
VOC and NOX control regulations for stationary sources that 
constitute RACT and proposes to determine that the set of regulations 
cited by the State within its September 6, 2018, certification SIP 
submittals, along with the strengthening of the requirements contained 
in Env-A 1300, the State's NOX control regulation, 
constitute RACT for purposes of the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards. 
EPA's evaluation is explained in more detail below and is also 
explained within a Technical Support Document (TSD) that can be found 
in the docket for this action.
    New Hampshire's RACT certification submittal documents the State's 
VOC and NOX control regulations that have been adopted to 
ensure that RACT level controls are required in the State. These 
requirements include regulations within Env-A, Rules Governing the 
Control of Air Pollution. Specifically, within New Hampshire's VOC RACT 
regulation, Env-A 1200, the State has adopted regulations limiting VOC 
emissions from sectors represented by 23 of EPA's CTGs, including the 
CTGs EPA adopted in 2006, 2007, and 2008. These are the CTGs for which 
the State has covered sources. EPA's analysis for these CTGs is 
explained more below and also within the TSD. Further, New Hampshire's 
submittal includes Table 5-3 listing negative declarations for the 
other CTGs where the state determined that no covered sources are 
located within its borders. To evaluate these negative declarations, 
EPA reviewed facility location data by industry type using information 
from the North American Industry Classification System. Based on that 
review, EPA agrees with the State's conclusion regarding which CTGs 
negative declarations are appropriate for.
    Next, New Hampshire's RACT certification notes that the State has 
adopted numerous single source RACT Orders for major sources of VOC and 
NOX, and that these Orders have been submitted to EPA and 
incorporated into the SIP. The sources covered by these orders must 
submit a detailed evaluation of the economic and technical feasibility 
of the VOC or NOX control options that were evaluated, the 
control option selected and the corresponding emissions limit, and the 
monitoring technique and/or test

[[Page 43486]]

method that will be used to demonstrate compliance for the State to 
review. Prior to issuing a RACT determination for the source, New 
Hampshire submits a draft RACT Order to the EPA's Region 1 office for 
review and comment, after which the draft order undergoes a 30-day 
public comment period. After considering any comments received during 
the public hearing process, the State issues a final RACT Order to the 
facility and subsequently submits it to EPA for incorporation into the 
New Hampshire SIP.
    As part of the development of its RACT certifications, New 
Hampshire evaluated all previously issued VOC and NOX RACT 
Orders based on the State's review of available control options 
implemented at other facilities within the State and comparable RACT 
emissions limits required by other States. The results of this review 
are chronicled within Tables 5-2 and 5-5 of the State's submittal, and 
the tables include a column explaining the results of the State's 
review. Orders that the State determined did not satisfy the RACT 
requirement, such as the Orders previously issued to Anheuser Busch and 
Schiller Station, were revised and submitted to EPA for incorporation 
into the New Hampshire SIP, which EPA accomplished via a final rule 
published in the Federal Register on September 12, 2019 (84 FR 48068). 
EPA reviewed the States documentation of its review of RACT Orders, and 
also performed its own review of a number of orders that the State did 
not update, and agree with the State's determination that these orders 
represent a RACT level of control. For example, the VOC RACT orders for 
Teleflex Medical and the Textile Tapes Corporation indicate that both 
companies control VOC emissions to a minimum of 81% control efficiency 
by operation of a thermal oxidizer, which is the control level 
recommended in EPA's model VOC RACT rules for non-CTG sources that 
control emissions by an alternative to what is otherwise required by 
regulation. Other States, Delaware for example, require this same level 
of control in such situation.\1\ EPA has reviewed and agrees with New 
Hampshire's assessment that its RACT Orders sufficiently demonstrate a 
RACT level of control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example, Appendix A of Delaware's regulation 1124, 
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions, at section 10.5, 
Control Devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our most recent prior approval of a RACT certification SIP for New 
Hampshire occurred on November 5, 2012, (77 FR 66388) for the 1997 
ozone standard. Since then, EPA has approved numerous revisions to New 
Hampshire's RACT requirements that further limited VOC and 
NOX emissions. These revisions include updates the State 
made to its VOC RACT regulation to address the CTGs issued by EPA in 
2006, 2007, 2008, and 2016 (see 77 FR 66922, and 85 FR 41920), and 
minor updates to the State's NOX RACT requirements (see 79 
FR 49458).\2\ Additionally, New Hampshire submitted and EPA approved 
single source Orders for the following facilities subsequent to EPA's 
last RACT certification approval: Mectrol Corporation (see 77 FR 
66388); Concord Litho, Sturm-Ruger, Gorham Paper, and Textile Tapes 
(see 79 FR 49458); Parker Hannifin Corporation, Watts Regulator, 
Textile Tapes, amended Order (see 81 FR 59139); Sturm-Ruger, amended 
Order (see 83 FR 13668), and; Diacom Corporation (see 83 FR 45356).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ New Hampshire has made more significant revisions to its 
NOX RACT regulation that we are proposing to approve as 
discussed is section II.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further analyze whether New Hampshire's VOC control regulations 
for sources covered by CTGs meet the RACT obligation, EPA reviewed 
those regulations and compared them to other resources. Those resources 
include control strategies adopted by two similar neighboring States, 
Maine and Vermont, which are also attainment areas that implement RACT 
due to their inclusion in the OTR, measures described in the RACT/BACT/
LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC), EPA's Menu of Control Measures, and federal 
regulations found in 40 CFR parts 60 and 63 (New Source Performance 
Standards and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants). EPA's RBLC contains case-specific information on air 
pollution technologies that have been required by State and local 
permitting agencies to reduce air pollution from stationary sources and 
was designed to help with the air permitting process. The Menu of 
Control Measures provides State, local, and Tribal air agencies with 
information on existing emissions reduction measures, as well as 
relevant information concerning the efficiency and cost effectiveness 
of the measures. The results of EPA's analysis are summarized within 
the TSD prepared for this action and included in the docket. 
Additionally, for informational purposes and context, a technical 
supplement New Hampshire provided to its RACT certifications that is 
included within the docket provides information regarding aspects of 
the State's VOC regulations that contain requirements more stringent 
than what is found within EPA's CTGs for wood furniture manufacturing, 
graphic arts, bulk gasoline plants, and cutback and emulsified asphalt 
application.\3\ For example, New Hampshire requires a control 
efficiency of between 75 to 80% for control equipment used to reduce 
emissions from rotogravure printing operations, whereas the comparable 
requirement from EPA's CTG is 65 to 70%. Based on EPA's review, we are 
proposing to find that New Hampshire's VOC requirements for sources 
covered by CTGs, where such sources exist within the State, adequately 
establish RACT. Although there are some differences amongst the State 
regulations, for example, regarding applicability criteria, work 
practice standards inspection frequency and other matters, these 
differences did not impact EPA's conclusions regarding New Hampshire's 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See RACT Certification: Follow-up to NH's Submission on 
September 6, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Env-A 1222, Miscellaneous and Multicategory Stationary 
VOC Sources, facilities with the potential to emit 50 tons or more from 
activities that don't fit into a CTG category but are able to meet the 
default control options within that regulation are governed by the 
control options within it, such as, for example, achievement of an 81% 
overall control efficiency for add-on equipment as recommended within 
EPA's model VOC RACT rules for non-CTG sources. EPA reviewed the 
control options within Env-A 1222 and agree that they continue to 
represent RACT.
    Next, New Hampshire recently re-evaluated its NOX RACT 
regulation and determined that a number of NOX requirements, 
as described below, should be updated to be consistent with 
requirements in other States. The updates New Hampshire made to its 
NOX RACT regulation resulted in the development of tighter 
NOX limits for municipal waste combustors (MWCs), lower 
NOX emissions limits for oil and gas fired engines, and 
lower NOX limits for coal fired boilers. New Hampshire's SIP 
submittal further indicates some portions of Env-A 1300 were not 
revised, and the State provided its rationale for not revising these 
sections in the technical supplement to the original submittal 
mentioned above. New Hampshire determined that portions of Env-A 1300 
pertaining to asphalt plant rotary dryers, wallboard manufacturing 
facilities, auxiliary boilers, and miscellaneous sources did not need 
revision based on its review of various factors as noted within the

[[Page 43487]]

supplement. For example, there are no longer any asphalt plant rotary 
dryers or industrial boilers sized 100 mmBTU/hr or greater in the 
State, and so requirements for such equipment were not changed. New 
Hampshire also notes that there are minimal emissions from wallboard 
manufacturing facilities and auxiliary boilers, with only 34 tons of 
annual NOX emitted from these two sectors collectively. New 
Hampshire's conclusion that their current regulations for these 
facilities constitutes RACT is reasonable when considering their 
current emissions, the existing requirement for controls, and the 
anticipated costs of achieving additional reductions. For example, New 
Hampshire's existing RACT requirements contain a requirement for the 
use of low-NOX burners by both types of facilities, and 
EPA's ``Menu of Control Measures'' indicates that low-NOX 
burners typically achieve a 50 percent NOX emission 
reduction. Adding additional combustion controls such as flue gas 
recirculation or overfire air can nominally increase the control 
efficiency to 60 to 70%, but those controls can be costly and the added 
cost to achieve this incremental emission reduction is likely to be 
economically infeasible. Therefore, we agree with the State's 
conclusion that additional NOX controls are not needed for 
RACT for wallboard manufacturing and auxiliary boilers. The State's 
technical supplement to the RACT certification submittal contains 
additional information regarding the portions of the State's 
NOX RACT requirements that were not revised.
    We note that New Hampshire's certification also mentions the 
State's adoption of regulations recommended by the Ozone Transport 
Commissions OTC that limit VOC emissions from consumer products and 
architectural and industrial maintenance coatings regulations. Although 
these rules will assist New Hampshire in its efforts to remain in 
attainment of the ozone standard by lowering VOC emissions in the 
State, they are not required for EPA's approval of the RACT 
certification as they do not apply to major stationary sources or to 
sources covered by a CTG. The OTC periodically makes recommendations to 
its member States regarding ozone control strategies that the States 
should consider adopting. The OTC's Stationary Source committee has 
focused mostly on VOC area source and NOX point source 
categories, but they did identify a VOC control strategy that is 
applicable to both the VOC point and area source sectors, and New 
Hampshire adopted this requirement. The specific provision is found 
within New Hampshire's VOC RACT regulation at section Env-A 1221.02, 
Compliance Standards for Cold Cleaning. It precludes use of solvents 
with a vapor pressure of 1.0 millimeters of mercury or greater within a 
cold cleaning machine, which is a restrictive requirement not found 
within EPA's CTG for this sector.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Control Techniques Guidelines: Industrial Cleaning Solvents; 
September, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the State's submittals and propose to agree that 
the VOC and NOX stationary source control regulations which 
New Hampshire has cited as meeting RACT satisfy the RACT obligation for 
purposes of the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards and we are therefore 
proposing to approve the State's September 6, 2018, RACT certification 
SIPs.

2. Update to NOX RACT Regulation

    As mentioned above, New Hampshire performed an initial review of 
its VOC and NOX RACT regulations in 2014 and concluded that 
its VOC RACT regulation, Env-A 1200, and NOX RACT 
regulation, Env-A 1300, contained sufficient requirements to satisfy 
RACT and submitted its draft RACT analysis to EPA for comment. EPA's 
review of New Hampshire's 2014 draft RACT submittal identified portions 
of the State's NOX RACT requirements which were not likely 
to meet RACT for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS and transmitted these 
findings via a letter dated April 18, 2014. Specifically, EPA found 
that the State's NOX emissions limits for electric utility 
boilers and municipal waste combustors should be strengthened in order 
to represent a RACT level of control. Accordingly, on September 6, 
2018, New Hampshire submitted a SIP revision that requested that an 
updated version of the State's NOX RACT regulation, entitled 
Env-A 1300, Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Reasonably Available 
Control Technology (RACT), be approved into the SIP. Env-A 1300 
contains New Hampshire's NOX emissions limits and other 
requirements for the various types of combustion equipment found in the 
State as identified within section 1301.02 of the rule. The primary 
changes New Hampshire made to the NOX RACT rule consist of 
adoption of stricter NOX emission limits for MWCs and coal 
fired utility boilers as EPA recommended in its 2014 comment letter, 
and also additional, strengthened NOX requirements 
applicable to peak shaving oil and gas fired engines.
    On March 28, 2023, New Hampshire submitted amendments to Env-A 1300 
to revise a requirement applicable to coal-fired electric utility 
boilers operating under ``low-load'' conditions to restrain such 
operation to testing required under 40 CFR part 75. The revision also 
included additional recordkeeping requirements for coal-fired electric 
utility boilers that are applicable during periods of startup and 
shutdown.
    Regarding MWCs, New Hampshire lowered the existing NOX 
emission limit for incinerators (MWCs are a type of incinerator) to 150 
ppm within Env-A 1309.03. The State's one remaining MWC facility, the 
Wheelabrator-Concord Company located in Concord, NH, meets this 
emissions limit by operating a selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) 
system to control NOX emissions. Appendix D of a report 
produced in February of 2017 by the Ozone Transport Commission \5\ 
(OTC) indicates that this NOX emissions limit is amongst the 
lowest of all of the limits for MWC units in the OTR. For example, the 
150 ppm NOX emissions limit is equivalent to or more 
stringent than similar restrictions adopted by the three other New 
England States with mass-burn waterwall MWC units similar to the type 
operated in New Hampshire.\6\ An alternative emission limit of 205 ppm 
is allowed during periods of startup or shutdown, which are limited in 
time to no more than 3 hours per event.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ White Paper on Control Technologies and OTC State 
Regulations for Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Eight Stationary 
Source Categories; Ozone Transport Commissions; Final Draft, 02/10/
2017.
    \6\ For MWC NOX emissions limits for Massachusetts, 
see 310 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, section 7.08: U 
Incinerators, at 7.08(f), Table 3; for Connecticut, see the 
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies at Section 22a-174-38, 
Municipal Waste Combustors, paragraph (c), Table 38-2; for Maine, 
see Chapter 138, NOX RACT, of Maine's Air Rules at 
138(G).
    \7\ EPA evaluated New Hampshire's alternative emission limit of 
205 ppm using the seven recommended approvability criteria outlined 
in EPA's guidance for establishing alternative emission limitations 
during periods of startup and shutdown and determined the emission 
limit meets CAA requirements for SIP provisions. See Section VII.B 
of 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015). EPA's evaluation of the alternative 
emission limit is included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding peak shaving engines, New Hampshire lowered the 
NOX emission limit for gas-fired rich burn engines from 2.0 
to 1.5 grams per brake-horsepower hour (bhp-hr), and lowered the 
emission limit for lean burn gas-fired engines from 3.0 to 2.5 grams 
bhp-hr. New Hampshire also lowered the emission limit for oil-fired 
engines from 9.0 grams per bhp-hr to a range of between 4.0 grams and 
6.4 grams per bhp-hr depending on engine size. As can be seen by 
information within

[[Page 43488]]

Appendix C of the OTC White Paper, these limits are consistent with 
limits adopted by other States within the OTR.\8\ For example, the 
State's limit for gas-fired rich burn engines is equal to the most 
stringent limit of other States, and the limits for gas-fired lean burn 
and for oil-fired engines are within the range of rates adopted by the 
other OTC States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ We note that the emissions limits shown within Appendix C 
for diesel and for dual-fuel units for NH of 8.0 grams/hp-hr were 
subsequently lowered by the oil-fired limits noted within this 
paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding coal-fired electrical generating units (EGUs), New 
Hampshire significantly lowered the NOX emission limits for 
the State's two remaining operating coal-fired EGUs, those being units 
MK1 and MK2 operated by Granite Shore Power at its facility located in 
Bow, New Hampshire. New Hampshire's revised NOX RACT 
regulation lowers the NOX emission rate for unit MK1 from 
0.92 lbs per million british thermal units (mmBTU) of heat input to 
0.22 lbs per mmBTU, based on a 24-hour averaging time. For MK2, New 
Hampshire's revised NOX RACT regulation also lowers the 
NOX emission limit to 0.22 lbs per mmBTU, down from a 
previous limit of 1.4 lbs per mmBTU, and this limit is also based on a 
24-hour averaging time. The emission units subject to these 
requirements are cyclone boilers, and boilers of this configuration 
have the highest uncontrolled emission rates of all coal-fired boiler 
types listed within EPA's emission factor reference document referred 
to as ``AP-42''.\9\ Table 1.1-3 of AP-42 provides an uncontrolled 
emission rate for cyclone boilers of 33 pounds of NOX per 
ton of coal burned, which is more than six times higher than the lowest 
uncontrolled rate shown in the table. To reduce NOX 
emissions from these high-emitting boilers, each unit is equipped with 
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) control systems which is a highly 
effective means of controlling NOX emissions from combustion 
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Volume 1, Section 1.1, Bituminous and Subbituminous Coal 
Combustion, of AP-42, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/1.1_bituminous_and_subbituminous_coal_combustion.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the past decade, the two emissions units subject to these 
requirements have been called upon less frequently to produce 
electricity. For example, in 2010 unit 1 operated on 286 days and 
emitted 1,071 tons of NOX for the year. The unit recorded 7 
start-up events during that year. Unit 2 operated 290 days in calendar 
year 2010 and emitted 2,342 tons of NOX for the year. The 
unit recorded 6 startup events that year. By 2020, the facilities' 
utilization had fallen considerably. In 2020, unit 1 operated on only 
25 days, emitting 52 tons for the year, but experienced 10 start-up 
events, more than it had in 2010. Unit 2 operated on only 21 days, 
emitting 112 tons. Unit 2 experienced 8 start-up events in 2020, also 
more start-up events than it had 10 years earlier. Given that 
operations during start-up and shut-down modes now represent a larger 
part of the facilities' overall operations, and recognizing that the 
units cannot effectively run SCR controls to reduce NOX 
emissions during these period, New Hampshire's revised regulation 
provides, in addition to an emissions rate of 0.22 lbs per million BTU 
that must be met on a 24-hour calendar day basis under normal operating 
conditions, daily NOX mass-based emissions caps which are 
applicable on days when startup, shutdown, and periodic testing \10\ 
occurs. The daily mass emission limits were derived to ensure the daily 
mass emissions on startup, shutdown, or testing days are no more than 
25% higher than the maximum mass emissions otherwise permitted. New 
Hampshire developed these daily mass emission limits by reviewing unit-
specific data on the average time each unit spent in start-up and shut-
down modes, as well as NOX emitted in each mode, and set the 
daily mass-based limits to ensure that the units could not spend 
inordinate amounts of time starting up or shutting down. This approach 
avoids the potential of a unit spending excessive amounts of time in 
SCR-off mode. The units cannot ``hover'' in start-up or shut-down mode 
to avoid utilizing their SCR to reduce NOX because they 
would violate the daily mass limit if they remain in those modes for 
longer than is truly necessary to transition the unit to normal 
operations or to shut it down. New Hampshire chose this approach as the 
preferred alternative to providing a higher emissions rate that would 
have been needed if emissions during start-up and shut-down were 
included within one overarching emissions rate covering all modes of 
operation. Pursuant to Env-A 1303.04(c), the facility must keep a log 
of each start-up and shut-down event that records the date of each 
event and time spent in these modes, and the emissions that occur 
during them.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Testing performed in accordance with 40 CFR part 75 that 
require operation at low load levels that do not allow the requisite 
SCR operational temperature to be met.
    \11\ EPA evaluated New Hampshire's alternative emission limits 
during periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction for cyclone boilers 
using the seven recommended approvability criteria outlined in EPA's 
guidance for establishing alternative emission limitations, and 
determined the emission limit meets CAA requirements for SIP 
provisions. See Section VII.B of 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015). EPA's 
evaluation of the alternative emission limits is included in the 
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the revisions to Env-A 1300 described above, and 
other less substantive revisions that New Hampshire made to the 
regulation and determined that the tightening of emissions limits for 
coal-fired EGUs, gas and oil-fired engines, and municipal waste 
combustors will significantly reduce NOX emissions from the 
equipment subject to these requirements and is consistent with RACT 
limits adopted by other States for similar equipment.

3. Update to Definition of Emergency Generator

    New Hampshire's September 6, 2018, submittal of its updated 
NOX RACT regulation, Env-A 1300, also included a revision to 
a term within the State's definitions regulation found at Env-A 101, 
Purpose; Definitions. In that revision, New Hampshire modified the 
existing definition of ``emergency generator'' to make it consistent 
with a 2015 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia \12\ that vacated provisions for emergency engines to operate 
for demand-response purposes. Because of the Court's decision, engines 
used for such purposes are subject to Federal requirements regarding 
emission controls and other requirements for non-emergency engines. 
Therefore, New Hampshire modified its definition of ``emergency 
generator'' to make it consistent with the Court's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental 
Control v. EPA, 785 F.3d 1 (D.C. Circuit; 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Withdrawal of RACT Orders Issued to Public Service of New Hampshire

    On August 16, 2018, New Hampshire submitted a request that 
NOX RACT Order ARD-97-001, issued in 1997, and 
NOX RACT Order ARD-98-001, issued in 1998, both of which had 
been issued to the Public Service Corporation of New Hampshire, be 
withdrawn from the SIP. The State made this request because the 
NOX emissions limits contained within the orders had been 
superseded by more stringent limits within the State's revised Env-A 
1300, NOX RACT, which the State subsequently submitted to 
EPA as a SIP revision request on September 6, 2018. We agree that the 
emissions units covered by these orders are now subject to the more 
restrictive limits within the revised version of Env-A 1300 that we

[[Page 43489]]

are proposing approval of elsewhere in this action, and therefore for 
regulatory clarity we are proposing to grant the State's request to 
remove Orders ARD-97-001 and ARD-98-001 from the New Hampshire SIP if 
EPA finalizes its proposed approval of the associated revision of Env-A 
1300.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the following items into the New 
Hampshire SIP: a RACT certification for the 2008 and 2015 ozone 
standards, revisions to New Hampshire's NOX RACT regulation, 
Env-A 1300, a revision to the term ``emergency generator'' as used 
within the State's air pollution control regulations, and withdrawal 
from the New Hampshire SIP of NOX RACT Orders ARD-97-001 and 
ARD-98-001. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed 
in this proposed rule. These comments will be considered before taking 
final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal 
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed 
rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of 
this document.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA 
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. The 
proposed changes are described in sections I. and III. of this 
preamble. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 
proposing to incorporate by reference New Hampshire regulation Env-A 
1300, NOX RACT, and the term ``emergency generator'' as 
defined within Env-A 100 of the New Hampshire Code of Administrative 
Rules. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents 
generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 
Region 1 Office. Please contact the person identified in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more 
information.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. See 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 Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act.
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that 
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of 
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' The air agency did 
not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP 
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither 
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ 
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of 
the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral 
to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. 
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there 
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of 
E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the proposed rule does not have Tribal implications and will 
not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt 
Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 5, 2023.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2023-14535 Filed 7-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P