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

Related Material

Other Related Documents

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: April 16, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 73)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18493-18497]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16ap02-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[NH-046b; A-1-FRL-7171-9]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of New Hampshire. This revision establishes
post-1996 rate of progress (ROP) emission reduction plans for the
Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester serious ozone nonattainment area, and the
New Hampshire portion of the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester serious area.
The intended effect of this action is to approve this SIP revision as
meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

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

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air
Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-New England, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023. Copies of the documents relevant to
this action are available for public inspection during normal business
hours, by appointment at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-New England, One Congress Street,
11th floor, Boston, MA, and at the Air Resources Division, New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, Concord,
NH 03302-0095.

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

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

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

A. What action Is EPA Taking Today?

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

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

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

[[Page 18494]]

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

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

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

D. What Are the Sources of These Pollutants?

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

E. What Harmful Effects Can These Pollutants Produce?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18495]]

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

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

H. How Will New Hampshire Achieve These Emission Reductions?

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

NO_X RACT

The Act requires that states develop Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) regulations for all major stationary sources of
NO_X in areas which have been classified as ``moderate,''
``serious,'' ``severe,'' and ``extreme'' ozone nonattainment areas, and
in all areas of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). EPA has defined RACT
as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable
of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and economic feasibility. New
Hampshire submitted its NO_X RACT regulation in various
pieces between 1992 and 1995 as a revision to the state's SIP. On April
9, 1997, EPA approved the state's NO_X RACT rule through a
direct final action in the Federal Register (62 FR 17087.)

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) Phase II NO_X Requirements

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

[[Page 18496]]

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

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

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

J. Has New Hampshire Met Its Contingency Measure Obligation?

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

K. Are Conformity Budgets Contained in the Plan?

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

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

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

II. Final Action

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

III. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices,

[[Page 18497]]

provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 17, 2002. Interested
parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than
petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the
comment period allowed for in the proposal. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart EE--New Hampshire

2. Section 52.1534 is added to subpart EE to read as follows:

Sec. 52.1534 Control strategy: Ozone.

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

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

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

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

Related Material

Local Navigation