Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Reasonably Available Control Technology Orders, 48068-48071 [2019-19510]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
48068
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Governments
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect 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. We have
analyzed this rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent
with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements
described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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. If you
believe this rule has implications for
federalism or Indian tribes, please
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this rule
will not result in such an expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023–01 and Environmental
Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety
zone lasting only 4 hours that will
prohibit entry within certain navigable
waters during a swim event. It is
categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) in Table
3–1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementing Procedures
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Sep 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
5090.1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR
1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T05–0719 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165.T05–0719 Safety Zone; New Jersey
Intracoastal Waterway, Atlantic City, NJ.
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: All navigable waters of the
New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway in
Atlantic City, NJ, within the polygon
bounded by the following: Originating
at the southeast portion of the Albany
Avenue Bridge where the bridge crosses
the shoreline at approximate position
latitude 39°21′12″ N, longitude
074°27′23″ W; thence northeasterly
along the shoreline to latitude 39°21′43″
N, longitude 074°26′41″ W; thence west
across the New Jersey Intracoastal
Waterway to the shoreline at latitude
39°21′42″ N, longitude 074°26′51″ W;
thence west along the shoreline to
latitude 39°21′41″ N, longitude
074°26′55″ W; thence southwest across
the mouth of Beach Thorofare to the
shoreline at latitude 39°21′35″ N,
longitude 074°27′06″ W; thence
southwest along the shoreline to the
northeast portion of the Albany Avenue
Bridge where the bridge crosses the
shoreline at approximate position
latitude 39°21′16″ N, longitude
074°27′26″ W; thence south along the
eastern, outermost edge of the bridge to
the point of origin.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol
Commander, including a Coast Guard
petty officer, warrant or commissioned
officer on board a Coast Guard vessel or
on board a federal, state, or local law
enforcement vessel assisting the Captain
of the Port (COTP), Delaware Bay in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general
safety zone regulations in subpart C of
this part, you may not enter the safety
zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section unless authorized by the COTP
or the COTP’s designated representative.
(2) To seek permission to enter or
remain in the zone, contact the COTP or
the COTP’s representative via VHF–FM
channel 16 or 215–271–4807. Those in
the safety zone must comply with all
lawful orders or directions given to
them by the COTP or the COTP’s
designated representative.
(3) This section applies to all vessels
except those engaged in law
enforcement, aids to navigation
servicing, and emergency response
operations.
(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast
Guard may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of the safety zone by
Federal, State, and local agencies.
(e) Enforcement period. This zone
will be enforced from approximately
(but no earlier than) 5:30 a.m. to
approximately (but not later than) 10:30
a.m. on September 15, 2019.
Dated: September 6, 2019.
Jonathan D. Theel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain
of the Port Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2019–19737 Filed 9–11–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2019–0179; FRL–9999–13–
Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire;
Reasonably Available Control
Technology Orders
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of New
Hampshire. These revisions consist of
single source Orders that New
Hampshire adopted to meet reasonably
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
available control technology (RACT)
requirements, and requests made by
New Hampshire to withdraw from its
SIP a number of previously issued
RACT Orders. This action is being taken
under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on October
15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR–
2019–0179. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://
www.regulations.gov website. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available 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
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air and Radiation Division (Mail Code
05–2), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts
02109–3912; (617) 918–1046.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
I. Background and Purpose
On July 12, 2019 (84 FR 33198), EPA
published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of
New Hampshire. The NPRM proposed
approval of the following items into the
New Hampshire SIP: A single source
NOX RACT Order for Schiller Station; a
revised single source NOX RACT Order
for Anheuser Busch; a revised single
source VOC RACT Order for Metal
Works Incorporated; a revised single
source VOC RACT Order for Polyonics,
Inc., and; a single source VOC RACT
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Sep 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
Order for Complete Coverage
Woodpriming, LLC. EPA also proposed
to withdraw from the New Hampshire
SIP previously approved RACT Orders
for the L.W. Packard Company, the
Groveton Paperboard Company, the
Hampshire Chemical Company, the
Waterville Valley Ski Resort, and the
Concord Litho Group, Incorporated. We
note that although our NPRM
mentioned that New Hampshire’s
September 5, 2018 submittal request
included a request to withdraw from the
SIP two RACT orders previously issued
to the Public Service Company of New
Hampshire (PSNH), our NPRM did not
propose action on that request. We will
take action on the State’s request
regarding withdrawal of the RACT
orders for PSNH in a future rulemaking.
Other specific requirements of the
State’s submittals and the rationale for
EPA’s proposed action are explained in
the NPRM and will not be restated here.
We received one set of comments on the
NPRM, which we have summarized and
responded to in section II below.
II. Response to Comments
We received one comment letter
containing three comments on the
NPRM. A summary of the comments,
and our responses, follows.
Comment 1: The RACT Order for the
Metal Works facility should not be
approved because, by definition, RACT
is the lowest achievable emission limit
capable of being met by application of
technological and economical control
technology. Purchasing of emission
reduction credits is not an emission
limit and thus cannot be approved as
RACT. EPA has no precedent that
allows this and directly goes against
settled case law. RACT must be an
emission limit, and that limit must be
met with technologically and
economically feasible control
equipment.
Response: Contrary to the
commenter’s assertion, EPA has long
held that compliance with RACT can be
achieved via the purchase of emission
reduction credits (ERCs), and so does
not need to be met exclusively by the
establishment of emission limits
applicable to all RACT-subject sources.
In 1986, EPA issued its Emission
Trading Policy Statement (ETPS). See 51
FR 43814; December 4, 1986.
Subsequently, on April 7, 1994,
pursuant to Section 182(g)(4)(B) of the
Clean Air Act, EPA promulgated its
Economic Incentive Program (EIP) Rules
(see 59 FR 16690; April 7, 1994), and
updated the EIP in 2001.1 The ETPS and
1 Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive
Programs; EPA–452/R–01–001; January, 2001.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48069
the EIP rules contain guidelines for the
generation and use of ERCs. In New
Hampshire’s case, although the state has
adopted an emission credit trading rule,
Env–A 3100, Discrete Emission
Reduction Trading Program, we have
not approved that rule into the New
Hampshire SIP. Therefore, we evaluate
the generation and use of ERCs for
RACT compliance in New Hampshire
on a case by case basis. See, for
example, our final rule for New
Hampshire from November 5, 2012 (77
FR 66391). In this particular case, we
agree with New Hampshire’s
determination that the ERCs to be used
by the Metal Works facility meet the key
aspects of the ETPS and EIP rules,
namely that they are surplus,
enforceable, permanent, and
quantifiable, and therefore are
appropriate for use in trading to meet
RACT requirements.
Comment 2: For Polyonics, EPA is
proposing to establish the sale of
emission reduction credits as
representing RACT, but the sale of
emission credits cannot possibly
represent the application of
technological and economically feasible
control technology. The same emission
limit that applied before the order was
amended should ‘‘continue to represent
RACT’’
Response: The commenter
misinterprets our proposed action with
regard to the Polyonics facility. The
same emission limits within the preexisting RACT order do continue to
apply to the facility. The amendment to
the Order just added the capability for
the source to generate ERCs.
Comment 3: For L.W. Packard,
Groveton Paperboard, Hampshire
Chemical Corp, and Concord Litho
Group, EPA states that these facilities
‘‘ceased operations’’ as of various dates
in the past. EPA must only allow
removal of these orders if the state has
fully rescinded their operating permits
and the facilities are unable to be
reactivated under their current Title V
operating permit.
Response: The Hampshire Chemical
Corporation closed and surrendered its
operating permit in 2004; the L.W.
Packard Company and Groveton
Paperboard both closed and surrendered
their operating permits in 2008. On
October 29, 2018, the Concord Litho
Group requested that New Hampshire
terminate its operating permit because it
had ceased printing operations, which
had been the subject of its operating
permit requirements, and New
Hampshire complied with that request.
We note that our NPRM incorrectly
indicated the facility had closed; other
operations at the facility remain in
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
48070
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
existence, but due to their minimal
emissions do not require issuance of a
state operating permit or RACT order
from the State.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the following RACT
orders and RACT order withdrawals as
revisions to the New Hampshire SIP: A
single source NOX RACT Order for
Schiller Station; a revised single source
NOX RACT Order for Anheuser Busch;
a revised single source VOC RACT
Order for Metal Works Incorporated; a
revised single source VOC RACT Order
for Polyonics, Inc., and a single source
VOC RACT Order for Complete
Coverage Woodpriming, LLC. We are
also withdrawing from the New
Hampshire SIP previously approved
RACT Orders for the L.W. Packard
Company, the Groveton Paperboard
Company, the Hampshire Chemical
Company, the Waterville Valley Ski
Resort, and the Concord Litho Group,
Incorporated.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the
incorporation by reference of the
following RACT Orders issued by New
Hampshire: NOX RACT Order RO–003
for Schiller Station; NOX RACT Order
ARD–05–001 for Anheuser Busch; VOC
RACT Order ARD–05–001 for Metal
Works Incorporated; VOC RACT Order
ARD 07–004 for Polyonics, Inc., and;
VOC RACT Order RO–0004 for
Complete Coverage Wood Priming, LLC.
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).
Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the
State implementation plan, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA
as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will
be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.2
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
2 62
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Sep 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this 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 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);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is
not significant under Executive Order
12866;
• 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;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, 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 rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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. Section 804,
however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of
particular applicability; rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and
rules of agency organization, procedure,
or practice that do not substantially
affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because
this is a rule of particular applicability,
EPA is not required to submit a rule
report regarding this action under
section 801.
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 November 12,
2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this action 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, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: August 28, 2019.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
1.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
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 52.1520(d) is amended by:
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
48071
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
a. Removing the entries for ‘‘Source
specific NOX RACT order for Groveton
Paperboard Corp., Groveton, NH’’;
‘‘Source specific NOX RACT order for
Waterville Valley Ski Area Ltd.,
Waterville Valley, NH’’; ‘‘VOC RACT for
L.W. Packard and Company, Inc.
Ashland, NH’’; ‘‘Source specific NOX
■
RACT order for Hampshire Chemical
Corporation, Nashua, NH’’; ‘‘Concord
Litho Group—Permit No. ARD–07–
003’’; ‘‘Metal Works’’; ‘‘Polyonics’’;
‘‘Anheuser Busch’’; ‘‘PSNH, Schiller
Station’’; and ‘‘Concord Litho Group—
Permit No. ARD–07–003A’’; and b.
Adding entries for ‘‘Schiller Station’’;
‘‘Anheuser Busch’’; ‘‘Metal Works’’;
‘‘Polyonics’’; and ‘‘Complete Coverage
Woodpriming’’ in numerical order.
The additions read as follows:
§ 52.1520
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED NEW HAMPSHIRE SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Name of source
State effective
date
Permit No.
*
*
*
Schiller Station ........................ NOx RACT Order RO–003 ....
EPA approval date
*
9/6/2018
*
9/12/2019 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
NOx RACT Order ARD–05–
001.
VOC RACT Order ARD–05–
001.
1/17/2018
9/12/2019 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
9/12/2019 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Polyonics .................................
VOC RACT Order ARD07–
004.
8/28/2018
9/12/2019 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Complete Coverage
Woodpriming.
VOC RACT Order RO–0004
3/14/2019
9/12/2019 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Anheuser Busch .....................
Metal Works ............................
*
*
*
8/16/2018
*
Additional explanations/
§ 52.1535 citation
2
*
*
*
Order contains NOx emission
limits for emission units
SR4 and SR6.
Revisions made to testing requirements for two boilers.
Order allows for compliance
via purchase of emission
reduction credits.
Order allows facility to generate emission reduction
credits.
Order provides a VOC content limit for stain blocker
used by the facility.
*
*
2 In
order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
*
*
§ 52.1525
*
*
*
[Amended]
3. In § 52.1525, amend the table by
removing the entries with the following
State citation chapter: ‘‘Order ARD–94–
001’’; ‘‘Order ARD–95–001’’; ‘‘Order
ARD–95–003’’; ‘‘Order ARD–95–011’’;
and ‘‘Order ARD–00–001’’.
■
[FR Doc. 2019–19510 Filed 9–11–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0514; FRL–9998–98]
Pyraflufen-ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of pyraflufenethyl in or on multiple commodities
which are identified and discussed later
in this document. In addition, certain
existing tolerances are removed as they
are superseded by this action.
Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR–4) requested these tolerances under
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Sep 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
September 12, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before November 12, 2019 and
must be filed in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0514, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460–0001. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460–0001; main telephone number:
(703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Publishing Office’s eCFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48068-48071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19510]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0179; FRL-9999-13-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Reasonably Available Control
Technology Orders
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of New
Hampshire. These revisions consist of single source Orders that New
Hampshire adopted to meet reasonably
[[Page 48069]]
available control technology (RACT) requirements, and requests made by
New Hampshire to withdraw from its SIP a number of previously issued
RACT Orders. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on October 15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0179. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available 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 Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air and Radiation Division (Mail Code 05-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
Massachusetts 02109-3912; (617) 918-1046.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On July 12, 2019 (84 FR 33198), EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of New Hampshire. The NPRM proposed
approval of the following items into the New Hampshire SIP: A single
source NOX RACT Order for Schiller Station; a revised single
source NOX RACT Order for Anheuser Busch; a revised single
source VOC RACT Order for Metal Works Incorporated; a revised single
source VOC RACT Order for Polyonics, Inc., and; a single source VOC
RACT Order for Complete Coverage Woodpriming, LLC. EPA also proposed to
withdraw from the New Hampshire SIP previously approved RACT Orders for
the L.W. Packard Company, the Groveton Paperboard Company, the
Hampshire Chemical Company, the Waterville Valley Ski Resort, and the
Concord Litho Group, Incorporated. We note that although our NPRM
mentioned that New Hampshire's September 5, 2018 submittal request
included a request to withdraw from the SIP two RACT orders previously
issued to the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH), our NPRM
did not propose action on that request. We will take action on the
State's request regarding withdrawal of the RACT orders for PSNH in a
future rulemaking. Other specific requirements of the State's
submittals and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in
the NPRM and will not be restated here. We received one set of comments
on the NPRM, which we have summarized and responded to in section II
below.
II. Response to Comments
We received one comment letter containing three comments on the
NPRM. A summary of the comments, and our responses, follows.
Comment 1: The RACT Order for the Metal Works facility should not
be approved because, by definition, RACT is the lowest achievable
emission limit capable of being met by application of technological and
economical control technology. Purchasing of emission reduction credits
is not an emission limit and thus cannot be approved as RACT. EPA has
no precedent that allows this and directly goes against settled case
law. RACT must be an emission limit, and that limit must be met with
technologically and economically feasible control equipment.
Response: Contrary to the commenter's assertion, EPA has long held
that compliance with RACT can be achieved via the purchase of emission
reduction credits (ERCs), and so does not need to be met exclusively by
the establishment of emission limits applicable to all RACT-subject
sources. In 1986, EPA issued its Emission Trading Policy Statement
(ETPS). See 51 FR 43814; December 4, 1986. Subsequently, on April 7,
1994, pursuant to Section 182(g)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act, EPA
promulgated its Economic Incentive Program (EIP) Rules (see 59 FR
16690; April 7, 1994), and updated the EIP in 2001.\1\ The ETPS and the
EIP rules contain guidelines for the generation and use of ERCs. In New
Hampshire's case, although the state has adopted an emission credit
trading rule, Env-A 3100, Discrete Emission Reduction Trading Program,
we have not approved that rule into the New Hampshire SIP. Therefore,
we evaluate the generation and use of ERCs for RACT compliance in New
Hampshire on a case by case basis. See, for example, our final rule for
New Hampshire from November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66391). In this particular
case, we agree with New Hampshire's determination that the ERCs to be
used by the Metal Works facility meet the key aspects of the ETPS and
EIP rules, namely that they are surplus, enforceable, permanent, and
quantifiable, and therefore are appropriate for use in trading to meet
RACT requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs; EPA-
452/R-01-001; January, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: For Polyonics, EPA is proposing to establish the sale of
emission reduction credits as representing RACT, but the sale of
emission credits cannot possibly represent the application of
technological and economically feasible control technology. The same
emission limit that applied before the order was amended should
``continue to represent RACT''
Response: The commenter misinterprets our proposed action with
regard to the Polyonics facility. The same emission limits within the
pre-existing RACT order do continue to apply to the facility. The
amendment to the Order just added the capability for the source to
generate ERCs.
Comment 3: For L.W. Packard, Groveton Paperboard, Hampshire
Chemical Corp, and Concord Litho Group, EPA states that these
facilities ``ceased operations'' as of various dates in the past. EPA
must only allow removal of these orders if the state has fully
rescinded their operating permits and the facilities are unable to be
reactivated under their current Title V operating permit.
Response: The Hampshire Chemical Corporation closed and surrendered
its operating permit in 2004; the L.W. Packard Company and Groveton
Paperboard both closed and surrendered their operating permits in 2008.
On October 29, 2018, the Concord Litho Group requested that New
Hampshire terminate its operating permit because it had ceased printing
operations, which had been the subject of its operating permit
requirements, and New Hampshire complied with that request. We note
that our NPRM incorrectly indicated the facility had closed; other
operations at the facility remain in
[[Page 48070]]
existence, but due to their minimal emissions do not require issuance
of a state operating permit or RACT order from the State.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the following RACT orders and RACT order
withdrawals as revisions to the New Hampshire SIP: A single source
NOX RACT Order for Schiller Station; a revised single source
NOX RACT Order for Anheuser Busch; a revised single source
VOC RACT Order for Metal Works Incorporated; a revised single source
VOC RACT Order for Polyonics, Inc., and a single source VOC RACT Order
for Complete Coverage Woodpriming, LLC. We are also withdrawing from
the New Hampshire SIP previously approved RACT Orders for the L.W.
Packard Company, the Groveton Paperboard Company, the Hampshire
Chemical Company, the Waterville Valley Ski Resort, and the Concord
Litho Group, Incorporated.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
following RACT Orders issued by New Hampshire: NOX RACT
Order RO-003 for Schiller Station; NOX RACT Order ARD-05-001
for Anheuser Busch; VOC RACT Order ARD-05-001 for Metal Works
Incorporated; VOC RACT Order ARD 07-004 for Polyonics, Inc., and; VOC
RACT Order RO-0004 for Complete Coverage Wood Priming, LLC. 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). Therefore,
these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State
implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to
the SIP compilation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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 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 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);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because
this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
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; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, 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 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).
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. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
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 November 12, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action 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, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 28, 2019.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart EE--New Hampshire
0
2. Section 52.1520(d) is amended by:
[[Page 48071]]
0
a. Removing the entries for ``Source specific NOX RACT order
for Groveton Paperboard Corp., Groveton, NH''; ``Source specific
NOX RACT order for Waterville Valley Ski Area Ltd.,
Waterville Valley, NH''; ``VOC RACT for L.W. Packard and Company, Inc.
Ashland, NH''; ``Source specific NOX RACT order for
Hampshire Chemical Corporation, Nashua, NH''; ``Concord Litho Group--
Permit No. ARD-07-003''; ``Metal Works''; ``Polyonics''; ``Anheuser
Busch''; ``PSNH, Schiller Station''; and ``Concord Litho Group--Permit
No. ARD-07-003A''; and b. Adding entries for ``Schiller Station'';
``Anheuser Busch''; ``Metal Works''; ``Polyonics''; and ``Complete
Coverage Woodpriming'' in numerical order.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved New Hampshire Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
Name of source Permit No. State EPA approval date explanations/Sec.
effective date \2\ 52.1535 citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Schiller Station................. NOx RACT Order RO- 9/6/2018 9/12/2019 [Insert Order contains NOx
003. Federal Register emission limits
citation]. for emission units
SR4 and SR6.
Anheuser Busch................... NOx RACT Order ARD- 1/17/2018 9/12/2019 [Insert Revisions made to
05-001. Federal Register testing
citation]. requirements for
two boilers.
Metal Works...................... VOC RACT Order ARD- 8/16/2018 9/12/2019 [Insert Order allows for
05-001. Federal Register compliance via
citation]. purchase of
emission reduction
credits.
Polyonics........................ VOC RACT Order 8/28/2018 9/12/2019 [Insert Order allows
ARD07-004. Federal Register facility to
citation]. generate emission
reduction credits.
Complete Coverage Woodpriming.... VOC RACT Order RO- 3/14/2019 9/12/2019 [Insert Order provides a
0004. Federal Register VOC content limit
citation]. for stain blocker
used by the
facility.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
* * * * *
Sec. 52.1525 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 52.1525, amend the table by removing the entries with the
following State citation chapter: ``Order ARD-94-001''; ``Order ARD-95-
001''; ``Order ARD-95-003''; ``Order ARD-95-011''; and ``Order ARD-00-
001''.
[FR Doc. 2019-19510 Filed 9-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
