Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Sulfur Content Limitations for Fuels, 8566-8569 [2021-02535]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8566
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
• 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).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: February 3, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2021–02538 Filed 2–5–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Feb 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2020–0209; FRL–10019–
69–Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire;
Sulfur Content Limitations for Fuels
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of New
Hampshire on March 11, 2019. This
revision establishes sulfur content
limitations for fuels. In addition, the
State requests withdrawal from the SIP
of the existing sulfur limitations
regulation, which will be superseded if
and when EPA takes final action on the
State’s revised sulfur limitations
regulation. The intended effect of this
action is to propose approval of the
State’s March 11, 2019 submittal into
the New Hampshire SIP. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before March 10, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2020–0209 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov. 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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 and
facility closures due to COVID–19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—
Suite 100, (Mail code 05–2), Boston, MA
02109–3912, tel. (617) 918–1697, email
mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. New Hampshire’s SIP Revision
III. EPA’s Evaluation of New Hampshire’s SIP
Revision
a. Liquid Fuels
b. Solid Fuels
c. Gaseous Fuels
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
New Hampshire’s Env-A 400 Sulfur
Content Limits of Fuels was approved
by EPA as a revision to the New
Hampshire SIP on August 14, 1992 (57
FR 36603). Env-A 400 Sulfur Content
Limits of Fuels was subsequently
renumbered by the state as Env-A 1600
Fuel Specifications (Env-A 1600).
Env-A 1600 was submitted to EPA as a
revision to the SIP in 2003 with a
subsequent amendment submitted in
2015. However, New Hampshire
withdrew both submittals prior to EPA
action. Effective July 1, 2018, New
Hampshire’s Revised Statutes
Annotated (RSA) 125–C:10–d was
amended to reduce the sulfur limits in
liquid fuels imported into or distributed
within the State. The State’s March 11,
2019 SIP submittal of revised Env-A
1600 Fuel Specifications implements
the state statute, (RSA) 125–C:10–d as
amended.
Env-A 1600 is intended to prevent,
abate, and control the use of fuels
containing specific pollutant elements
and compounds. In conjunction with
the submittal of Env-A 1600, on May 22,
2019, the New Hampshire Department
of Environmental Services (NH DES)
E:\FR\FM\08FEP1.SGM
08FEP1
8567
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
requested removal of Env-A 400 Sulfur
Content Limits in Fuels, which
currently exists in the New Hampshire
SIP but has been superseded as a matter
of state law by Env-A 1600. Env-A 400
is now a state regulation unrelated to
sulfur limitations in fuels.
II. New Hampshire’s SIP Revision
On March 11, 2019, the NH DES
submitted a SIP revision to EPA. This
SIP revision includes Env-A 1600 Fuel
Specifications, with amendments to
Env-A 1603 and 1604 Sulfur Content
Limitations effective December 21,
2018. The amended Env-A 1603 and
1604 lower the allowable limits for the
sulfur content of liquid and solid fuels.
The submitted Env-A 1600 removes the
provisions of the EPA’s previously
approved Env-A 400 related to sulfur
content requirements for natural gas, as
explained below in section III.c.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of New
Hampshire’s SIP Revision
a. Liquid Fuels
The previous SIP-approved Env-A 400
generally allowed for the use of
distillate oil (No. 2), No. 4 oil, and
residual oil (Nos. 5 and 6) with a sulfur
in fuel limit containing 0.4% sulfur by
weight, 1% sulfur by weight, and 2%
sulfur by weight, respectively.1 The
submitted revised Env-A 1603 prohibits
on and after July 1, 2018 the importation
of, and prohibits on and after February
1, 2019 the sale or distribution (except
for fuel remaining in storage for a device
not requiring a permit pursuant to RSA
125–C:11) of, fuels having a sulfur
content in excess of the limits contained
in Table 1:
TABLE 1—REVISED SULFUR CONTENT
OF LIQUID FUELS
Fuel type
Percent by weight
No. 2 oil, also referred to
as distillate oil.
No. 4 oil ..........................
No. 5 oil or No. 6 oil, also
referred to as residual
oil.
0.0015% (15 parts million (ppm)).
0.25% (250 ppm).
0.5% (500 ppm).
In addition, Env-A 1603, Sulfur
Content of Liquid Fuels prohibits the
use of subject fuels at a stationary
source or unit, and prohibits any person
from supplying such fuels, having a
sulfur content in excess of that in Table
2:
TABLE 2—STATE APPROVED SULFUR
CONTENT OF LIQUID FUELS
Fuel type
Percent by weight
JP–4 aviation fuel ...........
0.4% (4,000 parts million
(ppm)).
0.05% (500 ppm).
0.04% (400 ppm).
0.3% (3,000 ppm).
Aviation gasoline ............
Kerosene-1 oil ................
Kersonene-2 oil and Jet
A, A–1, B, and JP–8
aviation fuels.
Used oil ...........................
2%.
Sulfur in fuel limits for these fuel types
are not specified in the previously SIPapproved Env-A 400 and therefore this
strengthens the SIP.
EPA finds that Env-A 1600 contains
fuel sulfur limits which are more
stringent than those in the original rule
(Env-A 400), and in addition, includes
sulfur limits for additional fuels
(kerosene and several grades of aviation
fuel) which have not been previously
addressed in the SIP.
b. Solid Fuels
For solid fuel, the previous SIPapproved Env-A 400 required the use of
coal with a maximum sulfur content of
2.8 pounds sulfur per million BTU gross
heat content for existing sources, a three
month weighted average of 2.0 pounds
sulfur per million BTU for coal received
for use in any stationary source for the
generation of heat or power, and 1.5
pounds sulfur per million BTU gross
heat content for sources placed in
operation after April 15, 1970. Env-A
1604 Sulfur Content Limitations for
Solid Fuels limits the maximum sulfur
content in coal to the following:
TABLE 3—REVISED SULFUR CONTENT
OF SOLID FUELS
Percent by weight
Coal-burning device
placed in operation before April 15, 1970.
Coal-burning device
placed in operation on
or after April 15, 1970.
2.8 pounds per million
BTU (lb/MBTU) gross
heat content.
1.5 lb/MBTU gross heat
content.
1.0 lb/MBTU gross heat
content average over
any consecutive 3month period.
Env-A 1604 is silent on the previously
approved three-month weighted average
of 2.0 pounds sulfur per million BTU for
coal received for use in any stationary
source for the generation of heat or
power. However, NH DES’s SIP
submission points out that current
federally approved permit operating
conditions for the two stationary
sources in the State put into operation
prior to April 15, 1970 are more
stringent than the previously approved
sulfur in coal requirement in Env-A
400.2
c. Gaseous Fuels
SIP-approved Env-A 400 requires that
gaseous fuel (natural and manufactured
gas) shall contain no more than 5 grains
per 100 cubic feet of sulfur, calculated
as hydrogen sulfide (H2S), at standard
conditions. Env-A 1600 does not
include sulfur limits for gaseous fuels.
New Hampshire’s SIP submittal points
out that the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) determines the
allowable sulfur content of natural gas
in interstate pipelines. In addition, New
Hampshire’s SIP submission states that
Subchapter C of EPA regulations at 40
CFR 79.55 specifies that propane-based
fuel, defined as ‘‘gaseous motor vehicle
fuel, marketed commercially as liquified
petroleum gas (LPG), whose primary
constituent is propane’’ shall have a
sulfur limit, including odorant, as
specified in the table below. In addition,
commercial propane is sold in several
grades and each grade has a sulfur
content specification (also shown in the
table 4 below) as published by the Gas
Processor’s Association.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 4—SULFUR CONTENT OF GASEOUS FUELS
Fuel
ppmvd
(as S)
gr/100 scf
(as H2S)
Natural Gas ..................................................................................................................................
Natural Gas & Manufactured Gas ...............................................................................................
EPA 40 CFR 79.55 Table F94–B Propane Based Fuel Specifications ......................................
GPA HD–5 Propane (industry standard) .....................................................................................
338
338
........................
169
0.3
0.25
........................
10
1 The residual oil limit for the Androscoggin
Valley Air Quality Controls Region was 2.2% by
weight.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Feb 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
2 The coal sulfur limit of 2.0 lb sulfur per MMBtu
is equivalent to an emission limit of 4.0 lbs SO2/
MMBtu averaged over any consecutive 3-month
period. The subject facilities, Merrimack Station
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
gr/100 scf
(as S)
20
20
7.7
10
and Schiller Station, have federally enforceable SO2
permit limits of 0.39 lb/MMBtu (7-day rolling
average) and 0.83 lb/MMBtu (24-hr calendar
average), respectively.
E:\FR\FM\08FEP1.SGM
08FEP1
8568
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—SULFUR CONTENT OF GASEOUS FUELS—Continued
ppmvd
(as S)
Fuel
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Commercial Propane (industry standard) ....................................................................................
Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act
provides that EPA shall not approve any
implementation plan revision if it
would interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable progress, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. As
noted above, Env-A 1600 as a whole
contains more stringent sulfur in fuel
limits than the current SIP-approved
rule (Env-A 400). Even though Env-A
1600 does not contain limits for sulfur
in gaseous fuels (HD–5 Propone and
Commercial Propane), the lowering of
the allowed sulfur in fuel content of the
solid and liquid fuels will result in an
overall reduction in the sulfur content
of fuels. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
find that the requirements of section
110(l) have been met.
The rule contains a provision
whereby the State may, upon
application, allow suppliers to defer
compliance with sulfur content
emission limits of the rule during fuel
supply shortages, provided that
compliance is not deferred for more
than 90 days. Additional requests to
defer compliance may be made if the
supply shortage continues longer than
90 days. The regulation requires the
supplier to: (1) Describe efforts made to
obtain compliant fuel, (2) indicate how
much compliant fuel the supplier has at
the time of the request, and (3) provide
an estimate of the duration of the
shortage. The rule requires that the State
confer with EPA upon receipt of a
deferral request. In addition, the rule
requires that the State notify EPA within
5 days of issuing an order deferring
compliance.
In a letter dated November 20, 2020,
NH DES provided additional
information on the possible impact of
granting a deferral request during a
supply shortage.3 NH DES
conservatively estimated that the
granting of a temporary statewide sulfur
in fuel deferral would only increase the
SO2 emissions by an average of 1.9 lb
SO2 per square mile per day. NH DES
further clarifies that the adoption of the
low sulfur in fuels limits is SIP
strengthening and considered one
component of the State’s Regional Haze
strategy. Based on modeling conducted
3 The NH DES letter dated November 20, 2020,
signed by Craig A. Wright is included in the docket
for this rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Feb 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
in support of regional haze plan
development, a temporary deferral of
the sulfur in fuel requirements would
not cause significant degradation of
visibility. Finally, NH DES highlighted
the establishment of the Department of
Energy Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve (NEHHOR), a one-million-barrel
supply of ultra-low sulfur distillate
which can be released should a
disruption in supply occur.4
Since (1) the supplier must
demonstrate that certain conditions are
met, (2) the deferral of the emission
limits may not be permanent or openended, (3) such deferral requires
notification to EPA, (4) such a
temporarily deferral will not result in a
significant increase in SO2 emissions or
visibility impairment, and (5) the
unlikelihood of such a request due to
the NEHHOR, we propose to find the
provision approvable.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Env-A
1600, Fuel Specifications, which was
submitted to EPA by New Hampshire on
March 11, 2019. In addition, EPA is
proposing to remove previously SIP
approved Env-400, Sulfur Content of
Fuels, which has been superseded by
Env-A 1600 as a matter of state law. EPA
is soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this notice or on
other relevant matters. 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 Federal
Register.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
New Hampshire’s regulation Env-A
1600 Fuel Specifications as discussed in
section III. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents
generally available through https://
4 https://www.energy.gov/fe/services/petroleumresrves/heating-oil-reserves as visited on July 8,
2020.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
gr/100 scf
(as H2S)
254
gr/100 scf
(as S)
15
15
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). EPA is
also proposing to remove provisions of
Env-A 400 Sulfur Content Limit in
Fuels, approved August 14, 1992 (57 FR
36603) from the New Hampshire State
Implementation Plan, which is
incorporated by reference in accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not expected to be 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
E:\FR\FM\08FEP1.SGM
08FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: February 3, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2021–02535 Filed 2–5–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards Second
Maintenance Plan for the Tioga County
Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
17:47 Feb 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2020–0321 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
spielberger.susan@epa.gov. 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, 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. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (e.g.,
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.
ADDRESSES:
Adam Yarina, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air &
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
The telephone number is (215) 814–
2108. Mr. Yarina can also be reached via
electronic mail at yarina.adam@epa.gov.
On March
10, 2020, PADEP submitted a revision to
the Pennsylvania SIP to incorporate a
plan for maintaining the 1997 ozone
NAAQS in the Tioga County Area
through July 6, 2027, in accordance with
CAA section 175A.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Written comments must be
received on or before March 10, 2021.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0321; FRL–10016–
97–Region 3]
SUMMARY:
Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to
the Commonwealth’s plan, submitted by
the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), for
maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) (referred to as the ‘‘1997
ozone NAAQS’’) in the Tioga County,
Pennsylvania area (Tioga County Area).
This action is being taken under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8569
I. Background
In 1979, under section 109 of the
CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12
parts per million (ppm), averaged over
a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February
8, 1979). On July 18, 1997 (62 FR
38856),1 EPA revised the primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient
air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour
period. EPA set the 1997 ozone NAAQS
based on scientific evidence
demonstrating that ozone causes
adverse health effects at lower
concentrations and over longer periods
of time than was understood when the
pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS was
set.
Following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the
CAA to designate areas throughout the
nation as attaining or not attaining the
NAAQS. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23857), EPA designated the Tioga
County Area as nonattainment for the
1997 ozone NAAQS, effective June 15,
2004. The Tioga County Area consists
solely of Tioga County in Pennsylvania.
Once a nonattainment area has three
years of complete and certified air
quality data that has been determined to
attain the NAAQS, and the area has met
the other criteria outlined in CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E),2 the state can
submit a request to EPA to redesignate
the area to attainment. Areas that have
been redesignated by EPA from
nonattainment to attainment are referred
to as ‘‘maintenance areas.’’ One of the
criteria for redesignation is to have an
approved maintenance plan under CAA
section 175A. The maintenance plan
must demonstrate that the area will
continue to maintain the standard for
the period extending 10 years after
redesignation, and it must contain such
additional measures as necessary to
ensure maintenance as well as
contingency measures as necessary to
assure that violations of the standard
will be promptly corrected.
1 In March 2008, EPA completed another review
of the primary and secondary ozone standards and
tightened them further by lowering the level for
both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a
review of the primary and secondary ozone
standards and tightened them by lowering the level
for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26,
2015).
2 The requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)
include attainment of the NAAQS, full approval
under section 110(k) of the applicable SIP,
determination that improvement in air quality is a
result of permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions, demonstration that the state has met all
applicable section 110 and part D requirements, and
a fully approved maintenance plan under CAA
section 175A.
E:\FR\FM\08FEP1.SGM
08FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 24 (Monday, February 8, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8566-8569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02535]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0209; FRL-10019-69-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Sulfur Content Limitations for
Fuels
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of New Hampshire on March 11, 2019. This revision establishes
sulfur content limitations for fuels. In addition, the State requests
withdrawal from the SIP of the existing sulfur limitations regulation,
which will be superseded if and when EPA takes final action on the
State's revised sulfur limitations regulation. The intended effect of
this action is to propose approval of the State's March 11, 2019
submittal into the New Hampshire SIP. This action is being taken under
the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 10, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2020-0209 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 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: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617)
918-1697, 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. New Hampshire's SIP Revision
III. EPA's Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Revision
a. Liquid Fuels
b. Solid Fuels
c. Gaseous Fuels
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
New Hampshire's Env-A 400 Sulfur Content Limits of Fuels was
approved by EPA as a revision to the New Hampshire SIP on August 14,
1992 (57 FR 36603). Env-A 400 Sulfur Content Limits of Fuels was
subsequently renumbered by the state as Env-A 1600 Fuel Specifications
(Env-A 1600). Env-A 1600 was submitted to EPA as a revision to the SIP
in 2003 with a subsequent amendment submitted in 2015. However, New
Hampshire withdrew both submittals prior to EPA action. Effective July
1, 2018, New Hampshire's Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 125-C:10-d
was amended to reduce the sulfur limits in liquid fuels imported into
or distributed within the State. The State's March 11, 2019 SIP
submittal of revised Env-A 1600 Fuel Specifications implements the
state statute, (RSA) 125-C:10-d as amended.
Env-A 1600 is intended to prevent, abate, and control the use of
fuels containing specific pollutant elements and compounds. In
conjunction with the submittal of Env-A 1600, on May 22, 2019, the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES)
[[Page 8567]]
requested removal of Env-A 400 Sulfur Content Limits in Fuels, which
currently exists in the New Hampshire SIP but has been superseded as a
matter of state law by Env-A 1600. Env-A 400 is now a state regulation
unrelated to sulfur limitations in fuels.
II. New Hampshire's SIP Revision
On March 11, 2019, the NH DES submitted a SIP revision to EPA. This
SIP revision includes Env-A 1600 Fuel Specifications, with amendments
to Env-A 1603 and 1604 Sulfur Content Limitations effective December
21, 2018. The amended Env-A 1603 and 1604 lower the allowable limits
for the sulfur content of liquid and solid fuels. The submitted Env-A
1600 removes the provisions of the EPA's previously approved Env-A 400
related to sulfur content requirements for natural gas, as explained
below in section III.c.
III. EPA's Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Revision
a. Liquid Fuels
The previous SIP-approved Env-A 400 generally allowed for the use
of distillate oil (No. 2), No. 4 oil, and residual oil (Nos. 5 and 6)
with a sulfur in fuel limit containing 0.4% sulfur by weight, 1% sulfur
by weight, and 2% sulfur by weight, respectively.\1\ The submitted
revised Env-A 1603 prohibits on and after July 1, 2018 the importation
of, and prohibits on and after February 1, 2019 the sale or
distribution (except for fuel remaining in storage for a device not
requiring a permit pursuant to RSA 125-C:11) of, fuels having a sulfur
content in excess of the limits contained in Table 1:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The residual oil limit for the Androscoggin Valley Air
Quality Controls Region was 2.2% by weight.
Table 1--Revised Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel type Percent by weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 2 oil, also referred to as distillate 0.0015% (15 parts million
oil. (ppm)).
No. 4 oil................................. 0.25% (250 ppm).
No. 5 oil or No. 6 oil, also referred to 0.5% (500 ppm).
as residual oil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Env-A 1603, Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels prohibits
the use of subject fuels at a stationary source or unit, and prohibits
any person from supplying such fuels, having a sulfur content in excess
of that in Table 2:
Table 2--State Approved Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel type Percent by weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JP-4 aviation fuel........................ 0.4% (4,000 parts million
(ppm)).
Aviation gasoline......................... 0.05% (500 ppm).
Kerosene-1 oil............................ 0.04% (400 ppm).
Kersonene-2 oil and Jet A, A-1, B, and JP- 0.3% (3,000 ppm).
8 aviation fuels.
Used oil.................................. 2%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur in fuel limits for these fuel types are not specified in the
previously SIP-approved Env-A 400 and therefore this strengthens the
SIP.
EPA finds that Env-A 1600 contains fuel sulfur limits which are
more stringent than those in the original rule (Env-A 400), and in
addition, includes sulfur limits for additional fuels (kerosene and
several grades of aviation fuel) which have not been previously
addressed in the SIP.
b. Solid Fuels
For solid fuel, the previous SIP-approved Env-A 400 required the
use of coal with a maximum sulfur content of 2.8 pounds sulfur per
million BTU gross heat content for existing sources, a three month
weighted average of 2.0 pounds sulfur per million BTU for coal received
for use in any stationary source for the generation of heat or power,
and 1.5 pounds sulfur per million BTU gross heat content for sources
placed in operation after April 15, 1970. Env-A 1604 Sulfur Content
Limitations for Solid Fuels limits the maximum sulfur content in coal
to the following:
Table 3--Revised Sulfur Content of Solid Fuels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent by weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal-burning device placed in operation 2.8 pounds per million BTU
before April 15, 1970. (lb/MBTU) gross heat
content.
Coal-burning device placed in operation on 1.5 lb/MBTU gross heat
or after April 15, 1970. content.
1.0 lb/MBTU gross heat
content average over any
consecutive 3-month period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Env-A 1604 is silent on the previously approved three-month weighted
average of 2.0 pounds sulfur per million BTU for coal received for use
in any stationary source for the generation of heat or power. However,
NH DES's SIP submission points out that current federally approved
permit operating conditions for the two stationary sources in the State
put into operation prior to April 15, 1970 are more stringent than the
previously approved sulfur in coal requirement in Env-A 400.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The coal sulfur limit of 2.0 lb sulfur per MMBtu is
equivalent to an emission limit of 4.0 lbs SO2/MMBtu
averaged over any consecutive 3-month period. The subject
facilities, Merrimack Station and Schiller Station, have federally
enforceable SO2 permit limits of 0.39 lb/MMBtu (7-day
rolling average) and 0.83 lb/MMBtu (24-hr calendar average),
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Gaseous Fuels
SIP-approved Env-A 400 requires that gaseous fuel (natural and
manufactured gas) shall contain no more than 5 grains per 100 cubic
feet of sulfur, calculated as hydrogen sulfide (H2S), at
standard conditions. Env-A 1600 does not include sulfur limits for
gaseous fuels. New Hampshire's SIP submittal points out that the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) determines the allowable
sulfur content of natural gas in interstate pipelines. In addition, New
Hampshire's SIP submission states that Subchapter C of EPA regulations
at 40 CFR 79.55 specifies that propane-based fuel, defined as ``gaseous
motor vehicle fuel, marketed commercially as liquified petroleum gas
(LPG), whose primary constituent is propane'' shall have a sulfur
limit, including odorant, as specified in the table below. In addition,
commercial propane is sold in several grades and each grade has a
sulfur content specification (also shown in the table 4 below) as
published by the Gas Processor's Association.
Table 4--Sulfur Content of Gaseous Fuels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gr/100 scf (as gr/100 scf (as
Fuel ppmvd (as S) H2S) S)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Gas..................................................... 338 0.3 20
Natural Gas & Manufactured Gas.................................. 338 0.25 20
EPA 40 CFR 79.55 Table F94-B Propane Based Fuel Specifications.. .............. .............. 7.7
GPA HD-5 Propane (industry standard)............................ 169 10 10
[[Page 8568]]
Commercial Propane (industry standard).......................... 254 15 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act provides that EPA shall not
approve any implementation plan revision if it would interfere with any
applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable progress,
or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. As noted above, Env-A
1600 as a whole contains more stringent sulfur in fuel limits than the
current SIP-approved rule (Env-A 400). Even though Env-A 1600 does not
contain limits for sulfur in gaseous fuels (HD-5 Propone and Commercial
Propane), the lowering of the allowed sulfur in fuel content of the
solid and liquid fuels will result in an overall reduction in the
sulfur content of fuels. Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that the
requirements of section 110(l) have been met.
The rule contains a provision whereby the State may, upon
application, allow suppliers to defer compliance with sulfur content
emission limits of the rule during fuel supply shortages, provided that
compliance is not deferred for more than 90 days. Additional requests
to defer compliance may be made if the supply shortage continues longer
than 90 days. The regulation requires the supplier to: (1) Describe
efforts made to obtain compliant fuel, (2) indicate how much compliant
fuel the supplier has at the time of the request, and (3) provide an
estimate of the duration of the shortage. The rule requires that the
State confer with EPA upon receipt of a deferral request. In addition,
the rule requires that the State notify EPA within 5 days of issuing an
order deferring compliance.
In a letter dated November 20, 2020, NH DES provided additional
information on the possible impact of granting a deferral request
during a supply shortage.\3\ NH DES conservatively estimated that the
granting of a temporary statewide sulfur in fuel deferral would only
increase the SO2 emissions by an average of 1.9 lb
SO2 per square mile per day. NH DES further clarifies that
the adoption of the low sulfur in fuels limits is SIP strengthening and
considered one component of the State's Regional Haze strategy. Based
on modeling conducted in support of regional haze plan development, a
temporary deferral of the sulfur in fuel requirements would not cause
significant degradation of visibility. Finally, NH DES highlighted the
establishment of the Department of Energy Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve (NEHHOR), a one-million-barrel supply of ultra-low sulfur
distillate which can be released should a disruption in supply
occur.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The NH DES letter dated November 20, 2020, signed by Craig
A. Wright is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
\4\ https://www.energy.gov/fe/services/petroleum-resrves/heating-oil-reserves as visited on July 8, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since (1) the supplier must demonstrate that certain conditions are
met, (2) the deferral of the emission limits may not be permanent or
open-ended, (3) such deferral requires notification to EPA, (4) such a
temporarily deferral will not result in a significant increase in
SO2 emissions or visibility impairment, and (5) the
unlikelihood of such a request due to the NEHHOR, we propose to find
the provision approvable.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Env-A 1600, Fuel Specifications, which
was submitted to EPA by New Hampshire on March 11, 2019. In addition,
EPA is proposing to remove previously SIP approved Env-400, Sulfur
Content of Fuels, which has been superseded by Env-A 1600 as a matter
of state law. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed
in this notice or on other relevant matters. 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 Federal Register.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference New Hampshire's regulation Env-A 1600 Fuel Specifications as
discussed in section III. 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). EPA is also proposing to remove provisions of Env-A 400
Sulfur Content Limit in Fuels, approved August 14, 1992 (57 FR 36603)
from the New Hampshire State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated
by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not expected to be 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
[[Page 8569]]
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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 3, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2021-02535 Filed 2-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
