[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66388-66398]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26759]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0451; A-1-FRL-9748-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Hampshire; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of New Hampshire. These revisions consist of a
demonstration that New Hampshire meets the requirements of reasonably
available control technology for oxides of nitrogen and volatile
organic compounds set forth by the Clean Air Act with respect to the
1997 8-hour ozone standard, and revisions to existing rules controlling
these pollutants, and source-specific orders for fifteen individual
sources. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air
Act.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective January 4, 2013, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by December 5, 2012. If adverse comments
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the Docket ID Number
EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0451 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0451,''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2),
Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square, 5th Floor, Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2009-0451. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. 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 either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office
Square, 5th Floor, 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 to 4:30, excluding legal
holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state submittal are also available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment, at the
State Air Agency, as follows: Air Resources Division, Department of
Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-
0095.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0046, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Organization of this document.
The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in
this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of New Hampshire's SIP Revisions
III. Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Submittals
    A. Evaluation of RACT Certification
    B. Evaluation of Revised New Hampshire Rules
    1. Revisions to VOC Rules and Single Source VOC RACT Orders
    2. Revisions to NOX Rules and Single Source
NOX RACT Orders
    3. Revisions to Testing and Monitoring Procedures
    4. Revisions to Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm)
averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard
based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse
health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of
time than was understood when the pre-existing one-hour ozone standard
was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more
protective of human health, especially with regard to children and
adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory disease such as asthma.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA designated portions of New
Hampshire located in the southern part of the state as nonattainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. These areas were classified as
moderate, and are located within portions of Hillsborough, Merrimack,
Rockingham, and Strafford counties. See 40 CFR 81.330. The use of
reasonably available control technology (RACT) by certain stationary
sources is specified by sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA, or ``the Act'') in nonattainment areas classified as
moderate or higher. Additionally, section 184(b)(1)(B) of the Act
requires RACT controls in states located in the ozone transport region
(OTR). Although most of central and northern New Hampshire were not
designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, all parts
of the state are within the OTR and therefore all parts of New
Hampshire are required to implement RACT.
    Specifically, these areas are required to implement RACT on all
sources covered by a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) document and on
all major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen
oxide (NOX) emissions. A CTG is a document issued by EPA
which establishes a ``presumptive norm'' for RACT for a specific VOC
source category. A similar set of documents exists for NOX
control requirements; these are referred to as Alternative Control
Techniques (ACT) documents. States are required to submit rules or
negative declarations for CTG source categories, but not for sources in
ACT categories although RACT must be imposed on major sources of
NOX, and some of those major sources may be within a sector
covered by an ACT document.
    On November 29, 2005, EPA published a final rule in the Federal
Register that outlined requirements for areas found to be in
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (see 70 FR 71612). This
rule, referred to as the ``Phase 2 Implementation rule,'' contains a
description of what EPA's expectations are for states with RACT
obligations. The Phase 2 Implementation rule indicated that states
could meet RACT either through a certification that previously adopted
RACT controls in its SIP-approved by EPA under the one-hour ozone NAAQS
represent adequate RACT control levels for 8-hour attainment planning
purposes, or through the establishment of new or more stringent
requirements that represent RACT control levels.
    On January 28, 2008, the State of New Hampshire submitted a formal
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision
consisted of information documenting how the State complied with RACT
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.\1\ Several of the
source-specific RACT orders relied on in New Hampshire's January 28,
2008 submittal have been updated since that time as noted in section
III of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ New Hampshire's submittal is for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard and does not address the 0.075 ppm 2008 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 5, 2006, EPA issued four new CTGs which states were
required to address by October 5, 2007 (71 FR 58745). Also, on October
9, 2007, EPA issued three more CTGs which states were required to
address by October 9, 2008 (72 FR 57215). Furthermore, on October 7,
2008, EPA issued four additional CTGs which states were required to
address by October 7, 2009 (73 FR 58841). New Hampshire's January 28,
2008 SIP revision and today's action do not address the state's
obligations with regard to EPA's 2006, 2007, and 2008 CTGs. EPA intends
to address those CTG obligations in a separate action in the near
future.

II. Summary of New Hampshire's SIP Revisions

    On January 28, 2008, New Hampshire submitted a demonstration that
its regulatory framework for stationary sources met the criteria for
RACT as defined in EPA's Phase 2 Implementation rule. The state held a
public hearing on its RACT certification finding on October 20, 2006.
New Hampshire's RACT submittal notes that the State's former status as
a nonattainment area for the one-hour ozone standard resulted in the
adoption of stringent controls for sources of VOC and NOX
including RACT level controls. Therefore, much of New Hampshire's
submittal consists of a review of RACT controls adopted under the one
hour ozone standard and an evaluation of whether those previously
adopted controls still represent RACT.
    The state's submittal identifies the specific control measures that
have been previously adopted to control emissions from sources of VOC
and NOX emissions, and also describes updates made to
existing rules to strengthen them so that they will continue to
represent RACT. Additionally, section 3.3 of New Hampshire's RACT
submittal identifies the CTG categories for which facilities do not
exist within the state, and makes a negative declaration for these
categories. The CTG categories for which New Hampshire makes a negative
declaration are as follows:

1. Aerospace coatings
2. Organic waste process vents
3. Polystyrene foam manufacturing
4. Industrial wastewater

5. Refinery vacuum producing systems, wastewater separators, and
process unit turnarounds
6. Surface coating of large appliances
7. Factory surface coating of flat wood paneling
8. VOC leaks from petroleum refinery equipment
9. Manufacture of synthesized pharmaceutical products
10. Manufacture of pneumatic rubber tires
11. Large petroleum dry cleaners
12. Manufacture of high density polyethylene, polypropylene, and
polystyrene resins
13. VOC equipment leaks from natural gas/gasoline processing plants
14. VOC fugitive emissions from synthetic organic chemical polymer and
resin equipment
15. VOC emissions from air oxidation processes in synthetic organic
chemical mfg. industry
16. Synthetic organic chemical mfg. industry distillation and reactor
processes
17. Shipbuilding and ship repair operations

    Regarding items 6 and 7 above, we note that New Hampshire's
negative declarations for these sectors is with regard to the CTG's
issued in 1977 for large appliances (EPA-450/2-77-034, 1977/12) and in
1978 for flat wood paneling (EPA-450/2-78-032, 1978/06). EPA updated
the flat wood paneling CTG in 2006, and the large appliance surface
coating CTG in 2007, and New Hampshire subsequently addressed these
updated CTGs. However, in this rulemaking we are only acting on New
Hampshire's negative declarations for the 1977 and 1978 versions of
these CTGs.
    Appendix A of New Hampshire's submittal contains a summary of
information for each of EPA's CTG categories, and identifies the
specific state rule, where relevant, that is in place, the effective
date for each rule, and the date that EPA approved the rule into the
New Hampshire SIP. Appendix B identifies the major VOC and
NOX sources in the state that are not covered by an ACT or
CTG document, but are subject to RACT via source-specific RACT orders
issued by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH-
DES). The state has issued source-specific orders containing control
requirements for these facilities. The table within Appendix B
identifies the effective date for each RACT order, and an indication of
whether or not EPA had approved the order into the New Hampshire SIP.
Table 1 below contains a list of the single source RACT orders that New
Hampshire has adopted and submitted to EPA, but that we had not yet
acted on as of the date of the state's RACT certification submittal. We
note that the table within Appendix B of New Hampshire's submittal did
not include an effective date for the order for Newington Energy LLC,
as that order had not yet been issued when the state held the public
hearing on its RACT certification in 2006. That order was subsequently
issued by NH-DES with an effective date of June 20, 2007.

          Table 1--RACT ORDERS NOT YET APPROVED INTO THE NH SIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Final RACT order
          Company name                 Pollutant        effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concord Litho Group, Inc........  VOC...............  9/17/2007.
Hitchiner Manufacturing, Milford  VOC...............  6/20/2002.
Hutchinson Sealing Systems, Inc.  VOC...............  8/8/2002 (Updated
                                                       3/23/2012).
Kalwall Corp.--Manchester.......  VOC...............  11/20/2001.
Mectrol Corporation.............  VOC...............  6/16/2003
                                                       (Withdrawn 7/2/
                                                       2009).
Metal Works, Inc................  VOC...............  12/22/2004.
Parker Hannifin Corporation,      VOC...............  7/17/2002.
 Chomerics.
Polyonics.......................  VOC...............  12/28/2007.
Sturm, Ruger & Company..........  VOC...............  10/13/2003.
Textile Tapes Corp. (amended      VOC...............  4/19/2002; 8/10/
 orders).                                              2007.
TFX Medical, Inc................  VOC...............  8/7/2007.
Webster Valve, Inc..............  VOC...............  4/20/2007.
Anheuser Busch..................  NOX...............  5/9/2005.
Newington Energy, LLC...........  NOX...............  6/20/2007.
PSNH, Schiller Station..........  NOX...............  8/4/2006.
Waste Management of NH..........  NOX...............  8/26/2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We provide a brief summary of each of the orders in Table 1, and
identify the action we are taking on them in Section III.B of this
direct final rule.
    New Hampshire's certification notes that the RACT requirements
apply to sources that have the potential to emit 50 tons per year or
more of NOX, and to sources with potential VOC emissions of
between 10 and 50 tons per year or greater depending on the source
category. Figures one and two of the state's submittal document the
significant reduction in emissions that has occurred at sources subject
to RACT in the state. NOX and VOC emissions have fallen 77
percent and 59 percent, respectively, from stationary point sources
since the RACT requirements contained within the CAA amendments of 1990
were promulgated.
    New Hampshire's submittal notes that for the years 2003 through
2005 the state did not record any violations of the 1997 ozone
standard, and the state's submittal concludes that tighter
NOX and VOC controls are therefore not necessary to bring
the area into attainment.
    On March 12, 2003, New Hampshire submitted revised versions of Env-
A 800, Testing and Monitoring Procedures, Env-A 1204, VOC RACT, and
Env-A 1211, NOX RACT, to EPA and requested that these
revised rules be incorporated into the New Hampshire SIP. Additional
modifications to each of these rules were submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision request on July 9, 2007.
    On November 14, 2003, New Hampshire submitted a revised version of
Env-A 900, Recordkeeping and Reporting Obligations, to EPA as a SIP
revision request. More recently, on July 6, 2012, New Hampshire
submitted an updated, revised version of Env-A 900 to EPA as a SIP
revision request. On September 26, 2012, New Hampshire withdrew its
November 2003 submission since its July 2012 submission of a revised
version of Env-A 900 entirely superseded the earlier version of Env-A
900 included in its November 2003 submission.

III. Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Submittals

A. Evaluation of RACT Certification

    EPA has evaluated the VOC and NOX stationary source
control regulations that New Hampshire cites as meeting RACT for the
1997 8-hour standard and agrees that the state's regulations are
satisfactorily meeting EPA's RACT requirements for purposes of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard. EPA previously approved these NOX and
VOC RACT requirements into the New Hampshire SIP (See 62 FR 17087,
April 9, 1997 for NOX; See 63 FR 11600, March 10, 1998 and
67 FR 48033, July 23, 2002 for VOC), and in today's direct final
rulemaking we are approving updates to several of these rules, and also
approving single source RACT determinations for fifteen major sources
of VOC and NOX in the state.
    We are determining that these regulatory elements and the resulting
reduction in VOC and NOX emissions from sources demonstrate
that a RACT level of control has been implemented in the state.
Additionally, we are approving the negative declarations New Hampshire
submitted for the source categories identified in Section II of this
document.
    EPA published a clean data determination for New Hampshire's only
8-hour ozone nonattainment area in the Federal Register that documents
that air quality monitoring data in the state currently meets EPA's
1997 ozone standard. The determination for the Boston-Manchester-
Portsmouth moderate area was published on March 18, 2011 (76 FR 14805).
The improvements in air quality represented by this clean data
determination were brought about, in part, by the RACT program
implemented by New Hampshire. Additional information about the
revisions to New Hampshire's rules and the single source RACT orders we
are approving today is contained below in section III.B and III.C.

B. Evaluation of Revised New Hampshire Rules

1. Revisions to VOC Rules and Single Source VOC RACT Orders
    On March 12, 2003, New Hampshire submitted a revised version of its
VOC RACT regulation, Env-A 1204, to EPA as a SIP revision request. The
revised version of the VOC RACT rules removed provisions relating to
petroleum refineries, as there are no such facilities in the state.
Additionally, the state removed a section regarding an equivalent
substitute control technique because a similar provision that requires
submittal to EPA exists and was retained in the rule. Several minor
updates to references and correction of errors were also made within
the March 12, 2003 submittal.
    On July 9, 2007, New Hampshire submitted additional updates to its
VOC RACT regulations to EPA as a SIP revision request. The July 9, 2007
submittal consisted primarily of updates to the state's existing
requirements for solvent metal cleaning that were made to match
requirements recommended within a model rule adopted by the Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC). The primary changes made to the rule
consisted of adoption of expanded applicability of the state's existing
rule to include anyone who sells VOC containing solvent for use in a
cold cleaning machine, and a prohibition was added preventing certain
items from being cleaned in a cold cleaning machine. In keeping with
the model rule adopted by the OTC, New Hampshire's rule prohibits the
use of solvents with a vapor pressure greater than 1.0 millimeter of
mercury in cold cleaning operations. The addition of a vapor pressure
limit makes the revised rule more stringent than the previous version
of the rule approved by EPA into the New Hampshire SIP in 2002 (67 FR
48033), thus satisfying the anti-backsliding requirements of section
110(l) of the CAA. A number of minor updates and renumbering changes
were also included in the July 9, 2007 submittal. We are approving New
Hampshire's updated VOC RACT regulations as submitted to EPA on March
12, 2003, and modified on July 9, 2007.
    As previously mentioned, on March 10, 1998 (63 FR 11600), EPA
approved New Hampshire's VOC RACT requirements that the state had
adopted in 1995 as part of its emission control strategy for the one-
hour ozone standard. However, our March 10, 1998 action provided only a
limited approval of Env-A 1204.27, the state's rule for major sources
that are not covered by one of EPA's CTG documents. A final, full
approval of Env-A 1204.27 was issued on July 23, 2002 (67 FR 48033),
although that approval was limited to portions of the state located in
the New Hampshire portion of the eastern Massachusetts serious one-hour
ozone nonattainment area. Approval of Env-A-1204.27 in the remainder of
the state was not granted at that time because New Hampshire had not
issued single source RACT orders for all major sources of VOC and
NOX in the remainder of the state.
    New Hampshire has now adopted RACT for all major sources, and we
are approving those orders and providing a full statewide approval of
New Hampshire's requirements for miscellaneous and multi-category
sources within this direct final rule.
    A brief description of the single source VOC RACT orders that we
are approving in today's action is provided below. A number of these
orders contain provisions for complying with RACT via purchase of, or
generation of, emission reduction credits. New Hampshire has an adopted
emissions credit trading rule, Env-A 3100, Discrete Emission Reduction
Trading Program. However, EPA has not approved Env-A 3100 into the New
Hampshire SIP. Therefore, we have evaluated the generation and use of
DERs in each of these cases and believe that they represent a
legitimate option for sources to comply with RACT. We are therefore
approving their use as outlined in the individual orders being approved
in this action. Additionally, any purchased credits used for RACT
compliance must come from a source whose order is also federally
approved.
Concord Litho Group
    The Concord Litho Group operates a facility in Concord, New
Hampshire where it uses an offset lithographic printing operation to
produce greeting cards, brochures, magazines, and direct mail inserts.
The company operates two regenerative thermal oxidizers to control VOC
emissions from five of the seven printing presses at the facility. On
September 17, 2007, NH-DES issued VOC RACT order ARD 07-003 to the
company. The order requires that the VOC emissions from the dryer
exhaust of the heat-set web offset lithographic presses either be
reduced by 90% or have a total organics level of 20 parts per million
or less. The company will meet these requirements by controlling VOC
emissions with their two recuperative thermal oxidizers. The order
allows the facility to comply by purchasing DERs during times that
maintenance is being performed, or when an oxidizer malfunctions.
Hitchiner Manufacturing
    The Hitchiner Manufacturing Company operates a casting foundry and
ceramics molding operation in Milford, New Hampshire. In 2002, the
facility ceased operation of a VOC emitting operation referred to as
the Plant 2 ceramics molding process and was granted 29 tons in VOC
emission reduction credits (ERCs) by NH-DES for this shutdown. NH-DES
issued VOC RACT order ARD-02-001 to the facility on June 21, 2002. The
order requires that the facility reduce its VOC

emissions by 81%, and caps annual VOC emissions at less than 50 tons
per year. The facility will meet these obligations primarily by use of
the ERCs generated by the shutdown of the Plant 2 ceramics molding
process.
Hutchinson Sealing Systems, Inc.
    Hutchinson Sealing Systems located in Newfields, New Hampshire,
operates a facility that produces sealing systems, body seals, and
rubber glass-run channels used in the automotive and other industries.
On August 8, 2002, NH-DES issued VOC RACT order ARD-01-002 to the
facility, and submitted it as a revision to the state's SIP on this
same day. On March 23, 2012, NH-DES submitted an updated VOC RACT order
identified as ARD-11-001 that replaced the prior order issued to the
facility in 2002. The updated order indicates that the company will
install and operate a catalytic oxidizer to control VOC emissions from
some of the process lines at the facility. The updated order contains
VOC content limits for motor vehicle weather-strip adhesive coatings,
and an allowance for compliance to be met by using either DERs or ERCs.
The company must also continue to research and test water based and/or
high solids coatings as new products become available.
Kalwall Corporation
    The Kalwall Corporation located in Manchester, New Hampshire,
manufactures energy efficient window like structural components out of
specially formulated, fiberglass reinforced material. The NH-DES
developed VOC RACT order ARD-95-010 for the facility and submitted it
to EPA on September 10, 1996, and we approved that order into the New
Hampshire SIP in our March 10, 1998 final rulemaking mentioned
elsewhere in this document. On June 25, 1999, NH-DES submitted an
updated VOC RACT order for Kalwall numbered ARD-99-001 to replace the
previously issued order, and requested the order be approved into the
New Hampshire SIP. A minor update to this order was submitted to EPA on
November 20, 2001, and we are approving that version of ARD-99-001 via
this final rulemaking. The major aspects of the updated order establish
VOC content limits for bonding agents used on IBSS process lines 1 and
2, for coatings used in the KWS process, for clear or transparent
topcoats used in the KCRF process, and for pretreatment primers applied
in the KCRF process. VOC RACT order ARD-99-001 also allows the company
to comply by purchasing DERs as provided for by Env-A 3100 of New
Hampshire's air regulations.
Mectrol Corporation
    On June 16, 2003, NH-DES issued VOC RACT order ARD-03-002 to the
Mectrol Corporation located in Salem, New Hampshire and submitted it to
EPA as a SIP revision request. However, by letter dated July 2, 2009,
NH-DES subsequently withdrew this request because the coating units
that had been the subject of the order had been removed from the
facility. Therefore, we are taking no action with regard to New
Hampshire's June 16, 2003 SIP submittal request.
Metal Works, Inc
    Metal Works, Inc., operates a facility in Londonderry, New
Hampshire, where it is primarily engaged in the fabrication of sheet
metal. The facility operates 5 spray booths, and these booths are the
primary source of VOC emissions at the facility. On December 22, 2004,
NH-DES issued VOC RACT order ARD-05-001. The order contains the
following VOC content limits: for clear and transparent top coats 4.3
lbs VOC per gallon of coating, as applied, excluding water and exempt
coatings; for coatings used in extreme environmental conditions, and
for air dried coatings, 3.5 lbs VOC per gallon of coating; and for all
other coatings, 3.0 lbs VOC per gallon of coating. The order also
allows the company to comply with VOC RACT by using DERs.
Parker-Hanifan Corporation, Chomerics Division
    The Chomerics Division of the Parker Hanifan Corporation located in
Hudson, New Hampshire, produces coated fabrics, films, and other
substrates for use in the electronics industry. NH-DES issued VOC RACT
order ARD-03-001 to the company on July 18, 2002. The facility operates
four continuous web coaters, and the VOC emissions from each are
captured within a permanent total enclosure that meets the requirements
of EPA Method 204. Exhaust from dryers on each line is fed to a
catalytic oxidizer that is required to achieve a minimum destruction
and removal efficiency for VOCs of 93%. The order contains monitoring
and recordkeeping requirements for the catalytic oxidizer. The order
also allows the company to comply by generating and using emission
credits for compliance, and to comply via the purchase of DERs.
Polyonics
    The Polyonics facility located in Westmoreland, New Hampshire,
manufactures pressure sensitive tagging and labeling materials. The
company operates a catalytic oxidizer to control VOC emissions from its
two web gravure coaters. On December 28, 2007, NH-DES issued VOC RACT
order ARD 07-004 to the company. The order requires that the company
comply with a VOC content limit of 2.9 lbs VOC per gallon for its
paper, fabric, film and foil coating operations. Alternatively, the
company is allowed to comply by using the catalytic oxidizer, by
averaging coating limits such that the weighted average complies with
the 2.9 lbs VOC per gallon coating limit, or by using DERs.
Sturm, Ruger & Company
    Sturm, Ruger & Company located in Newport, New Hampshire, produces
a variety of steel investment castings in the manufacture of firearms.
NH-DES issued VOC RACT order ARD-03-001 to the facility on October 13,
2003, and re-issued it in amended form shortly thereafter on December
1, 2003. The order contains VOC limits for coatings used in the
facility's woodworking spray booths and paint mixing rooms, and also
contains a number of work practice and housekeeping standards to
minimize emissions. The order also contains a 10 gallon daily maximum
use amount for touch-up and repair finishing materials, compliance
standards for cold cleaning operations at the facility, and a 1.0 lb
VOC per gallon limit for metal parts coating operations other than
rust-proofing. The VOC emission rate from the company's rust-proofing
operation is limited to 3.5 lbs VOC per gallon of coating, excluding
water and exempt compounds. The company is also required to achieve an
81% reduction in VOC emissions from its flash de-wax process.
Textile Tapes Corporation
    The Textile Tapes Corporation located in Gonic, New Hampshire,
operates two coating lines that coat woven and non-woven materials with
adhesive in the production of tapes and coated products. The NH-DES
issued an initial VOC RACT order to the facility on December 9, 1996,
and EPA approved that order into the New Hampshire SIP on March 10,
1998 (63 FR 11600). On August 31, 2007, NH-DES submitted an amended VOC
RACT order to EPA as a SIP revision request. Since the initial order
was issued in 1996, a number of revisions have been made to the order,
as follows. In 1998, the company requested and was granted permission
to use a generic release coating that had not been addressed in the
order issued in 1996. In 1999, the company requested

permission to install a recuperative thermal oxidizer and to replace
the dryer on coating line 1B. NH-DES granted permission for these
modifications and issued an amended order to Textile Tapes on April 19,
2002, and submitted the amended order to EPA as a SIP revision request.
    In 2006, Textile Tapes requested permission to use a coating that
exceeds the 2.9 lb/gal emission limit required by Env-A 1204.10(c) of
New Hampshire's air pollution control regulations. NH-DES required the
company to purchase DER credits as provided for within Env-A 3100 of
New Hampshire's air pollution control regulations. The facility
complied by purchasing 4 DER credits from the Public Service Company of
New Hampshire on October 3, 2006. New Hampshire issued amended order
ARD-96-001 to Textile Tapes with an effective date of August 10, 2007.
The amended order allows the company to self-generate DER credits
needed to compensate for their non-compliant coating via the over-
control achieved by the recuperative thermal oxidizer. New Hampshire
submitted the amended order to EPA as a SIP revision request on August
31, 2007, and we are approving the amended order into the New Hampshire
SIP in this direct final rulemaking.
TFX Medical Incorporated
    TFX Medical Incorporated operates a facility in Jaffrey, New
Hampshire, where it manufactures tubing for automotive and medical
applications and devices. The manufacturing process involves extruding
a mixture of polytetrafluoroethylene resin with a hydrocarbon solvent
and then curing the tubing in ovens. The facility operates a
recuperative thermal oxidizer to control VOC emissions from the
extruder lines and curing ovens. On August 7, 2007, NH-DES issued VOC
RACT order ARD 07-002 to the company. The order requires the company to
reduce VOC emissions by a minimum of 81%, and the company achieves this
obligation primarily by use of the thermal oxidizer. During times that
the thermal oxidizer is not able to meet this control requirement, the
order allows the company to comply by using DERs.
Webster Valve, Incorporated
    Webster Valve, Incorporated operates a facility in Franklin, New
Hampshire, that is engaged in the manufacture of valves, regulators,
and backflow prevention devices for plumbing, heating, and water
quality applications. There are 6 spray booths at the facility where
various coatings are applied to the product. On March 21, 2007, NH-DES
issued VOC RACT order ARD 07-001 to the company. The order contains the
following VOC content limits: for clear and transparent top coats 4.3
lbs VOC per gallon of coating, as applied, excluding water and exempt
coatings; for coatings used in extreme environmental conditions, and
for air dried coatings, 3.5 lbs VOC per gallon of coating; and for all
other coatings, 3.0 lbs VOC per gallon of coating. The order also
allows the company to comply with VOC RACT by using DERs.
    EPA agrees with New Hampshire's RACT determinations for the eleven
sources listed above, and therefore we are approving the single source
VOC RACT orders for these sources, with the exception of the order for
the Mectrol Corporation, as NH-DES requested withdrawal of the SIP
revision for that facility. In instances where New Hampshire has
required air pollution capture and control equipment, a minimum 81%
reduction has been required to be achieved. The VOC RACT orders contain
acceptable levels of monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting provisions
to enable the state to effectively track compliance at these
facilities. Additionally, we are also fully approving Env-A 1204.27,
New Hampshire's requirements for miscellaneous and multi-category
sources, for all parts of the state.
2. Revision to NOX Rules and Single Source NOX
RACT Orders
    On March 12, 2003, New Hampshire submitted a revised version of its
NOX RACT regulation, Env-A 1211, to EPA as a SIP revision
request. As compared to the previous, SIP-approved version of the rule,
the version submitted in 2003 contained lower NOX limits for
gas-fired combustion turbines, and revisions applicable to emergency
generators. The main update made to the rule consisted of a change made
to the NOX RACT requirements for gas-fired turbines
constructed after May 27, 1999. A change was made to account for
certifications that facilities were obtaining from manufacturers that
these units emitted NOX at levels less than New Hampshire's
NOX RACT limits. New Hampshire, therefore, made its emission
limits for these units more restrictive. The new NOX
emissions limits for these units are found at Env-A 1211.06(d), and
limit average hourly NOX emissions to 25 parts per million,
corrected to 15% oxygen, or alternatively, 0.092 pounds per million
British thermal unit (BTU). Since the revised rule's NOX
limits for gas-fired turbines constructed after May 25, 1999 are more
stringent than the previous SIP-approved version, the anti-backsliding
requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA are satisfied.
    Regarding the emergency generator related revisions, the state
noted that after the initial provisions for emergency generators were
adopted in 1994, NH-DES received numerous complaints that an aspect of
the rule regarding ignition timing was causing many facilities to
encounter difficulty ensuring that a continuous supply of electricity
could be provided by the generator. New Hampshire prepared an analysis
of the emissions impact that removal of this provision would cause and
determined that the impact would be minimal, and so a change was made
to the emergency generator regulation providing relief from this
provision.
    On July 9, 2007, New Hampshire submitted additional revisions to
Env-A 1211 as a SIP revision request. The revisions included a change
to the testing requirements for auxiliary boilers with a heat input of
between 5 million and 50 million BTUs, removed a provision that had
allowed such boilers to meet a less stringent NOX emission
limit once emissions exceeded 50 tons per year, and removed a
requirement that continuous emission monitors (CEMs) be used on small
boilers.
    In today's action, we are approving the updated version of Env-A
1211 that New Hampshire submitted on March 12, 2003, and updated on
July 9, 2007, into the New Hampshire SIP. It should be noted that
additional NOX requirements within Env-A 1211 were
subsequently submitted by NH-DES and approved by EPA as part of New
Hampshire's Regional Haze SIP (77 FR 50602, August 22, 2012).
    Additionally, we are approving NOX RACT orders for four
facilities. A brief description of each order is provided below.
Anheuser Busch
    Anheuser Busch operates a brewery in Merrimack, New Hampshire. The
significant NOX emitting devices at the facility consist of
three oil and natural gas-fired boilers, and also an open flare. On May
9, 2005, NH-DES issued NOX order ARD-05-001 to the company.
The order requires that the company comply with a NOX limit
of 0.068 lbs NOX per million BTUs for the open flare.
Regarding the boilers, the order requires an emission rate of 0.25 lbs
NOX per million BTU on a 24-hour average when burning
natural gas or a combination of natural gas and biogas. An emission
rate of 0.40 lbs NOX per million BTU on a 24-hour average
must be met when oil or a combination of oil and biogas is

being used. Additionally, the order requires testing of a bio energy
recovery system the facility intends to install at the facility.
Newington Energy, LLC
    Newington Energy operates a 525 megawatt combined cycle electric
generation facility in Newington, New Hampshire. Other equipment at the
facility includes a natural gas-fired auxiliary boiler, eight natural
gas-fired fuel gas heaters, one diesel fired emergency generator, and
one diesel fired firewater pump. On June 20, 2007, NH-DES issued
NOX RACT order ARD-04-001 to the company. The order requires
the company to install and operate low NOX burners on six
fuel gas heaters, and to also comply with a NOX emission
concentration of 9.9 ppm and an emission rate of 0.012 lbs
NOX per million BTU for these gas heaters.
PSNH, Schiller Station
    The Public Service Company of New Hampshire's (PSNH) Schiller
Station is a 153 megawatt fossil fuel fired electric generating station
located in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Electric power is produced at the
facility by three utility boilers, one combustion turbine that operates
as a load shaving unit, and one emergency generator. On August 4, 2006,
NH-DES issued NOX RACT order ARD-06-001 to the company. The
order requires that the boiler equipped with a circulating fluidized
bed install and operate a selective non-catalytic reducing (SNCR)
control device to meet an emission limit of 0.975 lbs NOX
per million BTU. Additionally, the order requires that the facility
continue to comply with conditions D.1.c and D.1.d of NOX
RACT order ARD-98-001 pertaining to a non-ozone season NOX
cap of 8,208 tons and an ozone season NOX cap of 3,727 tons
for the combined emissions from units identified as MK1, MK2, NT1, SR4,
SR5, and SR6.
Waste Management
    Waste Management operates a facility in Rochester, New Hampshire
that consists of two, closed municipal solid waste landfills, one
active municipal solid waste landfill, a materials recovery facility, a
leachate treatment plant, and two landfill gas to energy plants. On
August 26, 2002, NH-DES issued NOX RACT order ARD 01-001.
New Hampshire submitted an updated order to EPA as a SIP revision
request on August 2, 2012. We are approving the updated order in
today's action. The order provides performance standards for the three
flares at the facility, and also provides testing, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for the facility to follow.
    EPA agrees that the NOX provisions in the orders for the
four facilities outlined above constitute RACT for these facilities.
3. Revisions to Testing and Monitoring Procedures
    On March 15, 1983, EPA approved New Hampshire's Env-A 800, testing
and monitoring requirements for air pollution sources into the New
Hampshire SIP. Additional updates to these requirements were
subsequently incorporated in the New Hampshire SIP as noted within 40
CFR 52.1525.
    On March 12, 2003, New Hampshire submitted revisions to Env-A 800
to EPA as a SIP revision request. The revisions include simplifications
to some procedures and delineates what methods should be used when
monitoring emissions and checking the accuracy of CEM systems.
Additionally, the amended rule contains a requirement that a relative
accuracy test audit (RATA) be performed annually on each CEM system. If
the system does not pass the RATA, the new rule requires that another
full audit be conducted, whereas the prior version of the rule only
required a partial audit be done in such circumstances. The state
submitted additional revisions to Env-A 800 to EPA as a SIP revision
request on July 9, 2007. The July 9, 2007 submittal contained revisions
to Env-A 803.03 and Env-A 803.04, primarily with regard to requirements
for small boilers and emergency generators. We are approving New
Hampshire's revised version of Env-A 800 as submitted on March 12, 2003
and revised on July 9, 2007, with the exception of Env-A 807 pertaining
to requirements regarding testing and monitoring for opacity. We are
taking no action with regard to Env-A 807.
4. Revisions to Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    On March 15, 1983, EPA approved Env-A 900, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for air pollution sources, into the New
Hampshire SIP. Additional updates to these requirements were
subsequently incorporated in the New Hampshire SIP as noted within 40
CFR 52.1525.
    On November 14, 2003, New Hampshire submitted an updated version of
Env-A 900, Owner or Operator Recordkeeping and Reporting Obligations,
to EPA as a SIP revision request. New Hampshire's submittal was
prompted by their re-adoption of the rule with amendments. The
amendments included clarifying language, a re-alignment of the
reporting date for the annual emission statement requirement, a repeal
of a provision requiring reporting of malfunctions and replacement of
that provision with a recordkeeping and reporting requirement for
permit deviations, and a re-organization of the previously adopted
rule.
    On July 6, 2012, New Hampshire submitted an updated version of Env-
A 900, Owner or Operator Recordkeeping and Reporting Obligations, to
EPA as a SIP revision request. The revised version of Env-A 900
completely supersedes the older version of Env-A 900 that New Hampshire
had submitted in 2003.\2\ The revisions included clarification to a
number of recordkeeping provisions, and also amended the requirements
for fuel-users regarding fuel sulfur content records. Additionally, the
general reporting requirements for Title V sources that previously had
been stated in each permit were added to Env-A 900. New Hampshire
requested that all portions of the revised Env-A 900 be incorporated
into its SIP with the exception of certain provisions that are required
by 40 CFR Part 70 for Title V sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On September 26, 2012, New Hampshire withdrew its November
2003 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, we are not taking action on Env-A 912 (Alternative
Time Periods), nor on the provisions required relating to Title V
sources that New Hampshire requested not be incorporated into its SIP.
    In today's action, we are approving New Hampshire's July 6, 2012
revised version of Env-A 900, with the exceptions of (1) the provisions
relating to 40 CFR Part 70 contained within Env-A 907 and Env-A 911,
and (2) the provisions of Env-A 912 (Alternative Time Periods).

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving SIP revisions submitted by the State of New
Hampshire. EPA is approving New Hampshire's January 28, 2008 RACT
certification and negative declarations as meeting RACT for the 1997 8-
hour standard. Additionally, we are approving the following portions of
New Hampshire's air pollution control requirements: Env-A 800, Testing
and Monitoring Procedures, with the exception of Env-A 807, Testing for
Opacity of Emissions; Env-A 900, Owner or Operator Recordkeeping and
Reporting Obligations, with the exceptions of certain provisions within
Env-A 907 and Env-A 911, and the entirety of Env-A 912; Env-A 1200,
Volatile Organic Compound RACT; and,

Env-A 1211, Nitrogen Oxide RACT. Additionally, we are approving
individual VOC RACT orders for the Concord Litho Group, Hitchiner
Manufacturing, Hutchinson Sealing Systems, Kalwall Corporation, Metal
Works Incorporated, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Polyonics, Sturm Ruger
& Company, Textile Tapes Corporation, TFX Medical, and Webster Valve
Incorporated. NOX RACT orders are being approved for
Anheuser Busch, Newington Energy, PSNH-Schiller Station, and Waste
Management of New Hampshire.
    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 January
4, 2013 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant
adverse comments by December 5, 2012.
    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. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on January 4, 2013 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.

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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 action 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 January 4, 2013. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 19, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    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. Sec.  52.1520 is amended by:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (c), revising entries to existing state
citations for Env-A 800, Env-A 900, and Env-A 1200.
0
b. Adding 15 new entries to the end of the table in paragraph (d).
0
c. Adding one new entry to the end of the table in paragraph (e).

    The revisions and additions read as follows.

Sec.  52.1520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) EPA approved regulations.

                                     EPA Approved New Hampshire Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State effective    EPA approval date
         State citation              Title/subject           date                 \1\            Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Env-A 800.......................  Testing and         10/31/2002; 12/22/  11/5/2012 [Insert   Approved Sections
                                   Monitoring          2004.               Federal Register    Env-A 801 through
                                   Procedures.                             page number where   806, 808 and 809
                                                                           the document        of New
                                                                           begins].            Hampshire's air
                                                                                emission testing
                                                                                and monitoring
                                                                                requirements.
Env-A 900.......................  Owner or Operator   04/21/2007........  11/5/2012 [Insert   Approved Env-A 900
                                   Obligations.                            Federal Register    through 906,
                                                                           page number where   907.01(a) and
                                                                           the document        (b)(1) through
                                                                           begins].            (b)(4), 907.02
                                                                                and .03, 908
                                                                                through 910, and
                                                                                911.01 through
                                                                                911.04.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Env-A 1200......................  Prevention,         10/31/2002; 12/22/  11/5/2012 [Insert   Approved Env-A
                                   Abatement, and      2004; 02/26/2005.   Federal Register    1200, containing
                                   Control of                              page number where   New Hampshire's
                                   Stationary Source                       the document        VOC and NOX RACT
                                   Air Pollution.                          begins].            requirements.

                                                 * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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.

    (d) EPA-approved State Source specific requirements.

                             EPA-Approved New Hampshire Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
         Name of source               Permit No.        State effective    EPA approval date   explanations/Sec.
                                                             date                 \2\           52.1535 citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Concord Litho Group.............  ARD-07-003........  9/17/2007.........  11/5/2012 [Insert   Single source VOC
                                                                           Federal Register    RACT order for
                                                                           page number where   facility in
                                                                           the document        Concord, NH.
                                                                           begins].
Hitchiner Manufacturing.........  ARD-02-001........  6/21/2002.........  11/5/2012 [Insert   Single source VOC
                                                                           Federal Register    RACT order for
                                                                           page number where   facility in
                                                                           the document        Milford, NH.
                                                                           begins].
Hutchinson Sealing Systems......  ARD-01-002........  8/8/2002..........  11/5/2012 [Insert   Single source VOC
                                                                           Federal Register    RACT order for
                                                                           page number where   facility in
                                                                           the document        Newfields, NH.
                                                                           begins].
Kalwall Corporation.............  ARD-99-001........  11/20/2011........  11/5/2012 [Insert   Single source VOC
                                                                           Federal Register    RACT order for
                                                                           page number where   facility in
                                                                           the document        Manchester, NH.
                                                                           begins].
Metal Works.....................  ARD-05-001........  12/22/2004........  11/5/2012 [Insert   Single source VOC
                                                                           Federal Register    RACT order for
                                                                           page number where   facility in
                                                                           the document        Londonderry, NH.
                                                                           begins].
Parker-Hanifan Corporation......  ARD-03-001........  7/18/2002.........  11/5/2012 [Insert   Single source VOC
                                                                           Federal Register    RACT order for
                                                                           page number where   facility in
                                                                           the document        Hudson, NH.
                                                                           begins].
Polyonics.......................  ARD-99-001........  12/28/2007........  11/5/2012 [Insert   Single source VOC
                                                                           Federal Register    RACT order for
                                                                           page number where   facility in
                                                                           the document        Westmoreland, NH.
                                                                           begins].
Sturm, Ruger & Company..........  ARD-03-001........  12/1/2003.........  11/5/2012 [Insert   Single source VOC
                                                                           Federal Register    RACT order for
                                                                           page number where   facility located
                                                                           the document        in Newport, NH.
                                                                           begins].

Textile Tapes Corporation.......  ARD-96-001........  8/10/2007.........  11/5/2012 [Insert   Single source VOC
                                                                           Federal Register    RACT order for
                                                                           page number where   facility in
                                                                           the document        Gonic, NH.
                                                                           begins].
TFX Medical Incorporated........  ARD-07-002........  8/7/2007..........  11/5/2012 [Insert   Single source VOC
                                                                           Federal Register    RACT order for
                                                                           page number where   facility in
                                                                           the document        Jaffrey, NH.
                                                                           begins].
Webster Valve...................  ARD-07-001........  3/21/2007.........  11/5/2012 [Insert   Single source VOC
                                                                           Federal Register    RACT order for
                                                                           page number where   facility in
                                                                           the document        Franklin, NH.
                                                                           begins].
Anheuser Busch..................  ARD-05-001........  5/9/2005..........  11/5/2012 [Insert   Single source NOX
                                                                           Federal Register    RACT order for
                                                                           page number where   facility in
                                                                           the document        Merrimack, NH.
                                                                           begins].
Newington Energy, LLC...........  ARD-04-001........  6/20/2007.........  11/5/2012 [Insert   Single source NOX
                                                                           Federal Register    RACT order for
                                                                           page number where   facility in
                                                                           the document        Newington, NH.
                                                                           begins].
PSNH, Schiller Station..........  ARD-06-001........  8/4/2006..........  11/5/2012 [Insert   Single source NOX
                                                                           Federal Register    RACT order for
                                                                           page number where   facility in
                                                                           the document        Portsmouth, NH.
                                                                           begins].
Waste Management................  ARD-01-001........  8/26/2002.........  11/5/2012 [Insert   Single source NOX
                                                                           Federal Register    RACT order for
                                                                           page number where   facility in
                                                                           the document        Rochester, NH.
                                                                           begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * * * * * * *
\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.

    (e) Nonregulatory.

                                          New Hampshire Non Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable        State submittal
   Name of non regulatory SIP        geographic or      date/ effective    EPA approved date      Explanation
            provision             nonattainment area         date                \ 3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Certification for RACT for the    Statewide.........  1/28/2008.........  11/5/2012 [Insert   New Hampshire
 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard.                                               Federal Register    submitted
                                                                           page number where   documentation
                                                                           the document        that RACT
                                                                           begins].            requirements were
                                                                                in place for
                                                                                sources of VOC
                                                                                and NOX for
                                                                                purposes of the
                                                                                1997 8-hour ozone
                                                                                standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * * * * * * *
\3\ 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.

[FR Doc. 2012-26759 Filed 11-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26324-26327]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10614]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0051]

Pipeline Safety: Liquefied Natural Gas Facility User Fee Rate
Increase

ACTION: Notice of agency action.

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

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
Department of Transportation.
SUMMARY: On July 3, 2014, (79 FR 38124) the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a notice in this
docket to advise all liquefied natural gas facility (LNG) operators
subject to PHMSA user fee billing of a change in the LNG user fee rates
to align these rates with the actual allocation of PHMSA resources to
LNG program costs. PHMSA is publishing this notice to explain changes
PHMSA has made to the rate plan described in the July notice in
response to the comments received and to communicate PHMSA's final LNG
user fee plan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Keener by telephone at 202-366-
0970, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail at U.S. Department
of Transportation, PHMSA, PHP-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Background

    The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1986
(Pub. L. 99-272, Sec. 7005) codified at Section 60301 of Title 49,
United States Code, authorizes the assessment and collection of user
fees to fund the pipeline safety activities conducted under Chapter 601
of Title 49. PHMSA assesses each operator of interstate and intrastate
gas transmission pipelines (as defined in 49 CFR part 192) and
hazardous liquid pipelines carrying crude oil, refined petroleum
products, highly volatile liquids, biofuel, and carbon dioxide (as
defined in 49 CFR part 195) a share of the total Federal pipeline
safety program costs in proportion to the number of miles of pipeline
for each operator. In accordance with COBRA, PHMSA also assesses user
fees on LNG facilities (as defined in 49 CFR part 193).
    On July 16, 1986, the agency published in the Federal Register a
notice for pipeline safety user fees to describe the agency's
implementation of the requirements set forth in the COBRA Act (51 FR
25782) (the user fee notice). With respect to pipelines, the user fee
notice adopted pipeline mileage as the fee basis. With respect to the
LNG facility portion of the gas program costs, a fee basis other than
mileage was needed. For these facilities, the agency decided that
storage capacity was the most readily measurable indicator of usage as
well as allocation of agency resources. In order to ensure that user
fees assessed for each type of pipeline facility have a reasonable
relationship to the allocation of departmental resources, the user fee
notice established five percent of total gas program costs as the
appropriate level and established billing tiers based on the storage
capacity of LNG facilities.
    In 2014, PHMSA determined that certain changes to the calculation
table were necessary because the LNG rates had not been adjusted to
reflect the increase in gas program costs since 1986. On July 3, 2014,
(79 FR 38124) PHMSA issued a Federal Register notice describing PHMSA's
planned approach to updating the LNG user fee assessments. The notice
described PHMSA's intention to update the rate for each of the five
storage capacity tiers in the table to arrive at five percent of total
gas program costs when the tiers are added together. PHMSA stated that
it plans to implement the increase in the LNG facility obligation in
three equal increments starting in 2015 and invited comments. Based on
the comments received, PHMSA has revised its approach and is now
establishing 1.6 percent of total gas program costs as the appropriate
level and has determined that at this lower level there is no longer a
need to implement the increase over 3 years.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Summary of Comments on the July 3, 2014 Notice

    During the 2-month response period, PHMSA received comments on the

proposed LNG user fee billing methodology from six commenters: The
American Gas Association (AGA), the American Public Gas Association
(APGA), Metropolitan Utilities District (MUD), Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company (BGE), the Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC), and
one individual commenter, David Wilson.
    This notice responds to the comments, which may be found at http://www.regulations.gov, at docket number PHMSA-2014-0051. The comments are
summarized below and followed by PHMSA's response.
    Comment: AGA commented that PHMSA should provide companies with
more time to adjust to this increase by modifying the timeline by which
the LNG user fees are raised to 5 percent of the overall User Fee
Obligation by phasing the increase in over 5 years instead of the
proposed 3-year period so that ``operators can modify their short,
midterm and long term budgeting to accommodate this impactful
increase.''
    Response: In response to comments, PHMSA revisited the actual
annual LNG program costs and determined that a rate of 1.6 percent of
gas costs would cover actual annual LNG program costs. Accordingly,
PHMSA expects that the resulting user fee increase to 1.6 percent of
gas costs (68 percent lower than initially proposed) will not pose an
undue burden for any LNG facility operator. PHMSA will implement the
increase to 1.6 percent of gas costs in a single year (FY 2015 user fee
billing) rather than over a 3-year period as was proposed for an
increase to 5% of gas costs.
    Comment: APGA, AGA, and BGE suggested that PHMSA should pursue cost
recovery for the design reviews of new LNG facilities as granted in
section 13 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
Creation Act of 2011. ``AGA believes once this regulation has been
codified, PHMSA will have the ability to accurately allocate fees to
those operators that are utilizing a large portion of PHMSA personnel
and resources, thus reducing the overall User Fee Obligation.''
    Response: PHMSA appreciates the comments of the AGA, APGA, and BGE
and does not disagree. After the design review envisioned in the law is
implemented, PHMSA will reevaluate the user fee approach for LNG
plants, gas transmission pipelines, and hazardous liquid pipelines and
consider making appropriate modifications.
    Comment: AGA, APGA, GUC, and MUD commented that PHMSA's proposal to
increase LNG user fee collection to 5 percent or $3,774,405 in 3 years
will be a significant burden especially to many small LNG operators.
    Response: In addition to reducing the proposed 5 percent level to
1.6 percent, PHMSA has modified the plan to shift more of the user fee
obligation to larger operators by implementing a new 10 tier billing by
total capacity by OPID. Specifically, PHMSA added five new billing
tiers to reduce the burden on small operators. These new tiers include
an ultra-low storage capacity tier to reduce the burden on operators
with storage capacity less than 2,000 barrels. Another tier was added
for operators with less than 50,000 barrels of storage. The previous
tier structure generated the same fee for all plants over 500,000
barrels of storage, but the highest storage volume in FY 2014 billing
was 5 million barrels. We adjusted the boundaries of the top two tiers
and added three new tiers for operators with very high storage
capacity. Finally, it should be noted that PHMSA exempts mobile and
temporary LNG facilities from user fee billing.
    Comment: APGA commented ``PHMSA's proposal does, however, unfairly
burdens small LNG peakshaving facilities with a disproportionate share
of the costs'' and it places a disproportionate burden on the operators
of small LNG peakshaving facilities. For example, Greenville Utility
Commission in North Carolina would pay approximately $10,000 per year,
or just over $2 per bbl, for its LNG peak shaving plant with a storage
capacity of 4,762 bbls. In contrast, Sabine Pass LNG Terminal with over
5 million barrels storage would pay just $60,000, or about 1 penny per
bbl.
    Response: LNG plants typically include facilities other than
storage. Barrels of storage alone do not necessarily reflect the effort
associated with regulatory oversight of the plant.
    Comment: APGA noted that the disparity in costs to small peak
shaving facilities vs. larger import/export facilities is
``particularly troubling because it results in U.S. gas consumers
paying as much as 200 times what consumers in countries that import US
LNG would pay. The ultimate consumers of natural gas exported through
these large LNG marine terminals reside in LNG importing countries such
as Japan. The ultimate consumers of natural gas coming from
Greenville's LNG peakshaving plant reside in Greenville, NC. To charge
the citizens of Greenville, NC, pipeline safety user fees that are 200
times higher than those charged to the citizens of Japan makes no
sense. Fairness would dictate that the larger LNG export facilities pay
at least the same rate per barrel as smaller, domestic LNG peakshaving
facilities.'' GUC, BGE, and MUD agreed with the comments about the
disparity seen in billing of small peak shaving vs. larger import/
export facilities.
    BGE proposed to increase the billing tiers for facilities with
>500,000 barrels to add appropriate larger tiers as appropriate for
import/export facilities to more fairly apportion costs across LNG
facility types. BGE noted that ``These large import and, in the future,
export terminals are commercially oriented and operated and are not
limited like smaller storage capacity facilities generally associated
with satellite and peak shaving facilities operated typically by LDC's
under limited Rate of Returns (ROR's) authorized by their state public
utility commissions (PUCs).'' BGE further noted that under 49 U.S.C.
60301(a), ``The fees shall be based on usage (in reasonable
relationship to volume-miles, miles, revenue, or a combination of
volume-miles and revenues) of the pipelines. If the larger base load
facilities that are import terminals and those terminals that become
authorized to export and their facilities are constructed, thereby
causing PHMSA increased regulatory costs, these facilities should carry
a larger burden of the total LNG program costs moving forward.''
    Response: PHMSA is planning to increase the number of tiers used
for LNG user fee billing to ensure that smaller plants are not
disproportionately burdened. We are implementing new tiers with a
higher user fee rate for plants with very high storage volumes, such as
export plants. PHMSA also determined that a rate of 1.6 percent of gas
costs covers actual annual LNG program expenses, a rate 68 percent
lower than the 5 percent of gas costs initially proposed. The increase
proposed is 68 percent lower than the initially proposed increase, and
that lower amount presents a much lower overall burden to all LNG
operators, regardless of size. PHMSA believes that with the additional
tiers which more equitably spread costs across operators by total per
operator capacity, small and large LNG operators are billed at rates
more equitably than the originally proposed billing structure, with the
smallest half of the operators paying 24 percent of total costs while
the largest half of operators pay about 76 percent of costs.
    Additionally, after the design review envisioned in the law for new
large export terminals is implemented, PHMSA will reevaluate the user
fee approach for LNG plants, gas transmission pipelines, and hazardous

liquid pipelines and consider making appropriate modifications.
    Comment: APGA ``estimates that a fee of approximately 6 cents per
bbl, would collect approximately $3,774,405, or 5 percent of PHMSA's
current gas budget. This formula would more equitably distribute the
LNG portion of PHMSA's pipeline safety program among LNG facility
owners. It should be phased in at approximately 2 cents/bbl in 2015, 4
cents/bbl in 2016 and 6 cents/bbl in 2017. These would obviously have
to be adjusted for any changes in PHMSA's budget. The user fee for
natural gas transmission mileage should also be adjusted to take into
account that LNG operators are now paying more, so transmission
operators would pay less.'' MUD endorses APGA's recommendation.
    Response: PHMSA plans to add tiers shifting more of the financial
burden to larger plants. A new 10-tier system based on per OPID total
barrel capacity with new tiers implemented for smaller capacity LNG
operators and new tiers for large LNG operators provides a simple
method for distributing costs more proportionately by size of operator.
And, by reducing the rate increase to 1.6 percent of gas costs, we more
equitably distribute the LNG portion among facility owners with a 68
percent reduction in total costs compared to the initial proposed
increase. Under the pure cost per barrel approach suggested by APGA,
PHMSA believes that too much of the financial burden associated with a
given level regulatory oversight of a plant would be shifted from small
operators.
    Comment: BGE does not consider PHMSA's proposed 5% increase in the
LNG facility user fee to be ``reasonable and justifiable'' arguing that
there are minimal increases in LNG regulatory requirements since 1994
opposed to increased regulatory requirements for gas pipeline operators
over the same time, while gas transmission operator user fee cost
increases over that time were not on the same scale as what we are
proposing for LNG cost increases. BGE also noted that the 1986 citation
that LNG facilities was to account for 5% of the total regulatory
program costs is no longer an appropriate ratio to utilize arguing
again that between 1986 and now there are little regulatory changes as
opposed to changes for the gas transmission industry at large, so PHMSA
accordingly should only marginally increase LNG costs.
    Response: PHMSA evaluated actual annual LNG programmatic costs and
determined that 1.6 percent of gas costs cover actual expenses.
Accordingly, we agree with BGE that the 5 percent level of total
regulatory program costs established in the 1986 notice is no longer an
appropriate ratio.
    Comment: BGE requests PHMSA also consider the following approaches:
    ``If a ratio of LNG user fee to overall program costs is necessary
and justifiable, consider a user fee that matches PHMSA's actual LNG
regulatory expenditures and that excludes the dramatic increase for
design reviews by PHMSA (likely much closer to 1% for example); retain
current LNG user fee assessment values for LNG facilities which are
satellite and/or peak shaving (with or without liquefaction) due to
their limited operating activity, limited ability to generate revenue,
and regulatory effort by PHMSA which has not increased dramatically to
justify an approximately 800% user fee increase; and consider a
combination assessment fee approach by applying the expanded stepped
storage capacity based fee schedule with a facility type based
multiplier to recognize the larger base load import/export facilities
not limited to a ROR set by state public utility commissions.''
    Response: In response to comments, PHMSA evaluated annual costs for
LNG oversight and determined that 1.6 percent of gas costs cover PHMSA
actual LNG regulatory expenditures. PHMSA will implement additional
tiers that better apportion the costs to larger plants.
    Comment: Metropolitan Utilities District makes the same comments
that APGA made about the impact to small LNG facilities, that the
increase to 5% of gas program costs is not related to actual increases
in LNG regulatory enforcement, and that the proposed costs for LNG peak
shaving facilities, in a five-tier per barrel structure, is
disproportional to LNG export facility proposed costs, supporting the
APGA recommendation for a cost per barrel structure. Metropolitan
Utilities District also supports the cost recovery for design review
for LNG facility construction concept.
    Response: PHMSA evaluated annual costs for LNG oversight and
determined that 1.6 percent of gas costs cover PHMSA's LNG regulatory
expenditures. PHMSA will implement additional tiers that better
apportion the costs to larger plants.
    Comment: David Wilson commented ``I object to the fact that PHMSA
is seeking a User Fee increase for LNG facility operators based upon an
estimated 1986 percentage of 5% and trying to suggest that the program
costs should remain at that same percentage without ANY analysis of
actual costs today. It requires an enormous amount of capital, economic
risk and time to construct LNG storage facilities and I know that
several projects are currently being planned, permitted and/or
constructed based upon certain fee structure assumptions. To increase
the fees for these operators over 800% over the course of three years
can change the entire economic viability plan for some projects and
will result in increased costs for consumers. I would ask PHMSA to
review the allocation of resources for the LNG facilities and resubmit
a proposal based upon those current needs.''
    Response: The basis for billing LNG facilities at 5 percent of gas
program costs was established in the original user fee notice. Based on
the comments received, PHMSA has revisited the appropriate level and
determined that 1.6 percent of gas program costs cover actual LNG
expenditures and accordingly, we are not pursuing 5 percent of gas
program costs.
    Comment: David Wilson also commented ``I would encourage PHMSA to
review their program costs to reduce unnecessary programs and waste to
the extent that the program costs would remain flat or be reduced over
the course of the next three years as the user fee increases are
nothing more than an additional tax burden for consumers disguised as a
`user fee' ''.
    Response: Congress authorized and required use fee collection for
LNG facilities and operators as stated above. PHMSA did review program
costs relevant to LNG expenditures, adopting an increase to 1.6 percent
of gas costs, rather than the previously proposed 5 percent of gas
costs.

Revised LNG User Fee Plan

    Based on the comments received, PHMSA has made several changes to
the historical LNG user fee billing methodology. First, we have
implemented an increase to 1.6 percent of gas program costs, based on
current annual LNG expenditures. Secondly, the historical 5 billing
tiers are expanded to 10 tiers. Instead of billing per plant, user fee
bills are based on the sum of storage capacity for all plants reported
by an operator. We considered implementing the cents per barrel method
suggested by APGA, but determined that this methodology shifted too
much burden from small operators.
    PHMSA has placed a document in the docket that compares the
historical per plant 5 tier fee, the new per operator 10 tier fee, and
the APGA proposal for a per barrel fee.
    PHMSA decided to bill per operator rather than per plant to reduce
the burden on small operators with multiple

plants. In actual FY 2014 billing, the highest LNG user fee was paid by
Atlanta Gas Light. By paying a fee for each of its four plants, the
total Atlanta Gas Light LNG user fee bill exceeded the bill for any LNG
import plant. Thirteen other operators with multiple plants each paid a
higher LNG user fee bill than any import plant. Billing on the sum of
storage capacity for an operator better apportions the costs to larger
operators.
    PHMSA added five new billing tiers to reduce the burden on small
operators. These new tiers include an ultra-low storage capacity tier
to reduce the burden on operators with storage capacity less than 2,000
barrels. Another tier was added for operators with less than 50,000
barrels of storage. The previous tier structure generated the same fee
for all plants over 500,000 barrels of storage, but the highest storage
volume in FY 2014 billing was 5 million barrels. We adjusted the
boundaries of the top two tiers and added three new tiers for operators
with very high storage capacity.
    For example, in FY 2014, an operator with three small plants was
billed a total of $3,750 for its three small plants. If PHMSA had
implemented 10-tier billing per operator for FY 2014, Energy North
Natural Gas Inc., would have paid 62 percent less. Under the cost per
barrel approach suggested by APGA, the decrease would have been 11,670
percent. The APGA approach shifts too much of the financial burden from
small operators.
    In FY 2014, each of the eight operators of an import plant was
billed $7,500. If PHMSA had implemented 10-tier billing by operator for
FY 2014, each of these eight large operators would have paid 79 percent
more. Under the cost per barrel approach suggested by APGA, the percent
increase would have ranged from 57 to 83 percent. The percent increase
for these large plants using the new PHMSA structure is comparable to
the percent increase using the APGA proposal.
    For FY 2015, PHMSA has implemented the 10-tier billing structure
below to collect 1.6 percent of gas costs with full collection in FY
2015 billing, not over 3 years as previously proposed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Barrel range                    # Operators     Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
less than 2,000.................................            5     $2,394
2,001-10,000....................................           10      4,787
10,001-50,000...................................            5      7,181
50,001-100,000..................................            7      9,575
100,001-250,000.................................            6     11,487
250,001-300,000.................................           11     16,467
300,001-500,000.................................           11     19,150
500,001-700,000.................................            8     28,721
700,001-2 million...............................           12     34,468
over 2 million..................................            7     40,212
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA continues to exempt mobile and temporary LNG plants from user
fee billing.
    PHMSA believes that an increase to 1.6 percent of gas costs
accurately reflects the allocation of PHMSA resources to LNG operators.
By implementing the 10-tier approach and billing by operator instead of
by plant, PHMSA has established a rate plan that is fair and equitable
to both small and large operators. Since PHMSA has determined that 1.6
percent of gas costs accurately reflect LNG regulatory costs, the
increase has been implemented in FY 2015 user fee billing. PHMSA has
placed a document in the docket that compares the actual FY 2014 bill
and the actual FY 2015 bill for each operator. The largest LNG operator
is being billed $40,212.00 and the smallest is being billed $2,394.00.
In the future, PHMSA will ensure that LNG user fee rates continue to
remain in proper alignment with program costs.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. Chapter 60301 and 601.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 1, 2015, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2015-10614 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P