Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Nitrogen Oxides for the State of New Hampshire

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NH31-1-7160a; FRL-6010-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Reasonably Available Control Technology for Nitrogen Oxides for the

State of New Hampshire

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of New Hampshire. This revision establishes and

requires Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) at three

stationary sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX). The intended

effect of this action is to approve source specific orders which

require major stationary sources of NOX to reduce their

emissions in accordance with requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 13, 1998 without further notice

unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by June 12, 1998.

Should the

[[Page 26456]]

Agency receive such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of

this direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public

that the rule did not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director,

Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAA), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-

2211. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment, at the

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA; as well as the

Air Resources Division, New Hampshire Department of Environmental

Services, 64 North Main Street, Caller Box 2033, Concord, NH 03302-

2033.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven A. Rapp, Environmental

Engineer, Air Quality Planning Unit (CAQ), U.S. EPA, Region I, JFK

Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211; (617) 565-2773;

[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that States develop RACT

regulations for all major stationary sources of NOX in areas

which have been classified as ``moderate,'' ``serious,'' ``severe,''

and ``extreme'' ozone nonattainment areas, and in all areas of the

Ozone Transport Region (OTR). EPA has defined RACT as the lowest

emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by

the application of control technology that is reasonably available

considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762;

September 17, 1979). This requirement is established by sections

182(b)(2), 182(f), and 184(b) of the CAA.

These CAA NOX requirements are further described by EPA

in a notice entitled, ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides

Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,'' published November 25, 1992

(57 FR 55620). The November 25, 1992 notice, also known as the

NOX Supplement, should be referred to for more detailed

information on NOX requirements. Additional EPA guidance

memoranda, such as those included in the ``NOX Policy

Document for the Clean Air Act of 1990,'' also known as the

NOX Policy Document, (EPA-452/R-96-005, March 1996), should

also be referred to for more information on NOX

requirements. Similarly, the ``Economic Incentive Program Rules,'' or

EIP (67 FR 16690, April 7, 1997), and the Emissions Trading Policy

Statement, or ETPS (51 FR 43814, December 4, 1986), should be referred

to for information on EPA's policy concerning emissions averaging and/

or trading by sources subject to NOX RACT.

New Hampshire has three designated ozone nonattainment areas.

First, the area which includes all of Merrimack County, part of

Hillsborough County, and part of Rockingham County is classified as a

marginal nonattainment area (see 40 CFR Part 81 for the list of

affected towns). Second, all of Strafford County and part of Rockingham

County is classified as a serious non-attainment area (see 40 CFR Part

81, Sec. 81.330 for the list of affected towns). Third, the part of

southern New Hampshire that is located within the Boston-Lawrence-Salem

Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) is also classified as

a serious nonattainment area (see 40 CFR Part 81, Sec. 81.330 for the

list of affected towns). Additionally, section 184(a) of the CAA also

establishes the northeastern United States, which includes all of the

State of New Hampshire, as part of the OTR.

Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires States to require

implementation of RACT with respect to all major sources of volatile

organic compounds (VOCs). This RACT requirement also applies to all

major sources in ozone nonattainment areas with higher than moderate

nonattainment classifications. Section 182(f) states that, ``the plan

provisions required under this subpart for major stationary sources of

volatile organic compounds shall also apply to major stationary sources

(as defined in section 302 and subsections (c), (d), and (e) of the

section) of oxides of nitrogen.'' Additionally, section 184(b)(2)

requires major stationary sources in the OTR to meet the requirements

applicable to major sources if the area were classified as a moderate

nonattainment area, unless already classified at a higher nonattainment

level. These sections of the CAA, taken together, establish the

requirements for New Hampshire to submit a NOX RACT

regulation which covers major sources.

Section 302 of the CAA generally defines ``major stationary

source'' as a facility or source of air pollution which has the

potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of air pollution. This

definition applies unless another provision of the CAA explicitly

defines major source differently. Therefore, for NOX, a

major source is one with the potential to emit 100 tons per year or

more in marginal and moderate areas, as well as in attainment areas in

the OTR. However, for serious nonattainment areas, a major source is

defined by section 182(c) as a source that has the potential to emit 50

tons per year or more.

In New Hampshire's Strafford County, in the part of Rockingham

County that is a classified as serious nonattainment, and in the

Boston-Lawrence-Salem CMSA, a major stationary source of NOX

is a facility which has a potential to emit of 50 tons per year or more

of NOX. Throughout the rest of the State, a major stationary

source of NOx is a facility with the potential to emit 100 tons or more

per year of NOx. Such facilities are subject to NOX RACT

requirements.

II. State Submittal

On April 14, 1997, May 6, 1997, and September 24, 1997, the New

Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) submitted

revisions to its SIP concerning Public Service Company of New Hampshire

(PSNH), Hampshire Chemical Corporation (HCC), and Crown Vantage

(Crown), respectively. The Crown and HCC SIP submittals define RACT for

various pieces of equipment at their facilities which are subject to

the miscellaneous RACT provisions of New Hampshire's NOX

RACT regulation ``Env-A 1211 Nitrogen Oxides'' (Env-A 1211). The

submittal for Crown also defines alternative emission limits for two

industrial boilers at the Berlin facility. The PSNH SIP submittal

establishes an emissions averaging plan for the two utility boilers at

PSNH's Merrimack Station (Merrimack). Additionally, the submittal for

Merrimack involves an emission quantification protocol for the creation

and/or use of discrete emission reductions.

Previously, DES submitted regulation Part Env-A 1211 and a source-

specific NOX RACT determination as a SIP revision in

response to the CAA requirements that RACT be required for all major

sources of NOX. On April 9, 1997, EPA published a Federal

Register notice approving those NOX RACT submittals. See 62

FR 17137. That notice, however, stated that RACT determinations were

still outstanding for Crown and HCC. Subsequently, DES submitted

NOX RACT determinations to EPA for Crown and HCC on

September 24, 1997 and May 6, 1997, respectively. Additionally, on

April 14, 1997 DES submitted an emissions averaging plan and emission

credit quantification protocol for PSNH as an alternative RACT

determination and economic incentive program revision to the SIP.

[[Page 26457]]

III. Description of Submittal

The following is a description of the three SIP actions. For a more

detailed description of these RACT related actions, the reader should

refer to the technical support document and attachment and/or to the

RACT orders themselves, located at the addresses listed above. The

orders have been evaluated against the relevant EPA guidance documents,

including the NOX Supplement, the NOX Policy

Document, the EIP, and the ETPS.

A. Crown Vantage

There are a number of devices at Crown's Berlin facility which fall

under the miscellaneous NOX RACT requirements of Env-A

1211.02(l), i.e., the Chemical Recovery Unit #11, the #2 lime kiln, and

four space heaters. The space heaters each have heat input capacities

of less than 2 million Btu per hour (mmBtu/hr). Because these units

operate only during the heating season and have relatively small

NOX emissions, it has been determined that emission controls

for this unit size would not be cost effective. Therefore, RACT for

these units has been defined as no additional controls. For the

Chemical Recovery Unit #11, RACT has been defined as a NOX

limitation of 120 parts per million on a wet volume basis (ppmv),

corrected to 8% oxygen, on a 24 hour calendar day basis. For the #2

lime kiln, RACT has been defined as an emission limitation of 120 ppmv,

corrected to 10% oxygen, on a 24 hour calendar day basis. These limits

are comparable to RACT limits established for similar types of

equipment in other States in the northeastern United States.

Additionally, there are a number of devices at the Crown facility

for which it has been demonstrated that meeting the emission limits of

Env-A 1211 is not economically or technically feasible. Subsequently,

alternative emission limitations have been determined pursuant to Env-A

1211.17 for these units, i.e., Boiler #3 and Boiler #12. Crown has

demonstrated that for Boiler #3, low NOX burners (LNB) would

reduce NOX at a cost-effectiveness of almost $4700 per ton

of NOX reduced. Similarly, they have shown that for Boiler

#12, the cost-effectiveness would be approximately $8800 per ton of

NOX reduced. The costs required to achieve these reductions

are considerably higher than the high end of the cost-effectiveness

range recommended by EPA (see ``NOX Policy Document for the

Clean Air Act of 1990,'' (EPA-452/R-96-005, March 1996)). Therefore,

for Boiler #3, Final RACT Order ARD-97-003 sets a NOX

emission limit of 0.45 pounds/million Btu (lb/mmBtu) on an annual basis

and 0.60 lb/mmBtu on a 24 hour basis. For Boiler #12, Final RACT Order

ARD-97-0903 sets a NOX emission limitation of 0.45 lb/mmBtu.

These limits are acceptable as alternative RACT emission limits. In

addition, the facility must meet the record keeping and reporting

requirements of Env-A 901.06 and Env-A 901.07.

On June 10, 1997, DES proposed RACT Order ARD-97-003. On July 23,

1997, DES held a public hearing. On June 26, 1997, EPA submitted

written comments to the public record. On September 24, 1997, DES

submitted Final RACT Order ARD-97-003, including the miscellaneous and

alternative RACT determinations, to EPA as a revision to the New

Hampshire SIP. On October 16, 1997, EPA deemed the package

administratively and technically complete.

B. Hampshire Chemical Corporation

There are a number of devices at HCC's Nashua facility which fall

under the miscellaneous NOX RACT requirements of Env-A

1211.02(l), i.e., a hot oil heater and six kilns. All of the kilns are

small units, having heat input capacities of less than 5 mmBtu/hr.

Therefore, RACT for these units has been defined as no additional

NOX controls. The hot oil heater has a heat input capacity

of 13.3 mmBtu/hr. Although technically the unit is not a boiler, it has

similar mechanical and thermal characteristics. Therefore, RACT for the

oil heater has been defined as an annual tune-up, which is also

required of industrial boilers of the same size under Env-A 1211.05. In

addition, the facility must meet the record keeping and reporting

requirements of Env-A 901.06 and Env-A 901.07.

New Hampshire formally proposed RACT Order ARD-95-011 on December

4, 1995 and held a public hearing on January 9, 1996. EPA submitted

written comments on that proposal on January 16, 1996. New Hampshire

submitted Final RACT Order ARD-95-011 on May 6, 1997. EPA deemed the

submittal administratively and technically complete on May 28, 1997.

C. Public Service of New Hampshire's Merrimack Station

During 1995 and 1996, EPA received and commented on several draft

RACT orders concerning PSNH's Merrimack facility. These draft orders

proposed to allow PSNH to meet the NOX emission limitations

of Env-A 1211.03(c)(1)(b) at units 1 (MK1) and 2 (MK2) through the use

of emissions averaging, or bubbling, as provided for in Env-A 1211.13.

In an effort to comply with the emission limitations of Env-A

1211.03(c)(1)(b), PSNH had installed NOX control systems on

both units in 1995. The selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)

controls on MK1, however, did not reduce emissions as well as expected

and the unit was unable to meet the emission rate limitation set by

Env-A 1211. Fortunately, the selective catalytic reduction (SCR)

NOX control system on MK2 performed better than expected.

This reduction allowed MK2 to run at emission rates lower than its

limits in Env-A 1211. The enhanced performance of MK2 makes emissions

averaging or trading a viable means of achieving the NOX

reductions anticipated by RACT regulations.

Basically, the bubble for Merrimack requires MK1 and MK2 to meet

daily emissions caps as well as emission rate limitations. The first

cap applies to the emissions of the two units combined. The second cap

applies only to the emissions of MK1 when MK2 is not at full capacity.

The order also adds a weekly emission rate limitation on MK1. MK2

remains subject to a daily emission cap and emission rate limitation

under Env-A 1211.

More specifically, MK1 and MK2 are required to meet a combined

daily emission cap which achieves an equivalent level of NOX

reduction that would be achieved if both units met the applicable

emission limitations in Env-A 1211.03(c)(1)(b), (d), and (f). This

combined emissions cap is in addition to the emissions cap on MK2

imposed by Env-A 1211.03 (d) and (f). The order also imposes a separate

emissions cap on MK1 when MK2 is not operating during all 24 hours of a

day. This second cap is equal to a historical actual emission rate

(i.e., the sixth highest average weekly value from January to October

1996) of MK1 multiplied by its throughput capacity. As described in the

ETPS, because the use of emissions averaging should not result in an

increase in total emissions, the second cap is needed to ensure that

MK1 will not exceed its historical level of emissions during days when

MK2 is not at full capacity. Similarly, the order adds a weekly

emission rate limitation (i.e., the sixth highest value from January to

October 1996) to ensure that the emission rate from MK1 does not exceed

historical rates of emissions experienced during the operation of the

NOX control system on MK1.

Additionally, the PSNH SIP submittal includes an emission

quantification protocol for the creation or use of discrete emission

reductions (DERs) of NOX at Merrimack. Basically, the

[[Page 26458]]

protocol describes a method for quantifying the difference between the

daily unit-specific RACT emission limitations (baseline), as

established in Env-A 1211.03, and the actual daily average emission

rate that each unit achieves for the hours that the unit operated. The

protocol requires that actual emissions be measured by a continuous

emission monitoring systems (CEMS). For MK1, the more stringent

emission rate limitation of Env-A 1211.03(c)(1)(b) is used as the

baseline to yield the fewest number of credits and the greatest number

of debits. For MK2, which is subject to both an emission rate

limitation under Env-A 1211.03(c)(1)(b) and an emissions cap under Env-

A 1211.03(d), the protocol requires that the calculation be done using

each of the two RACT limits and that the lesser quantity of DERs

calculated be considered creditable.

The SIP submittal also includes data documenting that the protocol

was used to quantify the creation of 142.5 DERs at Merrimack from June

1, 1995 to September 30, 1995. The documentation shows that the

quantity is above and beyond any DERs that were used for RACT

compliance at either MK1 or MK2 during that time period. The protocol

is intended as a methodology to calculate the generation or use of DERs

for RACT compliance, either by PSNH or by others who would purchase the

DERs from PSNH. The order requires that prior to the use of the PSNH

DERs by others, however, a DER use protocol (if different from the

method described in the attachment to the order) be approved by DES and

EPA, either on a case-by-case basis or by approval of New Hampshire's

emissions trading regulations Env-A 3000 and 3100. EPA has not yet

acted on those regulations and will do so in a future notice.

The order also discusses the use of the DERs as early reduction

allowances as part of the Ozone Transport Commission's NOX

budget and allowance trading program. New Hampshire has not yet adopted

this regulation. Therefore, EPA cannot judge the compatibility of these

provisions with the allowance trading program at this time. The order

does, however, discuss the potential for double-counting the emission

reductions under both programs. The order commits DES to taking steps

in the future to avoid such double-counting.

New Hampshire proposed RACT Order ARD-97-001 for Merrimack on

January 28, 1997. EPA provided written comments to DES concerning that

proposal on March 11, 1997. On April 14, 1997, DES submitted Final RACT

Order ARD-97-001 as a revision to the SIP. On May 28, 1997, EPA sent a

letter to DES deeming the submittal administratively and technically

complete.

IV. Issues

The final RACT order for PSNH includes a protocol for the creation

and/or use of credits for compliance at Merrimack. This protocol would

allow the use of one-time or carry over credits during time periods

other than when they were generated (i.e., the intertemporal use of

credits). The credits produced at Merrimack, however, are the result of

the operation of extra control capacity on MK2. This means that at any

given time, extra reductions are balancing the use of earlier credits.

In this way, the generation or use of credits from Merrimack should

produce no increase in NOX emissions, or ``spiking,'' due to

the use of credits for compliance with RACT limits. Therefore, the use

of these credits is consistent with the requirements of the New

Hampshire SIP, RFP and ROP plans, and area-wide RACT requirements.

V. Final Action

EPA review of the NOX RACT SIP submittals, including the

miscellaneous NOX RACT submittals for HCC and Crown,

indicates that New Hampshire has sufficiently defined the

NOX RACT requirements for these sources. Additionally, EPA

review of the emissions averaging plan and emissions quantification

protocol for PSNH's Merrimack facility indicates that these economic

incentive programs meet applicable EPA guidance. Therefore, EPA is

approving these submittals into the New Hampshire SIP as meeting the

requirements of the CAA.

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 should relevant adverse comments be

filed. This rule will become effective on July 13, 1998 without further

notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comment by June 12,

1998.

Should the Agency receive such comments, it will publish a timely

document in the Federal Register withdrawing the final rule and

informing the public that this rule did not take effect. All public

comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a proposed rule. EPA will not institute

a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be

effective on July 13, 1998 and no further action will be taken on the

proposed rule.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any State Implementation Plan. Each request for revision to

the State Implementation Plan shall be considered separately in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the

Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

To reduce the burden of Federal regulations on States and small

governments, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12875 on October

26, 1993, entitled ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership.''

Under

[[Page 26459]]

Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation which is not

required by statute unless the Federal Government provides the

necessary funds to pay the direct costs incurred by the State and small

governments or EPA provides OMB with a description of the prior

consultation and communications the Agency has had with representatives

of State and small governments and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA

to develop an effective process permitting elected and other

representatives of State and small governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates.''

The present action satisfies the requirements of Executive Order

12875 because it is required by statute and because it does not contain

a significant unfunded mandate. Section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act

requires that EPA act on implementation plans submitted by States. This

rulemaking implements that statutory command. In addition, this rule

approves preexisting state requirements and does not impose new Federal

mandates that bind State or small governments.

Under Sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate which may result in

estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under

Section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least

burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is

consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to

establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-

existing requirements under State or local law and imposes no new

Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,

or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this

action.

D. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the

following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules

relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency

organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect

the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).

EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's

action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular

applicability. This rule only affects three specifically-named

entities, PSNH's Merrimack facility in Bow, New Hampshire, HCC in

Nashua, New Hampshire, and Crown in Berlin, New Hampshire.

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 July 13, 1998. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule

does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such

rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings

to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) EPA encourages

interested parties to comment in response to the proposed rule rather

than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after

the comment period allowed for in the proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation

Plan for the State of New Hampshire was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: April 21, 1998.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations

is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart EE--New Hampshire

2. Section 52.1520 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(54) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.1520 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(54) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the

New Hampshire Air Resources Division on April 14, 1997, May 6, 1997,

and September 24, 1997.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letters from the New Hampshire Air Resources Division dated

April 14, 1997, May 6, 1997, and September 24, 1997 submitting

revisions to the New Hampshire State Implementation Plan.

(B) New Hampshire NOX RACT Order ARD-97-001, concerning

Public Service Company of New Hampshire in Bow, effective on April 14,

1997.

(C) New Hampshire NOX RACT Order ARD-95-011, concerning

Hampshire Chemical Corporation, effective on May 6, 1997.

(D) New Hampshire NOX RACT Order ARD-97-003, concerning

Crown Vantage, effective September 24, 1997.

3. In Sec. 52.1525 Table 52.1525 is amended by adding new state

citations for ``Final RACT Order ARD-97-001,'' ``Final RACT Order ARD-

95-011,'' and ``Final RACT Order ARD-97-003,'' to read as follows:

Sec. 52.1525 EPA--approved New Hampshire state regulations

* * * * *

[[Page 26460]]

Table 52.1525.--EPA--Approved Rules and Regulations--New Hampshire

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

State citation Date adopted Date approved Federal Register

Title/subject chapter by State by EPA citation 52.1520 Comments

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

* * * * * * *

Source specific order............ Order ARD-97-001.... 04/14/97 5/13/98 [Insert FR citation (c)(54)........ Source specific NOX RACT

from published order for Public

date]. Service of New

Hampshire in Bow, NH.

Source specific order............ Order ARD-95-011.... 05/06/97 5/13/98 [Insert FR citation (c)(54)........ Source specific NOX RACT

from published order for Hampshire

date]. Chemical Corporation in

Nashua, NH.

Source specific order............ Order ARD-97-003.... 9/24/97 5/13/98 [Insert FR citation (c)(54)........ Source specific NOX RACT

from published order for Crown Vantage

date]. in Berlin, NH.

* * * * * * *

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

[FR Doc. 98-12716 Filed 5-12-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P