[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 24, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49496-49498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16808]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R03-OAR-2005-PA-0011; FRL-7958-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; VOC and NOX RACT Determinations for Five Individual
Sources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP). The
revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for five major sources of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) pursuant
to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's (Pennsylvania's or the
Commonwealth's) SIP-approved generic RACT regulations. EPA is approving
these revisions in the SIP in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on September 23,
2005.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Regional
Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number R03-OAR-2005-PA-0011. All documents
in the docket are listed in the RME index at http://www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Once in the system, select ``quick search,'' then key in the
appropriate RME identification number. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (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 RME or in hard copy
for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by e-
mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On February 4, 2003, PADEP submitted a formal SIP revision that
consists of source-specific operating permits and/or plan approvals
issued by PADEP to establish and require RACT pursuant to the
Commonwealth's SIP-approved generic RACT regulations. On March 30, 2005
(70 FR 16115), EPA published a direct final rule (DFR) approving
revisions to PADEP-issued operating permits which establish and require
RACT for five individual sources. The following table identifies the
sources and the individual plan approvals (PAs) and operating permits
(OPs) which are the subject of this rulemaking.
Pennsylvania--VOC and NOX RACT Determinations for Individual Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan approval (PA
Source's name County ) operating Source type ``Major source''
permit (OP ) pollutant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R.H. Sheppard Co., Inc....... York.......... 67-2016.............. Foundry operations.. VOC
Wheatland Tube Co............ Mercer........ OP 43-182............ Steel pipe VOC
manufacturing.
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Potter........ OP-53-0006........... Natural gas units... VOC/NOX
Corp.
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Columbia...... OP-19-0004........... Natural gas-fired VOC/NOX
Corp. engines.
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Lycoming...... PA-41-0005A.......... Natural gas-fired VOC/NOX
Corp. engines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An explanation of the CAA's RACT requirements as they apply to the
Commonwealth and EPA's rationale for approving these SIP revisions were
provided in the DFR and will not be restated here. In accordance with
direct final rulemaking procedures, on March 30, 2005 (70 FR 16203),
EPA also published a companion notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) on
these SIP revisions inviting interested parties to comment on the DFR.
Timely adverse comments were submitted on EPA's March 30, 2005 DFR.
On May 26, 2005 (70 FR 30377), due to receipt of the adverse
comments submitted in response to the DFR, EPA published a withdrawal
of the DFR. A summary of those comments and EPA's responses are
provided in Section II of this document.
II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses
Comment: On April 9, 2005, a citizen submitted adverse comments on
EPA's DFR notice approving PADEP's VOC
[[Page 49497]]
and NOX RACT determinations for five individual sources. The
commenter states that all regulations for sources of air pollution in
Pennsylvania impact the air quality in New Jersey and New York, that
Pennsylvania's standards should be set to the highest level available
and should be more rigorous than those developed as RACT for these
sources. The commenter also states that the word ``reasonable'' [sic]
be deleted before ``available'' in the phrase ``reasonably available
control technology,'' in order to avoid billions of dollars in costs to
taxpayers in litigation over defining what is reasonable. The commenter
also accuses EPA of embarking on a campaign to kill Americans with air
laden with lead and mercury and that deformed babies are being born.
Response: The rulemaking at issue is limited in scope and addresses
the CAA section 182(b)(1) RACT requirements for sources located in the
ozone nonattainment area classified as moderate or above. The commenter
did not comment specifically on the RACT determinations for the five
individual sources and did not submit any supporting technical data or
information to support that the standards for the five individual
sources do not represent RACT. Rather, the commenter makes broad
statements alleging (1) that the regulations should be more stringent
than those required under the Act, (2) that the CAA should be amended
to remove the term ``reasonable'' [sic] from the CAA phrase
``reasonably available control technology,'' and (3) that the current
administration is not sufficiently regulating mercury and lead. These
comments are not ``significant comments'' that to which EPA needs to
respond. Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'n., 531 U.S. 457, n.2 at 471
(2001) (Under the CAA, EPA need only respond to significant comments,
i.e., comments relevant to EPA's decision). Mere ``assertions that in
the opinions of the commenter the Agency got it wrong,'' are not
relevant comments warranting a response. International Fabricare Inst.
v. EPA, 972 F.2d 384, 391 (D.C. Cir. 1992). As to the first comment,
that the rules should be more stringent than required under the Act,
EPA has no authority to mandate that a State regulate more stringently
than required. Under the CAA's bifurcated scheme, the State is
responsible for choosing how a source must be regulated for purposes of
attaining the NAAQS and EPA's role is limited in reviewing the State's
choice to ensure it meets the minimum statutory requirements. Here, as
is clear from the commenter's first two points, the commenter is not
claiming that the regulations do not meet the statutory minimum, but
rather that the statute does not require enough. EPA has no authority
to modify the statute, as requested by the commenter nor does EPA have
authority to require that the State to regulate more stringently than
required by the statute. The CAA is based upon ``cooperative
federalism,'' which contemplates that each State will develop its own
SIP, and that States retain a large degree of flexibility in choosing
which sources to control and to what degree. EPA must approve a State's
plan if it meets the ``minimum requirements of the CAA. Union Elec. Co.
v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 264-266 (1976).
As to the commenter's third point, the rulemaking at issue creates
additional, Federally enforceable controls for VOCs and NOX.
This rulemaking does not address any adverse health effects due to
mercury or lead in New Jersey, New York or elsewhere. Comments
regarding the ill effects of those pollutants are not relevant to this
rulemaking.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by
PADEP on February 4, 2003 to establish and require VOC and
NOX RACT for five major sources pursuant to the
Commonwealth's SIP-approved generic RACT regulations.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not
have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
B. 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 exempts from section 801 the following
[[Page 49498]]
types of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) 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
establishing source-specific requirements for five named sources.
C. 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 October 24, 2005. 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 approving source-specific VOC and NOX RACT
requirements for five sources in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 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, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: August 17, 2005.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania
0
2. In Sec. 52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by adding
the entries for R.H. Sheppard Co., Inc., Wheatland Tube Company, and
three Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporations at the end of the
table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Additional explanation/ Sec.
Name of source Permit No. County effective date EPA approval date 52.2063 citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
R.H. Sheppard Co., Inc.............. 67-2016 York................. 8/4/95 8/24/05..................... 52.2020(d)(1)(i)
[Insert page number where
the document begins].
Wheatland Tube Company.............. OP 43-182 Mercer............... 7/26/95 8/24/05..................... 52.2020(d)(1)(i)
[Insert page number where
the document begins].
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline OP-53-0006 Potter............... 10/13/95 8/24/05..................... 52.2020(d)(1)(i)
Corporation. [Insert page number where
the document begins].
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline OP-19-0004 Columbia............. 5/30/95 8/24/05..................... 52.2020(d)(1)(i)
Corporation. [Insert page number where
the document begins].
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline PA-41-0005A Lycoming............. 8/9/95 8/24/05..................... 52.2020(d)(1)(i)
Corporation. [Insert page number where
the document begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-16808 Filed 8-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P