[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 110 (Friday, June 8, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31749-31752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11032]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0280; FRL-8322-9]
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 accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on July 9, 2007.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0280. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. 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 through
[[Page 31750]]
www.regulations.gov 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 May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26297), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed
approval of the SIP revisions submitted by PADEP on February 4, 2003
and November 21, 2005. These SIP revisions consisted of seven source-
specific operating permits issued by PADEP to establish and require
RACT pursuant to the Commonwealth's SIP-approved generic RACT
regulations. The following table identifies five of those sources and
the individual operating permits (OPs) which are the subject of this
rulemaking. We are taking final action on these five source-specific
RACT rules in this final action. We will take final action on the other
two source-specific operating permits in a separate action.
Pennsylvania--VOC and NOX RACT Determinations for Individual Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating
Source's name County permit (OP Source type ``Major source''
) pollutant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong World Industries, Lancaster......... 36-2002 Sheet and VOC and NOX.
Inc. Flooring
Products
Manufacturer.
Peoples Natural Gas Company... Clarion........... 16-124 Natural Gas VOC and NOX.
Compressor.
Dart Container Corporation.... Lancaster......... 36-2015 Expanded VOC and NOX.
Polystyrene
Manufacturing
Facility.
AT&T Microelectronics......... Lehigh............ 39-0001 Semiconductors VOC and NOX.
Manufacturing.
West Penn Power Co............ Greene............ 30-000-099 Power Plant...... VOC and NOX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 NPR and will not be restated here. Timely adverse
comments were submitted on EPA's May 4, 2006 NPR. 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
On June 5, 2006, EPA received adverse comments on EPA's May 4, 2006
NPR proposing approval of PADEP's VOC and NOX RACT
determinations for seven individual sources. The comments addressed
only three of the seven individual sources; namely, The Frog, Switch &
Manufacturing Company (The Frog); Merck & Co. Inc. (Merck); and Dart
Container Corporation (Dart). EPA received no comments on the RACT
determinations for the other four sources. We respond to the comments
for Dart in this notice. We will respond to the comments regarding the
Frog and Merck in a separate final action on the source-specific rules
for those two sources.
Comment: With respect to Dart, the comment asserts that the RACT
determination does not address an estimated 30 tons per year of VOC
emissions from ``cleaning solvents.''
Response: The commenter is mistaken. Condition 6 of the RACT
determination limits total annual pentane emissions from the foam cup
molding plants to 615 tons. As explained in the publicly available
supporting material submitted with the SIP revision by PADEP, the 615
tons of VOCs (primarily pentane), includes the approximately 30 tons
per year of ``cleaning supply losses'' (not, as the commenter
mistakenly categorizes them, ``cleaning solvents'').
Comment: With respect to Dart, the commenter asserts that the
current control of the pre-expanders should be included in the RACT
determination as a RACT requirement.
Response: Current control of the pre-expanders is a requirement of
the RACT determination. Condition 5 of the RACT determination states
that ``RACT for VOC emissions from all sources at this facility is
determined to be current operations.'' ``[A]ll sources'' would include
the pre-expanders.
Comment: With respect to Dart, the commenter proposes a control
technology (use of a concentrator in series with an oxidation control
device) to be evaluated for control of dilute VOC gas streams from the
cup production plants.
Response: The comment implies that the RACT analysis with respect
to the VOC controls for the cup production plants was not correctly
performed. Although the commenter asserts that the RACT determination
is incorrect because the RACT analysis did not consider the commenter's
proposed control technology, the commenter does not provide information
that this control technology meets the criteria for consideration as
potential RACT as specified by the Pennsylvania generic RACT
regulation. The Pennsylvania generic RACT regulation specifies that the
only control options that need to be considered are those that meet the
threshold criterion of having ``a reasonable potential for application
to the source.'' 25 Pa. Code 129.92(b)(1). In the single conclusory
sentence regarding this technology in the comment, the commenter does
not provide any information from which EPA could evaluate the claim
that such technology should have been considered as RACT. The commenter
does not provide sufficient information from which EPA can discern
whether--such a ``concentrator in series with an oxidation control
device'' is even a currently extant technology (the RACT analysis
concluded that ``UV oxidizers/Photoxidation'' were not among the
technologies that have been successful at controlling the VOC--the
pentane--emitted from this facility, but it is unclear if this type of
``oxidation control device'' intended by the commenter, as other
processes, such as incineration, may also be properly referred to as
``oxidation''). Furthermore, the commenter provides no supporting
technical data or information to indicate that the ``current
operations'' specified as RACT for all sources at the facility (which
would include sources of dilute VOC gas streams from the cup production
processes), is not RACT, or alternatively, that the proposed control
technology may be RACT. Furthermore, the comment does not identify
which
[[Page 31751]]
gas streams it considers to be sources of ``dilute VOC'' gas streams to
which the commenter would apply the control technology.
Additionally, the supporting document submitted by PADEP with the
SIP revision for the RACT determination extensively discusses the
technical feasibility and cost effectiveness of various control
technologies, including oxidation and concentration technologies for
the capture and destruction of VOC from various sources at the
facility, prior to concluding that current operations (which do not
include oxidation and concentration) are RACT. Due to the lack of
specificity of the comment, EPA believes it is possible that the
technology proposed by the commenter may actually be among the options
considered and rejected in the RACT analysis, which lists
``concentration technologies in conjunction with incineration'' as a
``proven success'' for controlling pentane emissions. However, the RACT
analysis did not conclude that this technology would be cost effective.
In sum, the commenter merely asserts in a single sentence, without
support, that there is a technology that ought to have been considered
(and which may actually have been considered), but has not provided EPA
with sufficient information for us to determine what that technology is
and evaluate whether it meets even the relatively lax standard of 25
Pa. Code 129.92(b)(1), of having a ``reasonable potential'' to be
applied to this source. The mere assertion that an agency may have
gotten something wrong without the commenter providing a basis for
evaluating that assertion, does not rise to level of a relevant comment
warranting a substantive response. See International Fabricare Inst. v.
EPA, at 391. See also Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc.,
n.2. at 471.
EPA therefore may approve the RACT determinations for the four
sources in which we received no adverse comment, and for Dart in this
rulemaking.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by
PADEP on February 4, 2003 and November 21, 2005, to establish and
require VOC and NOX RACT for five 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 (Public Law 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 approves a state rule implementing a Federal
Standard.
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 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 August 7, 2007. 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 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,
[[Page 31752]]
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: May 31, 2007.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting 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 Armstrong World Industries, Inc.; Peoples Natural Gas
Company; Dart Container Corporation; AT&T Microelectronics; and West
Penn Power Co. at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Permit number County effective EPA approval date Additional explanation/
date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.... Lancaster............ OP 36-2002 10/31/96 6/8/07 [Insert page number where 52.2020(d)(1)(u).
the document begins].
Peoples Natural Gas Company........ Clarion.............. OP 16-124 8/11/99 6/8/07 [Insert page number where 52.2020(d)(1)(u).
the document begins].
Dart Container Corporation......... Lancaster............ OP 36-2015 8/31/95 6/8/07 [Insert page number where 52.2020(d)(1)(u).
the document begins].
AT&T Microelectronics.............. Lehigh............... OP 39-0001 5/19/95 6/8/07 [Insert page number where 52.2020(d)(1)(u).
the document begins].
West Penn Power Co................. Greene............... OP 30-000- 5/17/99 6/8/07 [Insert page number where 52.2020(d)(1)(u).
099 the document begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-11032 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P