[Federal Register: November 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 210)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65845-65847]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no05-9]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R03-OAR-2005-PA-0006; FRL-7992-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; VOC RACT Determinations for Three 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 three major sources of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) pursuant to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's
SIP-approved generic RACT regulations. EPA is approving these revisions
in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on December 1, 2005.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Regional
Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number R03-OAR-2005-PA-0006. All documents
in the docket are listed in the RME index at http://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: LaKeshia N. Robertson (215) 814-2113,
or by e-mail at robertson.lakeshia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16717), EPA published a direct final rule
(DFR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The DFR proposed approval
of formal SIP revisions submitted by Pennsylvania on August 30, 2004.
These SIP revisions consist 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. 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
) ``Major Source''
Source's name County operating permit Source type pollutant
(OP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salem Tube, Inc............... Mercer........... OP 43-142......... Five Reheat Furnaces VOC.
and Trichloroethylene
Dipping Tank.
SGL Carbon Corporation........ Elk.............. OP 24-131......... Flame Grids, Furnaces, VOC.
and Special
Impregnation (resin).
Dominion Trans, Inc........... Clinton.......... 18-00006.......... Four Salt Heaters, VOC.
Natural Gas Boiler,
Two Hot Water
Heaters, Two Space
Heaters, and Three
Superior Boilers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. In accordance with
direct final rulemaking procedures, on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16784), EPA
also published a companion notice of proposed rulemaking on these SIP
revisions inviting interested parties to comment on the DFR. Timely
adverse comments were submitted on EPA's April 1, 2005 DFR.
On May 26, 2005 (70 FR 30377), due to receipt of the adverse
comments on its approval of the PADEP's RACT determination for the
three individual sources, EPA published a withdrawal of the DFR. A
summary of these comments and EPA's responses are provided in Section
II of the document.
II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses
Comment: On April 4, 2005, a citizen submitted adverse comments on
EPA's approval of the DEP's VOC RACT determinations for three
individual sources. The commenter states that the standards should be
stringent enough to prevent the possibility of polluting eastward
states and to protect human health and welfare.
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 areas. The commenter did not comment
specifically on the RACT determinations for three individual sources
and did not submit any supporting technical data or information to
support that the standards for three sources do not represent RACT.
Rather, the commenter makes broad statements alleging that the
regulations should be more stringent than those required under the Act
in order to ensure adequate protection. The comment is not a
``significant comment'' to which EPA needs to respond. Whitman v.
American Trucking Ass'n., 31 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). In terms of the comment, that the rules
[[Page 65846]]
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. 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
the EPA have authority to require that the State 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).
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by
PADEP on August 30, 2004 to establish and require VOC RACT for three
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 (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 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 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 three 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 January 3, 2006. 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 three
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, Ozone, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: October 24, 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 SGL Carbon Corporation; Salem Tube, Inc.; and Dominion
Trans, Inc. at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
[[Page 65847]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Additional explanation/Sec.
Name of source Permit number County effective date EPA approval date 52.2063 citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
SGL Carbon Corporation............ OP 24-131 Elk.................. 5/12/95 11/1/05 [Insert page 52.2020(d)(1)(e).
5/31/95 number where the
document begins].
Salem Tube, Inc................... OP 43-142 Mercer............... 2/16/99 11/1/05 [Insert page 52.2020(d)(1)(e).
number where the
document begins].
Dominion Trans, Inc............... 18-00006 Clinton.............. 6/15/99 11/1/05 [Insert page 52.2020(d)(1)(e).
9/29/03 number where the
document begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-21752 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P