14734 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA APPROVED ALBUQUERQUE/BERNALILLO COUNTY, NN REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject 

State 

approval/ 

effective date 

EPA approval 

date Explanation 

*******

New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20—Environment Protection, Chapter 11—Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality 

Control Board 

*******

Part 20 (20.11.20 NMAC) ............... Fugitive Dust Control ...................... 3/17/2008 April 1, 2009 [Insert FR page 

where document begins].

*******

[FR Doc. E9–7296 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2008–0020; 

FRL–8775–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Variance 

Determination for Particulate Matter 

From a Specific Source in the State of 

New Jersey 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of New Jersey. 

This SIP revision consists of a sourcespecific reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) determination for 

controlling particulate matter from the 

cooling tower operated by the PSEG 

Nuclear LLC Hope Creek and Salem 

Generating Stations. This action 

approves a source-specific variance 

determination and emission limitations 

that were made by New Jersey in 

accordance with the provisions of its 

rule to help meet the national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter. The intended effect 

of this rule is to approve source-specific 

emissions limitations required by the 

Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will 

become effective on May 1, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R02–OAR–2008–0020. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., 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 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs 

Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New 

York, New York 10007–1866. This 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

telephone number is 212–637–4249. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Truchan, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10278, (212) 637–3711, e-mail: 

Truchan.Paul@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

EPA is approving New Jersey’s 

revision to the particulate matter (PM) 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted on November 2, 2007. This 

SIP revision relates to New Jersey’s PM 

variance determination for the cooling 

tower at the PSEG Nuclear LLC Hope 

Creek and Salem Generating Stations 

located in Lower Alloways Creek 

Township, Salem County. As part of 

this variance evaluation, alternate 

emission limitations are specified for 

total suspended particulates (TSP) and 

PM–10 (particles with an aerodynamic 

diameter of 10 micrometers or less). No 

variance was requested, or is being 

granted for PM2.5. This evaluation and 

variance only involves the operation of 

the cooling tower. The reader is referred 

to the proposed rulemaking on this 

action (May 29, 2008, 73 FR 30873) for 

additional details. 

II. What Comments Were Received and 

What Is EPA’s Response? 

EPA received one anonymous 

comment which did not support the 

variance request. The commenter 

indicated concern with the health 

effects of particulate matter and the 

need to clean up our air. The 

commenter also stated that the plant 

should be forced to upgrade and that the 

proposed SIP revision should have 

included a discussion of particulates 

smaller than 2.5 parts per million 

(ppm). 

EPA is also concerned with the health 

effects of particulates and revised the 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) for PM2.5 in September 2006, 

lowering the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3 and 

readopted the annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 

15 μg/m3. States were required to make 

recommendations for designating their 

counties as either attainment or 

nonattainment by December 2007. On 

December 18, 2008, EPA’s 

Administrator signed a final rulemaking 

containing the new PM2.5 air quality 

designations. 

Based on current air quality 

monitoring data, Salem County is in 

attainment of the new 24-hour PM2.5 

standard. Salem County is currently 

designated as attaining the previous 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard, and annual PM2.5 

standard, and this is confirmed with air 

quality monitoring data. Therefore, the 

County where the cooling tower is 

located is currently attaining the 65 μg/ 

m3 NAAQS and is also attaining the 

new lower 35 μg/m3 NAAQS. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 14735 

As part of the requirements for 

obtaining a variance, an air quality 

modeling analysis may be required. 

Such an analysis was performed for the 

potential increase in emissions from the 

PSEG cooling tower which looked at 

annual and 24-hour TSP, PM10 and 

PM2.5 standards. The PM2.5 standard 

regulates fine particulates with an 

aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 

micrometers or less (that is, all 

particulates 2.5 micrometers and 

smaller). The proposed approval (73 FR 

30874, May 29, 2008) and the air quality 

modeling analysis included in the 

Docket for this action addressed the 

PM2.5 emissions from the cooling 

tower. Maximum modeled 

concentrations were compared to the 

respective significant impact levels. In 

general, concentrations of pollutants (in 

micrograms per cubic meter) above the 

significant impact levels may contribute 

to a violation of a NAAQS. However, in 

this case, the modeled impact of all 

three pollutants was less than their 

respective significance levels. In 

addition, the modeled impacts were 

added to the area-wide background 

concentrations, and all the results were 

less than the NAAQS. Therefore, the 

proposed SIP revision has demonstrated 

no interference with any NAAQS and 

satisfied section 110(l) of the Act, and 

EPA concludes the proposed SIP 

revision will not interfere with 

attainment or any other requirements of 

the Act. Further, as discussed in the 

proposal (73 FR 30873), the cooling 

tower will have its annual allowable 

particulate matter emissions limited to 

65.9 tons per year (tpy) instead of the 

current allowable of 129 tpy. Under 

worst case assumptions, hourly 

emissions are allowed to increase to 

42.0 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) from 29.4 

lbs/hr. The worst-case particulate matter 

emissions were modeled and are not 

predicted to cause an exceedance of the 

NAAQS. 

The variance request also included a 

review of the existing controls at PSEG’s 

cooling tower, an evaluation of other 

methods of reducing emissions at this 

facility, including the cost of these 

controls, and a comparison of controls 

that could be required on newly 

constructed cooling towers. The control 

efficiency currently measured for this 

cooling tower is comparable to or better 

than similar cooling towers documented 

in EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse. Therefore, no additional 

controls are feasible. 

In determining whether to approve 

the variance request submitted by New 

Jersey, EPA was guided by the 

applicable rules contained in the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), the results of 

air quality monitoring for the area, the 

results of air quality modeling of the 

proposed impact of the variance request, 

and the results of the technological and 

economic evaluations which were used 

to justify the variance. The New Jersey 

Administrative Code, Title 7, Chapter 

27, Subchapter 6, Control and 

Prohibition of Particulates from 

Manufacturing Processes, Section 6.5 

specifically permits variances to be 

issued and provides procedures and 

requirements which must be met in 

order for the variance to be granted. 

New Jersey has demonstrated to EPA’s 

satisfaction that these requirements 

have been met and that the variance will 

not cause or contribute to an exceedance 

of the applicable NAAQS. 

III. Conclusion 

EPA is approving New Jersey’s SIP 

revision request for a variance and an 

alternative emission limit determination 

for the PSEG Nuclear LLC Hope Creek 

and Salem Generating Stations cooling 

tower. This SIP revision contains 

source-specific particulate emission 

limitations contained in New Jersey’s 

Air Pollution Control Operating Permit 

for this source of: TSP less than or equal 

to 65.9 tpy, PM–10 less than or equal to 

65.9 tpy, TSP less than or equal to 42 

lbs/hr, and PM–10 less than or equal to 

42 lbs/hr. 

IV. 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 June 1, 2009. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration of 

this rule with the Administrator 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 

14736 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

of such rule or action. 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: February 12, 2009. 

George Pavlou, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

■ Part 52, 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. 

■ 2. Section 52.1570 is amended by 

adding new paragraph (c)(86) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(86) Revisions to the New Jersey State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

particulate matter granting a variance 

from Subchapter 6, Control and 

Prohibition of Particles from 

Manufacturing Processes for the cooling 

tower at the PSEG Nuclear LLC Hope 

Creek and Salem Generating Stations 

located in Lower Alloways Creek 

Township, Salem County dated 

November 2, 2007 submitted by the 

New Jersey State Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP) 

which establishes hourly emission 

limits for TSP and PM–10 (total) of less 

than or equal to 42 pounds per hour and 

annual emission limits for TSP and PM– 

10 (total) of less than or equal to 65.9 

tons per year. 

(i) Incorporation by reference: 

(A) A letter from Lisa P. Jackson, 

Commissioner, New Jersey Department 

of Environmental Protection, addressed 

to Alan J. Steinberg, Regional 

Administrator, EPA, dated November 2, 

2007 submitting the variance for PSEG 

Nuclear LLC Hope Creek and Salem 

Generating Stations without the 

attachments. 

(B) Section J, Facility Specific 

Requirements, Emission Unit U24 

Cooling Tower, (Significant 

Modification Approval date August 7, 

2007) contained in the Air Pollution 

Control Operating Permit, Significant 

Modification and Preconstruction 

Approval, PSEG Nuclear LLC Hope 

Creek and Salem Generating Stations, 

Permit Activity Number: BOP05003. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–7179 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 112 

[EPA–HQ–OPA–2007–0584; FRL–8788–5] 

RIN 2050–AG16 

Oil Pollution Prevention; NonTransportation Related Onshore 

Facilities; Spill Prevention, Control, 

and Countermeasure Rule—Final 

Amendments 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective 

date. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is delaying the effective 

date of the final rule that amends the 

Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations 

promulgated in the Federal Register on 

December 5, 2008. The amendments 

will become effective on January 14, 

2010. EPA additionally is requesting 

public comment on whether a further 

extension of the effective date may be 

warranted. 

DATES: This document is effective April 

1, 2009. The effective date of the final 

rule (FR Doc. E8–28159), published in 

the Federal Register on December 5, 

2008 (73 FR 74236), that was delayed 

until April 4, 2009 (74 FR 5900), is 

further delayed to January 14, 2010. 

Comments must be received on or 

before May 1, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPA–2007–0584, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: EPA Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPA–2007– 

0584. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in index at the http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in 

the index, some information may not be 

publicly available, such as Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information the disclosure of which is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number of the Public Reading Room is 

202–566–1744, and the telephone 

number to make an appointment to view 

the docket is 202–566–0276. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information, contact the 

Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil