49496 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1.—EPA-APPROVED KENTUCKY REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

Chapter 52 Permits, Registrations, and Prohibitory Rules

401 KAR 52:080 ................... Regulatory limit on potential to emit ............ 10/31/03 8/24/05. 

[Insert citation of publication].

*******

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–16804 Filed 8–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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 

quinto.rose@epa.gov.

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 SIPapproved 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

Source’s name County 

Plan approval 

(PA #) operating 

permit (OP #) 

Source type ‘‘Major source’’ 

pollutant 

R.H. Sheppard Co., Inc .................................. York ......... 67–2016 ........... Foundry operations ........................................ VOC 

Wheatland Tube Co ........................................ Mercer ..... OP 43–182 ....... Steel pipe manufacturing ............................... VOC 

Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp ............... Potter ....... OP–53–0006 .... Natural gas units ............................................ VOC/NOX

Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp ............... Columbia OP–19–0004 .... Natural gas-fired engines ............................... VOC/NOX

Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp ............... Lycoming PA–41–0005A .. Natural gas-fired engines ............................... VOC/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 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

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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 

49498 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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 sourcespecific 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.

n 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

n 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania

n 2. In § 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:

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

Name of source Permit No. County State effective 

date EPA approval date 

Additional 

explanation/ 

§ 52.2063 citation 

*******

R.H. Sheppard Co., Inc .................... 67–2016 York ......... 8/4/95 8/24/05 ..............................................

[Insert page number where the document begins].

52.2020(d)(1)(i) 

Wheatland Tube Company ............... OP 43–182 Mercer ..... 7/26/95 8/24/05 ..............................................

[Insert page number where the document begins].

52.2020(d)(1)(i) 

Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation.OP–53–0006 Potter ....... 10/13/95 8/24/05 ..............................................

[Insert page number where the document begins].

52.2020(d)(1)(i) 

Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation.OP–19–0004 Columbia 5/30/95 8/24/05 ..............................................

[Insert page number where the document begins].

52.2020(d)(1)(i) 

Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation.PA–41–0005A Lycoming 8/9/95 8/24/05 ..............................................

[Insert page number where the document begins].

52.2020(d)(1)(i) 

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–16808 Filed 8–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52

[R05–OAR–2005–MN–0002; FRL–7958–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Minnesota; Withdrawal of Direct Final 

Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an 

adverse comment the EPA is 

withdrawing the July 1, 2005 (70 FR 

38025), direct final rule approving 

revisions to the sulfur dioxide 

requirements for Flint Hills Resources, 

L.P. of Dakota County, Minnesota. In the 

direct final rule, EPA stated that if 

adverse comments were submitted by 

August 1, 2005, the rule would be 

withdrawn and not take effect. On July 

28, 2005, EPA received a comment from 

the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. EPA 

believes the comment is adverse and, 

therefore, EPA is withdrawing the direct 

final rule. EPA will address the 

comment in a subsequent final action 

based upon the proposed action also 

published on July 1, 2005 (70 FR 

38071). EPA will not institute a second 

comment period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 

70 FR 38025 on July 1, 2005 is 

withdrawn as of August 24, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Criteria 

Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, Telephone: (312) 886–6524, email: rau.matthew@epa.gov.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Sulfur oxides.

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

Dated: August 8, 2005. 

Norman R. Niedergang, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

PART 52—[AMENDED]

§ 52.1220 [Amended] 

Accordingly, the revision of 40 CFR 

52.1220(d) (which published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 2005 at 70