[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 (NO<INF>X</INF>) 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3342465a5d475c1d415c4056735643521d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="95e4e0fcfbe1fabbe7fae6f0d5f0e5f4bbf2fae3">[email protected]</span></a>.

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       <greek-i>) operating       Source type        ``Major source''
                                               permit (OP <greek-i>)                              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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>. 
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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>