Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66261 

open for the passage of vessel traffic 

between 6:45 a.m. and 8:20 a.m. and 

between 5 p.m. and 6:45 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

This deviation from the operating 

regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 

117.43. 

Dated: October 25, 2005. 

Gary Kassof, 

Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 05–21856 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R03–OAR–2005–PA–0002; FRL–7992–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; VOC and NOX 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) 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). 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 2, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Regional 

Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number 

R03–OAR–2005–PA–0002. 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: 

Amy Caprio, (215) 814–2156, or by email at caprio.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On August 30, 2004, 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 

April 4, 2005 (70 FR 16955), EPA 

published a direct final rule (DFR) 

approving revisions to PADEP-issued 

operating permits which establish and 

require RACT for three 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 

Waste Management Disposal Services of 

Pennsylvania, Inc. (Pottstown Landfill).

Berks; Montgomery ... OP–46–0033 Turbines; Enclosed Flares ....................... NOX and VOC. 

Waste Management Disposal Services of 

PA, Inc.

York ........................... 67–02047 .... Internal Combustion Engines; Enclosed 

Ground Flares.

NOX and VOC. 

Armstrong World Industries, Inc ............... Lancaster ................... 36–2001 ...... Space Heaters; Dryers; Surface Coatings NOX and VOC. 

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 April 4, 2005 

(70 FR 16955), 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 4, 2005 

DFR. 

On May 26, 2005 (70 FR 30378), 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 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 16, 2005, a citizen submitted 

adverse comments on EPA’s DFR notice 

approving PADEP’s VOC and NOX

RACT determinations for three 

individual sources. The commenter 

states that Pennsylvania’s air goes to 

New Jersey so the dirty air harms people 

in both states and RACT should be more 

rigorous. The commenter also states that 

prescribed burning in parks and wildlife 

areas fills the air with particulate matter 

which causes lung cancer, heart attacks, 

strokes, and asthma. 

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 three individual 

sources and did not submit any 

supporting technical data or information 

to support that the standards for the 

three individual sources do not 

66262 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

represent RACT. Rather, the commenter 

makes broad statements alleging: (1) 

That the regulations should be more 

‘‘rigorous’’ than those required under 

the Act, and (2) that prescribed burning 

in parks and wildlife areas are filling the 

air with particulates, in turn causing 

health problems and fatalities. These 

comments are not ‘‘significant 

comments’’ 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 

‘‘rigorous’’ than required under the Act, 

EPA has no authority to mandate that a 

State regulate more rigorously 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 point, 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 

rigorously 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 second point, 

the rulemaking at issue creates 

additional, Federally-enforceable 

controls for individual sources of VOCs 

and NOX. This rulemaking does not 

address any emissions attributable to 

prescribed burning in New Jersey or 

elsewhere. Comments regarding the 

potential adverse effects of prescribed 

burning are not relevant to this 

rulemaking. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the revisions to the 

Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP 

on January 27, 2005 to establish and 

require VOC and NOX RACT for three 

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 

CAA. 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 CAA. 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 sourcespecific 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).) 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66263 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: October 21, 2005. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 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. 

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In Section 52.2020, the table in 

paragraph (d)(1) is amended by adding 

the entries for Waste Management 

Disposal Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. 

(Pottstown Landfill); Waste 

Management Disposal Services of PA, 

Inc.; and Armstrong Industries, Inc. 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 

* * * * * * * 

Waste Management Disposal 

Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. 

(Pottstown Landfill).

OP–46–0033 Berks; Montgomery .. 4/20/99; 

1/27/04 

11/2/05 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

52.2020(d)(1)(a). 

Waste Management Disposal 

Services of PA, Inc.

67–02047 .... York .......................... 4/20/99 11/2/05 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

52.2020(d)(1)(a). 

Armstrong World Industries, Inc. 36–2001 ...... Lancaster .................. 7/3/99 11/2/05 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

52.2020(d)(1)(a). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–21749 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R03–OAR–2005–MD–0005; FRL–7992–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Repeal of NOX Budget 

Program COMAR 26.11.27 and 26.11.28 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to 

the Maryland State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The revision repeals Maryland’s 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget Program 

under COMAR 26.11.27 and 26.11.28. 

This action is in accordance with the 

Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on December 2, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Regional 

Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number 

R03–OAR–2005–MD–0005. 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 Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marilyn Powers, (215) 814–2308, or by 

e-mail at powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 28, 2005, (70 FR 43818), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Maryland. The NPR proposed approval 

of a SIP revision to repeal Maryland’s 

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 

NOX Budget Program (OTC Program) 

under COMAR 26.11.27 (Post-RACT 

Requirements for NOX Sources) and 

COMAR 26.11.28 (Policies and 

Procedures Relating to Maryland’s NOX

Budget Program). The formal SIP 

revision was submitted by the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE) 

on December 1, 2003. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The SIP revision repeals Maryland’s 

OTC Program, which implemented 

Maryland’s portion of a regional cap and 

trade program to reduce transport of 

ozone in 12 northeastern states and the 

District of Columbia. Maryland’s OTC 

Program has been superseded by its 

more stringent, Federally-approved NOX

Reduction and Trading Program which 

satisfies the NOX SIP Call. 

A detailed discussion of the rationale 

for EPA’s approval action is provided in 

the NPR and will not be restated here. 

EPA did not receive any comments on 

the NPR. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the repeal of 

COMAR 26.11.27 and 26.11.28 as a 

revision to the Maryland SIP. 

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