Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 65845 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–21750 Filed 10–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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

Source’s name County 

Plan approval 

(PA #) operating permit 

(OP) 

Source type 

‘‘Major 

Source’’ pollutant 

Salem Tube, Inc ................ Mercer .............................. OP 43–142 ... Five Reheat Furnaces and Trichloroethylene Dipping 

Tank.

VOC. 

SGL Carbon Corporation .. Elk ..................................... OP 24–131 ... Flame Grids, Furnaces, and Special Impregnation 

(resin).

VOC. 

Dominion Trans, Inc .......... Clinton .............................. 18–00006 ..... Four Salt Heaters, Natural Gas Boiler, Two Hot 

Water Heaters, Two Space Heaters, and Three 

Superior Boilers.

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 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 

65846 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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).) 

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. 

■ 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 § 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: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 65847 

Name of source Permit 

number County State effective date EPA approval date 

Additional explanation/§ 52.2063 

citation 

* * * * * * * 

SGL Carbon Corporation ................................. OP 24–131 Elk ............... 5/12/95 

5/31/95 

11/1/05 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

52.2020(d)(1)(e). 

Salem Tube, Inc. .............................................. OP 43–142 Mercer ......... 2/16/99 11/1/05 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

52.2020(d)(1)(e). 

Dominion Trans, Inc. ........................................ 18–00006 Clinton ......... 6/15/99 

9/29/03 

11/1/05 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

52.2020(d)(1)(e). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–21752 Filed 10–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R03–OAR–2005–DE–0001; FRL–7992–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Delaware; Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for Ozone and Fine 

Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve revisions to the Delaware State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

revisions were submitted by the 

Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control 

(DNREC) and consist of modifications to 

the ambient air quality standards for 

ozone and fine particulate matter. EPA 

is approving these revisions in the SIP 

in accordance with the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This final 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–DE–0001. 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 Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 

1401, Dover, Delaware 19903. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose 

Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by e-mail at 

quinto.rose@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On April 1, 2003, DNREC submitted 

a formal SIP revision that consists of an 

amendment that included the revised 

ambient air quality standards for ozone 

and particulate matter. On July 18, 2005 

(70 FR 41146), EPA published a direct 

final rule (DFR) approving revisions to 

the Delaware’s SIP. An explanation of 

the CAA’s requirements as they apply to 

Delaware 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 July 18, 

2005 (70 FR 41166), 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 July 18, 2005 

DFR. 

On September 16, 2005 (70 FR 54639), 

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 July 18, 2005, a citizen 

submitted adverse comments on EPA’s 

DFR notice approving Delaware’s 

ambient air quality standards for ozone 

and fine particulate matter. The 

commenter states that the regulations 

are not strict enough and that they leave 

too much latitude for polluters to poison 

and kill us. The commenter also states 

that the fines and penalties for polluters 

should be increased by one thousand 

percent. 

Response: The rulemaking at issue is 

limited in scope and addresses the 1997 

Federal 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 

standards that Delaware incorporates 

into Section 6 of Regulation 3 of the 

Delaware Regulations Governing the 

Control of Air Pollution. The 

commenter did not submit any 

supporting technical data or information 

to support that the regulations are not 

strict enough. Rather the commenter 

makes broad statements alleging (1) that 

the regulations should be more stringent 

than those required under the Act, and 

(2) that the fines and penalties for 

polluters should be increased one 

thousand percent. 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 

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 air pollution sources 

must be regulated for purposes of 

attaining the national ambient air 

quality standards (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 comment, 

the commenter is not claiming that the