Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; VOC RACT Determinations for Three Individual Sources, 65845-65847 [05-21752]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
65845
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
[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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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 https://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)
Salem Tube, Inc ................
Mercer ..............................
OP 43–142 ...
SGL Carbon Corporation ..
Elk .....................................
OP 24–131 ...
Dominion Trans, Inc ..........
Clinton ..............................
18–00006 .....
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Oct 31, 2005
Jkt 208001
Source type
Five Reheat Furnaces and Trichloroethylene Dipping
Tank.
Flame Grids, Furnaces, and Special Impregnation
(resin).
Four Salt Heaters, Natural Gas Boiler, Two Hot
Water Heaters, Two Space Heaters, and Three
Superior Boilers.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
‘‘Major
Source’’ pollutant
VOC.
VOC.
VOC.
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
E:\FR\FM\01NOR1.SGM
01NOR1
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Oct 31, 2005
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
I
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
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:
I
§ 52.2020
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
E:\FR\FM\01NOR1.SGM
01NOR1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Permit
number
Name of source
County
State effective
date
EPA approval date
*
11/1/05 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
11/1/05 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
11/1/05 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
*
*
SGL Carbon Corporation .................................
*
OP 24–131
*
Elk ...............
*
5/12/95
5/31/95
Salem Tube, Inc. ..............................................
OP 43–142
Mercer .........
2/16/99
Dominion Trans, Inc. ........................................
18–00006
Clinton .........
6/15/99
9/29/03
*
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:
*
*
*
*
[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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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 https://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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Oct 31, 2005
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
65847
Additional explanation/§ 52.2063
citation
*
52.2020(d)(1)(e).
52.2020(d)(1)(e).
52.2020(d)(1)(e).
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
E:\FR\FM\01NOR1.SGM
01NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65845-65847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21752]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 https://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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan approval (PA
) ``Major Source''
Source's name County operating permit Source type pollutant
(OP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salem Tube, Inc............... Mercer........... OP 43-142......... Five Reheat Furnaces VOC.
and Trichloroethylene
Dipping Tank.
SGL Carbon Corporation........ Elk.............. OP 24-131......... Flame Grids, Furnaces, VOC.
and Special
Impregnation (resin).
Dominion Trans, Inc........... Clinton.......... 18-00006.......... Four Salt Heaters, VOC.
Natural Gas Boiler,
Two Hot Water
Heaters, Two Space
Heaters, and Three
Superior Boilers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 65846]]
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 source-
specific 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.
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 SGL Carbon Corporation; Salem Tube, Inc.; and Dominion
Trans, Inc. at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
[[Page 65847]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Additional explanation/Sec.
Name of source Permit number County effective date EPA approval date 52.2063 citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
SGL Carbon Corporation............ OP 24-131 Elk.................. 5/12/95 11/1/05 [Insert page 52.2020(d)(1)(e).
5/31/95 number where the
document begins].
Salem Tube, Inc................... OP 43-142 Mercer............... 2/16/99 11/1/05 [Insert page 52.2020(d)(1)(e).
number where the
document begins].
Dominion Trans, Inc............... 18-00006 Clinton.............. 6/15/99 11/1/05 [Insert page 52.2020(d)(1)(e).
9/29/03 number where the
document begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-21752 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
