Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; VOC and NOX, 66261-66263 [05-21749]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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
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) 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 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
66261
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 #)
Waste Management Disposal Services of
Pennsylvania, Inc. (Pottstown Landfill).
Waste Management Disposal Services of
PA, Inc.
Armstrong World Industries, Inc ...............
Berks; Montgomery ...
OP–46–0033
Turbines; Enclosed Flares .......................
NOX and VOC.
York ...........................
67–02047 ....
NOX and VOC.
Lancaster ...................
36–2001 ......
Internal Combustion Engines; Enclosed
Ground Flares.
Space Heaters; Dryers; Surface Coatings
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
Source type
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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
‘‘Major source’’
pollutant
NOX and VOC.
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
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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).)
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
I
*
*
*
State effective date
County
OP–46–0033
*
*
Berks; Montgomery ..
67–02047 ....
York ..........................
4/20/99
36–2001 ......
Lancaster ..................
7/3/99
*
[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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
2. In Section 52.2020, the table in
paragraph (d)(1) is amended by adding
the entries for Waste Management
I
Permit No.
*
*
Waste Management Disposal
Services of Pennsylvania, Inc.
(Pottstown Landfill).
Waste Management Disposal
Services of PA, Inc.
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
*
*
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
Name of source
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
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
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
Dated: October 21, 2005.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
Jkt 208001
4/20/99;
1/27/04
66263
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
*
EPA approval date
*
Additional explanation/§ 52.2063
citation
*
*
11/2/05 [Insert page number
where the document begins].
*
52.2020(d)(1)(a).
11/2/05
where
11/2/05
where
52.2020(d)(1)(a).
[Insert page number
the document begins].
[Insert page number
the document begins].
52.2020(d)(1)(a).
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:
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.
I. Background
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66261-66263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21749]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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: Amy Caprio, (215) 814-2156, or by e-
mail 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 SIP-approved 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan Approval (PA ) Operating Permit Source type ``Major source'' pollutant
(OP )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management Disposal Services Berks; Montgomery................. OP-46-0033.............. Turbines; Enclosed NOX and VOC.
of Pennsylvania, Inc. (Pottstown Flares.
Landfill).
Waste Management Disposal Services York.............................. 67-02047................ Internal Combustion NOX and VOC.
of PA, Inc. Engines; Enclosed
Ground Flares.
Armstrong World Industries, Inc..... Lancaster......................... 36-2001................. Space Heaters; Dryers; NOX and VOC.
Surface Coatings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 66262]]
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 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).)
[[Page 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.
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 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:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Permit No. County effective EPA approval date Additional explanation/Sec.
date 52.2063 citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Waste Management Disposal Services OP-46-0033............. Berks; Montgomery..... 4/20/99; 11/2/05 [Insert page 52.2020(d)(1)(a).
of Pennsylvania, Inc. (Pottstown 1/27/04 number where the
Landfill). document begins].
Waste Management Disposal Services 67-02047............... York.................. 4/20/99 11/2/05 [Insert page 52.2020(d)(1)(a).
of PA, Inc. number where the
document begins].
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.... 36-2001................ Lancaster............. 7/3/99 11/2/05 [Insert page 52.2020(d)(1)(a).
number where the
document begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-21749 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P