Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; RACT Determinations for Thirteen Individual Sources, 11514-11519 [06-2150]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
11514
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
(b)(1) Exclusive, co-exclusive or
partially exclusive foreign licenses may
be granted on a Government owned
invention provided that;
(i) Notice of the prospective license,
identifying the invention and
prospective licensee, has been
published in the Federal Register,
providing opportunity for filing written
objections within at least a 15-day
period and following consideration of
such objections received during the
period;
(ii) The agency has considered
whether the interests of the Federal
Government or United States industry
in foreign commerce will be enhanced;
and
(iii) The Federal agency has not
determined that the grant of such a
license will tend substantially to lessen
competition or create or maintain a
violation of the Federal antitrust laws.
(2) In addition to the provisions of
§ 404.5, the following terms and
conditions apply to foreign exclusive,
co-exclusive and partially exclusive
licenses:
(i) The license shall be subject to the
irrevocable, royalty-free right of the
Government of the United States to
practice and have practiced the
invention on behalf of the United States
and on behalf of any foreign government
or international organization pursuant
to any existing or future treaty or
agreement with the United States.
(ii) The license shall be subject to any
licenses in force at the time of the grant
of the exclusive, co-exclusive or
partially exclusive license.
(iii) The license may grant the
licensee the right to take any suitable
and necessary actions to protect the
licensed property, on behalf of the
Federal Government.
(c) Federal agencies shall maintain a
record of determinations to grant
exclusive, co-exclusive or partially
exclusive licenses.
§ 404.9
[Removed and reserved]
8. Section 404.9 is removed and
reserved.
I 9. Section 404.10 is revised to read as
follows:
I
erjones on PROD1PC68 with RULES
§ 404.10 Modification and termination of
licenses.
Before modifying or terminating a
license, other than by mutual
agreement, the Federal agency shall
furnish the licensee and any sublicensee
of record a written notice of intention to
modify or terminate the license, and the
licensee shall be allowed 30 days after
such notice to remedy any breach of the
license or show cause why the license
shall not be modified or terminated.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:23 Mar 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
10. Section 404.11 is revised to read
as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
§ 404.11
40 CFR Part 52
I
Appeals.
(a) In accordance with procedures
prescribed by the Federal agency, the
following parties may appeal to the
agency head or designee any decision or
determination concerning the grant,
denial, modification, or termination of a
license:
(1) A person whose application for a
license has been denied;
(2) A licensee whose license has been
modified or terminated, in whole or in
part; or
(3) A person who timely filed a
written objection in response to the
notice required by § 404.7(a)(1)(i) or
§ 404.7(b)(1)(i) and who can
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Federal agency that such person may be
damaged by the agency action.
(b) An appeal by a licensee under
paragraph (a)(2) of this section may
include a hearing, upon the request of
the licensee, to address a dispute over
any relevant fact. The parties may agree
to Alternate Dispute Resolution in lieu
of an appeal.
11. Section 404.12 is revised to read
as follows:
I
§ 404.12 Protection and administration of
inventions.
A Federal agency may take any
suitable and necessary steps to protect
and administer rights to Government
owned inventions, either directly or
through contract.
12. Section 404.14 is revised to read
as follows:
I
§ 404.14
Confidentiality of information.
Title 35, United States Code, section
209, requires that any plan submitted
pursuant to § 404.8(h) and any report
required by § 404.5(b)(6) shall be treated
as commercial or financial information
obtained from a person and privileged
and confidential and not subject to
disclosure under section 552 of Title 5
of the United States Code.
[FR Doc. 06–2166 Filed 3–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–18–P
PO 00000
[EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0123; FRL–8042–3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; RACT Determinations
for Thirteen Individual Sources
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania). The
revisions impose reasonably available
control technology (RACT) on thirteen
major sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) or nitrogen oxides
(NOX) located in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. EPA is approving these
revisions to establish RACT
requirements in the SIP in accordance
with the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
DATES: This final rule is effective on
April 7, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0123. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
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 through
www.regulations.gov 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:
Marcia Spink (215) 814–2104 or by email at spink.marcia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 18, 2000 (65 FR 20788), EPA
published a direct final rule approving
RACT determinations submitted by the
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM
08MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) for
twenty-six major sources of NOX and/or
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
a companion notice of proposed
rulemaking. We received adverse
comments on the direct final rule and a
request for an extension of the comment
period. We had indicated in our April
18, 2000 direct final rulemaking that if
we received adverse comments, we
would withdraw the direct final rule
and address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule (65 FR 20788). On June
19, 2000 (65 FR 38168), EPA published
a withdrawal notice in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
direct final rule did not take effect. On
June 19, 2000 (65 FR 38169), we also
published a notice providing an
extension of the comment period and
making corrections to our original
proposed rule.
This rule takes final action approving
RACT for thirteen of the twenty-six
sources that were included in the April
18, 2000 proposed rulemaking (65 FR
20788). Approvals of RACT for ten of
the twenty-six sources have already
been the subjects of separate final
rulemakings. Elsewhere in today’s
Federal Register, EPA is withdrawing
its April 18, 2000 proposed rule with
regard to the three remaining sources,
namely, Doverspike Brothers Coal Co.,
Hedstrom Corporation, and the thermal
coal dryers at EME Homer City, LP.
11515
These formerly RACT-subject sources
have been permanently shut down, and
the Pennsylvania DEP has indicated to
EPA that no RACT need be approved for
them.
II. Summary of the SIP Revisions
The Pennsylvania DEP submitted
NOX and/or VOC RACT determinations
for thirteen sources located in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The
names of those sources, the DEP Plan
Approval (PA) or Operating Permit (OP)
number for each source, the name of the
County in which each source is located,
and the pollutant for which RACT has
been imposed are provided in the
following table.
Name of source
PA or OP No.
County
Cogentrix of Pennsylvania Inc. (Now Village Farms LP)* ............
33–0137, 33–302–014, 33–
399–004.
61–0181 ....................................
54–005 ......................................
32–000–200 ..............................
Jefferson ...................................
NOX
Venango ...................................
Schuylkill ...................................
Indiana ......................................
NOX
NOX
NOX
49–0011 ....................................
16–0127 ....................................
22–02015 ..................................
Northcumberland ......................
Clarion ......................................
Dauphin ....................................
VOC
NOX
NOX
22–02005 ..................................
Dauphin ....................................
NOX
07–02028 ..................................
54–0011 ....................................
39–0009 ....................................
40–0016 ....................................
40–0017 ....................................
Blair ...........................................
Schuylkill ...................................
Lehigh .......................................
Luzerne .....................................
Luzerne .....................................
VOC
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
Scrubgrass Generating Company, LP* .........................................
Wheelabrator Frackville Energy Co.* ............................................
Indiana University of Pennsylvania—S.W. Jack Cogeneration
Facility*.
Fleetwood Motor Homes ...............................................................
Piney Creek, LP* ...........................................................................
Statoil Energy Power Paxton, LP (Now NRG Energy CTR
Paxton LLC).
Harrisburg Steamworks (Now owned by NRG Energy CTR
Paxton LLC).
Cove Shoe Company (Now H.H. Brown Shoe Company) ...........
PP&L—Fichbach C.T. Facility .......................................................
PP&L—Allentown C.T. Facility ......................................................
PP&L—Harwood C.T. Facility .......................................................
PP&L—Jenkins C.T. Facility .........................................................
Pollutant
erjones on PROD1PC68 with RULES
* For these large NO
X sources, the Commonwealth has adopted and implemented additional ‘‘post RACT requirements’’ to reduce seasonal
NOX emissions in the form of a NOX cap and trade regulation, 25 Pa Code Chapters 121 and 123, based upon a model rule developed by the
States in the Ozone Transport Region. That regulation was approved as a SIP revision on June 6, 2000 (65 FR 35842). Pennsylvania has also
adopted 25 Pa Code Chapter 145 to satisfy the NOX SIP call. That regulation was approved as a SIP revision on August 21, 2001 (66 FR
43795). Federal approval of a source-specific RACT determination for these major sources of NOX in no way relieves those sources from any
applicable requirements found in 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145.
On April 18, 2000 (65 FR 20788), EPA
proposed to approve RACT SIP
revisions for these thirteen sources.
Detailed descriptions of the RACT
determination for these thirteen sources
were provided in EPA’s Technical
Support Documents (TSDs) prepared in
support of its April 18, 2000 rulemaking
as well as in the SIP submissions made
by DEP, and shall not be restated here.
In short, EPA proposed that the DEP had
established and imposed RACT
requirements in accordance with the
criteria set forth in the SIP-approved
RACT regulations applicable to these
sources. The DEP has also imposed
record-keeping, monitoring, and testing
requirements on these sources sufficient
to determine compliance with the
applicable RACT determinations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:23 Mar 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
III. Summary of Public Comments
Received and EPA’s Responses
EPA received comments on its April
18, 2000 proposal to approve
Pennsylvania’s RACT SIP submittals
from Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future
(PennFuture) and from a concerned
citizen. Those comments and EPA’s
responses are as follows:
PennFuture’s Comments: PennFuture
comments that EPA should require that
each RACT submittal include ‘‘effective
and enforceable numerical emission
limits’’ as a condition for approval.
Additionally, PennFuture requests that
EPA only approve limits that are no
higher than the best emission rate
actually achieved after the application
of RACT, adjusted only to reflect legally
and technically valid averaging times
and deviations. PennFuture contends
that such an approach will ensure
maximum environmental benefits and
minimize the opportunity for sources to
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
generate spurious emission reduction
credits (ERCs) against limits that exceed
emission levels actually achieved
following the application of RACT.
Lastly PennFuture comments that EPA
should describe the RACT
determinations in its rulemaking notices
published in the Federal Register rather
than simply citing to technical support
documents and other materials available
in docket of the rulemaking.
EPA’s Responses: While RACT, as
defined for an individual source or
source category, often does specify an
emission rate, such is not always the
case. EPA has issued Control Technique
Guidelines (CTGs) which states are to
use as guidance in development of their
RACT determinations/rules for certain
sources or source categories. Not every
CTG issued by EPA includes an
emission rate. There are several
examples of CTGs issued by EPA
wherein equipment standards and/or
E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM
08MRR1
erjones on PROD1PC68 with RULES
11516
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
work practice standards alone are
provided as RACT guidance for all or
part of the processes covered. Such
examples include the CTGs issued for
Bulk gasoline plants, Gasoline service
stations—Stage I, Petroleum Storage in
Fixed-roof tanks, Petroleum refinery
processes, Solvent metal cleaning,
Pharmaceutical products, External
Floating roof tanks and Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing
(SOCMI)/polymer manufacturing. (See
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/ctg.
txt.)
In EPA’s proposed conditional limited
approval of the Commonwealth’s RACT
regulations (62 FR 43134, August 12,
1997) and in EPA’s final conditional
limited approval of those regulations (63
FR 13789, March 23, 1998), EPA
addressed the issue of what types of
RACT provisions would be acceptable.
In the proposed rule EPA noted that
while it defines RACT as ‘‘the lowest
emission limitation that a source is
capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and
economic feasibility,’’ the definition of
emission limitation did not necessarily
require the establishment of a numerical
emission limitation. EPA further noted
that ‘‘[s]ection 302 of the Act in turn
defines ‘emission limitation’ as a
‘requirement * * * which limits the
quantity, rate or concentration of air
pollutants on a continuous basis, * * *,
and any design, equipment, work
practice or operational standard
promulgated under this chapter.’ ’’
Furthermore, in the March 23, 1998
final rule EPA stated that, ‘‘it is possible
that RACT for certain sources and
source categories could consist of
requirements that do not specifically
include emission limitations, but
instead have other limitations.’’
With regard to the criteria EPA uses
to determine whether to approve or
disapprove RACT SIP revisions
submitted by DEP pursuant to 25 Pa
Code Chapter 129.91–129.95, we look to
the provisions of those SIP-approved
regulations and to the requirements of
the Clean Air Act and relevant EPA
guidance. As previously stated, on
March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13789), EPA
granted conditional limited approval of
Pennsylvania’s generic RACT
regulations, 25 PA Code Chapters 121
and 129, thereby approving the
definitions, provisions and procedures
contained within those regulations
under which the Commonwealth would
require and impose RACT. Subsection
129.91, Control of major sources of NOX
and VOCs, requires subject facilities to
submit a RACT plan proposal to both
the Pennsylvania DEP and to EPA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:23 Mar 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
Region III by July 15, 1994 in
accordance with subsection 129.92,
entitled, RACT proposal requirements.
Under subsection 129.92, that proposal
is to include among other information
(1) A list of each subject source at the
facility; (2) The size or capacity of each
affected source, and the types of fuel
combusted, and the types and amounts
of materials processed or produced at
each source; (3) A physical description
of each source and its operating
characteristics; (4) Estimates of potential
and actual emissions from each affected
source with supporting documentation;
(5) A RACT analysis which meets the
requirements of subsection 129.92(b),
including technical and economic
support documentation for each affected
source; (6) A schedule for
implementation as expeditiously as
practicable but not later than May 15,
1995; (7) The testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting procedures
proposed to demonstrate compliance
with RACT; and (8) any additional
information requested by the DEP
necessary to evaluate the RACT
proposal. Under subsection 129.91, the
DEP will approve, deny or modify each
RACT proposal, and submit each RACT
determination to EPA for approval as a
SIP revision. The conditional nature of
EPA’s March 23, 1998 conditional
limited approval did not impose any
conditions pertaining to the regulation’s
procedures for the submittal of RACT
plans and analyses by subject sources
and approval of case-by case RACT
determinations by the DEP. Rather, EPA
stated that ‘‘* * *RACT rules may not
merely be procedural rules (emphasis
added) that require the source and the
State to later agree to the appropriate
level of control; rather the rules must
identify the appropriate level of control
for source categories or individual
sources.’’
EPA reviews the case-by-case RACT
plan approvals and/or permits
submitted as individual SIP revisions by
the Commonwealth to verify and
determine if they are consistent with the
RACT requirements of the Act and any
relevant EPA guidance. EPA first
reviews a SIP submission to ensure that
the source and the Commonwealth
followed the SIP-approved generic rule
when applying for and imposing RACT,
respectively. Then EPA performs a
thorough review of the technical and
economic analyses conducted by the
source and the state. If EPA believes
additional information may further
support or would undercut the RACT
analyses submitted by the state, then we
may add additional EPA-generated
analyses to the record. Thus, EPA does
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
not believe it would be appropriate to
only approve limits that are no higher
than the best emission rate actually
achieved after the application of RACT,
adjusted only to reflect legally and
technically valid averaging times and
deviations.
EPA does note that an approved
RACT emission limitation alone does
not constitute the baseline against
which ERCs may be generated. There
are many other factors that must be
considered in the calculation of eligible
ERCs under Pennsylvania’s approved
SIP regulations governing the creation
ERCs. Moreover, the scenario posed in
PennFuture’s comment would not create
eligible ERC’s under the Commonwealth
approved SIP regulations. Under the
Commonwealth’s regulations pertaining
to ERCs, found at 25 Pa. Code Chapter
127, sections 127.206 through 127.210
[approved by the EPA at 62 FR 64722
on December 9, 1997], sources cannot
obtain ERCs if they find that their RACT
controls result in lower emissions than
allowed by their specified RACT limits.
EPA believes that Federal rulemaking
procedures allow for the format used in
April 18, 2000 rulemaking (65 FR
20788). EPA believes that anyone
interested in the specific requirements
of the individual RACT determinations
did have the opportunity to obtain that
information, as in the preamble of the
April 18, 2000 Federal Register notice,
EPA offered to send anyone, upon
request, a copy of the our TSDs
prepared in support of the action.
Copies of those TSDs are included in
the docket established for this final rule
under Docket ID Number at EPA–R03–
OAR–2006–0123.
Additional Comments: A private
citizen submitted comments on the NOX
RACT determinations made for the
PP&L facilities and for Harrisburg
Steamworks. With regard to the PP&L
facilities, the commenter suggests if the
capacity factors upon which the RACT
determinations are based are ever
exceeded, the RACT determinations
should be re-reviewed, and that such a
condition should be placed in the RACT
permits with appropriate record-keeping
and reporting. With regard to Harrisburg
Steam, the commenter cites to the fact
that EPA’s Technical Support Document
(TSD) states that the boilers typically
operate at a 15% capacity factor, and
asserts that if this capacity factor was
used to determine RACT, then the
permit should either limit the capacity
factor of the boilers or require RACT to
be re-evaluated when the capacity factor
reaches 30% or some other reasonable
capacity factor.
EPA’s Responses: EPA concurs with
these comments. Pennsylvania’s SIP-
E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM
08MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
approved generic RACT rules require
that sources operate in accordance with
the parameters specified in their RACT
applications and/or RACT permits
including capacity factors. The DEP has
imposed record-keeping, monitoring,
and testing requirements on these
sources sufficient to determine
compliance with the applicable
parameters of their applications and
RACT determinations. Sources seeking
variances from the operating parameters
specified in their applications and/or
RACT permits that could result in
emissions increases are subject to reevaluation to determine whether those
emission increases trigger a more
stringent RACT determination or the
more stringent Pennsylvania SIP
requirements for new source review.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving thirteen revisions to
the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by DEP
to establish and require VOC and/or
NOX RACT at the thirteen sources
indicated herein. EPA is approving
these RACT SIP submittals because DEP
established and imposed these RACT
requirements in accordance with the
criteria set forth in the SIP-approved
RACT regulations applicable to these
sources and EPA has determined they
meet the RACT requirements of section
182 of the CAA. The DEP has also
imposed recordkeeping, monitoring,
and testing requirements on these
sources sufficient to determine
compliance with the applicable RACT
determinations.
erjones on PROD1PC68 with RULES
V. 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
15:23 Mar 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 requirement, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
11517
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 thirteen
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 May 8, 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 revisions to the Pennsylvania
SIP submitted by DEP to establish and
require VOC and/or NOX RACT for
thirteen sources located in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: February 28, 2006.
William Early,
Acting 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 Cogentrix of Pennsylvania Inc.;
Scrubgrass Generating Company, LP;
Wheelabrator Frackville Energy Co.;
Indiana University of Pennsylvania—
S.W. Jack Cogeneration Facility;
Fleetwood Motor Homes; Piney Creek,
LP; Statoil Energy Power Paxton, LP;
Harrisburg Steamworks; Cove Shoe
Company; PP&L—Fichbach C.T.
I
E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM
08MRR1
11518
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Facility; PP&L—Allentown C.T. Facility;
PP&L—Harwood C.T. Facility; and
PP&L—Jenkins C.T. Facility at the end
of the table to read as follows:
§ 52.2020
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
*
*
(1) EPA-APPROVED SOURCE—SPECIFIC REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) REQUIREMENTS FOR
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) AND OXIDES OF NITROGEN (NOX)
Name of source
*
Cogentrix of Pennsylvania Inc.
Permit No.
State effective
date
County
PA–33–302–014 ..........
......................................
*
*
1/27/98 3/8/06 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
11/15/90 ......................................
OP–33–302–014 .........
PA–33–399–004 ..........
......................................
......................................
5/31/93
10/31/98
......................................
......................................
OP–33–399–004 .........
OP–61–0181 ...............
......................................
Venango ......................
5/31/93
4/30/98
Wheelabrator Frackville
Energy Co.
OP–54–005 .................
Schuylkill ......................
9/18/98
......................................
3/8/06 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
3//8/06 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
Indiana University of
Pennsylvania—S.W.
Jack Cogeneration
Facility.
OP–32–000–200 .........
Indiana .........................
9/24/98
3/8/06 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
Fleetwood Motor
Homes.
OP–49–0011 ...............
Northumberland ...........
10/30/98
3/8/06 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
Piney Creek, LP ...........
OP–16–0127 ...............
Clarion .........................
12/18/98
3/8/06 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
Statoil Energy Power
Paxton, LP.
OP–22–02015 .............
Dauphin .......................
6/30/99
3/8/06 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
Harrisburg Steamworks
OP–22–02006 .............
Dauphin .......................
3/23/99
3/8/06 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
Cove Shoe Company ..
OP–07–02028 .............
Blair .............................
4/7/99
3/8/06 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
PP&L—Fichbach C.T.
Facility.
OP–54–0011 ...............
Schuylkill ......................
6/1/99
PP&L—Allentown C.T.
Facility.
OP–39–0009 ...............
Lehigh ..........................
6/1/99
PP&L—Harwood C.T.
Facility.
OP–40–0016 ...............
Luzerne ........................
6/1/99
3/8/06 [Insert page
number where the
document begins]..
3/8/06 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
3/8/06 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
erjones on PROD1PC68 with RULES
Scrubgrass Generating
Company, LP.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
*
*
*
OP–33–0137 ............... Jefferson ......................
EPA approval date
15:23 Mar 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM
08MRR1
Additional explanation/
§ 52.2063 citation
*
52.2020(d)(1)(l)
Except for all ton per
year limits and expiration dates in these
permits, for Conditions 4, 5, and 6.
Except for Condition 2.
Except for Conditions
1, 2, 3, 4b, 4c, 4d,
4e, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
12, 13, 14, 15, and
16.
Except for Condition 2.
52.2020(d)(1)(l) Except
for Conditions 4, 6,
7, and 9.
52.2020(d)(1)(l) Except
for the particulate
and SO2 emission
limits found in Condition 4, Condition 5,
6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
and 13 and the expiration date.
52.2020(d)(1)(l) Except
for the expiration
date and Conditions
5, 7, 10, 12, 20, 21,
and 22.
52.2020(d)(1)(l) Except
for Conditions 3, 5,
23–31 and the expiration date.
52.2020(d)(1)(l) Except
for the ton per year
and #/hr limits in
Condition 4, Conditions 5 and 9.
52.2020(d)(1)(l) Except
for the expiration
date and Conditions
6, 16, 19 and 20.
52.2020(d)(1)(l) Except
for Conditions 5, 8,
11, 9, 10, 18, 19, 22,
23, 24 and the expiration date.
52.2020(d)(1)(l) except
for Conditions 5, 10
and the expiration
date.
52.2020(d)(1)(l) Except
for the expiration
date.
52.2020(d)(1)(l) Except
for the expiration
date.
52.2020(d)(1)(l) Except
for the expiration
date.
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
11519
(1) EPA-APPROVED SOURCE—SPECIFIC REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) REQUIREMENTS FOR
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) AND OXIDES OF NITROGEN (NOX)—Continued
Name of source
PP&L—Jenkins C.T.
Facility.
*
*
*
*
County
OP–40–0017 ...............
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0510; FRL–7758–2]
Spinosad; Pesticide Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
erjones on PROD1PC68 with RULES
EPA approval date
Additional explanation/
§ 52.2063 citation
6/1/99
3/8/06 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
52.2020(d)(1)(l) Except
for the expiration
date.
Luzerne ........................
[FR Doc. 06–2150 Filed 3–7–06; 8:45 am]
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of Spinosad in/
on the following commodities: Alfalfa
seed; alfalfa seed screenings; banana;
food commodities; animal feed,
nongrass, group 18, forage; animal feed,
nongrass, group 18, hay; peanut, hay;
vegetable, bulb, group 3, except green
onion; onion, green; grass, forage, fodder
and hay, group 17, forage; grass, forage,
fodder and hay, group 17, hay; grain,
cereal, group 16, stover, except rice;
grain, cereal, group 16, forage, except
rice; grain, cereal, group 16, hay, except
rice; grain, cereal, group 16, straw,
except rice; peppermint, tops; and
spearment tops. The Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)] on
behalf of the registrant, Dow
AgroScience, LLC requested this
tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended
by the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 (FQPA). In addition, EPA is
deleting certain spinosad tolerances that
are no longer needed as a result of this
action. Also, the term ‘‘Food
commodities’’ replaces the commodity
name ‘‘all commodities in connection
with the quarantine eradication
programs against exotic, nonindigenous, fruit fly species, where a
separate higher tolerance in not already
established’’ as previously listed under
§180.495(b).
DATES: This regulation is effective
March 8, 2006. Objections and requests
for hearings must be received on or
before May 8, 2006.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written
objection or hearing request follow the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
State effective
date
Permit No.
15:23 Mar 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
detailed instructions as provided in
Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2005–0510. All documents in the
docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at https://www.epa.gov/edocket.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., 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
EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Public
Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
#2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This
docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The docket
telephone number is (703) 305–5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sidney Jackson, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–7610, e-mail address:
jackson.sidney@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g.,
agricultural workers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers;
farmers.
• Animal production (NAICS 112),
e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy
cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311),
e.g., agricultural workers; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
32532), e.g., agricultural workers;
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
commercial applicators; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; residential users.
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies
of this Document and Other Related
Information?
In addition to using EDOCKET (https://
www.epa.gov/edocket/, you may access
this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A
frequently updated electronic version of
40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR
Beta Site Two at https://www.
gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/. To access the
OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines
referenced in this document, go directly
to the guidelines at https://www.epa.gpo/
opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm/
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of July 20,
2005 (70 FR 41730)(FRL–7721–6), EPA
issued a notice pursuant to section
408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of
several pesticide petitions (PP 3E6699,
3E6780, 3E6782, 3E6802, 3E6804, and
4E6811) by the Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 681 U. S.
Highway #1 South, North Brunswick, NJ
08902–3390. The petitions requested
that 40 CFR 180.495 be amended by
establishing a tolerance for residues of
the insecticide spinosad, in or on the
following raw agricultural commodities
(RACs):
PP 3E6699 proposes to establish
tolerances for banana and plantain at
0.25 parts per million (ppm).
E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM
08MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 8, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11514-11519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2150]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0123; FRL-8042-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; RACT Determinations for Thirteen Individual Sources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania). The revisions impose reasonably available
control technology (RACT) on thirteen major sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) or nitrogen oxides (NOX) located in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. EPA is approving these revisions to
establish RACT requirements in the SIP in accordance with the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act).
DATES: This final rule is effective on April 7, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0123. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. 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 through www.regulations.gov 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: Marcia Spink (215) 814-2104 or by e-
mail at spink.marcia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 18, 2000 (65 FR 20788), EPA published a direct final rule
approving RACT determinations submitted by the
[[Page 11515]]
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for twenty-
six major sources of NOX and/or volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and a companion notice of proposed rulemaking. We received
adverse comments on the direct final rule and a request for an
extension of the comment period. We had indicated in our April 18, 2000
direct final rulemaking that if we received adverse comments, we would
withdraw the direct final rule and address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule (65 FR 20788). On June
19, 2000 (65 FR 38168), EPA published a withdrawal notice in the
Federal Register informing the public that the direct final rule did
not take effect. On June 19, 2000 (65 FR 38169), we also published a
notice providing an extension of the comment period and making
corrections to our original proposed rule.
This rule takes final action approving RACT for thirteen of the
twenty-six sources that were included in the April 18, 2000 proposed
rulemaking (65 FR 20788). Approvals of RACT for ten of the twenty-six
sources have already been the subjects of separate final rulemakings.
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA is withdrawing its April 18,
2000 proposed rule with regard to the three remaining sources, namely,
Doverspike Brothers Coal Co., Hedstrom Corporation, and the thermal
coal dryers at EME Homer City, LP. These formerly RACT-subject sources
have been permanently shut down, and the Pennsylvania DEP has indicated
to EPA that no RACT need be approved for them.
II. Summary of the SIP Revisions
The Pennsylvania DEP submitted NOX and/or VOC RACT
determinations for thirteen sources located in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The names of those sources, the DEP Plan Approval (PA) or
Operating Permit (OP) number for each source, the name of the County in
which each source is located, and the pollutant for which RACT has been
imposed are provided in the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of source PA or OP No. County Pollutant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cogentrix of Pennsylvania Inc. (Now 33-0137, 33-302-014, 33- Jefferson.............. NOX
Village Farms LP)*. 399-004.
Scrubgrass Generating Company, LP*..... 61-0181................. Venango................ NOX
Wheelabrator Frackville Energy Co.*.... 54-005.................. Schuylkill............. NOX
Indiana University of Pennsylvania-- 32-000-200.............. Indiana................ NOX
S.W. Jack Cogeneration Facility*.
Fleetwood Motor Homes.................. 49-0011................. Northcumberland........ VOC
Piney Creek, LP*....................... 16-0127................. Clarion................ NOX
Statoil Energy Power Paxton, LP (Now 22-02015................ Dauphin................ NOX
NRG Energy CTR Paxton LLC).
Harrisburg Steamworks (Now owned by NRG 22-02005................ Dauphin................ NOX
Energy CTR Paxton LLC).
Cove Shoe Company (Now H.H. Brown Shoe 07-02028................ Blair.................. VOC
Company).
PP&L--Fichbach C.T. Facility........... 54-0011................. Schuylkill............. NOX
PP&L--Allentown C.T. Facility.......... 39-0009................. Lehigh................. NOX
PP&L--Harwood C.T. Facility............ 40-0016................. Luzerne................ NOX
PP&L--Jenkins C.T. Facility............ 40-0017................. Luzerne................ NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ For these large NOX sources, the Commonwealth has adopted and implemented additional ``post RACT
requirements'' to reduce seasonal NOX emissions in the form of a NOX cap and trade regulation, 25 Pa Code
Chapters 121 and 123, based upon a model rule developed by the States in the Ozone Transport Region. That
regulation was approved as a SIP revision on June 6, 2000 (65 FR 35842). Pennsylvania has also adopted 25 Pa
Code Chapter 145 to satisfy the NOX SIP call. That regulation was approved as a SIP revision on August 21,
2001 (66 FR 43795). Federal approval of a source-specific RACT determination for these major sources of NOX in
no way relieves those sources from any applicable requirements found in 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145.
On April 18, 2000 (65 FR 20788), EPA proposed to approve RACT SIP
revisions for these thirteen sources. Detailed descriptions of the RACT
determination for these thirteen sources were provided in EPA's
Technical Support Documents (TSDs) prepared in support of its April 18,
2000 rulemaking as well as in the SIP submissions made by DEP, and
shall not be restated here. In short, EPA proposed that the DEP had
established and imposed RACT requirements in accordance with the
criteria set forth in the SIP-approved RACT regulations applicable to
these sources. The DEP has also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and
testing requirements on these sources sufficient to determine
compliance with the applicable RACT determinations.
III. Summary of Public Comments Received and EPA's Responses
EPA received comments on its April 18, 2000 proposal to approve
Pennsylvania's RACT SIP submittals from Citizens for Pennsylvania's
Future (PennFuture) and from a concerned citizen. Those comments and
EPA's responses are as follows:
PennFuture's Comments: PennFuture comments that EPA should require
that each RACT submittal include ``effective and enforceable numerical
emission limits'' as a condition for approval. Additionally, PennFuture
requests that EPA only approve limits that are no higher than the best
emission rate actually achieved after the application of RACT, adjusted
only to reflect legally and technically valid averaging times and
deviations. PennFuture contends that such an approach will ensure
maximum environmental benefits and minimize the opportunity for sources
to generate spurious emission reduction credits (ERCs) against limits
that exceed emission levels actually achieved following the application
of RACT. Lastly PennFuture comments that EPA should describe the RACT
determinations in its rulemaking notices published in the Federal
Register rather than simply citing to technical support documents and
other materials available in docket of the rulemaking.
EPA's Responses: While RACT, as defined for an individual source or
source category, often does specify an emission rate, such is not
always the case. EPA has issued Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs)
which states are to use as guidance in development of their RACT
determinations/rules for certain sources or source categories. Not
every CTG issued by EPA includes an emission rate. There are several
examples of CTGs issued by EPA wherein equipment standards and/or
[[Page 11516]]
work practice standards alone are provided as RACT guidance for all or
part of the processes covered. Such examples include the CTGs issued
for Bulk gasoline plants, Gasoline service stations--Stage I, Petroleum
Storage in Fixed-roof tanks, Petroleum refinery processes, Solvent
metal cleaning, Pharmaceutical products, External Floating roof tanks
and Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (SOCMI)/polymer
manufacturing. (See https://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/ dir1/ctg. txt.)
In EPA's proposed conditional limited approval of the
Commonwealth's RACT regulations (62 FR 43134, August 12, 1997) and in
EPA's final conditional limited approval of those regulations (63 FR
13789, March 23, 1998), EPA addressed the issue of what types of RACT
provisions would be acceptable. In the proposed rule EPA noted that
while it defines RACT as ``the lowest emission limitation that a source
is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is
reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility,'' the definition of emission limitation did not
necessarily require the establishment of a numerical emission
limitation. EPA further noted that ``[s]ection 302 of the Act in turn
defines `emission limitation' as a `requirement * * * which limits the
quantity, rate or concentration of air pollutants on a continuous
basis, * * *, and any design, equipment, work practice or operational
standard promulgated under this chapter.' '' Furthermore, in the March
23, 1998 final rule EPA stated that, ``it is possible that RACT for
certain sources and source categories could consist of requirements
that do not specifically include emission limitations, but instead have
other limitations.''
With regard to the criteria EPA uses to determine whether to
approve or disapprove RACT SIP revisions submitted by DEP pursuant to
25 Pa Code Chapter 129.91-129.95, we look to the provisions of those
SIP-approved regulations and to the requirements of the Clean Air Act
and relevant EPA guidance. As previously stated, on March 23, 1998 (63
FR 13789), EPA granted conditional limited approval of Pennsylvania's
generic RACT regulations, 25 PA Code Chapters 121 and 129, thereby
approving the definitions, provisions and procedures contained within
those regulations under which the Commonwealth would require and impose
RACT. Subsection 129.91, Control of major sources of NOX and
VOCs, requires subject facilities to submit a RACT plan proposal to
both the Pennsylvania DEP and to EPA Region III by July 15, 1994 in
accordance with subsection 129.92, entitled, RACT proposal
requirements. Under subsection 129.92, that proposal is to include
among other information (1) A list of each subject source at the
facility; (2) The size or capacity of each affected source, and the
types of fuel combusted, and the types and amounts of materials
processed or produced at each source; (3) A physical description of
each source and its operating characteristics; (4) Estimates of
potential and actual emissions from each affected source with
supporting documentation; (5) A RACT analysis which meets the
requirements of subsection 129.92(b), including technical and economic
support documentation for each affected source; (6) A schedule for
implementation as expeditiously as practicable but not later than May
15, 1995; (7) The testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
procedures proposed to demonstrate compliance with RACT; and (8) any
additional information requested by the DEP necessary to evaluate the
RACT proposal. Under subsection 129.91, the DEP will approve, deny or
modify each RACT proposal, and submit each RACT determination to EPA
for approval as a SIP revision. The conditional nature of EPA's March
23, 1998 conditional limited approval did not impose any conditions
pertaining to the regulation's procedures for the submittal of RACT
plans and analyses by subject sources and approval of case-by case RACT
determinations by the DEP. Rather, EPA stated that ``* * *RACT rules
may not merely be procedural rules (emphasis added) that require the
source and the State to later agree to the appropriate level of
control; rather the rules must identify the appropriate level of
control for source categories or individual sources.''
EPA reviews the case-by-case RACT plan approvals and/or permits
submitted as individual SIP revisions by the Commonwealth to verify and
determine if they are consistent with the RACT requirements of the Act
and any relevant EPA guidance. EPA first reviews a SIP submission to
ensure that the source and the Commonwealth followed the SIP-approved
generic rule when applying for and imposing RACT, respectively. Then
EPA performs a thorough review of the technical and economic analyses
conducted by the source and the state. If EPA believes additional
information may further support or would undercut the RACT analyses
submitted by the state, then we may add additional EPA-generated
analyses to the record. Thus, EPA does not believe it would be
appropriate to only approve limits that are no higher than the best
emission rate actually achieved after the application of RACT, adjusted
only to reflect legally and technically valid averaging times and
deviations.
EPA does note that an approved RACT emission limitation alone does
not constitute the baseline against which ERCs may be generated. There
are many other factors that must be considered in the calculation of
eligible ERCs under Pennsylvania's approved SIP regulations governing
the creation ERCs. Moreover, the scenario posed in PennFuture's comment
would not create eligible ERC's under the Commonwealth approved SIP
regulations. Under the Commonwealth's regulations pertaining to ERCs,
found at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127, sections 127.206 through 127.210
[approved by the EPA at 62 FR 64722 on December 9, 1997], sources
cannot obtain ERCs if they find that their RACT controls result in
lower emissions than allowed by their specified RACT limits.
EPA believes that Federal rulemaking procedures allow for the
format used in April 18, 2000 rulemaking (65 FR 20788). EPA believes
that anyone interested in the specific requirements of the individual
RACT determinations did have the opportunity to obtain that
information, as in the preamble of the April 18, 2000 Federal Register
notice, EPA offered to send anyone, upon request, a copy of the our
TSDs prepared in support of the action. Copies of those TSDs are
included in the docket established for this final rule under Docket ID
Number at EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0123.
Additional Comments: A private citizen submitted comments on the
NOX RACT determinations made for the PP&L facilities and for
Harrisburg Steamworks. With regard to the PP&L facilities, the
commenter suggests if the capacity factors upon which the RACT
determinations are based are ever exceeded, the RACT determinations
should be re-reviewed, and that such a condition should be placed in
the RACT permits with appropriate record-keeping and reporting. With
regard to Harrisburg Steam, the commenter cites to the fact that EPA's
Technical Support Document (TSD) states that the boilers typically
operate at a 15% capacity factor, and asserts that if this capacity
factor was used to determine RACT, then the permit should either limit
the capacity factor of the boilers or require RACT to be re-evaluated
when the capacity factor reaches 30% or some other reasonable capacity
factor.
EPA's Responses: EPA concurs with these comments. Pennsylvania's
SIP-
[[Page 11517]]
approved generic RACT rules require that sources operate in accordance
with the parameters specified in their RACT applications and/or RACT
permits including capacity factors. The DEP has imposed record-keeping,
monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources sufficient to
determine compliance with the applicable parameters of their
applications and RACT determinations. Sources seeking variances from
the operating parameters specified in their applications and/or RACT
permits that could result in emissions increases are subject to re-
evaluation to determine whether those emission increases trigger a more
stringent RACT determination or the more stringent Pennsylvania SIP
requirements for new source review.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving thirteen revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP
submitted by DEP to establish and require VOC and/or NOX
RACT at the thirteen sources indicated herein. EPA is approving these
RACT SIP submittals because DEP established and imposed these RACT
requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in the SIP-
approved RACT regulations applicable to these sources and EPA has
determined they meet the RACT requirements of section 182 of the CAA.
The DEP has also imposed recordkeeping, monitoring, and testing
requirements on these sources sufficient to determine compliance with
the applicable RACT determinations.
V. 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
requirement, 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 thirteen 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 May 8, 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 revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP
submitted by DEP to establish and require VOC and/or NOX
RACT for thirteen sources located in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 28, 2006.
William Early,
Acting 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 Cogentrix of Pennsylvania Inc.; Scrubgrass Generating
Company, LP; Wheelabrator Frackville Energy Co.; Indiana University of
Pennsylvania--S.W. Jack Cogeneration Facility; Fleetwood Motor Homes;
Piney Creek, LP; Statoil Energy Power Paxton, LP; Harrisburg
Steamworks; Cove Shoe Company; PP&L--Fichbach C.T.
[[Page 11518]]
Facility; PP&L--Allentown C.T. Facility; PP&L--Harwood C.T. Facility;
and PP&L--Jenkins C.T. Facility at the end of the table to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) EPA-Approved Source--Specific Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Requirements for Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
State EPA approval explanation/
Name of source Permit No. County effective date date Sec. 52.2063
citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Cogentrix of Pennsylvania OP-33-0137..... Jefferson...... 1/27/98 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
Inc. page number )
where the
document
begins].
PA-33-302-014.. ............... 11/15/90 ............... Except for all
ton per year
limits and
expiration
dates in these
permits, for
Conditions 4,
5, and 6.
OP-33-302-014.. ............... 5/31/93 ............... Except for
Condition 2.
PA-33-399-004.. ............... 10/31/98 ............... Except for
Conditions 1,
2, 3, 4b, 4c,
4d, 4e, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10,
12, 13, 14,
15, and 16.
OP-33-399-004.. ............... 5/31/93 ............... Except for
Condition 2.
Scrubgrass Generating OP-61-0181..... Venango........ 4/30/98 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
Company, LP. page number ) Except for
where the Conditions 4,
document 6, 7, and 9.
begins].
Wheelabrator Frackville OP-54-005...... Schuylkill..... 9/18/98 3//8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
Energy Co. page number ) Except for
where the the
document particulate
begins]. and SO2
emission
limits found
in Condition
4, Condition
5, 6, 7, 9,
10, 11, 12 and
13 and the
expiration
date.
Indiana University of OP-32-000-200.. Indiana........ 9/24/98 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
Pennsylvania--S.W. Jack page number ) Except for
Cogeneration Facility. where the the expiration
document date and
begins]. Conditions 5,
7, 10, 12, 20,
21, and 22.
Fleetwood Motor Homes....... OP-49-0011..... Northumberland. 10/30/98 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
page number ) Except for
where the Conditions 3,
document 5, 23-31 and
begins]. the expiration
date.
Piney Creek, LP............. OP-16-0127..... Clarion........ 12/18/98 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
page number ) Except for
where the the ton per
document year and
begins]. /hr
limits in
Condition 4,
Conditions 5
and 9.
Statoil Energy Power Paxton, OP-22-02015.... Dauphin........ 6/30/99 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
LP. page number ) Except for
where the the expiration
document date and
begins]. Conditions 6,
16, 19 and 20.
Harrisburg Steamworks....... OP-22-02006.... Dauphin........ 3/23/99 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
page number ) Except for
where the Conditions 5,
document 8, 11, 9, 10,
begins]. 18, 19, 22,
23, 24 and the
expiration
date.
Cove Shoe Company........... OP-07-02028.... Blair.......... 4/7/99 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
page number ) except for
where the Conditions 5,
document 10 and the
begins]. expiration
date.
PP&L--Fichbach C.T. Facility OP-54-0011..... Schuylkill..... 6/1/99 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
page number ) Except for
where the the expiration
document date.
begins]..
PP&L--Allentown C.T. OP-39-0009..... Lehigh......... 6/1/99 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
Facility. page number ) Except for
where the the expiration
document date.
begins].
PP&L--Harwood C.T. Facility. OP-40-0016..... Luzerne........ 6/1/99 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
page number ) Except for
where the the expiration
document date.
begins].
[[Page 11519]]
PP&L--Jenkins C.T. Facility. OP-40-0017..... Luzerne........ 6/1/99 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
page number ) Except for
where the the expiration
document date.
begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-2150 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
