Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: State of Florida; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for Power Plants Subject to the Florida Power Plant Siting Act, 29273-29276 [E7-10061]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
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 may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See Section
307(b)(2).)
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
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.
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
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.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Paperwork Reduction Act
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.).
Congressional Review Act
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. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 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 July 24, 2007. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator
of this final rule does not affect the
finality of this rule for the purposes of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 May 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: May 18, 2007.
Gary Gulezian,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
29273
(F) OAC Rule 3745–72–06:
‘‘Defenses’’, effective January 16, 2006.
(G) OAC Rule 3745–72–07: ‘‘Special
provisions for alcohol blends’’, effective
January 16, 2006.
(H) OAC Rule 3745–72–08: ‘‘Quality
assurance and test methods’’, effective
January 16, 2006.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Letter from Ohio EPA Director
Joseph P. Koncelik to Regional
Administrator Thomas Skinner, dated
February 14, 2006.
(B) Letter from Ohio EPA Director
Joseph P. Koncelik to Regional
Administrator Mary Gade, dated
October 6, 2006.
[FR Doc. E7–10054 Filed 5–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
part 52, chapter I, of title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
PART 52—[AMENDED]
40 CFR Part 52
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
[EPA–R04–OAR–2006–0130–200714(a);
FRL–8317–8]
I
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart KK—Ohio
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(138) to read as
follows:
I
§ 52.1870
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(138) On February 14, 2006, and
October 6, 2006, the State of Ohio
submitted a revision to the Ohio State
Implementation Plan. This revision is
for the purpose of establishing a
gasoline Reid vapor pressure (RVP) limit
of 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) for
gasoline sold in the Cincinnati and
Dayton 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas which includes Hamilton, Butler,
Clinton, Warren, Clermont, Clark,
Greene, Miami, and Montgomery
counties.
(i) Incorporation by reference. The
following sections of the Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC) are
incorporated by reference.
(A) OAC Rule 3745–72–01:
‘‘Applicability’’, effective July 17, 2006
except for 3745–72–01(E).
(B) OAC Rule 3745–72–02:
‘‘Definitions’’, effective July 17, 2006.
(C) OAC Rule 3745–72–03: ‘‘Gasoline
volatility standards and general
provisions’’, effective January 16, 2006.
(D) OAC Rule 3745–72–04: ‘‘Transfer
documentation and recordkeeping’’,
effective January 16, 2006.
(E) OAC Rule 3745–72–05:
‘‘Liability’’, effective January 16, 2006.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans: State of Florida;
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Requirements for Power Plants
Subject to the Florida Power Plant
Siting Act
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On February 3, 2006, the State
of Florida, through a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal
addressing New Source Review (NSR)
Reform requirements, requested that
EPA grant it full approval to implement
the State’s Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program for electric power plants
subject to the Florida Electrical Power
Plant Siting Act. EPA is proposing to
approve this specific request under
section 110 of the Act. EPA intends to
take action on all other portions of
Florida’s February 3, 2006, NSR Reform
SIP submittal in a future rulemaking.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective
July 24, 2007 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment
by June 25, 2007. If EPA receives such
comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2006–0130, by one of the
following methods:
E:\FR\FM\25MYR1.SGM
25MYR1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
29274
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: Fortin.Kelly@EPA.gov.
3. Fax: 404–562–9066.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2006–
0130’’, Air Permits Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Kelly
Fortin, Air Permits Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2006–
0130’’. EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit
through https://www.regulations.gov or
e-mail, information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected. The
https://www.regulations.gov website is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 May 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index.
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Kelly Fortin, Air Permits Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9117.
Ms. Fortin can also be reached via
electronic mail at fortin.kelly@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Part C of the CAA establishes the PSD
program, the preconstruction review
program that applies to areas of the
country that have attained the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). CAA sections 160–169, 42
U.S.C. 7470–7479. In such areas, a major
stationary source may not begin
construction or undertake certain
modifications without first obtaining a
PSD permit. In broad overview, the
program (1) limits the impact of new or
modified major stationary sources on
ambient air quality and (2) requires the
application of state-of-the-art pollution
control technology, known as best
available control technology. CAA
section 165, 42 U.S.C. 7475.
EPA has promulgated two largely
identical sets of regulations to
implement the PSD program. One set, at
40 CFR 52.21, contains EPA’s own
federal PSD program under which EPA
is the permitting authority in states
operating without an EPA-approved
state program. The other set of
regulations contain minimum
requirements that state PSD programs
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
must meet to be approved by EPA as
part of a SIP. 40 CFR 51.166. Over time,
most states have received EPA approval
for their PSD programs.
In order to comply with the
established minimum requirements of
the CAA, the State of Florida adopted its
own PSD regulations on June 10 and
October 28, 1981. The Florida PSD
program was initially approved by EPA
into the Florida SIP on December 22,
1983. 48 FR 52713. The approval
transferred to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) the
legal authority to process and issue PSD
permits to sources in Florida that are
required to obtain PSD permits.
One category of sources not covered
by EPA’s 1983 approval of Florida’s PSD
program was electric power plants. This
was because, at the time, a separate
Florida law known as the Florida
Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA)
required permits for electric power
plants to be issued solely by the PPSA’s
Site Certification Board, rather than by
FDEP. Such a conflict between the
PPSA and Florida’s PSD program
created impediments to implementation
and enforcement of the State’s PSD
program by FDEP for such power plants
and precluded EPA’s SIP-approval of
Florida’s PSD program as to these
sources. As a result, for electric power
plants subject to the PPSA, FDEP has
been operating under either a partial or
full delegation of authority to
implement the federal PSD program
since 1983, while various attempts to
amend the PPSA to correct the conflict
were made. Currently, FDEP is
operating under a full delegation of
authority to implement the federal PSD
program for electric power plants,
following further amendments to the
PPSA in 1993.
In light of the 1993 amendments to
the PPSA, the State has requested,
through its February 3, 2006, NSR
Reform SIP submittal, that EPA grant
Florida SIP-approval to implement the
State’s PSD program for electric power
plants subject to the PPSA. EPA is
approving this specific request under
section 110 of the Act because there is
no longer a conflict between the State’s
PSD regulations and the PPSA and
because FDEP now has adequate and
effective procedures for full
implementation of the State’s PSD
program for sources in Florida,
including electric power plants.
II. Analysis of State’s Request
The statutory amendments to the
PPSA made by the Florida legislature in
1993 form the basis of the State’s
request for SIP-approval of its PSD
program for sources subject to the PPSA.
E:\FR\FM\25MYR1.SGM
25MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Those amendments, which took effect
on April 22, 1993, expressly provide
that the ‘‘[D]epartment’s action on a
federally required new source review or
prevention of significant deterioration
permit shall differ from the actions
taken by the siting board regarding the
certification if the federally approved
state implementation plan requires such
a different action to be taken by the
department. Nothing in this part [the
PPSA] shall be construed to displace the
department’s authority as the final
permitting entity under the federally
approved permit program.’’ The
amendments make clear that FDEP is
the final permitting authority for PSD
and new source review permits and can
act in a manner different from the PPSA
Siting Board if Florida’s PSD or new
source review regulations require such a
different action.
In addition, subsequent to the State’s
February 3, 2006, NSR Reform SIP
submittal, the PPSA was again amended
(on June 19, 2006), to among other
things, wholly extricate the PSD
permitting process from the PPSA
process. See, Florida Public Health Code
403.0872. Specifically, language
requiring that a PPSA application for
certification include ‘‘documents
necessary for the department to render
a decision on any permit required
pursuant to any federally delegated or
approved permit program’’ was deleted
from the PPSA; language requiring that
FDEP’s action on a PSD permit be based
on the recommended order of the PPSA
certification hearing was removed; and
requirements that administrative
procedures used in the issuance of PSD
and operating permits follow the
administrative procedures of the PPSA
were also removed.
EPA has reviewed the 1993 and June
19, 2006 amendments to the PPSA and
concludes that they provide FDEP the
authority to fully implement and
enforce Florida’s PSD program for
electric power plants located within the
State.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the aforementioned
change to the Florida SIP. This approval
means that Florida’s SIP-approved PSD
program includes coverage of electric
power plants in the State. EPA is not, in
this rulemaking, taking any other action
on Florida’s February 3, 2006 NSR
Reform SIP submittal. EPA intends to
take action on the remaining portions of
Florida’s February 3, 2006, NSR Reform
SIP submittal in a future rulemaking.
EPA is publishing this rule without
prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 May 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
comments. However, in the proposed
rules section of this Federal Register
publication, EPA is publishing a
separate document that will serve as the
proposal to approve the SIP revision
should adverse comments be filed. This
rule will be effective July 24, 2007
without further notice unless the
Agency receives adverse comments by
June 25, 2007.
If EPA receives such comments, then
EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period. Parties
interested in commenting should do so
at this time. If no such comments are
received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on July 24, 2007
and no further action will be taken on
the proposed rule.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
29275
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 CAA. 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.).
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. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by July 24, 2007. 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
E:\FR\FM\25MYR1.SGM
25MYR1
29276
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action 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, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: May 16, 2007.
Russell L. Wright, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
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 K—Florida
2. Section 52.530 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read
as follows:
I
§ 52.530
quality.
Significant deterioration of air
(a) EPA approves the Florida
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
program, as incorporated into this
chapter, for power plants subject to the
Florida Power Plant Siting Act.
(b) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E7–10061 Filed 5–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1989–0011; FRL–8317–5]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of partial deletion of the
rocky flats plant from the national
priorities list.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region 8 announces the deletion of the
Peripheral Operable Unit (OU) of the
Department of Energy (DOE) Rocky Flats
Plant and Operable Unit 3 (OU 3), also
referred to as the Offsite Areas,
encompassing approximately 25,413
acres, from the National Priorities List
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 May 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
(NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B
of 40 CFR part 300, which is the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
which EPA promulgated pursuant to
Section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). Rocky Flats Plant means the
property owned by the United States
Government, also known as Rocky Flats,
Rocky Flats Site, or Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site (RFETS)
as shown in figure 1. The Rocky Flats
Plant is divided into the Central and
Peripheral Operable Units (Figure 2)
which contain 1,308 and 4,933 acres,
respectively, and OU 3 (Figure 3) which
contains approximately 20,480 acres.
The 3 referenced figures are available in
the https://www.regulations.gov index
identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–1989–0011.
EPA and the State of Colorado,
through the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE), have determined that the
Peripheral OU of the Rocky Flats Plant
and OU 3 (Offsite Areas) poses no
significant threat to public health or the
environment and, therefore, no further
remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA
are appropriate.
This partial deletion pertains to the
surface media (soil, surface water,
sediment) and subsurface media,
including groundwater, within the
Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky
Flats Plant. The Central OU will remain
on the NPL.
DATES: This partial deletion of the
Peripheral OU and OU 3 is effective on
May 25, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob
Henneke, Community Involvement
Coordinator (8OC), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado,
80202–1129; telephone number: 1–800–
227–8917 or 303–312–6734, fax
number: 303–312–7150; e-mail address:
henneke.rob@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Rocky
Flats Plant is a DOE facility owned by
the United States. Rocky Flats is located
in the Denver metropolitan area,
approximately sixteen miles northwest
of Denver, Colorado, and ten miles
south of Boulder, Colorado. Nearby
communities include the Cities of
Arvada, Broomfield, and Westminster,
Colorado. The majority of the Site is
located in Jefferson County, with a small
portion located in Boulder County,
Colorado.
Two OUs are present within the
boundaries of the Site (the Peripheral
OU and the Central OU), while OU 3
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(Offsite Areas) encompasses property
north, south, and primarily east of the
Peripheral and Central OUs. This partial
deletion pertains to the surface media
(soil, surface water, sediment) and
subsurface media, including
groundwater, within the Peripheral OU
and OU 3. The Central OU is not
included within this partial deletion
action and will remain on the NPL.
On March 13, 2007, EPA published a
Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion in
the Federal Register (72 FR 11313) and
local newspapers, announcing a thirty
day public comment period, which
proposed to delete the Peripheral OU
and OU 3 from the NPL. Comments
were received in the form of letters from
CDPHE dated April 3, 2007 and from
the City and County of Broomfield and
City of Westminster, both April 12,
2007. The letters from the two cities
were identical in terms of the comments
each made. In all instances the state and
the cities support the actions proposed
in the notice of intent for partial
deletion, however, the cities have other
comments in their identical letters.
The following are comments from the
City and County of Broomfield and City
of Westminster regarding the points-ofcompliance as summarized:
Broomfield/Westminster described
that ‘‘this partial deletion pertains to the
surface media (soil, surface water,
sediment) and subsurface media,
including groundwater, within the
Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky
Flats Plant. The point-of-compliance for
the Central OU is located within the
Peripheral OU. The partial deletion
assumes all surface water leaving the
Central OU flowing through the
Peripheral OU will meet surface water
quality standards at the site boundary.
There is a potential for the drainages to
become contaminated by contaminated
surface water or contaminated sediment
flowing through the drainages.’’
Broomfield/Westminster also added
that ‘‘language in the Federal Register
states the Department of Energy (DOE)
will be responsible for all future
remedial actions required at the area
deleted if future site conditions warrant
such actions. We support the language
in the Federal Register. Our concern is
the Department of Energy will only be
evaluating surface water quality for
uranium, plutonium, and americium as
it flows from the Central OU. Other
potential analytes that could be
considered contaminants will not be
evaluated to determine potential
impacts to surface water or the
drainages within the Peripheral OU.’’
In the Responsiveness Summary, EPA
explained that DOE is required to
evaluate uranium, plutonium and
E:\FR\FM\25MYR1.SGM
25MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 101 (Friday, May 25, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29273-29276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10061]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130-200714(a); FRL-8317-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: State of
Florida; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for Power
Plants Subject to the Florida Power Plant Siting Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 3, 2006, the State of Florida, through a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal addressing New Source Review (NSR)
Reform requirements, requested that EPA grant it full approval to
implement the State's Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program for electric power plants
subject to the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act. EPA is
proposing to approve this specific request under section 110 of the
Act. EPA intends to take action on all other portions of Florida's
February 3, 2006, NSR Reform SIP submittal in a future rulemaking.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective July 24, 2007 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 25, 2007.
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2006-0130, by one of the following methods:
[[Page 29274]]
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: Fortin.Kelly@EPA.gov.
3. Fax: 404-562-9066.
4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130'', Air Permits Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Kelly Fortin, Air Permits Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2006-0130''. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http:/
/www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The https://www.regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. 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 https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kelly Fortin, Air Permits Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9117.
Ms. Fortin can also be reached via electronic mail at
fortin.kelly@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Part C of the CAA establishes the PSD program, the preconstruction
review program that applies to areas of the country that have attained
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). CAA sections 160-
169, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7479. In such areas, a major stationary source may
not begin construction or undertake certain modifications without first
obtaining a PSD permit. In broad overview, the program (1) limits the
impact of new or modified major stationary sources on ambient air
quality and (2) requires the application of state-of-the-art pollution
control technology, known as best available control technology. CAA
section 165, 42 U.S.C. 7475.
EPA has promulgated two largely identical sets of regulations to
implement the PSD program. One set, at 40 CFR 52.21, contains EPA's own
federal PSD program under which EPA is the permitting authority in
states operating without an EPA-approved state program. The other set
of regulations contain minimum requirements that state PSD programs
must meet to be approved by EPA as part of a SIP. 40 CFR 51.166. Over
time, most states have received EPA approval for their PSD programs.
In order to comply with the established minimum requirements of the
CAA, the State of Florida adopted its own PSD regulations on June 10
and October 28, 1981. The Florida PSD program was initially approved by
EPA into the Florida SIP on December 22, 1983. 48 FR 52713. The
approval transferred to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) the legal authority to process and issue PSD permits
to sources in Florida that are required to obtain PSD permits.
One category of sources not covered by EPA's 1983 approval of
Florida's PSD program was electric power plants. This was because, at
the time, a separate Florida law known as the Florida Electrical Power
Plant Siting Act (PPSA) required permits for electric power plants to
be issued solely by the PPSA's Site Certification Board, rather than by
FDEP. Such a conflict between the PPSA and Florida's PSD program
created impediments to implementation and enforcement of the State's
PSD program by FDEP for such power plants and precluded EPA's SIP-
approval of Florida's PSD program as to these sources. As a result, for
electric power plants subject to the PPSA, FDEP has been operating
under either a partial or full delegation of authority to implement the
federal PSD program since 1983, while various attempts to amend the
PPSA to correct the conflict were made. Currently, FDEP is operating
under a full delegation of authority to implement the federal PSD
program for electric power plants, following further amendments to the
PPSA in 1993.
In light of the 1993 amendments to the PPSA, the State has
requested, through its February 3, 2006, NSR Reform SIP submittal, that
EPA grant Florida SIP-approval to implement the State's PSD program for
electric power plants subject to the PPSA. EPA is approving this
specific request under section 110 of the Act because there is no
longer a conflict between the State's PSD regulations and the PPSA and
because FDEP now has adequate and effective procedures for full
implementation of the State's PSD program for sources in Florida,
including electric power plants.
II. Analysis of State's Request
The statutory amendments to the PPSA made by the Florida
legislature in 1993 form the basis of the State's request for SIP-
approval of its PSD program for sources subject to the PPSA.
[[Page 29275]]
Those amendments, which took effect on April 22, 1993, expressly
provide that the ``[D]epartment's action on a federally required new
source review or prevention of significant deterioration permit shall
differ from the actions taken by the siting board regarding the
certification if the federally approved state implementation plan
requires such a different action to be taken by the department. Nothing
in this part [the PPSA] shall be construed to displace the department's
authority as the final permitting entity under the federally approved
permit program.'' The amendments make clear that FDEP is the final
permitting authority for PSD and new source review permits and can act
in a manner different from the PPSA Siting Board if Florida's PSD or
new source review regulations require such a different action.
In addition, subsequent to the State's February 3, 2006, NSR Reform
SIP submittal, the PPSA was again amended (on June 19, 2006), to among
other things, wholly extricate the PSD permitting process from the PPSA
process. See, Florida Public Health Code 403.0872. Specifically,
language requiring that a PPSA application for certification include
``documents necessary for the department to render a decision on any
permit required pursuant to any federally delegated or approved permit
program'' was deleted from the PPSA; language requiring that FDEP's
action on a PSD permit be based on the recommended order of the PPSA
certification hearing was removed; and requirements that administrative
procedures used in the issuance of PSD and operating permits follow the
administrative procedures of the PPSA were also removed.
EPA has reviewed the 1993 and June 19, 2006 amendments to the PPSA
and concludes that they provide FDEP the authority to fully implement
and enforce Florida's PSD program for electric power plants located
within the State.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the aforementioned change to the Florida SIP. This
approval means that Florida's SIP-approved PSD program includes
coverage of electric power plants in the State. EPA is not, in this
rulemaking, taking any other action on Florida's February 3, 2006 NSR
Reform SIP submittal. EPA intends to take action on the remaining
portions of Florida's February 3, 2006, NSR Reform SIP submittal in a
future rulemaking. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and
anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section
of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision
should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective July 24,
2007 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments
by June 25, 2007.
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on July 24, 2007 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 CAA. 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.).
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. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 24, 2007. 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
[[Page 29276]]
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action 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, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 16, 2007.
Russell L. Wright, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
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 K--Florida
0
2. Section 52.530 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.530 Significant deterioration of air quality.
(a) EPA approves the Florida Prevention of Significant
Deterioration program, as incorporated into this chapter, for power
plants subject to the Florida Power Plant Siting Act.
(b) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-10061 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
