Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; VOC and NOX, 31749-31752 [E7-11032]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 110 / Friday, June 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
The EPA concluded that the Phase 2
Rule does not raise any environmental
justice issues (See 70 FR at 71695, col.
2; (November 29, 2005)); for the same
reasons, since this action concerns
several aspects of the Phase 2 rule, this
reconsideration action does not raise
any environmental justice issues. This
action will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because the 8hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard is designed to protect public
health and is intended to apply equally
to all portions of the population. In
addition, this rule makes only minor
changes to the previous Phase 2
implementation rule and these changes
are intended to strengthen the rule,
which should not disproportionately
affect minority or low income
populations. The health and
environmental risks associated with
ozone were considered in the
establishment of the 8-hour, 0.08 ppm
ozone NAAQS [62 FR 38856 (July 18,
1997)]. The level is designed to be
protective with an adequate margin of
safety. The Phase 2 Rule provides a
framework for improving environmental
quality and reducing health risks for
areas that may be designated
nonattainment.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
K. 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 reconsideration
action 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 reconsideration
action 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). This
action will be effective July 9, 2007.
L. Judicial Review
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates
which Federal Courts of Appeal have
venue for petitions of review of final
actions by EPA. This section provides,
in part, that petitions for review must be
filed in the Court of Appeals for the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:48 Jun 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
31749
District of Columbia Circuit if (i) the
agency action consists of ‘‘nationally
applicable regulations promulgated, or
final action taken, by the
Administrator,’’ or (ii) such action is
locally or regionally applicable, if ‘‘such
action is based on a determination of
nationwide scope or effect and if in
taking such action the Administrator
finds and publishes that such action is
based on such a determination.’’
Final actions described in this Final
Action on Reconsideration are
‘‘nationally applicable’’ within the
meaning of section 307(b)(1). This
action explains the final actions EPA is
taking on the petitions for
reconsideration of several aspects of the
Phase 2 rule. EPA has determined that
all of these actions are of nationwide
scope and effect for purposes of section
307(d)(1) because these actions clarify
the obligations of all states with respect
to the nationwide implementation of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS and concern the
basic program elements of
nonattainment new source review SIPs.
Thus, any petitions for review of the
final action described in this Notice
must be filed in the Court of Appeals for
the district of Columbia Circuit within
60 days from the date this Notice is
published in the Federal Register.
months after designation for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, except that for a State
subject to the requirements of the Clean
Air Interstate Rule, the State shall
submit NOX RACT SIPs for electrical
generating units (EGUs) no later than
the date by which the area’s attainment
demonstration is due (prior to any
reclassification under section 181(b)(3))
for the 8-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standard, or July 9, 2007,
whichever comes later.
*
*
*
*
*
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to
approve revisions to the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The revisions were
submitted by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) to establish and require
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for five major sources of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) pursuant to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
(Pennsylvania’s or the
Commonwealth’s) SIP-approved generic
RACT regulations. EPA is approving
these revisions in accordance with the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is
effective on July 9, 2007.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0280. 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
Dated: May 31, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
I
PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR
PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND
SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 51
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401–
7671q.
Subpart X—[Amended]
2. Section 51.912 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
I
§ 51.912 What requirements apply for
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) and reasonably available control
measures (RACM) under the 8-hour
NAAQS?
(a) * * * * *
(2) The State shall submit the RACT
SIP for each area no later than 27
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
[FR Doc. E7–11113 Filed 6–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0280; FRL–8322–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; VOC and NOX RACT
Determinations for Five Individual
Sources
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
31750
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 110 / Friday, June 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
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.
Rose
Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by e-mail at
quinto.rose@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Background
On May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26297), EPA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The
NPR proposed approval of the SIP
revisions submitted by PADEP on
February 4, 2003 and November 21,
2005. These SIP revisions consisted of
seven source-specific operating permits
issued by PADEP to establish and
require RACT pursuant to the
Commonwealth’s SIP-approved generic
RACT regulations. The following table
identifies five of those sources and the
individual operating permits (OPs)
which are the subject of this
rulemaking. We are taking final action
on these five source-specific RACT rules
in this final action. We will take final
action on the other two source-specific
operating permits in a separate action.
PENNSYLVANIA—VOC AND NOX RACT DETERMINATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL SOURCES
Operating
permit
(OP #)
Source’s name
County
Armstrong World Industries, Inc ..................
Peoples Natural Gas Company ..................
Dart Container Corporation .........................
Lancaster .....
Clarion ..........
Lancaster .....
36–2002
16–124
36–2015
AT&T Microelectronics ................................
West Penn Power Co ..................................
Lehigh ..........
Greene .........
39–0001
30–000–099
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
An explanation of the CAA’s RACT
requirements as they apply to the
Commonwealth and EPA’s rationale for
approving these SIP revisions were
provided in the NPR and will not be
restated here. Timely adverse comments
were submitted on EPA’s May 4, 2006
NPR. A summary of those comments
and EPA’s responses are provided in
Section II of this document.
II. Summary of Public Comments and
EPA Responses
On June 5, 2006, EPA received
adverse comments on EPA’s May 4,
2006 NPR proposing approval of
PADEP’s VOC and NOX RACT
determinations for seven individual
sources. The comments addressed only
three of the seven individual sources;
namely, The Frog, Switch &
Manufacturing Company (The Frog);
Merck & Co. Inc. (Merck); and Dart
Container Corporation (Dart). EPA
received no comments on the RACT
determinations for the other four
sources. We respond to the comments
for Dart in this notice. We will respond
to the comments regarding the Frog and
Merck in a separate final action on the
source-specific rules for those two
sources.
Comment: With respect to Dart, the
comment asserts that the RACT
determination does not address an
estimated 30 tons per year of VOC
emissions from ‘‘cleaning solvents.’’
Response: The commenter is
mistaken. Condition 6 of the RACT
determination limits total annual
pentane emissions from the foam cup
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:48 Jun 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
Source type
Sheet and Flooring Products Manufacturer
Natural Gas Compressor ............................
Expanded Polystyrene Manufacturing Facility.
Semiconductors Manufacturing ..................
Power Plant .................................................
molding plants to 615 tons. As
explained in the publicly available
supporting material submitted with the
SIP revision by PADEP, the 615 tons of
VOCs (primarily pentane), includes the
approximately 30 tons per year of
‘‘cleaning supply losses’’ (not, as the
commenter mistakenly categorizes
them, ‘‘cleaning solvents’’).
Comment: With respect to Dart, the
commenter asserts that the current
control of the pre-expanders should be
included in the RACT determination as
a RACT requirement.
Response: Current control of the preexpanders is a requirement of the RACT
determination. Condition 5 of the RACT
determination states that ‘‘RACT for
VOC emissions from all sources at this
facility is determined to be current
operations.’’ ‘‘[A]ll sources’’ would
include the pre-expanders.
Comment: With respect to Dart, the
commenter proposes a control
technology (use of a concentrator in
series with an oxidation control device)
to be evaluated for control of dilute VOC
gas streams from the cup production
plants.
Response: The comment implies that
the RACT analysis with respect to the
VOC controls for the cup production
plants was not correctly performed.
Although the commenter asserts that the
RACT determination is incorrect
because the RACT analysis did not
consider the commenter’s proposed
control technology, the commenter does
not provide information that this control
technology meets the criteria for
consideration as potential RACT as
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
‘‘Major source’’ pollutant
VOC and NOX.
VOC and NOX.
VOC and NOX.
VOC and NOX.
VOC and NOX.
specified by the Pennsylvania generic
RACT regulation. The Pennsylvania
generic RACT regulation specifies that
the only control options that need to be
considered are those that meet the
threshold criterion of having ‘‘a
reasonable potential for application to
the source.’’ 25 Pa. Code 129.92(b)(1). In
the single conclusory sentence regarding
this technology in the comment, the
commenter does not provide any
information from which EPA could
evaluate the claim that such technology
should have been considered as RACT.
The commenter does not provide
sufficient information from which EPA
can discern whether—such a
‘‘concentrator in series with an
oxidation control device’’ is even a
currently extant technology (the RACT
analysis concluded that ‘‘UV oxidizers/
Photoxidation’’ were not among the
technologies that have been successful
at controlling the VOC—the pentane—
emitted from this facility, but it is
unclear if this type of ‘‘oxidation control
device’’ intended by the commenter, as
other processes, such as incineration,
may also be properly referred to as
‘‘oxidation’’). Furthermore, the
commenter provides no supporting
technical data or information to indicate
that the ‘‘current operations’’ specified
as RACT for all sources at the facility
(which would include sources of dilute
VOC gas streams from the cup
production processes), is not RACT, or
alternatively, that the proposed control
technology may be RACT. Furthermore,
the comment does not identify which
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 110 / Friday, June 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
gas streams it considers to be sources of
‘‘dilute VOC’’ gas streams to which the
commenter would apply the control
technology.
Additionally, the supporting
document submitted by PADEP with the
SIP revision for the RACT determination
extensively discusses the technical
feasibility and cost effectiveness of
various control technologies, including
oxidation and concentration
technologies for the capture and
destruction of VOC from various sources
at the facility, prior to concluding that
current operations (which do not
include oxidation and concentration)
are RACT. Due to the lack of specificity
of the comment, EPA believes it is
possible that the technology proposed
by the commenter may actually be
among the options considered and
rejected in the RACT analysis, which
lists ‘‘concentration technologies in
conjunction with incineration’’ as a
‘‘proven success’’ for controlling
pentane emissions. However, the RACT
analysis did not conclude that this
technology would be cost effective.
In sum, the commenter merely asserts
in a single sentence, without support,
that there is a technology that ought to
have been considered (and which may
actually have been considered), but has
not provided EPA with sufficient
information for us to determine what
that technology is and evaluate whether
it meets even the relatively lax standard
of 25 Pa. Code 129.92(b)(1), of having a
‘‘reasonable potential’’ to be applied to
this source. The mere assertion that an
agency may have gotten something
wrong without the commenter
providing a basis for evaluating that
assertion, does not rise to level of a
relevant comment warranting a
substantive response. See International
Fabricare Inst. v. EPA, at 391. See also
Whitman v. American Trucking
Associations, Inc., n.2. at 471.
EPA therefore may approve the RACT
determinations for the four sources in
which we received no adverse
comment, and for Dart in this
rulemaking.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the revisions to the
Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP
on February 4, 2003 and November 21,
2005, to establish and require VOC and
NOX RACT for five sources pursuant to
the Commonwealth’s SIP-approved
generic RACT regulations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:48 Jun 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104–4). This rule also does
not have tribal implications because it
will not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal Standard.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
31751
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. Section 804
exempts from section 801 the following
types of rules: (1) Rules of particular
applicability; (2) rules relating to agency
management or personnel; and (3) rules
of agency organization, procedure, or
practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report
regarding today’s action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular
applicability establishing sourcespecific requirements for five 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 August 7, 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 postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action.
This action, approving source-specific
RACT requirements for five sources in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
31752
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 110 / Friday, June 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Dated: May 31, 2007.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
§ 52.2020
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph
(d)(1) is amended by adding the entries
for Armstrong World Industries, Inc.;
I
*
6/8/07 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
6/8/07 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
6/8/07 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
6/8/07 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
6/8/07 [Insert page
number where the
document begins].
*
52.2020(d)(1)(u).
Peoples Natural Gas Company
Clarion .......................................
OP 16–124
8/11/99
Dart Container Corporation .......
Lancaster ..................................
OP 36–
2015
8/31/95
AT&T Microelectronics ..............
Lehigh .......................................
OP 39–
0001
5/19/95
West Penn Power Co. ..............
Greene ......................................
OP 30–
000–099
5/17/99
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0021; FRL–8323–6]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; Responsibility and Organization
for Response; General Organization
Concepts
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency issued a final rule in the
Federal Register on September 15, 1994
that revised the National Contingency
Plan to incorporate amendments to the
*
*
10/31/96
*
Lancaster ..................................
[FR Doc. E7–11032 Filed 6–7–07; 8:45 am]
*
Additional
explanation/
*
*
Armstrong World Industries, Inc
OP 36–
2002
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
EPA approval date
Permit number
*
*
State effective date
Name of source
*
County
Peoples Natural Gas Company; Dart
Container Corporation; AT&T
Microelectronics; and West Penn Power
Co. at the end of the table to read as
follows:
Clean Water Act that were enacted with
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This
document is being issued to update one
of the figures, ‘‘U.S. Coast Guard
Districts —Atlantic and Pacific Area
Commands,’’ found in the National
Contingency Plan. The United States
Coast Guard revised their District
boundaries in November 2006.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July
9, 2007.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0021. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., 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
52.2020(d)(1)(u).
52.2020(d)(1)(u).
52.2020(d)(1)(u).
52.2020(d)(1)(u).
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Superfund Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Superfund Docket is
(202) 566–0276.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lynn Beasley, Regulation and Policy
Development Division, Office of
Emergency Management (5104A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564–1965; fax number: (202) 564–2625;
e-mail address: beasley.lynn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Examples of affected entities
Federal Agencies ............................
State and Local Governments ........
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Type of entity
Agencies with responsibilities for planning and response under the CWA, CERCLA, and the OPA.
Governing bodies responsible for planning, preparedness and response activities; Area Committees responsible for developing, under On-Scene Coordinator direction, Area Contingency Plans.
Those entities responsible for the discharge of oil or release of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant.
Responsible Parties ........................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:48 Jun 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 110 (Friday, June 8, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31749-31752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11032]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0280; FRL-8322-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; VOC and NOX RACT Determinations for Five Individual
Sources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP). The
revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for five major sources of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) pursuant
to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's (Pennsylvania's or the
Commonwealth's) SIP-approved generic RACT regulations. EPA is approving
these revisions in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on July 9, 2007.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0280. 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
[[Page 31750]]
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: Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by e-
mail at quinto.rose@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26297), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed
approval of the SIP revisions submitted by PADEP on February 4, 2003
and November 21, 2005. These SIP revisions consisted of seven source-
specific operating permits issued by PADEP to establish and require
RACT pursuant to the Commonwealth's SIP-approved generic RACT
regulations. The following table identifies five of those sources and
the individual operating permits (OPs) which are the subject of this
rulemaking. We are taking final action on these five source-specific
RACT rules in this final action. We will take final action on the other
two source-specific operating permits in a separate action.
Pennsylvania--VOC and NOX RACT Determinations for Individual Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating
Source's name County permit (OP Source type ``Major source''
) pollutant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong World Industries, Lancaster......... 36-2002 Sheet and VOC and NOX.
Inc. Flooring
Products
Manufacturer.
Peoples Natural Gas Company... Clarion........... 16-124 Natural Gas VOC and NOX.
Compressor.
Dart Container Corporation.... Lancaster......... 36-2015 Expanded VOC and NOX.
Polystyrene
Manufacturing
Facility.
AT&T Microelectronics......... Lehigh............ 39-0001 Semiconductors VOC and NOX.
Manufacturing.
West Penn Power Co............ Greene............ 30-000-099 Power Plant...... VOC and NOX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An explanation of the CAA's RACT requirements as they apply to the
Commonwealth and EPA's rationale for approving these SIP revisions were
provided in the NPR and will not be restated here. Timely adverse
comments were submitted on EPA's May 4, 2006 NPR. A summary of those
comments and EPA's responses are provided in Section II of this
document.
II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses
On June 5, 2006, EPA received adverse comments on EPA's May 4, 2006
NPR proposing approval of PADEP's VOC and NOX RACT
determinations for seven individual sources. The comments addressed
only three of the seven individual sources; namely, The Frog, Switch &
Manufacturing Company (The Frog); Merck & Co. Inc. (Merck); and Dart
Container Corporation (Dart). EPA received no comments on the RACT
determinations for the other four sources. We respond to the comments
for Dart in this notice. We will respond to the comments regarding the
Frog and Merck in a separate final action on the source-specific rules
for those two sources.
Comment: With respect to Dart, the comment asserts that the RACT
determination does not address an estimated 30 tons per year of VOC
emissions from ``cleaning solvents.''
Response: The commenter is mistaken. Condition 6 of the RACT
determination limits total annual pentane emissions from the foam cup
molding plants to 615 tons. As explained in the publicly available
supporting material submitted with the SIP revision by PADEP, the 615
tons of VOCs (primarily pentane), includes the approximately 30 tons
per year of ``cleaning supply losses'' (not, as the commenter
mistakenly categorizes them, ``cleaning solvents'').
Comment: With respect to Dart, the commenter asserts that the
current control of the pre-expanders should be included in the RACT
determination as a RACT requirement.
Response: Current control of the pre-expanders is a requirement of
the RACT determination. Condition 5 of the RACT determination states
that ``RACT for VOC emissions from all sources at this facility is
determined to be current operations.'' ``[A]ll sources'' would include
the pre-expanders.
Comment: With respect to Dart, the commenter proposes a control
technology (use of a concentrator in series with an oxidation control
device) to be evaluated for control of dilute VOC gas streams from the
cup production plants.
Response: The comment implies that the RACT analysis with respect
to the VOC controls for the cup production plants was not correctly
performed. Although the commenter asserts that the RACT determination
is incorrect because the RACT analysis did not consider the commenter's
proposed control technology, the commenter does not provide information
that this control technology meets the criteria for consideration as
potential RACT as specified by the Pennsylvania generic RACT
regulation. The Pennsylvania generic RACT regulation specifies that the
only control options that need to be considered are those that meet the
threshold criterion of having ``a reasonable potential for application
to the source.'' 25 Pa. Code 129.92(b)(1). In the single conclusory
sentence regarding this technology in the comment, the commenter does
not provide any information from which EPA could evaluate the claim
that such technology should have been considered as RACT. The commenter
does not provide sufficient information from which EPA can discern
whether--such a ``concentrator in series with an oxidation control
device'' is even a currently extant technology (the RACT analysis
concluded that ``UV oxidizers/Photoxidation'' were not among the
technologies that have been successful at controlling the VOC--the
pentane--emitted from this facility, but it is unclear if this type of
``oxidation control device'' intended by the commenter, as other
processes, such as incineration, may also be properly referred to as
``oxidation''). Furthermore, the commenter provides no supporting
technical data or information to indicate that the ``current
operations'' specified as RACT for all sources at the facility (which
would include sources of dilute VOC gas streams from the cup production
processes), is not RACT, or alternatively, that the proposed control
technology may be RACT. Furthermore, the comment does not identify
which
[[Page 31751]]
gas streams it considers to be sources of ``dilute VOC'' gas streams to
which the commenter would apply the control technology.
Additionally, the supporting document submitted by PADEP with the
SIP revision for the RACT determination extensively discusses the
technical feasibility and cost effectiveness of various control
technologies, including oxidation and concentration technologies for
the capture and destruction of VOC from various sources at the
facility, prior to concluding that current operations (which do not
include oxidation and concentration) are RACT. Due to the lack of
specificity of the comment, EPA believes it is possible that the
technology proposed by the commenter may actually be among the options
considered and rejected in the RACT analysis, which lists
``concentration technologies in conjunction with incineration'' as a
``proven success'' for controlling pentane emissions. However, the RACT
analysis did not conclude that this technology would be cost effective.
In sum, the commenter merely asserts in a single sentence, without
support, that there is a technology that ought to have been considered
(and which may actually have been considered), but has not provided EPA
with sufficient information for us to determine what that technology is
and evaluate whether it meets even the relatively lax standard of 25
Pa. Code 129.92(b)(1), of having a ``reasonable potential'' to be
applied to this source. The mere assertion that an agency may have
gotten something wrong without the commenter providing a basis for
evaluating that assertion, does not rise to level of a relevant comment
warranting a substantive response. See International Fabricare Inst. v.
EPA, at 391. See also Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc.,
n.2. at 471.
EPA therefore may approve the RACT determinations for the four
sources in which we received no adverse comment, and for Dart in this
rulemaking.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by
PADEP on February 4, 2003 and November 21, 2005, to establish and
require VOC and NOX RACT for five sources pursuant to the
Commonwealth's SIP-approved generic RACT regulations.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not
have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal
Standard.
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 five 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 August 7, 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 postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action.
This action, approving source-specific RACT requirements for five
sources in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
[[Page 31752]]
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: May 31, 2007.
William T. Wisniewski,
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 Armstrong World Industries, Inc.; Peoples Natural Gas
Company; Dart Container Corporation; AT&T Microelectronics; and West
Penn Power Co. at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Permit number County effective EPA approval date Additional explanation/
date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.... Lancaster............ OP 36-2002 10/31/96 6/8/07 [Insert page number where 52.2020(d)(1)(u).
the document begins].
Peoples Natural Gas Company........ Clarion.............. OP 16-124 8/11/99 6/8/07 [Insert page number where 52.2020(d)(1)(u).
the document begins].
Dart Container Corporation......... Lancaster............ OP 36-2015 8/31/95 6/8/07 [Insert page number where 52.2020(d)(1)(u).
the document begins].
AT&T Microelectronics.............. Lehigh............... OP 39-0001 5/19/95 6/8/07 [Insert page number where 52.2020(d)(1)(u).
the document begins].
West Penn Power Co................. Greene............... OP 30-000- 5/17/99 6/8/07 [Insert page number where 52.2020(d)(1)(u).
099 the document begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-11032 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
