Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Philadelphia County Reasonably Available Control Technology Under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Withdrawal and New Issuance, 36716-36723 [2013-14519]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
36716
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
second sentence of the SUMMARY and the
title of contact person was incorrect.
This document corrects those errors.
In the first column, second sentence
of the SUMMARY, add the word
‘‘advanced’’ before ‘‘notice of proposed
rulemaking,’’ and in the second column,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
correct the title by removing ‘‘Executive
Director, Center for Veterans Enterprise
(00VE)’’ and adding, in its place,
‘‘Executive Director of the Office of
Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization (00SB)’’.
Dated: June 14, 2013.
William F. Russo,
Deputy Director, Office of Regulation Policy
and Management, Office of the General
Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2013–14583 Filed 6–18–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 49
[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0009; FRL–9825–3]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Navajo Nation; Regional Haze
Requirements for Navajo Generating
Station; Notice of Intent To Hold Public
Hearings
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of intent to hold public
hearings.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On February 5, 2013, EPA
proposed a Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) determination for
emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
from the Navajo Generating Station
(NGS), located on the Navajo Nation.
EPA provided a three-month period for
public comments, to close on May 6,
2013. The Navajo Nation, Gila River
Indian Community, and other affected
stakeholders requested a 90-day
extension of the comment period to
allow time for stakeholders to develop
an alternative to EPA’s proposed BART
determination that achieves greater
reasonable progress. On March 19, 2013,
EPA extended the close of the public
comment period to August 5, 2013. EPA
is providing notice of our intent to hold
five public hearings to accept written
and oral comments on the proposed
BART determination for NGS.
DATES: EPA will announce dates and
locations for the public hearings at a
later time in the Federal Register, on
our Web site, and in the docket for this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:01 Jun 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
proposed rulemaking.1 Comments on
the proposed BART determination for
NGS must be postmarked no later than
August 5, 2013.
ADDRESSES: The public hearings will be
held at various locations in Indian
country and in the state of Arizona.
Please see the section on
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more
details.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anita Lee, EPA Region 9, (415) 972–
3958, r9ngsbart@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA
intends to hold public hearings at one
location each on the Navajo Reservation,
on the Hopi Reservation, and in Page,
Phoenix, and Tucson, Arizona. These
hearings will provide interested parties
the opportunity to present facts, views,
or arguments concerning the proposed
rule requiring NGS to meet emission
limits for NOX, required under the
BART provision of the Regional Haze
Rule, in order to reduce visibility
impairment resulting from NGS at 11
National Parks and Wilderness Areas.
Written statements and supporting
information submitted during the
comment period will be considered
with the same weight as any oral
comments and supporting information
presented at the public hearing. Written
comments must be postmarked on or
before the last day of the comment
period, August 5, 2013.
If you are unable to attend the hearing
but wish to submit comments on the
proposed rule, you may submit
comments, identified by docket number
EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0009, by one of
the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
(2) Email: r9ngsbart@epa.gov.
(3) Mail or deliver: Anita Lee (Air-2),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
For more detailed instructions
concerning how to submit comments on
this proposed rule, and for more
information on our proposed rule,
please see the notice of proposed
rulemaking, published in the Federal
Register on February 5, 2013 (78 FR
8274).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Indians,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide.
1 See https://www.epa.gov/region9/air/navajo/
index.html#proposed and https://
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-R09OAR-2013-0009.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: June 10, 2013.
Deborah Jordan,
Air Division Director, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2013–14630 Filed 6–18–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0603; FRL–9824–6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Philadelphia County
Reasonably Available Control
Technology Under the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard; Withdrawal and New
Issuance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal and
new issuance.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On August 26, 2008, EPA
published a proposed rule to approve a
revision to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania) State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) on
behalf of Philadelphia Air Management
Services (AMS). The SIP revision,
submitted to EPA on September 29,
2006 (the 2006 SIP revision), consists of
a demonstration that Philadelphia
County is meeting the requirements of
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC) under the
1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). EPA has
determined that it cannot proceed with
the final approval of the 2006 SIP
revision. In light of the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia (the Court)
regarding EPA’s Phase 2 Ozone
Implementation Rule, EPA cannot
approve that compliance with a capand-trade program satisfies the NOX
RACT requirement for electric
generating units (EGUs) in Philadelphia
County, as presumed in the 2006 SIP
revision. In addition, upon further
review, EPA has determined that the
2006 SIP revision does not adequately
address the RACT requirements under
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the
major sources of VOC and NOX for
which EPA has previously approved
source-specific RACT determinations
under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
Therefore, EPA is withdrawing its
August 26, 2008 proposed rule to
E:\FR\FM\19JNP1.SGM
19JNP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
approve Philadelphia County’s 1997 8hour RACT demonstration. On June 22,
2010, PADEP submitted another SIP
revision (the 2010 SIP revision) that
consists of AMS regulations to address
specific RACT requirements for
Philadelphia County. EPA is proposing
conditional approval of Philadelphia
County 1997 8-hour ozone RACT
demonstration provided in the 2006 and
2010 SIP revisions, based upon AMS’
commitment to submit additional SIP
revisions addressing source-specific
RACT controls for major sources of VOC
and NOX in Philadelphia County. This
proposed action and the withdrawal
action are being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).
DATES: The proposed rule published on
August 26, 2008 (73 FR 50270) is
withdrawn as of July 19, 2013. Written
comments on EPA’s proposed
conditional approval action must be
received on or before July 19, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2008–0603 by one of the
following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0603,
Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director,
Office of Air Program Planning,
Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2008–
0603. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at
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 information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site 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 email
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:01 Jun 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
email 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.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
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 www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy 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 Department of Public
Health, Air Management Services, 321
University Avenue, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19104. Copies are also
available at Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air
Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400
Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
´
Emlyn Velez-Rosa, (215) 814–2038, or
by email at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov.
On
September 29, 2006, and on June 22,
2010, PADEP submitted on behalf of
AMS two SIP revisions for Philadelphia
County addressing the requirements of
RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by
photochemical reactions between VOC,
NOX, and carbon monoxide (CO) in the
presence of sunlight. In order to reduce
ozone concentrations in the ambient air,
the CAA requires all nonattainment
areas to apply controls on VOC and NOX
emission sources to achieve emission
reductions. Among effective control
measures, RACT controls are a major
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36717
group for reducing VOC and NOx
emissions from stationary sources.
Since the 1970’s, EPA has
consistently interpreted RACT to mean
the lowest emission limit that a
particular source is capable of meeting
by the application of the control
technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic
feasibility (See 72 FR 20586 at 20610,
April 25, 2007). Section 172(c)(1) of the
CAA provides that SIPs for
nonattainment areas must include
reasonably available control measures
(RACM) for attainment of the NAAQS,
including emissions reductions from
existing sources through adoption of
RACT. Section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA
referred to as RACT fix-up requires the
correction of RACT rules for which EPA
identified deficiencies before the CAA
was amended in 1990. Philadelphia
County has no deficiencies to correct
under this section of the CAA.
Section 182(b)(2) and (f) of the CAA
requires that moderate (or worse) ozone
nonattainment areas, as well as marginal
and attainment areas in the ozone
transport region (OTR) established
pursuant to section 184 of the CAA,
implement RACT controls on all major
VOC and NOx emission sources (point
sources) and on all sources and source
categories covered by a control
technique guideline (CTG) issued by
EPA. A major source in a nonattainment
area is defined as any stationary source
that emits or has the potential to emit
NOx and VOC emissions above a certain
applicability threshold that is based on
the ozone nonattainment classification
of the area: marginal, moderate, serious,
or severe. (See ‘‘major stationary
source’’ in 40 CFR 51.165).
Philadelphia County was designated
under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as part
of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton
severe ozone nonattainment area. See 56
FR 56694, at 56822 (November 6, 1991).
The entire Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania is also part of the OTR
established under section 184 of the
CAA. Therefore, Philadelphia County
was subject to the CAA RACT
requirements under the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. As a result, PADEP and AMS
implemented numerous RACT controls
applicable in Philadelphia County to
meet the RACT requirements.
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA
promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
On April 30, 2004, Philadelphia County
was designated under the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS as part of the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City
moderate ozone nonattainment area. See
69 FR 23858, at 23931 (April 30, 2004).
Therefore, PADEP is required to submit
to EPA, on behalf of AMS, a SIP revision
E:\FR\FM\19JNP1.SGM
19JNP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36718
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
that addresses how Philadelphia County
meets the RACT requirements under the
1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Implementation of RACT controls is
required in Philadelphia County for
each category of VOC sources covered
by a CTG document issued by EPA and
all other major stationary sources of
NOX and VOC.
On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612),
EPA published an ozone
implementation rule to address
nonattainment SIP requirements for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (the Phase 2
Ozone Implementation Rule). This rule
addressed various statutory
requirements, including the requirement
for RACT level controls for sources
located within nonattainment areas
generally, and controls for NOX
emissions from EGUs in particular. In
the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation
Rule, EPA specifically required that
states meet the RACT requirements
under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
either through a certification that
previously adopted RACT controls in
their SIP revisions approved by EPA
under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
continue to represent adequate RACT
control levels for 8-hour attainment
purposes, or through the adoption of
new or more stringent regulations that
represent RACT control levels. See 70
FR 71655 (November 29, 2005).
As set forth in the preamble to the
Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, a
certification must be accompanied by
appropriate supporting information
such as consideration of information
received during the public comment
period and consideration of new data.
This information may supplement
existing RACT guidance documents that
were developed for the 1-hour standard,
such that the state’s SIP accurately
reflects RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard based on the current
availability of technically and
economically feasible controls.
Adoption of new RACT regulations will
occur when states have new stationary
sources not covered by existing RACT
regulations, or when new data or
technical information indicates that a
previously adopted RACT measure does
not represent a newly available RACT
control level. Another 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS requirement for RACT is
to submit a negative declaration if there
are no CTG major sources of VOC and
NOX emissions within the
nonattainment area in lieu of or in
addition to a certification.
For addressing interstate transport of
ozone pollution, EPA determined in the
Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule
that the regional NOX emissions
reductions that result from either the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:01 Jun 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
NOX SIP Call or the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) would meet the NOX RACT
requirement for EGUs located in states
included within the respective
geographic regions. Thus, EPA
concluded that the states need not
perform a NOX RACT analysis for
sources subject to the state’s emission
cap-and-trade program where the capand-trade program has been adopted by
the state and approved by EPA as
meeting the NOX SIP Call requirements
or, in states achieving the CAIR
reductions solely from EGUs, the CAIR
NOX requirements.
In November 2008, several parties
challenged EPA’s Phase 2 Ozone
Implementation Rule. In particular,
EPA’s determination that compliance
with the NOX SIP Call could satisfy NOX
RACT requirements for EGUs in
nonattainment areas was challenged. As
a result of this litigation, the Court
decided that the provisions in the Phase
2 Ozone Implementation Rule providing
that a state need not perform (or submit)
a NOX RACT analysis for EGU sources
subject to a cap-and-trade program in
accordance with the NOX SIP Call were
inconsistent with the statutory
requirements of section 172(c)(1) of the
CAA. Because regionwide RACT-level
reductions in emissions do not meet the
statutory requirement that the
reductions be from sources in the
nonattainment area, the Court found
that EPA has not shown that compliance
with the NOX SIP Call will result in at
least RACT-level reductions in
emissions from sources within each
nonattainment area. See NRDC v. EPA,
571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
II. EPA’s Rationale for Withdrawal of
Proposed Approval and Proposal of
Conditional Approval
On September 29, 2006, PADEP
submitted on behalf of AMS a SIP
revision for Philadelphia County to
meet the RACT requirements for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 2006
SIP revision consists of a demonstration
that Philadelphia County has met the
RACT requirements for NOX and VOC,
and includes: (1) A certification that
previously adopted RACT controls in
Pennsylvania’s SIP that were approved
by EPA for Philadelphia County under
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are based on
the currently available technically and
economically feasible controls, and
continue to represent RACT for the 8hour implementation purposes; (2) the
adoption of federally enforceable
permits that represent RACT control
levels for four major VOC sources; and
(3) a negative declaration that certain
VOC sources do not exist in
Philadelphia County.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
On August 26, 2008 (73 FR 50270),
EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) proposing approval of
the 2006 SIP revision. However, the
2006 SIP revision relies on the NOX SIP
Call to meet the NOX RACT
requirements for EGUs. In light of the
Court decision regarding the Phase 2
Ozone Implementation Rule, EPA has
determined it cannot approve the
presumption in the 2006 SIP submittal
that the NOX SIP Call constitutes RACT
for EGU sources in Philadelphia County.
Thus, AMS needs to perform a NOX
RACT analysis for sources that in the
2006 SIP revision relied on the NOX SIP
Call to satisfy Philadelphia County’s
NOX RACT requirements.
Upon further review, EPA also
determined that the 2006 SIP revision
does not specifically and sufficiently
address if the source-specific RACT
controls for 46 major sources in
Philadelphia County that were
previously approved in the SIP under
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS continue to
represent RACT under the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Therefore, to satisfy the
major source RACT requirement for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, AMS needs
to either: (1) Provide a certification that
previously adopted source-specific
RACT controls approved by EPA in
Pennsylvania’s SIP under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS for major sources in
Philadelphia County (as listed in 40
CFR 52.2020(d)(1)) continue to
adequately represent RACT for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS, or (2) perform a
source-specific RACT analysis for each
source which controls are not currently
adequately representing RACT under
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
On June 22, 2010, PADEP submitted
another SIP revision addressing
Philadelphia County’s RACT
requirements under the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. The 2010 SIP revision
consists of: (1) The adoption of two
regulations to meet CTG RACT
requirements, and (2) a negative
declaration for a CTG source category.
Since the 2006 SIP revision relies on
the NOX SIP Call to meet the NOX RACT
requirements for EGUs and it does not
specifically and sufficiently address the
source-specific RACT determinations
for 46 major sources that were
previously approved under the 1-hour
ozone standard, EPA has determined
that it cannot proceed with the final
approval of this SIP revision. Therefore,
EPA is withdrawing its August 26, 2008
proposed rule (73 FR 50270) to approve
the 2006 SIP revision.
Nevertheless, in this rulemaking
action, EPA is proposing conditional
approval of Philadelphia County’s 1997
8-hour ozone RACT demonstration
E:\FR\FM\19JNP1.SGM
19JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
provided in the 2006 and 2010 SIP
revisions, based upon a commitment
from AMS to submit additional SIP
revisions to provide source-specific
RACT determinations for certain major
sources of VOC and NOX in
Philadelphia County, and a certification
that previously adopted source-specific
RACT controls approved by EPA in the
Pennsylvania’s SIP under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS for the remaining sources
in Philadelphia County (as listed in 40
CFR 52.2020(d)(1)) continue to
adequately represent RACT for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to
section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, on April
26, 2013, PADEP submitted on behalf of
AMS a letter committing to submit SIP
revisions to address source-specific
RACT controls under the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard for Philadelphia County.
III. Summary of SIP Revisions
A. CTG RACT Controls and Negative
Declarations
In the 2006 SIP revision, in lieu of
adopting regulations to address VOC
CTG RACT requirements, Federallyenforceable permits were included for
the following four major VOC sources in
36719
Philadelphia County: (1) Philadelphia
Gas Works—Richmond Station, (2)
Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refinery
(formerly Sunoco Philadelphia
Refinery), (3) Aker Philadelphia
Shipyard, and (4) Sunoco Chemicals. In
Section 4 of the 2006 SIP revision, AMS
certified that these permits established
RACT controls that are as stringent as
EPA’s presumptive RACT provided in
the applicable CTG documents for the
specific source categories. Table 1
identifies the four major VOC sources
and the applicable CTG RACT
requirements covered by these permits.
TABLE 1—AFFECTED VOC SOURCES AND CTG RACT REQUIREMENTS
RACT basis
Affected sources in Philadelphia County
CTG: Control of Volatile Organic Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/
Gasoline Processing Plants, EPA–450/2–83–007, December 1983.
—Philadelphia Gas Works—Richmond Station.
—Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refinery (formerly Sunoco Philadelphia Refinery).
—Aker Philadelphia Shipyard.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
CTG: Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Operations (Surface Coating), 61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996.
ACT: Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities, EPA–453/R–94–032, April 1994
CTG: Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
(SOCMI), EPA–450/3–84–015, December 1984.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations Processes in the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI), EPA–450/4–91–031, August 1993.
However, in the 2006 SIP revision,
Philadelphia Gas Works—Richmond
Station and Philadelphia Energy
Solutions Refinery (formerly Sunoco
Philadelphia Refinery) were erroneously
defined as natural gas processing plants
under EPA’s CTG ‘‘Control of Volatile
Organic Equipment Leaks from Natural
Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants,’’ (EPA–
450/2–83–007, December 1983).
Subsequently, as part of the 2010 SIP
revision, AMS submitted a negative
declaration demonstrating that no
sources exist in Philadelphia County for
this CTG source category.
In addition, the 2010 SIP revision
adopts VOC RACT rules that address the
following CTGs: (1) ‘‘Control
Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding
and Ship Repair Operations (Surface
Coating’’ (61 FR 44050, August 27,
1996); (2) ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions from Air
Oxidation Processes in Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry’’ (EPA–450/3–84–015,
—Sunoco Chemicals.
—Sunoco Chemicals.
December 1984); and (3) ‘‘Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Reactor Processes and Distillation
Operations in Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry’’
(EPA–450/4–91–031, August 1993).
Therefore, the 2010 SIP revisions
addresses each of the CTG requirements
listed in Table 1 and it supersedes
Section 4 of the 2006 SIP revision
addressing these CTG RACT
requirements.
For Philadelphia Gas Works—
Richmond Station and Philadelphia
Energy Solutions (formerly Sunoco
Refinery), which were erroneously
defined as natural gas processing plants
in the 2006 SIP revision, EPA approved
source-specific RACT evaluations under
the 1-hour ozone standard. See 66 FR
54947 and 66 FR 54942 (October 31,
2001). The 2006 and 2010 SIP revisions
do not address how Philadelphia meets
the ‘‘major source’’ RACT requirement
under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
for those sources for which EPA had
previously approved source-specific
RACT determinations under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS. However, AMS has
committed to submit additional SIP
revisions to address this RACT
requirement.
In addition to the 2010 SIP revision’s
negative declaration, the 2006 SIP
revision includes a negative declaration
for the VOC source category defined
under EPA’s CTG ‘‘Control of Volatile
Organic Emissions from Existing
Stationary Sources, Volume VII: Factory
Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling’’
(EPA–450/2–78–032, June 1978). Table
2 below lists the negative declarations
submitted by AMS in the 2006 and 2010
SIP revisions, which EPA is proposing
to conditionally approve. AMS certified
that these VOC CTG source categories
do not exist in Philadelphia County.
Therefore, AMS does not need to adopt
regulations addressing the applicable
CTGs for these source categories.
TABLE 2—PHILADELPHIA COUNTY’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION LIST FOR VOC CTG SOURCES
CTG source category
RACT basis
Coating of Flat Wood Paneling ................................................................
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources,
Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling, EPA–
450/2–78–032, June 1978.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:01 Jun 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19JNP1.SGM
19JNP1
36720
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—PHILADELPHIA COUNTY’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION LIST FOR VOC CTG SOURCES—Continued
CTG source category
RACT basis
Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas and Gasoline Processing Plants ....
Control of Volatile Organic Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants, EPA–450/2–83–007, December 1983.
B. VOC RACT Controls
AMS Regulation (AMR) V (‘‘Control of
Emissions of Organic Substances From
Stationary Sources’’) and PADEP
Regulation Title 25, Chapter 129 contain
the CTG and non-CTG VOC RACT
controls that were implemented and
approved in Philadelphia County SIP
under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The
2006 SIP revision identifies
Philadelphia County’s VOC RACT
regulations for which AMS has
provided the required evaluation and is
certifying as currently representing
RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Although alternative control
technology documents (ACTs) are not
regulatory documents and have no legal
effect on state regulations, EPA requires
that states verify that ACTs have been
considered in the RACT program
development process. Therefore,
Philadelphia County included ACTs in
their review of applicable RACT
requirements in the 2006 SIP revision.
Further details of Philadelphia County’s
RACT determination for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS can be found in the
technical support document (TSD)
prepared for this rulemaking action.
The 2010 SIP revision adopts the
following regulations to meet CTG
RACT requirements: (1) AMR V, section
XV ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) from Marine Vessel
Coating Operations’’ and (2) AMR V,
section XVI ‘‘Synthetic Organic
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Air
Oxidation, Distillation, and Reactor
Processes.’’ These regulations are in
accordance with EPA’s presumptive
RACT provided in the following CTGs:
(1) ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Operations (Surface Coating)’’ (61 FR
44050, August 27, 1996), (2) ‘‘Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Air Oxidation Processes in
Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry’’ (EPA–450/3–
84–015, December 1984), and (3)
‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Reactor Processes and
Distillation Operations in Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry’’ (EPA–450/4–91–031, August
1993). The 2010 SIP revision also
amends AMR V, section I ‘‘Definitions’’
for incorporating various definitions
applicable to the adopted provisions in
Sections XV and XVI. These definitions
are in accordance with EPA’s
recommendations in the applicable
CTGs. These amendments to AMR V
were adopted by AMS on April 26, 2010
and became effective upon adoption.
1. Marine Vessel Coating Operations
AMR V, section XV is applicable to
marine vessel coating operations at a
facility at which the total potential VOC
emissions equal or exceed 25 tons
(22.75 metric tons) per year; or the
actual VOC emissions from all marine
vessel coating operations exceed 15
pounds (7 kilograms) per day or 2.7 tons
(2,455 kilograms) per year. The
regulation establishes VOC emissions
limits from general use coatings and
from various specialty coatings. The
limits, provided in Table 3 below, are
expressed in two sets of equivalent
units: grams/liter coating (minus water
and exempt compounds) or grams/liter
of solids. The limits are identical to
those recommended in the
corresponding CTG document, except
that the cold-weather was specified to a
period of every year, November 1st
through March 31st. Further, for any
coating used in a marine vessel coating
operation for which the regulation does
not provide an emissions standard,
AMR V, section XV establishes a
maximum VOC content limit of 340
grams/liter (minus water and exempt
solvents) or 571 grams per liter solids.
TABLE 3—VOC EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR MARINE COATINGS IN AMR V, SECTION XV
VOC limits a b e
Grams per liter of
coating
(minus water and
except compounds)
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Coating category
General Use .........................................................................................................
Specialty:
Air flask .........................................................................................................
Antenna ........................................................................................................
Antifoulant .....................................................................................................
Heat resistant ...............................................................................................
High-gloss .....................................................................................................
High-temperature ..........................................................................................
Inorganic zinc high-build ...............................................................................
Military exterior ......................................................................................
Mist ........................................................................................................
Navigational aids ...................................................................................
Nonskid ..................................................................................................
Nuclear ..................................................................................................
Organic zinc ..........................................................................................
Pretreatment wash primer .....................................................................
Repair and maintenance of thermoplastics ..........................................
Rubber camouflage ...............................................................................
Sealant for thermal spray aluminum .....................................................
Special marking .....................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:01 Jun 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Grams/liter solids c
April 1st through
October 31st
November 1st
through
March 31st d
340
571
728
340
530
400
420
420
500
340
340
610
550
340
420
360
780
550
340
610
490
571
1,439
765
841
841
1,237
571
571
2,235
1,597
571
841
630
11,095
1,597
571
2,235
1,178
728
1,439
971
1,069
1,069
1,597
728
728
2,235
1,597
728
1,069
802
11,095
1,597
728
2,235
1,178
E:\FR\FM\19JNP1.SGM
19JNP1
36721
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—VOC EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR MARINE COATINGS IN AMR V, SECTION XV—Continued
VOC limits a b e
Grams per liter of
coating
(minus water and
except compounds)
Coating category
Specialty interior ....................................................................................
Tack coat ...............................................................................................
Undersea weapon systems ...................................................................
Weld-through preconstruction ...............................................................
primer ....................................................................................................
Grams/liter solids c
April 1st through
October 31st
November 1st
through
March 31st d
340
610
340
571
2,235
571
728
2,235
728
650
2,885
2,885
a The
above limits are expressed in two sets of equivalent units, grams/liter coating (minus water and exempt compounds) or grams/liter solids.
b To convert from grams/liter (g/L) to pounds/gallon (lb/gal), multiply by (3,785 L/gal)(1/453.6 lb/g) or 1/120. For compliance purposes, metric
units define the standards.
c VOC limits expressed in units of mass of VOC per volume of solids were derived from the VOC limits expressed in units of mass of VOC per
volume of coating assuming the coatings contain no water or exempt compounds and that the volumes of all components within a coating are
additive.
d These limits apply during the period November 1st through March 31st. During this period of time, allowances are not given to coating categories that permit less than 40 percent solids (non-volatiles) content by volume. Such coatings are subject to the same limits regardless of
weather conditions.
e VOC limits from EPA’s CTG for Ship Building, (61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996).
AMR V, section XV also specifies as
RACT the following cleanup
requirements to minimize VOC
emissions: (1) Storing all waste
materials containing VOC, including
cloth and paper, in closed containers;
(2) maintaining lids on any VOC-bearing
materials when not in use; and (3) using
enclosed containers or VOC recycling
equipment to clean spray gun
equipment.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry
AMR V, section XVI applies to a vent
stream from an air oxidation unit
processes, distillation operations, or
reactor processes in the SOCMI. The
regulation is limited to vent streams
from reactor processes and distillation
operations producing one or more of the
chemicals listed in Appendix A of
‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Reactor Processes and
Distillation Operations in Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry (SOCMI) for Reactor and
Distillation CTG’’ (EPA–450/4–91–031,
August 1993) and vent streams from an
air oxidation unit process producing
one or more of the chemicals listed in
40 CFR 60.617.
The owner or operator of an affected
source subject to AMR V, section XVI is
required to comply with the New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
requirements found in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart III, subpart NNN, and/or subpart
RRR, with some exceptions listed. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:01 Jun 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
NSPS requirements for SOCMI sources
are essentially identical to those
recommendations in the applicable
CTGs, and therefore are as stringent as
EPA’s presumptive RACT. An air
oxidation unit process, a distillation
operation or reactor process in SOCMI
subject to AMR V, section XVI must
comply with either one of the following
standards: (1) Reduction of emissions of
total organic compounds (TOC) (minus
methane and ethane) by 98 weightpercent, or to a TOC (minus methane
and ethane) concentration of 20 ppmv
on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent
oxygen, whichever is less stringent; (2)
combustion of the emissions in a flare
that meets the requirements of 40 CFR
60.18; or (3) maintenance of a total
resource effectiveness (TRE) index value
greater than 1.0 without use of VOC
emission control devices.
The TRE index is a measure of the
supplemental total resource requirement
per unit of VOC reduction, associated
with VOC control by a flare or
incinerator. The TRE index value can be
determined for each vent stream for
which the off-gas characteristics are
known, including: flow rate, hourly
VOC emissions, corrosion properties,
and net heating value. AMR V, section
XVI provides two equations for
calculating the TRE index value: (1) For
a vent stream controlled by a flare, and
(2) a vent stream controlled by an
incinerator. For purposes of complying
with maintaining a TRE index value
greater than 1.0 without the use of VOC
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
emission control devices, the owner or
operator of a facility affected should
calculate the TRE index value of the
vent stream using the equation for
incineration. The TRE index value of a
non-halogenated vent stream is
determined by calculating values using
both the incinerator equation and the
flare equation, and selecting the lower
of the two values.
EPA finds that the provisions adopted
in AMR V, sections XV and XVI and the
amendments of AMR V, section I are
consistent with the CTG documents
issued by EPA and that they represent
RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard for these VOC source
categories in Philadelphia County.
Thus, EPA is proposing conditional
approval of the 2010 SIP revision as part
of Philadelphia County’s RACT
demonstration for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
C. NOX RACT Controls
The 2006 SIP revision demonstrates
that AMR VII (‘‘Control of Emissions of
Nitrogen Oxides From Stationary
Sources’’) and PADEP Regulation Title
25, Chapter 129 (‘‘Standards for
Sources’’) contain NOX RACT controls
that were implemented and approved in
Philadelphia County SIP under the 1hour ozone NAAQS. Table 4 lists
Philadelphia County’s NOX RACT
controls for which AMS has provided
the required evaluation and is certifying
as currently representing RACT for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\19JNP1.SGM
19JNP1
36722
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—PHILADELPHIA COUNTY’S NOX RACT CONTROLS UNDER THE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
Regulation
SIP Approval by EPA
RACT Rule applicability and requirements
AMR VII, section II—Fuel Burning
Equipment.
AMR VII, section III—Nitric Acid
Plants.
AMR VII, section IV—Emissions Monitoring.
25 Pa. Code sections 129.91–
129.95—Control of major sources
of NOX and VOCs.
1/14/87; 52 FR 1456 ..........
This section applies to fuel burning equipment greater than or equal to
250,000 BTU/hr.
This section applies to nitric acid plants in excess of three pounds per ton
of acid produced on a two hour average.
This section requires instrument(s) for continuously monitoring and recording emissions of nitrogen oxides be well maintained.
This regulation applies to all major sources of NOX and VOC not subject
to any other RACT regulations.
Section 129.92 establishes requirements for source-specific RACT determinations for certain major NOX and VOC sources.
Section 129.93 establishes presumptive RACT limitations for certain classes of combustion units: coal-fired combustion units rated equal or greater than 100 MMBtu, combustion units rated equal or greater than 20
MMBtu and less than 50 MMBtu.
5/14/73; 38 FR 12696 ........
5/14/73; 38 FR 12696 ........
7/20/01; 66 FR 37908 ........
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
In the 2006 SIP revision, AMS also
certifies that PADEP’s interstate
pollution transport regulations currently
represent NOX RACT under the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. These provisions
rely on the NOX SIP Call and are found
in the following PADEP regulations: 25
Pa. Code sections 145.1–145.100 (‘‘NOX
Budget Trading Program’’), 25 Pa. Code
sections 145.111–145.113 (‘‘Emissions
of NOX from Stationary Internal
Combustion Engines’’), and 25 Pa. Code
sections 145.141–144 (‘‘Emissions of
NOX from Cement Manufacturing’’). In
light of the Court decision regarding the
Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule,
EPA has determined it cannot approve
AMS’ presumption that the NOX SIP
Call constitutes RACT for EGU sources
in Philadelphia County. There are five
EGUs in Philadelphia County that relied
on emissions reductions under the NOX
SIP Call as RACT: (1) Exelon—Delaware
Station, (2) Exelon—Richmond Station,
(3) Exelon—Schuylkill Station, (4)
Veolia—Edison Station (formerly
Trigen—Edison Station), and (5)
Veolia—Schuylkill Station (formerly
Trigen—Schuylkill Station). These
EGUs are all major sources of NOX.
AMS has committed to submit
additional SIP revisions to address
RACT for these five sources in
Philadelphia County by providing
source-specific RACT determinations.
D. Source-Specific RACT
AMS is implementing PADEP’s
regulation 25 Pa. Code sections 129.91
through 129.95 as RACT for the 1997 8hour ozone standard for all major
sources of NOX and VOC not subject to
any other RACT rules. The regulation
requires the owners or operators of the
applicable sources to provide a case-bycase evaluation to determine RACT for
each source (25 Pa. Code section 129.92)
or to alternatively comply with
presumptive NOX standards (25 Pa.
Code section 129.93).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:01 Jun 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA
previously approved into
Pennsylvania’s SIP source-specific
RACT determinations for 46 major
sources of VOC and NOX in
Philadelphia County. See 40 CFR
52.2020(d)(1). EPA has found that the
2006 and 2010 SIP revisions do not
address how AMS is currently meeting
the source-specific RACT requirement
under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for these 46 major sources. AMS has
also identified five sources that since
the approval of the 1-hour ozone sourcespecific RACT determinations have
adopted or will adopt additional
controls that represent RACT under the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: (1)
Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refinery
(formerly Sunoco Refinery), (2) Kraft
Nabisco (formerly Nabisco Biscuit Co),
(3) Temple University—Health Sciences
Center, (4) GATX Terminals
Corporation, and (5) Honeywell
International (formerly Sunoco
Chemicals—Frankford Plant). AMS has
committed to submit additional SIP
revisions to address RACT for these
major sources of NOX and VOC in
Philadelphia County.
IV. Withdrawal of Proposed Action and
Proposed Action
In this rulemaking action, EPA is
withdrawing its August 26, 2008 NPR
(73 FR 50270), which proposed to
approve the 2006 SIP revision submitted
by PADEP on behalf of AMS as
Philadelphia County’s 1997 8-hour
ozone RACT demonstration in
accordance with the Court’s Opinion in
NRDC v. EPA. See 571 F.3d 1245. EPA
is also proposing to conditionally
approve Philadelphia County’s RACT
demonstration under the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, as provided in the 2006
and the 2010 SIP revisions. Pursuant to
section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, this
conditional approval is based upon a
letter from PADEP on behalf of AMS
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
dated April 26, 2013 committing to
submit to EPA, no later than twelve
months from EPA’s final conditional
approval of Philadelphia County’s 1997
8-hour ozone RACT demonstration,
additional SIP revisions to address the
deficiencies in the current RACT
demonstration for Philadelphia County.
The SIP revisions, to be submitted by
PADEP on behalf of AMS, will address
source-specific RACT determinations
for the following major sources in
Philadelphia County: (1) Exelon—
Delaware Station, (2) Exelon—
Richmond Station, (3) Exelon—
Schuylkill Station, (4) Veolia—Edison
Station (formerly Trigen—Edison
Station), (5) Veolia—Schuylkill Station
(formerly Trigen—Schuylkill Station),
(6) Philadelphia Energy Solutions
Refinery (formerly Sunoco Refinery), (7)
Kraft Nabisco (formerly Nabisco Biscuit
Company), (8) Temple University,
Health Sciences Center, (9) GATX
Terminals Corporation, and (10)
Honeywell (formerly Sunoco Chemicals,
Frankford Plant); and will include a
certification that previously adopted
source-specific RACT controls approved
by EPA in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania’s SIP under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS for the remaining sources
in Philadelphia County (as listed in 40
CFR 52.2020(d)(1)) continue to
adequately represent RACT for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Once EPA has determined that AMS
has satisfied this condition, EPA shall
remove the conditional nature of its
approval and Philadelphia County’s
1997 8-hour ozone RACT demonstration
will, at that time, receive a full approval
status. Should AMS fail to meet the
condition specified above, the final
conditional approval of Philadelphia
County’s 1997 8-hour ozone RACT
demonstration will convert to a
disapproval. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in
E:\FR\FM\19JNP1.SGM
19JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state
law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• 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);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule,
pertaining to Philadelphia County’s
RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:01 Jun 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the
state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 3, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013–14519 Filed 6–18–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Part 102–117
[FMR Case 2012–102–5; Docket 2012–0017,
Sequence 1]
RIN 3090–AJ34
Federal Management Regulation
(FMR); Restrictions on International
Transportation of Freight and
Household Goods
Office of Governmentwide
Policy (OGP), General Services
Administration (GSA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: GSA is proposing to amend
the Federal Management Regulation
(FMR) provisions pertaining to the use
of United States air carriers for cargo
under the provisions of the ‘‘Fly
America Act.’’ This proposed rule
would additionally update the current
provisions in the FMR regarding the
Cargo Preference Act of 1954, as
amended. Also, this proposed rule
would amend the Federal Management
Regulation (FMR) to state clearly that
this part applies to all agencies and
wholly-owned Government corporations
except where otherwise expressly
provided.
Interested parties should submit
comments in writing on or before July
19, 2013 to be considered in the
formulation of a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in
response to FMR Case 2012–102–5 by
any of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov: https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
via the Federal eRulemaking portal by
searching for ‘‘FMR Case 2012–102–5,’’
select the link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’
that corresponds with ‘‘FMR case 2012–
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36723
102–5.’’ Follow the instructions
provided at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’
screen. Please include your name,
company name (if any), and ‘‘FMR Case
2012–102–5’’ on your attached
document.
• Fax: 202–501–4067.
• Mail: General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
(MVCB), ATTN: Hada Flowers, 1275
First Street NE., 7th Floor, Washington,
DC 20417. Instructions: Please submit
comments only and cite FMR Case
2012–102–5, in all correspondence
related to this case. All comments
received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal and/or business
confidential information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Regulatory Secretariat at 202–501–4755,
for information pertaining to status or
publication schedules. For clarification
of content, contact Ms. Lee Gregory,
Office of Governmentwide Policy, at
202–501–1533 or email at
lee.gregory@gsa.gov. Please cite FMR
case 2012–102–5.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This proposed rule, if adopted, would
inform readers where to find additional
information regarding bilateral or
multilateral air transport agreements, to
which the United States Government
and the government of a foreign country
are parties, and which the Department
of Transportation has determined meets
the requirements of the Fly America
Act.
As these agreements qualify as
exceptions to the use of U.S. flag air
carrier service mandated by FMR
section 102–117.135(a), this proposed
rule, if adopted, would advise of an
Internet-based source of information
regarding the use of foreign air carriers
under the terms of these bilateral or
multilateral agreements. Additionally,
this proposed rule would incorporate
language regarding other exceptions to
the Fly America Act and would more
clearly define who would be subject to
the provisions implementing the Fly
America Act and the Cargo Preference
Act.
A. Background
The Fly America Act, 49 U.S.C.
40118, requires the use of United States
air carrier service for all air cargo
transportation services funded by the
United States Government. The
requirements of the Fly America Act
apply whenever the air transportation of
the cargo is funded by the U.S.
Government. One exception to this
requirement is transportation provided
under a bilateral or multilateral air
E:\FR\FM\19JNP1.SGM
19JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36716-36723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14519]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0603; FRL-9824-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Philadelphia County Reasonably Available Control
Technology Under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard; Withdrawal and New Issuance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal and new issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 26, 2008, EPA published a proposed rule to approve a
revision to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania) State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) on behalf of Philadelphia Air
Management Services (AMS). The SIP revision, submitted to EPA on
September 29, 2006 (the 2006 SIP revision), consists of a demonstration
that Philadelphia County is meeting the requirements of reasonably
available control technology (RACT) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)
under the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS). EPA has determined that it cannot proceed with the final
approval of the 2006 SIP revision. In light of the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the Court)
regarding EPA's Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, EPA cannot approve
that compliance with a cap-and-trade program satisfies the
NOX RACT requirement for electric generating units (EGUs) in
Philadelphia County, as presumed in the 2006 SIP revision. In addition,
upon further review, EPA has determined that the 2006 SIP revision does
not adequately address the RACT requirements under the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for the major sources of VOC and NOX for which
EPA has previously approved source-specific RACT determinations under
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing its August 26,
2008 proposed rule to
[[Page 36717]]
approve Philadelphia County's 1997 8-hour RACT demonstration. On June
22, 2010, PADEP submitted another SIP revision (the 2010 SIP revision)
that consists of AMS regulations to address specific RACT requirements
for Philadelphia County. EPA is proposing conditional approval of
Philadelphia County 1997 8-hour ozone RACT demonstration provided in
the 2006 and 2010 SIP revisions, based upon AMS' commitment to submit
additional SIP revisions addressing source-specific RACT controls for
major sources of VOC and NOX in Philadelphia County. This
proposed action and the withdrawal action are being taken under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: The proposed rule published on August 26, 2008 (73 FR 50270) is
withdrawn as of July 19, 2013. Written comments on EPA's proposed
conditional approval action must be received on or before July 19,
2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2008-0603 by one of the following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0603, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2008-0603. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at 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 information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site 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 email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
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.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
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 www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy 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 Department of Public Health, Air Management
Services, 321 University Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104.
Copies are also available at Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emlyn V[eacute]lez-Rosa, (215) 814-
2038, or by email at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 29, 2006, and on June 22, 2010,
PADEP submitted on behalf of AMS two SIP revisions for Philadelphia
County addressing the requirements of RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
I. Background
Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions
between VOC, NOX, and carbon monoxide (CO) in the presence
of sunlight. In order to reduce ozone concentrations in the ambient
air, the CAA requires all nonattainment areas to apply controls on VOC
and NOX emission sources to achieve emission reductions.
Among effective control measures, RACT controls are a major group for
reducing VOC and NOx emissions from stationary sources.
Since the 1970's, EPA has consistently interpreted RACT to mean the
lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by
the application of the control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility (See 72 FR 20586 at
20610, April 25, 2007). Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs
for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control
measures (RACM) for attainment of the NAAQS, including emissions
reductions from existing sources through adoption of RACT. Section
182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA referred to as RACT fix-up requires the
correction of RACT rules for which EPA identified deficiencies before
the CAA was amended in 1990. Philadelphia County has no deficiencies to
correct under this section of the CAA.
Section 182(b)(2) and (f) of the CAA requires that moderate (or
worse) ozone nonattainment areas, as well as marginal and attainment
areas in the ozone transport region (OTR) established pursuant to
section 184 of the CAA, implement RACT controls on all major VOC and
NOx emission sources (point sources) and on all sources and source
categories covered by a control technique guideline (CTG) issued by
EPA. A major source in a nonattainment area is defined as any
stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit NOx and VOC
emissions above a certain applicability threshold that is based on the
ozone nonattainment classification of the area: marginal, moderate,
serious, or severe. (See ``major stationary source'' in 40 CFR 51.165).
Philadelphia County was designated under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as
part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton severe ozone nonattainment
area. See 56 FR 56694, at 56822 (November 6, 1991). The entire
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is also part of the OTR established under
section 184 of the CAA. Therefore, Philadelphia County was subject to
the CAA RACT requirements under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. As a result,
PADEP and AMS implemented numerous RACT controls applicable in
Philadelphia County to meet the RACT requirements.
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. On April 30, 2004, Philadelphia County was designated under the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic
City moderate ozone nonattainment area. See 69 FR 23858, at 23931
(April 30, 2004). Therefore, PADEP is required to submit to EPA, on
behalf of AMS, a SIP revision
[[Page 36718]]
that addresses how Philadelphia County meets the RACT requirements
under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Implementation of RACT controls
is required in Philadelphia County for each category of VOC sources
covered by a CTG document issued by EPA and all other major stationary
sources of NOX and VOC.
On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), EPA published an ozone
implementation rule to address nonattainment SIP requirements for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule). This
rule addressed various statutory requirements, including the
requirement for RACT level controls for sources located within
nonattainment areas generally, and controls for NOX
emissions from EGUs in particular. In the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation
Rule, EPA specifically required that states meet the RACT requirements
under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, either through a certification that
previously adopted RACT controls in their SIP revisions approved by EPA
under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS continue to represent adequate RACT
control levels for 8-hour attainment purposes, or through the adoption
of new or more stringent regulations that represent RACT control
levels. See 70 FR 71655 (November 29, 2005).
As set forth in the preamble to the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation
Rule, a certification must be accompanied by appropriate supporting
information such as consideration of information received during the
public comment period and consideration of new data. This information
may supplement existing RACT guidance documents that were developed for
the 1-hour standard, such that the state's SIP accurately reflects RACT
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard based on the current availability of
technically and economically feasible controls. Adoption of new RACT
regulations will occur when states have new stationary sources not
covered by existing RACT regulations, or when new data or technical
information indicates that a previously adopted RACT measure does not
represent a newly available RACT control level. Another 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS requirement for RACT is to submit a negative declaration if
there are no CTG major sources of VOC and NOX emissions
within the nonattainment area in lieu of or in addition to a
certification.
For addressing interstate transport of ozone pollution, EPA
determined in the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule that the regional
NOX emissions reductions that result from either the
NOX SIP Call or the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) would
meet the NOX RACT requirement for EGUs located in states
included within the respective geographic regions. Thus, EPA concluded
that the states need not perform a NOX RACT analysis for
sources subject to the state's emission cap-and-trade program where the
cap-and-trade program has been adopted by the state and approved by EPA
as meeting the NOX SIP Call requirements or, in states
achieving the CAIR reductions solely from EGUs, the CAIR NOX
requirements.
In November 2008, several parties challenged EPA's Phase 2 Ozone
Implementation Rule. In particular, EPA's determination that compliance
with the NOX SIP Call could satisfy NOX RACT
requirements for EGUs in nonattainment areas was challenged. As a
result of this litigation, the Court decided that the provisions in the
Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule providing that a state need not
perform (or submit) a NOX RACT analysis for EGU sources
subject to a cap-and-trade program in accordance with the
NOX SIP Call were inconsistent with the statutory
requirements of section 172(c)(1) of the CAA. Because regionwide RACT-
level reductions in emissions do not meet the statutory requirement
that the reductions be from sources in the nonattainment area, the
Court found that EPA has not shown that compliance with the
NOX SIP Call will result in at least RACT-level reductions
in emissions from sources within each nonattainment area. See NRDC v.
EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
II. EPA's Rationale for Withdrawal of Proposed Approval and Proposal of
Conditional Approval
On September 29, 2006, PADEP submitted on behalf of AMS a SIP
revision for Philadelphia County to meet the RACT requirements for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 2006 SIP revision consists of a
demonstration that Philadelphia County has met the RACT requirements
for NOX and VOC, and includes: (1) A certification that
previously adopted RACT controls in Pennsylvania's SIP that were
approved by EPA for Philadelphia County under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
are based on the currently available technically and economically
feasible controls, and continue to represent RACT for the 8-hour
implementation purposes; (2) the adoption of federally enforceable
permits that represent RACT control levels for four major VOC sources;
and (3) a negative declaration that certain VOC sources do not exist in
Philadelphia County.
On August 26, 2008 (73 FR 50270), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) proposing approval of the 2006 SIP revision.
However, the 2006 SIP revision relies on the NOX SIP Call to
meet the NOX RACT requirements for EGUs. In light of the
Court decision regarding the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, EPA has
determined it cannot approve the presumption in the 2006 SIP submittal
that the NOX SIP Call constitutes RACT for EGU sources in
Philadelphia County. Thus, AMS needs to perform a NOX RACT
analysis for sources that in the 2006 SIP revision relied on the
NOX SIP Call to satisfy Philadelphia County's NOX
RACT requirements.
Upon further review, EPA also determined that the 2006 SIP revision
does not specifically and sufficiently address if the source-specific
RACT controls for 46 major sources in Philadelphia County that were
previously approved in the SIP under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS continue to
represent RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, to satisfy
the major source RACT requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, AMS
needs to either: (1) Provide a certification that previously adopted
source-specific RACT controls approved by EPA in Pennsylvania's SIP
under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for major sources in Philadelphia County
(as listed in 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1)) continue to adequately represent
RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, or (2) perform a source-specific
RACT analysis for each source which controls are not currently
adequately representing RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
On June 22, 2010, PADEP submitted another SIP revision addressing
Philadelphia County's RACT requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. The 2010 SIP revision consists of: (1) The adoption of two
regulations to meet CTG RACT requirements, and (2) a negative
declaration for a CTG source category.
Since the 2006 SIP revision relies on the NOX SIP Call
to meet the NOX RACT requirements for EGUs and it does not
specifically and sufficiently address the source-specific RACT
determinations for 46 major sources that were previously approved under
the 1-hour ozone standard, EPA has determined that it cannot proceed
with the final approval of this SIP revision. Therefore, EPA is
withdrawing its August 26, 2008 proposed rule (73 FR 50270) to approve
the 2006 SIP revision.
Nevertheless, in this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing
conditional approval of Philadelphia County's 1997 8-hour ozone RACT
demonstration
[[Page 36719]]
provided in the 2006 and 2010 SIP revisions, based upon a commitment
from AMS to submit additional SIP revisions to provide source-specific
RACT determinations for certain major sources of VOC and NOX
in Philadelphia County, and a certification that previously adopted
source-specific RACT controls approved by EPA in the Pennsylvania's SIP
under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the remaining sources in Philadelphia
County (as listed in 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1)) continue to adequately
represent RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to section
110(k)(4) of the CAA, on April 26, 2013, PADEP submitted on behalf of
AMS a letter committing to submit SIP revisions to address source-
specific RACT controls under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for
Philadelphia County.
III. Summary of SIP Revisions
A. CTG RACT Controls and Negative Declarations
In the 2006 SIP revision, in lieu of adopting regulations to
address VOC CTG RACT requirements, Federally-enforceable permits were
included for the following four major VOC sources in Philadelphia
County: (1) Philadelphia Gas Works--Richmond Station, (2) Philadelphia
Energy Solutions Refinery (formerly Sunoco Philadelphia Refinery), (3)
Aker Philadelphia Shipyard, and (4) Sunoco Chemicals. In Section 4 of
the 2006 SIP revision, AMS certified that these permits established
RACT controls that are as stringent as EPA's presumptive RACT provided
in the applicable CTG documents for the specific source categories.
Table 1 identifies the four major VOC sources and the applicable CTG
RACT requirements covered by these permits.
Table 1--Affected VOC Sources and CTG RACT Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected sources in
RACT basis Philadelphia County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTG: Control of Volatile Organic --Philadelphia Gas Works--
Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/ Richmond Station.
Gasoline Processing Plants, EPA-450/2- --Philadelphia Energy Solutions
83-007, December 1983. Refinery (formerly Sunoco
Philadelphia Refinery).
CTG: Control Techniques Guidelines for --Aker Philadelphia Shipyard.
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Operations (Surface Coating), 61 FR
44050, August 27, 1996.
ACT: Surface Coating Operations at
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Facilities, EPA-453/R-94-032, April
1994.
CTG: Control of Volatile Organic --Sunoco Chemicals.
Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation
Processes in Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry
(SOCMI), EPA-450/3-84-015, December
1984.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound --Sunoco Chemicals.
Emissions from Reactor Processes and
Distillation Operations Processes in
the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI), EPA-
450/4-91-031, August 1993.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in the 2006 SIP revision, Philadelphia Gas Works--Richmond
Station and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refinery (formerly Sunoco
Philadelphia Refinery) were erroneously defined as natural gas
processing plants under EPA's CTG ``Control of Volatile Organic
Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants,'' (EPA-
450/2-83-007, December 1983). Subsequently, as part of the 2010 SIP
revision, AMS submitted a negative declaration demonstrating that no
sources exist in Philadelphia County for this CTG source category.
In addition, the 2010 SIP revision adopts VOC RACT rules that
address the following CTGs: (1) ``Control Techniques Guidelines for
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating'' (61 FR
44050, August 27, 1996); (2) ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry'' (EPA-450/3-84-015, December 1984); and (3)
``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes
and Distillation Operations in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry'' (EPA-450/4-91-031, August 1993). Therefore, the 2010 SIP
revisions addresses each of the CTG requirements listed in Table 1 and
it supersedes Section 4 of the 2006 SIP revision addressing these CTG
RACT requirements.
For Philadelphia Gas Works--Richmond Station and Philadelphia
Energy Solutions (formerly Sunoco Refinery), which were erroneously
defined as natural gas processing plants in the 2006 SIP revision, EPA
approved source-specific RACT evaluations under the 1-hour ozone
standard. See 66 FR 54947 and 66 FR 54942 (October 31, 2001). The 2006
and 2010 SIP revisions do not address how Philadelphia meets the
``major source'' RACT requirement under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
for those sources for which EPA had previously approved source-specific
RACT determinations under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. However, AMS has
committed to submit additional SIP revisions to address this RACT
requirement.
In addition to the 2010 SIP revision's negative declaration, the
2006 SIP revision includes a negative declaration for the VOC source
category defined under EPA's CTG ``Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VII: Factory Surface
Coating of Flat Wood Paneling'' (EPA-450/2-78-032, June 1978). Table 2
below lists the negative declarations submitted by AMS in the 2006 and
2010 SIP revisions, which EPA is proposing to conditionally approve.
AMS certified that these VOC CTG source categories do not exist in
Philadelphia County. Therefore, AMS does not need to adopt regulations
addressing the applicable CTGs for these source categories.
Table 2--Philadelphia County's Negative Declaration List for VOC CTG
Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTG source category RACT basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coating of Flat Wood Paneling.......... Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Existing
Stationary Sources, Volume
VII: Factory Surface Coating
of Flat Wood Paneling, EPA-450/
2-78-032, June 1978.
[[Page 36720]]
Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas and Control of Volatile Organic
Gasoline Processing Plants. Equipment Leaks from Natural
Gas/Gasoline Processing
Plants, EPA-450/2-83-007,
December 1983.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. VOC RACT Controls
AMS Regulation (AMR) V (``Control of Emissions of Organic
Substances From Stationary Sources'') and PADEP Regulation Title 25,
Chapter 129 contain the CTG and non-CTG VOC RACT controls that were
implemented and approved in Philadelphia County SIP under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS. The 2006 SIP revision identifies Philadelphia County's VOC
RACT regulations for which AMS has provided the required evaluation and
is certifying as currently representing RACT under the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Although alternative control technology documents (ACTs)
are not regulatory documents and have no legal effect on state
regulations, EPA requires that states verify that ACTs have been
considered in the RACT program development process. Therefore,
Philadelphia County included ACTs in their review of applicable RACT
requirements in the 2006 SIP revision. Further details of Philadelphia
County's RACT determination for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS can be
found in the technical support document (TSD) prepared for this
rulemaking action.
The 2010 SIP revision adopts the following regulations to meet CTG
RACT requirements: (1) AMR V, section XV ``Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) from Marine Vessel Coating Operations'' and (2) AMR V,
section XVI ``Synthetic Organic Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Air
Oxidation, Distillation, and Reactor Processes.'' These regulations are
in accordance with EPA's presumptive RACT provided in the following
CTGs: (1) ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair Operations (Surface Coating)'' (61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996),
(2) ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation
Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry'' (EPA-
450/3-84-015, December 1984), and (3) ``Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations
in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry'' (EPA-450/4-91-
031, August 1993). The 2010 SIP revision also amends AMR V, section I
``Definitions'' for incorporating various definitions applicable to the
adopted provisions in Sections XV and XVI. These definitions are in
accordance with EPA's recommendations in the applicable CTGs. These
amendments to AMR V were adopted by AMS on April 26, 2010 and became
effective upon adoption.
1. Marine Vessel Coating Operations
AMR V, section XV is applicable to marine vessel coating operations
at a facility at which the total potential VOC emissions equal or
exceed 25 tons (22.75 metric tons) per year; or the actual VOC
emissions from all marine vessel coating operations exceed 15 pounds (7
kilograms) per day or 2.7 tons (2,455 kilograms) per year. The
regulation establishes VOC emissions limits from general use coatings
and from various specialty coatings. The limits, provided in Table 3
below, are expressed in two sets of equivalent units: grams/liter
coating (minus water and exempt compounds) or grams/liter of solids.
The limits are identical to those recommended in the corresponding CTG
document, except that the cold-weather was specified to a period of
every year, November 1st through March 31st. Further, for any coating
used in a marine vessel coating operation for which the regulation does
not provide an emissions standard, AMR V, section XV establishes a
maximum VOC content limit of 340 grams/liter (minus water and exempt
solvents) or 571 grams per liter solids.
Table 3--VOC Emissions Limits for Marine Coatings in AMR V, Section XV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC limits a b e
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grams/liter solids \c\
Coating category Grams per liter of ---------------------------------------
coating (minus November 1st
water and except April 1st through through March
compounds) October 31st 31st \d\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Use......................................... 340 571 728
Specialty:
Air flask....................................... 340 571 728
Antenna......................................... 530 1,439 1,439
Antifoulant..................................... 400 765 971
Heat resistant.................................. 420 841 1,069
High-gloss...................................... 420 841 1,069
High-temperature................................ 500 1,237 1,597
Inorganic zinc high-build....................... 340 571 728
Military exterior........................... 340 571 728
Mist........................................ 610 2,235 2,235
Navigational aids........................... 550 1,597 1,597
Nonskid..................................... 340 571 728
Nuclear..................................... 420 841 1,069
Organic zinc................................ 360 630 802
Pretreatment wash primer.................... 780 11,095 11,095
Repair and maintenance of thermoplastics.... 550 1,597 1,597
Rubber camouflage........................... 340 571 728
Sealant for thermal spray aluminum.......... 610 2,235 2,235
Special marking............................. 490 1,178 1,178
[[Page 36721]]
Specialty interior.......................... 340 571 728
Tack coat................................... 610 2,235 2,235
Undersea weapon systems..................... 340 571 728
Weld-through preconstruction................ 650 2,885 2,885
primer......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The above limits are expressed in two sets of equivalent units, grams/liter coating (minus water and exempt
compounds) or grams/liter solids.
\b\ To convert from grams/liter (g/L) to pounds/gallon (lb/gal), multiply by (3,785 L/gal)(1/453.6 lb/g) or 1/
120. For compliance purposes, metric units define the standards.
\c\ VOC limits expressed in units of mass of VOC per volume of solids were derived from the VOC limits expressed
in units of mass of VOC per volume of coating assuming the coatings contain no water or exempt compounds and
that the volumes of all components within a coating are additive.
\d\ These limits apply during the period November 1st through March 31st. During this period of time, allowances
are not given to coating categories that permit less than 40 percent solids (non-volatiles) content by volume.
Such coatings are subject to the same limits regardless of weather conditions.
\e\ VOC limits from EPA's CTG for Ship Building, (61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996).
AMR V, section XV also specifies as RACT the following cleanup
requirements to minimize VOC emissions: (1) Storing all waste materials
containing VOC, including cloth and paper, in closed containers; (2)
maintaining lids on any VOC-bearing materials when not in use; and (3)
using enclosed containers or VOC recycling equipment to clean spray gun
equipment.
2. Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
AMR V, section XVI applies to a vent stream from an air oxidation
unit processes, distillation operations, or reactor processes in the
SOCMI. The regulation is limited to vent streams from reactor processes
and distillation operations producing one or more of the chemicals
listed in Appendix A of ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations in
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) for Reactor
and Distillation CTG'' (EPA-450/4-91-031, August 1993) and vent streams
from an air oxidation unit process producing one or more of the
chemicals listed in 40 CFR 60.617.
The owner or operator of an affected source subject to AMR V,
section XVI is required to comply with the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) requirements found in 40 CFR part 60, subpart III,
subpart NNN, and/or subpart RRR, with some exceptions listed. The NSPS
requirements for SOCMI sources are essentially identical to those
recommendations in the applicable CTGs, and therefore are as stringent
as EPA's presumptive RACT. An air oxidation unit process, a
distillation operation or reactor process in SOCMI subject to AMR V,
section XVI must comply with either one of the following standards: (1)
Reduction of emissions of total organic compounds (TOC) (minus methane
and ethane) by 98 weight-percent, or to a TOC (minus methane and
ethane) concentration of 20 ppmv on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent
oxygen, whichever is less stringent; (2) combustion of the emissions in
a flare that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 60.18; or (3) maintenance
of a total resource effectiveness (TRE) index value greater than 1.0
without use of VOC emission control devices.
The TRE index is a measure of the supplemental total resource
requirement per unit of VOC reduction, associated with VOC control by a
flare or incinerator. The TRE index value can be determined for each
vent stream for which the off-gas characteristics are known, including:
flow rate, hourly VOC emissions, corrosion properties, and net heating
value. AMR V, section XVI provides two equations for calculating the
TRE index value: (1) For a vent stream controlled by a flare, and (2) a
vent stream controlled by an incinerator. For purposes of complying
with maintaining a TRE index value greater than 1.0 without the use of
VOC emission control devices, the owner or operator of a facility
affected should calculate the TRE index value of the vent stream using
the equation for incineration. The TRE index value of a non-halogenated
vent stream is determined by calculating values using both the
incinerator equation and the flare equation, and selecting the lower of
the two values.
EPA finds that the provisions adopted in AMR V, sections XV and XVI
and the amendments of AMR V, section I are consistent with the CTG
documents issued by EPA and that they represent RACT under the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard for these VOC source categories in Philadelphia
County. Thus, EPA is proposing conditional approval of the 2010 SIP
revision as part of Philadelphia County's RACT demonstration for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
C. NOX RACT Controls
The 2006 SIP revision demonstrates that AMR VII (``Control of
Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides From Stationary Sources'') and PADEP
Regulation Title 25, Chapter 129 (``Standards for Sources'') contain
NOX RACT controls that were implemented and approved in
Philadelphia County SIP under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Table 4 lists
Philadelphia County's NOX RACT controls for which AMS has
provided the required evaluation and is certifying as currently
representing RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
[[Page 36722]]
Table 4--Philadelphia County's NOX RACT Controls Under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RACT Rule applicability and
Regulation SIP Approval by EPA requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMR VII, section II--Fuel Burning 1/14/87; 52 FR 1456....................... This section applies to fuel
Equipment. burning equipment greater
than or equal to 250,000 BTU/
hr.
AMR VII, section III--Nitric Acid 5/14/73; 38 FR 12696...................... This section applies to
Plants. nitric acid plants in excess
of three pounds per ton of
acid produced on a two hour
average.
AMR VII, section IV--Emissions 5/14/73; 38 FR 12696...................... This section requires
Monitoring. instrument(s) for
continuously monitoring and
recording emissions of
nitrogen oxides be well
maintained.
25 Pa. Code sections 129.91-129.95-- 7/20/01; 66 FR 37908...................... This regulation applies to
Control of major sources of NOX and all major sources of NOX and
VOCs. VOC not subject to any other
RACT regulations.
Section 129.92 establishes
requirements for source-
specific RACT determinations
for certain major NOX and
VOC sources.
Section 129.93 establishes
presumptive RACT limitations
for certain classes of
combustion units: coal-fired
combustion units rated equal
or greater than 100 MMBtu,
combustion units rated equal
or greater than 20 MMBtu and
less than 50 MMBtu.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2006 SIP revision, AMS also certifies that PADEP's
interstate pollution transport regulations currently represent
NOX RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These provisions
rely on the NOX SIP Call and are found in the following
PADEP regulations: 25 Pa. Code sections 145.1-145.100 (``NOX
Budget Trading Program''), 25 Pa. Code sections 145.111-145.113
(``Emissions of NOX from Stationary Internal Combustion
Engines''), and 25 Pa. Code sections 145.141-144 (``Emissions of
NOX from Cement Manufacturing''). In light of the Court
decision regarding the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, EPA has
determined it cannot approve AMS' presumption that the NOX
SIP Call constitutes RACT for EGU sources in Philadelphia County. There
are five EGUs in Philadelphia County that relied on emissions
reductions under the NOX SIP Call as RACT: (1) Exelon--
Delaware Station, (2) Exelon--Richmond Station, (3) Exelon--Schuylkill
Station, (4) Veolia--Edison Station (formerly Trigen--Edison Station),
and (5) Veolia--Schuylkill Station (formerly Trigen--Schuylkill
Station). These EGUs are all major sources of NOX. AMS has
committed to submit additional SIP revisions to address RACT for these
five sources in Philadelphia County by providing source-specific RACT
determinations.
D. Source-Specific RACT
AMS is implementing PADEP's regulation 25 Pa. Code sections 129.91
through 129.95 as RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for all major
sources of NOX and VOC not subject to any other RACT rules.
The regulation requires the owners or operators of the applicable
sources to provide a case-by-case evaluation to determine RACT for each
source (25 Pa. Code section 129.92) or to alternatively comply with
presumptive NOX standards (25 Pa. Code section 129.93).
Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA previously approved into
Pennsylvania's SIP source-specific RACT determinations for 46 major
sources of VOC and NOX in Philadelphia County. See 40 CFR
52.2020(d)(1). EPA has found that the 2006 and 2010 SIP revisions do
not address how AMS is currently meeting the source-specific RACT
requirement under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for these 46 major
sources. AMS has also identified five sources that since the approval
of the 1-hour ozone source-specific RACT determinations have adopted or
will adopt additional controls that represent RACT under the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS: (1) Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refinery (formerly
Sunoco Refinery), (2) Kraft Nabisco (formerly Nabisco Biscuit Co), (3)
Temple University--Health Sciences Center, (4) GATX Terminals
Corporation, and (5) Honeywell International (formerly Sunoco
Chemicals--Frankford Plant). AMS has committed to submit additional SIP
revisions to address RACT for these major sources of NOX and
VOC in Philadelphia County.
IV. Withdrawal of Proposed Action and Proposed Action
In this rulemaking action, EPA is withdrawing its August 26, 2008
NPR (73 FR 50270), which proposed to approve the 2006 SIP revision
submitted by PADEP on behalf of AMS as Philadelphia County's 1997 8-
hour ozone RACT demonstration in accordance with the Court's Opinion in
NRDC v. EPA. See 571 F.3d 1245. EPA is also proposing to conditionally
approve Philadelphia County's RACT demonstration under the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, as provided in the 2006 and the 2010 SIP revisions.
Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, this conditional approval is
based upon a letter from PADEP on behalf of AMS dated April 26, 2013
committing to submit to EPA, no later than twelve months from EPA's
final conditional approval of Philadelphia County's 1997 8-hour ozone
RACT demonstration, additional SIP revisions to address the
deficiencies in the current RACT demonstration for Philadelphia County.
The SIP revisions, to be submitted by PADEP on behalf of AMS, will
address source-specific RACT determinations for the following major
sources in Philadelphia County: (1) Exelon--Delaware Station, (2)
Exelon--Richmond Station, (3) Exelon--Schuylkill Station, (4) Veolia--
Edison Station (formerly Trigen--Edison Station), (5) Veolia--
Schuylkill Station (formerly Trigen--Schuylkill Station), (6)
Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refinery (formerly Sunoco Refinery), (7)
Kraft Nabisco (formerly Nabisco Biscuit Company), (8) Temple
University, Health Sciences Center, (9) GATX Terminals Corporation, and
(10) Honeywell (formerly Sunoco Chemicals, Frankford Plant); and will
include a certification that previously adopted source-specific RACT
controls approved by EPA in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's SIP
under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the remaining sources in Philadelphia
County (as listed in 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1)) continue to adequately
represent RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Once EPA has determined that AMS has satisfied this condition, EPA
shall remove the conditional nature of its approval and Philadelphia
County's 1997 8-hour ozone RACT demonstration will, at that time,
receive a full approval status. Should AMS fail to meet the condition
specified above, the final conditional approval of Philadelphia
County's 1997 8-hour ozone RACT demonstration will convert to a
disapproval. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed
in
[[Page 36723]]
this document. These comments will be considered before taking final
action.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
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);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to Philadelphia
County's RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 3, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013-14519 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
