Approval of Source-Specific Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey, 54785-54790 [2019-22108]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
[FR Doc. 2019–22307 Filed 10–10–19; 8:45 am]
Authority: 46 U.S.C 70034, 70051; 33 CFR
1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T11–999 to read as
follows:
■
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
Jkt 250001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–R02–OAR–2018–0621, FRL–10000–
91–Region 2]
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: All navigable waters of
Soquel Cove, from surface to bottom,
within a circle formed by connecting all
points 350 feet out from the fireworks
firing site on Capitola Wharf in
approximate position 36°58′10″ N,
121°57′12″ W (NAD 83).
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section, ‘‘designated representative’’
means a Coast Guard Patrol
Commander, including a Coast Guard
coxswain, petty officer, or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel or a
Federal, State, or local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of
the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general
safety zone regulations in subpart B of
this part, you may not enter the safety
zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section unless authorized by the COTP
or the COTP’s designated representative.
(2) The safety zone is closed to all
vessel traffic, except as may be
permitted by the COTP or the COTP’s
designated representative.
(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the safety zone must
contact the COTP or the COTP’s
designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators
given permission to enter or operate in
the safety zone must comply with all
lawful orders or directions given to
them by the COTP or the COTP’s
designated representative. Persons and
vessels may request permission to enter
the safety zone on VHF–23A or through
the 24-hour Command Center at
telephone (415) 399–3547.
(d) Enforcement period. This section
will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. until
8:50 p.m. on October 13, 2019.
(e) Information broadcasts. The COTP
or the COTP’s designated representative
will notify the maritime community of
periods during which this zone will be
enforced in accordance with 33 CFR
165.7.
16:23 Oct 10, 2019
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
40 CFR Part 52
§ 165.T11–999 Safety Zone; Monte
Foundation Fireworks Display, Soquel
Cove, Capitola, CA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Dated: October 7, 2019.
Marie B. Byrd,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, San Francisco.
Approval of Source-Specific Air
Quality Implementation Plans; New
Jersey
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving the sourcespecific revisions to the New Jersey
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8hour ozone for Paulsboro Refining,
Buckeye Port Reading Terminal,
Buckeye Pennsauken Terminal, and
Phillips 66 Company’s Linden facility.
The current source-specific SIP revision
addresses the Reasonably Available
Control Technology for volatile organic
compounds (VOC) for external floating
roof tanks. The intended effect of this
revision is to address the Federal and
state regulatory obligations for external
floating roof tanks that store VOC with
vapor pressure three (3) or more pounds
per square inch absolute to be equipped
with a domed roof.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
November 12, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R02–OAR–2018–0621. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Linda Longo, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007–
1866, (212) 637–3565, or by email at
longo.linda@epa.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54785
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The EPA’s Evaluation of New Jersey’s
Submittals
III. Comments Received in Response to EPA’s
Proposed Action
IV. Summary of EPA Final Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
The EPA is approving the revision to
the New Jersey SIP for attainment and
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for the following major VOC
facilities: Paulsboro Refining, Buckeye
Port Reading Terminal, Buckeye
Pennsauken Terminal, and Phillips 66
Company’s Linden facility. Specifically,
under New Jersey Administrative Code
(NJAC), Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter
16 (‘‘Control and Prohibition of Air
Pollution by Volatile Organic
Compounds’’), Section 2 (‘‘VOC
Stationary Storage Tanks’’), all external
floating roof tanks (EFRT) in Range III
with vapor pressure three (3) or more
pounds per square inch absolute (psia)
and that were in existence on May 18,
2009 must be equipped with a domed
roof the first time the tank is degassed
after May 19, 2009, and by no later than
May 1, 2020. See NJAC 7:27–16.2(l)(4).
However, NJAC 7:27–16.17(a–q) sets
forth procedures and standards for
establishing alternative and facilityspecific VOC control requirements for
situations in which, among other things,
a facility can demonstrate that the
control requirements pursuant to NJAC
7:27–16.2 are not economically or
technologically feasible as applied to its
operations. The EPA approved NJAC
7:27–16.17(a–q) into the New Jersey SIP
in 2010 (See 75 FR 45483 (August 3,
2010)) and is utilizing its functions in
this current action.
As was discussed in EPA’s October
29, 2018 (83 FR 54300) proposal, the
EPA reviewed the four facilities’
alternative VOC control plans and
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) analyses submitted
with New Jersey’s SIP revision. The
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
concluded and the RACT analyses
concluded that: (1) Installing domes on
25 out of the 51 EFRT currently lacking
them in accordance with the proposed
schedule which identifies the doming
dates for some tanks beyond the 2020
compliance date as authorized under
NJAC 7:27–16.17, is economically and
technologically feasible and therefore
RACT and (2) doming the remaining 26
EFRT currently without domes is not
E:\FR\FM\11OCR1.SGM
11OCR1
54786
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
economically and technologically
feasible and therefore not RACT. A full
summary, including RACT
requirements, is included in the
technical support document (TSD) that
is contained in the EPA’s docket
assigned to this Federal Register
document.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
II. The EPA’s Evaluation of New
Jersey’s Submittals
The four facilities’ source-specific SIP
revisions found that the doming of the
total inventory of EFRT was not RACT,
but the doming of 25 out of 51 EFRT on
a delayed proposed schedule was
technologically and economically
feasible pursuant to the New Jersey SIP
and found that doming the remaining 26
was not economically feasible. The EPA
has determined that the economic
analyses regarding doming identified in
the source-specific SIP revisions are
consistent with the NJDEP’s VOC RACT
regulation and the EPA’s rules and
guidance. A detailed discussion of the
doming requirements, schedules and
EPA’s evaluation can be found in the
October 29, 2018 proposal and will not
be restated here. See 83 FR 54300
(October 29, 2018).
III. Comments Received in Response to
EPA’s Proposed Action
In response to EPA’s October 29, 2018
proposed approval of the source-specific
revisions to the New Jersey State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8-hour
ozone for Paulsboro Refining, Buckeye
Port Reading Terminal, Buckeye
Pennsauken Terminal, and Phillips 66
Company’s Linden facility, the EPA
received public comments from five
Commenters during the 30-day public
comment period. After reviewing the
comments, the EPA has determined that
two Commenters provided feedback that
is outside the scope of our proposed
action or fails to identify any material
issue necessitating a response. The
comments do not raise issues relevant to
the EPA’s proposed action, therefore,
the EPA will not provide a specific
response to these comments. The EPA
did, however, receive comments from
three Commenters that are relevant and
significant to the EPA’s proposed action,
warranting a response from the EPA.
The relevant comments are summarized
below and followed by an EPA
response. All comments submitted may
be viewed under Docket ID Number
EPA–R02–OAR–2018–0621 on the
https://www.regulations.gov website.
Comment: According to the Paulsboro
RACT analysis the cost estimate to
dome all 21 of the facility’s ERFTs is in
the range of $19,000–149,000 per ton
VOC reduced. The lower limit of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Oct 10, 2019
Jkt 250001
$19,000 is within the State’s definition
of what is economically feasible. The
EPA should reverse the NJDEP’s
decision to allow this facility not to
dome eleven of its 21 EFRT,
furthermore, the EFRT should be domed
six months ahead of what is expected
under the source-specific SIP revision.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the
cost of doming Paulsboro’s total
inventory of 21 ERFT is economically
feasible and that the timeline for
completing the doming requirement
should be six months sooner than in the
source-specific SIP revision. EPA
disagrees $19,000 is within New Jersey’s
range of economically feasible RACT
control. The commenter did not provide
any documentation to support the
statement that the lower limit of $19,000
is within the State’s definition of what
is economically feasible. On the
contrary, New Jersey’s SIP revision
specifically states the Paulsboro RACT
analysis estimates the cost to dome all
21 of the facility’s ERFTs is in the range
of $19,000–149,000 per ton VOC
reduced, and that this is not costeffective for meeting RACT. Therefore,
as authorized in the New Jersey SIP, the
facility developed a cost-effective
alternative plan to reduce VOC
emissions (i.e., the alternative VOC
control plan).
As for doming considered to be
RACT, the EPA recognizes the doming
provision in NJAC 7:27–16.2 is intended
to cover situations in which doming an
EFRT is RACT (that is, when
implementation of the action is both
economically and technologically
feasible) and that facilities are allowed,
under NJAC 7:27–16.17 to submit an
alternative VOC control plan where
implementation of the prescribed RACT
is demonstrated by the facilities to be
economically or technologically
infeasible as applied to their specific
operations. This alternative VOC control
plan provision is intended to cover caseby-case circumstances for facilities to
explore cost effective options for VOC
emission reduction techniques. The
EPA also takes notice of the fact that the
facilities’ calculated lower limit of
$19,000 per ton VOC emission reduced,
is well above what EPA has historically
defined as economically feasible (i.e.,
$160–1300).1 Furthermore, contrary to
the statement by the comment, the 2007
New Jersey RACT Plan (i.e., State RACT
rules) approved by the EPA and
discussed in the EPA’s October 29, 2018
(83 FR 54300) proposal, do not include
1 EPA guidance in 1994 indicated States should
consider in their RACT determinations technologies
that achieve 30–50 percent reduction within a cost
range of $160–1300 per ton of NOX emissions
reduced. See 70 FR 71652.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
a specific dollar amount. Thus, the four
facilities submitted an alternative VOC
control plan and NJDEP has approved,
pursuant to the New Jersey ozone SIP,
which is the subject of this rulemaking.
Paulsboro, and the other facilities
under this rulemaking, considered the
Federal and state RACT requirements,
determining that the cost of doming the
total inventory of EFRT by the
compliance deadline is beyond the
range of what traditionally EPA and the
State would consider RACT. The intent
of the alternative VOC control plan, as
authorized under NJAC 7:27–16.17, is to
create an alternative to the requirement
to dome the facility’s total inventory of
EFRT that are subject to the doming
requirement under NJAC 7:27–16.2
(‘‘doming requirement’’), because the
facility has demonstrated that doming
the tanks by the compliance date is not
economically feasible under the State’s
RACT Plan. Under the alternative VOC
control plan, the facility will follow an
alternative implementation schedule
(‘‘Alternative Implementation
Schedule’’) in complying with the
doming requirement on the identified
tanks, as authorized under NJAC 7:27–
16.17(d)(2)(x). Under NJAC 7:27–
16.2(p)(2)(ii), the facility can submit a
facility-wide VOC control plan with an
implementation schedule that, among
other requirements, ‘‘shall be consistent
with the facility’s schedule for tank
removal from service for normal
inspection and maintenance.’’ The
facility’s Alternative Implementation
Schedule, as set forth in its alternative
VOC control plan, is based on the
facility’s 15–20-year maintenance
schedule for removing tanks from
service for inspection and maintenance;
the Alternative Implementation
Schedule will allow the facility to
achieve compliance in a cost reasonable
manner. See www.regulations.gov EPA–
R02–OAR–2018–0621, Final TSD
Paulsboro Buckeye Phillips. According
to the facility’s RACT analysis cost
table, (see www.regulations.gov EPA–
R02–OAR–2018–0621, Paulsboro SIP
revision EFRT domes 12 10 2015,
Enclosure 7, Attachment 1), doming the
set of tanks that are designated for
compliance by the 2020 compliance
date is economically feasible for those
tanks because the annualized costs of
installation and maintenance of the
domes are within the State’s RACT Plan
considering the facility’s business
model. By contrast, the annualized costs
of installation and maintenance of the
domes for tanks that are following the
Alternative Implementation Schedule to
comply after the default 2020
compliance date are beyond RACT
E:\FR\FM\11OCR1.SGM
11OCR1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
because it is not economically feasible
to dome them by compliance date.
Doming these tanks would be too costly
and unreasonable to dome tanks that are
not out-of-service. According to the
facility’s RACT analysis cost table,
generally, the group of tanks following
the Alternative Implementation
Schedule has higher total costs (i.e.,
maintenance, administrative, and
annualized) than the tanks being domed
by the default compliance date, a
difference of approximately $119,000
more. The facility’s costs for doming are
based on the EPA Control Cost Manual
(see https://www.epa.gov/economicand-cost-analysis-air-pollutionregulations/cost-reports-and-guidanceair-pollution) using a 7% interest over a
20-year useful life for each dome. The
proposed Alternative Implementation
Schedule in the alternative VOC control
plan allows for the facility to spread the
cost of installing and maintaining the
domes over a more reasonable timeline;
this phased approach allows the facility
to minimize interference with normal
operation while achieving sufficient
VOC emission reductions to support the
State’s Ozone NAAQS attainment goals.
With respect to the comment to
require doming on the EFRT to be
completed six months ahead of the
proposed dates, EPA believes this is
unwarranted. Installing the domes on a
schedule earlier than what the facilities
provided in their analyses is not
economically feasible and therefore not
RACT. Ideally, domes should be
installed after the tank is completely
empty and out of service with ideal
environmental weather conditions,
which makes timing important. The
schedules outlined in the facilities’
alternative VOC control plans allow
them flexibility to schedule installation
of the domes during ideal conditions
and allow for continuation of normal
operating procedures. New Jersey has
exercised its authority under NJAC
7:27–16.17(d) and has considered the
facilities’ proposed schedule for
completion as a criterion in determining
that the alternative control plans are
sufficient.
Comment: The EPA cannot approve
the EFRT dome deadline extensions as
they exceed the regulatory and statutory
mandate that RACT must be
implemented ‘‘as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than 3 years.’’
Title 40 CFR 51.1112(a)(3) requires ‘‘The
state shall provide for implementation
of RACT as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than January 1 of the 5th
year after the effective date of
designation for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Oct 10, 2019
Jkt 250001
Response: The current action is
approval of a source-specific SIP, not
the overall State RACT SIP. Given that,
the overall State 2008 RACT effective
date is March 12, 2008, and the EPA
approved the overall State’s RACT SIP
revision to address the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS on May 15, 2009, within
the statutory 24-month deadline for
implementing RACT 40 CFR
51.1112(a)(3) applies to the overall
implementation of the State’s RACT SIP.
RACT compliance for a source-specific
RACT determination submitted as a SIP
revision, as we have in this rule making,
is largely based on when the State
submits and EPA acts on the SIP
revision.
As stated in the previous response,
installing the domes on a schedule
earlier than what the facilities provided
in their analyses is not economically
feasible and therefore not RACT.
Therefore, installation of the domes by
2017 for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS and
earlier for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS, as
the commenter suggests, would not be
RACT because it is not economically
feasible.
Comment: The EPA cannot approve
this source-specific SIP revision because
New Jersey failed to provide an antibacksliding analysis as required under
sections 110 and 172 of the CAA. As the
Subchapter 16 is approved into the
ozone SIP and requires all EFRT in
Range III to be domed by no later than
2020, any exemption to this rule must
consider anti-backsliding. Furthermore,
New Jersey is part of both the New York
non-attainment area and the ozone
transport area where VOCs from tanks
like these can impede area’s ability to
attain the ozone standard.
Response: The EPA recognizes the
applicability of section 110(l) of the
CAA for source-specific SIP revisions,
but in this instance, EPA disagrees there
is a cause for disapproval. Section 110(l)
of the CAA prohibits the EPA from
approving revisions to a SIP if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other requirement of
the CAA. In a circumstance such as that
presented here, where approval of the
RACT alternative (i.e., the sourcespecific determination) would impact
air quality in a nonattainment area that
is required to have an attainment
demonstration, any attainment
demonstration for the area must account
for the source-specific RACT, and may
do so: (1) By showing that the
attainment demonstration, in fact,
accounts for the source-specific RACT
alternative; or (2) where the attainment
demonstration has not yet been
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54787
approved, by showing (e.g., by
presenting information to be included in
a forthcoming attainment
demonstration) that the attainment
demonstration will be able to properly
account for emissions attributable to the
proposed RACT alternative. For
example, the information could show
that the forthcoming attainment
demonstration will not rely on emission
reductions for the source category as a
whole, or that it will reduce the
emissions decreases credited to the
source category by the estimated
amount of increases associated with
source-specific RACT determinations.
The EPA has determined that this SIP
revision does not interfere with any
applicable New Jersey ozone plan
concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress of the NAAQS, or any
applicable requirement of the CAA. The
‘‘applicable New Jersey ozone plan
concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress’’ for purposes of this
SIP revision is New Jersey’s attainment
demonstration SIP for the 2008 ozone
standard. Two of the four facilities
addressed in this SIP revision are
located in the northern portion of the
State as part of the New York-Northern
New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT
(also referred to as the New York
Metropolitan Area or NYMA) moderate
nonattainment area. The comment is
correct that Subchapter 16 (NJAC 7:27–
16.2) is approved into the New Jersey
ozone SIP and the requirement for all
EFRT in Range III to be domed by 2020
is part of the SIP. While projected
emission controls in the New Jersey
2008 ozone attainment modeling 2
included ozone projections to 2017 for
bulk petroleum storage degassing,
cleaning, landing, and slotted guide
poles, the emission controls for placing
domes on EFRT were not part of the
modeling and no VOC emission
reduction credits (neither for all of the
EFRT being domed nor a percentage of
them being domed) were relied upon for
attainment nor reasonable further
progress of the ozone NAAQS. The
ozone attainment date for 1997 and
2008 ozone NAAQS for the NYMA are
June 15, 2010 and June 20, 2018,
respectively, but the doming
requirement under NJAC 7:27–16 has a
future compliance date that is beyond
this current action, and beyond the
attainment date for both the 1997 and
2008 ozone NAAQS. New Jersey
2 NJDEP State Implementation Plan Revision for
Attainment and Maintenance of the 75 ppb and 85
ppb Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, Ozone Attainment Demonstrations for
the Northern New Jersey-New York-Connecticut
Nonattainment Area, https://www.state.nj.us/dep/
baqp/ozoneppb.html.
E:\FR\FM\11OCR1.SGM
11OCR1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
54788
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
recognized that (1) requiring doming of
EFRT is an aggressive VOC emission
reduction requirement, and (2) when
promulgating these aggressive VOC
emission reduction requirements to
require doming of EFRT, individual
facilities may demonstrate, consistent
with the SIP approved provisions of
NJAC 7:27–16.2 and 16.17, that these
requirements are not technologically
and economically feasible or RACT as
applied to their operations, and
therefore, New Jersey did not rely on the
maximum benefit of all, nor a
percentage of the EFRT being domed in
the applicable New Jersey ozone
attainment plan. There can be no threat
of backsliding of the NAAQS for these
two source-specific SIP revisions.
The other two facilities addressed in
this revision are located in the southern
area of the State, Paulsboro and
Pennsauken, and part of the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City
(PA–NJ–MD–DE) ozone nonattainment
area that is classified as marginal
nonattainment for both the 2008 and
2015 ozone NAAQS so the State has no
requirement to conduct attainment
modeling nor to submit an attainment or
reasonable further progress plan.
Therefore, a comparison of the VOC
emissions from the combined 12 EFRT
(11 EFRT in Paulsboro and 1 EFRT in
Pennsauken) not being domed to the
EPA approved 2011 VOC emissions
(See, 82 FR 44099 (September 21, 2017))
for the New Jersey portion of
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City
ozone nonattainment area to show that
the difference in emissions between the
presumptive RACT and source-specific
RACT is so small that it should not
interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS or any other
applicable requirement. The combined
VOC emissions by not doming the 12
EFRT is approximately 14.98 tons per
year (see the TSD for this action) or
0.041 tons per day compared to the total
VOC emissions for the PA–NJ–MD–DE
area of 199.09 tons per day which
correlates to approximately 0.021
percentage change in VOC emissions.
Based on this minimal VOC emissions
change, EPA has determined there to be
no threat of backsliding of the NAAQS
for these two source-specific SIP
revisions.
EPA also notes that New Jersey will
have to account for the air quality
benefits achieved from the doming of
any EFRT in any future applicable
ozone attainment or reasonable further
progress plans where the planning
milestones (i.e., attainment date or
projection year emissions inventory) are
beyond the applicable compliance date
for doming the EFRT. Specifically, New
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Oct 10, 2019
Jkt 250001
Jersey will have to account for the
doming of any EFRT in the ozone
attainment plan for the 2008 serious
nonattainment NYMA area which is due
August 3, 2020 and must show
attainment by July 20, 2021. See 84 FR
44238, August 23, 2019.
Lastly, section 172(e) of the CAA
provides that when the Administrator
relaxes a NAAQS, the EPA must ensure
that all areas which have not attained
that NAAQS maintain ‘‘controls which
are no less stringent than the controls
applicable to areas designated
nonattainment before such relaxation.’’
Although section 172(e) has never
applied directly to EPA’s ozone
standards, because those ozone
standards have only increased in
stringency over time, the EPA has
applied the principles of section 172(e)
to develop anti-backsliding regulations
following revocation of the 1-hour and
1997 ozone standards. For this action,
the procedure for approving alternatives
pursuant to NJAC 7:27–16.2 and 16.17
has already been approved by the EPA
(See, 75 FR 45483 (August 3, 2010)) and
is in the New Jersey SIP, so for the
purposes of 172(e) the EPA is not
altering the RACT provision and is
executing it as approved.
IV. Summary of EPA’s Final Action
The NJDEP determined that the four
facilities discussed above could avoid
doming 26 EFRT, because requiring the
four facilities’ total inventory of 51
EFRT to be domed by the default
compliance date under NJAC 7:27–16
would be economically infeasible and
not RACT. Specifically, the EPA is
approving the NJDEP SIP revisions for
8-hour ozone to allow the Paulsboro
facility not to dome eleven EFRT; the
Buckeye facilities not to dome five
EFRT; and the Phillips 66 Company
facility not to dome ten EFRT. The EPA
is also approving the requirement to
dome the remaining 25 EFRT in
accordance with the schedule set out in
the facilities’ alternative control plan.
This SIP revision would require the
facilities to dome eight of the 25 EFRT
on a delayed timeline due to the
economic infeasibility of doming the
tanks by 2020 (and convert one EFRT to
an internal floating roof tank).
As stated in EPA’s October 29, 2018
proposal, NJAC 7:27–16.17 establishes
procedures and standards for
alternative, facility-specific VOC control
requirements. Under NJAC 7:27–
16.17(l)(2), a source seeking approval for
facility-specific controls must modify its
Title V operating permit to incorporate
the approved alternative control plan
and comply with the plan’s
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
requirements in order to comply with
NJAC 7:27–16.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the
incorporation by reference of the
provisions described above in Section
IV. Final Action. EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials
generally available through https://
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 2 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the
State Implementation Plan, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the Clean
Air Act as of the effective date of the
final rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and
will be incorporated by reference in the
next update to the SIP compilation. See
62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
VI. 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, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided they meet the criteria of the
CAA. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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
E:\FR\FM\11OCR1.SGM
11OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Public Law 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 the 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 rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and the
EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by December 10,
2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
54789
List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 23, 2019.
Peter D. Lopez,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart FF—New Jersey
2. Section 52.1570(d) is amended by
adding entries for ‘‘Paulsboro Refinery,’’
‘‘Buckeye Port Reading Terminal,’’
‘‘Buckeye Pennsauken Terminal,’’ and
‘‘Phillips 66 Company Linden’’ to the
end of the table to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1570
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
*
*
EPA—APPROVED NEW JERSEY SOURCE-SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
Name of source
EPA approval date
*
Paulsboro Refinery ...............
*
PI 55829; BOP 180002
U900.
Buckeye Port Reading Terminal.
PI 17996, BOP 160001 U8
6/13/2018
10/11/2019, [Insert citation
of publication].
Buckeye Pennsauken Terminal.
Phillips 66 Company Linden
PI 51606, BOP 130002 U1
8/21/2014
PI 41805, BOP 170004 U16
1/26/2018
10/11/2019, [Insert citation
of publication].
10/11/2019, [Insert citation
of publication].
*
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
State
effective
date
Identifier No.
*
*
*
*
6/26/2018
*
*
10/11/2019, [Insert citation
of publication].
Comments
*
*
The External floating roof tanks (EFRTs) that are not
being domed include tank numbers 725, 802, 1023,
1027, 2869, 2940, 2941, 3174, S8O, S8I, and S82.
The EFRTs that may complete doming after the regulatory deadline include tank numbers 1063, 1116,
1320, 1065, and 1066.
The EFRTs that are not being domed include tank numbers 7930, 7934, 7937, and 7945. The EFRTs that
may complete doming after the regulatory deadline include tank numbers 1219 and 1178.
The EFRT that are not being domed include tank number 2018.
The EFRTs that are not being domed include tank numbers T52, T105, T119, T134, T244, T349, T350, T354,
T355, and T356. The EFRT that may complete doming
after the regulatory deadline include tank number
T234.
*
[FR Doc. 2019–22108 Filed 10–10–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Oct 10, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\11OCR1.SGM
11OCR1
54790
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Background
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 191007–0057]
RIN 0648–XX009
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Golden Tilefish Fishery; 2020
Specifications
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are implementing 2020
specifications for the commercial golden
tilefish fishery, including the annual
catch and total allowable landings
limits. This action establishes allowable
harvest levels and other management
measures to prevent overfishing while
allowing optimum yield, consistent
with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act and
the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan.
DATES: Effective November 1, 2019,
through October 31, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura Hansen, Fishery Management
Specialist, 978–281–9225.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council manages the
golden tilefish fishery under the Tilefish
Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which
outlines the Council’s process for setting
annual specifications. Regulations
implementing the Tilefish FMP appear
at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and N,
which require the Council to
recommend acceptable biological catch
(ABC), annual catch limit (ACL), annual
catch target (ACT), total allowable
landings (TAL), and other management
measures, for up to 3 years at a time. On
September 7, 2017, we proposed 2018
specifications for the golden tilefish
fishery and announced projected
specifications for 2019 and 2020 based
on Council recommendations (82 FR
42266). Public comment was accepted
through September 22, 2017. We
published a final rule implementing the
2018 specifications on November 7,
2017 (82 FR 51578).
On October 23, 2017, we published a
proposed rule (82 FR 48967) to
implement Framework Adjustment 2 to
the Tilefish FMP (Framework 2), and
accepted public comment through
November 7, 2017. A final rule
implementing Framework 2 was
published on March 13, 2018 (83 FR
10803). One provision of Framework 2
changed how assumed discards are
accounted for in the specifications
setting process. As a result, the
Framework 2 final rule adjusted the
previously published 2018
specifications and projected
specifications for 2019 and 2020.
Additional background information
regarding the development of these
specifications was provided in these
rules and is not repeated here. We
published a final rule implementing the
2019 specifications on October 26, 2018
(83 FR 54055).
At the end of each fishing year, we
evaluate catch information and
determine if the ACL has been
exceeded. If the ACL is exceeded, the
regulations at 50 CFR 648.293 require a
pound-for-pound reduction in a
subsequent fishing year. During fishing
year 2018 and thus far in fishing year
2019, there have been no annual catch
limit or total allowable landings
overages, nor is there any new biological
information that would require altering
the projected 2020 specifications. As a
result, we are announcing the final
specifications for fishing year 2020, as
projected in the Framework 2 final rule
(83 FR 10803; March 13, 2018), and in
the final rule implementing the 2019
specifications (83 FR 54055) (See Table
1).
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF GOLDEN TILEFISH SPECIFICATIONS
2019
mt
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
Overfishing Limit ..............................................................................................
ABC ..................................................................................................................
ACL ..................................................................................................................
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) ACT ................................................................
Incidental ACT .................................................................................................
IFQ TAL ...........................................................................................................
Incidental TAL ..................................................................................................
As in previous years, no golden
tilefish quota has been allocated for
research set-aside. All other
management measures in the golden
tilefish fishery will remain unchanged
for the 2020 fishing year. The incidental
trip limit will stay 500 lb (226.8 kg), or
50 percent, by weight, of all species
being landed, including tilefish;
whichever is less. The recreational catch
limit will remain eight fish per-angler,
per-trip. Annual IFQ allocations will be
issued to individual quota shareholders
in mid-October, before the November 1
start of the fishing year.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Oct 10, 2019
Jkt 250001
million lb
1,098
742
742
705
37
705
33
The fishery management plan allows
for the previous year’s specifications to
remain in place until replaced by a
subsequent specifications action
(rollover provision). As a result, the
2019 specifications remain in effect
until replaced by the 2020 specifications
included in this rule.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS
Assistant Administrator has determined
that this rule is consistent with the
Tilefish FMP, other provisions of the
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Final 2020
2.421
1.636
1.636
1.554
0.082
1.554
0.072
mt
million lb
1,039
742
742
705
37
705
33
2.291
1.636
1.636
1.554
0.082
1.554
0.072
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other
applicable laws.
The Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NOAA (AA) finds it is
impracticable, unnecessary, and
contrary to the public interest to provide
for prior notice and an opportunity for
public comment, pursuant to authority
set forth at U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The
proposed rule for Framework 2 (82 FR
48967, October 23, 2017) provided the
public with the opportunity to comment
on the projected specifications for 2019
and 2020, and the specifications for
fishing year 2020 remain the same as
projected in the Framework 2
E:\FR\FM\11OCR1.SGM
11OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 198 (Friday, October 11, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54785-54790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22108]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0621, FRL-10000-91-Region 2]
Approval of Source-Specific Air Quality Implementation Plans; New
Jersey
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
source-specific revisions to the New Jersey State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for 8-hour ozone for Paulsboro Refining, Buckeye Port Reading
Terminal, Buckeye Pennsauken Terminal, and Phillips 66 Company's Linden
facility. The current source-specific SIP revision addresses the
Reasonably Available Control Technology for volatile organic compounds
(VOC) for external floating roof tanks. The intended effect of this
revision is to address the Federal and state regulatory obligations for
external floating roof tanks that store VOC with vapor pressure three
(3) or more pounds per square inch absolute to be equipped with a domed
roof.
DATES: This final rule is effective on November 12, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0621. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Longo, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3565, or by email at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's Submittals
III. Comments Received in Response to EPA's Proposed Action
IV. Summary of EPA Final Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
The EPA is approving the revision to the New Jersey SIP for
attainment and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the following major VOC facilities:
Paulsboro Refining, Buckeye Port Reading Terminal, Buckeye Pennsauken
Terminal, and Phillips 66 Company's Linden facility. Specifically,
under New Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC), Title 7, Chapter 27,
Subchapter 16 (``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile
Organic Compounds''), Section 2 (``VOC Stationary Storage Tanks''), all
external floating roof tanks (EFRT) in Range III with vapor pressure
three (3) or more pounds per square inch absolute (psia) and that were
in existence on May 18, 2009 must be equipped with a domed roof the
first time the tank is degassed after May 19, 2009, and by no later
than May 1, 2020. See NJAC 7:27-16.2(l)(4). However, NJAC 7:27-16.17(a-
q) sets forth procedures and standards for establishing alternative and
facility-specific VOC control requirements for situations in which,
among other things, a facility can demonstrate that the control
requirements pursuant to NJAC 7:27-16.2 are not economically or
technologically feasible as applied to its operations. The EPA approved
NJAC 7:27-16.17(a-q) into the New Jersey SIP in 2010 (See 75 FR 45483
(August 3, 2010)) and is utilizing its functions in this current
action.
As was discussed in EPA's October 29, 2018 (83 FR 54300) proposal,
the EPA reviewed the four facilities' alternative VOC control plans and
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) analyses submitted with
New Jersey's SIP revision. The New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) concluded and the RACT analyses concluded that: (1)
Installing domes on 25 out of the 51 EFRT currently lacking them in
accordance with the proposed schedule which identifies the doming dates
for some tanks beyond the 2020 compliance date as authorized under NJAC
7:27-16.17, is economically and technologically feasible and therefore
RACT and (2) doming the remaining 26 EFRT currently without domes is
not
[[Page 54786]]
economically and technologically feasible and therefore not RACT. A
full summary, including RACT requirements, is included in the technical
support document (TSD) that is contained in the EPA's docket assigned
to this Federal Register document.
II. The EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's Submittals
The four facilities' source-specific SIP revisions found that the
doming of the total inventory of EFRT was not RACT, but the doming of
25 out of 51 EFRT on a delayed proposed schedule was technologically
and economically feasible pursuant to the New Jersey SIP and found that
doming the remaining 26 was not economically feasible. The EPA has
determined that the economic analyses regarding doming identified in
the source-specific SIP revisions are consistent with the NJDEP's VOC
RACT regulation and the EPA's rules and guidance. A detailed discussion
of the doming requirements, schedules and EPA's evaluation can be found
in the October 29, 2018 proposal and will not be restated here. See 83
FR 54300 (October 29, 2018).
III. Comments Received in Response to EPA's Proposed Action
In response to EPA's October 29, 2018 proposed approval of the
source-specific revisions to the New Jersey State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for 8-hour ozone for Paulsboro Refining, Buckeye Port Reading
Terminal, Buckeye Pennsauken Terminal, and Phillips 66 Company's Linden
facility, the EPA received public comments from five Commenters during
the 30-day public comment period. After reviewing the comments, the EPA
has determined that two Commenters provided feedback that is outside
the scope of our proposed action or fails to identify any material
issue necessitating a response. The comments do not raise issues
relevant to the EPA's proposed action, therefore, the EPA will not
provide a specific response to these comments. The EPA did, however,
receive comments from three Commenters that are relevant and
significant to the EPA's proposed action, warranting a response from
the EPA. The relevant comments are summarized below and followed by an
EPA response. All comments submitted may be viewed under Docket ID
Number EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0621 on the https://www.regulations.gov website.
Comment: According to the Paulsboro RACT analysis the cost estimate
to dome all 21 of the facility's ERFTs is in the range of $19,000-
149,000 per ton VOC reduced. The lower limit of $19,000 is within the
State's definition of what is economically feasible. The EPA should
reverse the NJDEP's decision to allow this facility not to dome eleven
of its 21 EFRT, furthermore, the EFRT should be domed six months ahead
of what is expected under the source-specific SIP revision.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the cost of doming Paulsboro's
total inventory of 21 ERFT is economically feasible and that the
timeline for completing the doming requirement should be six months
sooner than in the source-specific SIP revision. EPA disagrees $19,000
is within New Jersey's range of economically feasible RACT control. The
commenter did not provide any documentation to support the statement
that the lower limit of $19,000 is within the State's definition of
what is economically feasible. On the contrary, New Jersey's SIP
revision specifically states the Paulsboro RACT analysis estimates the
cost to dome all 21 of the facility's ERFTs is in the range of $19,000-
149,000 per ton VOC reduced, and that this is not cost-effective for
meeting RACT. Therefore, as authorized in the New Jersey SIP, the
facility developed a cost-effective alternative plan to reduce VOC
emissions (i.e., the alternative VOC control plan).
As for doming considered to be RACT, the EPA recognizes the doming
provision in NJAC 7:27-16.2 is intended to cover situations in which
doming an EFRT is RACT (that is, when implementation of the action is
both economically and technologically feasible) and that facilities are
allowed, under NJAC 7:27-16.17 to submit an alternative VOC control
plan where implementation of the prescribed RACT is demonstrated by the
facilities to be economically or technologically infeasible as applied
to their specific operations. This alternative VOC control plan
provision is intended to cover case-by-case circumstances for
facilities to explore cost effective options for VOC emission reduction
techniques. The EPA also takes notice of the fact that the facilities'
calculated lower limit of $19,000 per ton VOC emission reduced, is well
above what EPA has historically defined as economically feasible (i.e.,
$160-1300).\1\ Furthermore, contrary to the statement by the comment,
the 2007 New Jersey RACT Plan (i.e., State RACT rules) approved by the
EPA and discussed in the EPA's October 29, 2018 (83 FR 54300) proposal,
do not include a specific dollar amount. Thus, the four facilities
submitted an alternative VOC control plan and NJDEP has approved,
pursuant to the New Jersey ozone SIP, which is the subject of this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA guidance in 1994 indicated States should consider in
their RACT determinations technologies that achieve 30-50 percent
reduction within a cost range of $160-1300 per ton of NOX
emissions reduced. See 70 FR 71652.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paulsboro, and the other facilities under this rulemaking,
considered the Federal and state RACT requirements, determining that
the cost of doming the total inventory of EFRT by the compliance
deadline is beyond the range of what traditionally EPA and the State
would consider RACT. The intent of the alternative VOC control plan, as
authorized under NJAC 7:27-16.17, is to create an alternative to the
requirement to dome the facility's total inventory of EFRT that are
subject to the doming requirement under NJAC 7:27-16.2 (``doming
requirement''), because the facility has demonstrated that doming the
tanks by the compliance date is not economically feasible under the
State's RACT Plan. Under the alternative VOC control plan, the facility
will follow an alternative implementation schedule (``Alternative
Implementation Schedule'') in complying with the doming requirement on
the identified tanks, as authorized under NJAC 7:27-16.17(d)(2)(x).
Under NJAC 7:27-16.2(p)(2)(ii), the facility can submit a facility-wide
VOC control plan with an implementation schedule that, among other
requirements, ``shall be consistent with the facility's schedule for
tank removal from service for normal inspection and maintenance.'' The
facility's Alternative Implementation Schedule, as set forth in its
alternative VOC control plan, is based on the facility's 15-20-year
maintenance schedule for removing tanks from service for inspection and
maintenance; the Alternative Implementation Schedule will allow the
facility to achieve compliance in a cost reasonable manner. See
www.regulations.gov EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0621, Final TSD Paulsboro Buckeye
Phillips. According to the facility's RACT analysis cost table, (see
www.regulations.gov EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0621, Paulsboro SIP revision EFRT
domes 12 10 2015, Enclosure 7, Attachment 1), doming the set of tanks
that are designated for compliance by the 2020 compliance date is
economically feasible for those tanks because the annualized costs of
installation and maintenance of the domes are within the State's RACT
Plan considering the facility's business model. By contrast, the
annualized costs of installation and maintenance of the domes for tanks
that are following the Alternative Implementation Schedule to comply
after the default 2020 compliance date are beyond RACT
[[Page 54787]]
because it is not economically feasible to dome them by compliance
date. Doming these tanks would be too costly and unreasonable to dome
tanks that are not out-of-service. According to the facility's RACT
analysis cost table, generally, the group of tanks following the
Alternative Implementation Schedule has higher total costs (i.e.,
maintenance, administrative, and annualized) than the tanks being domed
by the default compliance date, a difference of approximately $119,000
more. The facility's costs for doming are based on the EPA Control Cost
Manual (see https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution) using a
7% interest over a 20-year useful life for each dome. The proposed
Alternative Implementation Schedule in the alternative VOC control plan
allows for the facility to spread the cost of installing and
maintaining the domes over a more reasonable timeline; this phased
approach allows the facility to minimize interference with normal
operation while achieving sufficient VOC emission reductions to support
the State's Ozone NAAQS attainment goals.
With respect to the comment to require doming on the EFRT to be
completed six months ahead of the proposed dates, EPA believes this is
unwarranted. Installing the domes on a schedule earlier than what the
facilities provided in their analyses is not economically feasible and
therefore not RACT. Ideally, domes should be installed after the tank
is completely empty and out of service with ideal environmental weather
conditions, which makes timing important. The schedules outlined in the
facilities' alternative VOC control plans allow them flexibility to
schedule installation of the domes during ideal conditions and allow
for continuation of normal operating procedures. New Jersey has
exercised its authority under NJAC 7:27-16.17(d) and has considered the
facilities' proposed schedule for completion as a criterion in
determining that the alternative control plans are sufficient.
Comment: The EPA cannot approve the EFRT dome deadline extensions
as they exceed the regulatory and statutory mandate that RACT must be
implemented ``as expeditiously as practicable but no later than 3
years.'' Title 40 CFR 51.1112(a)(3) requires ``The state shall provide
for implementation of RACT as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than January 1 of the 5th year after the effective date of designation
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.''
Response: The current action is approval of a source-specific SIP,
not the overall State RACT SIP. Given that, the overall State 2008 RACT
effective date is March 12, 2008, and the EPA approved the overall
State's RACT SIP revision to address the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on May
15, 2009, within the statutory 24-month deadline for implementing RACT
40 CFR 51.1112(a)(3) applies to the overall implementation of the
State's RACT SIP. RACT compliance for a source-specific RACT
determination submitted as a SIP revision, as we have in this rule
making, is largely based on when the State submits and EPA acts on the
SIP revision.
As stated in the previous response, installing the domes on a
schedule earlier than what the facilities provided in their analyses is
not economically feasible and therefore not RACT. Therefore,
installation of the domes by 2017 for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS and earlier
for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS, as the commenter suggests, would not be RACT
because it is not economically feasible.
Comment: The EPA cannot approve this source-specific SIP revision
because New Jersey failed to provide an anti-backsliding analysis as
required under sections 110 and 172 of the CAA. As the Subchapter 16 is
approved into the ozone SIP and requires all EFRT in Range III to be
domed by no later than 2020, any exemption to this rule must consider
anti-backsliding. Furthermore, New Jersey is part of both the New York
non-attainment area and the ozone transport area where VOCs from tanks
like these can impede area's ability to attain the ozone standard.
Response: The EPA recognizes the applicability of section 110(l) of
the CAA for source-specific SIP revisions, but in this instance, EPA
disagrees there is a cause for disapproval. Section 110(l) of the CAA
prohibits the EPA from approving revisions to a SIP if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress, or any other requirement of the CAA.
In a circumstance such as that presented here, where approval of the
RACT alternative (i.e., the source-specific determination) would impact
air quality in a nonattainment area that is required to have an
attainment demonstration, any attainment demonstration for the area
must account for the source-specific RACT, and may do so: (1) By
showing that the attainment demonstration, in fact, accounts for the
source-specific RACT alternative; or (2) where the attainment
demonstration has not yet been approved, by showing (e.g., by
presenting information to be included in a forthcoming attainment
demonstration) that the attainment demonstration will be able to
properly account for emissions attributable to the proposed RACT
alternative. For example, the information could show that the
forthcoming attainment demonstration will not rely on emission
reductions for the source category as a whole, or that it will reduce
the emissions decreases credited to the source category by the
estimated amount of increases associated with source-specific RACT
determinations.
The EPA has determined that this SIP revision does not interfere
with any applicable New Jersey ozone plan concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress of the NAAQS, or any applicable requirement
of the CAA. The ``applicable New Jersey ozone plan concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress'' for purposes of this SIP
revision is New Jersey's attainment demonstration SIP for the 2008
ozone standard. Two of the four facilities addressed in this SIP
revision are located in the northern portion of the State as part of
the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT (also referred
to as the New York Metropolitan Area or NYMA) moderate nonattainment
area. The comment is correct that Subchapter 16 (NJAC 7:27-16.2) is
approved into the New Jersey ozone SIP and the requirement for all EFRT
in Range III to be domed by 2020 is part of the SIP. While projected
emission controls in the New Jersey 2008 ozone attainment modeling \2\
included ozone projections to 2017 for bulk petroleum storage
degassing, cleaning, landing, and slotted guide poles, the emission
controls for placing domes on EFRT were not part of the modeling and no
VOC emission reduction credits (neither for all of the EFRT being domed
nor a percentage of them being domed) were relied upon for attainment
nor reasonable further progress of the ozone NAAQS. The ozone
attainment date for 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the NYMA are June 15,
2010 and June 20, 2018, respectively, but the doming requirement under
NJAC 7:27-16 has a future compliance date that is beyond this current
action, and beyond the attainment date for both the 1997 and 2008 ozone
NAAQS. New Jersey
[[Page 54788]]
recognized that (1) requiring doming of EFRT is an aggressive VOC
emission reduction requirement, and (2) when promulgating these
aggressive VOC emission reduction requirements to require doming of
EFRT, individual facilities may demonstrate, consistent with the SIP
approved provisions of NJAC 7:27-16.2 and 16.17, that these
requirements are not technologically and economically feasible or RACT
as applied to their operations, and therefore, New Jersey did not rely
on the maximum benefit of all, nor a percentage of the EFRT being domed
in the applicable New Jersey ozone attainment plan. There can be no
threat of backsliding of the NAAQS for these two source-specific SIP
revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NJDEP State Implementation Plan Revision for Attainment and
Maintenance of the 75 ppb and 85 ppb Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards, Ozone Attainment Demonstrations for the Northern
New Jersey-New York-Connecticut Nonattainment Area, https://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/ozoneppb.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other two facilities addressed in this revision are located in
the southern area of the State, Paulsboro and Pennsauken, and part of
the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City (PA-NJ-MD-DE) ozone
nonattainment area that is classified as marginal nonattainment for
both the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS so the State has no requirement to
conduct attainment modeling nor to submit an attainment or reasonable
further progress plan. Therefore, a comparison of the VOC emissions
from the combined 12 EFRT (11 EFRT in Paulsboro and 1 EFRT in
Pennsauken) not being domed to the EPA approved 2011 VOC emissions
(See, 82 FR 44099 (September 21, 2017)) for the New Jersey portion of
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City ozone nonattainment area to show
that the difference in emissions between the presumptive RACT and
source-specific RACT is so small that it should not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or any other applicable
requirement. The combined VOC emissions by not doming the 12 EFRT is
approximately 14.98 tons per year (see the TSD for this action) or
0.041 tons per day compared to the total VOC emissions for the PA-NJ-
MD-DE area of 199.09 tons per day which correlates to approximately
0.021 percentage change in VOC emissions. Based on this minimal VOC
emissions change, EPA has determined there to be no threat of
backsliding of the NAAQS for these two source-specific SIP revisions.
EPA also notes that New Jersey will have to account for the air
quality benefits achieved from the doming of any EFRT in any future
applicable ozone attainment or reasonable further progress plans where
the planning milestones (i.e., attainment date or projection year
emissions inventory) are beyond the applicable compliance date for
doming the EFRT. Specifically, New Jersey will have to account for the
doming of any EFRT in the ozone attainment plan for the 2008 serious
nonattainment NYMA area which is due August 3, 2020 and must show
attainment by July 20, 2021. See 84 FR 44238, August 23, 2019.
Lastly, section 172(e) of the CAA provides that when the
Administrator relaxes a NAAQS, the EPA must ensure that all areas which
have not attained that NAAQS maintain ``controls which are no less
stringent than the controls applicable to areas designated
nonattainment before such relaxation.'' Although section 172(e) has
never applied directly to EPA's ozone standards, because those ozone
standards have only increased in stringency over time, the EPA has
applied the principles of section 172(e) to develop anti-backsliding
regulations following revocation of the 1-hour and 1997 ozone
standards. For this action, the procedure for approving alternatives
pursuant to NJAC 7:27-16.2 and 16.17 has already been approved by the
EPA (See, 75 FR 45483 (August 3, 2010)) and is in the New Jersey SIP,
so for the purposes of 172(e) the EPA is not altering the RACT
provision and is executing it as approved.
IV. Summary of EPA's Final Action
The NJDEP determined that the four facilities discussed above could
avoid doming 26 EFRT, because requiring the four facilities' total
inventory of 51 EFRT to be domed by the default compliance date under
NJAC 7:27-16 would be economically infeasible and not RACT.
Specifically, the EPA is approving the NJDEP SIP revisions for 8-hour
ozone to allow the Paulsboro facility not to dome eleven EFRT; the
Buckeye facilities not to dome five EFRT; and the Phillips 66 Company
facility not to dome ten EFRT. The EPA is also approving the
requirement to dome the remaining 25 EFRT in accordance with the
schedule set out in the facilities' alternative control plan. This SIP
revision would require the facilities to dome eight of the 25 EFRT on a
delayed timeline due to the economic infeasibility of doming the tanks
by 2020 (and convert one EFRT to an internal floating roof tank).
As stated in EPA's October 29, 2018 proposal, NJAC 7:27-16.17
establishes procedures and standards for alternative, facility-specific
VOC control requirements. Under NJAC 7:27-16.17(l)(2), a source seeking
approval for facility-specific controls must modify its Title V
operating permit to incorporate the approved alternative control plan
and comply with the plan's requirements in order to comply with NJAC
7:27-16.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
provisions described above in Section IV. Final Action. EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 2 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these
materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State
Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the Clean Air Act as of the effective date of the final rulemaking
of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation. See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
VI. 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
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
[[Page 54789]]
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 the 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 rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to
apply in Indian country located in the state, and the EPA notes that it
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 10, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 23, 2019.
Peter D. Lopez,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart FF--New Jersey
0
2. Section 52.1570(d) is amended by adding entries for ``Paulsboro
Refinery,'' ``Buckeye Port Reading Terminal,'' ``Buckeye Pennsauken
Terminal,'' and ``Phillips 66 Company Linden'' to the end of the table
to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1570 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA--Approved New Jersey Source-Specific Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Identifier No. effective EPA approval date Comments
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Paulsboro Refinery.............. PI 55829; BOP 6/26/2018 10/11/2019, [Insert The External floating
180002 U900. citation of roof tanks (EFRTs)
publication]. that are not being
domed include tank
numbers 725, 802,
1023, 1027, 2869,
2940, 2941, 3174, S8O,
S8I, and S82. The
EFRTs that may
complete doming after
the regulatory
deadline include tank
numbers 1063, 1116,
1320, 1065, and 1066.
Buckeye Port Reading Terminal... PI 17996, BOP 6/13/2018 10/11/2019, [Insert The EFRTs that are not
160001 U8. citation of being domed include
publication]. tank numbers 7930,
7934, 7937, and 7945.
The EFRTs that may
complete doming after
the regulatory
deadline include tank
numbers 1219 and 1178.
Buckeye Pennsauken Terminal..... PI 51606, BOP 8/21/2014 10/11/2019, [Insert The EFRT that are not
130002 U1. citation of being domed include
publication]. tank number 2018.
Phillips 66 Company Linden...... PI 41805, BOP 1/26/2018 10/11/2019, [Insert The EFRTs that are not
170004 U16. citation of being domed include
publication]. tank numbers T52,
T105, T119, T134,
T244, T349, T350,
T354, T355, and T356.
The EFRT that may
complete doming after
the regulatory
deadline include tank
number T234.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-22108 Filed 10-10-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
