Environmental Protection Agency March 29, 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for eleven major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC). These sources are located in Pennsylvania. EPA is approving these revisions to establish RACT requirements in the SIP in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

EPA is proposing to approve Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions. The revisions pertain to regulations to control volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from solvent degreasing processes, cutback asphalt, and motor vehicle fuel dispensing facilities. The control of VOC emissions will help to attain and maintain national ambient air quality standards for ozone in Texas. This approval will make the revised regulations Federally enforceable.

This notice announces that the EPA Administrator has responded to five citizen petitions requesting EPA to object to operating permits issued to four facilities by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The Administrator has (1) denied in full a petition submitted by Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 342, Heat and Frost Insulators/Asbestos Workers Local 16, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 302, the Boilermakers Union Local 549 and the Laborers Union Local 324 (Unions) requesting that the Administrator object to the state operating permit issued to Chevron Products Company (Chevron) in Richmond, California; (2) partially granted and partially denied two petitions submitted by Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) requesting that the Administrator object to the state operating permits issued to Chevron in Richmond, California, and ConocoPhillips Company (Conoco) in Rodeo, California; and (3) partially granted and partially denied two petitions submitted by Our Children's Earth Foundation (OCE) requesting that the Administrator object to the state operating permits issued to Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co. (Tesoro) in Martinez, California, and Valero Refining Co. in Benicia, California (Valero). Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (Act), the petitioners may seek judicial review of any portion of the petitions which EPA denied in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date this notice appears in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 307 of the Act.

The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the Ecological Effects Subcommittee (EES) of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council). The EES will meet to discuss its draft advisory report in response to EPA's charge questions related to the Agency's Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, Revised Analytic Plan for EPA's Second Prospective Analysis, 1990-2020. The chartered Council will subsequently meet to review the draft advisory of the EES and consider it for approval and transmittal to the EPA Administrator.

The EPA is revising the regulatory finding that it issued in December 2000 pursuant to section 112(n)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and based on that revision, removing coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units (``coal- and oil-fired Utility Units'') from the CAA section 112(c) source category list. Section 112(n)(1)(A) of the CAA is the threshold statutory provision underlying today's action. That provision requires EPA to conduct a study to examine the hazards to public health that are reasonably anticipated to occur as the result of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from Utility Units after imposition of the requirements of the CAA. The provision also provides that EPA shall regulate Utility Units under section 112, but only if the Administrator determines that such regulation is both ``appropriate'' and ``necessary'' considering, among other things, the results of the study. EPA completed the study in 1998 (the Utility Study), and in December 2000 found that it was ``appropriate and necessary'' to regulate coal- and oil-fired Utility Units under CAA section 112. That December 2000 finding focused primarily on mercury (Hg) emissions from coal-fired Utility Units. In light of the finding, EPA in December 2000 announced its decision to list coal- and oil-fired Utility Units on the section 112(c) list of regulated source categories. In January 2004, EPA proposed revising the December 2000 appropriate and necessary finding and, based on that revision, removing coal- and oil-fired Utility Units from the section 112(c) list. By this action, we are revising the December 2000 appropriate and necessary finding and concluding that it is neither appropriate nor necessary to regulate coal- and oil-fired Utility Units under section 112. We are taking this action because we now believe that the December 2000 finding lacked foundation and because recent information demonstrates that it is not appropriate or necessary to regulate coal- and oil-fired Utility Units under section 112. Based solely on the revised finding, we are removing coal- and oil-fired Utility Units from the section 112(c) list. The reasons supporting this action are described in detail below. Other actions related to this final rule include the recent promulgation of the final Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the final Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR).