[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55880-55883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-27579]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA-4155; FRL-7090-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; NOX RACT Determinations for Eight Individual Sources in 
the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania). The revisions impose reasonably available 
control technology (RACT) on eight major sources of volatile organic 
compounds (VOC) and/or nitrogen oxides (NOX) located in the 
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton ozone nonattainment area (the 
Philadelphia area). EPA is approving these revisions to establish RACT 
requirements in the SIP in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA or 
the Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on November 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air 
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; and the Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, PO Box 
8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia Spink (215) 814-2104 or by e-
mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On April 18, 2000, EPA published a direct final rule approving RACT 
determinations submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection (PADEP) for twenty-six major sources of 
NOX and/or volatile organic compounds (VOC) and a companion 
notice of proposed rulemaking (65 FR 20788). We received adverse 
comments on the direct final rule and a request for an extension of the 
comment period. We had indicated

[[Page 55881]]

in our April 18, 2000 direct final rulemaking that if we received 
adverse comments, we would withdraw the direct final rule and address 
all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed 
rule (65 FR 20788). On June 19, 2000 (65 FR 38168), EPA published a 
withdrawal notice in the Federal Register informing the public that the 
direct final rule did not take effect. On June 19, 2000 (65 FR 38169), 
we also published a notice providing an extension of the comment period 
and making corrections to our original proposed rule.
    This final rule pertains to eight of the twenty-six sources which 
were included in the April 18, 2000 rulemaking. The remaining twenty-
four sources have been or will be the subject of separate rulemakings.

II. Summary of the SIP Revisions

    On November 4, 1997, July 24 1998, October 2, 1998, March 3, 1999, 
April 9, 1999, and April 20, 1999, the PADEP submitted NOX 
and/or VOC RACT determinations for eight sources located in the 
Philadelphia area, namely Stoney Creek Technologies, LLC.; Superpac, 
Inc.; Transit America Inc.; American Bank Note Co.; Atlas Roofing 
Corporation; Beckett; Klearfold; and National Label Company. On April 
18, 2000 (65 FR 20788), EPA proposed to approve these SIP revisions. 
Detailed descriptions of the RACT determination for these eight sources 
were provided in EPA's Technical Support Documents (TSDs) prepared in 
support of its April 18, 2000 rulemaking as well as in the SIP 
submissions made by PADEP, and shall not be restated here. Copies of 
those materials are in the administrative record for this final rule.
    On April 18, 2000 EPA proposed to approve these RACT determinations 
(65 FR 20788) because the PADEP and the Philadelphia Air Management 
Services (AMS) established and imposed these RACT requirements in 
accordance with the criteria set forth in the SIP-approved RACT 
regulations applicable to these sources. The PADEP and the AMS have 
also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on 
these sources sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable 
RACT determinations.

III. Summary of Public Comments Received and EPA's Responses

    EPA received comments on its April 18, 2000 proposal to approve 
Pennsylvania's RACT SIP submittals for twenty six-six sources from 
Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture), and from a concerned 
citizen. Only the comments submitted by PennFuture are germane to the 
RACT determinations for Stoney Creek Technologies, LLC.; Superpac, 
Inc.; Transit America Inc.; American Bank Note Co.; Atlas Roofing 
Corporation; Beckett; Klearfold; and National Label Company. Those 
comments and EPA's responses are as follows:
    Comments: PennFuture comments that EPA should require that each 
RACT submittal include ``effective and enforceable numerical emission 
limits'' as a condition for approval. Additionally, PennFuture requests 
that EPA only approve limits that are no higher than the best emission 
rate actually achieved after the application of RACT, adjusted only to 
reflect legally and technically valid averaging times and deviations. 
PennFuture contends that such an approach will ensure maximum 
environmental benefits and minimize the opportunity for sources to 
generate spurious emission reduction credits (ERCs) against limits that 
exceed emission levels actually achieved following the application of 
RACT. Lastly PennFuture comments that EPA should describe the RACT 
determinations in its rulemaking notices published in the Federal 
Register rather than simply citing to technical support documents and 
other materials available in docket of the rulemaking.
    Response: While RACT, as defined for an individual source or source 
category, often does specify an emission rate, such is not always the 
case. EPA has issued Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) which states 
are to use as guidance in development of their RACT determinations/
rules for certain sources or source categories. Not every CTG issued by 
EPA includes an emission rate. There are several examples of CTGs 
issued by EPA wherein equipment standards and/or work practice 
standards alone are provided as RACT guidance for all or part of the 
processes covered. Such examples include the CTGs issued for Bulk 
gasoline plants, Gasoline service stations--Stage I, Petroleum Storage 
in Fixed-roof tanks, Petroleum refinery processes, Solvent metal 
cleaning, Pharmaceutical products, External Floating roof tanks and 
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (SOCMI)/polymer manufacturing. 
(See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/ctg.txt).
    In EPA's proposed conditional limited approval of the 
Commonwealth's RACT regulations (62 FR 43134, August 12, 1997) and in 
EPA's final conditional limited approval of those regulations (63 FR 
13789, March 23, 1998), EPA addressed the issue of what types of RACT 
provisions would be acceptable. In the proposed rule EPA noted that 
while it defines RACT as ``the lowest emission limitation that a source 
is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is 
reasonably available considering technological and economic 
feasibility.'' the definition of emission limitation did not 
necessarily require the establishment of a numerical emission 
limitation. EPA further noted that ``(s)ection 302 of the Act in turn 
defines `emission limitation' `requirement * * * which limits the 
quantity, rate or concentration of air pollutants on a continuous 
basis,* * *, and any design, equipment, work practice or operational 
standard promulgated under this chapter.' '' Furthermore, in the March 
23, 1998 final rule EPA stated that, ``it is possible that RACT for 
certain sources and source categories could consist of requirements 
that do not specifically include emission limitations, but instead have 
other limitations.''
    With regard to the criteria EPA uses to determine whether to 
approve or disapprove RACT SIP revisions submitted by PADEP pursuant to 
25 PA Code Chapter 129.91-129.95, we look to the provisions of those 
SIP-approved regulations and to the requirements of the Clean Air Act 
and relevant EPA guidance. As previously stated, on March 23, 1998 (63 
FR 13789), EPA granted conditional limited approval of Pennsylvania's 
generic RACT regulations, 25 PA Code Chapters 121 and 129, thereby 
approving the definitions, provisions and procedures contained within 
those regulations under which the Commonwealth would require and impose 
RACT. Subsection 129.91, Control of major sources of NOX and 
VOCs, requires subject facilities to submit a RACT plan proposal to 
both the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and 
to EPA Region III by July 15, 1994 in accordance with subsection 
129.92, entitled, RACT proposal requirements. Under subsection 129.92, 
that proposal is to include among other information (1) A list of each 
subject source at the facility; (2) The size or capacity of each 
affected source, and the types of fuel combusted, and the types and 
amounts of materials processed or produced at each source; (3) A 
physical description of each source and its operating characteristics; 
(4) Estimates of potential and actual emissions from each affected 
source with supporting documentation; (5) A RACT analysis which meets 
the requirements of subsection 129.92 (b), including technical and 
economic support documentation for each affected source; (6) A schedule 
for implementation as expeditiously as

[[Page 55882]]

practicable but not later than May 15, 1995; (7) The testing, 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting procedures proposed to 
demonstrate compliance with RACT; and (8) any additional information 
requested by the DEP necessary to evaluate the RACT proposal. Under 
subsection 129.91, the DEP will approve, deny or modify each RACT 
proposal, and submit each RACT determination to EPA for approval as a 
SIP revision. The conditional nature of EPA's March 23, 1998 
conditional limited approval did not impose any conditions pertaining 
to the regulation's procedures for the submittal of RACT plans and 
analyses by subject sources and approval of case-by-case RACT 
determinations by the DEP. Rather, EPA stated that ``* * * RACT rules 
may not merely be procedural rules (emphasis added) that require the 
source and the State to later agree to the appropriate level of 
control; rather the rules must identify the appropriate level of 
control for source categories or individual sources.''
    EPA reviews the case-by-case RACT plan approvals and/or permits 
submitted as individual SIP revisions by Commonwealth to verify and 
determine if they are consistent with the RACT requirements of the Act 
and any relevant EPA guidance. EPA first reviews a SIP submission to 
ensure that the source and the Commonwealth followed the SIP-approved 
generic rule when applying for and imposing RACT, respectively. Then 
EPA performs a thorough review of the technical and economic analyses 
conducted by the source and the state. If EPA believes additional 
information may further support or would undercut the RACT analyses 
submitted by the state, then we may add additional EPA-generated 
analyses to the record. Thus, EPA does not believe it would be 
appropriate to only approve limits that are no higher than the best 
emission rate actually achieved after the application of RACT, adjusted 
only to reflect legally and technically valid averaging times and 
deviations.
    EPA does note that an approved RACT emission limitation alone does 
not constitute the baseline against which ERCs may be generated. There 
are many other factors that must be considered in the calculation of 
eligible ERCs under Pennsylvania's approved SIP regulations governing 
the creation ERCs. Moreover, the scenario posed in PennFuture's comment 
would not create eligible ERC's under the Commonwealth approved SIP 
regulations. Under the Commonwealth's regulations pertaining to ERCs, 
found at 25 PA. Code Chapter 127, sections 127.206 through 127.210 
(approved by the EPA at 62 FR 64722 on December 9, 1997), sources 
cannot obtain ERCs if they find that their RACT controls result in 
lower emissions than allowed by their specified RACT limits.
    EPA believes that Federal rulemaking procedures allow for the 
format used in April 18, 2000 rulemaking (65 FR 20788). EPA believes 
that anyone interested in the specific requirements of the individual 
RACT determinations did have the opportunity to obtain that 
information, as in the preamble of the April 18, 2000 Federal Register 
notice, EPA offered to send anyone, upon request, a copy of the TSDs 
prepared in support of the action. Copies of those TSDs are included in 
the administrative record of this final rule.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by 
PADEP to establish and require VOC and/or NOX RACT for 
Stoney Creek Technologies, LLC.; Superpac, Inc.; Transit America Inc.; 
American Bank Note Co.; Atlas Roofing Corporation; Beckett; Klearfold; 
and National Label Company. EPA is approving these RACT SIP submittals 
because PADEP and AMS established and imposed these RACT requirements 
in accordance with the criteria set forth in the SIP-approved RACT 
regulations applicable to these sources. The PADEP and AMS have also 
imposed recordkeeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these 
sources sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT 
determinations.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not 
have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct 
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, 
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule 
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP 
submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they 
meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence 
of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP 
submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in 
place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General

[[Page 55883]]

of the United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the 
following types of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) 
rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of 
agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially 
affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 
804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's 
action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular 
applicability establishing source-specific requirements for eight named 
sources.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 4, 2002. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action approving revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP 
submitted by PADEP to establish and require VOC and/or NOX 
RACT for eight sources located in the Philadelphia area may not be 
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See 
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 15, 2001.
James W. Newsom,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

    2. Section 52.2020 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(187) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (187) Revisions to the Pennsylvania Regulations, Chapter 129.91 
pertaining to NOX RACT, submitted on November 4, 1997, July 
24 1998, October 2, 1998, March 3, 1999, April 9, 1999, and April 20, 
1999.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letters submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection transmitting source-specific NOX 
RACT determinations in the form of plan approvals or operating permits 
on November 4, 1997, July 24, 1998, October 2, 1998, March 3, 1999, 
April 9, 1999, and April 20, 1999.
    (B) Plan approvals (PA), and Operating permits (OP) for the 
following sources:
    (1) Stoney Creek Technologies, L.L.C., PA-23-0002, effective 
February 24, 1999, except for the expiration date.
    (2) Superpac, Inc., OP-09-0003, effective March 25, 1999, except 
for the expiration date.
    (3) Transit America Inc., PA-1563 for PLID 1563, effective June 11, 
1997, except for Condition 4 and Condition 5.
    (4) American Bank Note Company, OP-46-0075, effective May 19, 1997, 
as revised August 10, 1998, except for the expiration date.
    (5) Atlas Roofing Corporation, OP-09-0039, effective March 10, 
1999, except for the expiration date.
    (6) Beckett Corporation, OP-15-0040, effective July 8, 1997, except 
for the expiration date.
    (7) Klearfold, Inc., OP-09-0012, effective April 15, 1999, except 
for the expiration date.
    (8) National Label Company, OP-46-0040, effective July 28, 1997.
    (ii) Additional Materials--Other materials submitted by the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in support of and pertaining to the RACT 
determinations submitted for the sources listed in paragraph 
(c)(187)(i)(B) of this section.

[FR Doc. 01-27579 Filed 11-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P