[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 110 (Friday, June 8, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31749-31752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11032]



40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0280; FRL-8322-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; VOC and NOX RACT Determinations for Five Individual 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.


SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 
revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably 
available control technology (RACT) for five major sources of volatile 
organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) pursuant 
to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's (Pennsylvania's or the 
Commonwealth's) SIP-approved generic RACT regulations. EPA is approving 
these revisions in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on July 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0280. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic 
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential 
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through

[[Page 31750]]

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal 
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air 
Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by e-
mail at [email protected].


I. Background

    On May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26297), EPA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed 
approval of the SIP revisions submitted by PADEP on February 4, 2003 
and November 21, 2005. These SIP revisions consisted of seven source-
specific operating permits issued by PADEP to establish and require 
RACT pursuant to the Commonwealth's SIP-approved generic RACT 
regulations. The following table identifies five of those sources and 
the individual operating permits (OPs) which are the subject of this 
rulemaking. We are taking final action on these five source-specific 
RACT rules in this final action. We will take final action on the other 
two source-specific operating permits in a separate action.

                      Pennsylvania--VOC and NOX RACT Determinations for Individual Sources
         Source's name                County          permit  (OP      Source type          ``Major source''
                                                      )                               pollutant
Armstrong World Industries,     Lancaster.........         36-2002  Sheet and          VOC and NOX.
 Inc.                                                                Flooring
Peoples Natural Gas Company...  Clarion...........          16-124  Natural Gas        VOC and NOX.
Dart Container Corporation....  Lancaster.........         36-2015  Expanded           VOC and NOX.
AT&T Microelectronics.........  Lehigh............         39-0001  Semiconductors     VOC and NOX.
West Penn Power Co............  Greene............      30-000-099  Power Plant......  VOC and NOX.

    An explanation of the CAA's RACT requirements as they apply to the 
Commonwealth and EPA's rationale for approving these SIP revisions were 
provided in the NPR and will not be restated here. Timely adverse 
comments were submitted on EPA's May 4, 2006 NPR. A summary of those 
comments and EPA's responses are provided in Section II of this 

II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses

    On June 5, 2006, EPA received adverse comments on EPA's May 4, 2006 
NPR proposing approval of PADEP's VOC and NOX RACT 
determinations for seven individual sources. The comments addressed 
only three of the seven individual sources; namely, The Frog, Switch & 
Manufacturing Company (The Frog); Merck & Co. Inc. (Merck); and Dart 
Container Corporation (Dart). EPA received no comments on the RACT 
determinations for the other four sources. We respond to the comments 
for Dart in this notice. We will respond to the comments regarding the 
Frog and Merck in a separate final action on the source-specific rules 
for those two sources.
    Comment: With respect to Dart, the comment asserts that the RACT 
determination does not address an estimated 30 tons per year of VOC 
emissions from ``cleaning solvents.''
    Response: The commenter is mistaken. Condition 6 of the RACT 
determination limits total annual pentane emissions from the foam cup 
molding plants to 615 tons. As explained in the publicly available 
supporting material submitted with the SIP revision by PADEP, the 615 
tons of VOCs (primarily pentane), includes the approximately 30 tons 
per year of ``cleaning supply losses'' (not, as the commenter 
mistakenly categorizes them, ``cleaning solvents'').
    Comment: With respect to Dart, the commenter asserts that the 
current control of the pre-expanders should be included in the RACT 
determination as a RACT requirement.
    Response: Current control of the pre-expanders is a requirement of 
the RACT determination. Condition 5 of the RACT determination states 
that ``RACT for VOC emissions from all sources at this facility is 
determined to be current operations.'' ``[A]ll sources'' would include 
the pre-expanders.
    Comment: With respect to Dart, the commenter proposes a control 
technology (use of a concentrator in series with an oxidation control 
device) to be evaluated for control of dilute VOC gas streams from the 
cup production plants.
    Response: The comment implies that the RACT analysis with respect 
to the VOC controls for the cup production plants was not correctly 
performed. Although the commenter asserts that the RACT determination 
is incorrect because the RACT analysis did not consider the commenter's 
proposed control technology, the commenter does not provide information 
that this control technology meets the criteria for consideration as 
potential RACT as specified by the Pennsylvania generic RACT 
regulation. The Pennsylvania generic RACT regulation specifies that the 
only control options that need to be considered are those that meet the 
threshold criterion of having ``a reasonable potential for application 
to the source.'' 25 Pa. Code 129.92(b)(1). In the single conclusory 
sentence regarding this technology in the comment, the commenter does 
not provide any information from which EPA could evaluate the claim 
that such technology should have been considered as RACT. The commenter 
does not provide sufficient information from which EPA can discern 
whether--such a ``concentrator in series with an oxidation control 
device'' is even a currently extant technology (the RACT analysis 
concluded that ``UV oxidizers/Photoxidation'' were not among the 
technologies that have been successful at controlling the VOC--the 
pentane--emitted from this facility, but it is unclear if this type of 
``oxidation control device'' intended by the commenter, as other 
processes, such as incineration, may also be properly referred to as 
``oxidation''). Furthermore, the commenter provides no supporting 
technical data or information to indicate that the ``current 
operations'' specified as RACT for all sources at the facility (which 
would include sources of dilute VOC gas streams from the cup production 
processes), is not RACT, or alternatively, that the proposed control 
technology may be RACT. Furthermore, the comment does not identify 

[[Page 31751]]

gas streams it considers to be sources of ``dilute VOC'' gas streams to 
which the commenter would apply the control technology.
    Additionally, the supporting document submitted by PADEP with the 
SIP revision for the RACT determination extensively discusses the 
technical feasibility and cost effectiveness of various control 
technologies, including oxidation and concentration technologies for 
the capture and destruction of VOC from various sources at the 
facility, prior to concluding that current operations (which do not 
include oxidation and concentration) are RACT. Due to the lack of 
specificity of the comment, EPA believes it is possible that the 
technology proposed by the commenter may actually be among the options 
considered and rejected in the RACT analysis, which lists 
``concentration technologies in conjunction with incineration'' as a 
``proven success'' for controlling pentane emissions. However, the RACT 
analysis did not conclude that this technology would be cost effective.
    In sum, the commenter merely asserts in a single sentence, without 
support, that there is a technology that ought to have been considered 
(and which may actually have been considered), but has not provided EPA 
with sufficient information for us to determine what that technology is 
and evaluate whether it meets even the relatively lax standard of 25 
Pa. Code 129.92(b)(1), of having a ``reasonable potential'' to be 
applied to this source. The mere assertion that an agency may have 
gotten something wrong without the commenter providing a basis for 
evaluating that assertion, does not rise to level of a relevant comment 
warranting a substantive response. See International Fabricare Inst. v. 
EPA, at 391. See also Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 
n.2. at 471.
    EPA therefore may approve the RACT determinations for the four 
sources in which we received no adverse comment, and for Dart in this 

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by 
PADEP on February 4, 2003 and November 21, 2005, to establish and 
require VOC and NOX RACT for five sources pursuant to the 
Commonwealth's SIP-approved generic RACT regulations.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

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

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types 
of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to 
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 
because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing source-
specific requirements for five named sources.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 7, 2007. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action.
    This action, approving source-specific RACT requirements for five 
sources in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, may not be challenged 
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,

[[Page 31752]]

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic 

    Dated: May 31, 2007.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:


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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by adding 
the entries for Armstrong World Industries, Inc.; Peoples Natural Gas 
Company; Dart Container Corporation; AT&T Microelectronics; and West 
Penn Power Co. at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *

           Name of source                Permit number         County     effective           EPA approval date              Additional explanation/
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Armstrong World Industries, Inc....  Lancaster............   OP 36-2002     10/31/96  6/8/07 [Insert page number where  52.2020(d)(1)(u).
                                                                                       the document begins].
Peoples Natural Gas Company........  Clarion..............    OP 16-124      8/11/99  6/8/07 [Insert page number where  52.2020(d)(1)(u).
                                                                                       the document begins].
Dart Container Corporation.........  Lancaster............   OP 36-2015      8/31/95  6/8/07 [Insert page number where  52.2020(d)(1)(u).
                                                                                       the document begins].
AT&T Microelectronics..............  Lehigh...............   OP 39-0001      5/19/95  6/8/07 [Insert page number where  52.2020(d)(1)(u).
                                                                                       the document begins].
West Penn Power Co.................  Greene...............   OP 30-000-      5/17/99  6/8/07 [Insert page number where  52.2020(d)(1)(u).
                                                                    099                the document begins].

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E7-11032 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am]