[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52317-52322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-25581]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[PA-4174; FRL-7080-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; NOX RACT Determination for Koppel Steel
Corporation in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Implementation Plan (SIP). The
revision was submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably available
control technology (RACT) for the Koppel Steel Corporation's Ambridge
Plant, a major source of nitrogen oxides ( NOX) located in
the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone nonattainment area (the Pittsburgh
area). EPA is approving this revision to establish RACT requirements in
the SIP in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on October 30, 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, P.O. 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 August 8, 2001, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania
SIP which establish and impose case-by-case RACT for several sources of
VOC and/or NOX. This rulemaking pertains to the
Commonwealth's submittal of operating permit (OP) 04-000-227 which
imposes NOX RACT requirements for the Koppel Steel
Corporation's Ambridge Plant, a major source of NOX located
in the Pittsburgh area. The remaining sources are the subject of
separate rulemakings.
On August 24, 2001, EPA published a direct final rule (66 FR 44544)
and a companion notice of proposed rulemaking (66 FR 44581) to approve
these SIP revisions. On September 7, 2001, we received adverse comments
on our direct final rule from the Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future
(PennFuture). On September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49541), we published a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the
direct final rule did not take effect. We indicated in our August 24,
2001 direct final rulemaking that if we received adverse comments, EPA
would address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on
the proposed rule (66 FR 44581). This is that subsequent final rule. A
description of the RACT determination(s) made for each source was
provided in the August 24, 2001 direct final rule and will not be
restated here. A summary of the comments submitted by PennFuture
germane to this final rulemaking and EPA's responses are provided in
Section II of this document.
II. Public Comments and Responses
The Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture) submitted
adverse comments on twenty proposed rules published by EPA in the
Federal Register between August 6 and August 24, 2001 to approve case-
by-case RACT SIP submissions from the Commonwealth for NOX
and or VOC sources located in the Pittsburgh area. PennFuture's letter
includes general comments and comments specific to EPA's proposals for
certain sources. A summary of those comments and EPA's responses are
provided below.
A. Comment: PennFuture comments that EPA has conducted no
independent technical review, and has prepared no technical support
document to survey
[[Page 52318]]
potential control technologies, determine the capital and operating
costs of different options, and rank these options in total and
marginal cost per ton of NOX and VOC controlled. In citing
the definition of the term ``RACT,'' and the Strelow Memorandum [Roger
Strelow, Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, EPA,
December 9, 1976, cited in Michigan v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 176, 180 (6th
Cir. 1986) and at 62 FR 43134, 43136 (1997)], PennFuture appears to
comment that in every situation, RACT must include an emission rate.
PennFuture asserts that EPA should conduct its own RACT evaluation for
each source, or at a minimum document a step-by-step review
demonstrating the adequacy of state evaluations, to ensure that
appropriate control technology is applied. The commenter also believes
that EPA's failure to conduct its own independent review of control
technologies has resulted in our proposing to approve some RACT
determinations that fail to meet the terms of EPA's own RACT standard.
Response: 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 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.''
On May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123), EPA published a rulemaking
determining that Pennsylvania had satisfied the conditions imposed in
its conditional limited approval. In that rulemaking, EPA removed the
conditional status of its approval of the Commonwealth's generic VOC
and NOX RACT regulations on a statewide basis. EPA received
no public comments on its action and that final rule removing the
conditional status of Pennsylvania's VOC and NOX RACT
regulations became effective on June 18, 2001. As of that time,
Pennsylvania's generic VOC and NOX RACT regulations retained
a limited approval status. On August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44578), EPA
proposed to remove the limited nature of its approval of Pennsylvania's
generic RACT regulation in the Pittsburgh area. EPA received no public
comments on that proposal. Final action converting the limited approval
to full approval shall occur once EPA has completed rulemaking to
approve either (1) the case-by-case RACT proposals for all sources
subject to the RACT requirements currently known in the Pittsburgh-
Beaver area or (2) for a sufficient number of sources such that the
emissions from any remaining subject sources represent a de minimis
level of emissions as defined in the March 23, 1998 rulemaking (63 FR
13789).
EPA agrees that it has an obligation to review 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 does not agree, however, that this obligation to review
the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by Pennsylvania
necessarily extends to our performing our own RACT analyses,
independent of the sources' RACT plans/analyses (included as part of
the case-by case RACT SIP revisions) or the Commonwealth's analyses.
EPA first reviews this submission to ensure that the source and the
Commonwealth followed the SIP-approved generic rule when applying for
and imposing RACT for a specific source. 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 EPA may add additional EPA-generated analyses to the record.
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. (The
publication numbers for these CTG documents may be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/ctg.txt).
EPA disagrees with PennFuture's general comment that our failure to
conduct our own independent review of control technologies for every
case-by-case RACT determination conducted by the Commonwealth has
resulted in our proposing to approve some RACT determinations that fail
to meet the terms of our own RACT standard. PennFuture submitted
comments specific to the case-by-case RACT determinations for only
three sources located in the Pittsburgh area, namely for Duquesne
Light's Elrama, Phillips and Brunot Island stations. EPA summarizes
those comments and provides responses in the final rule pertaining to
those sources.
B. Comment: PennFuture comments that when EPA reviewed
Pennsylvania's RACT program, it noted that Pennsylvania coal-fired
boilers with a
[[Page 52319]]
rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour
``are some of the largest NOX emitting sources in the
Commonwealth and in the Northeast United States'' [63 FR 13789, 13791
(1998)] and as such should have numeric emission limitations imposed as
RACT whether or not they install presumptive RACT (under 25 Pa.Code
129.93) to guarantee that sources would achieve quantifiable emissions
reductions under the RACT program. PennFuture goes on to comment that
because EPA has not conducted and documented a technical review of
Pennsylvania case-by case RACT submissions, EPA has not demonstrated
that these large boilers are subject to ``numeric emission
limitations'' under RACT. EPA must conduct a thorough RACT evaluation
or review for each such source, and must document the application of
numeric emission limits and quantifiable reductions for each coal-fired
boiler with a rated heat input of over 100 million Btu per hour.
Response: Circumstances may exist wherein a state could justify
otherwise, however, in general, EPA agrees with PennFuture that coal-
fired boilers with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100
million Btu per hour should have numeric emission limitations imposed
as RACT whether or not they install presumptive RACT (under 25 Pa.Code
129.93).
As provided in the response found in II. A, EPA does not agree that
it must conduct its own technical analysis of each of the case-by-case
RACT determinations submitted for each RACT source in order to document
that its RACT requirements include numeric emission limitations. That
determination can be made by EPA when it reviews the plan approval,
consent order, or permit issued to such a source as submitted by the
Commonwealth as SIP revision. PennFuture's comment did not point to a
specific instance where a RACT plan approval, consent order or permit
imposing RACT on a coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input of equal
to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour did, in fact, lack a
numerical emission limitation(s). Nonetheless, pursuant to PennFuture's
comment, EPA has re-examined all of the case-by-case RACT SIP
submissions made by the Commonwealth for such sources located in the
Pittsburgh area. That re-examination, combined with information
provided by the Commonwealth, indicates that each case-by-case RACT
plan approval, consent order and/or permit for each coal-fired boiler
with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per
hour includes a numeric emission limitation. A listing of each source,
its plan approval, consent order and/or permit number and its numerical
emission limitation has been placed in the Administrative Records for
the case-by-case RACT rulemakings for the Pittsburgh area.
C. Comment: PennFuture asserts that the Commonwealth has not
adopted and submitted category RACT rules for all VOC source categories
for which federal control technique guidelines (CTGs) have been issued.
The commenter refers to Appendix 1 of the Technical Support Document
(dated May 14, 2001), prepared by EPA in support of its proposed rule
to redesignate the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area
(66 FR 29270), to assert that EPA has failed to require the
Commonwealth to submit VOC RACT rules for certain categories of
sources. PennFuture specifically names source categories such as
equipment leaks from natural gas/gas processing plants, coke oven
batteries, iron and steel foundries, and publically owned treatment
works and asserts that the Commonwealth has neglected a statutory
requirement to adopt category RACT regulations for these and 14 other
unnamed VOC source categories.
Response: EPA has not issued CTGs for coke oven batteries, iron and
steel foundries and publically owned treatment works. The Appendix 1,
referred to by the commenter, lists CTG covered categories as well as
source categories taken from two STAPPA/ALAPCO documents entitled,
``Meeting the 15-Percent Rate-of-Progress Requirement Under the Clean
Air Act--A Menu of Options'' (September 1993) and ``Controlling
Nitrogen Oxides Under the Clean Air Act--A Menu of Options'' (July
1994). The categories referenced by PennFuture are not VOC categories
for which EPA has issued CTGs, but were included in Appendix A as
examples of some of the types of sources that could be subject to
Pennsylvania's generic RACT regulations.
The Commonwealth is under no statutory obligation to adopt RACT
rules for source categories for which EPA has not issued a CTG. In
fact, CTGs do not exist for all but one of the categories to which the
commenter explicitly refers.
The Act requires that states adopt regulations to impose RACT for
``major sources of VOC,'' located within those areas of a state where
RACT applies under Part D of the Act [182(b)(2)(C)]. This is referred
to as the non-CTG VOC RACT requirement. Moreover, EPA disagrees that
there is a statutory mandate that a state adopt a source category RACT
regulation even for a source category where EPA has issued a CTG. There
are two statutory provisions that address RACT for sources covered by a
CTG. One provides that states must adopt RACT for ``any category of VOC
sources'' covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990
[182(b)(2)(A)]. The other provides that states must adopt VOC RACT for
all ``VOC sources'' covered by a CTG issued after November 15, 1990
[182(b)(2)(B)]. EPA has long interpreted the statutory RACT requirement
to be met either by adoption of category-specific rules or by source-
specific rules for each source within a category. When initially
established, RACT was clearly defined as a case-by-case determination,
but EPA provided CTG's to simplify the process for states such that
they would not be required to adopt hundreds or thousands of individual
rules. See Strelow Memorandum dated December 9, 1976 and 44 FR 53761,
September 17, 1979. EPA does not believe that Congress' use of ``source
category'' in one provision of section 182(b)(2) was intended to
preclude the adoption of source-specific rules.
Thus, where CTG-subject sources are located within those areas of a
state where RACT applies under Part D of the Act, the state is
obligated to impose RACT for the same universe of sources covered by
the CTG. However, that obligation is not required to be met by the
adoption and submittal of a source category RACT rule. A state may,
instead, opt to impose RACT for such sources in permits, plan
approvals, consent orders or in any other state enforceable document
and submit those documents to EPA for approval as source-specific SIP
revisions. This option has been exercised by many states, and happens
most commonly when only a few CTG-subject sources are located in the
state. The source-specific approach is generally employed to avoid what
can be a lengthy and resource-intensive state rule adoption process for
only a few sources that may have different needs and considerations
that must be taken into account.
As stated earlier, there is one source category explicitly included
in PennFuture's comment for which EPA has issued a CTG, namely natural
gas/gas processing plants. The Commonwealth made a negative declaration
to EPA on April 13, 1993, stating that as of that date there were no
applicable sources in this category. Therefore, the Commonwealth did
not adopt a category RACT regulation for natural gas/gas processing
plants.
D. Comment: PennFuture cites EPA correspondence [letter from Marcia
[[Page 52320]]
Spink, EPA, to James Salvaggio, DEP, December 15, 1993] to the
Commonwealth which states that establishing any dollar figure in RACT
guidance will not provide for the ``automatic'' selection or rejection
of a control technology or emission limitation as RACT for a source or
source category. With regard to the Pennsylvania DEP's intent to
finalize a NOX RACT Guidance Document for implementation of
its NOX RACT regulation, EPA's 1993 letter stated that the
document could improperly be used to establish ``bright line'' or
``cook-book'' approaches, particularly for a regulation applicable to
many source categories and suggested that if the guidance document must
include dollar figures/ton, it provide approximate ranges by source
category. PennFuture comments that DEP issued its ``Guidance Document
on Reasonably Available Control Technology for Sources of
NOX Emissions,'' March 11, 1994, and on pp. 8-9 states that
the acceptable threshold is $1500 per ton, and that this figure applies
to ``all source categories.'' PennFuture notes that EPA later objected
to the $1500 per ton methodology as ``not generically acceptable to
EPA'' [letter from Thomas Maslany, EPA, to James Salvaggio, DEP, June
24, 1997] and further stated in a Federal Register notice that a
``dollar per ton threshold'' is ``inconsistent with the definition of
RACT'' [62 FR 43134, 37-38 (1997)].
PennFuture comments that EPA is proposing to approve RACT
determinations based on a cost per ton method that EPA had previously
rejected, and according to its own clearly expressed standard, EPA must
not approve RACT determinations by Pennsylvania DEP that apply this
$1500 per ton threshold. The commenter states that PennFuture's review
of several of the current DEP evaluations indicate that the
Commonwealth applied this standard and provides the examples of
Duquesne Light--Elrama (auxiliary boiler); Allegheny Ludlum--Washington
(formerly Jessop Steel). PennFuture asserts EPA must reject all
Pennsylvania RACT determinations applying the standard of $1500 per
ton, or any other ``bright line'' approach, as failing to follow EPA
procedures established for Pennsylvania RACT.
Response: EPA still takes the position that a single cost per ton
dollar figure may not, in and of itself, form the basis for rejecting a
control technology, equipment standard, or work practice standard as
RACT. The Technical Support Document prepared by EPA in support of its
March 23, 1998 rulemaking [63 FR 13789] clearly indicates that the
Commonwealth's document, ``Guidance Document on Reasonably Available
Control Technology for Sources of NOX Emissions,'' March 11,
1994, had not been included as part of the SIP submission of the
Commonwealth's generic regulation and, therefore, had not been approved
by EPA. EPA further notes that the Administrative Record of the March
23, 1998 rulemaking [63 FR 13789], in addition to the correspondence
cited by PennFuture, also includes correspondence from DEP to EPA
[letter from James Salvaggio, DEP to David Arnold, EPA, September 10,
1997] stating that DEP's RACT guidance document does not establish a
maximum dollar per ton for determining the cost effectiveness for RACT
determinations and notes that the DEP's $1500 per ton cost
effectiveness is a target value and not an absolute maximum. For
example, in its analyses of the cost effectiveness of RACT control
options submitted by DEP as part of the case-by-case SIP revision for
Peoples Natural Gas (PNG) Valley Compressor Station's turbo charged
lean burn IC engine (see the Administrative Record for 66 FR 43492),
the Commonwealth included DEP interoffice memoranda (Thomas Joseph to
Krishnan Ramamurthy, July 14, 1994 and Krishnan Ramamurthy to Thomas
McGinley, Babu Patel, Ronald Davis, Richard Maxwell, and Devendra
Verma, July 15, 1994) which spoke directly to the $1500/ton dollar
figure as being a guideline and not an upper limit. These memoranda
explain that although PNG initially proposed intermediate original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) combustion controls which would have
reduced NOX emissions from 254.7 tons per year to 115 tons
per year (by 55%) at a cost of $1355 per ton reduced, DEP required the
installation of an OEM lean combustion modification that reduced
NOX emissions from 254.7 tons per year to 76 tons per year
(by 69%) at a cost of $1684 per ton reduced. The DEP's July 15, 1994
interoffice memorandum says of the PNG RACT determination which
exceeded the cost effectiveness screening level of $1500 per ton
``Tom's (Joseph) insistence for the next more stringent level of
control than the company's chosen level in the case of PNG was
consistent with EPA Region III's sentiment that establishing any dollar
figure in RACT guidance will not provide for an ``automatic'' rejection
of a control technology as RACT for a source.''
In no instance, including that for Duquesne Light--Elrama
(auxiliary boiler) and Allegheny Ludlum--Washington (formerly Jessop
Steel), has EPA proposed to approve a RACT determination submitted by
the Commonwealth which was based solely on a conclusion that controls
that cost more than $1500/ton were not required as RACT. As explained
in the response provided in section II.A. of this document, EPA
conducts its review of the entire case-by-case RACT SIP submittal
including the source's proposed RACT plan and analyses, Pennsylvania's
analyses and the RACT plan approval, consent order or permit itself to
insure that the requirements of the SIP-approved generic RACT have been
followed. These analyses not only evaluate and consider the costs of
potential control options, but also evaluate their technological
feasibility.
E. Comment: PennFuture comments that any emission reduction credits
(ERCs) earned by sources subject to RACT must be surplus to all
applicable state and federal requirements. Under Pennsylvania law, ERCs
must be surplus, permanent, quantified, and Federally enforceable. 25
Pa.Code 127.207(1). As to the requirement that ERCs be surplus, the
Pennsylvania Code states: ERCs shall be included in the current
emission inventory, and may not be required by or be used to meet past
or current SIP, attainment demonstration, RFP, emission limitation or
compliance plans. Emission reductions necessary to meet NSPS, LAER,
RACT, Best Available Technology, BACT and permit or plan approval
emissions limitations or another emissions limitation required by the
Clean Air Act or the [Air Pollution Control Act] may not be used to
generate ERCs. 25 Pa.Code 127.207(1)(i). To be creditable, ERCs must
surpass not only RACT requirements but a host of other possible sources
of emission limits. PennFuture comments that some of the RACT
evaluations at issue in the current EPA notices purport to establish
RACT as a baseline for future ERCs. PennFuture does acknowledge that
EPA notes in its boilerplate for the notices, that Pennsylvania and EPA
have established a series of NOX-reducing rules, including
the recent Chapter 145 rule, to reduce NOX at large utility
and industrial sources. See, for example, 66 FR 42415, 16-17 (August
13, 2001). Because any ERCs must be surplus to the most stringent
limitation applicable under state or federal law as described in the
Pennsylvania Code provision set forth above, DEP and EPA must not
approve ERCs unless they surpass all such limitations in addition to
any limits set by RACT.
[[Page 52321]]
Response: EPA agrees with this comment by PennFuture. The approval
of a case-by-case RACT determination, in and of itself, does not
establish the baseline from which further emission reductions may be
calculated and assumed creditable under the Commonwealth's SIP-approved
NSR and ERC program. Moreover, EPA's review of the Pennsylvania DEP's
implementation of its approved SIP-approved NSR and ERC program
indicates that the Commonwealth calculates and credits ERCs in
accordance with the SIP-approved criteria for doing so as outlined in
PennFuture's comment. No source for which EPA is approving a case-by-
case RACT determination should assume that its RACT approval alone
automatically establishes the baseline against which it may calculate
creditable ERCs.
F. Comment: PennFuture comments that as in the case with
Pennsylvania Power--Newcastle, EPA should compare RACT proposals to
applicable acid rain program emission limits and control strategies.
PennFuture contends that EPA previously disapproved a RACT proposal for
the Pennsylvania Power--Newcastle plant [62 FR 43959 (1997); 63 FR
23668 (1998)] and that EPA did so on the basis that the acid rain
program requires more stringent emission limits. PennFuture asserts
that while EPA had originally proposed to approve this proposal, an
analysis of comparable boilers and, especially, a comparison to Phase
II emission limits under the acid rain program led EPA to conclude that
the RACT proposal emission limits were too lenient. [62 FR at 43961].
Therefore, PennFuture contends that for sources subject to the acid
rain program, EPA should consider emissions and control strategies for
compliance with acid rain emission limits when evaluating proposals for
compliance with RACT.
Response: Title IV of the Act, addressing the acid rain program,
contains NOX emission requirements for utilities which must
be met in addition to any RACT requirements (see NOX
Supplement to the General Preamble at 57 FR 55625, November 25, 1992).
The Act provides for a number of control programs that may affect
similar sources. For example, new sources may be subject to new source
performance standards (NSPS), best available control technology (BACT),
and lowest achievable emission rate (LAER). Other controls, under such
programs as the acid rain program or the hazardous air pollutant
program may also apply to sources. However, the applicability of these
other requirements, which are often more stringent than RACT, do not
establish what requirements must apply under the RACT program. While
these programs may provide information as to the technical and economic
feasibility of reduction programs for RACT, there is no presumption
that acid rain controls should be mandated as RACT.
EPA stated in the final disapproval of the NOX RACT
determination for PPNC [63 FR at 23669], that the discussion concerning
average emission rates for boilers with respect to the acid rain
program requirements were included in order to provide a context for
EPA's proposed disapproval. EPA made clear in its August 18, 1997
proposed disapproval of Pennsylvania Powers'--Newcastle (PPNC) RACT
determination, that the basis for disapproval was a comparison between
PPNC's boilers and other similar combustion units, not acid rain
limits. In fact, EPA stated in the August 18, 1997 proposed disapproval
that ``Without additional knowledge or information, it would be
erroneous and premature to conclude that the limits in the acid rain
permit are RACT.'' [62 FR at 43961]. EPA clearly stated in the final
disapproval for PPNC that it did not use acid rain permit limits, or
Pennsylvania's participation in any other NOX control
program, to determine PPNC RACT approvability [63 FR at 23670]. Nor has
EPA intended to use participation in NOX control programs
including acid rain, in determining RACT for PPNC or any other subject
sources. EPA also stated that the April 30, 1998, PPNC disapproval was
based on the absence of pertinent information regarding a computerized
combustion optimization system through an enforceable permit, not
comparison of acid rain permit limits.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving OP 04-000-227 issued by the PADEP to impose RACT
for Koppel Steel Corporation's Ambridge Plant as a revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is approving Pennsylvania's SIP submittal to
impose RACT for Koppel Steel Corporation's Ambridge Plant because OP
04-000-227 establishes and imposes RACT requirements in accordance with
the criteria set forth in the SIP-approved RACT regulations and also
imposes record-keeping, and testing requirements 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 (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 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),
[[Page 52322]]
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 one named source.
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 December 14, 2001. 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 the Commonwealth's source-
specific RACT requirements to control NOX emissions from
Koppel Steel Corporation's Ambridge Plant 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 3, 2001.
Thomas C. Voltaggio,
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)(180) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(180) Revision pertaining to NOX RACT for Koppel Steel
Corporation's Ambridge Plant located in Harmony Township, Beaver
County, Pennsylvania, submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection on August 8, 2001.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter submitted on August 8, 2001 by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection transmitting several source-
specific NOX and/or VOC RACT determinations.
(B) Operating Permit 04-000-227, effective October 12, 2000, issued
to Koppel Steel Corporation, Ambridge Plant.
(ii) Additional Materials--Other materials submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in support of and pertaining to the RACT
determination for the source listed in paragraph (c)(180)(i)(B) of this
section.
[FR Doc. 01-25581 Filed 10-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P