  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 			ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; 

VOC and NOx RACT Determinations for Five Individual Sources 

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 [insert date 30 days
from date of publication].

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     HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov 
website.  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     HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  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 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:   Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by
e-mail at   HYPERLINK "mailto:quinto.rose@epa.gov"  quinto.rose@epa.gov
.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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	Operating Permit 

(OP #)	SOURCE TYPE	“MAJOR SOURCE”

POLLUTANT

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Armstrong World Industries, Inc.	Lancaster	36-2002
Sheet and Flooring Products Manufacturer	VOC and NOx

Peoples Natural Gas Company	Clarion	16-124	Natural Gas Compressor	VOC
and NOx

Dart Container Corporation	Lancaster	36-2015	Expanded Polystyrene
Manufacturing Facility	VOC and NOx

AT&T Microelectronics	Lehigh	39-0001	Semiconductors Manufacturing	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 document. 

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 

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
which 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
rulemaking.

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 Standard.

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 [insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  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 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

								

May 30, 2007

_________________                   		         
__________________________

Dated:            				                        William T. Wisniewski,

                                      				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.  In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by adding
the entries for   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 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:  

§ 52.2020  		Identification of plan.

*		*		*		*		*

(d)  *   *   *

(1)  *   *   *

Name of source	Permit

number	County	State effective date	EPA approval date	Additional
explanation/

§ 52.2063 citation

     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Armstrong World Industries, Inc.	Lancaster	OP
36-2002	10/31/96	[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	52.2020(d)(1)(u)



	Peoples Natural Gas Company	Clarion	OP 16-124	8/11/99	[Insert Federal
Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	52.2020(d)(1)(u)

Dart Container Corporation	Lancaster	OP 36-2015	8/31/95	[Insert Federal
Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	52.2020(d)(1)(u)

AT&T Microelectronics	Lehigh	OP 39-0001	5/19/95	Insert Federal Register
publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	52.2020(d)(1)(u)

West Penn Power Co.	Greene 	OP 30-000-099	5/17/99	Insert Federal
Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	52.2020(d)(1)(u)



*		*		*		*		*

 PAGE   

  PAGE   10 

  PAGE   12 

