Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 52

PA ID: [PA147/177-4161; FRL-7081-5]

NOTICE: RULES

ACTION: Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States:

DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; NOX RACT Determinations for Four Individual Sources in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area

EFFECTIVE DATES: This final rule is effective on October 31, 2001.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for four major sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX). These sources are located in the Pittsburgh Beaver Valley ozone nonattainment area (the Pittsburgh area). EPA is approving these revisions to establish RACT requirements in the SIP in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

SUMMARY: Pennsylvania,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

On April 9, 1999 and July 5, 2001, the PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose RACT for several sources of NOX and VOCs. The RACT determinations for four of those sources, named below, are the subject of this rulemaking. These four sources are all located in the Pittsburgh area. The RACT determinations submitted for the other sources are or have been the subject of separate rulemakings. These four sources are all located in the Pittsburgh area and consist of Lukens Steel Corporation, Houston Plant; Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation, West Leechburg Plant; Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, Jessop Steel Company, Washington Plant; and Koppel Steel Corporation, Koppel Plant.

On August 15, 2001, EPA published a direct final rule (66 FR 42756) and a companion notice of proposed rulemaking (66 FR 42831) 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 15, 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 42831). This is that subsequent final rule. A description of the RACT determination(s) made for each source was provided in the August 15, 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 bycase 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 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 stepbystep 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
[[Page 52523]]
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 casebycase 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 casebycase 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 casebycase 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 casebycase 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 caseby case RACT SIP revisions) or the Commonwealth's analyses. EPA first reviews this submission to ensure that the source and the Commonwealth followed the SIPapproved 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 EPAgenerated 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 stationsStage I, Petroleum Storage in Fixedroof 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 casebycase 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 casebycase 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 coalfired boilers with a 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 caseby 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 coalfired 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 casebycase 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 coalfired boiler with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour did, in fact, lack a numerical emission
[[Page 52524]]
limitation(s). Nonetheless, pursuant to PennFuture's comment, EPA has reexamined all of the casebycase 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 casebycase RACT plan approval, consent order and/ or permit for each coalfired 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 casebycase 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 PittsburghBeaver 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 15Percent RateofProgress Requirement Under the Clean Air ActA Menu of Options'' (September 1993) and ``Controlling Nitrogen Oxides Under the Clean Air ActA 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 nonCTG 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 categoryspecific rules or by source specific rules for each source within a category. When initially established, RACT was clearly defined as a casebycase 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 sourcespecific rules.

Thus, where CTGsubject 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 sourcespecific SIP revisions. This option has been exercised by many states, and happens most commonly when only a few CTGsubject sources are located in the state. The sourcespecific approach is generally employed to avoid what can be a lengthy and resourceintensive 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 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 ``cookbook'' 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. 89 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, 3738 (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 LightElrama (auxiliary boiler); Allegheny LudlumWashington (formerly Jessop Steel). PennFuture asserts EPA must reject all [[Page 52525]]
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 casebycase 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 LightElrama (auxiliary boiler) and Allegheny LudlumWashington (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 casebycase 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 SIPapproved 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 NOXreducing rules, including the recent Chapter 145 rule, to reduce NOX at large utility and industrial sources. See, for example, 66 FR 42415, 1617 (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.

Response: EPA agrees with this comment by PennFuture. The approval of a casebycase 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 SIPapproved NSR and ERC program. Moreover, EPA's review of the Pennsylvania DEP's implementation of its approved SIPapproved NSR and ERC program indicates that the Commonwealth calculates and credits ERCs in accordance with the SIPapproved criteria for doing so as outlined in PennFuture's comment. No source for which EPA is approving a caseby 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 PowerNewcastle, 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 PowerNewcastle 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
[[Page 52526]]
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 the SIP revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP to establish and require NOX RACT for four major sources located in the Pittsburgh area. EPA is approving Pennsylvania's RACT SIP submittals because PADEP established and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in its SIPapproved RACT regulations. The Commonwealth has also imposed recordkeeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these 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 preexisting 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 1044). 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 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 nonagency 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 four 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 December 17, 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 from four [[Page 52527]]
individual steel facilities in the PittsburghBeaver Valley nonattainment area in 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, 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 NNPennsylvania

2. Section 52.2020 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(163) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(163) Revisions to the Pennsylvania Regulations, Chapter 129 pertaining to VOC and NOX RACT, submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on April 9, 1999 and July 5, 2001.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter submitted on April 9, 1999 by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection transmitting sourcespecific RACT determinations in the form of operating permits.
(B) Operating permits (OP) for the following sources:
(1) Lukens Steel Corporation, Houston Plant; OP 63000080, effective date 02/22/99, except for the Permit Term and conditions 13.16., inclusive.
(2) Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation, West Leechburg Plant; OP 65000183, effective date 03/23/99, except for the Permit Term. (3) Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, Jessop Steel Company Washington Plant; OP 63000027, effective date 03/26/99, except for the Permit Term and conditions 11.14., inclusive.
(C) Letter submitted on July 5, 2001 by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection transmitting sourcespecific RACT determinations in the form of operating permits.
(D) Koppel Steel Corporation, Koppel Plant's OP 04000059, effective date, 3/23/01, except for the Permit Term. (ii) Additional materials. Other materials submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in support of and pertaining to the RACT determinations for the sources listed in paragraphs (c)(163)(i)(B) and (D) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 0125735 Filed 101501; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 656050P

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Marcia Spink, (215) 814-2104 or by e- mail at spink.marcia@epa.gov.