Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
EPA ID: [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0257; FRL-8579-8]
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Determination of Attainment of the Fine Particle Standard
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the Harrisburg-Lebanon-
Carlisle, Pennsylvania nonattainment area for the 1997 fine particle
(PM
SUMMARY: Determination of Attainment of the Fine Particle Standard,
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Effect of This Action?
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data? V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
EPA is proposing to determine that the HarrisburgLebanonCarlisle,
Pennsylvania PM
PM
If this determination is made final, under the provisions of EPA's
PM
As further discussed below, the proposed determination would: (1)
For the HarrisburgLebanonCarlisle, Pennsylvania nonattainment area,
suspend the requirements to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated reasonably available control measures (RACM) (including
reasonably available control technologies (RACT)), a reasonable further
progress plan (RFP), contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the 1997 PM
In accordance with 40 CFR section 51.1004(c) (72 FR 20586, 20665),
this proposed determination would suspend the requirement for the
HarrisburgLebanonCarlisle, Pennsylvania nonattainment area to submit
an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, including RACT,
related to the 1997 PM
``Section 51.1004(c) provides that: `Upon a determination by EPA
that an area designated nonattainment for the PM
Section 51.1010 provides in part: `For each PM
Thus the regulatory text defines RACT as included in RACM, and provides that it is only required insofar as it is necessary to advance attainment. See also section 51.1010(b). As a result, when an area is attaining the standard, the suspension of the RACM requirement pursuant to 51.1004(c) necessarily includes the suspension of the RACT requirement.
However, the preamble to the PM
[[Page 33756]]
language that is at odds with the explicit provisions of the regulatory
text. The preamble states that `The EPA wishes to clarify that the
Clean Data Policy does not provide for suspension of the requirements
for NSR nor for RACT.' 72 FR 20603 (April 25, 2007.) \1\ Thus, the
preamble erroneously states that SIP submissions to meet RACT
obligations are not suspended, while the regulatory text provides that
RACT, as a subset of RACM, is suspended when an area is attaining the
standard.\2\ The purpose of this section of the preamble was to correct
a misstatement in the preamble to the proposed rule concerning the
status of NSR requirements in areas subject to the Agency's Clean Data
Policy and to respond to comments on that policy. When this preamble
text was drafted, EPA was considering several formulations of RACT,
some of which would have resulted in a freestanding RACT requirement
beyond RACM for certain areas. 72 FR 2061020612. Those options were
not selected in the final rulemaking, which adopted the formulation
found in section 51.1010. EPA thus adopted a combined approach to RACT
and RACM. Accordingly, pursuant to section 51.1004(c), areas with clean
data are not required to make a RACT submission. However, the contrary
draft preamble language inadvertently was not revised to conform to the
regulatory option that had been selected. Thus, the preamble language
is irreconcilable with and was never intended to interpret the regulatory text that was chosen for the final rule.''
\1\ On the same page, in a response to a comment, EPA states:
``The Clean Data Policy does not waive requirements for NSR nor for RACT.''
EPA further stated that its ``memorandum does not change the regulation published in the Federal Register on April 25, 2007. Because the promulgated regulation is clear, we believe it is clear that the preamble statement is an error. National Wildlife Federation v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (a regulation is controlling over the language of a preamble.). Cf. Association of American R.Rs. v. Costle, 562 F.2d 1310, 1316 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (citing Yazoo Railroad Co. v. Thomas, 132 U.S. 174, 188 (1889)) (`Where the enacting or operative parts of a statute are unambiguous, the meaning of the statute cannot be controlled by language in the preamble.') However, because the preamble statement could cause confusion, we are issuing this memorandum to explain the misstatement in the preamble and that the regulatory text is controlling.''
Consequently, if this proposed determination is made final, the
requirement for the HarrisburgLebanonCarlisle, Pennsylvania
PM
If this rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently determines,
after noticeandcomment rulemaking in the Federal Register, that the
area has violated the 1997 PM
The determination that EPA proposes with this Federal Register
notice, that the air quality data show attainment of the 1997
PM
This proposed action, if finalized, is limited to a determination
that the HarrisburgLebanonCarlisle, Pennsylvania PM
If this proposed determination is made final and the Harrisburg
LebanonCarlisle, Pennsylvania area continues to demonstrate attainment
with the 1997 PM
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established a healthbased
PM
concentrations, and a twentyfour hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m3 based on
a 3year average of the 98th percentile of 24hour concentrations. EPA
established the standards based on significant evidence and numerous
health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated
with exposures to particulate matter. The process for designating areas
following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in
section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. EPA and State air quality agencies
initiated the monitoring process for the 1997 PM
IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data?
EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for
PM
[[Page 33757]]
AQS database for the HarrisburgLebanonCarlisle, Pennsylvania
PM
On the basis of that review, EPA has concluded that this area
attained the 1997 PM
Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 50, section 50.7:
(1) The annual primary and secondary PM
(2) The 24hour primary and secondary PM
Table 1 shows the design values for the 1997 24hour
PM
Table 1.Design Values for the 1997 24Hour PM2.5 NAAQS for HarrisburgLebanonCarlisle, Pennsylvania in Micrograms per Cubic Meter ([mu]g/m3) 1997 24Hour Location AQS site ID attainment 20042006 20052007 standard design values design values Carlisle/Cumberland County...................... 420410101 65 38 36 Harrisburg/Dauphin County....................... 420430401 65 38 38
Table 2.Design Values for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for HarrisburgLebanonCarlisle, Pennsylvania in Micrograms per Cubic Meter ([mu]g/m3) 1997 Annual Location AQS site ID attainment 20042006 20052007 standard design values design values Carlisle/Cumberland County...................... 420410101 15.0 14.4 13.9 Harrisburg/Dauphin County....................... 420430401 15.0 15.0 14.6
EPA's reviews of these data indicate that the HarrisburgLebanon
Carlisle, Pennsylvania nonattainment area has met and continues to meet
the 1997 PM
EPA is proposing to determine that the HarrisburgLebanonCarlisle,
Pennsylvania nonattainment area for the 1997 PM
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 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 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 proposes to make a determination based on air quality data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements. 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 proposes to make a determination based on air quality data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 1044).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal applications 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 proposed 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), because it merely proposes to make a determination based on air quality data and would, if finalized result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it proposes to determine that air quality in the affected area is meeting Federal standards.
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
because it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when determining the attainment
[[Page 33758]]
status of an area, to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
promulgated air quality standards and monitoring procedures otherwise satisfy the provisions of the CAA.
This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paper Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
Under Executive Order 12898, EPA finds that this rule, pertaining to Pennsylvania's determination of attainment of the fine particle standard for HarrisburgLebanonCarlisle area, involves a proposed determination of attainment based on air quality data and will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any communities in the area, including minority and low income communities.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq.
Dated: June 4, 2008.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E813340 Filed 61208; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 656050P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by e- mail at quinto.rose@epa.gov.
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 50 CFR Part 679 26 CFR Part 1 40 CFR Part 180 47 CFR Part 73 50 CFR Part 17 33 CFR Part 117 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 26 CFR Part 301 50 CFR Part 622 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 44 CFR Part 65 50 CFR Part 660 40 CFR Part 271 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 47 CFR Part 64 50 CFR Part 665 49 CFR Part 571 44 CFR Part 64 21 CFR Part 522 14 CFR Part 23 47 CFR Part 76