Quiero saber acerca de...

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

60176

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 208 / Monday, November 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
the 30-day rolling average used for demonstrating compliance is consistent with the requirements contained in Pennsylvanias previously approved RACT II program.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership and Vicinity Energy should evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of certain alternative control options. The evaluation of alternative controls is only a requirement for sources opting for case-by-case RACT
evaluation under 25 Pa. Code 129.99.
Sources at the subject facilities are complying with RACT through the NOX
emission averaging plan provisions under 25 Pa. Code 129.98. Accordingly, they are not required to evaluate potential alternative control options as required by the case-by-case option.
EPA also disagrees with the commenters recommendation to disapprove the NOX averaging plan for the PES facility and wait for action by a new owner. EPA acknowledges the commenters references to the shutdown of refining operations at the PES facility in June 2019, the subsequent bankruptcy filing by PES, and the prospective sale of the facility.
Nevertheless, Pennsylvanias RACT II
requirements apply to major NOX and VOC emitting facilities that were in existence on or before July 20, 2012. 25
Pa. Code 129.96. Proposed NOX
averaging plans were required to be submitted to the government by October 24, 2016. 25 Pa. Code 129.98. As AMS
approval of the NOX averaging plans for certain sources at PES was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, meets the requirements of Pennsylvanias RACT II
NOX averaging provisions, and has not been withdrawn, EPA is finalizing the proposed RACT II requirements for those sources.
Finally, EPA declines to establish term limits for RACT plan approvals to ensure the periodic re-evaluation of technologies as required by New Jerseys RACT rules. The Clean Air Act and the requirements to implement RACT are designed to protect public health and the environment. However, the only factors EPA is legally required to consider for approving RACT are those in the statute, EPAs regulations, and the SIP-approved Pennsylvania implementing regulations. Term limits for RACT plan approvals for periodic reevaluation of technologies is not a statutory or regulatory requirement for approval of these RACT determinations.
Even without such term limits, RACT is periodically reevaluated in nonattainment areas after the promulgation of a new ozone NAAQS.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:50 Oct 29, 2021

Jkt 256001

IV. Final Action EPA is approving the case-by-case RACT determinations and/or alternative NOX emissions limits for sources at nine major NOX and VOC emitting facilities in Philadelphia, as required to meet obligations pursuant to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.
V. Incorporation by Reference In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of source-specific RACT
determinations and NOX averaging plan limits under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain major sources of VOC and NOX in Philadelphia County.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region III Office please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information.
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rule of EPAs approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.15
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410k; 40 CFR 52.02a.
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPAs role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993 and 13563 76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions 15 62

PO 00000

FR 27968 May 22, 1997.

Frm 00018

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

of the Paperwork Reduction Act 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.;
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.;
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;
Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999;
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001;
Is not subject to requirements of section 12d of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 15 U.S.C. 272 note because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898
59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994.
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000, because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 8043. Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required to submit a rule
E:FRFM01NOR1.SGM

01NOR1