80 FR 28215 - Reconsideration Petition From Dyno Nobel Inc. on the New Source Performance Standards Review for Nitric Acid Plants; Final Action
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 95 (May 18, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 95 (May 18, 2015)
| Page Range | 28215-28217 | |
| FR Document | 2015-11958 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 28215-28217] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-11958] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0750; FRL-9927-58-OAR] RIN 2060-AQ60 Reconsideration Petition From Dyno Nobel Inc. on the New Source Performance Standards Review for Nitric Acid Plants; Final Action AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of final action denying petition for reconsideration. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 28216]] SUMMARY: This action provides notice that on May 11, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, Gina McCarthy, signed a letter denying a petition for reconsideration of the final New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Nitric Acid Plants published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2012. (77 FR 48433) DATES: Effective May 18, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Nathan Topham, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0483; fax number: (919) 541-3207; email address: topham.nathan@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. How can I get copies of this document and other related information? This Federal Register document, the petition for reconsideration, and the letter denying the petition for reconsideration are available in the docket the EPA established under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010- 0750. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. This Federal Register document, the petition for reconsideration, and the letter denying the petition can also be found on the EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. II. Judicial Review Any petitions for review of the letter and enclosure denying the petition for reconsideration described in this document must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by July 17, 2015. III. Description of Action A. Background The initial Nitric Acid Plants NSPS were promulgated on December 23, 1971 (36 FR 24881) and codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart G pursuant to section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA, we reviewed the NSPS three times over the past few decades. Based on the results of the third review, which we completed in August 2012, we determined it was appropriate to revise the NSPS. The revised NSPS were published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2012 (77 FR 48433). The revised NSPS (also referred to as the ``final rule'' in this document) included a change in the nitrogen oxides (NOX ) emission limit, from 3.0 pounds of NOX per ton of nitric acid production (3.0 lb/T) on a 3-hour basis to 0.5 lb/T on a 30-day average basis, and additional testing and monitoring requirements. The final rule applies to new, modified or reconstructed nitric acid production units (NAPU) that commence construction, modification or reconstruction after October 14, 2011. Throughout the rulemaking process, we received comments, data and information that supported these revisions. This information is available in the docket for this action. The revisions were proposed on October 14, 2011 (76 FR 63878). We received additional data and comments during the comment period. These data and comments were considered and analyzed and, where appropriate, revisions to the NSPS were made and incorporated into the final rule published on August 14, 2012. On October 10, 2012, Dyno Nobel Inc. (DNI) submitted a petition for reconsideration of the final rule for nitric acid plants. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, a petitioner seeking reconsideration must show that the objection or objections raised in its reconsideration petition ``is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' In the EPA's view, an objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule only if it provides substantial support for the argument that the promulgated regulation should be revised. After carefully considering the petition and supporting information, the EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, denied the petition for reconsideration on May 11, 2015, in a letter to the petitioner. The EPA denied the petition because the information and analysis submitted by DNI is not of central relevance to the outcome of the rule, in that it does not demonstrate that the rule should be reconsidered. A summary of the petition issues and the EPA's responses are provided below. The letter from Administrator McCarthy and the accompanying enclosure, which are available in the docket for this action, explain in greater detail the issues presented in the petition, the EPA's responses to those issues, and the EPA's reasons for the denial. B. Summary of Petition and the EPA's Responses The main issues raised by DNI in their petition for reconsideration are the following: They believe the EPA should have established a subcategory and a different emissions limit for modified or reconstructed nitric acid plants that use non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR); and they argue the EPA did not meet the legal requirement of having representative emission data to establish a new emission limit. Regarding the petitioner's argument that the EPA should establish a subcategory for modified or reconstructed plants that use NSCR, we have several reasons why we disagree with this request. First, the EPA believes it is inappropriate to establish subcategories based on differences in control technologies, so it is inappropriate to establish a subcategory for plants using NSCR. Second, regarding the petitioner's argument that the EPA did not meet the legal requirement of having representative emission data to set an emission limit, we believe the agency had ample test data to support selective catalytic reduction as the best system of emission reduction and to establish a revised emission limit. Third, although some units with NSCR may not be able to meet the limit without improving their controls, based on available data we believe it is feasible for some units with NSCR to comply with this NSPS without the need for any additional controls as some existing units with NSCR are already achieving the NSPS emission limit. Finally, we believe other units with NSCR that are modified or reconstructed, could comply with the NSPS limit by improving their controls at reasonable costs. Therefore, based on our review and evaluation of all issues raised by the petitioner and relevant available data and information, we have concluded that reconsideration is not warranted. [[Page 28217]] Dated: May 11, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2015-11958 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 28215
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); AGENCY Russ, Air Program, EPA, Region 8,
• Is certified as not having a Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
40 CFR Part 52 Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303)
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities [EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0227; FRL–9927–69– 312–6479, russ.tim@epa.gov.
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Region 8] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this
Approval and Promulgation of Air Federal Register, EPA is approving the
• Does not contain any unfunded Quality Implementation Plans; State of State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule
mandate or significantly or uniquely Utah; Utah County—Trading of Motor without prior proposal because the
affect small governments, as described Vehicle Emission Budgets for PM10 Agency views this as a noncontroversial
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Transportation Conformity SIP revision and anticipates no adverse
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); comments. A detailed rationale for the
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
• Does not have federalism Agency. approval is set forth in the preamble to
implications as specified in Executive the direct final rule.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, If EPA receives no adverse comments,
1999); SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection EPA will not take further action on this
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse
• Is not an economically significant comments, EPA will withdraw the
regulatory action based on health or State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Utah. direct final rule and it will not take
safety risks subject to Executive Order effect. EPA will address all public
On March 9, 2015, the Governor of Utah
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); comments in a subsequent final rule
submitted a revision to the Utah SIP,
• Is not a significant regulatory action adding a new rule regarding trading of based on this proposed rule.
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR motor vehicle emission budgets for Utah EPA will not institute a second
28355, May 22, 2001); County. The rule allows trading from comment period on this action. Any
• Is not subject to requirements of the motor vehicle emissions budget for parties interested in commenting must
section 12(d) of the National primary particulate matter of 10 microns do so at this time. For further
or less in diameter (PM10) to the motor information, please see the ADDRESSES
Technology Transfer and Advancement
vehicle emissions budget for nitrogen section of this notice.
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
oxides (NOX) which is a PM10 precursor. Please note that if EPA receives
application of those requirements would adverse comment on a distinct
be inconsistent with the CAA; and, The resulting motor vehicle emissions
budgets for NOX and PM10 may then be provision of this rule and if that
• Does not provide EPA with the used to demonstrate transportation provision may be severed from the
discretionary authority to address, as conformity with the SIP. The EPA is remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
appropriate, disproportionate human proposing approval of this SIP revision as final those provisions of the rule that
health or environmental effects, using in accordance with the requirements of are not the subject of an adverse
practicable and legally permissible section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). comment. See the information provided
methods, under Executive Order 12898 DATES: Written comments must be in the Direct Final action of the same
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). received on or before June 17, 2015. title which is located in the Rules and
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
Regulations Section of this Federal
The SIP is not approved to apply on
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– Register.
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe OAR–2015–0227, by one of the Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
has demonstrated that a tribe has following methods: Dated: May 1, 2015.
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian • http://www.regulations.gov. Follow Shaun L. McGrath,
country, the rule does not have tribal the on-line instructions for submitting
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
implications and will not impose comments.
• Email: russ.tim@epa.gov. [FR Doc. 2015–11783 Filed 5–15–15; 8:45 am]
substantial direct costs on tribal • Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
governments or preempt tribal law as the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). comments). ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air AGENCY
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P–
40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Air AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
pollution control, Incorporation by Colorado 80202–1129. [EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0750; FRL–9927–58–
reference, Intergovernmental relations, • Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, OAR]
Particulate matter, Reporting and Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode
8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, RIN 2060–AQ60
recordkeeping requirements.
Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. are only accepted Monday through Reconsideration Petition From Dyno
Dated: May 1, 2015. Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Nobel Inc. on the New Source
federal holidays. Special arrangements Performance Standards Review for
Shaun L. McGrath, Nitric Acid Plants; Final Action
Regional Administrator, Region 8. should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. AGENCY: Environmental Protection
[FR Doc. 2015–11782 Filed 5–15–15; 8:45 am]
Please see the direct final rule which Agency (EPA).
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P is located in the Rules Section of this
ACTION: Notice of final action denying
Federal Register for detailed instruction
petition for reconsideration.
on how to submit comments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 May 15, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_28310/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 28217
Dated: May 11, 2015. 2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, replacement purposes developed by the
Gina McCarthy, complete the required fields MAFMC and NEFMC.
Administrator. 3. Enter or attach your comments. Background
[FR Doc. 2015–11958 Filed 5–15–15; 8:45 am] Instructions: Comments sent by any
The MAFMC developed the first
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P other method, to any other address or
limited entry program in 1977 for the
individual, or received after the end of
surfclam/quahog fishery, which
the comment period, may not be
included restrictions on replacement
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE considered by NMFS. All comments
vessels. This program required that a
received are a part of the public record
National Oceanic and Atmospheric replacement vessel be of ‘‘substantially
and will generally be posted for public
Administration similar capacity’’ in an effort to
viewing on www.regulations.gov
maintain and not increase the harvest
without change. All personal identifying
50 CFR Part 648 capacity of the fleet at that time. Over
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
the following two decades, the MAFMC
RIN 0648–BB40 confidential business information, or and NEFMC implemented additional
otherwise sensitive information limited entry programs. By 1998, there
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery submitted voluntarily by the sender will were four different sets of vessel
Conservation and Management Act be publicly accessible. NMFS will upgrade and replacement restrictions
Provisions; Fisheries of the accept anonymous comments (enter among the various FMPs. The upgrade
Northeastern United States; Omnibus ‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish restrictions became confusing for fishing
Amendment To Simplify Vessel to remain anonymous). industry members with more than one
Baselines Copies of the Omnibus Amendment to limited access permit, because each
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Simplify Vessel Baselines, and of the permit had the potential to have
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and draft Environmental Assessment and different vessel upgrade regulations
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), preliminary Regulatory Impact Review apply. In addition, some vessels added
Commerce. (EA/RIR), are available from the Greater limited access permits to their vessel
Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 that originally qualified on another
ACTION: Notice of availability of fishery
Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA vessel that was a different size and/or
management plan amendment; request
01930 The EA/RIR is also accessible via horsepower. This results in a vessel
for comments.
the Internet at: having multiple baselines. Thus, in
SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov. 1999, the MAFMC and NEFMC, in
Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: consultation with NMFS, developed an
Management Councils have submitted Travis Ford, Fishery Policy Analyst, amendment to Achieve Regulatory
an Omnibus Amendment to the Fishery Consistency on Permit Related
978–281–9233.
Management Plans of the Northeastern Provisions for Vessels Issued Limited
United States to simplify vessel SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Access Federal Fishery Permits (64 FR
baselines. This amendment incorporates Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 8263, February 19, 1999) (Consistency
a draft Environmental Assessment and Conservation and Management Act Amendment) to streamline and make
preliminary Regulatory Impact Review, (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that consistent baseline provisions and
for review and approval by the Secretary each Regional Fishery Management upgrade restrictions across FMPs.
of Commerce, and NMFS is requesting Council submit any Fishery The Consistency Amendment
comments from the public. The Management Plan (FMP) amendment it standardized definitions and restrictions
Omnibus Amendment to Simplify prepares to NMFS for review and for vessel baselines, upgrades, and
Vessel Baselines would eliminate the approval, disapproval, or partial replacements across all limited access
one-time limit on vessel upgrades and approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act fisheries. It simplified regulations for
remove gross and net tonnages from also requires that NMFS, upon receiving vessel replacements, permit transfers,
vessel baseline specifications an FMP amendment, immediately and vessel upgrades, making them
considered when determining a vessel’s publish notification in the Federal consistent and less restrictive in order to
baseline for replacement purposes. Register that the amendment is facilitate business transactions.
Implementing these measures would available for public review and Although the Consistency Amendment
reduce the administrative burden to comment. The New England Fishery did standardize the vessel baseline
permit holders and NMFS, and would Management Council (NEFMC) and the requirements for the fisheries of the
have little effect on fleet capacity. This Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management northeast, some burdensome
action would also remove the Council (MAFMC) approved this requirements remain. Under current
requirement for vessels to send in Baseline Amendment, which would restrictions, a vessel baseline is defined
negative fishing reports (i.e., ‘‘did not simplify vessel baseline requirements, at by vessel length overall, gross tonnage,
fish’’ reports) during months or weeks their November 18, 2014, and October 8, net tonnage, and horsepower. We
when fishing did not occur. 2014, meetings, respectively. NMFS determine the baseline for a limited
DATES: Comments must be received on prepared the amendment on behalf of access permit based on the size (length,
or before July 17, 2015. the Councils and declared a transmittal gross tonnage, and net tonnage) and
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, date May 12, 2015. Both Councils have horsepower of the first vessel issued a
identified by NOAA–NMFS–2011–0213, reviewed the Baseline Amendment limited access permit for that fishery or,
by any one of the following methods. proposed rule regulations as drafted by for fisheries that adopted baseline
Electronic Submission: Submit all NMFS and deemed them to be necessary restrictions through the Consistency
electronic public comments via the and appropriate as specified in section Amendment, the permitted vessel at the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. 303(c) of the MSA. If approved by time the final rule became effective.
1. Go to www.regulations.gov/ NMFS, this amendment would simplify Current baseline regulations require
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2011- the specifications considered when that a replacement vessel or an upgrade
0213, determining a vessel’s baseline for made to an existing vessel with a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 May 15, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_28310/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-16 07:39:15
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 07:39:15
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Notice of final action denying petition for reconsideration. | |
| Dates | Effective May 18, 2015. | |
| Contact | Mr. Nathan Topham, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0483; fax number: | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 28215 | |
| RIN Number | 2060-AQ60 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR