Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
On August 26, 2011, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) which proposed approval of Pennsylvania's adhesives and sealants regulations in order to control emissions of VOCs from the manufacture, sale, use, or application of adhesives, sealants, primers, and solvents (76 FR 53369, August 26, 2011). The formal SIP revision was submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through PADEP on January 12, 2011.
Pennsylvania's SIP submission contains amendments to
The SIP revision is based on the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model rule, “OTC Model Rule For Adhesives and Sealants,” dated 2006, which was based on the 1998 California Air Resources Board (CARB) reasonably available control technology (RACT) determination which applied to both the manufacture and use of adhesives, sealants, adhesive primers, or sealant primers, in both industrial and manufacturing facilities and in the field. California Air Districts used this determination to develop regulations for this category. EPA addressed this source category with a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) document “Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, EPA-453/R-08-005” in September 2008 (Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG).
EPA has determined that the SIP revision contains the required elements for a federally enforceable rule: Emission limitations, compliance procedures and test methods, compliance dates, and record keeping provisions. In comparison to the CTG, the OTC model rule and
EPA addressed a portion of the adhesives and adhesive primers category in the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG. EPA's Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG provides state and local air pollution control authorities information that may assist them in determining RACT for VOCs from miscellaneous industrial adhesive application processes. In developing this Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG, EPA, among other things, evaluated the sources of VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesives application processes and the available control approaches for addressing these emissions, including the costs of such approaches. Based on available information and data, EPA provided recommendations for RACT for miscellaneous industrial adhesives. States can use the recommendations in the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG to inform their own determination as to what constitutes RACT for VOCs for miscellaneous industrial adhesive application processes in their particular nonattainment areas. The Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG does not impose any legally binding requirements on any entity nor are States required to adopt the approach that EPA sets forth in a CTG. It provides only recommendations for state and local air pollution control agencies to consider in determining RACT. State and local pollution control agencies are free to implement other technically-sound approaches that are consistent with the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations or are more stringent. Thus, whether or not the CTG expressly addressed the adhesives at issue here is not relevant for determining whether Pennsylvania's rule addressing those adhesives could be approved as part of the SIP.
Section 110(k) of the CAA provides that EPA shall approve a SIP revision submittal if it meets all of the applicable requirements of the CAA. The primary CAA requirement for the adhesives and sealants rule is that Pennsylvania set RACT for the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG category. For the reasons outlined in the NPR, EPA believes that Pennsylvania has fulfilled this requirement (76 FR 53369). To the extent that Pennsylvania's rule goes beyond the recommendation of the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG, it does not prohibit EPA from approving this rulemaking action. The OTC developed a model rule as part of a regional effort to attain and maintain the eight-hour ozone standard and reduce eight-hour ozone levels. States opting to
EPA is approving the Pennsylvania SIP revision which includes amendments to
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. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• 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
• 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. 104-4);
• 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 12(d) 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.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 26, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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 pertaining to pertaining to Pennsylvania's control of VOCs from adhesives and sealants may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *