[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51814-51815]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20945]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0882]

Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012; Public Meeting; Request
for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a

public meeting to discuss implementation of the Generic Drug User Fee
Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA). GDUFA requires that generic drug
manufacturers pay user fees to finance critical and measurable generic
drug program enhancements and also requires that generic drug
facilities, sites, and organizations around the world provide
identification information annually to FDA. The purpose of the public
meeting is to discuss recent communications concerning GDUFA
implementation and to provide an opportunity for the public to present
views on these materials.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on September 21, 2012, from 9
a.m. to 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 2, Rm. 2047, Silver Spring, MD 20993.
Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is
through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be
performed. For parking and security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Gross, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 6178, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Randi Clark, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6166, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Comments: Submission of comments before the meeting is strongly
encouraged. Regardless of attendance at the public meeting, interested
persons may submit either electronic or written comments. Submit
electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written
comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. It is
only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. The deadline for
submitting comments is October 12, 2012.
    Attendance and Registration: If you wish to attend and/or present
at the meeting, please register for the meeting and/or make a request
for oral presentation by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by
September 14, 2012. Your email should contain complete contact
information for each attendee, including name, title, affiliation,
address, email address, and telephone number. Registration is free and
will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Early registration is
recommended because seating is limited. (FDA may limit the number of
participants from each organization, as well as the total number of
participants, based on space limitations.) Registrants will receive
confirmation once they have been accepted. Onsite registration on the
day of the meeting will be based on the availability of space.
    We will try to accommodate all persons who wish to make a
presentation. Those making oral presentations at the meeting should
submit to the docket a brief summary of the presentation (or
questions), including the discussion topic(s) that will be addressed
and the approximate time requested for your presentation. The time
allotted for presentations will depend on the number of persons who
wish to speak. If you need special accommodations because of a
disability, please contact Mary Gross or Randi Clark (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days before the meeting.
    For those unable to attend in person, FDA will provide a Webcast
and a telephone audio link to the meeting. To join the meeting via the
Webcast, please go to https://collaboration.fda.gov/gdufa91012. If you
have never attended a Connect Pro meeting, you may wish to test your
connection by going to https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm.

I. Background

    On July 9, 2012, GDUFA (Pub. L. 112-144, Title III) was signed into
law by the President. Designed to speed access to safe and effective
generic drugs to the public and reduce costs to industry, GDUFA
requires that generic drug manufacturers pay user fees to finance
critical and measurable generic drug program enhancements. GDUFA also
requires that generic drug facilities, sites, and organizations located
around the world provide identification information annually to FDA.
Additional information concerning GDUFA, including the text of the law
and the letter in which FDA describes commitments it is making for
improvements in the process, may be found on the FDA Web site at http://www.fda.gov/gdufa.
    The purpose of this meeting is to discuss recent communications
that provide greater detail on FDA's GDUFA implementation plans. These
communications are published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register and include the following:
     Draft Guidance for Industry Generic Drug User Fee
Amendments of 2012: Questions and Answers (available at http://www.fda.gov/gdufa)
     Draft Guidance for Industry Self-Identification of Generic
Drug Facilities, Sites, and Organizations (available at http://www.fda.gov/gdufa)
     Federal Register Notice of Opportunity To Withdraw
Abbreviated New Drug Applications To Avoid Backlog Fee Obligations
(available at http://www.fda.gov/gdufa)
    The meeting will provide an overview of these communications and an
opportunity for public input.

II. Meeting Organization

    In general, the meeting format will include presentations by FDA, a
panel discussion with stakeholder groups, individual public testimony,
and an opportunity for questions and answers from the audience. The
amount of time available for public testimony will be determined by the
number of people who register to provide testimony. An agenda and other
background for the public meeting will be posted at http://www.fda.gov/gdufa at least 2 days in advance of the meeting.

III. Transcripts

    Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it
will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at
the Division of Dockets Management (see Comments). A transcript will
also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of
a Freedom of Information request. Written requests are to be sent to
the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Food and Drug
Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., Rockville, MD 20857.

    Dated August 17, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-20945 Filed 8-22-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 15, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42803-42807]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14632]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2019-0720; FRL-10010-30-Region 2]

Approval of Source-Specific Air Quality Implementation Plans; New
Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the State of New Jersey's State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
related to a source-specific SIP for CMC Steel New Jersey, located at 1
N. Crossman, Sayreville, New Jersey (Facility). The control options in
this source-specific SIP address volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
nitrogen oxide (NOX) Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT) for the Facility's electric arc furnace (Sayreville EAF). The
intended effect of this source-specific SIP revision is to allow the
Facility to continue to operate under the current, New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)

approved VOC and NOX emission limits for the Sayreville EAF.
The Facility met the statutory criteria and deadline to qualify for
continuing to operate under its existing VOC and NOX
emission limits. This action will not increase the hourly emissions of
the Sayreville EAF affected source and will not interfere with any
applicable requirements of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
Therefore, this action meets all applicable requirements of the Clean
Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 14, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R02-
OAR-2019-0720, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, such as the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Longo, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's Submittal
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The EPA proposes to approve a revision to the State of New Jersey's
SIP for attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. Specifically,
this action applies to the regulations under New Jersey Administrative
Code (NJAC), Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 16, ``Control and
Prohibition of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds'' (NJAC
7:27-16) and New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 7, Chapter 27,
Subchapter 19, ``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides
of Nitrogen'' (NJAC 7:27-19). The NJDEP reviewed and approved the
facility-specific emission limits for VOC and NOX control
plans as well as the associated RACT for the Sayreville EAF operated by
the Facility. The two associated facility-specific emission limits for
VOC and NOX are the lowest emission limits with the
application of control technology that are reasonably available given
the technological and economic feasibility considerations associated
with the Sayreville EAF.
    CMC Steel New Jersey submitted this source-specific SIP revision
requesting authorization to continue to operate under its current
approved emission limits--specifically, the VOC emission rate of 57
pounds per hour (lb/hr) and the NOX emission rate of 31 lb/
hr--for the Sayreville EAF. A full summary of EPA's findings for this
source-specific SIP revision is included in the technical support
document (TSD) that is contained in EPA's docket assigned to this
Federal Register document.

Ozone Requirements

    On March 6, 2015, the EPA established a final rule for implementing
the 2008 ozone NAAQS that repealed the 1997 ozone NAAQS and added anti-
backsliding requirements to help smooth the transition between the 1997
and the 2008 ozone NAAQS for nonattainment areas. See 80 FR 12264
(March 6, 2015). In 1997, the EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for 8-
hour ozone, setting it at 0.084 parts per million (ppm) averaged over
an 8-hour time frame. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). In March 2008,
the EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm (2008 ozone NAAQS),
and in October 2015, to 0.070 ppm (2015 ozone NAAQS) while retaining
the 2008 ozone indicators. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008); 80 FR
65292 (October 26, 2015). Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), after the EPA
establishes a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA and the states must take
steps to ensure that the new or revised NAAQS are met. One of the first
steps, known as the ``initial area designations,'' involves identifying
areas of the country that are not meeting the new or revised NAAQS, as
well as the nearby areas that contain emission sources that contribute
emissions to the areas' not meeting the NAAQS. On June 4, 2018, the EPA
finalized its attainment/nonattainment designations for most areas
across the country with respect to the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 83
FR 25776 (June 4, 2018). The 2015 ozone NAAQS became effective on
August 3, 2018.
    The State of New Jersey encompasses two 2008 ozone NAAQS
nonattainment areas: the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City (PA-NJ-
MD-DE), which is classified as marginal; and the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT) also referred to as the New York
Metropolitan Area (NYMA), which has been reclassified as serious.\1\
The New Jersey portion of the NYMA is made up of 12 counties: Bergen,
Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic,
Somerset, Sussex, Union and Warren counties. CMC Steel New Jersey is
located in Middlesex County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Determinations of Attainment by Attainment Date, Extensions
of the Attainment Date, and Reclassifications of Several Areas
Classified as Moderate for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/23/2019-17796/determinations-of-attainment-by-the-attainment-date-extensions-of-the-attainment-date-and.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 4, 2016, the EPA determined that the NYMA failed to attain
the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable marginal attainment date of July
20, 2015, and therefore the NYMA was reclassified from ``marginal'' to
``moderate'' nonattainment. See 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016).\2\ As an
area that is reclassified to a higher nonattainment classification, the
NYMA was required to demonstrate attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2018; however, the NYMA
again failed to meet the attainment date. Consequently, on August 23,
2019, the EPA reclassified the NYMA to ``serious'' nonattainment. CAA
sections 172(c)(1), 182(b)(2) and 182(f) require nonattainment areas
that are designated as ``moderate'' or above to adopt RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Determinations of Attainment by Attainment Date, Extensions
of the Attainment Date, and Reclassifications of Several Areas for
the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/05/04/2016-09729/determinations-of-attainment-by-the-attainment-date-extensions-of-the-attainment-date-and.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RACT Requirements

    RACT is defined as the lowest emission limit that a source is
capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is
reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility.\3\ The RACT analysis requires

a two-step process. In the first step, the facility must identify
control options that it does not currently implement but that are
technologically feasible given its operations. In the second step, the
facility must determine which of the identified control options is cost
effective given its operational needs. The control options that are
demonstrated as both technologically feasible and cost-effective are
considered RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The EPA has not generally prescribed RACT requirements. As
defined in ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for
Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment
Areas--Supplement (on Control Techniques Guidelines),'' RACT for a
source is determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the
technological and economic circumstances of the individual source.
See 44 FR 53761 September 17, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The entire State of New Jersey is subject to RACT because: (1) The
State is under the nonattainment area designations for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (40 CFR 81.331), and (2) the State of New Jersey is located
within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), a region in which the CAA
requires that state SIPs implement RACT requirements. See CAA Sec.
184(b)(1)(B). Under the EPA guidelines (the ``Phase 2 Rule''), in RACT
determinations, states should consider technologies that achieve 30-50
percent reduction within a cost range of $160-1300 per ton of
NOX removed. See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). On August
1, 2007, the NJDEP finalized RACT revisions to its SIP to address the
8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the EPA approved these revisions on May 15,
2009. See ``RACT for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS and other Associated SIP
Revisions for the Fine Particulate Matter, Regional Haze, and Transport
of Air Pollution,'' available at http://www.nj.gov/dep/baqp/sip/8-hrRACT-Final.pdf and see 74 FR 22837 (May 15, 2009). The NJDEP, taking
a more stringent approach, determined that control options with
significantly higher costs than those discussed in the Phase 2 Rule
would be considered reasonable under the State's RACT analysis. New
Jersey's RACT rule does not suggest a dollar amount, but the NJDEP has
identified a five-factor analysis for determining whether a control
option constitutes RACT:
    (1) Past New Jersey costs for retrofitting a given control;
    (2) Average RACT cost (dollars per tons reduced) for a control
technology and maximum RACT cost. Once a reasonable number of sources
in a source category achieve a lower emission level, other sources
should do the same;
    (3) The seriousness of the Region's ozone air quality exceedance.
For nonattainment areas with higher ozone levels, higher costs for
controls are reasonable;
    (4) The seriousness of the need to reduce transported air
pollution. As an OTR state, higher costs for RACT are justified; and
    (5) The NJDEP plan for addressing economic feasibility in RACT
rules.
    The NJDEP intended to specify RACT at the lowest emission limit
that a reasonable number of facilities that are similar to the source
under consideration had already successfully implemented for each
source category.

II. The EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's Submittals

    In accordance with NJAC 7:27-16.17 and NJAC 7:27-19, NJDEP
requested \4\ for CMC Steel New Jersey to submit updated facility-
specific VOC and NOX control plans so that the State could
determine whether new emission control options for the electric arc
furnace had emerged since the Facility's last submission and NJDEP
approval in 2009. In response, CMC Steel New Jersey submitted to NJDEP
the facility-specific VOC and NOX control plans that are the
subject of this source-specific SIP revision. In a letter from NJDEP
Commissioner Catherine R. McCabe to the U.S. EPA Region 2 Regional
Administrator Peter D. Lopez (dated April 30, 2019), NJDEP requested
the EPA's approval of the current revision to the New Jersey SIP for
the ozone NAAQS to incorporate CMC Steel New Jersey's facility-specific
control plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ By email correspondence (dated September 7, 2018), NJDEP
requested Gerdau Ameristeel (the former owner of the Facility) to
submit updated facility-specific VOC and NOX control
plans, because under NJAC 7:27-16.17 and NJAC 7:27-19, respectively,
such plans have terms of 10 years. Having been approved in about
2009, the CMC Steel New Jersey's facility-specific control plans
under the referenced provisions were near expiration. Note that on
December 5, 2018, the NJDEP approved an administrative amendment to
the Facility's CAA Title V operating permit to reflect the change in
ownership and name from Gerdau Ameristeel to CMC Steel New Jersey.
All control options and operating permit limits for the Sayreville
EAF remain the same for the new owner CMC Steel New Jersey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NJDEP's current source-specific SIP revision requests that the EPA
evaluate the RACT analysis which would set CMC Steel New Jersey's
facility-specific VOC emission rate at 57 lb/hr and its facility-
specific maximum allowable NOX emission rate at 31 lb/hr.
The Operating Permit contains a maximum potential to emit (PTE) of 78.7
tons per year (TPY) of VOC and maximum PTE of 78.8 TPY of
NOX for the Sayreville EAF.\5\ According to the most recent
facility emissions inventory, other sources of VOC and NOX
emissions at the Facility's melt shop include: a scrap pre-heater,
three ladle preheaters, a tundish preheater, and billet cutting
torches; each of these enumerated sources contributes well less than 3
lb/hr of VOC emissions and less than 1 TPY of NOX to the
overall VOC and NOX emissions from the Facility. Therefore,
only the Sayreville EAF source operation is subject to the VOC RACT
rule and the NOX RACT rule as set forth in NJAC 7:27-16.17
and NJAC 7:27-19.13, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The electric arc furnace is situated in the Facility's melt
shop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA reviewed the NJDEP's April 30, 2019, source-specific SIP
revision submittal, which includes the CMC Steel New Jersey RACT
analysis, for completeness and approvability. The EPA review included:
studying various EPA RACT technical guidance documents, an evaluation
of comparable electric arc furnace emission control technologies
deployed at facilities nationwide, and consultation with air pollution
control experts from the NJDEP and the EPA. Details of the EPA's review
are included in the TSD contained in this docket.

Qualifying To Continue To Operate Under Current Approved Emission
Limits

    The CMC Steel New Jersey VOC and NOX control plans
identify the proposed emission limits for the Sayreville EAF. The
Facility met NJDEP's statutory criteria and deadline to qualify for
continuing to operate under existing VOC and NOX emission
limits. Under NJAC: 7:27-16.17(c)(3), facilities that sought to
continue operating with an alternative VOC control plan that was
approved prior to May 19, 2009, were required to submit updated
proposed VOC control plans to NJDEP for review by August 17, 2009. The
initial facility-specific VOC RACT plan for the Sayreville EAF was
approved in October 1994, and on August 17, 2009 the Facility timely
submitted a revised VOC RACT plan with a VOC emission rate of 57 lb/hr.
Similarly, under NJAC: 7:27-19.13(a)(3), facilities that sought to
continue to operate under existing NOX control plans that
were approved prior to May 1, 2005, were required to submit updated
proposed NOX control plans to NJDEP for review by August 17,
2009. The initial facility-specific NOX RACT plan for the
Sayreville EAF was approved in May 1995, and on August 17, 2009 the
Facility timely submitted a revised NOX RACT plan with a
facility-specific maximum allowable NOX emission rate of 31
lb/hr.

RACT Analysis

    The Facility's RACT analysis identifies seven VOC control

technologies and eight NOX control technologies for a
typical electric arc furnace. Three control technologies are currently
being implemented at the Sayreville EAF (two VOC and one NOX
controls) and one VOC control technology (i.e., a thermal incinerator)
was considered technologically feasible but not currently implemented.
    The VOC controls currently implemented at the Sayreville EAF are:
Operating in accordance with the Facility's Scrap Management Plan with
which the Facility achieves reduced VOC emissions by ensuring that
purchased scrap material are of a consistent and verifiable quality to
minimize the amount of nonmetallic/organic material (such as oil,
grease, and plastic) that could result in VOC emissions when heated;
and a direct evacuation system (DES) which destroys \6\ VOC emissions.
The VOC control technologies that are not technologically feasible for
the Sayreville EAF are: Catalytic incineration; flares; mixed bed
carbon adsorption; and condensers/recapture systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The DES helps destroy VOC emissions by sending the gas
stream back through the high temperature preheater chamber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NOX control currently implemented by the Sayreville
EAF is good operating practices, through which the Facility maintains a
constant temperature in the preheater chamber (which feeds scrap metal
to the EAF) so that scrap metal is melted before it enters the
Sayreville EAF thereby avoiding temperature spikes that could generate
greater NOX emissions. The Facility's good operating
practices also minimizes its electricity consumption which allows the
Facility to avoid indirect NOX emissions. The NOX
control technologies that are not technologically feasible for the
Sayreville EAF are: DES; low NOX/oxy-fuel burner; low excess
air; flue gas recirculation/temperature reduction; selective catalytic
reduction; selective non-catalytic reduction; and non-selective
catalytic reduction.
    The Facility conducted the RACT analysis on the thermal incinerator
VOC control technology. The Facility demonstrated that VOC reductions
from the thermal incinerator are not cost effective and therefore not
RACT. Cost effectiveness is measured in dollars per ton of emissions
reductions per year (i.e., the cost per ton of pollutant controlled).
The cost effectiveness analysis includes many factors, among which are:
Consideration of process capital equipment, total plant cost and
investment, fixed and variable operating cost, total capital
requirement and consumable costs. Because sources vary in many
important characteristics (including, among others, age, condition, and
size), the actual cost, emission reduction, and cost effectiveness
levels that an individual source experiences in meeting the RACT
requirements also vary. Costs of meeting RACT also vary by the
geographic locations of different sources as well as between emission
units within a source. Rather than focusing on a single cost
effectiveness figure for controls, EPA recommends that states consider
a cost effectiveness range, because the actual cost effectiveness may
vary. See e.g., Memorandum from D. Kent Berry (dated March 16, 1994),
``Cost effective Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT).''
    Based on the November 2017 updates to the EPA Air Pollution Control
Cost Manual, the maximum costs considered are for a 50,000 standard
cubic feet per minute (SCFM) thermal incinerator. Although larger
thermal incinerator units can be built, sources rarely use flow rates
above 50,000 SCFM. Therefore, CMC Steel New Jersey calculated the cost
needed to handle a flow rate of 100,000 SCFM based on the cost of two
50,000 SCFM units. The cost effectiveness of operating two thermal
incinerators was calculated by dividing the total annual cost of two
thermal incinerators ($3,647,283) by the amount of VOC emissions that
would be removed (74.8 TPY). The VOC reduction was in turn calculated
by multiplying the baseline of 78.7 TPY (the PTE from the Facility's
Title V permit) by an assumed thermal incinerator control efficiency of
95-percent, which resulted in a reduction of 74.8 TPY of VOC. The 95-
percent control efficiency was selected based on EPA guidance.\7\
Furthermore, as explained in Section I above, under EPA rulemaking
states should consider in their RACT determinations technologies that
achieve 30-50 percent reduction within a cost range of $160-$1,300 per
ton of NOX removed.\8\ The cost effectiveness of installing
two thermal incinerators on the Sayreville EAF expressed in annual
costs is $48,760 per ton VOC reduced. Therefore, NJDEP concluded that
the thermal incinerator control technology is not to be RACT due to
technological and economical infeasibility under federal and state RACT
criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Handbook Control Technologies for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
EPA/625/6-91/014, June 1991.
    \8\ As explained in the TSD, the NOX Supplement
applies to major stationary sources of NOX the same as
major stationary sources of VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA agrees that thermal incineration technology is not cost
effective and is not routinely implemented on electric arc furnaces.
This technology's poor performance with electric arc furnaces possibly
results from its unsuitability for applications where there are large
fluctuations in flow rate or those in which reduced residence time and
mixing during increased flow would result in lower destruction
efficiency. EPA's review of the available literature reveals that while
thermal incineration can handle minor flow rate fluctuations, the
system cannot handle excessive flow rate fluctuations, which could
require use of a flare. Thermal incinerators also have high fuel
consumption demands and are better suited for small process operations,
and not those found at the Facility. Finally, thermal incineration
forms highly corrosive acid gases whose effects require the operation
of post-oxidation acid gas treatment system. To remedy the problems
associated with use of a thermal incineration system would add costs to
the already high costs of operating thermal incineration units at the
Facility.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See e.g., EPA Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet,
Technology: Thermal Incinerator, EPA 452/F-03-022, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100RQ6F.PDF?Dockey=P100RQ6F.PDF (last
accessed Mar. 19, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA finds that the current source-specific SIP revision is
approvable because the Facility can meet emission limits set by NJDEP,
implement RACT controls, and the Facility's application for facility-
specific alternative control plans for VOC and NOX meet the
relevant regulatory requirements. First, based on a thorough review of
similar sources, and an analysis of this source-specific SIP revision,
the EPA proposes to allow CMC Steel New Jersey to continue to operate
under the NJDEP-approved emission limits for the Sayreville EAF.
Specifically, the EPA proposes to set the Facility's VOC emission rate
at 57 lb/hr and the NOX emission rate at 31 lb/hr. The EPA
finds that no VOC and no NOX controls other than those the
Facility already has in place can be designated RACT. The VOC controls
currently implemented at the Facility (i.e., the DES and the Scrap
Management Plan) allow the Facility to meet the 57 lb/hr VOC limit. For
NOX, the Facility will continue to implement the Best
Management Practices to avoid temperature spikes and minimize
electricity use which would allow the Facility to meet the 31 lb/hr
NOX limit. Second, the Facility's application meets the
statutory requirement for facilities

that seek to continue to operate under existing facility-specific
control plans for VOC and NOX. The Facility had existing
facility-specific control plans that were approved prior to May 19,
2009 and submitted its facility-specific control plan by August 17,
2009, as required under NJAC 7:27-16.17(c)(3) for VOC and under NJAC
7:27-19.13(a)(3) for NOX. As stated, the Facility underwent
a change in ownership to CMC Steel New Jersey but made no changes to
its equipment. As a result, the Facility is entitled to rely on its
previously approved facility-specific control plans under both
statutory provisions.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, we are proposing to include regulatory text in an
EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference the provisions described above in Section III. Proposed
Action.
    The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov
and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA regional office, 290 Broadway,
25th floor, New York, New York, 10007-1866.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions 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. 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compound.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 30, 2020.
Peter Lopez,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2020-14632 Filed 7-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47095-47096]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19039]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1333-062]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Application for Temporary Variance of
License Requirement.
    b. Project No.: 1333-062.
    c. Date Filed: June 26, 2014.
    d. Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (licensee).
    e. Name of Project: Tule River Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the North Fork of the Middle Fork Tule River,
Hossack Creek, and Doyle Springs, in Tulare County, California.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Elisabeth Rossi, License Coordinator,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Mail Code: N11C, P.O. Box 770000, San
Francisco, CA 94177. Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Mark Pawlowski,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests,
and recommendations is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by
the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or
recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please

send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project
number (P-1333-062) on any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or
recommendations filed.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests a temporary
variance to reduce minimum flows required by article 105 of the
project's license. The licensee states that water conditions in the
North Fork of the Middle Fork Tule River are critically dry, and
requests that it be allowed to reduce the minimum flow release from
Tule Diversion Dam and Doyle Springs Diversion Dam from 4 and 2 cubic
feet per second (cfs), respectively, to 1 cfs. The purpose of this flow
reduction is to maintain the integrity of, and prevent permanent damage
to, the project's 1,021-foot-long redwood penstock by maintain a 2 cfs
flow through the penstock. Due to the urgent nature of this request and
to prevent permanent damage to the project's the Commission approved
the licensee's request with conditions by order dated August 1, 2014.
The approved temporary variance expires no later than 6 months from the
date of the order. However, should the licensee request another
temporary variance due to continued drought conditions once the current
variance expires, the Commission will take into account any comments
received, intervention requests, and protests received in its analysis
of any future variance request.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the license surrender.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: August 6, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19039 Filed 8-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P