[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 240 (Monday, December 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80616-80626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23857]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0562; FRL-10014-11-Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Under the 2008
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving two
state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania. These revisions address certain reasonably available
control technology (RACT) requirements, specifically those related to
control technique guidelines (CTGs) for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and the addition of regulations controlling VOC emissions from
industrial cleaning solvents. These submissions are part of
Pennsylvania's efforts to implement RACT for the 2008 ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is approving these revisions
to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on January 13, 2021.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0562. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) 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 through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2117. Mr. Talley can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 5, 2020, (85 FR 12877), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the NPRM,
EPA proposed approval of two SIP revisions which were submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and were
intended to address RACT requirements for sources of VOC emissions
required by section 184(b)(l)(B) of the CAA and the implementing
regulations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015; 40
CFR part 51, subpart AA). In addition, the submittals were intended to
address certain parts of the finding EPA issued in 2017 that
Pennsylvania failed to submit required SIP revisions. ``Findings of
Failure to Submit State Implementation Plan Submittals for the 2008
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' (82 FR 9158; February
3, 2017). The formal SIP revisions were submitted by the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania on August 13, 2018.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
Pennsylvania's August 13, 2018 SIP submissions are intended to meet
the RACT requirements for VOCs under section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA
and the implementing regulations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS found at 40
CFR part 51, subpart AA. These submittals are discussed in detail in
sections II.A. and B. of this preamble. Additional
[[Page 80617]]
information can be found in the NPRM and in EPA's Technical Support
Document (TSD) in the docket for this action.
A. Pennsylvania's RACT Certification of CTGs and Request To Incorporate
New Source Performance Standards Into the SIP
The first submittal is entitled: ``Certification of Reasonably
Available Control Technology for Control Techniques Guidelines Under
the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Incorporation
of 25 Pa Code Chapter 122 (Relating to National Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources) into the Commonwealth's State
Implementation Plan.'' This submittal: (1) Certifies that PADEP's
adoption and implementation of regulations to control VOC emissions is
consistent with EPA's CTGs and therefore represents RACT for these
covered CTG sources for the 2008 ozone standard; (2) incorporates 25
Pa. Code Chapter 122 (relating to national standards of performance for
new stationary sources) into the Pennsylvania SIP and certifies that
those provisions represent RACT for certain facilities subject to such
standards of performance; and (3) incorporates specific permit
conditions for certain facilities for the purpose of establishing
source-specific RACT-level controls for those facilities.
1. CTGs
PADEP developed regulations consistent with each CTG addressed by
the submittal and has determined that each represents RACT for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. A list of the CTGs for which Pennsylvania has adopted
regulations that PADEP considered in making this determination is found
in Table 1, beginning on page 12 of the August 13, 2018 submittal.
PADEP based this certification on the following: (1) Certification that
Pennsylvania's regulations meet the CAA RACT requirements, are based on
the most currently available technically and economically feasible
controls, and represent RACT for implementation purposes pertaining to
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) certification that PADEP has adopted
and implemented provisions or regulations addressing applicable EPA CTG
source categories and that these provisions or regulations represent
RACT control levels or control levels more stringent than RACT under
the 2008 ozone NAAQS; (3) certification that PADEP has implemented all
CTG RACT controls indicated in this SIP revision, based on the EPA's
guidance and standards, and that they represent current RACT control
levels under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and (4) certification that
PADEP has determined that there is a CTG source category for which it
has made a negative declaration because there are no existing sources
for RACT purposes in Pennsylvania.
PADEP has determined that there are no sources in Pennsylvania
(excluding Philadelphia County and Allegheny County) covered by EPA's
CTG ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large
Petroleum Dry Cleaners,'' (EPA-450/3-82-009; September 1982) and
therefore submitted a negative declaration for that CTG source type.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In Pennsylvania, the SIP program is implemented primarily by
PADEP, but also by local air agencies in Philadelphia County (the
City of Philadelphia Air Management Services (AMS)) and Allegheny
County (Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD)). EPA has
previously approved SIP submittals addressing CTG requirements for
AMS and ACHD. See 84 FR 56946; October 24, 2019 and 84 FR 18736; May
2, 2019, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Incorporation by Reference of New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)
Pennsylvania has incorporated by reference and therefore adopted
all of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) promulgated by EPA
under section 111 of the CAA and found at 40 CFR part 60. 25 Pa. Code
122. PADEP determined that for certain source categories, the Federal
requirements of 40 CFR part 60--Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources, provide RACT level control. PADEP has submitted 25
Pa. Code 122 for inclusion into the SIP. PADEP's August 13, 2018
submittal specifically cites the requirements of 40 CFR part 60,
subparts NNN (relating to synthetic organic chemical manufacturing
industry (``SOCMI'') distillation operations), RRR (relating to SOCMI
reactor processes), and subparts KKK, OOOO, and OOOOa (relating to
natural gas processing facilities), and certifies that the requirements
of these NSPS constitute VOC RACT for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the
affected source categories.
EPA's CTG entitled ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations Processes in the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, EPA-450/4/-91-031,
August 1993'' provides that the NSPS requirements of subparts NNN and
RRR meet the RACT level controls recommended by the CTG. The required
control efficiency of the CTG (98% destruction by weight, or 20 parts
per million by volume (ppmv) dry basis, corrected to 3% oxygen) is the
same as required by the NSPS.\2\ Essentially, any process vent that is
controlled with a combustion device to meet the requirements of the
NSPS would meet the RACT recommendations of the CTG. PADEP identified
five facilities subject to subparts NNN and RRR. Four of these are
subject to control requirements, while one is subject only to record
keeping requirements based on a de minimis emissions exemption,
consistent with the CTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 40 CFR 60.662 and 60.702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 Pa. Code 122 also incorporates the Federal NSPS requirements of
40 CFR part 60 subparts KKK, OOOO, OOOOa, and the cross-referenced
equipment leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements of subparts VV
and VVa. The NSPS requirements from subpart KKK are equivalent to the
1983 CTG for the oil and natural gas industry (1983 CTG).\3\ Subparts
OOOO and OOOOa incorporate the requirements of subpart KKK. PADEP
provided a comparison between the applicable provisions of the NSPS and
EPA's 1983 CTG.\4\ Based on this comparison, PADEP has determined that
the NSPS rules in 40 CFR part 60, subparts KKK, OOOO, and OOOOa, with
cross references to subparts VV and VVa, are at least as stringent as
the requirements in the 1983 CTG for this source category. Therefore,
the Federal NSPS provisions applicable to all of Pennsylvania's current
natural gas processing facility sources are sufficient to meet the
requirements of the 1983 Oil and Natural Gas CTG for purposes of the
2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA notes that PADEP's August 13, 2018 submittal did
not address EPA's ``Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and
Natural Gas Industry, EPA-453/B-16-001, October 2016,'' (2016 Oil and
Gas CTG). Nothing in this action is intended to speak to SIP
obligations related to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural
Gas Industry, EPA-453/B-16-001, October 2016, Section 8.3.2.1. pp.
8-12, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/2016-ctg-oil-and-gas.pdf.
\4\ See Appendix F of PADEP's August 13, 2018 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Incorporation of Source Specific Permit Limits
PADEP found only two sources covered by the ``Shipbuilding/Repair
ACT (EPA 453/R-94-032, April 1994)'' and the EPA's ``CTG for
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating) (61 FR 44050,
August 27, 1996)'' and one source subject to ``Control of Volatile
Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic
Organic Chemical
[[Page 80618]]
Manufacturing Industry, EPA-450/3-84-015, December 1984'' (SOCMI CTG).
Rather than promulgate a rule to address the RACT requirements of those
two CTGs for only three affected sources, PADEP has incorporated the
control requirements of the CTGs into Federally enforceable permits and
submitted the applicable permit terms for incorporation into the SIP.
Redacted versions of Permit Nos. 25-00930 (Donjon Shipbuilding) and
26-00545 (Heartland Fabrication) were submitted for incorporation into
the Commonwealth's SIP. Generally, the control strategy is to limit the
VOC content of the coatings and materials used. The relevant portions
of the permits are consistent with the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Operations (Surface coating) CTG and satisfy the RACT requirements for
these sources. A redacted version of Permit No. 39-00024 (Geo.
Specialty Chem. Trimet Div.) was also submitted for incorporation into
the SIP. PADEP certified that this is the only source that falls within
the SOCMI CTG. Pursuant to that CTG, ``It is recommended that air
oxidation facilities for which an existing combustion device is
employed to control process VOC emissions should not be required to
meet the 98 percent emissions limit until the combustion device is
replaced for other reasons. In other words, no facility would be
required to upgrade or replace an existing control device.'' \5\ PADEP
determined that the facility's formaldehyde process and catalytic
incinerator were installed in 1980, before the December 1984
applicability date of the CTG. PADEP further determined that neither
the process nor the control device have been modified since the 1980
installation date. PADEP therefore certified that the existing control
strategy and emission limitations in the permit constitute RACT for
this particular source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
Air Oxidation Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry, EPA, 450/3-84-015, December 1984,'' Page 4-
1, available at: https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ctgact/198412vocepa4503-84-015airoxidationprocesses.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regulatory Revisions Related to VOCs and NOX RACT
The changes proposed by PADEP in this second submittal, entitled
``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Industrial
Cleaning Solvents; General Provisions; Aerospace Manufacturing and
Rework; Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of
NOX and VOCs,'' (2006 ICS CTG) include: (1) The addition of
25 Pa. Code 129.63a (relating to the control of VOCs from industrial
cleaning solvents (ICS)); (2) amendments to 25 Pa. Code sections 121.1
and 129.51 (definitions and ``general'' provisions, respectively) in
order to support the addition and implementation of section 129.63a;
(3) a correction to the VOC emission limit table in 25 Pa. Code section
129.73 (relating to aerospace manufacturing and re-work); and (4)
amendments to 25 Pa. Code sections 129.96, 129.97, 129.99, and 129.100
to clarify certain requirements and to update the list of exemptions
under RACT II because of previously adopted presumptive VOC RACT
regulations.
PADEP determined that the recommendations in EPA's 2006 ICS CTG are
technically and economically feasible for sources in this source
category, and developed section 129.63a to adopt the relevant limits of
the 2006 ICS CTG to implement VOC RACT for sources subject to this CTG
in Pennsylvania. Pursuant to section 129.63a(a), the regulation applies
to owners/operators of facilities in which industrial cleaning solvents
are ``used or applied in a cleaning activity at a cleaning unit
operation, a work production-related work area, or a part, product,
tool, machinery, equipment, vessel, floor or wall.'' Facilities are
subject to section 129.63a if the combined actual emissions of VOCs
from all subject cleaning operations exceed 2.7 tons in any 12-month
rolling period, before consideration of controls.
As previously discussed, EPA recently approved sections 129.96,
129.97, and 129.100, and conditionally approved sections 129.98 and
129.99 as part of the May 9, 2019 final action related to
Pennsylvania's RACT II regulations.\6\ The RACT II Rule applies
statewide to existing major NOX and/or VOC sources in
Pennsylvania, except those subject to other Pennsylvania regulations,
as specified in 25 Pa. Code 129.96(a)-(b). The emission limits and
substantive requirements of sections 129.96, 129.97, 129.99, and
129.100 were not amended. Other specific requirements of PADEP's August
13, 2018 submittals and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are
explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 84 FR 20274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. EPA's Response to Comments Received
EPA received five sets of relevant comments on the March 5, 2020
NPRM (85 FR 12877). All comments received are in the docket for this
action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided
herein.
The first set of comments raised concerns about EPA's proposed
approval based generally on the adequacy of PADEP's analysis of CTG
RACT, and specifically on the analysis for natural gas processing
plants.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Comments 1 and 2 of this preamble, were submitted jointly on
behalf of multiple groups. Therefore, responses 1 and 2 of this
preamble refer to ``commenters'' in plural.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1: The commenters first allege that PADEP's analysis is
flawed because it hinges upon a determination that Pennsylvania's VOC
controls are ``. . . at least as stringent as'' the CTGs. The
commenters assert that equivalency with the CTGs is not the test that
must be passed in a RACT analysis, but rather a starting point. The
commenters contend that although CTGs are presumptive norms, EPA is not
required to defer to states' reliance on them, nor do CTGs create a
rebuttable presumption for the public to overcome. The commenters also
take issue with PADEP's assertion that they are unaware of changes in
control technology significant enough to generate different results in
a RACT analysis. The commenters assert that it is not enough to be
unaware, and further, that it is not the public's responsibility to
raise such awareness. Additionally, the commenters assert that the
absence of information regarding PADEP's review process makes it
impossible to determine whether the submittal meets RACT requirements,
and whether EPA properly reviewed the submittal in accordance with CAA
sections 110(k)(3) and 110(l). Further, the commenters assert that RACT
analyses are supposed to be ``technology forcing,'' and that it is
implausible that a thorough and proper analysis of all forty-three
CTGs, especially the very old ones, would find that they continue to
represent RACT for the affected sources. Finally, the commenters assert
that EPA has failed its statutory duty under CAA section 183(b) to
review and revise the CTGs and must do so, particularly if limited
state resources are to be considered a legitimate reason for failing to
perform a more thorough analysis.
Response 1: States have primary responsibility for ensuring air
quality within their jurisdictions by submitting SIPs that specify the
manner by which the NAAQS will be achieved and maintained. Under the
CAA, EPA is tasked with developing CTGs containing recommended
presumptive RACT-level controls for certain categories of VOC sources,
see CAA sections 108 and 183, while states with Moderate or above
nonattainment areas or located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) are
[[Page 80619]]
tasked with ensuring that sources subject to those CTGs adopt RACT-
level controls for VOCs. As EPA stated in 1979 ``. . . each CTG
contains recommendations to the States of what EPA calls the
``presumptive norm'' for RACT, based on EPA's current evaluation of the
capabilities and problems general to the industry.'' State
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on
Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas--Supplement (On
Control Techniques Guidelines), 44 FR 53761, 53762 (September 17, 1979)
(hereafter CTG Supplement). The CTG Supplement then states ``[f]or
emission limitations that are consistent with the information in the
CTGs, therefore, the State may be able to rely solely on the
information in the CTG to support its determination that the adopted
requirements represent RACT.'' For emission limitations that are not
consistent with the CTGs, ``EPA believes that the State must submit
justification of its own, to support its determination.'' Id. at 53762.
It is still EPA's view that CTGs represent the presumptive norm for
RACT. In the October 20, 2016 memo entitled ``Implementing [RACT]
Requirements for Sources Covered by the 2016 Control Techniques
Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industries,'' EPA reiterated
that ``[t]he recommended controls in the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG are the
`presumptive norm' based on general industry parameters and published
assumptions.'' Memo, p.2.8 9 EPA has consistently made this
claim that CTGs represent the presumptive norms for RACT. See Control
of VOC Emissions from Coating Operations at Aerospace manufacturing and
Rework Operations, (October 1996), p. 1-1; Control of [VOC] Emissions
from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations (April 1996), pp. 1-1 to
1-2.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The memo can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/implementing_reasonably_available_control_technology_requirements_for_sources_covered_by_the_2016_control_techniques_guidelines_for_the_oil_and_natural_gas_industry.pdf (last accessed July 7, 2020).
\9\ See 85 FR 12877, March 5, 2020.
\10\ These and other CTGs can be found at https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/control-techniques-guidelines-and-alternative-control-techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS allows an
approach ``. . .where states should refer to the existing CTGs and ACTs
for purposes of meeting their RACT requirements, as well as all
relevant information (including recent technical information and
information received during the public comment period).'' \11\ The 2008
Ozone Implementation Rule also allowed states to conclude that CTG and
ACT sources already addressed by RACT determinations for the 1-hour
and/or 1997 ozone NAAQS do not need to implement additional controls to
meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS RACT requirement, ``. . . because the
fundamental control techniques, as described in the CTGs and ACTs, are
still applicable.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 80 FR 12279, March 6, 2015.
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of contrary information, Pennsylvania can rely on
the equivalency of its existing CTG implementation regulations with the
recommended RACT controls in the CTGs. If Pennsylvania has determined
that their existing RACT-level controls for sources covered by certain
CTGs are equivalent to controls recommended in the CTGs, and in the
absence of countervailing information, Pennsylvania's determination is
entitled to a certain amount of deference. If the state adopts a level
of VOC control less than the recommended CTG level of VOC control, then
the state must provide information supporting its determination that
the CTG RACT level controls are not technically or economically
feasible, and EPA must determine if that deviation is justified.
Pennsylvania has not indicated that it is deviating from CTG levels of
control for any of the sources currently subject to CTGs within its
jurisdiction, and the commenters have not submitted any specific
information suggesting otherwise for any CTG except the 1983 Oil and
Gas CTG.
The commenters also claim that Pennsylvania must do more than be
``unaware'' of new control technologies by affirmatively searching for
information about such technologies. However, Pennsylvania did conduct
an assessment of the NSPS and NESHAPs applicable to CTG sources that
could have shown new technological developments. As noted by the
commenters, Section 6 of PADEP's submittal discusses the process that
it followed to evaluate whether the regulations Pennsylvania adopted to
implement the CTGs still contain RACT-level controls consistent with
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The submittal states: ``PADEP staff began the
certification process by reviewing the CAA RACT requirements and CTG
recommendations, followed by the review of additional guidance or
regulations currently implemented for the affected VOC sources,
including but not limited to, EPA's Available Control Technology (ACT)
documents, Federal NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants in 40 CFR part 63 for the
applicable source categories.'' While PADEP did not explicitly state
that it researched the availability of new VOC control technologies for
sources subject to CTGs, a review of the NSPS and NESHAPS applicable to
CTG-covered sources would likely turn up any new control technologies
available for VOCs or control of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), some
of which are also VOCs (e.g benzene, toulene, formaldehyde). See CAA
section 112(b), 40 CFR 51.100(s).
Furthermore, while it is not necessarily the public's job to make
Pennsylvania aware of new control technologies, EPA notes that an
important reason for providing the opportunity for public comment at
both the state and Federal level is to give the public and stakeholders
the opportunity to identify technologies or control methods that the
state or Federal government has not considered. Other than the 1983 Oil
and Gas CTG, the commenters have not provided specific information
challenging the recommended RACT level of controls in the other CTGs
which Pennsylvania is certifying as still meeting the RACT requirements
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Also, PADEP, as the primary CAA enforcement
and permitting entity within most of Pennsylvania, is well-positioned
to be aware of whether new control technologies exist which could be
used by the many varied sources it regulates. In the absence of
information provided by the commenters showing that there are new
technologies available to control VOCs at the sources covered by the
CTGs, and in light of Pennsylvania's statement that it reviewed the
NSPS and NESHAPs applicable to CTG sources, EPA will not second-guess
the validity of Pennsylvania's search effort.
Regarding the assertion that RACT must be ``technology forcing,''
EPA notes that RACT limits are not meant to be the lowest achievable
emissions rate for each particular source. Rather, since the 1970's,
EPA has consistently defined ``RACT'' as the lowest emission limit that
a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of the
control technology that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility. See December 9, 1976 memorandum
from Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste
Management, to Regional Administrators, ``Guidance for Determining
Acceptability of SIP Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas,''
[[Page 80620]]
and 44 FR 53761 at 53762 (September 17, 1979). As noted in this long-
standing definition, technical and economic feasibility must also be
considered when assessing whether a new technology should be adopted as
the presumptive norm of RACT level control for CTG sources. After
reciting the above definition of RACT, the Strelow memo goes on to
state: ``Thus, RACT encompasses stringent, or even `technology
forcing,' requirement that goes beyond simple `off-the-shelf'
technology.'' Strelow Memo, p. 2.\13\ In the paragraph following this
statement, the Strelow memo also states that other factors should be
considered in determining RACT: ``The determination of RACT and the
corresponding emission rate, ensuring the proper application and
operation of RACT, may vary from source to source due to source
configuration, retrofit feasibility, operation procedures, raw
materials, and other technical or economic characteristics of an
individual source or group of sources.'' Id. Thus, RACT is not
necessarily a ``one-size-fits-all'' technology. The commenter quotes
the following from EPA's discussion of RACT in the 1977 CAA amendments
``In many cases appropriate controls would be more or less stringent.''
See Comment of Air Law for All, p. 6, citing EPA's CTG Supplement, 44
FR 53761, 53762 (September 17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ On August 27, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
issued a decision in Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA, et al., No. 19-2562,
which struck down EPA's approval of certain provisions of
Pennsylvania's RACT II SIP related to existing Electric Generating
Units equipped with Selective Catalytic Reduction for the reduction
of Oxides of Nitrogen. In that ruling, the Court pointed to the
``technology forcing'' language of the Strelow memo incorporated
with EPA's longstanding definition of RACT as ``the lowest emission
limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the
application of control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility.'' Opinion at
p.5. Thus, the court affirmed EPA's longstanding approach to
analyzing RACT, that is to determine what is technologically and
economically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's role is to review the SIP or SIP revision. EPA cannot
disapprove of state regulations that form a SIP or SIP revision because
EPA decides that the regulations are not stringent enough, as long as
the SIP meets the CAA requirements. The commenters assert that it is
``implausible'' that a thorough review of all 43 CTGs would find that
all still meet RACT requirements for the affected sources, and that
PADEP and EPA have neglected to look for information to the contrary.
However, with the exception of the 1983 Oil and Gas CTG discussed under
``Response 2,'' the commenters have not provided any available
information allegedly overlooked or ignored by PADEP, nor identified
any applicable CAA requirements lacking in PADEP's submittal and EPA's
proposed approval.
EPA also does not agree that Pennsylvania's submittal lacked enough
information to determine whether Pennsylvania's current regulations
still meet RACT requirements. As noted by the commenters, Section 6 of
PADEP's submittal discusses the process that it used to evaluate
whether the regulations Pennsylvania adopted to implement the CTGs
still contain RACT-level controls consistent with the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The submittal states: ``PADEP staff began the certification process by
reviewing the CAA RACT requirements and CTG recommendations, followed
by the review of additional guidance or regulations currently
implemented for the affected VOC sources, including but not limited to,
EPA's Available Control Technology (ACT) documents, Federal NSPS in 40
CFR part 60, and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants in 40 CFR part 63 for the applicable source categories. Each
regulation adopted by Pennsylvania has been evaluated against
applicable CTGs, and were found to continue to meet RACT for the
applicable source categories.'' Table 1 in the submittal then lists
each CTG and the citation for the Pennsylvania regulation adopted to
implement each CTG, with a brief description of how the CTG limits
emissions of VOCs. This allows for a straight-forward comparison of
Pennsylvania's adopted regulation with the presumptive RACT set forth
in the applicable CTG or CTGs. Again, the commenters also did not
identify new technologies or updated limits that should have been
considered for any CTG other than the 1983 Oil and Gas CTG.
Pennsylvania's failure to ``show [its'] work'' did not in this instance
prevent the commenters from doing its own work (i.e. search for newer
control technologies) in response.
Finally, with regard to the commenters' claim that EPA has failed
to comply with its statutory obligation under CAA section 183(b) to
review and revise the CTGs, EPA notes that this comment is beyond the
scope of this action. EPA's role in this action is to review the SIP
submitted by Pennsylvania and, if it meets the applicable requirements
of the CAA, approve the SIP. See CAA section 110(k)(3) (``In the case
of any submittal on which the Administrator is required to act. . .,
the Administrator shall approve such submittal as a whole if it meets
all of the applicable requirements of this chapter.''). If the
commenters believe that EPA has an outstanding obligation to review and
revise existing CTGs, the commenters may petition the Agency to do so.
EPA evaluated PADEP's submittal, as described in the NPRM, and
reiterated in this document. In accordance with CAA section 110(l), EPA
believes approval of the August 13, 2018 submittal will not interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and/or reasonable
further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirements. The net
effect of the continued operation of controls already implemented in
accordance with the CTGs, the addition of new controls via the newly
adopted permit requirements, and the newly adopted CTG for Industrial
Cleaning Solvents, will be to maintain the current level of reduction
of VOCs for many sources while reducing VOC emissions from newly
covered sources. Therefore, EPA asserts that approval of this
certification for section 182(b)(2) will not interfere with attainment
or reasonable further progress for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or any other
identified CAA requirement. For these reasons, EPA disagrees with the
commenters and is finalizing approval of PADEP's submittal, in
accordance with CAA section 110(k)(3).
Comment 2: The commenters assert that EPA's 2008 ozone
implementation rule required that states refer to existing CTGs and
alternative control techniques (ACTs) for purposes of meeting their
RACT requirements, as well as all relevant information available at the
time they are developing the SIP. The commenters allege that PADEP
failed to evaluate a number of available control technologies or
strategies related to leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements at
natural gas processing facilities, instead relying on a conclusory
determination that applicable new source performance standards (NSPS)
are at least as stringent as the requirements of the 1983 CTG.\14\ The
commenters point out that PADEP's submittal identifies fourteen natural
gas processing facilities subject to VOC RACT under the 1983 CTG. Ten
of these are older gas processing plants that are also subject to the
NSPS of 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK (and thus the LDAR requirements of
subpart VV, which is incorporated by reference into subpart KKK), by
the applicability criteria of subpart KKK. The other four are newer gas
processing plants that are subject to NSPS OOOO because they were
constructed or
[[Page 80621]]
reconstructed after August 23, 2011, which is one of the applicability
criteria for subpart OOOO. Subpart OOOO incorporates by reference the
more stringent LDAR requirements of subpart VVa. The commenters assert
that EPA should disapprove PADEP's submittal because they did not
evaluate whether applying the LDAR requirements of VVa to the older
facilities was cost effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from
natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants;'' EPA-450/3-83-007; December
1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, because EPA initially evaluated the cost effectiveness
of subparts VV and VVa as part of the best system of emissions
reduction (BSER) analysis for the NSPS, then re-evaluated cost-
effectiveness as part of the promulgation of subpart OOOO, and did so
again for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, the commenters contend that the
LDAR requirements of VVa are ``available,'' and should have been
evaluated for control of VOCs at the ten older facilities. The
commenters further assert that although the cost analysis performed
during the promulgation of subpart OOOO only addressed new/
reconstructed sources, there are no retrofit costs associated with the
older plants switching from following VV to following VVa, and
therefore VVa should have been considered and required for the older
facilities.
The commenters also identify the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality's (TCEQ) ``28LAER'' program as being an additional available
control technology which could and should have been evaluated by PADEP.
Additionally, the commenters note that the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG
identifies optical gas imaging (OGI) as an alternate work practice
which is another available control option, but PADEP failed to consider
OGI in its analysis.
To support their argument that the LDAR program required by VVa is
both available and economically reasonable, the commenters performed a
cost effectiveness analysis and determined that VVa's cost of removal
is $3766/ton of VOC removed. The commenters assert that EPA determined
in the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG that $4400-$5000/ton of VOC removed was
reasonable, and that DEP's own analysis in their 2006 RACT submittal
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS determined that $3000-$5000/ton was
reasonable. Therefore, the commenters assert that the LDAR requirements
of VVa are technically and economically reasonable and should have been
evaluated and applied. In sum, the commenters assert that PADEP's
submittal fails to adequately justify its RACT determination and should
therefore be disapproved.
Finally, the commenters identify an error in EPA's approval of
PADEP's 2006 VOC RACT submittal as it pertains to natural gas
processing plants. PADEP's 2006 RACT submittal included a negative
declaration that there were no sources covered by the 1983 CTG, but the
commenters allege that PADEP's 2018 submittal identifies six plants
that were constructed before 2006 and therefore subject. Additionally,
EPA didn't approve the submittal until 2017, by which time all 14
plants had been constructed. The commenters assert that EPA must now
correct that error. To the extent EPA believes this is beyond the
scope, the commenters state that this comment should be considered a
petition under section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA).
Response 2: As clearly stated in the NPRM for this SIP,
Pennsylvania's SIP submission is only certifying for the 1983 Oil and
Gas CTG, and is not intended to be a certification for the 2016 Oil and
Gas CTG.\15\ 85 FR 12877, 12880, March 5, 2020. This has two
ramifications. First, when developing this SIP submission, Pennsylvania
only evaluated whether existing natural gas processing plants were
meeting the recommended RACT standards of the 1983 CTG. Nothing in
Pennsylvania's SIP submission claims to address whether these plants
meet the control levels recommended by the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.
Pennsylvania has published a proposed regulation to address the 2016
Oil and Gas CTG, and the proposal states that when the regulation is
final, it will be submitted to EPA as a revision to the State's SIP. 50
Pa B. 2633 (May 23, 2020). The second ramification is that EPA does not
have before it in this SIP the question of whether these natural gas
processing plants have adopted the RACT level controls recommended in
the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. Therefore, nothing in EPA's action on this
SIP should be interpreted as a decision concerning the adequacy of
Pennsylvania's future SIP submittal(s) for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``EPA notes that PADEP's August 13, 2018 submittal did not
address EPA's `Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural
Gas Industry, EPA-453/B-16-001, October 2016,' (2016 Oil and Gas
CTG). EPA is, therefore, not proposing action on the submittal in
relation to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.'' 85 FR 12877, 12880, March 5,
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG explicitly states that it
replaces the 1983 Oil & Gas CTG. Section 8 of the CTG, entitled
``Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas Processing Plants,'' says: ``This
CTG and the recommended RACT included in this CTG replaces the
following: Guideline Series. Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants. December
1983. EPA-450/3-83-007.'' 2016 Oil & Gas CTG, p.8-1. At the time
Pennsylvania submitted this SIP in August 2018, the 1983 Oil and Gas
CTG had been superseded by the 2016 CTG, but Pennsylvania had not yet
adopted new regulations for the 2016 CTG. Given those circumstances,
Pennsylvania decided to certify for the 1983 CTG rather than include no
certification at all for natural gas processing plants.
The main concern of the commenters seems to be that in certifying
for the 1983 CTG, Pennsylvania should have evaluated other and newer
sources of information, including the 2016 CTG, in order to determine
whether the control measures in the 1983 CTG still constitute RACT
levels of control. However, EPA already has done much of this work in
updating the 2016 CTG, and Pennsylvania is not certifying in its SIP
submission that the control measures they have in place for the 1983
CTG meet the 2016 CTG. Moreover, when Pennsylvania submitted this SIP,
an updated SIP addressing the 2016 CTG was not yet due because the 2016
CTG gave affected states two years from the date of publication of the
2016 CTG (October 27, 2016, 81 FR 74798) to submit a SIP addressing the
CTG. Therefore, EPA thinks that these concerns and comments are better
directed to Pennsylvania's future SIP submission(s) for the 2016 Oil
and Gas CTG and any certification contained therein for the purpose of
meeting section 182(b)(2) of the CAA. Asking Pennsylvania to re-
evaluate RACT level controls for the oil and gas industry in this SIP
submittal, for the purpose of certifying for a superseded 1983 CTG,
seems like an unnecessary exercise for the state, and EPA declines to
require it as part of our consideration of this SIP.
In reaching this conclusion, EPA is not drawing any further
conclusions about other claims made by the commenters, such as what the
2008 ozone implementation rule requires, whether newer leak detection
and repair (LDAR) technologies are available for gas processing plants,
the cost-effectiveness of applying NSPS subpart VVa to older gas
processing plants, or the cost analysis submitted by the commenters.
EPA is merely saying that in the context of the specific facts of
Pennsylvania's certification for the 1983 Oil and Gas CTG, it does not
make sense to analyze these issues until Pennsylvania submits its SIP
revision addressing the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. At that time, the issues
identified by the commenters should be addressed in Pennsylvania's SIP
submission, and if not addressed, raised again by the
[[Page 80622]]
commenters in any action EPA takes to approve that SIP.
The commenters' concern that many of the CTGs have not been
reviewed and updated for many years is noted, but this concern for the
1983 Oil and Gas CTG has been addressed by EPA with the 2016 CTG, and
PADEP is in the process of updating its regulations to address the 2016
CTG. PADEP submitted this revision with the intention of meeting the
requirements of the old CTG. EPA notes that PADEP has published a
notice of proposed rulemaking in order to adopt the requirements of the
2016 CTG.\16\ When the provisions of that action are effective and
submitted to EPA as a revision to the SIP, they will be evaluated for
consistency with the 2016 CTG and RACT. In the meantime, EPA is
finalizing approval of the August 13, 2018 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ http://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pabull?file=/secure/pabulletin/data/vol50/50-21/684.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the commenters' assertion that EPA must correct the
erroneous approval of a 2006 submittal from PADEP, that is beyond the
scope of this action, which is only evaluating whether the particular
provisions of Pennsylvania's August 13, 2018 SIP meet the requirements
of the CAA. Nevertheless, EPA acknowledges that, based on the
information in Table A1 of Appendix A in Pennsylvania's August 13, 2008
submittal, EPA's 2017 approval of Pennsylvania's negative declaration
for the 1983 Oil and Gas CTG under the 1997 ozone NAAQS may have been
in error.\17\ According to Table A1, there were six sources which were
constructed prior to Pennsylvania's September 25, 2006 submittal, but
for which PADEP declared that there were no sources subject to the 1983
Oil and Gas CTG. However, EPA disagrees that the remedy for this error
is to now disapprove the 2006 submittal with respect to 1983 CTG RACT
requirements for natural gas processing plants. The sources at issue
did not escape regulation, and were subject to the same RACT level
controls via the NSPS which Pennsylvania has certified are consistent
with the 1983 CTG. Even if EPA were now to disapprove PADEP's 2006
submittal, the remedy would be for Pennsylvania to acknowledge that
those sources existed in 2006, and that they are subject to RACT level
controls consistent with the 1983 CTG, which they have already done in
their August 13, 2018 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 82 FR 31464, July 7, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: The commenter expresses uncertainty and sought
clarification on the interplay between the CTGs and the NSPS,
specifically as it pertains to applicability. The commenter asks
whether PADEP's reliance on NSPS requirements to implement RACT for
certain CTG categories has the effect of applying NSPS requirements to
any source subject to such a CTG, regardless of the effective date of
the NSPS, or whether the source had undergone modifications.
Response 3: NSPS are Federal regulations that are applicable to
sources nationwide, regardless of an area's status with respect to an
ozone NAAQS or whether the state has adopted the NSPS as part of its
SIP. In some cases, such as with subpart KKK discussed previously, EPA
and some states (including Pennsylvania) have determined that the
control requirements of a particular NSPS are both equivalent to the
control requirements of a particular CTG and constitute RACT-level
controls. A source that is subject to the CTG can therefore meet RACT
control requirements by meeting the NSPS control requirements, and the
state can meet its obligation under CAA section 182(b)(2) for that
particular CTG so long as the NSPS is incorporated into the SIP (as
Pennsylvania is doing here). In the case where the NSPS control
requirements also constitute RACT for the CTG sources, if all sources
subject to the particular CTG in the state are also subject to the NSPS
(that is, meet all the applicability criteria for the NSPS and are in
compliance), then the state would not have to adopt separate, stand-
alone regulations to implement the CTG requirements because these
sources would already be meeting RACT via the NSPS. As discussed in
Section II of this preamble, and in response to Comment 2, PADEP
identified all sources which were subject to the 1983 Oil and Gas CTG,
identified the various NSPS provisions to which each source is already
subject, and determined that the NSPS control requirements are at least
as stringent as the controls required by the 1983 CTG, which are
presumed to be RACT-level controls. Similarly, PADEP identified all
sources to which EPA's CTG entitled ``Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations
Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry,
EPA-450/4/-91-031, August 1993'' apply, and identified how the NSPS
requirements applicable to those same sources are at least as stringent
as the CTG, which are presumed to be RACT-level controls. PADEP's
incorporation by reference of the NSPS, and the incorporation of 25 Pa
Code 122 into the Pennsylvania SIP, does not confer NSPS applicability
upon sources that are otherwise not subject to that NSPS because the
source does not meet the applicability criteria of the NSPS. Rather,
PADEP has determined that all of the sources subject to the 1983 Oil
and Gas CTG, and the SOCMI CTG are also currently subject to NSPS
provisions, and that these NSPS control requirements are at least
equivalent to RACT level controls. The incorporation of 25 Pa 122 into
the SIP is the vehicle through which PADEP and EPA are ensuring that
the Pennsylvania SIP contains federally enforceable RACT control
measures for the subject sources. Incorporation of the NSPS into the
SIP does not mean that when a source covered by a CTG is exempt from a
NSPS due to, for example, being constructed before the NSPS
applicability date, that source is automatically subject to the NSPS.
In that instance, Pennsylvania would need to find another mechanism for
incorporating Federally enforceable RACT level control measures into
the SIP, such as adopting a stand-alone regulation (as Pennsylvania did
with 25 Pa Code 29.163a, discussed in Section II.B of this preamble),
or submitting a permit with source specific RACT determinations (as
Pennsylvania did with the permits discussed in Section II.A.3 of this
preamble). Therefore, the commenter's assertion that ``. . . the EPA
and PADEP are now requiring any source that falls under the CTG
category, regardless of modifications and repairs to the source, to now
be subject to the NSPS,'' is incorrect.
Comment 4: The commenter asserts that EPA cannot approve provisions
related to subparts OOOO and OOOOa as RACT for the 1983 Oil and Gas
CTG, because the Agency has proposed significant revisions to both
subparts. The commenter asserts that EPA will have to re-evaluate
whether these NSPS, if modified, continue to represent RACT, and
therefore must wait until completion of any revisions before asserting
that they meet RACT requirements.
Response 4: EPA disagrees with the commenter. EPA's analysis in the
1983 CTG determined that the existing levels of NSPS control were those
that were economically and technologically feasible and thereby met the
definition of RACT for this category of sources. Pennsylvania's
incorporation by reference of the NSPS automatically updates to include
new or revised NSPS. However, the adoption of any new or expanded
control requirements
[[Page 80623]]
in these NSPS would not automatically become presumptive RACT for these
two CTGs and may require additional analysis to determine whether the
costs of the revised NSPS controls meet the economic feasibility
portion of EPA's longstanding definition of RACT. Therefore, EPA is
finalizing approval of PADEP's submittal.
Comment 5: The commenter asserts that EPA cannot approve subparts
NNN and RRR as RACT for sources subject to the CTG for reactor and
distillation processes in the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing
industry (SOCMI).\18\ According to the commenter, hundreds of chemical
compounds are not subject to subparts NNN or RRR. Because PADEP
attempted to identify sources subject to the CTG by searching for
sources subject to the NSPS, commenter asserts that the entire universe
of sources subject to the CTG was not captured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
Reactor Processes and Distillation operations Processes in the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry;'' EPA-450/4/91-
031; August 1993 (1993 CTG).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 5: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertions. First,
PADEP searched for sources known to be operating in the SOCMI sector
using, at a minimum, their ``Air Information Management System,'' or
``AIMS.'' Pennsylvania's SIP submittal notes, in response to a similar
comment made during the state public notice period, that any sources
that were not identified by this search would likely be operating in
violation of the NSPS, as well as Pennsylvania's permitting
regulations. EPA thinks that PADEP, using both the information at its
disposal and its knowledge of the sources of VOC emissions gained from
years of inspections, enforcement, and SIP development, has likely
identified all the sources potentially subject to this CTG. Those
sources not identified are still subject to the CTG, and as noted in
Pennsylvania's submission, are likely in violation of multiple
Pennsylvania requirements and Federal NSPS. The commenter has not
provided any evidence to the contrary, and in the absence of such
evidence, EPA believes that PADEP made a reasonable and rational effort
to identify sources potentially subject to the SOCMI CTG.
Second, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for an air
agency to search for sources subject to the CTG or NSPS based solely on
its use of a particular VOC. The list of chemicals covered by the 1993
CTG for Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor
Processes and Distillation Operations Processes in the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (the ``SOCMI CTG'') is
extensive.\19\ Also, some of the NSPS applicable to the SOCMI industry
regulate the listed chemicals if they are a product, by-product, co-
product, or intermediary. SOCMI CTG, pp. 7-3 to 7-11. EPA is not aware
of any database which would identify sources potentially subject to the
SOCMI CTG based on the list of chemicals covered, particularly when the
chemicals covered include some chemicals used as intermediaries or
produced as co-products. As EPA noted in the CTG, ``. . . there are
different regulations that can apply to the same SOCMI facility,
process unit, or process vent. For example, a given SOCMI facility
could be subject to all three NSPS (air oxidation,\20\
distillation,\21\ reactor processes \22\), to the Hazardous Organic
NESHAP (HON) \23\ (for process vents), and to regulations developed in
accordance with this CTG. The required control efficiency for a
combustion control device is the same in all these various regulations.
Thus, any process vent that is controlled with a combustion device to
meet the requirements of the HON, NSPS, or regulations in accordance
with the air oxidation CTG would meet recommended RACT in this CTG, and
it is unnecessary to test for applicability for VOC regulation
developed in accordance with this CTG (emphasis added).'' \24\ A review
of Table A-1 in the CTG (cited by the commenter) indicates that there
are very few, if any, compounds covered by the CTG that are not also
covered by one or more of the NSPS/NESHAP regulations which the CTG
identifies as providing RACT level controls. Therefore, EPA is
approving PADEP's submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Table 7-1 of the SOCMI CTG for a list of the chemicals
covered by the SOCMI CTG, the 1984 Air Oxidation CTG, and various
NSPS. SOCMI CTG, p.7-3.
\20\ 40 CFR part 60, subpart III.
\21\ 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN.
\22\ 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR.
\23\ 40 CFR part 63, subpart G.
\24\ See 1993 CTG at pp 1-2, 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: Additionally, two commenters asserted that EPA should
extend the public comment period due to the extenuating circumstances
resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the commenters
additionally requested a 15-day extension, based on the complexity and
size of Pennsylvania's submittal.
Response 6: EPA acknowledges the many and varied challenges
presented by the pandemic. However, the NPRM for this action was
published prior to any interruptions in normal business activities. The
supporting materials associated with the NPRM were available online,
without interruption, for the entire 30-day public comment period.
Additionally, the Regional staff, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of the NPRM, were working and available throughout the
entire comment period. Furthermore, neither commenter identified a
specific limitation arising from the pandemic that prevented them or
anyone else from being able to adequately review the proposed approval
and submit comments. With respect to commenter's assertion that the
size and complexity of the submittal warrant a 15-day extension, EPA
disagrees. While EPA acknowledges that the action is complex and
addresses two submittals concurrently, large portions of the submittals
are included as background information and/or supporting documentation.
For example, there are approximately sixty-five pages of documentation
related to Pennsylvania's public notices. Consequently, EPA finds that
the size and complexity of the actual analysis in Pennsylvania's
submittals is not extraordinary, and therefore does not require an
extraordinary or extended comment period. Therefore, EPA disagrees with
the commenters, and is denying the request for an extended public
comment period.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving Pennsylvania's August 13, 2018 submittals as a
revision 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 the
Pennsylvania rules regarding definitions and permitting requirements
discussed in section II of this preamble. 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 rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
[[Page 80624]]
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. 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. 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 Orders
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 it is not a significant regulatory
action 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 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. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
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 February 12, 2021. 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 relating to VOC RACT measures in Pennsylvania may
not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: October 22, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania
0
2. In Sec. 52.2020:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c)(1) is amended by:
0
1. Under ``Chapter 121--General Provisions,'' adding a third entry for
``Section 121.1'' after a second existing entry for ``Section 121.1'';
0
2. Under Title 25, adding the heading entitled ``Chapter 122--National
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources'' and entries
``Section 122.1'', ``Section 122.2'', and ``Section 122.3'' after the
entry ``Section 121.11'';
0
3. Under ``Chapter 129--Standards for Sources'':
0
i. Revising the entry ``Section 129.51'';
0
ii. Adding the entry ``Section 129.63a'' in numerical order; and
0
iii. Revising the entries ``Section 129.73'', ``Section 129.96'',
``Section 129.97'', ``Section 129.99'', and ``Section 129.100'';
0
b. The table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by adding entries for
``Donjon Shipbuilding'', ``Heartland Fabrication, LLC'', and ``Geo
Specialty Chem Trimet Div'' at the end of the table; and
0
c. The table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding the entry
``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for the 2008 ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)'' at the end of the
table.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
[[Page 80625]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
State citation Title/subject State EPA approval date explanation/Sec.
effective date 52.2063 citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title 25--Environmental Protection
Article III--Air Resources
Chapter 121--General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 121.1..................... Definitions........ 8/11/18 12/14/20, [insert Definition of
Federal Register ``Cleaning
citation]. solvent'' is
amended.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 122--National Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 122.1..................... Purpose............ 08/01/79 12/14/20, [insert
Federal Register
citation].
Section 122.2..................... Scope.............. 08/01/79 12/14/20, [insert
Federal Register
citation].
Section 122.3..................... Adoption of 12/26/97 12/14/20, [insert
Standards. Federal Register
citation].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 129--Standards for Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 129.51.................... General............ 8/11/18 12/14/20, [insert Amended to add
Federal Register references to
citation]. Section 129.63a.
* * * * * * *
Section 129.63a................... Control of VOC 8/11/18 12/14/20, [insert Added new Section
emissions from Federal Register 129.63a.
industrial citation].
cleaning solvents.
* * * * * * *
Section 129.73.................... Aerospace 8/11/18 12/14/20, [insert Correction to
manufacturing and Federal Register numbering in
rework. citation]. Table II.
* * * * * * *
Section 129.96.................... Applicability...... 8/11/18 12/14/20, [insert Subsections (a)
Federal Register and (b) are
citation]. revised.
Section 129.97.................... Presumptive RACT 8/11/18 12/14/20, [insert Section
requirements, RACT Federal Register 129.97(k)(1)(ii)
emission citation]. is revised.
limitations and
petition for
alternative
compliance
schedule.
* * * * * * *
Section 129.99.................... Alternative RACT 8/11/18 12/14/20, [insert Section
proposal and Federal Register 129.99(i)(1)(ii)
petition for citation]. is revised.
alternative
compliance
schedule.
Section 129.100................... Compliance 8/11/18 12/14/20, [insert Section 129.100(a)
demonstration and Federal Register is revised.
recordkeeping citation].
requirements.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
explanations/Sec.
Name of source Permit No. County State EPA approval date Sec. 52.2063 and
effective date 52.2064 citations \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Donjon Shipbuilding................ 25-00930................. Erie..................... 9/26/17 12/14/20, [insert
Federal Register
citation].
Heartland Fabrication, LLC......... 26-00545................. Fayette.................. 9/28/17 12/14/20, [insert
Federal Register
citation].
Geo Specialty Chem Trimet Div...... 39-00024................. Lehigh................... 3/21/17 12/14/20, [insert
Federal Register
citation].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The cross-references that are not Sec. 52.2064 are to material that pre-date the notebook format. For more information, see Sec. 52.2063.
[[Page 80626]]
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State Additional
revision geographic area submittal date EPA approval date explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Reasonably Available Control Statewide.......... 8/13/18 12/14/20, [insert This action
Technology (RACT) for the 2008 Federal Register pertains to
ozone national ambient air citation]. control technique
quality standard (NAAQS). guideline (CTG)
source categories.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-23857 Filed 12-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P