Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology Determinations for Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 66484-66490 [2020-21442]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
66484
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(1) Effect on corporation. Pursuant to
§ 1.1368–2(a)(3)(iii), X’s AAA is
reduced by $6,000 to $4,000. Beginning
on November 3, 2020, pursuant to
§ 1.1371–1(a)(2)(vii), X’s ETSC period
resumes (after the intervening audit
PTTP’s conclusion) because its AAA
balance is greater than zero.
(2) Effect on shareholder. Pursuant to
section 1371(e)(1), A reduces its basis in
its X stock by $6,000 to $5,000.
(C) ETSC period. Beginning on
November 3, 2020, X’s ETSC period
resumes, and distributions of money are
subject to section 1371(f) and § 1.1371–
1 until X’s AAA balance is zero. For
purposes of calculating each of X’s AAA
and AE&P ratios, X’s historical AAA is
$59,000 (at the beginning of January 1,
2019, which includes the $10,000
increase as a result of the July 6, 2020,
closing agreement).
(d) Applicability date. This section
applies to taxable years beginning after
October 20, 2020. However, a
corporation may choose to apply the
rules in §§ 1.481–5, 1.1371–1, and
1.1371–2 in their entirety to taxable
years that began on or before October
20, 2020. If a corporation makes the
choice described in the previous
sentence, all shareholders of the
corporation must report consistently,
and the corporation must continue to
apply the rules in §§ 1.481–5, 1.1371–
1, and 1.1371–2 in their entirety for the
corporation’s subsequent taxable years.
§ 1.1377–2
[Amended]
Par. 7. Section 1.1377–2 is amended
by removing the last sentence of
paragraph (b).
■
taxable years beginning on or before
October 20, 2020 and with respect to
which the period described in section
6501(a) has not expired. If a corporation
makes the choice described in the
previous sentence, all shareholders of
the corporation must report
consistently, and the corporation must
adopt §§ 1.481–5, 1.1371–1, 1.1371–2, if
an ETSC, and 1.1377–2(b) in their entity
and continue to apply those rules in
their entirety for the corporation’s
subsequent taxable years.
Sunita Lough,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Approved: September 9, 2020.
David J. Kautter,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax
Policy).
[FR Doc. 2020–21144 Filed 10–19–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2019–0657; FRL–10014–
53–Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available
Control Technology Determinations for
Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997
and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Par. 8. Section 1.1377–3 is revised to
read as follows:
■
§ 1.1377–3
Applicability dates.
(a) In general. Except as otherwise
provided in this section, §§ 1.1377–1
and 1.1377–2 apply to taxable years of
an S corporation beginning after
December 31, 1996.
(b) Certain conversions. Section
1.1377–1(a)(2)(iii) and (c)(3) (Example
3) are applicable for taxable years
beginning on and after May 14, 2002.
(c) Special treatment of distributions
of money during post-termination
transition period—(1) In general. Except
as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section, § 1.1377–2(b) applies to taxable
years beginning after October 20, 2020.
For taxable years beginning on or before
October 20, 2020, see § 1.1377–2(b) as
contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised
April 1, 2020.
(2) Taxable years beginning on or
before October 20, 2020. A corporation
may choose to apply § 1.1377–2(b) to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Oct 19, 2020
Jkt 253001
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. This revision was
submitted by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) to establish and require
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for individual major sources of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) pursuant to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
conditionally approved RACT
regulations. In this action, EPA is only
approving source-specific (also referred
to as ‘‘case-by-case’’) RACT
determinations for nine major sources.
These RACT evaluations were
submitted to meet RACT requirements
for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). EPA is approving these
revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in
accordance with the requirements of the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s
implementing regulations.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
November 19, 2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2019–0657. 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: Ms.
Emily Bertram, Permits Branch (3AD10),
Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The
telephone number is (215) 814–5273.
Ms. Bertram can also be reached via
electronic mail at bertram.emily@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 5, 2020, EPA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
85 FR 26643. In the NPRM, EPA
proposed approval of case-by-case
RACT determinations for nine of the 10
sources included in the subject SIP
submission for the 1997 and 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS.1 The case-by-case
RACT determinations for these sources
were included in a SIP revision
submitted by PADEP on April 11, 2019.
Under certain circumstances, states
are required to submit SIP revisions to
address RACT requirements for major
sources of NOX and VOC or any source
category for which EPA has
promulgated control technique
guidelines (CTG) for each ozone
NAAQS. Which NOX and VOC sources
in Pennsylvania are considered ‘‘major,’’
and therefore to be addressed for RACT
revisions, is dependent on the location
of each source within the
Commonwealth. Sources located in
nonattainment areas would be subject to
the ‘‘major source’’ definitions
1 The portion of PADEP’s SIP submission related
to American Craft Brewery, LLC was withdrawn on
October 21, 2019. EPA will be taking action on this
source in a future rulemaking action, once
resubmitted by PADEP for approval into the PA SIP.
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
established under the CAA based on
their classification. In Pennsylvania,
sources located in areas outside of
moderate or above nonattainment areas,
as part of the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR), are subject to source thresholds
of 50 tons per year (tpy). CAA section
184(b).
On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted
a SIP revision addressing RACT under
both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in Pennsylvania. PADEP’s May
16, 2016 SIP revision intended to
address certain outstanding non-CTG
VOC RACT, VOC CTG RACT, and major
NOX RACT requirements for both
standards. The SIP revision requested
approval of Pennsylvania’s 25 Pa. Code
129.96–100, Additional RACT
Requirements for Major Sources of NOX
and VOCs (the ‘‘presumptive’’ RACT II
rule). Prior to the adoption of the RACT
II rule, Pennsylvania relied on the NOX
and VOC control measures in 25 Pa.
Code 129.92–95, Stationary Sources of
NOX and VOCs, (the RACT I rule) to
meet RACT for non-CTG major VOC
sources and major NOX sources. The
requirements of the RACT I rule remain
approved into Pennsylvania’s SIP and
continue to be implemented.2 On
September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted
a supplemental SIP revision, dated
September 22, 2017, which committed
to address various deficiencies
identified by EPA in their May 16, 2016
‘‘presumptive’’ RACT II rule SIP
revision.
On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally
approved the RACT II rule based on the
commitments PADEP made in its
September 22, 2017 supplemental SIP
revision. 84 FR 20274. In EPA’s final
conditional approval, EPA noted that
PADEP would be required to submit, for
EPA’s approval, SIP revisions to address
any facility-wide or system-wide
averaging plan approved under 25 Pa.
Code 129.98 and any case-by-case RACT
determinations under 25 Pa. Code
129.99. PADEP committed to submitting
these additional SIP revisions within 12
months of EPA’s final conditional
approval, specifically May 9, 2020. The
SIP revision addressed in this rule is
part of PADEP’s efforts to meet the
conditions of its supplemental SIP
revision and EPA’s conditional approval
of the RACT II Rule.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis
A. Summary of SIP Revision
To satisfy a requirement from EPA’s
May 9, 2019 conditional approval,
PADEP submitted to EPA SIP revisions
66485
addressing case-by-case RACT
requirements for major sources in
Pennsylvania subject to 25 Pa. Code
129.99. In the Pennsylvania RACT SIP
revisions, PADEP included a case-bycase RACT determination for the
existing emissions units at each of the
major sources of NOX and/or VOC that
required a source-specific RACT
determination. In PADEP’s RACT
determinations, an evaluation was
completed to determine if previously
SIP-approved, case-by-case RACT
emission limits or operational controls
(herein referred to as RACT I and
contained in RACT I permits) were more
stringent than the new RACT II
presumptive or case-by-case
requirements. If more stringent, the
RACT I requirements will continue to
apply to the applicable source. If the
new case-by-case RACT II requirements
are more stringent than the RACT I
requirements, then the RACT II
requirements will supersede the prior
RACT I requirements.3
Here, EPA is taking action on SIP
revisions pertaining to case-by-case
RACT requirements for nine major
sources of NOX and/or VOC in
Pennsylvania, as summarized in Table
1.
TABLE 1—NINE MAJOR NOX AND/OR VOC SOURCES IN PENNSYLVANIA SUBJECT TO CASE-BY-CASE RACT II
DETERMINATIONS UNDER THE 1997 AND 2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
Major source
(county)
1-Hour ozone RACT
source?
(RACT I)
Major source pollutant
(NOX and/or VOC)
Carpenter Co. (Lehigh) ...............................................
East Penn Manufacturing Co. Inc, Smelter Plant
(Berks).
Ellwood Quality Steels Co. (Lawrence) ......................
GE Transportation—Erie Plant (Erie) .........................
Graymont Pleasant Gap (Centre) ...............................
Hazleton Generation (Luzerne) ..................................
Helix Ironwood (Lebanon) ..........................................
Magnesita Refractories (York) ....................................
Penn State University (Centre) ...................................
No ......................................
No ......................................
VOC .................................
NOX and VOC ..................
Yes .....................................
Yes .....................................
Yes .....................................
Yes .....................................
No ......................................
Yes .....................................
Yes .....................................
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
and VOC ..................
and VOC ..................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
RACT II permit
(effective date)
39–00040 (9/5/2018)
06–05040D (1/3/2019)
37–00264 (10/13/2017)
25–00025 (2/21/2018)
14–00002 (2/5/2018)
40–00021 (6/19/2018)
38–05019 (9/24/2018)
67–05001 (11/27/2018)
14–00003 (12/13/2017)
The case-by-case RACT
determinations submitted by PADEP
consist of an evaluation of all
reasonably available controls at the time
of evaluation for each affected emissions
unit, resulting in a PADEP
determination of what specific emission
limit or control measures, if any, satisfy
RACT for that particular unit. The
adoption of new, additional, or revised
emission limits or control measures to
existing SIP-approved RACT I
requirements were specified as
requirements in new or revised
Federally enforceable permits (hereafter
RACT II permits) issued by PADEP to
the source. The RACT II permits, which
revise or adopt additional sourcespecific limits and/or controls, have
been submitted as part of the
Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions for
EPA’s approval in the Pennsylvania SIP
under 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1). The RACT
II permits submitted by PADEP are
listed in the last column of Table 1,
along with the permit effective date, and
are part of the docket for this rule,
which is available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA–
R03–OAR–2019–0657.4 EPA is
2 The RACT I Rule was approved by EPA into the
Pennsylvania SIP on March 23, 1998. 63 FR 13789.
Through the current rulemaking, certain sourcespecific RACT I requirements will be superseded by
more stringent RACT II requirements. See Section
II of this preamble.
3 While the prior SIP-approved RACT I permit
will remain part of the SIP, this RACT II rule will
incorporate by reference the RACT II requirements
through the RACT II permit and clarify the ongoing
applicability of specific conditions in the RACT I
permit.
4 The RACT II permits are redacted versions of a
facility’s Federally enforceable permits and reflect
the specific RACT requirements being approved
into the Pennsylvania SIP.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Oct 19, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
66486
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
incorporating by reference in the
Pennsylvania SIP, via the RACT II
permits, source-specific RACT emission
limits and control measures under the
1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
certain major sources of NOX and VOC
emissions.
B. EPA’s Proposed Action
PADEP’s SIP revisions incorporate its
determinations of source-specific RACT
II controls for individual emission units
at major sources of NOX and/or VOC in
Pennsylvania, where those units are not
covered by or cannot meet
Pennsylvania’s presumptive RACT
regulation. After thorough review and
evaluation of the information provided
by PADEP in its SIP revision submittals
for nine major sources of NOX and/or
VOC in Pennsylvania, EPA proposed to
find that PADEP’s case-by-case RACT
determinations and conclusions
establish limits and/or controls on
individual sources that are reasonable
and appropriately considered
technically and economically feasible
controls.
PADEP, in its RACT II
determinations, considered the prior
source-specific RACT I requirements
and, where more stringent, retained
those RACT I requirements as part of its
new RACT determinations. In the
NPRM, EPA proposed to find that all the
proposed revisions to previously SIPapproved RACT I requirements would
result in equivalent or additional
reductions of NOX and/or VOC
emissions. The proposed revisions
should not interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment,
reasonable further progress with the
NAAQS, or section 110(l) of the CAA.
Other specific requirements of
Pennsylvania’s 1997 and 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS case-by-case RACT
determinations and the rationale for
EPA’s proposed action were explained
in the NPRM, and its associated
technical support document (TSD), and
will not be restated here.
III. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
EPA received comments from five
commenters on the May 5, 2020 NPRM.
85 FR 26643. A summary of the
comments and EPA’s response are
discussed in this section of the
preamble. A copy of the comments can
be found in the docket for this rule
action.
Comment 1: One commenter stated
that the ‘‘PADEP economic benchmark
for RACT determination is low and not
appropriate for all case-by-case
situations.’’ The commenter then goes
on to assert that ‘‘PADEP should not use
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Oct 19, 2020
Jkt 253001
any absolute amount in any case-by-case
RACT economic determinations.’’ The
commenter claims that this
‘‘presumptive benchmark allows
Pennsylvania major sources to emit
significant amounts of NOX which
makes it difficult for New Jersey (NJ)
and other neighboring states to attain
the ozone NAAQS.’’ Finally, the
commenter mentions New Jersey’s 2004
RACT rule and cost estimates they
found acceptable.
Response 1: EPA is aware that
Pennsylvania considered costeffectiveness levels ($/ton removed) that
are lower than other states, such as New
Jersey and New York as the commenter
notes, when developing the RACT II
rule. However, EPA has not set a single
cost, emission reduction, or costeffectiveness figure to fully define costeffectiveness in meeting the NOX or
VOC RACT requirement. Therefore,
states have the discretion to determine
what costs are considered reasonable
when establishing RACT for their
sources. Each state must make and
defend its own determination on how to
weigh these values in establishing
RACT.
As PADEP explained in its RACT II
rulemaking, it did not establish a brightline cost effectiveness threshold in
determining what is economically
reasonably for purposes of defining
RACT.5 Instead, it developed as
guidance a cost-effectiveness threshold
of $2,800 per ton of NOX controlled and
$5,500 per ton of VOC controlled for
RACT. Pennsylvania also determined
that even evaluating control technology
options with an additional 25% margin,
an upper bound cost-effectiveness
threshold of $3,500 per ton NOX
controlled and $7,000 per ton VOC
controlled, would not affect the add-on
control technology decisions required
by RACT. Id. Pennsylvania determined
that these higher cost-effectiveness
thresholds did not impact the
determination of what add on control
technology was feasible. Pennsylvania
also reviewed examples of benchmarks
used by other states: Wisconsin, $2,500
per ton NOX; Illinois, $2,500–$3,000 per
ton NOX; Maryland, $3,500–$5,000 per
ton NOX; Ohio, $5,000 per ton NOX; and
New York, $5,000–$5,500 per ton NOX.6
In a separate prior final agency action,
EPA found that PADEP’s cost
effectiveness thresholds are reasonable
and reflect control levels achieved by
the application and consideration of
5 46
Pa. Bulletin 2036 (April 23, 2016).
Responses to Frequently Asked
Questions, Final Rulemaking RACT Requirements
for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs. October 20,
2016.
6 PADEP
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
available control technologies, after
considering both the economic and
technological circumstances of
Pennsylvania’s own sources. See 84 FR
20274, 20286 (May 9, 2019).
Comment 2: The commenter states
that EPA and PADEP should have
considered a shared Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) system for multiple
test cells under Source ID 372 at GE Erie
as RACT. The commenter claims that
the facility could have capitalized on a
shared SCR system where emissions
could be reduced at multiple test cells
by one or two SCR systems, making it
a cost-effective approach with large
emission reductions.
Response 2: The GE Erie facility
includes an engine lab test facility. The
commenter raises concerns about
emission controls at test cells in Source
ID 372. Six of the test cells found in
Source ID 372 (test cells B, C, D, E, F
and G located in GE Erie’s Building 18E)
were evaluated for NOX and VOC RACT.
An SCR system was evaluated as to
whether it would be NOX RACT by
PADEP per the case-by-case
requirements of 25 Pa. Code 129.99.
PADEP found that the SCR system was
technically feasible; however, it was
determined to be cost prohibitive when
applied to an individual test cell. In
follow up correspondence with GE Erie,
PADEP specifically asked the company
for justification as to why the Source
372 test cells could not be combined
into a single stack with a single control
technology, such as a shared SCR
system, versus installing control
technology for each individual test cell.
In its response, GE identified that the
multiple test cells found in Source ID
372 presently each have their own stack
and explained the several design and
operational considerations necessitating
that each emission point have an
individual stack.7
This analysis identified that there is a
wide range of potential operating
conditions across test cells that result in
a broad range of differences in air flow,
velocity, and temperature associated
with those operating conditions. The
differences in air flow, velocity, and
temperature associated with these
different operating modes varies by
orders of magnitude. A dedicated air
pollution control system for each stack
provides the facility the opportunity to
optimize each test cell to run in the
mode required by that stack
configuration at that particular time. It
concluded that it is technically
7 See email dated December 13, 2018 from Hubert
Flaherty, PADEP, to Lynn Khalife, PADEP, which
includes an email dated June 15, 2017 from GE
Transportation to PADEP, which is part of the
record in this docket.
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
infeasible to design and operate a single
air pollution control system that can
accommodate the necessary range of
operation that would be required in a
multiple line context.8
Additionally, the analysis considered
that the engine test cell exhaust
handling systems must operate with
minimal backpressure that mimics that
of a locomotive in order to conduct
meaningful testing. It concluded that it
is technically infeasible to design and
operate a single air pollution control
system that can minimize inherent
backpressure and prevent cross feed
backpressure from one operating engine
into another. Another factor considered
in the analysis was GE Erie’s claims that
multiple air pollution control systems
provide operational redundancy that
protects business continuity in the event
of system interruption, which the
company identified as occurring with
meaningful frequency.9
EPA agrees with the assessment
presented by PADEP that a shared air
pollution control system, such as an
SCR system, for the multiple test cells
found in Source ID 372 is technically
infeasible. Therefore, per 25 Pa. Code
129.99, this potential control strategy
would not require a cost assessment and
would be determined infeasible as NOX
RACT for Source ID 372.
Comment 3: The commenter notes
that for Penn State’s RACT analysis,
PADEP has determined that the
previous RACT I NOX emission limit of
107.5 tpy for each boiler is to be
superseded with a new RACT II natural
gas usage restriction of 520 million
cubic feet/year and a No. 2 fuel oil usage
restriction of 743,000 gallons/year. The
commenter asks what this means and
asks that EPA clarify whether the 107.5
tpy NOX emission limit is to be removed
from Pennsylvania’s SIP. If the RACT I
annual limit is intended to be removed
from the SIP, the commenter demands
that EPA re-propose Penn State’s RACT
determination because the removal was
not mentioned in this proposed notice.
Response 3: The commenter correctly
notes that EPA indicated in its TSD that
PADEP had determined that the NOX
RACT annual limit of 107.5 tpy per
boiler for Source IDs 036 and 037, two
East Campus Steam Plant, would be
superseded with the new RACT II
natural gas and No. 2 fuel oil usage
restrictions. The RACT I 107.5 tpy NOX
limit will not be removed from the SIP.
This RACT II rule will add the RACT II
limits to the SIP and clarify that its more
stringent requirements have superseded
8 Id.
9 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Oct 19, 2020
Jkt 253001
the prior annual limit and, in effect, will
govern.10
As a result of the RACT process,
PADEP, based on a statistical evaluation
of Penn State’s historical test data for
the two boilers, reduced the NOX shortterm emission limit for each boiler from
0.20 lbs/MMBtu to 0.18 lbs/MMBtu
when fired on natural gas and 0.12 lbs/
MMBtu when fired on No. 2 fuel oil. A
recent Non-Attainment New Source
Review (NNSR) restriction established
the usage restriction of 520 million
cubic feet of natural gas in any 12
consecutive month period per boiler for
the two boilers. This fuel usage
restriction, coupled with the NOX RACT
short-term emission limit of 0.20 lbs/
MMBtu (which has now been lowered
to 0.18 lbs/MMBtu), equates to expected
emissions of 53.7 tpy. As part of the
NOX RACT determination for the two
boilers, PADEP has proposed adding the
new fuel restrictions along with the
short-term emission limit to the SIP.
PADEP’s Technical Review Memo
(PADEP Memo), dated August 9, 2017,
and EPA’s TSD, both of which are part
of the record in this docket, clearly
discuss the outdated nature of the prior
NOX RACT I determination of 107.5 tpy
for Source IDs 036 and 037 and that it
would be less stringent than the new
RACT II determination. As PADEP
indicated in its review memo, ‘‘[t]he
existing RACT annual limit of 107.5
TPY is out-of-date due to the NNSR
restriction established in the operating
permit for natural gas usage. This
restriction, along with the 0.2 lbs/
MMBtu limit, equates to 53.7 tpy. This
is the potential to emit (PTE) used in the
economic feasibility analyses noted
above.’’ PADEP Memo, page 5.
As the RACT I annual NOX limit of
107.5 will not be removed from the SIP,
there is no need for any additional
notice.
Comment 4: The commenter states
that EPA should determine that for
Source IDs 036 and 037 at Penn State,
RACT is the installation of SCR because
the facility determined the cost
effectiveness of SCR to be $4,817 per ton
of NOX removed. The commenter states
10 EPA notes that PADEP, in its RACT SIP
revisions for Helix Ironwood, GE Transportation—
Erie, Carpenter, Pennsylvania State University,
Ellwood Quality Steels, East Penn Manufacturing,
Magnesita Refractories, Hazleton Generation, and
Graymont PA, included some form of annual limits
in the RACT II permits for those facilities. EPA
wishes to clarify that it is not approving any such
annual limits as RACT limits. Rather, because
PADEP analyzed what should be RACT under
operating conditions that included annual limits
from the existing facility permit, and PADEP
included those requirements in its SIP submittal to
us, EPA is incorporating those annual limits into
the SIP not as RACT control limits but for the
purpose of SIP strengthening.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66487
that this level of cost effectiveness was
determined economically feasible for
the purposes of RACT when EPA
approved rules for both New York and
New Jersey. The commenter demands
that EPA retract Penn State’s RACT
determination and apply the cost
effectiveness thresholds previously
approved for New York and New Jersey.
Response 4: EPA is aware that
Pennsylvania considered costeffectiveness levels ($/ton removed) that
are lower than other states, such as New
Jersey and New York as the commenter
notes, when developing the RACT II
rule. However, EPA has not set a single
cost, emission reduction, or costeffectiveness figure to fully define costeffectiveness in meeting the NOX or
VOC RACT requirement. Therefore,
states have the discretion to determine
what costs are considered reasonable
when establishing RACT for their
sources. Each state must make and
defend its own determination on how to
weigh these values in establishing
RACT.
As PADEP explained in its RACT II
rulemaking, it did not establish a brightline cost effectiveness threshold in
determining what is economically
reasonably for purposes of defining
RACT.11 Instead, it developed as
guidance a cost-effectiveness threshold
of $2,800 per ton of NOX controlled and
$5,500 per ton of VOC controlled for
RACT. Pennsylvania also determined
that even evaluating control technology
options with an additional 25% margin,
an upper bound cost-effectiveness
threshold of $3,500 per ton NOX
controlled and $7,000 per ton VOC
controlled, would not affect the add-on
control technology decisions required
by RACT. Id. Pennsylvania determined
that these higher cost-effectiveness
thresholds did not impact the
determination of what add on control
technology was feasible. Pennsylvania
also reviewed examples of benchmarks
used by other states: Wisconsin, $2,500
per ton NOX; Illinois, $2,500–$3,000 per
ton NOX; Maryland, $3,500–$5,000 per
ton NOX; Ohio, $5,000 per ton NOX; and
New York, $5,000–$5,500 per ton
NOX.12
In a separate prior final agency action,
EPA found that PADEP’s cost
effectiveness thresholds are reasonable
and reflect control levels achieved by
the application and consideration of
available control technologies, after
considering both the economic and
11 46
Pa. Bulletin 2036 (April 23, 2016).
Responses to Frequently Asked
Questions, Final Rulemaking RACT Requirements
for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs. October 20,
2016.
12 PADEP
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
66488
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
technological circumstances of
Pennsylvania’s own sources. See 84 FR
20274, 20286 (May 9, 2019).
Comment 5: The commenter urges
EPA to reconsider the VOC limit of 0.30
lbs/ton of steel produced, which was
established as RACT for the electric arc
furnace (EAF) at Ellwood Quality Steels,
to more closely align with actual stack
test results. The commenter states that
the VOC RACT limit for the EAF should
be lower because, in PADEP’s RACT
analysis, results are summarized from
the facility’s last four stack tests, which
averaged an emission rate of 0.14 lbs/
ton of steel produced, with the most
recent stack test from October 2016
showing an average of 0.082 lbs/ton of
steel produced.
Response 5: PADEP conducted a
RACT analysis per 25 Pa. Code 129.99
for VOC emissions at the EAF. The
potential control technologies evaluated
were all determined to be technically
infeasible for the source. Additionally,
PADEP reviewed EPA’s RACT/BACT/
LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) for
examples of controls and emission
limits at EAF facilities (20 in total). That
review revealed that VOC limits (lbs/ton
of steel produced) at EAFs ranged from
0.03 lbs/ton to 0.43 lbs/ton with an
average limit of 0.20 lbs/ton, a range
within which Ellwood Quality Steels’
RACT VOC limit falls.13
Based on this analysis, PADEP
determined VOC RACT for the EAF to
be continued operation of the existing
RACT I controls—direct evacuation
control, process controls, and scrap
management, along with the short-term
VOC emission limit of 0.3 lbs/ton. EPA
concluded that PADEP’s VOC RACT
determination for the EAF at Ellwood
Quality Steels was reasonable for that
specific source and meets statutory and
regulatory requirements.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving case-by-case RACT
determinations for nine sources in
Pennsylvania, as required to meet
obligations pursuant to the 1997 and
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as revisions
to the Pennsylvania SIP.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation
by reference of source-specific RACT
determinations under the 1997 and 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain major
13 See PADEP’s Technical Review Memo, dated
April 28, 2017, which is part of the docket for this
rulemaking action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Oct 19, 2020
Jkt 253001
sources of VOC and NOX in
Pennsylvania. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials
generally available through https://
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region III Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the
SIP, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rule of
EPA’s approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.14
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 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
14 62
PO 00000
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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. Section 804,
however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of
particular applicability; rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and
rules of agency organization, procedure,
or practice that do not substantially
affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because
this is a rule of particular applicability,
EPA is not required to submit a rule
report regarding this action under
section 801.
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 December 21, 2020. 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
approving Pennsylvania’s NOX and VOC
RACT requirements for nine case-by-
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
case facilities for the 1997 and 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: September 22, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph
(d)(1) is amended by:
■ a. Revising the entries ‘‘General
Electric Transportation Systems—Erie’’;
‘‘J. E. Baker Co. (Refractories)—York’’;
‘‘Con-Lime, Inc’’; ‘‘Con-Lime, Inc.—
Bellefonte’’; ‘‘Williams Generation
Company—Hazleton’’; ‘‘General Electric
Transportation Systems’’; ‘‘The
Pennsylvania State University—
University Park’’; ‘‘Ellwood Group Inc’’;
‘‘Graybec Lime, Inc’’; and ‘‘Bellefonte
Lime Company’’; and
■ b. Adding the entries at the end of the
table: ‘‘Carpenter Co.’’; ‘‘East Penn
Manufacturing Co. Inc, Smelter Plant’’;
‘‘Ellwood Quality Steels Co. (formerly
referenced as Ellwood Group Inc)’’; ‘‘GE
Transportation—Erie Plant (formerly
referenced as General Electric
■
State effective
date
66489
Transportation Systems and General
Electric Transportation Systems—Erie)’’;
‘‘Graymont Pleasant Gap’’; ‘‘Hazleton
Generation (formerly referenced as
Williams Generation Company—
Hazleton)’’; ‘‘Helix Ironwood’’;
‘‘Magnesita Refractories (formerly
referenced as J. E. Baker Co.
(Refractories)—York)’’; ‘‘Penn State
University (formerly referenced as The
Pennsylvania State University—
University Park)’’.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 52.2020
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
*
Additional explanations/
§§ 52.2063 and 52.2064
citations1
Name of source
Permit No.
County
*
*
General Electric Transportation Systems—Erie ........
J. E. Baker Co. (Refractories)—York ........................
*
OP–25–025 .......
OP–67–2001 .....
*
Erie ..............
York .............
*
12/21/94
12/22/94
*
8/8/95, 60 FR 40292 ...............
8/8/95, 60 FR 40292 ...............
*
See also 52.2064(c)(4).
See also 52.2064(c)(8).
*
*
Con-Lime, Inc ............................................................
*
OP–14–0001 .....
*
Centre .........
*
6/30/95
*
6/3/97, 62 FR 30250 ...............
*
See also 52.2064(c)(5).
*
*
Con-Lime, Inc.—Bellefonte ........................................
*
OP–14–0001 .....
*
Centre .........
*
1/7/98
*
3/9/98, 63 FR 11370 ...............
*
See also 52.2064(c)(5).
*
*
Williams Generation Company—Hazleton ................
*
OP–40–0031A ...
*
Luzerne .......
*
3/10/00
*
4/1/03, 68 FR 15661 ...............
*
See also 52.2064(c)(6).
*
*
General Electric Transportation Systems ..................
*
OP–25–025A .....
*
Erie ..............
*
8/26/02
*
4/7/03, 68 FR 16724 ...............
*
See also 52.2064(c)(4).
*
*
The Pennsylvania State University—University Park
*
OP–14–0006 .....
*
Centre .........
*
12/30/98
*
3/30/05, 70 FR 16118 .............
*
See also 52.2064(c)(9).
*
*
Ellwood Group Inc .....................................................
*
OP–37–313 .......
*
Lawrence ....
*
1/31/01
*
3/30/05, 70 FR 16124 .............
*
See also 52.2064(c)(3).
*
*
Graybec Lime, Inc .....................................................
*
OP–14–0004 .....
*
Centre .........
*
4/16/99
*
4/28/06, 71 FR 25070 .............
*
See also 52.2064(c)(5).
*
*
Bellefonte Lime Company .........................................
*
OP–14–0002 .....
*
Centre .........
*
10/19/98
*
6/14/06, 71 FR 34259 .............
*
See also 52.2064(c)(5).
*
*
Carpenter Co .............................................................
*
39–00040 ..........
*
Lehigh .........
*
9/5/18
Federal
*
52.2064(c)(1).
East Penn Manufacturing Co. Inc, Smelter Plant .....
06–05040D ........
Berks ...........
1/3/19
Federal
52.2064(c)(2).
Ellwood Quality Steels Co. (formerly referenced as
Ellwood Group Inc).
GE Transportation—Erie Plant (formerly referenced
as General Electric Transportation Systems and
General Electric Transportation Systems—Erie).
Graymont Pleasant Gap ............................................
37–00264 ..........
Lawrence ....
10/13/17
Federal
52.2064(c)(3).
25–00025 ..........
Erie ..............
2/21/18
*
10/20/2020, [INSERT
Register citation].
10/20/2020, [INSERT
Register citation].
10/20/2020, [INSERT
Register citation].
10/20/2020, [INSERT
Register citation].
Federal
52.2064(c)(4).
14–00002 ..........
Centre .........
2/5/18
Federal
52.2064(c)(5).
40–00021 ..........
Luzerne .......
6/19/18
Federal
52.2064(c)(6).
38–05019 ..........
Lebanon ......
9/24/18
Federal
52.2064(c)(7).
67–05001 ..........
York .............
11/27/18
Federal
52.2064(c)(8).
14–00003 ..........
Centre .........
12/13/17
Federal
52.2064(c)(9).
Hazleton Generation (formerly referenced as Williams Generation Company—Hazleton).
Helix Ironwood ...........................................................
Magnesita Refractories (formerly referenced as J.
E. Baker Co. (Refractories)—York).
Penn State University (formerly referenced as The
Pennsylvania State University—University Park).
1 The
EPA approval date
*
10/20/2020, [INSERT
Register citation].
10/20/2020, [INSERT
Register citation].
10/20/2020, [INSERT
Register citation].
10/20/2020, [INSERT
Register citation].
10/20/2020, [INSERT
Register citation].
cross-references that are not § 52.2064 are to material that pre-date the notebook format. For more information, see § 52.2063.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Oct 19, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
66490
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 52.2064 by adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 52.2064 EPA-Approved Source Specific
Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Approval of source-specific RACT
requirements for 1997 and 2008 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality
standards for the facilities listed below
are incorporated as specified below.
(Rulemaking Docket No. EPA–OAR–
2019–0657).
(1) Carpenter Co.—Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 39–00040, issued
September 5, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania.
(2) East Penn Manufacturing Co. Inc,
Smelter Plant—Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 06–05040D, issued
January 3, 2019, as redacted by
Pennsylvania.
(3) Ellwood Quality Steels Co.—
Incorporating by reference Permit No.
37–00264, issued October 13, 2017, as
redacted by Pennsylvania. All permit
conditions in the prior RACT Permit No.
OP–37–313, issued January 31, 2001,
remain as RACT requirements. See also
§ 52.2063(d)(1)(d) for prior RACT
approval.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Oct 19, 2020
Jkt 253001
(4) GE Transportation—Erie Plant—
Incorporating by reference Permit No.
25–00025, issued February 21, 2018, as
redacted by Pennsylvania, which
supersedes the prior RACT Permit No.
OP–25–025A, issued August 26, 2002.
See also §§ 52.2063(c)(98)(i)(B)(5) and
52.2063(c)(198)(i)(B) for prior RACT
approvals.
(5) Graymont Pleasant Gap—
Incorporating by reference Permit No.
14–00002, issued February 5, 2018, as
redacted by Pennsylvania, which
supersedes Graybec Lime, Inc. OP–14–
0004 (issued April 16, 1999), Bellefonte
Lime Company. OP–14–0002 (issued
October 19, 1998), and Con-Lime, Inc.
OP–14–0001 (issued June 30, 1995 and
amended January 7, 1998). Graymont
Pleasant Gap is the consolidation of
three facilities, formerly referenced as
Graybec Lime, Inc., Bellefonte Lime
Company, and Con-Lime, Inc. (ConLime, Inc.—Bellefonte) See
§§ 52.2063(d)(1)(n), 52.2063(d)(1)(q),
52.2063(c)(122)(i)(B)(5), and
52.2063(c)(130)(i)(B)(3) for prior RACT
approvals.
(6) Hazleton Generation—
Incorporating by reference Permit No.
40–00021, issued June 19, 2018, as
redacted by Pennsylvania, which
supersedes the prior RACT Permit No.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
40–0031A, issued March 10, 2000,
except for Conditions 5–8, 12, and 14–
17. See also § 52.2063(c)(196)(i)(B)(4) for
prior RACT approval.
(7) Helix Ironwood—Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 38–05019, issued
September 24, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania.
(8) Magnesita Refractories—
Incorporating by reference Permit No.
67–05001, issued November 27, 2018, as
redacted by Pennsylvania, which
supersedes the prior RACT I Permit No
67–2001, issued December 22, 1994,
except for Conditions 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and
11. See also § 52.2063(c)(98)(i)(B)(6) for
prior RACT approval.
(9) Penn State University—
Incorporating by reference Permit No.
14–00003, issued December 13, 2017, as
redacted by Pennsylvania which
supersedes the prior RACT Permit No.
OP–14–0006, issued December 30, 1998;
however, RACT Permit No. OP–14–0006
remains in effect as to Source ID 035,
WCSP Boiler 8, and as to Source IDs 036
and 037, ECSP Boilers No. 1 and 2,
except for Condition 8, which is
superseded. See also § 52.2063(d)(1)(c)
for prior RACT approval.
[FR Doc. 2020–21442 Filed 10–19–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66484-66490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21442]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0657; FRL-10014-53-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology Determinations
for Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. This revision was submitted by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for individual major
sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) pursuant to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's
conditionally approved RACT regulations. In this action, EPA is only
approving source-specific (also referred to as ``case-by-case'') RACT
determinations for nine major sources. These RACT evaluations were
submitted to meet RACT requirements for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving these
revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's implementing regulations.
DATES: This final rule is effective on November 19, 2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0657. 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: Ms. Emily Bertram, Permits Branch
(3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
The telephone number is (215) 814-5273. Ms. Bertram can also be reached
via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 5, 2020, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM). 85 FR 26643. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of case-by-case
RACT determinations for nine of the 10 sources included in the subject
SIP submission for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ The case-
by-case RACT determinations for these sources were included in a SIP
revision submitted by PADEP on April 11, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The portion of PADEP's SIP submission related to American
Craft Brewery, LLC was withdrawn on October 21, 2019. EPA will be
taking action on this source in a future rulemaking action, once
resubmitted by PADEP for approval into the PA SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under certain circumstances, states are required to submit SIP
revisions to address RACT requirements for major sources of
NOX and VOC or any source category for which EPA has
promulgated control technique guidelines (CTG) for each ozone NAAQS.
Which NOX and VOC sources in Pennsylvania are considered
``major,'' and therefore to be addressed for RACT revisions, is
dependent on the location of each source within the Commonwealth.
Sources located in nonattainment areas would be subject to the ``major
source'' definitions
[[Page 66485]]
established under the CAA based on their classification. In
Pennsylvania, sources located in areas outside of moderate or above
nonattainment areas, as part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), are
subject to source thresholds of 50 tons per year (tpy). CAA section
184(b).
On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT
under both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania.
PADEP's May 16, 2016 SIP revision intended to address certain
outstanding non-CTG VOC RACT, VOC CTG RACT, and major NOX
RACT requirements for both standards. The SIP revision requested
approval of Pennsylvania's 25 Pa. Code 129.96-100, Additional RACT
Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs (the
``presumptive'' RACT II rule). Prior to the adoption of the RACT II
rule, Pennsylvania relied on the NOX and VOC control
measures in 25 Pa. Code 129.92-95, Stationary Sources of NOX
and VOCs, (the RACT I rule) to meet RACT for non-CTG major VOC sources
and major NOX sources. The requirements of the RACT I rule
remain approved into Pennsylvania's SIP and continue to be
implemented.\2\ On September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted a supplemental
SIP revision, dated September 22, 2017, which committed to address
various deficiencies identified by EPA in their May 16, 2016
``presumptive'' RACT II rule SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The RACT I Rule was approved by EPA into the Pennsylvania
SIP on March 23, 1998. 63 FR 13789. Through the current rulemaking,
certain source-specific RACT I requirements will be superseded by
more stringent RACT II requirements. See Section II of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally approved the RACT II rule based
on the commitments PADEP made in its September 22, 2017 supplemental
SIP revision. 84 FR 20274. In EPA's final conditional approval, EPA
noted that PADEP would be required to submit, for EPA's approval, SIP
revisions to address any facility-wide or system-wide averaging plan
approved under 25 Pa. Code 129.98 and any case-by-case RACT
determinations under 25 Pa. Code 129.99. PADEP committed to submitting
these additional SIP revisions within 12 months of EPA's final
conditional approval, specifically May 9, 2020. The SIP revision
addressed in this rule is part of PADEP's efforts to meet the
conditions of its supplemental SIP revision and EPA's conditional
approval of the RACT II Rule.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
A. Summary of SIP Revision
To satisfy a requirement from EPA's May 9, 2019 conditional
approval, PADEP submitted to EPA SIP revisions addressing case-by-case
RACT requirements for major sources in Pennsylvania subject to 25 Pa.
Code 129.99. In the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions, PADEP included a
case-by-case RACT determination for the existing emissions units at
each of the major sources of NOX and/or VOC that required a
source-specific RACT determination. In PADEP's RACT determinations, an
evaluation was completed to determine if previously SIP-approved, case-
by-case RACT emission limits or operational controls (herein referred
to as RACT I and contained in RACT I permits) were more stringent than
the new RACT II presumptive or case-by-case requirements. If more
stringent, the RACT I requirements will continue to apply to the
applicable source. If the new case-by-case RACT II requirements are
more stringent than the RACT I requirements, then the RACT II
requirements will supersede the prior RACT I requirements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ While the prior SIP-approved RACT I permit will remain part
of the SIP, this RACT II rule will incorporate by reference the RACT
II requirements through the RACT II permit and clarify the ongoing
applicability of specific conditions in the RACT I permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, EPA is taking action on SIP revisions pertaining to case-by-
case RACT requirements for nine major sources of NOX and/or
VOC in Pennsylvania, as summarized in Table 1.
Table 1--Nine Major NOX and/or VOC Sources in Pennsylvania Subject to Case-by-Case RACT II Determinations Under
the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major source
Major source (county) 1-Hour ozone RACT pollutant (NOX and/or RACT II permit (effective
source? (RACT I) VOC) date)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpenter Co. (Lehigh)............. No.................... VOC.................. 39-00040 (9/5/2018)
East Penn Manufacturing Co. Inc, No.................... NOX and VOC.......... 06-05040D (1/3/2019)
Smelter Plant (Berks).
Ellwood Quality Steels Co. Yes................... NOX and VOC.......... 37-00264 (10/13/2017)
(Lawrence).
GE Transportation--Erie Plant Yes................... NOX and VOC.......... 25-00025 (2/21/2018)
(Erie).
Graymont Pleasant Gap (Centre)..... Yes................... NOX.................. 14-00002 (2/5/2018)
Hazleton Generation (Luzerne)...... Yes................... NOX.................. 40-00021 (6/19/2018)
Helix Ironwood (Lebanon)........... No.................... NOX.................. 38-05019 (9/24/2018)
Magnesita Refractories (York)...... Yes................... NOX.................. 67-05001 (11/27/2018)
Penn State University (Centre)..... Yes................... NOX.................. 14-00003 (12/13/2017)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP consist of
an evaluation of all reasonably available controls at the time of
evaluation for each affected emissions unit, resulting in a PADEP
determination of what specific emission limit or control measures, if
any, satisfy RACT for that particular unit. The adoption of new,
additional, or revised emission limits or control measures to existing
SIP-approved RACT I requirements were specified as requirements in new
or revised Federally enforceable permits (hereafter RACT II permits)
issued by PADEP to the source. The RACT II permits, which revise or
adopt additional source-specific limits and/or controls, have been
submitted as part of the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions for EPA's
approval in the Pennsylvania SIP under 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1). The RACT
II permits submitted by PADEP are listed in the last column of Table 1,
along with the permit effective date, and are part of the docket for
this rule, which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov,
Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0657.\4\ EPA is
[[Page 66486]]
incorporating by reference in the Pennsylvania SIP, via the RACT II
permits, source-specific RACT emission limits and control measures
under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain major sources of
NOX and VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The RACT II permits are redacted versions of a facility's
Federally enforceable permits and reflect the specific RACT
requirements being approved into the Pennsylvania SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA's Proposed Action
PADEP's SIP revisions incorporate its determinations of source-
specific RACT II controls for individual emission units at major
sources of NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, where those units
are not covered by or cannot meet Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT
regulation. After thorough review and evaluation of the information
provided by PADEP in its SIP revision submittals for nine major sources
of NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, EPA proposed to find that
PADEP's case-by-case RACT determinations and conclusions establish
limits and/or controls on individual sources that are reasonable and
appropriately considered technically and economically feasible
controls.
PADEP, in its RACT II determinations, considered the prior source-
specific RACT I requirements and, where more stringent, retained those
RACT I requirements as part of its new RACT determinations. In the
NPRM, EPA proposed to find that all the proposed revisions to
previously SIP-approved RACT I requirements would result in equivalent
or additional reductions of NOX and/or VOC emissions. The
proposed revisions should not interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment, reasonable further progress with
the NAAQS, or section 110(l) of the CAA.
Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's 1997 and 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS case-by-case RACT determinations and the rationale for
EPA's proposed action were explained in the NPRM, and its associated
technical support document (TSD), and will not be restated here.
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA received comments from five commenters on the May 5, 2020 NPRM.
85 FR 26643. A summary of the comments and EPA's response are discussed
in this section of the preamble. A copy of the comments can be found in
the docket for this rule action.
Comment 1: One commenter stated that the ``PADEP economic benchmark
for RACT determination is low and not appropriate for all case-by-case
situations.'' The commenter then goes on to assert that ``PADEP should
not use any absolute amount in any case-by-case RACT economic
determinations.'' The commenter claims that this ``presumptive
benchmark allows Pennsylvania major sources to emit significant amounts
of NOX which makes it difficult for New Jersey (NJ) and
other neighboring states to attain the ozone NAAQS.'' Finally, the
commenter mentions New Jersey's 2004 RACT rule and cost estimates they
found acceptable.
Response 1: EPA is aware that Pennsylvania considered cost-
effectiveness levels ($/ton removed) that are lower than other states,
such as New Jersey and New York as the commenter notes, when developing
the RACT II rule. However, EPA has not set a single cost, emission
reduction, or cost-effectiveness figure to fully define cost-
effectiveness in meeting the NOX or VOC RACT requirement.
Therefore, states have the discretion to determine what costs are
considered reasonable when establishing RACT for their sources. Each
state must make and defend its own determination on how to weigh these
values in establishing RACT.
As PADEP explained in its RACT II rulemaking, it did not establish
a bright-line cost effectiveness threshold in determining what is
economically reasonably for purposes of defining RACT.\5\ Instead, it
developed as guidance a cost-effectiveness threshold of $2,800 per ton
of NOX controlled and $5,500 per ton of VOC controlled for
RACT. Pennsylvania also determined that even evaluating control
technology options with an additional 25% margin, an upper bound cost-
effectiveness threshold of $3,500 per ton NOX controlled and
$7,000 per ton VOC controlled, would not affect the add-on control
technology decisions required by RACT. Id. Pennsylvania determined that
these higher cost-effectiveness thresholds did not impact the
determination of what add on control technology was feasible.
Pennsylvania also reviewed examples of benchmarks used by other states:
Wisconsin, $2,500 per ton NOX; Illinois, $2,500-$3,000 per
ton NOX; Maryland, $3,500-$5,000 per ton NOX;
Ohio, $5,000 per ton NOX; and New York, $5,000-$5,500 per
ton NOX.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 46 Pa. Bulletin 2036 (April 23, 2016).
\6\ PADEP Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, Final
Rulemaking RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and
VOCs. October 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a separate prior final agency action, EPA found that PADEP's
cost effectiveness thresholds are reasonable and reflect control levels
achieved by the application and consideration of available control
technologies, after considering both the economic and technological
circumstances of Pennsylvania's own sources. See 84 FR 20274, 20286
(May 9, 2019).
Comment 2: The commenter states that EPA and PADEP should have
considered a shared Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system for
multiple test cells under Source ID 372 at GE Erie as RACT. The
commenter claims that the facility could have capitalized on a shared
SCR system where emissions could be reduced at multiple test cells by
one or two SCR systems, making it a cost-effective approach with large
emission reductions.
Response 2: The GE Erie facility includes an engine lab test
facility. The commenter raises concerns about emission controls at test
cells in Source ID 372. Six of the test cells found in Source ID 372
(test cells B, C, D, E, F and G located in GE Erie's Building 18E) were
evaluated for NOX and VOC RACT. An SCR system was evaluated
as to whether it would be NOX RACT by PADEP per the case-by-
case requirements of 25 Pa. Code 129.99. PADEP found that the SCR
system was technically feasible; however, it was determined to be cost
prohibitive when applied to an individual test cell. In follow up
correspondence with GE Erie, PADEP specifically asked the company for
justification as to why the Source 372 test cells could not be combined
into a single stack with a single control technology, such as a shared
SCR system, versus installing control technology for each individual
test cell. In its response, GE identified that the multiple test cells
found in Source ID 372 presently each have their own stack and
explained the several design and operational considerations
necessitating that each emission point have an individual stack.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See email dated December 13, 2018 from Hubert Flaherty,
PADEP, to Lynn Khalife, PADEP, which includes an email dated June
15, 2017 from GE Transportation to PADEP, which is part of the
record in this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This analysis identified that there is a wide range of potential
operating conditions across test cells that result in a broad range of
differences in air flow, velocity, and temperature associated with
those operating conditions. The differences in air flow, velocity, and
temperature associated with these different operating modes varies by
orders of magnitude. A dedicated air pollution control system for each
stack provides the facility the opportunity to optimize each test cell
to run in the mode required by that stack configuration at that
particular time. It concluded that it is technically
[[Page 66487]]
infeasible to design and operate a single air pollution control system
that can accommodate the necessary range of operation that would be
required in a multiple line context.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the analysis considered that the engine test cell
exhaust handling systems must operate with minimal backpressure that
mimics that of a locomotive in order to conduct meaningful testing. It
concluded that it is technically infeasible to design and operate a
single air pollution control system that can minimize inherent
backpressure and prevent cross feed backpressure from one operating
engine into another. Another factor considered in the analysis was GE
Erie's claims that multiple air pollution control systems provide
operational redundancy that protects business continuity in the event
of system interruption, which the company identified as occurring with
meaningful frequency.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA agrees with the assessment presented by PADEP that a shared air
pollution control system, such as an SCR system, for the multiple test
cells found in Source ID 372 is technically infeasible. Therefore, per
25 Pa. Code 129.99, this potential control strategy would not require a
cost assessment and would be determined infeasible as NOX
RACT for Source ID 372.
Comment 3: The commenter notes that for Penn State's RACT analysis,
PADEP has determined that the previous RACT I NOX emission
limit of 107.5 tpy for each boiler is to be superseded with a new RACT
II natural gas usage restriction of 520 million cubic feet/year and a
No. 2 fuel oil usage restriction of 743,000 gallons/year. The commenter
asks what this means and asks that EPA clarify whether the 107.5 tpy
NOX emission limit is to be removed from Pennsylvania's SIP.
If the RACT I annual limit is intended to be removed from the SIP, the
commenter demands that EPA re-propose Penn State's RACT determination
because the removal was not mentioned in this proposed notice.
Response 3: The commenter correctly notes that EPA indicated in its
TSD that PADEP had determined that the NOX RACT annual limit
of 107.5 tpy per boiler for Source IDs 036 and 037, two East Campus
Steam Plant, would be superseded with the new RACT II natural gas and
No. 2 fuel oil usage restrictions. The RACT I 107.5 tpy NOX
limit will not be removed from the SIP. This RACT II rule will add the
RACT II limits to the SIP and clarify that its more stringent
requirements have superseded the prior annual limit and, in effect,
will govern.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ EPA notes that PADEP, in its RACT SIP revisions for Helix
Ironwood, GE Transportation--Erie, Carpenter, Pennsylvania State
University, Ellwood Quality Steels, East Penn Manufacturing,
Magnesita Refractories, Hazleton Generation, and Graymont PA,
included some form of annual limits in the RACT II permits for those
facilities. EPA wishes to clarify that it is not approving any such
annual limits as RACT limits. Rather, because PADEP analyzed what
should be RACT under operating conditions that included annual
limits from the existing facility permit, and PADEP included those
requirements in its SIP submittal to us, EPA is incorporating those
annual limits into the SIP not as RACT control limits but for the
purpose of SIP strengthening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the RACT process, PADEP, based on a statistical
evaluation of Penn State's historical test data for the two boilers,
reduced the NOX short-term emission limit for each boiler
from 0.20 lbs/MMBtu to 0.18 lbs/MMBtu when fired on natural gas and
0.12 lbs/MMBtu when fired on No. 2 fuel oil. A recent Non-Attainment
New Source Review (NNSR) restriction established the usage restriction
of 520 million cubic feet of natural gas in any 12 consecutive month
period per boiler for the two boilers. This fuel usage restriction,
coupled with the NOX RACT short-term emission limit of 0.20
lbs/MMBtu (which has now been lowered to 0.18 lbs/MMBtu), equates to
expected emissions of 53.7 tpy. As part of the NOX RACT
determination for the two boilers, PADEP has proposed adding the new
fuel restrictions along with the short-term emission limit to the SIP.
PADEP's Technical Review Memo (PADEP Memo), dated August 9, 2017,
and EPA's TSD, both of which are part of the record in this docket,
clearly discuss the outdated nature of the prior NOX RACT I
determination of 107.5 tpy for Source IDs 036 and 037 and that it would
be less stringent than the new RACT II determination. As PADEP
indicated in its review memo, ``[t]he existing RACT annual limit of
107.5 TPY is out-of-date due to the NNSR restriction established in the
operating permit for natural gas usage. This restriction, along with
the 0.2 lbs/MMBtu limit, equates to 53.7 tpy. This is the potential to
emit (PTE) used in the economic feasibility analyses noted above.''
PADEP Memo, page 5.
As the RACT I annual NOX limit of 107.5 will not be
removed from the SIP, there is no need for any additional notice.
Comment 4: The commenter states that EPA should determine that for
Source IDs 036 and 037 at Penn State, RACT is the installation of SCR
because the facility determined the cost effectiveness of SCR to be
$4,817 per ton of NOX removed. The commenter states that
this level of cost effectiveness was determined economically feasible
for the purposes of RACT when EPA approved rules for both New York and
New Jersey. The commenter demands that EPA retract Penn State's RACT
determination and apply the cost effectiveness thresholds previously
approved for New York and New Jersey.
Response 4: EPA is aware that Pennsylvania considered cost-
effectiveness levels ($/ton removed) that are lower than other states,
such as New Jersey and New York as the commenter notes, when developing
the RACT II rule. However, EPA has not set a single cost, emission
reduction, or cost-effectiveness figure to fully define cost-
effectiveness in meeting the NOX or VOC RACT requirement.
Therefore, states have the discretion to determine what costs are
considered reasonable when establishing RACT for their sources. Each
state must make and defend its own determination on how to weigh these
values in establishing RACT.
As PADEP explained in its RACT II rulemaking, it did not establish
a bright-line cost effectiveness threshold in determining what is
economically reasonably for purposes of defining RACT.\11\ Instead, it
developed as guidance a cost-effectiveness threshold of $2,800 per ton
of NOX controlled and $5,500 per ton of VOC controlled for
RACT. Pennsylvania also determined that even evaluating control
technology options with an additional 25% margin, an upper bound cost-
effectiveness threshold of $3,500 per ton NOX controlled and
$7,000 per ton VOC controlled, would not affect the add-on control
technology decisions required by RACT. Id. Pennsylvania determined that
these higher cost-effectiveness thresholds did not impact the
determination of what add on control technology was feasible.
Pennsylvania also reviewed examples of benchmarks used by other states:
Wisconsin, $2,500 per ton NOX; Illinois, $2,500-$3,000 per
ton NOX; Maryland, $3,500-$5,000 per ton NOX;
Ohio, $5,000 per ton NOX; and New York, $5,000-$5,500 per
ton NOX.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 46 Pa. Bulletin 2036 (April 23, 2016).
\12\ PADEP Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, Final
Rulemaking RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and
VOCs. October 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a separate prior final agency action, EPA found that PADEP's
cost effectiveness thresholds are reasonable and reflect control levels
achieved by the application and consideration of available control
technologies, after considering both the economic and
[[Page 66488]]
technological circumstances of Pennsylvania's own sources. See 84 FR
20274, 20286 (May 9, 2019).
Comment 5: The commenter urges EPA to reconsider the VOC limit of
0.30 lbs/ton of steel produced, which was established as RACT for the
electric arc furnace (EAF) at Ellwood Quality Steels, to more closely
align with actual stack test results. The commenter states that the VOC
RACT limit for the EAF should be lower because, in PADEP's RACT
analysis, results are summarized from the facility's last four stack
tests, which averaged an emission rate of 0.14 lbs/ton of steel
produced, with the most recent stack test from October 2016 showing an
average of 0.082 lbs/ton of steel produced.
Response 5: PADEP conducted a RACT analysis per 25 Pa. Code 129.99
for VOC emissions at the EAF. The potential control technologies
evaluated were all determined to be technically infeasible for the
source. Additionally, PADEP reviewed EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
(RBLC) for examples of controls and emission limits at EAF facilities
(20 in total). That review revealed that VOC limits (lbs/ton of steel
produced) at EAFs ranged from 0.03 lbs/ton to 0.43 lbs/ton with an
average limit of 0.20 lbs/ton, a range within which Ellwood Quality
Steels' RACT VOC limit falls.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See PADEP's Technical Review Memo, dated April 28, 2017,
which is part of the docket for this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this analysis, PADEP determined VOC RACT for the EAF to be
continued operation of the existing RACT I controls--direct evacuation
control, process controls, and scrap management, along with the short-
term VOC emission limit of 0.3 lbs/ton. EPA concluded that PADEP's VOC
RACT determination for the EAF at Ellwood Quality Steels was reasonable
for that specific source and meets statutory and regulatory
requirements.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving case-by-case RACT determinations for nine sources
in Pennsylvania, as required to meet obligations pursuant to the 1997
and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of source-
specific RACT determinations under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for certain major sources of VOC and NOX in Pennsylvania.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III
Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further
Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in
the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rule of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 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 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 rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
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 December 21, 2020. 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 approving Pennsylvania's NOX and VOC
RACT requirements for nine case-by-
[[Page 66489]]
case facilities for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 22, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended 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, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries ``General Electric Transportation Systems--
Erie''; ``J. E. Baker Co. (Refractories)--York''; ``Con-Lime, Inc'';
``Con-Lime, Inc.--Bellefonte''; ``Williams Generation Company--
Hazleton''; ``General Electric Transportation Systems''; ``The
Pennsylvania State University--University Park''; ``Ellwood Group
Inc''; ``Graybec Lime, Inc''; and ``Bellefonte Lime Company''; and
0
b. Adding the entries at the end of the table: ``Carpenter Co.'';
``East Penn Manufacturing Co. Inc, Smelter Plant''; ``Ellwood Quality
Steels Co. (formerly referenced as Ellwood Group Inc)''; ``GE
Transportation--Erie Plant (formerly referenced as General Electric
Transportation Systems and General Electric Transportation Systems--
Erie)''; ``Graymont Pleasant Gap''; ``Hazleton Generation (formerly
referenced as Williams Generation Company--Hazleton)''; ``Helix
Ironwood''; ``Magnesita Refractories (formerly referenced as J. E.
Baker Co. (Refractories)--York)''; ``Penn State University (formerly
referenced as The Pennsylvania State University--University Park)''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional explanations/Sec.
Name of source Permit No. County State EPA approval date Sec. 52.2063 and 52.2064
effective date citations\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
General Electric Transportation OP-25-025............... Erie............... 12/21/94 8/8/95, 60 FR 40292. See also 52.2064(c)(4).
Systems--Erie.
J. E. Baker Co. (Refractories)-- OP-67-2001.............. York............... 12/22/94 8/8/95, 60 FR 40292. See also 52.2064(c)(8).
York.
* * * * * * *
Con-Lime, Inc..................... OP-14-0001.............. Centre............. 6/30/95 6/3/97, 62 FR 30250. See also 52.2064(c)(5).
* * * * * * *
Con-Lime, Inc.--Bellefonte........ OP-14-0001.............. Centre............. 1/7/98 3/9/98, 63 FR 11370. See also 52.2064(c)(5).
* * * * * * *
Williams Generation Company-- OP-40-0031A............. Luzerne............ 3/10/00 4/1/03, 68 FR 15661. See also 52.2064(c)(6).
Hazleton.
* * * * * * *
General Electric Transportation OP-25-025A.............. Erie............... 8/26/02 4/7/03, 68 FR 16724. See also 52.2064(c)(4).
Systems.
* * * * * * *
The Pennsylvania State University-- OP-14-0006.............. Centre............. 12/30/98 3/30/05, 70 FR 16118 See also 52.2064(c)(9).
University Park.
* * * * * * *
Ellwood Group Inc................. OP-37-313............... Lawrence........... 1/31/01 3/30/05, 70 FR 16124 See also 52.2064(c)(3).
* * * * * * *
Graybec Lime, Inc................. OP-14-0004.............. Centre............. 4/16/99 4/28/06, 71 FR 25070 See also 52.2064(c)(5).
* * * * * * *
Bellefonte Lime Company........... OP-14-0002.............. Centre............. 10/19/98 6/14/06, 71 FR 34259 See also 52.2064(c)(5).
* * * * * * *
Carpenter Co...................... 39-00040................ Lehigh............. 9/5/18 10/20/2020, [INSERT 52.2064(c)(1).
Federal Register
citation].
East Penn Manufacturing Co. Inc, 06-05040D............... Berks.............. 1/3/19 10/20/2020, [INSERT 52.2064(c)(2).
Smelter Plant. Federal Register
citation].
Ellwood Quality Steels Co. 37-00264................ Lawrence........... 10/13/17 10/20/2020, [INSERT 52.2064(c)(3).
(formerly referenced as Ellwood Federal Register
Group Inc). citation].
GE Transportation--Erie Plant 25-00025................ Erie............... 2/21/18 10/20/2020, [INSERT 52.2064(c)(4).
(formerly referenced as General Federal Register
Electric Transportation Systems citation].
and General Electric
Transportation Systems--Erie).
Graymont Pleasant Gap............. 14-00002................ Centre............. 2/5/18 10/20/2020, [INSERT 52.2064(c)(5).
Federal Register
citation].
Hazleton Generation (formerly 40-00021................ Luzerne............ 6/19/18 10/20/2020, [INSERT 52.2064(c)(6).
referenced as Williams Generation Federal Register
Company--Hazleton). citation].
Helix Ironwood.................... 38-05019................ Lebanon............ 9/24/18 10/20/2020, [INSERT 52.2064(c)(7).
Federal Register
citation].
Magnesita Refractories (formerly 67-05001................ York............... 11/27/18 10/20/2020, [INSERT 52.2064(c)(8).
referenced as J. E. Baker Co. Federal Register
(Refractories)--York). citation].
Penn State University (formerly 14-00003................ Centre............. 12/13/17 10/20/2020, [INSERT 52.2064(c)(9).
referenced as The Pennsylvania Federal Register
State University--University citation].
Park).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 66490]]
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 52.2064 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2064 EPA-Approved Source Specific Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).
* * * * *
(c) Approval of source-specific RACT requirements for 1997 and 2008
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards for the facilities
listed below are incorporated as specified below. (Rulemaking Docket
No. EPA-OAR-2019-0657).
(1) Carpenter Co.--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 39-00040,
issued September 5, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
(2) East Penn Manufacturing Co. Inc, Smelter Plant--Incorporating
by reference Permit No. 06-05040D, issued January 3, 2019, as redacted
by Pennsylvania.
(3) Ellwood Quality Steels Co.--Incorporating by reference Permit
No. 37-00264, issued October 13, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania. All
permit conditions in the prior RACT Permit No. OP-37-313, issued
January 31, 2001, remain as RACT requirements. See also Sec.
52.2063(d)(1)(d) for prior RACT approval.
(4) GE Transportation--Erie Plant--Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 25-00025, issued February 21, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. OP-25-025A,
issued August 26, 2002. See also Sec. Sec. 52.2063(c)(98)(i)(B)(5) and
52.2063(c)(198)(i)(B) for prior RACT approvals.
(5) Graymont Pleasant Gap--Incorporating by reference Permit No.
14-00002, issued February 5, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania, which
supersedes Graybec Lime, Inc. OP-14-0004 (issued April 16, 1999),
Bellefonte Lime Company. OP-14-0002 (issued October 19, 1998), and Con-
Lime, Inc. OP-14-0001 (issued June 30, 1995 and amended January 7,
1998). Graymont Pleasant Gap is the consolidation of three facilities,
formerly referenced as Graybec Lime, Inc., Bellefonte Lime Company, and
Con-Lime, Inc. (Con-Lime, Inc.--Bellefonte) See Sec. Sec.
52.2063(d)(1)(n), 52.2063(d)(1)(q), 52.2063(c)(122)(i)(B)(5), and
52.2063(c)(130)(i)(B)(3) for prior RACT approvals.
(6) Hazleton Generation--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 40-
00021, issued June 19, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania, which
supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. 40-0031A, issued March 10, 2000,
except for Conditions 5-8, 12, and 14-17. See also Sec.
52.2063(c)(196)(i)(B)(4) for prior RACT approval.
(7) Helix Ironwood--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 38-05019,
issued September 24, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
(8) Magnesita Refractories--Incorporating by reference Permit No.
67-05001, issued November 27, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania, which
supersedes the prior RACT I Permit No 67-2001, issued December 22,
1994, except for Conditions 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11. See also Sec.
52.2063(c)(98)(i)(B)(6) for prior RACT approval.
(9) Penn State University--Incorporating by reference Permit No.
14-00003, issued December 13, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania which
supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. OP-14-0006, issued December 30,
1998; however, RACT Permit No. OP-14-0006 remains in effect as to
Source ID 035, WCSP Boiler 8, and as to Source IDs 036 and 037, ECSP
Boilers No. 1 and 2, except for Condition 8, which is superseded. See
also Sec. 52.2063(d)(1)(c) for prior RACT approval.
[FR Doc. 2020-21442 Filed 10-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
