Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Under the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 80616-80626 [2020-23857]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
80616
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
In FR Doc. 2020–26194 appearing on
page 78230 in the Federal Register on
Friday, December 4, 2020, the following
corrections are made:
payable, it may be recovered in a civil
action brought by the Secretary in any
court of competent jurisdiction, in
which litigation the Secretary shall be
represented by the Solicitor of Labor.
Corrections
1. On page 78230, in the third
column, correct the docket number
immediately below the CFR part
number to read ‘‘[Docket No. FR–6215–
F–03]’’.
2. On page 78231, in the center
column, under the heading ‘‘II. The
Public Comments,’’ correct the first
sentence to read ‘‘The public comment
period for the interim rule closed on
September 4, 2020.’’
Julia K. Hearthway,
Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020–23223 Filed 12–11–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–CR–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Part 214
Aaron Santa Anna,
Associate General Counsel, Office of
Legislation and Regulations.
[Docket No. 6215–C–04]
RIN 2502–ZA34
Housing Counseling Program:
Revision of the Certification Timeline;
Correction
AGENCY:
Final rule; correction.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
40 CFR Part 52
HUD published the Housing
Counseling Program final rule on
December 4, 2020, following a previous
interim rule published on August 5,
2020. HUD publishes in the Federal
Register a HUD docket number for each
of its rules. This docket number does
not get published in the Code of Federal
Regulations, but is a number internal to
HUD and provides a sequence number
and a letter indicating whether the item
is a proposed (P), interim final (I), or
final (F) rule, notice (N) or correction
(C). HUD is correcting two errors in the
final rule published on December 4,
2020—the docket number for the
December 4, 2020 final rule and a date
referenced in the section of the
December 4, 2020 rule that discusses the
public comment that HUD received on
the interim rule. These corrections do
not affect the substance of the rule.
DATES: This correction is effective
December 14, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Aaron Santa Anna, Associate General
Counsel, Office of Legislation and
Regulation, Office of General Counsel,
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room
10282, Washington, DC 20410;
telephone number 202–708–1793 (this
is not a toll-free number). Individuals
with hearing or speech impediments
may access this number via TTY by
calling the Federal Relay Service during
working hours at 1–800–877–8339 (this
is a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Dec 11, 2020
Jkt 253001
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Office of General Counsel,
HUD.
ACTION:
[FR Doc. 2020–27145 Filed 12–11–20; 8:45 am]
I. Background
[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)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
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
talley.david@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
information can be found in the NPRM
and in EPA’s Technical Support
Document (TSD) in the docket for this
action.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Dec 11, 2020
Jkt 253001
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
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,
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
80617
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.
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. 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
2 See
40 CFR 60.662 and 60.702.
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/201610/documents/2016-ctg-oil-and-gas.pdf.
4 See Appendix F of PADEP’s August 13, 2018
submittal.
3 See
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
80618
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
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
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/198412vocepa4503-84015airoxidationprocesses.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Dec 11, 2020
Jkt 253001
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.
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.
6 See
PO 00000
84 FR 20274.
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
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
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
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/controltechniques-guidelines-and-alternative-controltechniques.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Dec 11, 2020
Jkt 253001
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
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 RACTlevel 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
11 See
80 FR 12279, March 6, 2015.
12 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
80619
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 wellpositioned 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,’’
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
80620
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
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).
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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Dec 11, 2020
Jkt 253001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
14 ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Equipment Leaks from natural Gas/Gasoline
Processing Plants;’’ EPA–450/3–83–007; December
1983.
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Dec 11, 2020
Jkt 253001
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.
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–
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
80621
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 reevaluate 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 costeffectiveness 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
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
80622
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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.
Comment 3: The commenter
expresses uncertainty and sought
16 https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/
pabull?file=/secure/pabulletin/data/vol50/50-21/
684.html.
17 82 FR 31464, July 7, 2017.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Dec 11, 2020
Jkt 253001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Dec 11, 2020
Jkt 253001
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 coproducts. 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.
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
80623
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
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
80624
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.25
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. General Requirements
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
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
25 62
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Dec 11, 2020
Jkt 253001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
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:
a. The table in paragraph (c)(1) is
amended by:
■ 1. Under ‘‘Chapter 121—General
Provisions,’’ adding a third entry for
‘‘Section 121.1’’ after a second existing
entry for ‘‘Section 121.1’’;
■ 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’’;
■ 3. Under ‘‘Chapter 129—Standards for
Sources’’:
■ i. Revising the entry ‘‘Section 129.51’’;
■ ii. Adding the entry ‘‘Section 129.63a’’
in numerical order; and
■ iii. Revising the entries ‘‘Section
129.73’’, ‘‘Section 129.96’’, ‘‘Section
129.97’’, ‘‘Section 129.99’’, and ‘‘Section
129.100’’;
■ 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
■ 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:
■
■
§ 52.2020
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
*
*
80625
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
State citation
State effective
date
Title/subject
EPA approval date
Additional explanation/
§ 52.2063 citation
*
*
12/14/20, [insert Federal
Register citation].
*
Definition of ‘‘Cleaning solvent’’ is amended.
Title 25—Environmental Protection
Article III—Air Resources
Chapter 121—General Provisions
*
Section 121.1 .................
*
*
Definitions ................................................
*
*
*
*
8/11/18
*
*
*
*
Chapter 122—National Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
Section 122.1 .................
Purpose ...................................................
08/01/79
Section 122.2 .................
Scope ......................................................
08/01/79
Section 122.3 .................
Adoption of Standards ............................
12/26/97
*
*
*
12/14/20, [insert Federal
Register citation].
12/14/20, [insert Federal
Register citation].
12/14/20, [insert Federal
Register citation].
*
*
*
*
Chapter 129—Standards for Sources
*
Section 129.51 ...............
*
*
General ....................................................
*
*
Section 129.63a .............
*
*
Control of VOC emissions from industrial
cleaning solvents.
*
*
Section 129.73 ...............
*
*
Aerospace manufacturing and rework ....
*
*
Section 129.96 ...............
*
*
Applicability .............................................
*
Section 129.97 ...............
Presumptive RACT requirements, RACT
emission limitations and petition for alternative compliance schedule.
*
Section 129.99 ...............
*
*
Alternative RACT proposal and petition
for alternative compliance schedule.
Compliance demonstration and recordkeeping requirements.
Section 129.100 .............
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
*
*
*
Name of source
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
*
8/11/18
*
*
12/14/20, [insert Federal
Register citation].
*
Amended to add references to Section
129.63a.
8/11/18
*
*
12/14/20, [insert Federal
Register citation].
*
Added new Section
129.63a.
8/11/18
*
*
12/14/20, [insert Federal
Register citation].
*
Correction to numbering in
Table II.
*
*
12/14/20, [insert Federal
Register citation].
12/14/20, [insert Federal
Register citation].
*
Subsections (a) and (b)
are revised.
Section 129.97(k)(1)(ii) is
revised.
*
*
12/14/20, [insert Federal
Register citation].
12/14/20, [insert Federal
Register citation].
*
Section 129.99(i)(1)(ii) is
revised.
Section 129.100(a) is revised.
8/11/18
8/11/18
*
8/11/18
8/11/18
*
*
*
(1) * * *
Permit No.
State effective
date
County
*
*
Donjon Shipbuilding ............... 25–00930 .......
*
Erie ................
Heartland Fabrication, LLC ...
26–00545 .......
Fayette ...........
9/28/17
Geo Specialty Chem Trimet
Div.
39–00024 .......
Lehigh ............
3/21/17
1 The
*
*
9/26/17
Additional explanations/
§§ 52.2063 and 52.2064
citations 1
EPA approval date
*
12/14/20, [insert Federal
Register citation].
12/14/20, [insert Federal
Register citation].
12/14/20, [insert Federal
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
16:47 Dec 11, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
80626
*
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
(1) * * *
Applicable
geographic
area
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision
*
*
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS).
*
*
*
*
*
Statewide ....
*
[FR Doc. 2020–23857 Filed 12–11–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 257
[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2019–0173; FRL–10017–
88–OLEM]
RIN 2050–AH11
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Management System: Disposal of
CCR; A Holistic Approach to Closure
Part B: Alternate Demonstration for
Unlined Surface Impoundments;
Correction
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
correcting a typographical error in a
final rule published in the Federal
Register on November 12, 2020. The
EPA finalized regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) with procedures to allow
certain facilities to request approval to
operate an existing coal combustion
residuals (CCR) surface impoundment
with an alternate liner, among other
things.
DATES: This final rule correction is
effective on December 14, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle Long, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, Materials
Recovery and Waste Management
Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, MC: 5304P, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (703) 347–8953;
email address: Long.Michelle@epa.gov.
For more information on this
rulemaking, please visit https://
www.epa.gov/coalash.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA
finalized procedures to allow certain
facilities to request approval to use an
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Dec 11, 2020
Jkt 253001
*
8/13/18
EPA approval date
*
12/14/20, [insert Federal
Register citation].
alternate liner for CCR surface
impoundments (85 FR 72506, November
12, 2020), but after publication the
Agency identified a typographical error
in one of the amendatory instructions.
Specifically, instruction 6 directed that
paragraphs (f)(14) through (23) be added
to § 257.105. However, an additional
paragraph (f)(24) was also set out under
§ 257.105 that the Agency failed to
include in instruction 6. See 85 FR
72543. That is, EPA intended
instruction 6 to read ‘‘Amend § 257.105
by adding paragraphs (f)(14) through
(24) to read as follows:’’ This document
corrects instruction 6 by directing that
paragraphs (f)(14) through (24) be added
to § 257.105 as intended.
Recordkeeping requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(14) The application and any
supplemental materials submitted in
support of the application as required
by § 257.71(d)(1)(i)(E).
(15) The alternative liner
demonstration as required by
§ 257.71(d)(1)(ii)(D).
(16) The alternative liner
demonstration extension request as
required by § 257.71(d)(2)(ii)(D).
(17) The documentation prepared for
the preliminary demonstration as
required by § 257.71(d)(2)(ii)(E).
(18) The notification of an incomplete
application as required by
§ 257.71(d)(2)(iii)(B).
(19) The decision on the application
as required by § 257.71(d)(2)(iii)(F).
(20) The final decision on the
alternative liner demonstration as
required by § 257.71(d)(2)(vii).
PO 00000
Frm 00046
*
*
This action pertains to control technique
guideline (CTG) source categories.
(21) The alternative source
demonstration as required under
§ 257.71(d)(2)(ix)(A)(4).
(22) The final decision on the
alternative source demonstration as
required under § 257.71(d)(2)(ix)(A)(5).
(23) The final decision on the trend
analysis as required under
§ 257.71(d)(2)(ix)(B)(3).
(24) The decision that the alternative
source demonstration has been
withdrawn as required under
§ 257.71(d)(2)(ix)(C).
*
*
*
*
*
Peter Wright,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and
Emergency Management.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
In FR Doc. 2020–23327, appearing on
page 72506 in the Federal Register of
Thursday, November 12, 2020, on page
72543, in the first column, correct
instruction 6 to read as follows:
■ 6. Amend § 257.105 by adding
paragraphs (f)(14) through (24) to read
as follows:
§ 257.105
Additional explanation
[FR Doc. 2020–27031 Filed 12–11–20; 8:45 am]
Correction
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
State
submittal date
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the Secretary
42 CFR Part 2
[SAMHSA–4162–20]
RIN 0930–AA30
Confidentiality of Substance Use
Disorder Patient Records
Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA), U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule amends the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration’s (SAMHSA)
regulation governing the Confidentiality
of Substance Use Disorder Patient
Records, to clarify one of the conditions
under which a court may authorize
disclosure of confidential
communications made by a patient to a
part 2 program as defined in this
regulation. This change to the regulation
is intended to clarify that a court has the
authority to permit disclosure of
confidential communications when the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
]]>Agencies
[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\ https://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
