Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology Determinations for Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 and/or 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 50945-50952 [2022-17448]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 160 / Friday, August 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance. This
document provides early notification of
our specific plans and actions for this
program.
Accessible Format: On request to the
program contact person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
individuals with disabilities can obtain
this document in an accessible format.
The Department will provide the
requestor with an accessible format that
may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or
text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3
file, braille, large print, audiotape,
compact disc, or other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. You may access the official
edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations at
www.govinfo.gov. At this site, you can
view this document, as well as all other
documents of the Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or
Portable Document Format (PDF). To
use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
James F. Lane,
Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary
Delegated the Authority to Perform the
Functions and Duties of the Assistant
Secretary Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education.
[FR Doc. 2022–17934 Filed 8–18–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
[EPA–R03–OAR–2022–0165; FRL–10132–
02–R3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available
Control Technology Determinations for
Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997
and/or 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Aug 18, 2022
Jkt 256001
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving multiple
state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These
revisions were submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) to
establish and require reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for
six major volatile organic compound
(VOC) and/or nitrogen oxide (NOX)
emitting facilities pursuant to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
conditionally approved RACT
regulations. In this rule action, EPA is
approving source-specific RACT
determinations (also referred to as caseby-case or CbC) for sources at six major
NOX and VOC emitting facilities within
the Commonwealth submitted by
PADEP. These RACT evaluations were
submitted to meet RACT requirements
for the 1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). EPA is approving these
revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in
accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s
implementing regulations.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
September 19, 2022.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2022–0165. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the 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 www.regulations.gov,
or please contact the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section for additional
availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Riley Burger, Permits Branch (3AD10),
Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, Four Penn Center, 1600 John
F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone
number is (215) 814–2217. Mr. Burger
can also be reached via electronic mail
at burger.riley@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
On March 17, 2022, EPA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
87 FR 15161. In the NPRM, EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50945
proposed approval of case-by-case
RACT determinations for sources at
eight facilities, as EPA found that the
RACT controls for these sources met the
CAA RACT requirements for the 1997
and/or 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
case-by-case RACT determinations for
sources at these facilities were initially
included in PADEP’s May 7, 2020 SIP
submission and supplemented by
submissions on February 9, 2021, July
20, 2021, and January 28, 2022. One
facility is located in Allegheny County
and was submitted by PADEP on behalf
of the Allegheny County Health
Department (ACHD), the government
agency responsible for air permitting in
that county.
As more fully explained in the NPRM,
under certain circumstances, states are
required to submit SIP revisions to
address RACT requirements for both
major sources of NOX and VOC and any
source covered by control technique
guidelines (CTG), for each ozone
NAAQS. Which NOX and VOC sources
in Pennsylvania are considered ‘‘major,’’
and are therefore subject to RACT, is
dependent on the location of each
source within the Commonwealth.
Sources located in nonattainment areas
would be subject to the ‘‘major source’’
definitions established under the CAA
based on the area’s current
classification(s). In Pennsylvania,
sources located in any ozone
nonattainment areas outside of
moderate or above are subject to source
thresholds of 50 tons per year (tpy)
because of the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR) requirements in CAA section
184(b)(2).
On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted
a SIP revision addressing RACT for both
the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in Pennsylvania. PADEP’s May
16, 2016 SIP revision intended to
address certain outstanding non-CTG
VOC RACT, VOC CTG RACT, and major
source VOC and NOX RACT
requirements for both standards. The
SIP revision requested approval of
Pennsylvania’s 25 Pennsylvania Code
129.96–100, Additional RACT
Requirements for Major Sources of NOX
and VOCs (the ‘‘presumptive’’ RACT II
rule). Prior to the adoption of the RACT
II rule, Pennsylvania relied on the NOX
and VOC control measures in 25 Pa.
Code 129.92–95, Stationary Sources of
NOX and VOCs, (the RACT I rule) to
meet RACT for non-CTG major VOC
sources and major NOX sources. The
requirements of the RACT I rule remain
as previously approved in
Pennsylvania’s SIP and continue to be
E:\FR\FM\19AUR1.SGM
19AUR1
50946
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 160 / Friday, August 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
implemented as RACT.1 On September
26, 2017, PADEP submitted a
supplemental SIP revision including a
letter, dated September 22, 2017, which
committed to address various
deficiencies identified by EPA in
PADEP’s original May 16, 2016
‘‘presumptive’’ RACT II rule SIP
revision.
On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally
approved the RACT II rule based on the
commitments PADEP made in its
September 22, 2017 letter.2 84 FR
20274. In EPA’s final conditional
approval, EPA established conditions
requiring PADEP submit, for EPA’s
approval, SIP revisions to address any
facility-wide or system-wide NOX
emissions averaging plans approved
under 25 Pa. Code 129.98 and any caseby-case RACT determinations under 25
Pa. Code 129.99. PADEP committed to
submitting these additional SIP
revisions within 12 months of EPA’s
final conditional approval (i.e., by May
9, 2020). Through multiple submissions
between 2017 and 2020, PADEP
submitted to EPA for approval the
various SIP submissions to implement
its RACT II case-by-case determinations
and alternative NOX emissions limits.
This rule takes final action on SIP
revisions for sources at six facilities,
based on EPA’s review.3
The SIP revisions in this action for
ATI Flat Rolled products Holdings, LLC,
the facility located in Allegheny County,
only establish 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS RACT requirements.
Applicable RACT requirements under
the CAA for sources located in
Allegheny County for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS were previously
satisfied. See 78 FR 34584 (June 10,
2013).
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis
A. Summary of SIP Revisions
To satisfy a requirement from EPA’s
May 9, 2019 conditional approval,
PADEP submitted to EPA SIP revisions
addressing alternative NOX emissions
limits and/or case-by-case RACT
requirements for major sources in
Pennsylvania subject to 25 Pa. Code
129.98 or 129.99. Among the submitted
SIP revisions were case-by-case RACT
determinations for sources in Allegheny
County, which PADEP submitted on
behalf of ACHD. PADEP’s submission
included SIP revisions pertaining to
case-by-case RACT determinations for
the existing emissions units at each of
the major sources of NOX and/or VOC
that required a case-by-case RACT
determination.
In the case-by-case RACT
determinations submitted by PADEP,
and PADEP on behalf of ACHD, an
evaluation was completed to determine
if previously SIP-approved, case-by-case
RACT emissions limits or operational
controls (herein referred to as RACT I
and contained in RACT I permits) were
more stringent than the RACT II
presumptive or case-by-case
requirements new to the SIP. If more
stringent, the RACT I requirements
would continue to apply to the
applicable source. If case-by-case RACT
II requirements that are new to the SIP
are more stringent than the RACT I
requirements, then the RACT II
requirements would supersede the prior
RACT I requirements.4
Here, EPA is approving SIP revisions
pertaining to case-by-case RACT
requirements for sources at six NOX
and/or VOC emitting facilities in
Pennsylvania, as summarized in Table 1
in this document. As indicated in the
NPRM, EPA views each facility as a
separable SIP revision.
TABLE 1—SIX MAJOR NOX AND/OR VOC EMITTING FACILITIES IN PENNSYLVANIA SUBJECT TO CASE-BY–CASE RACT II
DETERMINATIONS UNDER THE 1997 AND/OR 2008 8–HOUR OZONE NAAQS
1-Hour ozone
RACT source?
(RACT I)
Major source
pollutant (NOX
and/or VOC)
ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Coatesville (formerly Lukens Steel Co.—Coatesville) (Chester).
ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, LLC (formerly Allegheny Ludlum Corporation—
Brackenridge) (Allegheny).
Yes .................
NOX and VOC .......
Yes .................
NOX and VOC .......
Boyertown Foundry Company (Berks) ..........................................................................
Yes .................
VOC ......................
Grove US LLC Shady Grove Plant (Franklin) ...............................................................
Yes .................
VOC ......................
INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia (Butler) .........................................................
Yes .................
NOX and VOC .......
Texas Eastern Transmission LP Lilly Station (Cambria) ...............................................
Yes .................
NOX and VOC .......
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Major source (county)
RACT II permit
(effective date)
15–00010
(3/18/2020)
0059–I009a
(12/3/2020)
0059–I008d
(4/21/2021)
06–05063
(8/1/2020)
28–05004
(1/1/2021)
10–00021
(12/17/2020)
11–00258
(12/10/2021)
The case-by-case RACT
determinations submitted by PADEP,
and PADEP on behalf of ACHD, consist
of an evaluation of all reasonably
available controls at the time of
evaluation for each affected emissions
1 The EPA granted conditional limited approval
of Pennsylvania’s case-by-case RACT I Rule on
March 23, 1998 pending Pennsylvania’s submission
of and EPA’s determination on proposals for
facilities subject to case-by-case (source-specific)
RACT requirements. 63 FR 13789. On May 3, 2001,
EPA removed the conditional status of its 1998
approval once the state certified that it had
submitted case-by-case RACT I proposals for
sources subject to the RACT requirements, but
retained the limited nature of the approval. 66 FR
22123. EPA granted full approval on October, 22,
2008 once it approved all case-by-case RACT I
proposals submitted by Pennsylvania. 73 FR 62891.
Through this RACT II rule, certain source-specific
RACT I requirements will be superseded by more
stringent requirements. See Section II of this
preamble.
2 On August 27, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals issued a decision vacating EPA’s approval
of three provisions of Pennsylvania’s presumptive
RACT II rule applicable to certain coal-fired power
plants. Sierra Club v. EPA, 972 F.3d 290 (3d Cir.
2020). None of the sources in this final rule are
subject to the presumptive RACT II provisions at
issue in that Sierra Club decision.
3 In its March 17, 2022 NPRM (87 FR 15161), EPA
had proposed approval of SIP revisions pertaining
to case-by-case RACT requirements for sources at
eight major NOX and/or VOC emitting facilities. At
this time, EPA is only approving such SIP revisions
at six of those facilities and is not taking final action
on the SIP revisions related to Procter & Gamble
Paper Products Company Mehoopany and
ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Monessen.
4 While the prior SIP-approved RACT I permit
will remain part of the SIP, this RACT II rule will
incorporate by reference the RACT II requirements
through the RACT II permit and clarify the ongoing
applicability of specific conditions in the RACT I
permit.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Aug 18, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19AUR1.SGM
19AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 160 / Friday, August 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
unit, resulting in a determination of
what specific emissions limit or control
measures satisfy RACT for that
particular unit. The adoption of new,
additional, or revised emissions limits
or control measures to existing SIPapproved RACT I requirements were
specified as requirements in new or
revised federally enforceable permits
(hereafter RACT II permits) issued by
PADEP or ACHD to the source. These
RACT II permits have been submitted as
part of the Pennsylvania RACT SIP
revisions for EPA’s approval in the
Pennsylvania SIP under 40 CFR
52.2020(d)(1). The RACT II permits
being approved in this action are listed
in the last column of Table 1 of this
preamble, along with the permit
effective date, and are part of the docket
for this rule, which is available online
at www.regulations.gov, Docket No.
EPA–R03–OAR–2022–0165.5 For certain
sources at major NOX and VOC emitting
facilities, EPA is incorporating by
reference in the Pennsylvania SIP the
source-specific emissions limits and
control measures and/or alternative
NOX emissions limits in the RACT II
permits, and is determining that these
provisions satisfy the RACT
requirement under the 1997 and/or 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
B. EPA’s Final Action
This CbC RACT SIP revision
incorporates determinations by PADEP
and ACHD of source-specific RACT II
controls for individual emission units at
major sources of NOX and/or VOC in
Pennsylvania, where those units are not
covered by or cannot meet
Pennsylvania’s presumptive RACT
regulation. After thorough review and
evaluation of the information submitted
to EPA by PADEP, in its SIP revision
submittals for sources at six major NOX
and/or VOC emitting facilities in
Pennsylvania, EPA found that: (1)
PADEP’s and ACHD’s case-by-case
RACT determinations and conclusions
establish limits and/or controls on
individual sources that are reasonable
and appropriately considered
technically and economically feasible
controls; and (2) PADEP’s and ACHD’s
determinations are consistent with the
CAA, EPA regulations, and applicable
EPA guidance.
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to find
that all the proposed revisions to
previously SIP-approved RACT I
requirements would result in equivalent
or additional reductions of NOX and/or
5 The RACT II permits included in the docket for
this rule are redacted versions of the facilities’
federally enforceable permits. They reflect the
specific RACT requirements being approved into
the Pennsylvania SIP via this final action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Aug 18, 2022
Jkt 256001
VOC emissions. Consistent with section
110(l) of the CAA the proposed
revisions will not result in additional
NOX emissions and thus should not
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment.
Below is a summary of information
that was set forth in the NPRM,
associated technical support document
(TSD), and supporting documents in the
record regarding the source-specific
RACT II NOX determinations for the
four facilities with major NOX sources
and how those particular requirements
are at least as stringent as the RACT I
requirements. Additional material
regarding this source determination is
available in the NPRM, associated TSD,
and other support documents in the
record, and are not set forth herein.
Arcelor Mittal Plate LLC Coatesville
EPA proposed to approve PADEP’s
RACT II CbC NOX determination for
twenty-seven sources at this facility. For
all twenty-seven sources, PADEP
determined that CbC RACT II NOX
requirements would be continuing use
of good operating and maintenance
practices. This RACT II requirement
now being incorporated into the SIP is
as stringent as the RACT I SIP
requirement because the RACT I SIP
also required good operating and
maintenance practices. PADEP also will
continue to require the same throughput
restrictions as follows: 267 million
cubic feet of natural gas each year
(mmcf/yr) for the EMS boiler, 1.55
million tons of steel processed per year
for the ‘‘D’’ electric furnace, and 3,942
mmcf/yr of natural gas for fifteen
soaking pits. These throughput
restrictions being incorporated into the
SIP as RACT are as stringent because
they are the same as the RACT I
restrictions incorporated into the
current SIP.
For two NAB furnaces and eight BHT
furnaces, EPA is approving more
stringent RACT II requirements now
being incorporated into the SIP that will
supersede the RACT I requirements in
the SIP. PADEP established throughput
restrictions for the 145’ NAB furnace
and the 200’ NAB furnace of 481.8 and
510 mmcf/yr of natural gas respectively,
which together are more stringent than
the prior SIP RACT I collective limit of
1331.52 mmcf/yr for the two NAB
furnaces together. For the eight BHT
furnaces, PADEP established a
throughput restriction of 2495.7 mmcf/
yr of natural gas, which is less than the
prior RACT I SIP collective limit of
2688.88 mmcf/yr for nine BHT furnaces,
and is therefore more stringent. Finally,
PADEP established a monthly limit of
34.1 tons per month NOX that is new to
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50947
the SIP for the ‘‘D’’ electric furnace.6
This short-term emission limit now
being incorporated into the SIP is more
stringent because EPA never approved a
prior short-term emission limit in the
SIP before for this source. Through its
establishment of as stringent and more
stringent RACT, and related testing,
monitoring, and recordkeeping
requirements, Pennsylvania has
demonstrated that the status quo in NOX
emissions has been maintained if not
improved. As such, EPA’s approval of
Pennsylvania’s SIP revision is
consistent with CAA section 110(l).
Texas Eastern Transmission LP Lilly
Station
EPA proposed to approve PADEP’s
CbC RACT II NOX determination for
three sources at this facility.7 For two of
the three sources, Westinghouse
turbines, PADEP determined that the
RACT CbC NOX is good combustion
practices, defined as following
manufacturer’s procedures, routine
maintenance, a preventative
maintenance schedule, and inspection
as well as an operating hours limit of
8,000 hr/yr, fuel throughput limit of
491.3 MMScf/year, and a NOX
emissions rate of 116 ppmvd (parts per
million volume, dry) corrected to 15%
oxygen. For the remaining source, a
General Electric turbine, PADEP
determined that RACT CbC NOX
consists of good combustion practices,
defined as following manufacturer
procedures, routine maintenance, a
preventative maintenance schedule,
inspection as well as an operating hours
limit of 8,000 hr/yr, and a NOX emission
rate of 120 ppmvd corrected to 15%
oxygen. Because EPA had not
previously approved any RACT for this
source into the SIP, these RACT
requirements now being incorporated
into the SIP are more stringent than the
current SIP. Through its establishment
of more stringent RACT for these
sources, and related testing monitoring
and recordkeeping requirements,
Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the
status quo in NOX emissions has been
maintained, if not improved. As such,
EPA’s approval of Pennsylvania’s SIP
6 EPA included the following annual NO
X
emission limits only as SIP strengthening measures
for each CbC NOX source that were not incorporated
into the prior SIP: 19.62 tpy for the EMS boiler,
340.6 tpy for the ‘‘D’’ electric furnace, 173.6 tpy for
the eight BHT furnaces, 33.7 tpy for the 145’ NAB
furnace, 30.6 tpy for the 200’ NAB furnace, 502.8
tpy for fifteen soaking pits.
7 As SIP strengthening measures EPA has also
approved PADEP’s annual emission limits of 107
tons per year for the Westinghouse turbines and 292
tons per year for the GE turbine as well as a
requirement to shut down operation of the GE
turbine by January 1, 2024.
E:\FR\FM\19AUR1.SGM
19AUR1
50948
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 160 / Friday, August 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
revision is consistent with section
110(l).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, LLC
(Allegheny County)
EPA proposed to approve ACHD’s
CbC RACT II NOX determination for five
sources at this facility. A number of
NOX sources under RACT I are now
shut down. For two sources currently
still in use, consisting of two electric arc
furnaces, ACHD determined that the
RACT II CbC NOX is the continued
requirement for good work practices,
such as minimizing intake of outside air
and the opening of the slag. For the
Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessel
source, ACHD determined that the
RACT II CbC NOX is to continue the
requirement to implement good
operating practices and the requirement
to comply with manufacturer’s
specifications. These RACT II
requirements for these three sources are
as stringent as the current SIP because
the RACT I requirements in the SIP also
consisted of good operating practices for
these sources and have been retained.
For the two remaining sources, No. 1
and No. 2 A&P lines HNO3/HF pickling
operations, ACHD determined the RACT
II CbC NOX is to continue good
operating and maintenance practices as
well as several requirements new to the
SIP: direct emissions to the wet scrubber
(while tracking and maintaining specific
operating parameters related thereto),
meet emission limits of 15.5 lbs NOX/hr
and 11.07 lbs NOX/hr, and annual
production limits of 262,800 tons of
steel and 148,920 tons of steel.8 The
good operating and maintenance
practice requirement being incorporated
into the SIP for these sources is as
stringent because the current RACT I
SIP for these sources also required good
operating practices. The requirement to
direct emissions to the wet scrubber as
well as the numerical emission and
production limits now being
incorporated are new to the SIP for
these two sources and do not supersede
any prior RACT requirements in the
current SIP, and thus are more stringent.
Through its establishment of as or more
stringent RACT, and related monitoring,
testing, and recordkeeping
requirements, Pennsylvania has
demonstrated that the status quo in NOX
emissions has been maintained, if not
improved. As such EPA’s approval of
Pennsylvania’s SIP revision is
adequately justified under section
110(l).
8 In addition, for those two sources, EPA included
as SIP strengthening measures only annual NOX
emission limits of 67.8 tpy and 48.49 tpy which
EPA has not approved into the SIP before.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Aug 18, 2022
Jkt 256001
INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia
EPA proposed to approve PADEP’s
CbC RACT II NOX determinations for
two sources at this facility, spray dryers
No. 1 and No. 3. PADEP determined that
the RACT II CbC NOX for both sources
is use of good combustion practices and
minimizing excess air. These RACT
requirements now being incorporated
into the SIP are more stringent because
EPA has never approved RACT
requirements into the SIP before for the
spray dryers. The existing RACT I
conditions in the SIP are unrelated to
these two CbC NOX sources and remain
as RACT requirements. INDSPEC ceased
manufacturing in September 2017, and
the NOX and VOC sources subject to
PADEP’s RACT II determination have
all permanently shut down.9 Through
imposition of these more stringent
operating practices for these now
permanently shut down sources,
Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the
status quo in NOX emissions has been
maintained, if not improved. As such,
EPA’s approval of Pennsylvania’s SIP
revision is consistent with section
110(l).
Other specific requirements of the
1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
case-by-case RACT determinations and
alternative NOX emissions limits and
the rationale for EPA’s proposed action
are explained thoroughly in the NPRM,
and its associated technical support
document (TSD), and will not be
restated here.
III. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
EPA received three sets of comments
on the March 17, 2022 NPRM. 87 FR
15161. A summary of the comments and
EPA’s responses are discussed in this
section. A copy of the comments can be
found in the docket for this rule action.
Comment 1: This comment from
ACHD identifies that the permits for
ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, LLC
in the notice of proposed rulemaking
should be identified as No. 0059–I009a
(December 3, 2020) and No. 0059–I008d
(April 21, 2021).
Response 1: The permits included in
the submission to EPA are No. 0059–
I009a (December 3, 2020) and No. 0059–
I008d (April 21, 2021) as indicated by
the commenter. References to these
permits in this rule have been updated.
Comment 2: The comment from
Cleveland-Cliffs Monessen Coke LLC
9 PADEP requested that the operating permit
conditions, which pertain to the implementation of
NOX and VOC CbC RACT II requirements under 25
Pa. Code § 129.99, be incorporated into the
Commonwealth’s SIP to determine baseline
emissions for the purpose of issuing emission
reduction credits (ERC).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
requests that EPA not take final action
on the revisions pertaining to
ArcelorMittal Monessen LLC Monessen
Coke Plant as certain RACT
requirements are involved in the appeal
of the facility’s permit before the
Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing
Board. The comment requests EPA
delay action until the appeal is
adjudicated or resolved, and any
modifications to the permit are
finalized. The comment indicates there
is a settlement agreement in principle
with PADEP to prepare and issue a
modification of the permit.
Response 2: EPA is not taking final
action on the ArcelorMittal Monessen
LLC Monessen Coke Plant RACT
determination at this time and will act
on this SIP revision in a later
rulemaking. EPA will respond to the
comment at that time.
Comment 3: A comment from the
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
claims that EPA cannot approve the
proposed Pennsylvania RACT II CbC
determinations under the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS because the CAA section
110(l) analysis is inadequate. In
particular, the comment focuses on the
proposed NOX limitations and whether
they will cause or contribute to
violations of the 2010 1-hour NOX
NAAQS. (The 2010 1-hour NAAQS is
for oxides of nitrogen, as measured by
nitrogen dioxide (NO2).)
Response 3: As described in the
proposed rulemaking, Pennsylvania was
required through implementation of the
1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS to
determine RACT II requirements for
major NOX and VOC emitting sources
within the Commonwealth. PADEP had
previously established CbC.10 11 As part
of the EPA’s conditional approval,
PADEP was required to complete
source-specific RACT II determinations
for subject NOX or VOC sources that
could not meet the presumptive
requirements or for which a
presumptive limit did not exist. For
subject sources located in Allegheny
County, ACHD makes such
determinations. As required by
Pennsylvania’s RACT II regulations,
PADEP and ACHD then conducted, for
sources seeking a CbC determination, an
analysis examining what air pollution
controls were available for those
individual sources to determine the
lowest emissions limit that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the
application of control technology that is
reasonably available considering
10 40
11 84
E:\FR\FM\19AUR1.SGM
CFR 52.2020(d)(1).
FR 20274 (May 9, 2019).
19AUR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 160 / Friday, August 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
technological and economic
feasibility.12
Through its source-specific RACT II
determinations, PADEP and ACHD
through PADEP have established NOX
and VOC limits and requirements for
various sources that either reaffirm
existing emissions limits or make the
limits more stringent. PADEP, on behalf
of itself and ACHD, submitted those
determinations to EPA as bundled
packages of individual SIP revisions.
EPA is now approving the RACT II CbC
SIP revisions for individual NOX and
VOC sources at six facilities throughout
Pennsylvania (including one in
Allegheny County). For the reasons
explained below, EPA concludes that
the arguments presented by the
comment do not prohibit approval of
these SIP revisions.
CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA
from approving a SIP revision if the
revision would ‘‘interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress . . . or any other applicable
requirement of this chapter.’’ 42 U.S.C.
7410(l). While EPA interprets section
110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are
in effect, including those for which a
relevant SIP submission may not have
been made, the level of rigor needed for
any CAA section 110(l) demonstration
will vary depending on the nature and
circumstances of the revision. For
example, an in-depth section 110(l)
analysis is more appropriate where
there is a reasonable expectation that an
existing SIP standard is being weakened
or that there will be a net emissions
increase because of approval of the SIP
revision under consideration. However,
here, the Pennsylvania CbC RACT II SIP
revisions are either retaining an existing
standard or establishing a more
stringent one. For these reasons, EPA
did not include a detailed section 110(l)
analysis at the proposal stage. Since the
comment raised the issue, EPA is
responding in this final action by
explaining why its approval is
consistent with section 110(l).
In circumstances where an existing
SIP standard is being weakened or a net
emissions increase is expected, there are
two generally recognized paths for
satisfying CAA section 110(l). First, a
state may demonstrate through an air
quality analysis, including modeling,
that the revision will not interfere with
the attainment of the NAAQS,
reasonable further progress, or any other
12 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,’’ and 44 FR
53762 (September 17, 1979).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Aug 18, 2022
Jkt 256001
applicable requirement. This is the
approach the comment claims is
required for the Pennsylvania CbC
RACT II SIP revisions. Second, a state
may substitute equivalent or greater
emissions reductions to compensate for
any change to a plan to ensure actual
emissions to the air are not increased
and thus preserve status quo air quality.
In the context of substitution, courts
have upheld the concept that substitute
measures resulting in a net zero increase
in emissions, i.e. status quo emissions,
is sufficient to demonstrate
noninterference. Kentucky Resources
Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th
Cir. 2006); Indiana v. EPA, 796 F. 3d
803 (7th Cir. 2015).
In a more analogous case to the
situation presented here, EPA’s
interpretation of section 110(l) was
upheld in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA,
759 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2014). There, the
court rejected a challenge to an EPA
action approving a regional haze plan
and concluded that WildEarth
Guardians had identified ‘‘nothing in
[the] SIP that weakens or removes any
pollution controls. And even if the SIP
merely maintained the status quo, that
would not interfere with the attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS.’’ 13 For
that reason, the court concluded that the
petitioner in WildEarth Guardians failed
to show that EPA’s approval of the SIP
contravened section 110(l). The court’s
holding demonstrates that a SIP
approval that does not weaken or
remove pollution controls would not
violate section 110(l). Thus, a showing
that the approved SIP measures preserve
status quo emissions is generally
sufficient to demonstrate
noninterference.
Here, contrary to the comment’s
characterization, PADEP and ACHD are
not relaxing standards or eliminating a
program; rather, PADEP and ACHD are
reevaluating the technical and economic
feasibility of air pollution controls for
subject air pollution sources as required
by implementation of the 2008 8-hour
NAAQS. Based on that review, PADEP
and ACHD, as explained in detail in
Section II of this preamble, have made
determinations that either retain or
make more stringent existing NOX
emissions limits. Under these
circumstances, PADEP’s or ACHD’s
demonstration to meet the requirements
of section 110(l) for its source-specific
RACT II determinations is not one of
modeling or identifying equivalent
emissions reductions to compensate for
or offset an emissions increase because
the revisions are not resulting in
emissions increases, but rather to
13 759
PO 00000
F.3d at 1074.
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50949
establish that its new source-specific
NOX RACT determinations are
preserving the status quo emissions or
achieving additional reductions beyond
the status quo. As described in the
preamble above, as well as the NPRM,
associated TSD, and supporting record
documents, EPA has approved for each
of the facilities with CbC NOX RACT II
determinations requirements that are at
least as stringent as the prior CbC NOX
RACT determinations.
Comment 4: CBD asserts that EPA’s
section 110(l) analysis must determine
whether NOX emissions from VOC
RACT control devices that use
combustion will cause or contribute to
a violation of the 2010 1-hour NOX
NAAQS.
Response 4: No VOC combustion
control devices are approved as part of
the VOC CbC RACT II determinations
for any of these six facilities, therefore
consideration of whether NOX
emissions from VOC RACT control
devices will cause or contribute to a
violation of the NAAQS as measured by
NO2 is not relevant to our final action
in this rule. Furthermore, no areas in
Pennsylvania are designated as nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-hour
NOX NAAQS under 40 CFR 81.339.
Comment 5: CBD states that the SIP
submission is ‘‘incomplete’’ because it
does not contain a ‘‘demonstration that
the national ambient air quality
standards, prevention of significant
deterioration increments, reasonable
further progress demonstration, and
visibility, as applicable, are protected if
the plan is approved and implemented,’’
per 40 CFR part 51, appendix V
(Appendix V), 2.2(d), and therefore
‘‘does not contain ‘the information
necessary to enable the Administrator to
determine whether the plan submission
complies with the provisions of [the
Clean Air Act],’ as required by Section
110(k)(1)(A) of the Act.’’ This comment
further asserts that because
Pennsylvania has not submitted the
demonstration referenced above, EPA
cannot now supplement the record with
the supposedly missing information as
part of this final rule. Lastly, the
comment states that because in the
commenter’s experience it is ‘‘not
possible for public commenters to carry
out a complete analysis’’ the comment
asserts is missing, that ‘‘the state and
EPA . . . bear the responsibility of
carrying out a full and complete
assessment of whether the rule will
interfere with the NAAQS.’’
Response 5: This comment
fundamentally misunderstands the
purpose of Appendix V, CAA
110(k)(1)(A) and the concept of
‘‘completeness.’’ Under CAA section
E:\FR\FM\19AUR1.SGM
19AUR1
50950
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 160 / Friday, August 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
110(k)(1), with a single exception
known as parallel processing, which is
not relevant in this action, a SIP
submission must either be determined
to be ‘‘complete’’ by EPA or become
complete by operation of law before
EPA can formally propose action on the
submission. Appendix V was
promulgated consistent with CAA
110(k)(1)(A), that directed EPA ‘‘to
promulgate minimum criteria that any
plan submission must meet before the
Administrator is required to act on such
submission under this subsection.’’
Thus, Appendix V provides EPA the
criteria that it uses to affirmatively
determine completeness of a SIP
submission, which then allows EPA to
move forward with formal action on the
submission. However, a SIP submission
that does not meet the Appendix V
completeness criteria may become
complete by operation of law pursuant
to CAA 110(k)(1)(B) if EPA does not
affirmatively determine that the SIP
submission is complete by ‘‘the date 6
months after receipt of the submission’’
from the state. The submissions at issue
in this rule became complete by
operation of law in October 2020 for
ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Coatesville,
Boyertown Foundry Company, Texas
Eastern Transmission LP Lilly Station,
and ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings,
LLC, and in August 2021 for INDSPEC
Chemical Corporation Petrolia and
Grove US LLC Shady Grove Plant, six
months after Pennsylvania made the
submissions because EPA did not make
an affirmative determination of
completeness.14 It is unclear from the
comment precisely what the commenter
believes are the repercussions of the
alleged incompleteness; to the extent it
implies that the alleged incompleteness
is a barrier to EPA’s proposed or final
rule in this action, that belief is
incorrect, because these submissions are
deemed complete by operation of law.
To the extent the comment implies that
Appendix V and CAA 110(k)(1)(A)
impose substantive approval criteria to
require a ‘‘demonstration that the
national ambient air quality standards,
prevention of significant deterioration
increments, reasonable further progress
demonstration, and visibility, as
applicable, are protected if the plan is
approved and implemented’’ in this
approval, EPA’s responses to Comments
14 PADEP submitted the last of the original SIP
revisions by letters dated February 9, 2021.
Therefore, all proposed SIP revisions were complete
by operation of law well before the March 17, 2022
(87 FR 15161) NPRM (although, PADEP submitted
supplemental materials for several facilities, these
supplemental submittals did not re-start the sixmonth completeness by-operation-of-law clock set
forth at CAA 110(k)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(B)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Aug 18, 2022
Jkt 256001
3 and 6, that the record supporting
EPA’s approval of PADEP’s and ACHD’s
source-specific RACT II SIP revisions is
sufficient, and therefore EPA does not
need to supplement the record. As such,
the comment’s reference to EPA’s
inability to supplement the record, and
to Ober v. U.S. EPA, 84 F.3d 304, 312
(9th Cir. 1996), is inapplicable to this
action. Similarly, because EPA has
determined that the existing record
supports this action, the comment’s
discussion of the relative burden of
providing any analysis beyond that
already in the record is not relevant to
our final action in this rule.
Comment 6: CBD’s final comment
relates to the results from air dispersion
modeling of NOX emissions from the
JBS Swift Beef Company (JBS) facility in
Colorado that they claim shows the
potential impact of NOX emissions on
1-hour NOX NAAQS violations. The
comment states that EPA or
Pennsylvania must undertake a
modeling analysis to determine if the
proposed CbC RACT II determinations
will cause or contribute to 2010 1-hour
NOX NAAQS violations. CBD asserts
that EPA and Pennsylvania have the
responsibility for conducting the
modeling to affirmatively demonstrate
that the SIP revision does not interfere
with the NAAQS. Relatedly, this
comment indicates that EPA must
repropose this action and allow for
comment on any such modeling
information or other information
utilized in the demonstration that the
NAAQS will be protected.
Response 6: With this rule action,
EPA is only approving revisions that
add specific NOX and VOC sourcespecific RACT II determinations to the
Pennsylvania SIP. In the subject RACT
II source-specific determinations,
PADEP and ACHD have made an
adequate showing that its sourcespecific determinations for individual
sources at the six facilities at issue will
preserve the status quo in NOX
emissions. As described in the TSD and
related documents, which are included
in the docket for this rule, PADEP and
ACHD evaluated both the technical and
economic feasibility of various control
equipment for these sources and used
that evaluation to determine the RACT
II requirements. PADEP and ACHD also
considered the prior RACT I
requirements to determine whether the
RACT II requirements were as stringent
as the previously established standards.
In circumstances where the RACT I
requirements were more stringent, they
were retained and remain effective. EPA
determined that PADEP and ACHD
adequately justified their RACT II CbC
NOX determinations and alternative
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
NOX emissions limits. EPA also
concluded, under section 110(l), that the
status quo in NOX emissions had been
maintained, if not improved, and that
there is no need to conduct the
modeling suggested by the comment.
The record supporting EPA’s approval
of PADEP’s and ACHD’s source-specific
RACT II SIP revisions is sufficient, there
is no need to supplement the record,
and the comment’s reference to EPA’s
inability to supplement the record is
inapplicable to this action.
The comment also included an air
dispersion modeling analysis of NOX
emissions from the JBS facility in
Colorado to highlight an alleged
potential of NOX emissions to cause or
contribute to violations of the 2010
1-hour NOX NAAQS. The NAAQS for
nitrogen oxides is a 1-hour standard at
a level of 100 ppb based on the 3-year
average of 98th percentile of the yearly
distribution of 1-hour daily maximum
NO2 concentrations. In 2012, EPA
designated areas within Pennsylvania as
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010
standard.15 The modeling analysis
provided by the comment indicated that
NOX emissions from the JBS facility in
Colorado could have significant NO2
impacts—the maximum NO2
concentration would occur within a
1-kilometer radius of the facility.
This modeling data analysis from
Colorado does not trigger a need for
EPA, Pennsylvania, or ACHD to conduct
modeling on the impact of NOX
emissions from each individual source
at issue in this rule in order for EPA to
approve these SIP revisions. First, as
discussed previously, modeling is not
the sole method available to satisfy
section 110(l) requirements. Second, the
differences in the meteorology, terrain,
and facility configurations between the
JBS facility and the Pennsylvania RACT
II sources are too significant to rely on
the JBS facility modeling results to serve
as surrogate modeling indicating that
the Pennsylvania RACT II sources have
the potential to cause exceedances of
the 2010 1-hour NOX NAAQS in
Pennsylvania. The comment does not
provide any comparison or information
to show why the JBS facility modeling
results would inform our analysis of the
specific RACT II sources in
Pennsylvania at issue in this rule.
Furthermore, the comment has not
presented any specific information
suggesting the RACT II CbC NOX
determinations or alternative NOX
emissions limits for these specific
sources could somehow lead to
violations of the 2010 1-hour NOX
NAAQS. Without a more specific
15 77
E:\FR\FM\19AUR1.SGM
FR 9532 (February 17, 2012).
19AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 160 / Friday, August 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
allegation from the comment about the
sources in question, the comment’s
allegations are too speculative in nature
to prevent EPA from approving PADEP’s
and ACHD’s RACT II CbC NOX
determinations or alternative NOX
emissions limits for sources at the
subject facilities.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving case-by-case RACT
determinations and/or alternative NOX
emissions limits for sources at six
facilities in Pennsylvania, as required to
meet obligations pursuant to the 1997
and/or 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as
revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation
by reference of source-specific RACT II
permits listed in table 1 of this
preamble. These permits establish and
require reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for certain sources at
four major volatile organic compound
(VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NOX)
emitting facilities and two major volatile
organic compound (VOC) emitting
facilities. Entries for two facilities with
requirements incorporated by reference
previously under the RACT I rule are
also revised to add new citations. EPA
has made, and will continue to make,
these materials generally available
through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region III Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the
SIP, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rule of
EPA’s approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.16
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
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
16 62
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Aug 18, 2022
Jkt 256001
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);
• 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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50951
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. Section 804,
however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of
particular applicability; rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and
rules of agency organization, procedure,
or practice that do not substantially
affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because
this is a rule of particular applicability,
EPA is not required to submit a rule
report regarding this action under
section 801.
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit October 18, 2022. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action
approving Pennsylvania’s NOX and VOC
RACT requirements for six facilities for
the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide,Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph
(d)(1) is amended by:
■ a. Revising the entries ‘‘Lukens Steel
Co.—Coatesville’’; and ‘‘Allegheny
Ludlum Corporation—Brackenridge’’;
and
■ b. Adding entries at the end of the
table for ‘‘ArcelorMittal Plate LLC
Coatesville (formerly referenced as
■
E:\FR\FM\19AUR1.SGM
19AUR1
50952
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 160 / Friday, August 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
Lukens Steel Co.—Coatesville)’’; ‘‘ATI
Flat Rolled Products Holdings, LLC
(formerly referenced as Allegheny
Ludlum Corporation—Brackenridge)’’;
‘‘Boyertown Foundry Company’’;
Name of source
Permit No.
*
Lukens Steel Co.—Coatesville ..........
*
*
Allegheny
Ludlum
Brackenridge.
*
County
State
effective
date
§ 52.2020
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
*
*
Additional explanation/
§§ 52.2063
and 52.2064
citations 1
EPA approval date
*
Chester ..............
*
5/6/99
*
*
12/15/00, ............................................
65 FR 78418 .....................................
*
See also 52.2064(j)(1).
CO–260
*
Allegheny ..........
*
12/19/96
*
*
10/18/01, ............................................
66 FR 52851 .....................................
*
See also 52.2064(j)(2).
15–00010
*
Chester ..............
*
3/18/20
*
*
8/19/2022, [insert Federal Register
citation].
0059–I009a
0059–I008d
Allegheny ..........
12/3/20
4/21/21
8/19/2022, [insert Federal Register
citation].
52.2064(j)(2).
06–05063
Berks .................
8/1/20
[insert Federal Register
52.2064(j)(3).
Grove US LLC Shady Grove Plant ....
28–05004
Franklin .............
1/1/21
[insert Federal Register
52.2064(j)(4).
INDSPEC
Chemical
Corporation
Petrolia.
Texas Eastern Transmission LP Lilly
Station.
10–00021
Butler .................
12/17/20
[insert Federal Register
52.2064(j)(5).
11–00258
Cambria .............
12/10/21
8/19/2022,
citation].
8/19/2022,
citation].
8/19/2022,
citation].
8/19/2022,
citation].
[insert Federal Register
52.2064(j)(6).
1 The
OP–15–
0010
Corporation—
*
ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Coatesville
(formerly referenced as Lukens
Steel Co.—Coatesville).
ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings,
LLC (formerly referenced as Allegheny
Ludlum
Corporation—
Brackenridge).
Boyertown Foundry Company ...........
*
*
52.2064(j)(1).
cross-references that are not § 52.2064 are to material that pre-date the notebook format. For more information, see § 52.2063.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Amend § 52.2064 by adding
paragraph (j) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2064 EPA-approved Source-Specific
Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).
*
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
‘‘Grove US LLC Shady Grove Plant’’;
‘‘INDSPEC Chemical Corporation
Petrolia’’; and ‘‘Texas Eastern
Transmission LP Lilly Station’’.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
*
*
*
*
(j) Approval of source-specific RACT
requirements for 1997 and/or 2008 8hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards for the facilities listed in this
paragraph are incorporated as specified.
(Rulemaking Docket No. EPA–OAR–
2022–0165).
(1) ArcelorMittal Plate LLC
Coatesville—Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 15–00010, effective March
18, 2020, as redacted by Pennsylvania,
which supersedes the prior RACT
Permit No. 15–0010, effective May 6,
1999, except for Conditions 18, 19, and
23–31 which remain as RACT
requirements. See also
§ 52.2063(c)(143)(i)(B)(11), for prior
RACT approval.
(2) ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings,
LLC—Installation Permit No. 0059–
I009a effective December 3, 2020 and
Installation Permit No. 0059–I008d
effective April 21, 2021, as redacted by
ACHD, which supersede RACT Order
260, issued December 19, 1996 to
Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, except
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Aug 18, 2022
Jkt 256001
for conditions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.9, and
1.10.
(3) Boyertown Foundry Company—
Incorporating by reference Permit No.
06–05063, effective on August 1, 2020,
as redacted by PADEP.
(4) Grove US LLC Shade Grove
Plant—Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 28–05004, effective January
1, 2020, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
(5) INDSPEC Chemical Corporation
Petrolia—Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 10–00021, effective
December 17, 2020, as redacted by
Pennsylvania. All permit conditions in
the prior RACT Permit No. #10–021,
effective October 10, 1998, remain as
RACT requirements. See also
§ 52.2063(c)(186)(i)(B)(2), for prior
RACT approval.
(6) Texas Eastern Transmission LP
Lilly Station—Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 11–00258, effective
December 10, 2021 as redacted by
Pennsylvania.
[FR Doc. 2022–17448 Filed 8–18–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA–R04–OAR–2022–0408; FRL–9560–01–
R4]
South Carolina; New Stationary
Sources; Supplemental Delegation of
Authority
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Notification.
AGENCY:
On September 23, 2021, the
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control (SCDHEC or
State agency) requested to change its
delegation mechanism from ‘‘adopt-byreference’’ to ‘‘automatic’’ for delegation
of New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) under our regulations. The
purpose of the State agency request for
approval of the ‘‘automatic’’ delegation
mechanism is to facilitate consistency
with the State agency’s ‘‘automatic’’
delegation mechanism for
implementation and enforcement of
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants rules. With
this NSPS delegation mechanism in
place, once a new or revised rule is
promulgated by EPA, delegation of
authority from EPA to the State agency
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19AUR1.SGM
19AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 160 (Friday, August 19, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50945-50952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17448]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0165; FRL-10132-02-R3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology Determinations
for Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 and/or 2008 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
multiple state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These revisions were submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to
establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT)
for six major volatile organic compound (VOC) and/or nitrogen oxide
(NOX) emitting facilities pursuant to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania's conditionally approved RACT regulations. In this rule
action, EPA is approving source-specific RACT determinations (also
referred to as case-by-case or CbC) for sources at six major
NOX and VOC emitting facilities within the Commonwealth
submitted by PADEP. These RACT evaluations were submitted to meet RACT
requirements for the 1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving these revisions to the
Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and EPA's implementing regulations.
DATES: This final rule is effective on September 19, 2022.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0165. All documents in the docket are listed on
the 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
www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Riley Burger, Permits Branch
(3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, Four Penn Center, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2217. Mr. Burger can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 17, 2022, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM). 87 FR 15161. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of case-by-case
RACT determinations for sources at eight facilities, as EPA found that
the RACT controls for these sources met the CAA RACT requirements for
the 1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The case-by-case RACT
determinations for sources at these facilities were initially included
in PADEP's May 7, 2020 SIP submission and supplemented by submissions
on February 9, 2021, July 20, 2021, and January 28, 2022. One facility
is located in Allegheny County and was submitted by PADEP on behalf of
the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD), the government agency
responsible for air permitting in that county.
As more fully explained in the NPRM, under certain circumstances,
states are required to submit SIP revisions to address RACT
requirements for both major sources of NOX and VOC and any
source covered by control technique guidelines (CTG), for each ozone
NAAQS. Which NOX and VOC sources in Pennsylvania are
considered ``major,'' and are therefore subject to RACT, is dependent
on the location of each source within the Commonwealth. Sources located
in nonattainment areas would be subject to the ``major source''
definitions established under the CAA based on the area's current
classification(s). In Pennsylvania, sources located in any ozone
nonattainment areas outside of moderate or above are subject to source
thresholds of 50 tons per year (tpy) because of the Ozone Transport
Region (OTR) requirements in CAA section 184(b)(2).
On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT for
both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania. PADEP's May
16, 2016 SIP revision intended to address certain outstanding non-CTG
VOC RACT, VOC CTG RACT, and major source VOC and NOX RACT
requirements for both standards. The SIP revision requested approval of
Pennsylvania's 25 Pennsylvania Code 129.96-100, Additional RACT
Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs (the ``presumptive''
RACT II rule). Prior to the adoption of the RACT II rule, Pennsylvania
relied on the NOX and VOC control measures in 25 Pa. Code
129.92-95, Stationary Sources of NOX and VOCs, (the RACT I rule) to
meet RACT for non-CTG major VOC sources and major NOX
sources. The requirements of the RACT I rule remain as previously
approved in Pennsylvania's SIP and continue to be
[[Page 50946]]
implemented as RACT.\1\ On September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted a
supplemental SIP revision including a letter, dated September 22, 2017,
which committed to address various deficiencies identified by EPA in
PADEP's original May 16, 2016 ``presumptive'' RACT II rule SIP
revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA granted conditional limited approval of
Pennsylvania's case-by-case RACT I Rule on March 23, 1998 pending
Pennsylvania's submission of and EPA's determination on proposals
for facilities subject to case-by-case (source-specific) RACT
requirements. 63 FR 13789. On May 3, 2001, EPA removed the
conditional status of its 1998 approval once the state certified
that it had submitted case-by-case RACT I proposals for sources
subject to the RACT requirements, but retained the limited nature of
the approval. 66 FR 22123. EPA granted full approval on October, 22,
2008 once it approved all case-by-case RACT I proposals submitted by
Pennsylvania. 73 FR 62891. Through this RACT II rule, certain
source-specific RACT I requirements will be superseded by more
stringent requirements. See Section II of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally approved the RACT II rule based
on the commitments PADEP made in its September 22, 2017 letter.\2\ 84
FR 20274. In EPA's final conditional approval, EPA established
conditions requiring PADEP submit, for EPA's approval, SIP revisions to
address any facility-wide or system-wide NOX emissions
averaging plans approved under 25 Pa. Code 129.98 and any case-by-case
RACT determinations under 25 Pa. Code 129.99. PADEP committed to
submitting these additional SIP revisions within 12 months of EPA's
final conditional approval (i.e., by May 9, 2020). Through multiple
submissions between 2017 and 2020, PADEP submitted to EPA for approval
the various SIP submissions to implement its RACT II case-by-case
determinations and alternative NOX emissions limits. This
rule takes final action on SIP revisions for sources at six facilities,
based on EPA's review.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On August 27, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
issued a decision vacating EPA's approval of three provisions of
Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT II rule applicable to certain coal-
fired power plants. Sierra Club v. EPA, 972 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2020).
None of the sources in this final rule are subject to the
presumptive RACT II provisions at issue in that Sierra Club
decision.
\3\ In its March 17, 2022 NPRM (87 FR 15161), EPA had proposed
approval of SIP revisions pertaining to case-by-case RACT
requirements for sources at eight major NOX and/or VOC
emitting facilities. At this time, EPA is only approving such SIP
revisions at six of those facilities and is not taking final action
on the SIP revisions related to Procter & Gamble Paper Products
Company Mehoopany and ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Monessen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SIP revisions in this action for ATI Flat Rolled products
Holdings, LLC, the facility located in Allegheny County, only establish
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS RACT requirements. Applicable RACT requirements
under the CAA for sources located in Allegheny County for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS were previously satisfied. See 78 FR 34584 (June 10,
2013).
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
A. Summary of SIP Revisions
To satisfy a requirement from EPA's May 9, 2019 conditional
approval, PADEP submitted to EPA SIP revisions addressing alternative
NOX emissions limits and/or case-by-case RACT requirements
for major sources in Pennsylvania subject to 25 Pa. Code 129.98 or
129.99. Among the submitted SIP revisions were case-by-case RACT
determinations for sources in Allegheny County, which PADEP submitted
on behalf of ACHD. PADEP's submission included SIP revisions pertaining
to case-by-case RACT determinations for the existing emissions units at
each of the major sources of NOX and/or VOC that required a
case-by-case RACT determination.
In the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP, and
PADEP on behalf of ACHD, an evaluation was completed to determine if
previously SIP-approved, case-by-case RACT emissions limits or
operational controls (herein referred to as RACT I and contained in
RACT I permits) were more stringent than the RACT II presumptive or
case-by-case requirements new to the SIP. If more stringent, the RACT I
requirements would continue to apply to the applicable source. If case-
by-case RACT II requirements that are new to the SIP are more stringent
than the RACT I requirements, then the RACT II requirements would
supersede the prior RACT I requirements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ While the prior SIP-approved RACT I permit will remain part
of the SIP, this RACT II rule will incorporate by reference the RACT
II requirements through the RACT II permit and clarify the ongoing
applicability of specific conditions in the RACT I permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, EPA is approving SIP revisions pertaining to case-by-case
RACT requirements for sources at six NOX and/or VOC emitting
facilities in Pennsylvania, as summarized in Table 1 in this document.
As indicated in the NPRM, EPA views each facility as a separable SIP
revision.
Table 1--Six Major NOX and/or VOC Emitting Facilities in Pennsylvania Subject to Case-BY-Case RACT II
Determinations Under the 1997 and/or 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Hour ozone RACT source? Major source pollutant (NOX RACT II permit
Major source (county) (RACT I) and/or VOC) (effective date)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Coatesville Yes...................... NOX and VOC.................. 15-00010
(formerly Lukens Steel Co.-- (3/18/2020)
Coatesville) (Chester).
ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, Yes...................... NOX and VOC.................. 0059-I009a
LLC (formerly Allegheny Ludlum (12/3/2020)
Corporation--Brackenridge) 0059-I008d
(Allegheny). (4/21/2021)
Boyertown Foundry Company (Berks).. Yes...................... VOC.......................... 06-05063
(8/1/2020)
Grove US LLC Shady Grove Plant Yes...................... VOC.......................... 28-05004
(Franklin). (1/1/2021)
INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Yes...................... NOX and VOC.................. 10-00021
Petrolia (Butler). (12/17/2020)
Texas Eastern Transmission LP Lilly Yes...................... NOX and VOC.................. 11-00258
Station (Cambria). (12/10/2021)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP, and PADEP
on behalf of ACHD, consist of an evaluation of all reasonably available
controls at the time of evaluation for each affected emissions
[[Page 50947]]
unit, resulting in a determination of what specific emissions limit or
control measures satisfy RACT for that particular unit. The adoption of
new, additional, or revised emissions limits or control measures to
existing SIP-approved RACT I requirements were specified as
requirements in new or revised federally enforceable permits (hereafter
RACT II permits) issued by PADEP or ACHD to the source. These RACT II
permits have been submitted as part of the Pennsylvania RACT SIP
revisions for EPA's approval in the Pennsylvania SIP under 40 CFR
52.2020(d)(1). The RACT II permits being approved in this action are
listed in the last column of Table 1 of this preamble, along with the
permit effective date, and are part of the docket for this rule, which
is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2022-0165.\5\ For certain sources at major NOX and VOC
emitting facilities, EPA is incorporating by reference in the
Pennsylvania SIP the source-specific emissions limits and control
measures and/or alternative NOX emissions limits in the RACT
II permits, and is determining that these provisions satisfy the RACT
requirement under the 1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The RACT II permits included in the docket for this rule are
redacted versions of the facilities' federally enforceable permits.
They reflect the specific RACT requirements being approved into the
Pennsylvania SIP via this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA's Final Action
This CbC RACT SIP revision incorporates determinations by PADEP and
ACHD of source-specific RACT II controls for individual emission units
at major sources of NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, where
those units are not covered by or cannot meet Pennsylvania's
presumptive RACT regulation. After thorough review and evaluation of
the information submitted to EPA by PADEP, in its SIP revision
submittals for sources at six major NOX and/or VOC emitting
facilities in Pennsylvania, EPA found that: (1) PADEP's and ACHD's
case-by-case RACT determinations and conclusions establish limits and/
or controls on individual sources that are reasonable and appropriately
considered technically and economically feasible controls; and (2)
PADEP's and ACHD's determinations are consistent with the CAA, EPA
regulations, and applicable EPA guidance.
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to find that all the proposed revisions
to previously SIP-approved RACT I requirements would result in
equivalent or additional reductions of NOX and/or VOC
emissions. Consistent with section 110(l) of the CAA the proposed
revisions will not result in additional NOX emissions and
thus should not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment.
Below is a summary of information that was set forth in the NPRM,
associated technical support document (TSD), and supporting documents
in the record regarding the source-specific RACT II NOX
determinations for the four facilities with major NOX
sources and how those particular requirements are at least as stringent
as the RACT I requirements. Additional material regarding this source
determination is available in the NPRM, associated TSD, and other
support documents in the record, and are not set forth herein.
Arcelor Mittal Plate LLC Coatesville
EPA proposed to approve PADEP's RACT II CbC NOX
determination for twenty-seven sources at this facility. For all
twenty-seven sources, PADEP determined that CbC RACT II NOX
requirements would be continuing use of good operating and maintenance
practices. This RACT II requirement now being incorporated into the SIP
is as stringent as the RACT I SIP requirement because the RACT I SIP
also required good operating and maintenance practices. PADEP also will
continue to require the same throughput restrictions as follows: 267
million cubic feet of natural gas each year (mmcf/yr) for the EMS
boiler, 1.55 million tons of steel processed per year for the ``D''
electric furnace, and 3,942 mmcf/yr of natural gas for fifteen soaking
pits. These throughput restrictions being incorporated into the SIP as
RACT are as stringent because they are the same as the RACT I
restrictions incorporated into the current SIP.
For two NAB furnaces and eight BHT furnaces, EPA is approving more
stringent RACT II requirements now being incorporated into the SIP that
will supersede the RACT I requirements in the SIP. PADEP established
throughput restrictions for the 145' NAB furnace and the 200' NAB
furnace of 481.8 and 510 mmcf/yr of natural gas respectively, which
together are more stringent than the prior SIP RACT I collective limit
of 1331.52 mmcf/yr for the two NAB furnaces together. For the eight BHT
furnaces, PADEP established a throughput restriction of 2495.7 mmcf/yr
of natural gas, which is less than the prior RACT I SIP collective
limit of 2688.88 mmcf/yr for nine BHT furnaces, and is therefore more
stringent. Finally, PADEP established a monthly limit of 34.1 tons per
month NOX that is new to the SIP for the ``D'' electric
furnace.\6\ This short-term emission limit now being incorporated into
the SIP is more stringent because EPA never approved a prior short-term
emission limit in the SIP before for this source. Through its
establishment of as stringent and more stringent RACT, and related
testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements, Pennsylvania has
demonstrated that the status quo in NOX emissions has been
maintained if not improved. As such, EPA's approval of Pennsylvania's
SIP revision is consistent with CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA included the following annual NOX emission
limits only as SIP strengthening measures for each CbC
NOX source that were not incorporated into the prior SIP:
19.62 tpy for the EMS boiler, 340.6 tpy for the ``D'' electric
furnace, 173.6 tpy for the eight BHT furnaces, 33.7 tpy for the 145'
NAB furnace, 30.6 tpy for the 200' NAB furnace, 502.8 tpy for
fifteen soaking pits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Eastern Transmission LP Lilly Station
EPA proposed to approve PADEP's CbC RACT II NOX
determination for three sources at this facility.\7\ For two of the
three sources, Westinghouse turbines, PADEP determined that the RACT
CbC NOX is good combustion practices, defined as following
manufacturer's procedures, routine maintenance, a preventative
maintenance schedule, and inspection as well as an operating hours
limit of 8,000 hr/yr, fuel throughput limit of 491.3 MMScf/year, and a
NOX emissions rate of 116 ppmvd (parts per million volume,
dry) corrected to 15% oxygen. For the remaining source, a General
Electric turbine, PADEP determined that RACT CbC NOX
consists of good combustion practices, defined as following
manufacturer procedures, routine maintenance, a preventative
maintenance schedule, inspection as well as an operating hours limit of
8,000 hr/yr, and a NOX emission rate of 120 ppmvd corrected
to 15% oxygen. Because EPA had not previously approved any RACT for
this source into the SIP, these RACT requirements now being
incorporated into the SIP are more stringent than the current SIP.
Through its establishment of more stringent RACT for these sources, and
related testing monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, Pennsylvania
has demonstrated that the status quo in NOX emissions has
been maintained, if not improved. As such, EPA's approval of
Pennsylvania's SIP
[[Page 50948]]
revision is consistent with section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As SIP strengthening measures EPA has also approved PADEP's
annual emission limits of 107 tons per year for the Westinghouse
turbines and 292 tons per year for the GE turbine as well as a
requirement to shut down operation of the GE turbine by January 1,
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, LLC (Allegheny County)
EPA proposed to approve ACHD's CbC RACT II NOX
determination for five sources at this facility. A number of
NOX sources under RACT I are now shut down. For two sources
currently still in use, consisting of two electric arc furnaces, ACHD
determined that the RACT II CbC NOX is the continued
requirement for good work practices, such as minimizing intake of
outside air and the opening of the slag. For the Argon-Oxygen
Decarburization Vessel source, ACHD determined that the RACT II CbC
NOX is to continue the requirement to implement good
operating practices and the requirement to comply with manufacturer's
specifications. These RACT II requirements for these three sources are
as stringent as the current SIP because the RACT I requirements in the
SIP also consisted of good operating practices for these sources and
have been retained. For the two remaining sources, No. 1 and No. 2 A&P
lines HNO3/HF pickling operations, ACHD determined the RACT
II CbC NOX is to continue good operating and maintenance
practices as well as several requirements new to the SIP: direct
emissions to the wet scrubber (while tracking and maintaining specific
operating parameters related thereto), meet emission limits of 15.5 lbs
NOX/hr and 11.07 lbs NOX/hr, and annual
production limits of 262,800 tons of steel and 148,920 tons of
steel.\8\ The good operating and maintenance practice requirement being
incorporated into the SIP for these sources is as stringent because the
current RACT I SIP for these sources also required good operating
practices. The requirement to direct emissions to the wet scrubber as
well as the numerical emission and production limits now being
incorporated are new to the SIP for these two sources and do not
supersede any prior RACT requirements in the current SIP, and thus are
more stringent. Through its establishment of as or more stringent RACT,
and related monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping requirements,
Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the status quo in NOX
emissions has been maintained, if not improved. As such EPA's approval
of Pennsylvania's SIP revision is adequately justified under section
110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In addition, for those two sources, EPA included as SIP
strengthening measures only annual NOX emission limits of
67.8 tpy and 48.49 tpy which EPA has not approved into the SIP
before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia
EPA proposed to approve PADEP's CbC RACT II NOX
determinations for two sources at this facility, spray dryers No. 1 and
No. 3. PADEP determined that the RACT II CbC NOX for both
sources is use of good combustion practices and minimizing excess air.
These RACT requirements now being incorporated into the SIP are more
stringent because EPA has never approved RACT requirements into the SIP
before for the spray dryers. The existing RACT I conditions in the SIP
are unrelated to these two CbC NOX sources and remain as
RACT requirements. INDSPEC ceased manufacturing in September 2017, and
the NOX and VOC sources subject to PADEP's RACT II
determination have all permanently shut down.\9\ Through imposition of
these more stringent operating practices for these now permanently shut
down sources, Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the status quo in
NOX emissions has been maintained, if not improved. As such,
EPA's approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision is consistent with
section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ PADEP requested that the operating permit conditions, which
pertain to the implementation of NOX and VOC CbC RACT II
requirements under 25 Pa. Code Sec. 129.99, be incorporated into
the Commonwealth's SIP to determine baseline emissions for the
purpose of issuing emission reduction credits (ERC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other specific requirements of the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
case-by-case RACT determinations and alternative NOX
emissions limits and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are
explained thoroughly in the NPRM, and its associated technical support
document (TSD), and will not be restated here.
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA received three sets of comments on the March 17, 2022 NPRM. 87
FR 15161. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are discussed
in this section. A copy of the comments can be found in the docket for
this rule action.
Comment 1: This comment from ACHD identifies that the permits for
ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, LLC in the notice of proposed
rulemaking should be identified as No. 0059-I009a (December 3, 2020)
and No. 0059-I008d (April 21, 2021).
Response 1: The permits included in the submission to EPA are No.
0059-I009a (December 3, 2020) and No. 0059-I008d (April 21, 2021) as
indicated by the commenter. References to these permits in this rule
have been updated.
Comment 2: The comment from Cleveland-Cliffs Monessen Coke LLC
requests that EPA not take final action on the revisions pertaining to
ArcelorMittal Monessen LLC Monessen Coke Plant as certain RACT
requirements are involved in the appeal of the facility's permit before
the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board. The comment requests EPA
delay action until the appeal is adjudicated or resolved, and any
modifications to the permit are finalized. The comment indicates there
is a settlement agreement in principle with PADEP to prepare and issue
a modification of the permit.
Response 2: EPA is not taking final action on the ArcelorMittal
Monessen LLC Monessen Coke Plant RACT determination at this time and
will act on this SIP revision in a later rulemaking. EPA will respond
to the comment at that time.
Comment 3: A comment from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
claims that EPA cannot approve the proposed Pennsylvania RACT II CbC
determinations under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the CAA
section 110(l) analysis is inadequate. In particular, the comment
focuses on the proposed NOX limitations and whether they
will cause or contribute to violations of the 2010 1-hour
NOX NAAQS. (The 2010 1-hour NAAQS is for oxides of nitrogen,
as measured by nitrogen dioxide (NO2).)
Response 3: As described in the proposed rulemaking, Pennsylvania
was required through implementation of the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS to determine RACT II requirements for major NOX and
VOC emitting sources within the Commonwealth. PADEP had previously
established CbC.\10\ \11\ As part of the EPA's conditional approval,
PADEP was required to complete source-specific RACT II determinations
for subject NOX or VOC sources that could not meet the
presumptive requirements or for which a presumptive limit did not
exist. For subject sources located in Allegheny County, ACHD makes such
determinations. As required by Pennsylvania's RACT II regulations,
PADEP and ACHD then conducted, for sources seeking a CbC determination,
an analysis examining what air pollution controls were available for
those individual sources to determine the lowest emissions limit that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering
[[Page 50949]]
technological and economic feasibility.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1).
\11\ 84 FR 20274 (May 9, 2019).
\12\ 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,'' and 44 FR 53762 (September
17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through its source-specific RACT II determinations, PADEP and ACHD
through PADEP have established NOX and VOC limits and
requirements for various sources that either reaffirm existing
emissions limits or make the limits more stringent. PADEP, on behalf of
itself and ACHD, submitted those determinations to EPA as bundled
packages of individual SIP revisions. EPA is now approving the RACT II
CbC SIP revisions for individual NOX and VOC sources at six
facilities throughout Pennsylvania (including one in Allegheny County).
For the reasons explained below, EPA concludes that the arguments
presented by the comment do not prohibit approval of these SIP
revisions.
CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision if
the revision would ``interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any
other applicable requirement of this chapter.'' 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
While EPA interprets section 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are
in effect, including those for which a relevant SIP submission may not
have been made, the level of rigor needed for any CAA section 110(l)
demonstration will vary depending on the nature and circumstances of
the revision. For example, an in-depth section 110(l) analysis is more
appropriate where there is a reasonable expectation that an existing
SIP standard is being weakened or that there will be a net emissions
increase because of approval of the SIP revision under consideration.
However, here, the Pennsylvania CbC RACT II SIP revisions are either
retaining an existing standard or establishing a more stringent one.
For these reasons, EPA did not include a detailed section 110(l)
analysis at the proposal stage. Since the comment raised the issue, EPA
is responding in this final action by explaining why its approval is
consistent with section 110(l).
In circumstances where an existing SIP standard is being weakened
or a net emissions increase is expected, there are two generally
recognized paths for satisfying CAA section 110(l). First, a state may
demonstrate through an air quality analysis, including modeling, that
the revision will not interfere with the attainment of the NAAQS,
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement. This
is the approach the comment claims is required for the Pennsylvania CbC
RACT II SIP revisions. Second, a state may substitute equivalent or
greater emissions reductions to compensate for any change to a plan to
ensure actual emissions to the air are not increased and thus preserve
status quo air quality. In the context of substitution, courts have
upheld the concept that substitute measures resulting in a net zero
increase in emissions, i.e. status quo emissions, is sufficient to
demonstrate noninterference. Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA,
467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006); Indiana v. EPA, 796 F. 3d 803 (7th Cir.
2015).
In a more analogous case to the situation presented here, EPA's
interpretation of section 110(l) was upheld in WildEarth Guardians v.
EPA, 759 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2014). There, the court rejected a
challenge to an EPA action approving a regional haze plan and concluded
that WildEarth Guardians had identified ``nothing in [the] SIP that
weakens or removes any pollution controls. And even if the SIP merely
maintained the status quo, that would not interfere with the attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS.'' \13\ For that reason, the court
concluded that the petitioner in WildEarth Guardians failed to show
that EPA's approval of the SIP contravened section 110(l). The court's
holding demonstrates that a SIP approval that does not weaken or remove
pollution controls would not violate section 110(l). Thus, a showing
that the approved SIP measures preserve status quo emissions is
generally sufficient to demonstrate noninterference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 759 F.3d at 1074.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, contrary to the comment's characterization, PADEP and ACHD
are not relaxing standards or eliminating a program; rather, PADEP and
ACHD are reevaluating the technical and economic feasibility of air
pollution controls for subject air pollution sources as required by
implementation of the 2008 8-hour NAAQS. Based on that review, PADEP
and ACHD, as explained in detail in Section II of this preamble, have
made determinations that either retain or make more stringent existing
NOX emissions limits. Under these circumstances, PADEP's or
ACHD's demonstration to meet the requirements of section 110(l) for its
source-specific RACT II determinations is not one of modeling or
identifying equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for or offset
an emissions increase because the revisions are not resulting in
emissions increases, but rather to establish that its new source-
specific NOX RACT determinations are preserving the status
quo emissions or achieving additional reductions beyond the status quo.
As described in the preamble above, as well as the NPRM, associated
TSD, and supporting record documents, EPA has approved for each of the
facilities with CbC NOX RACT II determinations requirements
that are at least as stringent as the prior CbC NOX RACT
determinations.
Comment 4: CBD asserts that EPA's section 110(l) analysis must
determine whether NOX emissions from VOC RACT control
devices that use combustion will cause or contribute to a violation of
the 2010 1-hour NOX NAAQS.
Response 4: No VOC combustion control devices are approved as part
of the VOC CbC RACT II determinations for any of these six facilities,
therefore consideration of whether NOX emissions from VOC
RACT control devices will cause or contribute to a violation of the
NAAQS as measured by NO2 is not relevant to our final action
in this rule. Furthermore, no areas in Pennsylvania are designated as
non-attainment areas for the 2010 1-hour NOX NAAQS under 40
CFR 81.339.
Comment 5: CBD states that the SIP submission is ``incomplete''
because it does not contain a ``demonstration that the national ambient
air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration
increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility,
as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented,''
per 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (Appendix V), 2.2(d), and therefore
``does not contain `the information necessary to enable the
Administrator to determine whether the plan submission complies with
the provisions of [the Clean Air Act],' as required by Section
110(k)(1)(A) of the Act.'' This comment further asserts that because
Pennsylvania has not submitted the demonstration referenced above, EPA
cannot now supplement the record with the supposedly missing
information as part of this final rule. Lastly, the comment states that
because in the commenter's experience it is ``not possible for public
commenters to carry out a complete analysis'' the comment asserts is
missing, that ``the state and EPA . . . bear the responsibility of
carrying out a full and complete assessment of whether the rule will
interfere with the NAAQS.''
Response 5: This comment fundamentally misunderstands the purpose
of Appendix V, CAA 110(k)(1)(A) and the concept of ``completeness.''
Under CAA section
[[Page 50950]]
110(k)(1), with a single exception known as parallel processing, which
is not relevant in this action, a SIP submission must either be
determined to be ``complete'' by EPA or become complete by operation of
law before EPA can formally propose action on the submission. Appendix
V was promulgated consistent with CAA 110(k)(1)(A), that directed EPA
``to promulgate minimum criteria that any plan submission must meet
before the Administrator is required to act on such submission under
this subsection.'' Thus, Appendix V provides EPA the criteria that it
uses to affirmatively determine completeness of a SIP submission, which
then allows EPA to move forward with formal action on the submission.
However, a SIP submission that does not meet the Appendix V
completeness criteria may become complete by operation of law pursuant
to CAA 110(k)(1)(B) if EPA does not affirmatively determine that the
SIP submission is complete by ``the date 6 months after receipt of the
submission'' from the state. The submissions at issue in this rule
became complete by operation of law in October 2020 for ArcelorMittal
Plate LLC Coatesville, Boyertown Foundry Company, Texas Eastern
Transmission LP Lilly Station, and ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings,
LLC, and in August 2021 for INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia and
Grove US LLC Shady Grove Plant, six months after Pennsylvania made the
submissions because EPA did not make an affirmative determination of
completeness.\14\ It is unclear from the comment precisely what the
commenter believes are the repercussions of the alleged incompleteness;
to the extent it implies that the alleged incompleteness is a barrier
to EPA's proposed or final rule in this action, that belief is
incorrect, because these submissions are deemed complete by operation
of law. To the extent the comment implies that Appendix V and CAA
110(k)(1)(A) impose substantive approval criteria to require a
``demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards,
prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further
progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if
the plan is approved and implemented'' in this approval, EPA's
responses to Comments 3 and 6, that the record supporting EPA's
approval of PADEP's and ACHD's source-specific RACT II SIP revisions is
sufficient, and therefore EPA does not need to supplement the record.
As such, the comment's reference to EPA's inability to supplement the
record, and to Ober v. U.S. EPA, 84 F.3d 304, 312 (9th Cir. 1996), is
inapplicable to this action. Similarly, because EPA has determined that
the existing record supports this action, the comment's discussion of
the relative burden of providing any analysis beyond that already in
the record is not relevant to our final action in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ PADEP submitted the last of the original SIP revisions by
letters dated February 9, 2021. Therefore, all proposed SIP
revisions were complete by operation of law well before the March
17, 2022 (87 FR 15161) NPRM (although, PADEP submitted supplemental
materials for several facilities, these supplemental submittals did
not re-start the six-month completeness by-operation-of-law clock
set forth at CAA 110(k)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(B)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: CBD's final comment relates to the results from air
dispersion modeling of NOX emissions from the JBS Swift Beef
Company (JBS) facility in Colorado that they claim shows the potential
impact of NOX emissions on 1-hour NOX NAAQS
violations. The comment states that EPA or Pennsylvania must undertake
a modeling analysis to determine if the proposed CbC RACT II
determinations will cause or contribute to 2010 1-hour NOX
NAAQS violations. CBD asserts that EPA and Pennsylvania have the
responsibility for conducting the modeling to affirmatively demonstrate
that the SIP revision does not interfere with the NAAQS. Relatedly,
this comment indicates that EPA must repropose this action and allow
for comment on any such modeling information or other information
utilized in the demonstration that the NAAQS will be protected.
Response 6: With this rule action, EPA is only approving revisions
that add specific NOX and VOC source-specific RACT II
determinations to the Pennsylvania SIP. In the subject RACT II source-
specific determinations, PADEP and ACHD have made an adequate showing
that its source-specific determinations for individual sources at the
six facilities at issue will preserve the status quo in NOX
emissions. As described in the TSD and related documents, which are
included in the docket for this rule, PADEP and ACHD evaluated both the
technical and economic feasibility of various control equipment for
these sources and used that evaluation to determine the RACT II
requirements. PADEP and ACHD also considered the prior RACT I
requirements to determine whether the RACT II requirements were as
stringent as the previously established standards. In circumstances
where the RACT I requirements were more stringent, they were retained
and remain effective. EPA determined that PADEP and ACHD adequately
justified their RACT II CbC NOX determinations and
alternative NOX emissions limits. EPA also concluded, under
section 110(l), that the status quo in NOX emissions had
been maintained, if not improved, and that there is no need to conduct
the modeling suggested by the comment. The record supporting EPA's
approval of PADEP's and ACHD's source-specific RACT II SIP revisions is
sufficient, there is no need to supplement the record, and the
comment's reference to EPA's inability to supplement the record is
inapplicable to this action.
The comment also included an air dispersion modeling analysis of
NOX emissions from the JBS facility in Colorado to highlight
an alleged potential of NOX emissions to cause or contribute
to violations of the 2010 1-hour NOX NAAQS. The NAAQS for
nitrogen oxides is a 1-hour standard at a level of 100 ppb based on the
3-year average of 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour
daily maximum NO2 concentrations. In 2012, EPA designated
areas within Pennsylvania as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010
standard.\15\ The modeling analysis provided by the comment indicated
that NOX emissions from the JBS facility in Colorado could
have significant NO2 impacts--the maximum NO2
concentration would occur within a 1-kilometer radius of the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 77 FR 9532 (February 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This modeling data analysis from Colorado does not trigger a need
for EPA, Pennsylvania, or ACHD to conduct modeling on the impact of
NOX emissions from each individual source at issue in this
rule in order for EPA to approve these SIP revisions. First, as
discussed previously, modeling is not the sole method available to
satisfy section 110(l) requirements. Second, the differences in the
meteorology, terrain, and facility configurations between the JBS
facility and the Pennsylvania RACT II sources are too significant to
rely on the JBS facility modeling results to serve as surrogate
modeling indicating that the Pennsylvania RACT II sources have the
potential to cause exceedances of the 2010 1-hour NOX NAAQS
in Pennsylvania. The comment does not provide any comparison or
information to show why the JBS facility modeling results would inform
our analysis of the specific RACT II sources in Pennsylvania at issue
in this rule. Furthermore, the comment has not presented any specific
information suggesting the RACT II CbC NOX determinations or
alternative NOX emissions limits for these specific sources
could somehow lead to violations of the 2010 1-hour NOX
NAAQS. Without a more specific
[[Page 50951]]
allegation from the comment about the sources in question, the
comment's allegations are too speculative in nature to prevent EPA from
approving PADEP's and ACHD's RACT II CbC NOX determinations
or alternative NOX emissions limits for sources at the
subject facilities.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving case-by-case RACT determinations and/or
alternative NOX emissions limits for sources at six
facilities in Pennsylvania, as required to meet obligations pursuant to
the 1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as revisions to the
Pennsylvania SIP.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of source-
specific RACT II permits listed in table 1 of this preamble. These
permits establish and require reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for certain sources at four major volatile organic compound
(VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emitting facilities and two
major volatile organic compound (VOC) emitting facilities. Entries for
two facilities with requirements incorporated by reference previously
under the RACT I rule are also revised to add new citations. EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these
materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally
enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective
date of the final rule of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 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);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit October 18, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action approving Pennsylvania's NOX and VOC
RACT requirements for six facilities for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide,Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania
0
2. In Sec. 52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries ``Lukens Steel Co.--Coatesville''; and
``Allegheny Ludlum Corporation--Brackenridge''; and
0
b. Adding entries at the end of the table for ``ArcelorMittal Plate LLC
Coatesville (formerly referenced as
[[Page 50952]]
Lukens Steel Co.--Coatesville)''; ``ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings,
LLC (formerly referenced as Allegheny Ludlum Corporation--
Brackenridge)''; ``Boyertown Foundry Company''; ``Grove US LLC Shady
Grove Plant''; ``INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia''; and ``Texas
Eastern Transmission LP Lilly Station''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
explanation/
State EPA approval Sec. Sec.
Name of source Permit No. County effective date 52.2063 and
date 52.2064
citations \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Lukens Steel Co.--Coatesville OP-15-0010 Chester............ 5/6/99 12/15/00,....... See also
65 FR 78418..... 52.2064(j)(1).
* * * * * * *
Allegheny Ludlum Corporation-- CO-260 Allegheny.......... 12/19/96 10/18/01,....... See also
Brackenridge. 66 FR 52851..... 52.2064(j)(2).
* * * * * * *
ArcelorMittal Plate LLC 15-00010 Chester............ 3/18/20 8/19/2022, 52.2064(j)(1).
Coatesville (formerly [insert Federal
referenced as Lukens Steel Register
Co.--Coatesville). citation].
ATI Flat Rolled Products 0059-I009a Allegheny.......... 12/3/20 8/19/2022, 52.2064(j)(2).
Holdings, LLC (formerly 0059-I008d 4/21/21 [insert Federal
referenced as Allegheny Register
Ludlum Corporation-- citation].
Brackenridge).
Boyertown Foundry Company.... 06-05063 Berks.............. 8/1/20 8/19/2022, 52.2064(j)(3).
[insert Federal
Register
citation].
Grove US LLC Shady Grove 28-05004 Franklin........... 1/1/21 8/19/2022, 52.2064(j)(4).
Plant. [insert Federal
Register
citation].
INDSPEC Chemical Corporation 10-00021 Butler............. 12/17/20 8/19/2022, 52.2064(j)(5).
Petrolia. [insert Federal
Register
citation].
Texas Eastern Transmission LP 11-00258 Cambria............ 12/10/21 8/19/2022, 52.2064(j)(6).
Lilly Station. [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.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 52.2064 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2064 EPA-approved Source-Specific Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).
* * * * *
(j) Approval of source-specific RACT requirements for 1997 and/or
2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards for the
facilities listed in this paragraph are incorporated as specified.
(Rulemaking Docket No. EPA-OAR-2022-0165).
(1) ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Coatesville--Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 15-00010, effective March 18, 2020, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. 15-0010,
effective May 6, 1999, except for Conditions 18, 19, and 23-31 which
remain as RACT requirements. See also Sec. 52.2063(c)(143)(i)(B)(11),
for prior RACT approval.
(2) ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, LLC--Installation Permit No.
0059-I009a effective December 3, 2020 and Installation Permit No. 0059-
I008d effective April 21, 2021, as redacted by ACHD, which supersede
RACT Order 260, issued December 19, 1996 to Allegheny Ludlum
Corporation, except for conditions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.9, and 1.10.
(3) Boyertown Foundry Company--Incorporating by reference Permit
No. 06-05063, effective on August 1, 2020, as redacted by PADEP.
(4) Grove US LLC Shade Grove Plant--Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 28-05004, effective January 1, 2020, as redacted by
Pennsylvania.
(5) INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia--Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 10-00021, effective December 17, 2020, as redacted
by Pennsylvania. All permit conditions in the prior RACT Permit No.
#10-021, effective October 10, 1998, remain as RACT requirements. See
also Sec. 52.2063(c)(186)(i)(B)(2), for prior RACT approval.
(6) Texas Eastern Transmission LP Lilly Station--Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 11-00258, effective December 10, 2021 as redacted
by Pennsylvania.
[FR Doc. 2022-17448 Filed 8-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
