48908 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1The RACT I Rule was approved by EPA into the 

Pennsylvania SIP on March 23, 1998. 63 FR 13789. 

Through this rulemaking, certain source-specific 

RACT I requirements will be superseded by more 

stringent requirements. See Section II of the 

preamble to this Final Rule. 

2On 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 rulemaking are 

subject to the three presumptive RACT II provisions 

at issue in that Sierra Club decision. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0597; FRL–8873–02– 

R3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available 

Control Technology Determinations for 

Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 

and 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 

nine major sources of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and/or nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) pursuant to the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s 

conditionally approved RACT 

regulations. In this rulemaking action, 

EPA is only approving source-specific 

(also referred to as ‘‘case-by-case’’) 

RACT determinations or alternative 

NOX emissions limits for sources at 

eight 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 

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 

October 1, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0597. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Emily Bertram, Permits Branch (3AD10), 

Air & Radiation Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The 

telephone number is (215) 814–5273. 

Ms. Bertram can also be reached via 

electronic mail at bertram.emily@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On February 11, 2021, EPA published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 86 FR 9031. In the NPRM, EPA 

proposed approval of case-by-case 

RACT determinations or alternative 

NOX emissions limits for eight sources 

included in the subject SIP submission 

for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The case-by-case RACT 

determinations and alternative NOX

emissions limits for these sources were 

included in a SIP revision submitted by 

PADEP on March 9, 2020. 

Under certain circumstances, states 

are required to submit SIP revisions to 

address RACT requirements for 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 therefore to be addressed for RACT 

revisions, is dependent on the location 

of each source within the 

Commonwealth. Sources located in 

nonattainment areas would be subject to 

the ‘‘major source’’ definitions 

established under the CAA based on the 

area’s current classification(s). In 

Pennsylvania, sources located outside of 

moderate or above ozone nonattainment 

areas are subject to the major source 

threshold 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 VOC CTG 

RACT and major source VOC and NOX

RACT requirements for both standards. 

The SIP revision requested approval of 

Pennsylvania’s 25 Pa. Code 129.96–100, 

Additional RACT Requirements for 

Major Sources of NOX and VOCs (the 

‘‘presumptive’’ RACT II rule). Prior to 

the adoption of the RACT II rule, 

Pennsylvania relied on the NOX and 

VOC control measures in 25 Pa. Code 

129.92–95, Stationary Sources of NOX

and VOCs, (the RACT I rule) to meet 

RACT for major sources of VOC and 

NOX. The requirements of the RACT I 

rule remain approved into 

Pennsylvania’s SIP and continue to be 

implemented.1 On September 26, 2017, 

PADEP submitted a supplemental SIP 

revision, dated September 22, 2017, 

which committed to address various 

deficiencies identified by EPA in 

PADEP’s May 16, 2016 ‘‘presumptive’’ 

RACT II rule SIP revision. 

On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally 

approved the RACT II rule based on the 

commitments PADEP made in its 

September 22, 2017 supplemental SIP 

revision.2 84 FR 20274. In EPA’s final 

conditional approval, EPA noted that 

PADEP would be required to submit, for 

EPA’s approval, SIP revisions to address 

any facility-wide or system-wide 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, specifically 

May 9, 2020. Through multiple 

submissions between 2017 and 2020, 

PADEP has submitted to EPA for 

approval various SIP submissions to 

implement its RACT II case-by-case 

determinations and alternative NOX

emissions limits. This rulemaking is 

based on EPA’s review of one of these 

SIP revisions. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

A. Summary of SIP Revision 

To satisfy a requirement from EPA’s 

May 9, 2019 conditional approval, 

PADEP submitted to EPA SIP revisions 

addressing 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. In the Pennsylvania 

RACT SIP revisions, PADEP included a 

case-by-case RACT determination for 

the existing emissions units at each of 

the major sources of NOX and/or VOC 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48909 

3While 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. 

4PADEP’s March 9, 2020 package of SIP revisions 

included source-specific RACT II determinations 

for sources at nine facilities. As indicated in the 

proposed rulemaking, EPA is only acting on eight 

of these facilities at this time. EPA will be acting 

on sources located at the Montour, LLC facility in 

a separate future rulemaking. 

5The RACT II permits included in the docket for 

this rulemaking 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. 

that required a source-specific RACT 

determination or alternative NOX

emissions limits for major sources 

seeking such limits. 

In PADEP’s case-by-case RACT 

determinations, an evaluation was 

completed to determine if previously 

SIP-approved, case-by-case RACT 

emission limits or operational controls 

(herein referred to as RACT I and 

contained in RACT I permits) were more 

stringent than the new RACT II 

presumptive or case-by-case 

requirements. If more stringent, the 

RACT I requirements will continue to 

apply to the applicable source. If the 

new case-by-case RACT II requirements 

are more stringent than the RACT I 

requirements, then the RACT II 

requirements will supersede the prior 

RACT I requirements.3

In PADEP’s RACT determinations 

involving NOX averaging, an evaluation 

was completed to determine that the 

aggregate NOX emissions emitted by the 

air contamination sources included in 

the facility-wide or system-wide NOX

emissions averaging plan using a 30-day 

rolling average are not greater than the 

NOX emissions that would be emitted 

by the group of included sources if each 

source complied with the applicable 

presumptive limitation in 25 Pa. Code 

129.97 on a source-specific basis. 

Here, EPA is taking action on SIP 

revisions pertaining to case-by-case 

RACT requirements and alternative NOX

emissions limits for eight major sources 

of NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, as 

summarized in Table 1 in this 

document.4

TABLE 1—EIGHT MAJOR NOX AND/OR VOC SOURCES IN PENNSYLVANIA SUBJECT TO CASE-BY-CASE RACT II 

DETERMINATIONS UNDER THE 1997 AND 2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

Major source 

(county) 

1-hour ozone RACT 

source? 

(RACT I) 

Major source pollutant 

(NOX and/or VOC) 

RACT II permit 

(effective date) 

Volvo Construction Equipment North America (Franklin) ............. No ............................ VOC .................................... 28–05012 (6/1/2019) 

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation—Roystone Compressor 

Station (Warren).

Yes .......................... NOX and VOC .................... 62–141H (1/16/2018) 

E.I DuPont de Nemours and Co. (Bradford) ................................ Yes .......................... NOX and VOC .................... 08–00002 (9/28/2018) 

Carmeuse Lime Inc. (Lebanon) .................................................... Yes .......................... NOX .................................... 38–05003 (3/6/2019) 

Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corp. (Carbon) .................................. No ............................ VOC .................................... 13–00008 (10/27/2017) 

Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Corp. (formerly Merck and Co., Inc.— 

West Point Facility) (Montgomery).

Yes .......................... NOX and VOC .................... 46–00005 (1/5/2017) 

Letterkenny Army Depot (formerly Department of the Army) 

(Franklin).

Yes .......................... VOC .................................... 28–05002 (6/1/2018) 

Fairless Energy, LLC (Bucks) ....................................................... No ............................ NOX and VOC .................... 09–00124 (12/6/2016) 

The case-by-case RACT 

determinations submitted by PADEP 

consist of an evaluation of all 

reasonably available controls at the time 

of evaluation for each affected emissions 

unit, resulting in a PADEP 

determination of what specific emission 

limit or control measures satisfy RACT 

for that particular unit. The adoption of 

new, additional, or revised emission 

limits or control measures to existing 

SIP-approved RACT I requirements 

were specified as requirements in new 

or revised Federally enforceable permits 

(hereafter RACT II permits) issued by 

PADEP to the source. Similarly, 

PADEP’s determinations of alternative 

NOX emissions limits are included in 

RACT II permits. 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 submitted by PADEP are 

listed in the last column of Table 1, 

along with the permit effective date, and 

are part of the docket for this rule, 

which is available online at https://

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA– 

R03–OAR–2020–0597.5 EPA is 

incorporating by reference in the 

Pennsylvania SIP, via the RACT II 

permits, source-specific RACT emission 

limits and control measures and 

alternative NOX emissions limits under 

the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for certain major sources of 

NOX and VOC emissions. 

B. EPA’s Final Action 

PADEP’s SIP revisions incorporate its 

determinations of source-specific RACT 

II controls for individual emission units 

at major sources of NOX and/or VOC in 

Pennsylvania, where those units are not 

covered by or cannot meet 

Pennsylvania’s presumptive RACT 

regulation or where included in a NOX

emissions averaging plan. After 

thorough review and evaluation of the 

information provided by PADEP in its 

SIP revision submittals for sources at 

eight major NOX and/or VOC emitting 

facilities in Pennsylvania, EPA found 

that: (1) PADEP’s case-by-case RACT 

determinations and conclusions 

establish limits and/or controls on 

individual sources that are reasonable 

and appropriately considered 

technically and economically feasible 

controls (2) PADEP’s determinations on 

alternative NOX emission limits 

demonstrate that emissions under the 

averaging plan are equivalent to 

emissions if the individual sources were 

operating in accordance with the 

applicable presumptive limit, and (3) 

PADEP’s determinations are consistent 

with the CAA, EPA regulations, and 

applicable EPA guidance. 

PADEP, in its RACT II 

determinations, considered the prior 

source-specific RACT I requirements 

and, where more stringent, retained 

those RACT I requirements as part of its 

new RACT determinations. In the 

NPRM, EPA proposed to find that all the 

proposed revisions to previously SIPapproved RACT I requirements would 

result in equivalent or additional 

reductions of NOX and/or VOC 

emissions. The proposed revisions 

should not interfere with any applicable 

requirements concerning attainment of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48910 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

6 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1). 

7 84 FR 20274 (May 9, 2019). 

8See 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). 

the NAAQS, reasonable further 

progress, or other applicable 

requirements under section 110(l) of the 

CAA. 

Other specific requirements of 

Pennsylvania’s 1997 and 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS case-by-case RACT 

determinations and alternative NOX

emissions limits and the rationale for 

EPA’s proposed action were explained 

in the NPRM, and its associated 

technical support document (TSD), and 

will not be restated here. 

III. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA received comments from four 

commenters on the February 11, 2021 

NPRM. 86 FR 9031. A summary of the 

comments and EPA’s response are 

discussed in this section. A copy of the 

comments can be found in the docket 

for this rule action. 

Comment 1: The commenter claims 

that EPA cannot approve the proposed 

Pennsylvania RACT II case-by-case 

(CbC) determinations under the 1997 

and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because 

the CAA section 110(l) analysis is 

inadequate. In particular, the 

commenter 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).) 

The commenter argues that under CAA 

section 110(k)(1)(a) and 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix V, 2.2(d), a state must 

demonstrate that the NAAQSs are 

protected if a SIP is to be approved and 

that Pennsylvania has not made an 

adequate demonstration under section 

110(l) related to the potential impact of 

these RACT determinations on the 2010 

1-hour NOX NAAQS. The commenter 

then suggests that EPA is unable to 

approve Pennsylvania’s CbC RACT II 

determinations unless such a 

demonstration has been made, even 

though the rules reduce NOX emissions. 

The commenter highlights their concern 

by including results from air dispersion 

modeling of NOX emissions from the 

Bighorn well pad in Colorado that they 

claim shows the potential impact of 

NOX emissions on 1-hour NOX NAAQS 

violations. The commenter states that 

EPA 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. The commenter 

indicates that EPA must repropose this 

action including any such modeling 

information or other information 

utilized in the demonstration that the 

NAAQS will be protected. 

Response 1: 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 RACT 

requirements under the 1979 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS.6 PADEP finalized its 

overall RACT II program, which 

included presumptive RACT for certain 

sources, and it was conditionally 

approved by EPA.7 As part of the EPA’s 

conditional approval, PADEP was 

required to complete source-specific 

CbC 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. As required by its regulations, 

PADEP then conducted a RACT II CbC 

analysis examining what air pollution 

controls are available for those 

individual sources to determine the 

lowest emission limit that a particular 

source is capable of meeting by the 

application of control technology that is 

reasonably available considering 

technologically and economic 

feasibility.8

Through its RACT II CbC 

determinations, PADEP has established 

NOX and VOC limits and requirements 

for various sources that either reaffirm 

existing emission limits or makes the 

limits more stringent. PADEP 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 eight facilities. For the 

reasons explained below, EPA 

concludes that the arguments presented 

by the commenter 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. EPA, for these reasons, 

did not include a detailed section 110(l) 

analysis at the proposal stage. Since the 

commenter 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 modeling analysis 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 

commenter claims is required for the 

Pennsylvania CbC 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. 

A showing that the substitute measures 

preserve status quo air quality is 

generally sufficient to demonstrate 

noninterference through this alternative 

approach. Courts have upheld EPA’s 

approval of a SIP revision based on a 

state’s use of substitute measures. 

Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. 

EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006) and 

Indiana v. EPA, 796 F. 3d 803 (7th Cir. 

2015). 

Both the Kentucky Resources and 

Indiana cases involved circumstances 

where a state sought to revise provisions 

within its SIP related to its vehicle 

emissions testing program. In both 

situations, the petitioners were 

concerned with increased emissions 

that might occur due to the changes to 

the testing program. The state in each 

case justified its SIP revision, in part, by 

demonstrating that it had substitute 

emission reductions that would fully 

compensate for the expected emissions 

increase caused by the modifications to 

the testing program. The court in each 

case upheld EPA’s interpretation of 

section 110(l), which allows states to 

substitute equivalent 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48911 

9 Id. at 1074. 

10While the commenter also references a ninth 

facility, Montour, LLC, EPA is not acting on 

PADEP’s CbC RACT II determination for this 

facility at this time. As indicated in the proposed 

rulemaking, EPA will be acting on sources located 

at this facility in a separate future rulemaking. 

11See PADEP’s Technical Review Memo, dated 

November 19, 2018, which is part of the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

However, again, these two cases are 

most relevant in circumstances where 

an existing SIP standard is being 

weakened or a net emissions increase is 

expected, which are not the 

circumstances presented by the SIP 

revisions that EPA is approving here. 

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 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.’’ 9 For that 

reason, the court concluded that 

WildEarth had 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). 

The WildEarth decision informs the 

approach to section 110(l) EPA is taking 

to approve the Pennsylvania CbC RACT 

SIP revisions. Here, contrary to the 

commenter’s characterization, 

Pennsylvania is not relaxing standards 

or eliminating a program, but rather, is 

only re-evaluating the technical and 

economic feasibility of air pollution 

controls for subject air pollution sources 

as required by implementation of the 

1997 and 2008 8-hour NAAQS. Based 

on that review, the state, as explained in 

more detail below, has made 

determinations that either retain or 

make more stringent existing NOX

emission limits. Emissions are not 

expected to increase, and will likely 

decrease, as a result of PADEP’s RACT 

II NOX CbC determinations and EPA’s 

approval hereof. Additionally, the 

supporting documents submitted by 

PADEP identify numerous NOX sources 

that were subject to RACT I but that are 

no longer operating and have been 

permanently closed. Under these 

circumstances, Pennsylvania’s 

demonstration to meet the requirements 

of section 110(l) for its CbC 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 CbC NOX RACT determinations are 

preserving the status quo air quality or 

achieving additional reductions beyond 

the status quo. 

With this rulemaking action, EPA is 

only approving revisions that add 

specific NOX and VOC CbC RACT II 

determinations to the Pennsylvania SIP. 

In the subject RACT II CbC 

determinations, PADEP has made an 

adequate showing that its CbC 

determinations for individual sources at 

the eight facilities at issue not only 

preserve the status quo air quality, but 

likely reduce the cumulative NOX

emissions from the subject sources. As 

described in its technical review 

memorandums and related documents, 

which are included in the docket for 

this rulemaking, PADEP 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 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. 

Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, 

this demonstration included in the 

documents in the docket satisfies the 

requirements of Part 51, Appendix V. 

The record supporting EPA’s approval 

of Pennsylvania’s CbC RACT II SIP 

revisions is sufficient, so there is no 

need to supplement the record. As such, 

commenter’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 not applicable to 

EPA’s current action. 

The facilities addressed in this final 

rule breakdown into the categories 

listed below.10 As explained in the 

proposed rulemaking notice, EPA views 

each facility as a separable SIP revision, 

and that should it receive comment on 

one facility but not others, EPA may 

take separate, final action on the 

remaining facilities. 

Facilities with only VOC sources— 

The following facilities are major source 

VOC emitting facilities that are minor 

sources of NOX. As such, individual 

VOC sources at these facilities must 

comply with RACT II requirements. 

EPA’s approval in this rulemaking for 

these facilities only relates to specific 

CbC VOC RACT II determinations. 

EPA’s approval of the Pennsylvania CbC 

VOC RACT II SIP revisions for sources 

at these facilities does not involve NOX

emissions, maintains the status quo, and 

does not result in an increase in VOC or 

NOX emissions. Therefore, as explained 

previously, EPA has determined these 

SIP revisions will not interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA, pursuant to 

section 110(l). 

• Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corp 

• Letterkenny Army Depot 

• Volvo Construction Equipment North 

America 

Facilities with VOC and NOX Sources 

(Only VOC CbC)—The following 

facilities are major NOX and VOC 

emitting facilities, and individual NOX

and VOC sources at these facilities must 

comply with RACT II requirements. 

However, EPA’s approval in this 

rulemaking for these facilities only 

relates to specific CbC VOC RACT II 

determinations. EPA’s approval of the 

Pennsylvania CbC VOC RACT II SIP 

revisions for sources at these facilities 

does not involve any NOX emissions, 

maintains the status quo, and does not 

result in an increase in VOC or NOX

emissions. Therefore, as explained 

previously, EPA has determined these 

SIP revisions will not interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA, pursuant to 

section 110(l). 

• E.I DuPont de Nemours and Co. 

• National Fuel Gas Supply 

Corporation—Roystone Compressor 

Station 

Facilities with CbC NOX Sources—The 

following are major NOX emitting 

sources and contain individual sources 

subject to CbC NOX requirements that 

EPA is taking final action on here. More 

specific information on those individual 

facilities follows: 

Carmeuse Lime Inc.—EPA proposed 

to approve PADEP’s RACT II CbC NOX

determination for one source at this 

facility. The other NOX sources that 

were subject to RACT I are now shut 

down. In its RACT II determination for 

Source 107 (No. 5 Kiln), PADEP 

concluded that the use of a low NOX

burner with good combustion and 

burner optimization were technically 

and economically feasible as RACT and 

were incorporated as part of the burner 

management plan.11 Based on an 

analysis of historical performance 

testing data from 2000 to 2017, the 

existing short-term emissions limit of 

6.0 lbs NOX/ton of lime produced was 

reduced to 4.6 lbs NOX/ton of lime 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48912 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

12See PADEP Revised Technical Review Memo, 

dated October 9, 2019, which is part of the docket 

for this rulemaking action. 

13See 84 FR 20274 (May 9, 2019) as to EPA’s 

conditional approval of the presumptive limit and 

PADEP’s Technical Review Memo, dated November 

29, 2016, as to PADEP’s analysis of the NOX

averaging plan. 14 77 FR 9532 (February 17, 2012). 

produced as a RACT II case-by-case 

requirement. A burner management 

plan, testing once every five years, and 

daily monitoring and recordkeeping of 

fuel used hourly were also required. 

Through imposition of this more 

stringent emission limit along with 

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). 

Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Corp.—EPA 

proposed to approve PADEP’s RACT II 

CbC NOX determination for two sources 

at this facility. Numerous NOX sources 

that were subject to RACT I have been 

shut down. In its determinations for the 

remaining two sources, PADEP has 

determined that the RACT II CbC NOX

is continued use of low NOX burners 

and good operating practices and 

continued compliance with the existing 

NOX emission limits.12 Through 

retention of the existing emission limits 

and continued use of the low NOX

burners, Pennsylvania has demonstrated 

that the status quo in NOX emissions 

has been maintained. As such, EPA’s 

approval of Pennsylvania’s SIP revision 

is adequately justified under section 

110(l). 

Fairless Energy, LLC—EPA proposed 

to approve PADEP’s RACT II 

determination related to a NOX

averaging plan for four sources at this 

facility pursuant to 25 Pa. Code 

§ 129.98(a). The averaging plan 

provision authorized in section 129.98 

allows a facility to establish an 

alternative facility-wide or system-wide 

RACT NOX emissions limit as long as it 

demonstrates that the resulting NOX

emissions using a 30-day rolling average 

would not be greater than NOX

emissions from the group of included 

sources if they each complied with the 

applicable presumptive NOX RACT 

emissions limit as individual sources. 

Fairless will be averaging the NOX

emissions for four sources to meet the 

RACT II requirements, an alternative 

emission limit, that will be at least as 

stringent as the presumptive emission 

limit, which was conditionally 

approved by EPA in a prior 

rulemaking.13 PADEP’s approval of the 

NOX averaging plan ensures that total 

NOX emissions from these sources will 

be no greater than the total individual 

emissions from each source if each were 

to comply with the existing presumptive 

emission limit. The NOX averaging plan 

also does not eliminate any other 

existing non-RACT emission restrictions 

applicable to these sources. Through 

these measures, Pennsylvania has 

demonstrated that the status quo in NOX

emissions has been maintained. As 

such, EPA’s approval of PADEP’s SIP 

revision is adequately justified under 

section 110(l). 

As described above, EPA determined 

that Pennsylvania had adequately 

justified its RACT II CbC NOX

determinations. 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 commenter. As noted previously, 

the commenter included an air 

dispersion modeling analysis of NOX

emissions from a well pad at the 

Bighorn Pad 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.14 The modeling analysis 

provided by the commenter indicated 

that NOX emissions from the well pad 

area in Colorado could have NO2

impacts within 50 kilometers of the 

source. 

This modeling analysis from Colorado 

does not trigger a need for EPA or 

Pennsylvania to conduct modeling on 

the impact of NOX emissions from each 

individual PA CbC RACT source at 

issue in this rulemaking 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 Bighorn well 

pad and the Pennsylvania CbC RACT II 

sources are too significant to rely on the 

Bighorn 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 commenter has not 

provided any comparison or 

information to show why the Bighorn 

Pad Facility modeling results should 

apply to these specific RACT II sources 

in Pennsylvania. Further, the 

commenter has not presented any 

specific information suggesting the 

RACT II CbC NOX determinations for 

these specific sources could somehow 

lead to violations of the 2010 1-hour 

NOX NAAQS. Without a more specific 

allegation from the commenter about the 

sources in question, the commenter’s 

allegations are too speculative in nature 

to prevent EPA from approving PADEP’s 

RACT II CbC NOX determinations for 

sources at the eight subject facilities. 

Comment 2: The commenter is 

supportive of EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking, stating that it will 

positively affect citizens in the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for 

multiple reasons and has suggested 

some editorial improvements for future 

rulemakings that could aid citizen 

comprehension. 

Response 2: EPA recognizes the 

commenter’s support and suggestions. 

EPA will consider such suggestions for 

future rulemakings. 

Comment 3: The commenter states 

that the RACT limit for Carmeuse Lime, 

Inc of 4.6 lb/NOX per ton of lime is too 

lenient. Additionally, the commenter 

asserts the testing requirement to verify 

the emissions limit by stack test once 

every five years is insufficient and 

should have required a Continuous 

Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) 

unit to monitor instantaneous emissions 

from the kiln or established an 

emissions profile dependent on a 

number of factors that might impact 

NOX emissions. 

Response 3: As detailed in the facility 

files for Carmeuse Lime contained in the 

docket for this action, the existing shortterm NOX limit for the No. 5 Kiln 

established under RACT I was 6.0 lbs 

NOX/ton of lime produced. The RACT II 

NOX limit of 4.6 lb/ton approved here 

represents a reduction of emissions from 

RACT I and was established through a 

statistical analysis using 17 years of 

historical performance testing data. 

PADEP also reviewed the RACT/BACT/ 

LAER Clearinghouse to determine 

emission limits for similar kilns and 

found that such limits ranged from 3.59 

to 9.98 lb/ton. Based on this information 

included in the docket, EPA determined 

that the NOX limit of 4.6 lb/ton 

comports with the CAA requirements 

for RACT. 

The requirement for stack testing 

every five years is consistent with 

Pennsylvania’s RACT II compliance 

demonstration requirements in 25 Pa. 

Code 129.100, which is a part of 

Pennsylvania’s SIP-approved RACT 

regulations. Under those regulations, a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48913 

15See PADEP Technical Review Memo, dated 

November 19, 2018, which is part of the docket for 

this rulemaking action. 16 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

five-year stack testing period for sources 

without a CEMS is authorized. In 

addition to the stack testing, PADEP’s 

RACT II determination includes 

requirements for a burner management 

plan to ensure good combustion and 

burner optimization. It also requires 

daily recordkeeping on limestone used, 

lime produced, and fuel consumed to 

provide a current picture of source 

operations.15 The sufficiency of the 

stack testing requirement is further 

justified in light of a long history of 

stack testing on this kiln, which 

produced the data that enabled the 

lowering of the NOX limit. The RACT II 

requirements for Kiln No. 5 are also 

consistent with the current National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing 

Plants, 40 CFR 63, Subpart AAAAA, of 

which the source is also subject. Given 

the basis of the emissions limit and the 

stack testing requirement, plus the 

establishment of other burner and daily 

recordkeeping requirements, EPA 

continues to find PADEP’s analysis 

reasonable and is finalizing the RACT 

determination for Carmeuse Lime. 

Comment 4: The comment requests 

that EPA clarify which company is 

subject to Permit No. 46–0005, included 

as part of EPA’s proposed rulemaking 

docket EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0597. 

Response 4: Permit No. 46–0005 is the 

title V operating permit number for 

Merck, Sharp, & Dohme Corp.’s facility 

located in West Point, Upper Gwynedd 

Township, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania. The cover page (page 1) 

of Permit No. 46–0005 contains 

additional owner, plant, owner, and 

responsible official contact information 

for this facility. Merck, Sharpe, and 

Dohme is the company name referred to 

in the provisions to be incorporated into 

the SIP. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving case-by-case RACT 

determinations and/or alternative NOX

emissions limits for eight sources in 

Pennsylvania, as required to meet 

obligations pursuant to the 1997 and 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as revisions 

to the Pennsylvania SIP. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of source-specific RACT 

determinations and alternative NOX

emissions limits under the 1997 and 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain 

major sources of VOC and NOX in 

Pennsylvania. EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these materials 

generally available through https://

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region III Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

Therefore, these materials have been 

approved by EPA for inclusion in the 

SIP, have been incorporated by 

reference by EPA into that plan, are 

fully federally enforceable under 

sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 

the effective date of the final rule of 

EPA’s approval, and will be 

incorporated by reference in the next 

update to the SIP compilation.16

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 nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because 

this is a rule of particular applicability, 

EPA is not required to submit a rule 

report regarding this action under 

section 801. 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 1, 2021. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action 

approving Pennsylvania’s NOX and VOC 

RACT requirements for eight facilities 

for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS may not be challenged later in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48914 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 17, 2021. 

Diana Esher, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 

52 as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(d)(1) is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the entries ‘‘Merck and 

Co., Inc.—West Point Facility;’’ 

‘‘National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.— 

Roystone Compressor Station;’’ and 

‘‘Department of the Army;’’ and 

■ b. Adding the following entries at the 

end of the table: ‘‘Volvo Construction 

Equipment North America;’’ ‘‘National 

Fuel Gas Supply Corporation—Roystone 

Compressor Station;’’ ‘‘E.I. DuPont de 

Nemours and Co.;’’ ‘‘Carmeuse Lime 

Inc.;’’ ‘‘Kovatch Mobile Equipment 

Corp.;’’ ‘‘Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Corp. 

(formerly referenced as Merck and Co., 

Inc.—West Point Facility);’’ 

‘‘Letterkenny Army Depot (formerly 

referenced as Department of the Army);’’ 

‘‘Fairless Energy, LLC.’’ 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of source Permit No. County 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA 

approval 

date 

Additional 

explanations/§§ 52.2063 

and 

52.2064 citations 1

*******

Merck and Co., Inc.—West Point Facility ..... OP–46–0005 Montgomery ..... 1/13/97 6/23/00 4/18/01, 66 FR 19858 ................ See also 52.2064(d)(6). 

*******

National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.—Roystone 

Compressor Station.

OP–62–141F Warren ............. 4/1/03 10/27/04, 69 FR 62583 .............. See also 52.2064(d)(2). 

*******

Department of the Army ................................ 28–02002 Franklin ............ 2/3/00 3/31/05, 70 FR 16416 ................ See also 52.2064(d)(7). 

*******

Volvo Construction Equipment North America.28–05012 Franklin ............ 6/1/19 9/1/21, [insert Federal Register 

citation].

52.2064(d)(1). 

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation— 

Roystone Compressor Station.

62–141H Warren ............. 1/16/18 9/1/21, [insert Federal Register 

citation].

52.2064(d)(2). 

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co .................. 08–00002 Bradford ........... 9/28/18 9/1/21, [insert Federal Register 

citation].

52.2064(d)(3). 

Carmeuse Lime Inc ....................................... 38–05003 Lebanon ........... 3/6/19 9/1/21, [insert Federal Register 

citation].

52.2064(d)(4). 

Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corp .................. 13–00008 Carbon ............. 10/27/17 9/1/21, [insert Federal Register 

citation].

52.2064(d)(5). 

Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Corp. (formerly referenced as Merck and Co., Inc.—West 

Point Facility).

46–00005 Montgomery ..... 1/5/17 9/1/21, [insert Federal Register 

citation].

52.2064(d)(6). 

Letterkenny Army Depot (formerly referenced as Department of the Army).28–05002 Franklin ............ 6/1/18 9/1/21, [insert Federal Register 

citation].

52.2064(d)(7). 

Fairless Energy, LLC .................................... 09–00124 Bucks ............... 12/6/16 9/1/21, [insert Federal Register 

citation].

52.2064(d)(8). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 52.2064 by adding 

paragraph (d) 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). 

* * * * * 

(d) Approval of source-specific RACT 

requirements for 1997 and 2008 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards for the facilities listed below 

are incorporated as specified below. 

(Rulemaking Docket No. EPA–OAR– 

2020–0597). 

(1) Volvo Construction Equipment 

North America, LLC.—Incorporating by 

reference Permit No. 28–05012, effective 

June 1, 2019, as redacted by 

Pennsylvania. 

(2) National Fuel Gas Supply 

Corporation Roystone Compressor 

Station—Incorporating by reference 

Permit No. 62–141H, effective January 

16, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania. 

All permit conditions in the prior RACT 

Permit No. OP–62–141F, effective April 

1, 2003, remain as RACT requirements 

except for the Penneco boiler (1.5 

MMBtu/hr) and Struthers boiler (2.5 

MMBtu/hr), which are no longer in 

operation. See also 

§ 52.2063(c)(213)(i)(B)(1) for prior RACT 

approval. 

(3) E.I. DuPont de Nemours and 

Company—Incorporating by reference 

Permit No. 08–00002, effective 

September 28, 2018, as redacted by 

Pennsylvania. 

(4) Carmeuse Lime, Inc— 

Incorporating by reference Permit No. 

38–05003, effective March 6, 2019, as 

redacted by Pennsylvania. 

(5) Kovatch Mobile Equipment 

Corporation—Incorporating by reference 

Permit No. 13–00008, effective October 

27, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania. 

(6) Merck, Sharp & Dohme 

Corporation—Incorporating by reference 

Permit No. 46–00005, issued January 5, 

2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania, 

which supersedes the prior RACT 

Permit No. OP–46–0005, issued January 

13, 1997 and revised June 23, 2000, 

except for the following conditions, 

which remain as a RACT requirements 

applicable to the following sources: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48915 

Conditions #4A, #9C, and #13D for 

boiler 3 (Source ID 033); conditions 

#4A, #9C, and #13D for boiler 5 (Source 

ID 035); conditions #4B and #9 for the 

gas turbine (Source ID 039); conditions 

#6A, #6B, and #6D for any remaining 

shell freezers (Source ID 105); 

conditions #6A and #6D for air 

emissions (disinfection; Source IDs 105, 

107, 108, and 111); conditions #4C and 

#9 for any remaining generators (various 

Source IDs); condition #8 for research 

and development (Section C); and 

condition #11 for any remaining 

deminimus sources (Section C). See also 

§ 52.2063(c)(154)(i)(D) for prior RACT 

approval. 

(7) Letterkenny Army Depot— 

Incorporating by reference Permit No. 

28–05002, effective June 1, 2018, as 

redacted by Pennsylvania, which 

supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. 

28–02002, effective February 3, 2000 

except for conditions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 

11, 12, and 14 which also remain as 

RACT requirements. See also 

§ 52.2063(d)(1)(g) for prior RACT 

approval. 

(8) Fairless Energy, LLC— 

Incorporating by reference Permit No. 

09–00124, effective December 6, 2016 as 

redacted by Pennsylvania. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18752 Filed 8–31–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Part 570 

[GSAR Case 2021–G524; Docket No. GSA– 

GSAR 2021–0019; Sequence No. 1] 

RIN 3090–AK49 

General Services Administration 

Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); 

Updates to Certain Online References 

in the GSAM 

AGENCY: Office of Acquisition Policy, 

General Services Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration (GSA) is issuing a final 

rule amending the General Services 

Administration Acquisition Regulation 

(GSAR) to update an outdated reference 

to a legacy website. 

DATES: Effective October 1, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Tyler Piper or Mr. Stephen Carroll at 

817–253–7858 or gsarpolicy@gsa.gov, 

for clarification of content. For 

information pertaining to status or 

publication schedules, contact the 

Regulatory Secretariat at 202–501–4755. 

Please cite GSAR Case 2021–G524. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

GSA’s Integrated Award Environment 

integrated the legacy SAM.gov into the 

beta.SAM.gov environment on May 24, 

2021, migrating the functionality of 

SAM.gov into beta.SAM.gov. The term 

‘‘beta’’ is retired, and there is now only 

one SAM.gov. 

II. Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 40 of the United States Code 

(U.S.C.) Section 121 authorizes GSA to 

issue regulations, including the GSAR, 

to control the relationship between GSA 

and contractors. 

III. Discussion and Analysis 

The System for Award Management 

(SAM) has officially gone live, and as 

such the URL to reach it has changed 

from https://beta.sam.gov to https://

www.sam.gov. This rule simply updates 

an outdated URL reference to the new 

website. 

IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This rule has been reviewed 

and determined by OMB not to be a 

significant regulatory action and, 

therefore, was not subject to review 

under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, dated 

September 30, 1993. 

V. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a ‘‘major 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. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This rule has been 

reviewed and determined by OMB not 

to be a ‘‘major rule’’ under 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

VI. Notice for Public Comment 

The statute that applies to the 

publication of the GSAR is the Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy statute 

(codified at title 41 of the United States 

Code). Specifically, 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) 

requires that a procurement policy, 

regulation, procedure or form (including 

an amendment or modification thereof) 

must be published for public comment 

if it relates to the expenditure of 

appropriated funds, and has either a 

significant effect beyond the internal 

operating procedures of the agency 

issuing the policy, regulation, 

procedure, or form, or has a significant 

cost or administrative impact on 

contractors or offerors. This rule is not 

required to be published for public 

comment, because it does not have a 

significant effect or impose any new 

requirements on contractors or offerors. 

The rule simply replaces website 

references. 

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) does not apply to this 

rule, because an opportunity for public 

comment is not required to be given for 

this rule under 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) (see 

Section VI. of this preamble). 

Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required and none has been 

prepared. 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35). 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 570 

Government procurement. 

Jeffrey Koses, 

Senior Procurement Executive, Office of 

Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration. 

Therefore, GSA amends 48 CFR part 

570 as set forth below: 

PART 570—ACQUIRING LEASEHOLD 

INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 570 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c). 

570.106 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend section 570.106 in 

paragraph (a) by removing 

‘‘Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) 

at https://beta.sam.gov or successor 

system’’ and adding ‘‘System for Award 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES