Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0597-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology Determinations for Case-by-Case Sources under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Posted Date: 2021-09-01T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48908-48915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18752]

[[Page 48908]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
case-by-case RACT determinations under 25 Pa. Code 129.99. PADEP 
committed to submitting these additional SIP revisions within 12 months 
of EPA's final conditional approval, specifically May 9, 2020. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 rulemaking are subject to the three 
presumptive RACT II provisions at issue in that Sierra Club 
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 48909]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While the prior SIP-approved RACT I permit will remain part 
of the SIP, this RACT II rule will incorporate by reference the RACT 
II requirements through the RACT II permit and clarify the ongoing 
applicability of specific conditions in the RACT I permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ PADEP'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.

  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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                      RACT II permit
          Major source (county)              1-hour ozone RACT source? (RACT I)      Major source pollutant (NOX and/or VOC)         (effective date)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volvo Construction Equipment North         No...................................  VOC..........................................      28-05012 (6/1/2019)
 America (Franklin).
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation--     Yes..................................  NOX and VOC..................................      62-141H (1/16/2018)
 Roystone Compressor Station (Warren).
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      Yes..................................  NOX and VOC..................................      46-00005 (1/5/2017)
 Merck and Co., Inc.--West Point
 Facility) (Montgomery).
Letterkenny Army Depot (formerly           Yes..................................  VOC..........................................      28-05002 (6/1/2018)
 Department of the Army) (Franklin).
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 SIP-approved RACT I requirements would result in equivalent 
or additional reductions of NOX and/or VOC emissions. The 
proposed revisions should not interfere with any applicable 
requirements concerning attainment of

[[Page 48910]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1).
    \7\ 84 FR 20274 (May 9, 2019).
    \8\ 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 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.

[[Page 48911]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 1074.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ While 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 48912]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See PADEP's Technical Review Memo, dated November 19, 2018, 
which is part of the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See PADEP Revised Technical Review Memo, dated October 9, 
2019, which is part of the docket for this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 77 FR 9532 (February 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 short-term 
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

[[Page 48913]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See PADEP Technical Review Memo, dated November 19, 2018, 
which is part of the docket for this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 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

[[Page 48914]]

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

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 ``Merck and Co., Inc.--West Point Facility;'' 
``National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.--Roystone Compressor Station;'' and 
``Department of the Army;'' and
0
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:

Sec.  52.2020   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                          Additional  explanations/Sec.
           Name of source              Permit No.            County           State  effective    EPA  approval  date      Sec.   52.2063 and  52.2064
                                                                                    date                                          citations \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Merck and Co., Inc.--West Point          OP-46-0005  Montgomery............     1/13/97 6/23/00  4/18/01, 66 FR 19858.  See also 52.2064(d)(6).
 Facility.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.--         OP-62-141F  Warren................              4/1/03  10/27/04, 69 FR 62583  See also 52.2064(d)(2).
 Roystone Compressor Station.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
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         28-05012  Franklin..............              6/1/19  9/1/21, [insert        52.2064(d)(1).
 America.                                                                                         Federal Register
                                                                                                  citation].
National Fuel Gas Supply                    62-141H  Warren................             1/16/18  9/1/21, [insert        52.2064(d)(2).
 Corporation--Roystone Compressor                                                                 Federal Register
 Station.                                                                                         citation].
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co......        08-00002  Bradford..............             9/28/18  9/1/21, [insert        52.2064(d)(3).
                                                                                                  Federal Register
                                                                                                  citation].
Carmeuse Lime Inc..................        38-05003  Lebanon...............              3/6/19  9/1/21, [insert        52.2064(d)(4).
                                                                                                  Federal Register
                                                                                                  citation].
Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corp......        13-00008  Carbon................            10/27/17  9/1/21, [insert        52.2064(d)(5).
                                                                                                  Federal Register
                                                                                                  citation].
Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Corp.                46-00005  Montgomery............              1/5/17  9/1/21, [insert        52.2064(d)(6).
 (formerly referenced as Merck and                                                                Federal Register
 Co., Inc.--West Point Facility).                                                                 citation].
Letterkenny Army Depot (formerly           28-05002  Franklin..............              6/1/18  9/1/21, [insert        52.2064(d)(7).
 referenced as Department of the                                                                  Federal Register
 Army).                                                                                           citation].
Fairless Energy, LLC...............        09-00124  Bucks.................             12/6/16  9/1/21, [insert        52.2064(d)(8).
                                                                                                  Federal Register
                                                                                                  citation].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.2064 by adding paragraph (d) 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).

* * * * *
    (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 Sec.  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:

[[Page 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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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