Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0657-0012
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: 2020-10-20T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66484-66490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21442]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0657; FRL-10014-53-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology Determinations 
for Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state 
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania. This revision was submitted by the Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for individual major 
sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) pursuant to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's 
conditionally approved RACT regulations. In this action, EPA is only 
approving source-specific (also referred to as ``case-by-case'') RACT 
determinations for nine major sources. These RACT evaluations were 
submitted to meet RACT requirements for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving these 
revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's implementing regulations.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0657. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through 
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in 
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Emily Bertram, Permits Branch 
(3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 
The telephone number is (215) 814-5273. Ms. Bertram can also be reached 
via electronic mail at bertram.emily@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 5, 2020, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM). 85 FR 26643. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of case-by-case 
RACT determinations for nine of the 10 sources included in the subject 
SIP submission for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ The case-
by-case RACT determinations for these sources were included in a SIP 
revision submitted by PADEP on April 11, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The portion of PADEP's SIP submission related to American 
Craft Brewery, LLC was withdrawn on October 21, 2019. EPA will be 
taking action on this source in a future rulemaking action, once 
resubmitted by PADEP for approval into the PA SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under certain circumstances, states are required to submit SIP 
revisions to address RACT requirements for major sources of 
NOX and VOC or any source category for which EPA has 
promulgated control technique guidelines (CTG) for each ozone NAAQS. 
Which NOX and VOC sources in Pennsylvania are considered 
``major,'' and therefore to be addressed for RACT revisions, is 
dependent on the location of each source within the Commonwealth. 
Sources located in nonattainment areas would be subject to the ``major 
source'' definitions

[[Page 66485]]

established under the CAA based on their classification. In 
Pennsylvania, sources located in areas outside of moderate or above 
nonattainment areas, as part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), are 
subject to source thresholds of 50 tons per year (tpy). CAA section 
184(b).
    On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT 
under both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania. 
PADEP's May 16, 2016 SIP revision intended to address certain 
outstanding non-CTG VOC RACT, VOC CTG RACT, and major NOX 
RACT requirements for both standards. The SIP revision requested 
approval of Pennsylvania's 25 Pa. Code 129.96-100, Additional RACT 
Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs (the 
``presumptive'' RACT II rule). Prior to the adoption of the RACT II 
rule, Pennsylvania relied on the NOX and VOC control 
measures in 25 Pa. Code 129.92-95, Stationary Sources of NOX 
and VOCs, (the RACT I rule) to meet RACT for non-CTG major VOC sources 
and major NOX sources. The requirements of the RACT I rule 
remain approved into Pennsylvania's SIP and continue to be 
implemented.\2\ On September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted a supplemental 
SIP revision, dated September 22, 2017, which committed to address 
various deficiencies identified by EPA in their May 16, 2016 
``presumptive'' RACT II rule SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The RACT I Rule was approved by EPA into the Pennsylvania 
SIP on March 23, 1998. 63 FR 13789. Through the current rulemaking, 
certain source-specific RACT I requirements will be superseded by 
more stringent RACT II requirements. See Section II of this 
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally approved the RACT II rule based 
on the commitments PADEP made in its September 22, 2017 supplemental 
SIP revision. 84 FR 20274. In EPA's final conditional approval, EPA 
noted that PADEP would be required to submit, for EPA's approval, SIP 
revisions to address any facility-wide or system-wide averaging plan 
approved under 25 Pa. Code 129.98 and any case-by-case RACT 
determinations under 25 Pa. Code 129.99. PADEP committed to submitting 
these additional SIP revisions within 12 months of EPA's final 
conditional approval, specifically May 9, 2020. The SIP revision 
addressed in this rule is part of PADEP's efforts to meet the 
conditions of its supplemental SIP revision and EPA's conditional 
approval of the RACT II Rule.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

A. Summary of SIP Revision

    To satisfy a requirement from EPA's May 9, 2019 conditional 
approval, PADEP submitted to EPA SIP revisions addressing case-by-case 
RACT requirements for major sources in Pennsylvania subject to 25 Pa. 
Code 129.99. In the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions, PADEP included a 
case-by-case RACT determination for the existing emissions units at 
each of the major sources of NOX and/or VOC that required a 
source-specific RACT determination. In PADEP's RACT determinations, an 
evaluation was completed to determine if previously SIP-approved, case-
by-case RACT emission limits or operational controls (herein referred 
to as RACT I and contained in RACT I permits) were more stringent than 
the new RACT II presumptive or case-by-case requirements. If more 
stringent, the RACT I requirements will continue to apply to the 
applicable source. If the new case-by-case RACT II requirements are 
more stringent than the RACT I requirements, then the RACT II 
requirements will supersede the prior RACT I requirements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Here, EPA is taking action on SIP revisions pertaining to case-by-
case RACT requirements for nine major sources of NOX and/or 
VOC in Pennsylvania, as summarized in Table 1.

 Table 1--Nine Major NOX and/or VOC Sources in Pennsylvania Subject to Case-by-Case RACT II Determinations Under
                                      the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Major source
       Major source (county)            1-Hour ozone RACT    pollutant (NOX and/or    RACT II permit (effective
                                        source? (RACT I)              VOC)                      date)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpenter Co. (Lehigh).............  No....................  VOC..................           39-00040 (9/5/2018)
East Penn Manufacturing Co. Inc,     No....................  NOX and VOC..........          06-05040D (1/3/2019)
 Smelter Plant (Berks).
Ellwood Quality Steels Co.           Yes...................  NOX and VOC..........         37-00264 (10/13/2017)
 (Lawrence).
GE Transportation--Erie Plant        Yes...................  NOX and VOC..........          25-00025 (2/21/2018)
 (Erie).
Graymont Pleasant Gap (Centre).....  Yes...................  NOX..................           14-00002 (2/5/2018)
Hazleton Generation (Luzerne)......  Yes...................  NOX..................          40-00021 (6/19/2018)
Helix Ironwood (Lebanon)...........  No....................  NOX..................          38-05019 (9/24/2018)
Magnesita Refractories (York)......  Yes...................  NOX..................         67-05001 (11/27/2018)
Penn State University (Centre).....  Yes...................  NOX..................         14-00003 (12/13/2017)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP consist of 
an evaluation of all reasonably available controls at the time of 
evaluation for each affected emissions unit, resulting in a PADEP 
determination of what specific emission limit or control measures, if 
any, satisfy RACT for that particular unit. The adoption of new, 
additional, or revised emission limits or control measures to existing 
SIP-approved RACT I requirements were specified as requirements in new 
or revised Federally enforceable permits (hereafter RACT II permits) 
issued by PADEP to the source. The RACT II permits, which revise or 
adopt additional source-specific limits and/or controls, have been 
submitted as part of the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions for EPA's 
approval in the Pennsylvania SIP under 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1). The RACT 
II permits submitted by PADEP are listed in the last column of Table 1, 
along with the permit effective date, and are part of the docket for 
this rule, which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov, 
Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0657.\4\ EPA is

[[Page 66486]]

incorporating by reference in the Pennsylvania SIP, via the RACT II 
permits, source-specific RACT emission limits and control measures 
under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain major sources of 
NOX and VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The RACT II permits are redacted versions of a facility's 
Federally enforceable permits and reflect the specific RACT 
requirements being approved into the Pennsylvania SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Proposed Action

    PADEP's SIP revisions incorporate its determinations of source-
specific RACT II controls for individual emission units at major 
sources of NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, where those units 
are not covered by or cannot meet Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT 
regulation. After thorough review and evaluation of the information 
provided by PADEP in its SIP revision submittals for nine major sources 
of NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, EPA proposed to find that 
PADEP's case-by-case RACT determinations and conclusions establish 
limits and/or controls on individual sources that are reasonable and 
appropriately considered technically and economically feasible 
controls.
    PADEP, in its RACT II determinations, considered the prior source-
specific RACT I requirements and, where more stringent, retained those 
RACT I requirements as part of its new RACT determinations. In the 
NPRM, EPA proposed to find that all the proposed revisions to 
previously SIP-approved RACT I requirements would result in equivalent 
or additional reductions of NOX and/or VOC emissions. The 
proposed revisions should not interfere with any applicable 
requirements concerning attainment, reasonable further progress with 
the NAAQS, or section 110(l) of the CAA.
    Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's 1997 and 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS case-by-case RACT determinations and the rationale for 
EPA's proposed action were explained in the NPRM, and its associated 
technical support document (TSD), and will not be restated here.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA received comments from five commenters on the May 5, 2020 NPRM. 
85 FR 26643. A summary of the comments and EPA's response are discussed 
in this section of the preamble. A copy of the comments can be found in 
the docket for this rule action.
    Comment 1: One commenter stated that the ``PADEP economic benchmark 
for RACT determination is low and not appropriate for all case-by-case 
situations.'' The commenter then goes on to assert that ``PADEP should 
not use any absolute amount in any case-by-case RACT economic 
determinations.'' The commenter claims that this ``presumptive 
benchmark allows Pennsylvania major sources to emit significant amounts 
of NOX which makes it difficult for New Jersey (NJ) and 
other neighboring states to attain the ozone NAAQS.'' Finally, the 
commenter mentions New Jersey's 2004 RACT rule and cost estimates they 
found acceptable.
    Response 1: EPA is aware that Pennsylvania considered cost-
effectiveness levels ($/ton removed) that are lower than other states, 
such as New Jersey and New York as the commenter notes, when developing 
the RACT II rule. However, EPA has not set a single cost, emission 
reduction, or cost-effectiveness figure to fully define cost-
effectiveness in meeting the NOX or VOC RACT requirement. 
Therefore, states have the discretion to determine what costs are 
considered reasonable when establishing RACT for their sources. Each 
state must make and defend its own determination on how to weigh these 
values in establishing RACT.
    As PADEP explained in its RACT II rulemaking, it did not establish 
a bright-line cost effectiveness threshold in determining what is 
economically reasonably for purposes of defining RACT.\5\ Instead, it 
developed as guidance a cost-effectiveness threshold of $2,800 per ton 
of NOX controlled and $5,500 per ton of VOC controlled for 
RACT. Pennsylvania also determined that even evaluating control 
technology options with an additional 25% margin, an upper bound cost-
effectiveness threshold of $3,500 per ton NOX controlled and 
$7,000 per ton VOC controlled, would not affect the add-on control 
technology decisions required by RACT. Id. Pennsylvania determined that 
these higher cost-effectiveness thresholds did not impact the 
determination of what add on control technology was feasible. 
Pennsylvania also reviewed examples of benchmarks used by other states: 
Wisconsin, $2,500 per ton NOX; Illinois, $2,500-$3,000 per 
ton NOX; Maryland, $3,500-$5,000 per ton NOX; 
Ohio, $5,000 per ton NOX; and New York, $5,000-$5,500 per 
ton NOX.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 46 Pa. Bulletin 2036 (April 23, 2016).
    \6\ PADEP Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, Final 
Rulemaking RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and 
VOCs. October 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate prior final agency action, EPA found that PADEP's 
cost effectiveness thresholds are reasonable and reflect control levels 
achieved by the application and consideration of available control 
technologies, after considering both the economic and technological 
circumstances of Pennsylvania's own sources. See 84 FR 20274, 20286 
(May 9, 2019).
    Comment 2: The commenter states that EPA and PADEP should have 
considered a shared Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system for 
multiple test cells under Source ID 372 at GE Erie as RACT. The 
commenter claims that the facility could have capitalized on a shared 
SCR system where emissions could be reduced at multiple test cells by 
one or two SCR systems, making it a cost-effective approach with large 
emission reductions.
    Response 2: The GE Erie facility includes an engine lab test 
facility. The commenter raises concerns about emission controls at test 
cells in Source ID 372. Six of the test cells found in Source ID 372 
(test cells B, C, D, E, F and G located in GE Erie's Building 18E) were 
evaluated for NOX and VOC RACT. An SCR system was evaluated 
as to whether it would be NOX RACT by PADEP per the case-by-
case requirements of 25 Pa. Code 129.99. PADEP found that the SCR 
system was technically feasible; however, it was determined to be cost 
prohibitive when applied to an individual test cell. In follow up 
correspondence with GE Erie, PADEP specifically asked the company for 
justification as to why the Source 372 test cells could not be combined 
into a single stack with a single control technology, such as a shared 
SCR system, versus installing control technology for each individual 
test cell. In its response, GE identified that the multiple test cells 
found in Source ID 372 presently each have their own stack and 
explained the several design and operational considerations 
necessitating that each emission point have an individual stack.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See email dated December 13, 2018 from Hubert Flaherty, 
PADEP, to Lynn Khalife, PADEP, which includes an email dated June 
15, 2017 from GE Transportation to PADEP, which is part of the 
record in this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This analysis identified that there is a wide range of potential 
operating conditions across test cells that result in a broad range of 
differences in air flow, velocity, and temperature associated with 
those operating conditions. The differences in air flow, velocity, and 
temperature associated with these different operating modes varies by 
orders of magnitude. A dedicated air pollution control system for each 
stack provides the facility the opportunity to optimize each test cell 
to run in the mode required by that stack configuration at that 
particular time. It concluded that it is technically

[[Page 66487]]

infeasible to design and operate a single air pollution control system 
that can accommodate the necessary range of operation that would be 
required in a multiple line context.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the analysis considered that the engine test cell 
exhaust handling systems must operate with minimal backpressure that 
mimics that of a locomotive in order to conduct meaningful testing. It 
concluded that it is technically infeasible to design and operate a 
single air pollution control system that can minimize inherent 
backpressure and prevent cross feed backpressure from one operating 
engine into another. Another factor considered in the analysis was GE 
Erie's claims that multiple air pollution control systems provide 
operational redundancy that protects business continuity in the event 
of system interruption, which the company identified as occurring with 
meaningful frequency.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA agrees with the assessment presented by PADEP that a shared air 
pollution control system, such as an SCR system, for the multiple test 
cells found in Source ID 372 is technically infeasible. Therefore, per 
25 Pa. Code 129.99, this potential control strategy would not require a 
cost assessment and would be determined infeasible as NOX 
RACT for Source ID 372.
    Comment 3: The commenter notes that for Penn State's RACT analysis, 
PADEP has determined that the previous RACT I NOX emission 
limit of 107.5 tpy for each boiler is to be superseded with a new RACT 
II natural gas usage restriction of 520 million cubic feet/year and a 
No. 2 fuel oil usage restriction of 743,000 gallons/year. The commenter 
asks what this means and asks that EPA clarify whether the 107.5 tpy 
NOX emission limit is to be removed from Pennsylvania's SIP. 
If the RACT I annual limit is intended to be removed from the SIP, the 
commenter demands that EPA re-propose Penn State's RACT determination 
because the removal was not mentioned in this proposed notice.
    Response 3: The commenter correctly notes that EPA indicated in its 
TSD that PADEP had determined that the NOX RACT annual limit 
of 107.5 tpy per boiler for Source IDs 036 and 037, two East Campus 
Steam Plant, would be superseded with the new RACT II natural gas and 
No. 2 fuel oil usage restrictions. The RACT I 107.5 tpy NOX 
limit will not be removed from the SIP. This RACT II rule will add the 
RACT II limits to the SIP and clarify that its more stringent 
requirements have superseded the prior annual limit and, in effect, 
will govern.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA notes that PADEP, in its RACT SIP revisions for Helix 
Ironwood, GE Transportation--Erie, Carpenter, Pennsylvania State 
University, Ellwood Quality Steels, East Penn Manufacturing, 
Magnesita Refractories, Hazleton Generation, and Graymont PA, 
included some form of annual limits in the RACT II permits for those 
facilities. EPA wishes to clarify that it is not approving any such 
annual limits as RACT limits. Rather, because PADEP analyzed what 
should be RACT under operating conditions that included annual 
limits from the existing facility permit, and PADEP included those 
requirements in its SIP submittal to us, EPA is incorporating those 
annual limits into the SIP not as RACT control limits but for the 
purpose of SIP strengthening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the RACT process, PADEP, based on a statistical 
evaluation of Penn State's historical test data for the two boilers, 
reduced the NOX short-term emission limit for each boiler 
from 0.20 lbs/MMBtu to 0.18 lbs/MMBtu when fired on natural gas and 
0.12 lbs/MMBtu when fired on No. 2 fuel oil. A recent Non-Attainment 
New Source Review (NNSR) restriction established the usage restriction 
of 520 million cubic feet of natural gas in any 12 consecutive month 
period per boiler for the two boilers. This fuel usage restriction, 
coupled with the NOX RACT short-term emission limit of 0.20 
lbs/MMBtu (which has now been lowered to 0.18 lbs/MMBtu), equates to 
expected emissions of 53.7 tpy. As part of the NOX RACT 
determination for the two boilers, PADEP has proposed adding the new 
fuel restrictions along with the short-term emission limit to the SIP.
    PADEP's Technical Review Memo (PADEP Memo), dated August 9, 2017, 
and EPA's TSD, both of which are part of the record in this docket, 
clearly discuss the outdated nature of the prior NOX RACT I 
determination of 107.5 tpy for Source IDs 036 and 037 and that it would 
be less stringent than the new RACT II determination. As PADEP 
indicated in its review memo, ``[t]he existing RACT annual limit of 
107.5 TPY is out-of-date due to the NNSR restriction established in the 
operating permit for natural gas usage. This restriction, along with 
the 0.2 lbs/MMBtu limit, equates to 53.7 tpy. This is the potential to 
emit (PTE) used in the economic feasibility analyses noted above.'' 
PADEP Memo, page 5.
    As the RACT I annual NOX limit of 107.5 will not be 
removed from the SIP, there is no need for any additional notice.
    Comment 4: The commenter states that EPA should determine that for 
Source IDs 036 and 037 at Penn State, RACT is the installation of SCR 
because the facility determined the cost effectiveness of SCR to be 
$4,817 per ton of NOX removed. The commenter states that 
this level of cost effectiveness was determined economically feasible 
for the purposes of RACT when EPA approved rules for both New York and 
New Jersey. The commenter demands that EPA retract Penn State's RACT 
determination and apply the cost effectiveness thresholds previously 
approved for New York and New Jersey.
    Response 4: EPA is aware that Pennsylvania considered cost-
effectiveness levels ($/ton removed) that are lower than other states, 
such as New Jersey and New York as the commenter notes, when developing 
the RACT II rule. However, EPA has not set a single cost, emission 
reduction, or cost-effectiveness figure to fully define cost-
effectiveness in meeting the NOX or VOC RACT requirement. 
Therefore, states have the discretion to determine what costs are 
considered reasonable when establishing RACT for their sources. Each 
state must make and defend its own determination on how to weigh these 
values in establishing RACT.
    As PADEP explained in its RACT II rulemaking, it did not establish 
a bright-line cost effectiveness threshold in determining what is 
economically reasonably for purposes of defining RACT.\11\ Instead, it 
developed as guidance a cost-effectiveness threshold of $2,800 per ton 
of NOX controlled and $5,500 per ton of VOC controlled for 
RACT. Pennsylvania also determined that even evaluating control 
technology options with an additional 25% margin, an upper bound cost-
effectiveness threshold of $3,500 per ton NOX controlled and 
$7,000 per ton VOC controlled, would not affect the add-on control 
technology decisions required by RACT. Id. Pennsylvania determined that 
these higher cost-effectiveness thresholds did not impact the 
determination of what add on control technology was feasible. 
Pennsylvania also reviewed examples of benchmarks used by other states: 
Wisconsin, $2,500 per ton NOX; Illinois, $2,500-$3,000 per 
ton NOX; Maryland, $3,500-$5,000 per ton NOX; 
Ohio, $5,000 per ton NOX; and New York, $5,000-$5,500 per 
ton NOX.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 46 Pa. Bulletin 2036 (April 23, 2016).
    \12\ PADEP Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, Final 
Rulemaking RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and 
VOCs. October 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate prior final agency action, EPA found that PADEP's 
cost effectiveness thresholds are reasonable and reflect control levels 
achieved by the application and consideration of available control 
technologies, after considering both the economic and

[[Page 66488]]

technological circumstances of Pennsylvania's own sources. See 84 FR 
20274, 20286 (May 9, 2019).
    Comment 5: The commenter urges EPA to reconsider the VOC limit of 
0.30 lbs/ton of steel produced, which was established as RACT for the 
electric arc furnace (EAF) at Ellwood Quality Steels, to more closely 
align with actual stack test results. The commenter states that the VOC 
RACT limit for the EAF should be lower because, in PADEP's RACT 
analysis, results are summarized from the facility's last four stack 
tests, which averaged an emission rate of 0.14 lbs/ton of steel 
produced, with the most recent stack test from October 2016 showing an 
average of 0.082 lbs/ton of steel produced.
    Response 5: PADEP conducted a RACT analysis per 25 Pa. Code 129.99 
for VOC emissions at the EAF. The potential control technologies 
evaluated were all determined to be technically infeasible for the 
source. Additionally, PADEP reviewed EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 
(RBLC) for examples of controls and emission limits at EAF facilities 
(20 in total). That review revealed that VOC limits (lbs/ton of steel 
produced) at EAFs ranged from 0.03 lbs/ton to 0.43 lbs/ton with an 
average limit of 0.20 lbs/ton, a range within which Ellwood Quality 
Steels' RACT VOC limit falls.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See PADEP's Technical Review Memo, dated April 28, 2017, 
which is part of the docket for this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this analysis, PADEP determined VOC RACT for the EAF to be 
continued operation of the existing RACT I controls--direct evacuation 
control, process controls, and scrap management, along with the short-
term VOC emission limit of 0.3 lbs/ton. EPA concluded that PADEP's VOC 
RACT determination for the EAF at Ellwood Quality Steels was reasonable 
for that specific source and meets statutory and regulatory 
requirements.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving case-by-case RACT determinations for nine sources 
in Pennsylvania, as required to meet obligations pursuant to the 1997 
and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of source-
specific RACT determinations under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
for certain major sources of VOC and NOX in Pennsylvania. 
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally 
available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III 
Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further 
Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). 
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in 
the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are 
fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 
the effective date of the final rule of EPA's approval, and will be 
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP 
compilation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the 
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules 
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency 
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect 
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by December 21, 2020. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action approving Pennsylvania's NOX and VOC 
RACT requirements for nine case-by-

[[Page 66489]]

case facilities for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS may not be 
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See 
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 22, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries ``General Electric Transportation Systems--
Erie''; ``J. E. Baker Co. (Refractories)--York''; ``Con-Lime, Inc''; 
``Con-Lime, Inc.--Bellefonte''; ``Williams Generation Company--
Hazleton''; ``General Electric Transportation Systems''; ``The 
Pennsylvania State University--University Park''; ``Ellwood Group 
Inc''; ``Graybec Lime, Inc''; and ``Bellefonte Lime Company''; and
0
b. Adding the entries at the end of the table: ``Carpenter Co.''; 
``East Penn Manufacturing Co. Inc, Smelter Plant''; ``Ellwood Quality 
Steels Co. (formerly referenced as Ellwood Group Inc)''; ``GE 
Transportation--Erie Plant (formerly referenced as General Electric 
Transportation Systems and General Electric Transportation Systems--
Erie)''; ``Graymont Pleasant Gap''; ``Hazleton Generation (formerly 
referenced as Williams Generation Company--Hazleton)''; ``Helix 
Ironwood''; ``Magnesita Refractories (formerly referenced as J. E. 
Baker Co. (Refractories)--York)''; ``Penn State University (formerly 
referenced as The Pennsylvania State University--University Park)''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           Additional explanations/Sec.
          Name of source                   Permit No.                County             State        EPA approval date      Sec.   52.2063 and 52.2064
                                                                                   effective date                                  citations\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
General Electric Transportation     OP-25-025...............  Erie...............        12/21/94  8/8/95, 60 FR 40292.  See also 52.2064(c)(4).
 Systems--Erie.
J. E. Baker Co. (Refractories)--    OP-67-2001..............  York...............        12/22/94  8/8/95, 60 FR 40292.  See also 52.2064(c)(8).
 York.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Con-Lime, Inc.....................  OP-14-0001..............  Centre.............         6/30/95  6/3/97, 62 FR 30250.  See also 52.2064(c)(5).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Con-Lime, Inc.--Bellefonte........  OP-14-0001..............  Centre.............          1/7/98  3/9/98, 63 FR 11370.  See also 52.2064(c)(5).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Williams Generation Company--       OP-40-0031A.............  Luzerne............         3/10/00  4/1/03, 68 FR 15661.  See also 52.2064(c)(6).
 Hazleton.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
General Electric Transportation     OP-25-025A..............  Erie...............         8/26/02  4/7/03, 68 FR 16724.  See also 52.2064(c)(4).
 Systems.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
The Pennsylvania State University-- OP-14-0006..............  Centre.............        12/30/98  3/30/05, 70 FR 16118  See also 52.2064(c)(9).
 University Park.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Ellwood Group Inc.................  OP-37-313...............  Lawrence...........         1/31/01  3/30/05, 70 FR 16124  See also 52.2064(c)(3).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Graybec Lime, Inc.................  OP-14-0004..............  Centre.............         4/16/99  4/28/06, 71 FR 25070  See also 52.2064(c)(5).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Bellefonte Lime Company...........  OP-14-0002..............  Centre.............        10/19/98  6/14/06, 71 FR 34259  See also 52.2064(c)(5).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Carpenter Co......................  39-00040................  Lehigh.............          9/5/18  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(1).
                                                                                                    Federal Register
                                                                                                    citation].
East Penn Manufacturing Co. Inc,    06-05040D...............  Berks..............          1/3/19  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(2).
 Smelter Plant.                                                                                     Federal Register
                                                                                                    citation].
Ellwood Quality Steels Co.          37-00264................  Lawrence...........        10/13/17  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(3).
 (formerly referenced as Ellwood                                                                    Federal Register
 Group Inc).                                                                                        citation].
GE Transportation--Erie Plant       25-00025................  Erie...............         2/21/18  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(4).
 (formerly referenced as General                                                                    Federal Register
 Electric Transportation Systems                                                                    citation].
 and General Electric
 Transportation Systems--Erie).
Graymont Pleasant Gap.............  14-00002................  Centre.............          2/5/18  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(5).
                                                                                                    Federal Register
                                                                                                    citation].
Hazleton Generation (formerly       40-00021................  Luzerne............         6/19/18  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(6).
 referenced as Williams Generation                                                                  Federal Register
 Company--Hazleton).                                                                                citation].
Helix Ironwood....................  38-05019................  Lebanon............         9/24/18  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(7).
                                                                                                    Federal Register
                                                                                                    citation].
Magnesita Refractories (formerly    67-05001................  York...............        11/27/18  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(8).
 referenced as J. E. Baker Co.                                                                      Federal Register
 (Refractories)--York).                                                                             citation].
Penn State University (formerly     14-00003................  Centre.............        12/13/17  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(9).
 referenced as The Pennsylvania                                                                     Federal Register
 State University--University                                                                       citation].
 Park).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The cross-references that are not Sec.   52.2064 are to material that pre-date the notebook format. For more information, see Sec.   52.2063.

[[Page 66490]]

* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.2064 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2064  EPA-Approved Source Specific Reasonably Available 
Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and 
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).

* * * * *
    (c) Approval of source-specific RACT requirements for 1997 and 2008 
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards for the facilities 
listed below are incorporated as specified below. (Rulemaking Docket 
No. EPA-OAR-2019-0657).
    (1) Carpenter Co.--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 39-00040, 
issued September 5, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
    (2) East Penn Manufacturing Co. Inc, Smelter Plant--Incorporating 
by reference Permit No. 06-05040D, issued January 3, 2019, as redacted 
by Pennsylvania.
    (3) Ellwood Quality Steels Co.--Incorporating by reference Permit 
No. 37-00264, issued October 13, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania. All 
permit conditions in the prior RACT Permit No. OP-37-313, issued 
January 31, 2001, remain as RACT requirements. See also Sec.  
52.2063(d)(1)(d) for prior RACT approval.
    (4) GE Transportation--Erie Plant--Incorporating by reference 
Permit No. 25-00025, issued February 21, 2018, as redacted by 
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. OP-25-025A, 
issued August 26, 2002. See also Sec. Sec.  52.2063(c)(98)(i)(B)(5) and 
52.2063(c)(198)(i)(B) for prior RACT approvals.
    (5) Graymont Pleasant Gap--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 
14-00002, issued February 5, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania, which 
supersedes Graybec Lime, Inc. OP-14-0004 (issued April 16, 1999), 
Bellefonte Lime Company. OP-14-0002 (issued October 19, 1998), and Con-
Lime, Inc. OP-14-0001 (issued June 30, 1995 and amended January 7, 
1998). Graymont Pleasant Gap is the consolidation of three facilities, 
formerly referenced as Graybec Lime, Inc., Bellefonte Lime Company, and 
Con-Lime, Inc. (Con-Lime, Inc.--Bellefonte) See Sec. Sec.  
52.2063(d)(1)(n), 52.2063(d)(1)(q), 52.2063(c)(122)(i)(B)(5), and 
52.2063(c)(130)(i)(B)(3) for prior RACT approvals.
    (6) Hazleton Generation--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 40-
00021, issued June 19, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania, which 
supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. 40-0031A, issued March 10, 2000, 
except for Conditions 5-8, 12, and 14-17. See also Sec.  
52.2063(c)(196)(i)(B)(4) for prior RACT approval.
    (7) Helix Ironwood--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 38-05019, 
issued September 24, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
    (8) Magnesita Refractories--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 
67-05001, issued November 27, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania, which 
supersedes the prior RACT I Permit No 67-2001, issued December 22, 
1994, except for Conditions 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11. See also Sec.  
52.2063(c)(98)(i)(B)(6) for prior RACT approval.
    (9) Penn State University--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 
14-00003, issued December 13, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania which 
supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. OP-14-0006, issued December 30, 
1998; however, RACT Permit No. OP-14-0006 remains in effect as to 
Source ID 035, WCSP Boiler 8, and as to Source IDs 036 and 037, ECSP 
Boilers No. 1 and 2, except for Condition 8, which is superseded. See 
also Sec.  52.2063(d)(1)(c) for prior RACT approval.

[FR Doc. 2020-21442 Filed 10-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P