Rule2022-17448
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology Determinations for Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 and/or 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 19, 2022
Effective
September 19, 2022
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving multiple state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for six major volatile organic compound (VOC) and/or nitrogen oxide (NO<INF>X</INF>) emitting facilities pursuant to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's conditionally approved RACT regulations. In this rule action, EPA is approving source-specific RACT determinations (also referred to as case-by-case or CbC) for sources at six major NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emitting facilities within the Commonwealth submitted by PADEP. These RACT evaluations were submitted to meet RACT requirements for the 1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving these revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's implementing regulations.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 160 (Friday, August 19, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 160 (Friday, August 19, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50945-50952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17448]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0165; FRL-10132-02-R3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology Determinations
for Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 and/or 2008 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
multiple state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These revisions were submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to
establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT)
for six major volatile organic compound (VOC) and/or nitrogen oxide
(NO<INF>X</INF>) emitting facilities pursuant to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania's conditionally approved RACT regulations. In this rule
action, EPA is approving source-specific RACT determinations (also
referred to as case-by-case or CbC) for sources at six major
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emitting facilities within the Commonwealth
submitted by PADEP. These RACT evaluations were submitted to meet RACT
requirements for the 1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving these revisions to the
Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and EPA's implementing regulations.
DATES: This final rule is effective on September 19, 2022.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0165. All documents in the docket are listed on
the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Riley Burger, Permits Branch
(3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, Four Penn Center, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2217. Mr. Burger can also be reached via electronic mail at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#781a0d0a1f1d0a560a11141d01381d0819561f170e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="325047405557401c405b5e574b725742531c555d44">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 17, 2022, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM). 87 FR 15161. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of case-by-case
RACT determinations for sources at eight facilities, as EPA found that
the RACT controls for these sources met the CAA RACT requirements for
the 1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The case-by-case RACT
determinations for sources at these facilities were initially included
in PADEP's May 7, 2020 SIP submission and supplemented by submissions
on February 9, 2021, July 20, 2021, and January 28, 2022. One facility
is located in Allegheny County and was submitted by PADEP on behalf of
the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD), the government agency
responsible for air permitting in that county.
As more fully explained in the NPRM, under certain circumstances,
states are required to submit SIP revisions to address RACT
requirements for both major sources of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC and any
source covered by control technique guidelines (CTG), for each ozone
NAAQS. Which NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC sources in Pennsylvania are
considered ``major,'' and are therefore subject to RACT, is dependent
on the location of each source within the Commonwealth. Sources located
in nonattainment areas would be subject to the ``major source''
definitions established under the CAA based on the area's current
classification(s). In Pennsylvania, sources located in any ozone
nonattainment areas outside of moderate or above are subject to source
thresholds of 50 tons per year (tpy) because of the Ozone Transport
Region (OTR) requirements in CAA section 184(b)(2).
On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT for
both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania. PADEP's May
16, 2016 SIP revision intended to address certain outstanding non-CTG
VOC RACT, VOC CTG RACT, and major source VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> RACT
requirements for both standards. The SIP revision requested approval of
Pennsylvania's 25 Pennsylvania Code 129.96-100, Additional RACT
Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs (the ``presumptive''
RACT II rule). Prior to the adoption of the RACT II rule, Pennsylvania
relied on the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>
sources. The requirements of the RACT I rule remain as previously
approved in Pennsylvania's SIP and continue to be
[[Page 50946]]
implemented as RACT.\1\ On September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted a
supplemental SIP revision including a letter, dated September 22, 2017,
which committed to address various deficiencies identified by EPA in
PADEP's original May 16, 2016 ``presumptive'' RACT II rule SIP
revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA granted conditional limited approval of
Pennsylvania's case-by-case RACT I Rule on March 23, 1998 pending
Pennsylvania's submission of and EPA's determination on proposals
for facilities subject to case-by-case (source-specific) RACT
requirements. 63 FR 13789. On May 3, 2001, EPA removed the
conditional status of its 1998 approval once the state certified
that it had submitted case-by-case RACT I proposals for sources
subject to the RACT requirements, but retained the limited nature of
the approval. 66 FR 22123. EPA granted full approval on October, 22,
2008 once it approved all case-by-case RACT I proposals submitted by
Pennsylvania. 73 FR 62891. Through this RACT II rule, certain
source-specific RACT I requirements will be superseded by more
stringent requirements. See Section II of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally approved the RACT II rule based
on the commitments PADEP made in its September 22, 2017 letter.\2\ 84
FR 20274. In EPA's final conditional approval, EPA established
conditions requiring PADEP submit, for EPA's approval, SIP revisions to
address any facility-wide or system-wide NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
averaging plans approved under 25 Pa. Code 129.98 and any case-by-case
RACT determinations under 25 Pa. Code 129.99. PADEP committed to
submitting these additional SIP revisions within 12 months of EPA's
final conditional approval (i.e., by May 9, 2020). Through multiple
submissions between 2017 and 2020, PADEP submitted to EPA for approval
the various SIP submissions to implement its RACT II case-by-case
determinations and alternative NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits. This
rule takes final action on SIP revisions for sources at six facilities,
based on EPA's review.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On August 27, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
issued a decision vacating EPA's approval of three provisions of
Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT II rule applicable to certain coal-
fired power plants. Sierra Club v. EPA, 972 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2020).
None of the sources in this final rule are subject to the
presumptive RACT II provisions at issue in that Sierra Club
decision.
\3\ In its March 17, 2022 NPRM (87 FR 15161), EPA had proposed
approval of SIP revisions pertaining to case-by-case RACT
requirements for sources at eight major NO<INF>X</INF> and/or VOC
emitting facilities. At this time, EPA is only approving such SIP
revisions at six of those facilities and is not taking final action
on the SIP revisions related to Procter & Gamble Paper Products
Company Mehoopany and ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Monessen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SIP revisions in this action for ATI Flat Rolled products
Holdings, LLC, the facility located in Allegheny County, only establish
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS RACT requirements. Applicable RACT requirements
under the CAA for sources located in Allegheny County for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS were previously satisfied. See 78 FR 34584 (June 10,
2013).
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
A. Summary of SIP Revisions
To satisfy a requirement from EPA's May 9, 2019 conditional
approval, PADEP submitted to EPA SIP revisions addressing alternative
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits and/or case-by-case RACT requirements
for major sources in Pennsylvania subject to 25 Pa. Code 129.98 or
129.99. Among the submitted SIP revisions were case-by-case RACT
determinations for sources in Allegheny County, which PADEP submitted
on behalf of ACHD. PADEP's submission included SIP revisions pertaining
to case-by-case RACT determinations for the existing emissions units at
each of the major sources of NO<INF>X</INF> and/or VOC that required a
case-by-case RACT determination.
In the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP, and
PADEP on behalf of ACHD, an evaluation was completed to determine if
previously SIP-approved, case-by-case RACT emissions limits or
operational controls (herein referred to as RACT I and contained in
RACT I permits) were more stringent than the RACT II presumptive or
case-by-case requirements new to the SIP. If more stringent, the RACT I
requirements would continue to apply to the applicable source. If case-
by-case RACT II requirements that are new to the SIP are more stringent
than the RACT I requirements, then the RACT II requirements would
supersede the prior RACT I requirements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ While the prior SIP-approved RACT I permit will remain part
of the SIP, this RACT II rule will incorporate by reference the RACT
II requirements through the RACT II permit and clarify the ongoing
applicability of specific conditions in the RACT I permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, EPA is approving SIP revisions pertaining to case-by-case
RACT requirements for sources at six NO<INF>X</INF> and/or VOC emitting
facilities in Pennsylvania, as summarized in Table 1 in this document.
As indicated in the NPRM, EPA views each facility as a separable SIP
revision.
Table 1--Six Major NOX and/or VOC Emitting Facilities in Pennsylvania Subject to Case-BY-Case RACT II
Determinations Under the 1997 and/or 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Hour ozone RACT source? Major source pollutant (NOX RACT II permit
Major source (county) (RACT I) and/or VOC) (effective date)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Coatesville Yes...................... NOX and VOC.................. 15-00010
(formerly Lukens Steel Co.-- (3/18/2020)
Coatesville) (Chester).
ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, Yes...................... NOX and VOC.................. 0059-I009a
LLC (formerly Allegheny Ludlum (12/3/2020)
Corporation--Brackenridge) 0059-I008d
(Allegheny). (4/21/2021)
Boyertown Foundry Company (Berks).. Yes...................... VOC.......................... 06-05063
(8/1/2020)
Grove US LLC Shady Grove Plant Yes...................... VOC.......................... 28-05004
(Franklin). (1/1/2021)
INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Yes...................... NOX and VOC.................. 10-00021
Petrolia (Butler). (12/17/2020)
Texas Eastern Transmission LP Lilly Yes...................... NOX and VOC.................. 11-00258
Station (Cambria). (12/10/2021)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP, and PADEP
on behalf of ACHD, consist of an evaluation of all reasonably available
controls at the time of evaluation for each affected emissions
[[Page 50947]]
unit, resulting in a determination of what specific emissions limit or
control measures satisfy RACT for that particular unit. The adoption of
new, additional, or revised emissions limits or control measures to
existing SIP-approved RACT I requirements were specified as
requirements in new or revised federally enforceable permits (hereafter
RACT II permits) issued by PADEP or ACHD to the source. These RACT II
permits have been submitted as part of the Pennsylvania RACT SIP
revisions for EPA's approval in the Pennsylvania SIP under 40 CFR
52.2020(d)(1). The RACT II permits being approved in this action are
listed in the last column of Table 1 of this preamble, along with the
permit effective date, and are part of the docket for this rule, which
is available online at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2022-0165.\5\ For certain sources at major NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC
emitting facilities, EPA is incorporating by reference in the
Pennsylvania SIP the source-specific emissions limits and control
measures and/or alternative NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits in the RACT
II permits, and is determining that these provisions satisfy the RACT
requirement under the 1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The RACT II permits included in the docket for this rule are
redacted versions of the facilities' federally enforceable permits.
They reflect the specific RACT requirements being approved into the
Pennsylvania SIP via this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA's Final Action
This CbC RACT SIP revision incorporates determinations by PADEP and
ACHD of source-specific RACT II controls for individual emission units
at major sources of NO<INF>X</INF> and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, where
those units are not covered by or cannot meet Pennsylvania's
presumptive RACT regulation. After thorough review and evaluation of
the information submitted to EPA by PADEP, in its SIP revision
submittals for sources at six major NO<INF>X</INF> and/or VOC emitting
facilities in Pennsylvania, EPA found that: (1) PADEP's and ACHD's
case-by-case RACT determinations and conclusions establish limits and/
or controls on individual sources that are reasonable and appropriately
considered technically and economically feasible controls; and (2)
PADEP's and ACHD's determinations are consistent with the CAA, EPA
regulations, and applicable EPA guidance.
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to find that all the proposed revisions
to previously SIP-approved RACT I requirements would result in
equivalent or additional reductions of NO<INF>X</INF> and/or VOC
emissions. Consistent with section 110(l) of the CAA the proposed
revisions will not result in additional NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and
thus should not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment.
Below is a summary of information that was set forth in the NPRM,
associated technical support document (TSD), and supporting documents
in the record regarding the source-specific RACT II NO<INF>X</INF>
determinations for the four facilities with major NO<INF>X</INF>
sources and how those particular requirements are at least as stringent
as the RACT I requirements. Additional material regarding this source
determination is available in the NPRM, associated TSD, and other
support documents in the record, and are not set forth herein.
Arcelor Mittal Plate LLC Coatesville
EPA proposed to approve PADEP's RACT II CbC NO<INF>X</INF>
determination for twenty-seven sources at this facility. For all
twenty-seven sources, PADEP determined that CbC RACT II NO<INF>X</INF>
requirements would be continuing use of good operating and maintenance
practices. This RACT II requirement now being incorporated into the SIP
is as stringent as the RACT I SIP requirement because the RACT I SIP
also required good operating and maintenance practices. PADEP also will
continue to require the same throughput restrictions as follows: 267
million cubic feet of natural gas each year (mmcf/yr) for the EMS
boiler, 1.55 million tons of steel processed per year for the ``D''
electric furnace, and 3,942 mmcf/yr of natural gas for fifteen soaking
pits. These throughput restrictions being incorporated into the SIP as
RACT are as stringent because they are the same as the RACT I
restrictions incorporated into the current SIP.
For two NAB furnaces and eight BHT furnaces, EPA is approving more
stringent RACT II requirements now being incorporated into the SIP that
will supersede the RACT I requirements in the SIP. PADEP established
throughput restrictions for the 145' NAB furnace and the 200' NAB
furnace of 481.8 and 510 mmcf/yr of natural gas respectively, which
together are more stringent than the prior SIP RACT I collective limit
of 1331.52 mmcf/yr for the two NAB furnaces together. For the eight BHT
furnaces, PADEP established a throughput restriction of 2495.7 mmcf/yr
of natural gas, which is less than the prior RACT I SIP collective
limit of 2688.88 mmcf/yr for nine BHT furnaces, and is therefore more
stringent. Finally, PADEP established a monthly limit of 34.1 tons per
month NO<INF>X</INF> that is new to the SIP for the ``D'' electric
furnace.\6\ This short-term emission limit now being incorporated into
the SIP is more stringent because EPA never approved a prior short-term
emission limit in the SIP before for this source. Through its
establishment of as stringent and more stringent RACT, and related
testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements, Pennsylvania has
demonstrated that the status quo in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions has been
maintained if not improved. As such, EPA's approval of Pennsylvania's
SIP revision is consistent with CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA included the following annual NO<INF>X</INF> emission
limits only as SIP strengthening measures for each CbC
NO<INF>X</INF> source that were not incorporated into the prior SIP:
19.62 tpy for the EMS boiler, 340.6 tpy for the ``D'' electric
furnace, 173.6 tpy for the eight BHT furnaces, 33.7 tpy for the 145'
NAB furnace, 30.6 tpy for the 200' NAB furnace, 502.8 tpy for
fifteen soaking pits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Eastern Transmission LP Lilly Station
EPA proposed to approve PADEP's CbC RACT II NO<INF>X</INF>
determination for three sources at this facility.\7\ For two of the
three sources, Westinghouse turbines, PADEP determined that the RACT
CbC NO<INF>X</INF> is good combustion practices, defined as following
manufacturer's procedures, routine maintenance, a preventative
maintenance schedule, and inspection as well as an operating hours
limit of 8,000 hr/yr, fuel throughput limit of 491.3 MMScf/year, and a
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions rate of 116 ppmvd (parts per million volume,
dry) corrected to 15% oxygen. For the remaining source, a General
Electric turbine, PADEP determined that RACT CbC NO<INF>X</INF>
consists of good combustion practices, defined as following
manufacturer procedures, routine maintenance, a preventative
maintenance schedule, inspection as well as an operating hours limit of
8,000 hr/yr, and a NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate of 120 ppmvd corrected
to 15% oxygen. Because EPA had not previously approved any RACT for
this source into the SIP, these RACT requirements now being
incorporated into the SIP are more stringent than the current SIP.
Through its establishment of more stringent RACT for these sources, and
related testing monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, Pennsylvania
has demonstrated that the status quo in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions has
been maintained, if not improved. As such, EPA's approval of
Pennsylvania's SIP
[[Page 50948]]
revision is consistent with section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As SIP strengthening measures EPA has also approved PADEP's
annual emission limits of 107 tons per year for the Westinghouse
turbines and 292 tons per year for the GE turbine as well as a
requirement to shut down operation of the GE turbine by January 1,
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, LLC (Allegheny County)
EPA proposed to approve ACHD's CbC RACT II NO<INF>X</INF>
determination for five sources at this facility. A number of
NO<INF>X</INF> sources under RACT I are now shut down. For two sources
currently still in use, consisting of two electric arc furnaces, ACHD
determined that the RACT II CbC NO<INF>X</INF> is the continued
requirement for good work practices, such as minimizing intake of
outside air and the opening of the slag. For the Argon-Oxygen
Decarburization Vessel source, ACHD determined that the RACT II CbC
NO<INF>X</INF> is to continue the requirement to implement good
operating practices and the requirement to comply with manufacturer's
specifications. These RACT II requirements for these three sources are
as stringent as the current SIP because the RACT I requirements in the
SIP also consisted of good operating practices for these sources and
have been retained. For the two remaining sources, No. 1 and No. 2 A&P
lines HNO<INF>3</INF>/HF pickling operations, ACHD determined the RACT
II CbC NO<INF>X</INF> is to continue good operating and maintenance
practices as well as several requirements new to the SIP: direct
emissions to the wet scrubber (while tracking and maintaining specific
operating parameters related thereto), meet emission limits of 15.5 lbs
NO<INF>X</INF>/hr and 11.07 lbs NO<INF>X</INF>/hr, and annual
production limits of 262,800 tons of steel and 148,920 tons of
steel.\8\ The good operating and maintenance practice requirement being
incorporated into the SIP for these sources is as stringent because the
current RACT I SIP for these sources also required good operating
practices. The requirement to direct emissions to the wet scrubber as
well as the numerical emission and production limits now being
incorporated are new to the SIP for these two sources and do not
supersede any prior RACT requirements in the current SIP, and thus are
more stringent. Through its establishment of as or more stringent RACT,
and related monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping requirements,
Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the status quo in NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions has been maintained, if not improved. As such EPA's approval
of Pennsylvania's SIP revision is adequately justified under section
110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In addition, for those two sources, EPA included as SIP
strengthening measures only annual NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits of
67.8 tpy and 48.49 tpy which EPA has not approved into the SIP
before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia
EPA proposed to approve PADEP's CbC RACT II NO<INF>X</INF>
determinations for two sources at this facility, spray dryers No. 1 and
No. 3. PADEP determined that the RACT II CbC NO<INF>X</INF> for both
sources is use of good combustion practices and minimizing excess air.
These RACT requirements now being incorporated into the SIP are more
stringent because EPA has never approved RACT requirements into the SIP
before for the spray dryers. The existing RACT I conditions in the SIP
are unrelated to these two CbC NO<INF>X</INF> sources and remain as
RACT requirements. INDSPEC ceased manufacturing in September 2017, and
the NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC sources subject to PADEP's RACT II
determination have all permanently shut down.\9\ Through imposition of
these more stringent operating practices for these now permanently shut
down sources, Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the status quo in
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions has been maintained, if not improved. As such,
EPA's approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision is consistent with
section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ PADEP requested that the operating permit conditions, which
pertain to the implementation of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC CbC RACT II
requirements under 25 Pa. Code Sec. 129.99, be incorporated into
the Commonwealth's SIP to determine baseline emissions for the
purpose of issuing emission reduction credits (ERC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other specific requirements of the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
case-by-case RACT determinations and alternative NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions limits and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are
explained thoroughly in the NPRM, and its associated technical support
document (TSD), and will not be restated here.
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA received three sets of comments on the March 17, 2022 NPRM. 87
FR 15161. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are discussed
in this section. A copy of the comments can be found in the docket for
this rule action.
Comment 1: This comment from ACHD identifies that the permits for
ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, LLC in the notice of proposed
rulemaking should be identified as No. 0059-I009a (December 3, 2020)
and No. 0059-I008d (April 21, 2021).
Response 1: The permits included in the submission to EPA are No.
0059-I009a (December 3, 2020) and No. 0059-I008d (April 21, 2021) as
indicated by the commenter. References to these permits in this rule
have been updated.
Comment 2: The comment from Cleveland-Cliffs Monessen Coke LLC
requests that EPA not take final action on the revisions pertaining to
ArcelorMittal Monessen LLC Monessen Coke Plant as certain RACT
requirements are involved in the appeal of the facility's permit before
the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board. The comment requests EPA
delay action until the appeal is adjudicated or resolved, and any
modifications to the permit are finalized. The comment indicates there
is a settlement agreement in principle with PADEP to prepare and issue
a modification of the permit.
Response 2: EPA is not taking final action on the ArcelorMittal
Monessen LLC Monessen Coke Plant RACT determination at this time and
will act on this SIP revision in a later rulemaking. EPA will respond
to the comment at that time.
Comment 3: A comment from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
claims that EPA cannot approve the proposed Pennsylvania RACT II CbC
determinations under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the CAA
section 110(l) analysis is inadequate. In particular, the comment
focuses on the proposed NO<INF>X</INF> limitations and whether they
will cause or contribute to violations of the 2010 1-hour
NO<INF>X</INF> NAAQS. (The 2010 1-hour NAAQS is for oxides of nitrogen,
as measured by nitrogen dioxide (NO<INF>2</INF>).)
Response 3: As described in the proposed rulemaking, Pennsylvania
was required through implementation of the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS to determine RACT II requirements for major NO<INF>X</INF> and
VOC emitting sources within the Commonwealth. PADEP had previously
established CbC.\10\ \11\ As part of the EPA's conditional approval,
PADEP was required to complete source-specific RACT II determinations
for subject NO<INF>X</INF> or VOC sources that could not meet the
presumptive requirements or for which a presumptive limit did not
exist. For subject sources located in Allegheny County, ACHD makes such
determinations. As required by Pennsylvania's RACT II regulations,
PADEP and ACHD then conducted, for sources seeking a CbC determination,
an analysis examining what air pollution controls were available for
those individual sources to determine the lowest emissions limit that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering
[[Page 50949]]
technological and economic feasibility.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1).
\11\ 84 FR 20274 (May 9, 2019).
\12\ See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to Regional
Administrators, ``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas,'' and 44 FR 53762 (September
17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through its source-specific RACT II determinations, PADEP and ACHD
through PADEP have established NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC limits and
requirements for various sources that either reaffirm existing
emissions limits or make the limits more stringent. PADEP, on behalf of
itself and ACHD, submitted those determinations to EPA as bundled
packages of individual SIP revisions. EPA is now approving the RACT II
CbC SIP revisions for individual NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC sources at six
facilities throughout Pennsylvania (including one in Allegheny County).
For the reasons explained below, EPA concludes that the arguments
presented by the comment do not prohibit approval of these SIP
revisions.
CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision if
the revision would ``interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any
other applicable requirement of this chapter.'' 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
While EPA interprets section 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are
in effect, including those for which a relevant SIP submission may not
have been made, the level of rigor needed for any CAA section 110(l)
demonstration will vary depending on the nature and circumstances of
the revision. For example, an in-depth section 110(l) analysis is more
appropriate where there is a reasonable expectation that an existing
SIP standard is being weakened or that there will be a net emissions
increase because of approval of the SIP revision under consideration.
However, here, the Pennsylvania CbC RACT II SIP revisions are either
retaining an existing standard or establishing a more stringent one.
For these reasons, EPA did not include a detailed section 110(l)
analysis at the proposal stage. Since the comment raised the issue, EPA
is responding in this final action by explaining why its approval is
consistent with section 110(l).
In circumstances where an existing SIP standard is being weakened
or a net emissions increase is expected, there are two generally
recognized paths for satisfying CAA section 110(l). First, a state may
demonstrate through an air quality analysis, including modeling, that
the revision will not interfere with the attainment of the NAAQS,
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement. This
is the approach the comment claims is required for the Pennsylvania CbC
RACT II SIP revisions. Second, a state may substitute equivalent or
greater emissions reductions to compensate for any change to a plan to
ensure actual emissions to the air are not increased and thus preserve
status quo air quality. In the context of substitution, courts have
upheld the concept that substitute measures resulting in a net zero
increase in emissions, i.e. status quo emissions, is sufficient to
demonstrate noninterference. Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA,
467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006); Indiana v. EPA, 796 F. 3d 803 (7th Cir.
2015).
In a more analogous case to the situation presented here, EPA's
interpretation of section 110(l) was upheld in WildEarth Guardians v.
EPA, 759 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2014). There, the court rejected a
challenge to an EPA action approving a regional haze plan and concluded
that WildEarth Guardians had identified ``nothing in [the] SIP that
weakens or removes any pollution controls. And even if the SIP merely
maintained the status quo, that would not interfere with the attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS.'' \13\ For that reason, the court
concluded that the petitioner in WildEarth Guardians failed to show
that EPA's approval of the SIP contravened section 110(l). The court's
holding demonstrates that a SIP approval that does not weaken or remove
pollution controls would not violate section 110(l). Thus, a showing
that the approved SIP measures preserve status quo emissions is
generally sufficient to demonstrate noninterference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 759 F.3d at 1074.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, contrary to the comment's characterization, PADEP and ACHD
are not relaxing standards or eliminating a program; rather, PADEP and
ACHD are reevaluating the technical and economic feasibility of air
pollution controls for subject air pollution sources as required by
implementation of the 2008 8-hour NAAQS. Based on that review, PADEP
and ACHD, as explained in detail in Section II of this preamble, have
made determinations that either retain or make more stringent existing
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits. Under these circumstances, PADEP's or
ACHD's demonstration to meet the requirements of section 110(l) for its
source-specific RACT II determinations is not one of modeling or
identifying equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for or offset
an emissions increase because the revisions are not resulting in
emissions increases, but rather to establish that its new source-
specific NO<INF>X</INF> RACT determinations are preserving the status
quo emissions or achieving additional reductions beyond the status quo.
As described in the preamble above, as well as the NPRM, associated
TSD, and supporting record documents, EPA has approved for each of the
facilities with CbC NO<INF>X</INF> RACT II determinations requirements
that are at least as stringent as the prior CbC NO<INF>X</INF> RACT
determinations.
Comment 4: CBD asserts that EPA's section 110(l) analysis must
determine whether NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from VOC RACT control
devices that use combustion will cause or contribute to a violation of
the 2010 1-hour NO<INF>X</INF> NAAQS.
Response 4: No VOC combustion control devices are approved as part
of the VOC CbC RACT II determinations for any of these six facilities,
therefore consideration of whether NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from VOC
RACT control devices will cause or contribute to a violation of the
NAAQS as measured by NO<INF>2</INF> is not relevant to our final action
in this rule. Furthermore, no areas in Pennsylvania are designated as
non-attainment areas for the 2010 1-hour NO<INF>X</INF> NAAQS under 40
CFR 81.339.
Comment 5: CBD states that the SIP submission is ``incomplete''
because it does not contain a ``demonstration that the national ambient
air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration
increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility,
as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented,''
per 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (Appendix V), 2.2(d), and therefore
``does not contain `the information necessary to enable the
Administrator to determine whether the plan submission complies with
the provisions of [the Clean Air Act],' as required by Section
110(k)(1)(A) of the Act.'' This comment further asserts that because
Pennsylvania has not submitted the demonstration referenced above, EPA
cannot now supplement the record with the supposedly missing
information as part of this final rule. Lastly, the comment states that
because in the commenter's experience it is ``not possible for public
commenters to carry out a complete analysis'' the comment asserts is
missing, that ``the state and EPA . . . bear the responsibility of
carrying out a full and complete assessment of whether the rule will
interfere with the NAAQS.''
Response 5: This comment fundamentally misunderstands the purpose
of Appendix V, CAA 110(k)(1)(A) and the concept of ``completeness.''
Under CAA section
[[Page 50950]]
110(k)(1), with a single exception known as parallel processing, which
is not relevant in this action, a SIP submission must either be
determined to be ``complete'' by EPA or become complete by operation of
law before EPA can formally propose action on the submission. Appendix
V was promulgated consistent with CAA 110(k)(1)(A), that directed EPA
``to promulgate minimum criteria that any plan submission must meet
before the Administrator is required to act on such submission under
this subsection.'' Thus, Appendix V provides EPA the criteria that it
uses to affirmatively determine completeness of a SIP submission, which
then allows EPA to move forward with formal action on the submission.
However, a SIP submission that does not meet the Appendix V
completeness criteria may become complete by operation of law pursuant
to CAA 110(k)(1)(B) if EPA does not affirmatively determine that the
SIP submission is complete by ``the date 6 months after receipt of the
submission'' from the state. The submissions at issue in this rule
became complete by operation of law in October 2020 for ArcelorMittal
Plate LLC Coatesville, Boyertown Foundry Company, Texas Eastern
Transmission LP Lilly Station, and ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings,
LLC, and in August 2021 for INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia and
Grove US LLC Shady Grove Plant, six months after Pennsylvania made the
submissions because EPA did not make an affirmative determination of
completeness.\14\ It is unclear from the comment precisely what the
commenter believes are the repercussions of the alleged incompleteness;
to the extent it implies that the alleged incompleteness is a barrier
to EPA's proposed or final rule in this action, that belief is
incorrect, because these submissions are deemed complete by operation
of law. To the extent the comment implies that Appendix V and CAA
110(k)(1)(A) impose substantive approval criteria to require a
``demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards,
prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further
progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if
the plan is approved and implemented'' in this approval, EPA's
responses to Comments 3 and 6, that the record supporting EPA's
approval of PADEP's and ACHD's source-specific RACT II SIP revisions is
sufficient, and therefore EPA does not need to supplement the record.
As such, the comment's reference to EPA's inability to supplement the
record, and to Ober v. U.S. EPA, 84 F.3d 304, 312 (9th Cir. 1996), is
inapplicable to this action. Similarly, because EPA has determined that
the existing record supports this action, the comment's discussion of
the relative burden of providing any analysis beyond that already in
the record is not relevant to our final action in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ PADEP submitted the last of the original SIP revisions by
letters dated February 9, 2021. Therefore, all proposed SIP
revisions were complete by operation of law well before the March
17, 2022 (87 FR 15161) NPRM (although, PADEP submitted supplemental
materials for several facilities, these supplemental submittals did
not re-start the six-month completeness by-operation-of-law clock
set forth at CAA 110(k)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(B)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: CBD's final comment relates to the results from air
dispersion modeling of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the JBS Swift Beef
Company (JBS) facility in Colorado that they claim shows the potential
impact of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions on 1-hour NO<INF>X</INF> NAAQS
violations. The comment states that EPA or Pennsylvania must undertake
a modeling analysis to determine if the proposed CbC RACT II
determinations will cause or contribute to 2010 1-hour NO<INF>X</INF>
NAAQS violations. CBD asserts that EPA and Pennsylvania have the
responsibility for conducting the modeling to affirmatively demonstrate
that the SIP revision does not interfere with the NAAQS. Relatedly,
this comment indicates that EPA must repropose this action and allow
for comment on any such modeling information or other information
utilized in the demonstration that the NAAQS will be protected.
Response 6: With this rule action, EPA is only approving revisions
that add specific NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC source-specific RACT II
determinations to the Pennsylvania SIP. In the subject RACT II source-
specific determinations, PADEP and ACHD have made an adequate showing
that its source-specific determinations for individual sources at the
six facilities at issue will preserve the status quo in NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions. As described in the TSD and related documents, which are
included in the docket for this rule, PADEP and ACHD evaluated both the
technical and economic feasibility of various control equipment for
these sources and used that evaluation to determine the RACT II
requirements. PADEP and ACHD also considered the prior RACT I
requirements to determine whether the RACT II requirements were as
stringent as the previously established standards. In circumstances
where the RACT I requirements were more stringent, they were retained
and remain effective. EPA determined that PADEP and ACHD adequately
justified their RACT II CbC NO<INF>X</INF> determinations and
alternative NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits. EPA also concluded, under
section 110(l), that the status quo in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions had
been maintained, if not improved, and that there is no need to conduct
the modeling suggested by the comment. The record supporting EPA's
approval of PADEP's and ACHD's source-specific RACT II SIP revisions is
sufficient, there is no need to supplement the record, and the
comment's reference to EPA's inability to supplement the record is
inapplicable to this action.
The comment also included an air dispersion modeling analysis of
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the JBS facility in Colorado to highlight
an alleged potential of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to cause or contribute
to violations of the 2010 1-hour NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>2</INF> concentrations. In 2012, EPA designated
areas within Pennsylvania as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010
standard.\15\ The modeling analysis provided by the comment indicated
that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the JBS facility in Colorado could
have significant NO<INF>2</INF> impacts--the maximum NO<INF>2</INF>
concentration would occur within a 1-kilometer radius of the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 77 FR 9532 (February 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This modeling data analysis from Colorado does not trigger a need
for EPA, Pennsylvania, or ACHD to conduct modeling on the impact of
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from each individual source at issue in this
rule in order for EPA to approve these SIP revisions. First, as
discussed previously, modeling is not the sole method available to
satisfy section 110(l) requirements. Second, the differences in the
meteorology, terrain, and facility configurations between the JBS
facility and the Pennsylvania RACT II sources are too significant to
rely on the JBS facility modeling results to serve as surrogate
modeling indicating that the Pennsylvania RACT II sources have the
potential to cause exceedances of the 2010 1-hour NO<INF>X</INF> NAAQS
in Pennsylvania. The comment does not provide any comparison or
information to show why the JBS facility modeling results would inform
our analysis of the specific RACT II sources in Pennsylvania at issue
in this rule. Furthermore, the comment has not presented any specific
information suggesting the RACT II CbC NO<INF>X</INF> determinations or
alternative NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits for these specific sources
could somehow lead to violations of the 2010 1-hour NO<INF>X</INF>
NAAQS. Without a more specific
[[Page 50951]]
allegation from the comment about the sources in question, the
comment's allegations are too speculative in nature to prevent EPA from
approving PADEP's and ACHD's RACT II CbC NO<INF>X</INF> determinations
or alternative NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits for sources at the
subject facilities.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving case-by-case RACT determinations and/or
alternative NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits for sources at six
facilities in Pennsylvania, as required to meet obligations pursuant to
the 1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as revisions to the
Pennsylvania SIP.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of source-
specific RACT II permits listed in table 1 of this preamble. These
permits establish and require reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for certain sources at four major volatile organic compound
(VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NO<INF>X</INF>) emitting facilities and two
major volatile organic compound (VOC) emitting facilities. Entries for
two facilities with requirements incorporated by reference previously
under the RACT I rule are also revised to add new citations. EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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:
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
<bullet> 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
<bullet> Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit October 18, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action approving Pennsylvania's NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC
RACT requirements for six facilities for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide,Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania
0
2. In Sec. 52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries ``Lukens Steel Co.--Coatesville''; and
``Allegheny Ludlum Corporation--Brackenridge''; and
0
b. Adding entries at the end of the table for ``ArcelorMittal Plate LLC
Coatesville (formerly referenced as
[[Page 50952]]
Lukens Steel Co.--Coatesville)''; ``ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings,
LLC (formerly referenced as Allegheny Ludlum Corporation--
Brackenridge)''; ``Boyertown Foundry Company''; ``Grove US LLC Shady
Grove Plant''; ``INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia''; and ``Texas
Eastern Transmission LP Lilly Station''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
explanation/
State EPA approval Sec. Sec.
Name of source Permit No. County effective date 52.2063 and
date 52.2064
citations \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Lukens Steel Co.--Coatesville OP-15-0010 Chester............ 5/6/99 12/15/00,....... See also
65 FR 78418..... 52.2064(j)(1).
* * * * * * *
Allegheny Ludlum Corporation-- CO-260 Allegheny.......... 12/19/96 10/18/01,....... See also
Brackenridge. 66 FR 52851..... 52.2064(j)(2).
* * * * * * *
ArcelorMittal Plate LLC 15-00010 Chester............ 3/18/20 8/19/2022, 52.2064(j)(1).
Coatesville (formerly [insert Federal
referenced as Lukens Steel Register
Co.--Coatesville). citation].
ATI Flat Rolled Products 0059-I009a Allegheny.......... 12/3/20 8/19/2022, 52.2064(j)(2).
Holdings, LLC (formerly 0059-I008d 4/21/21 [insert Federal
referenced as Allegheny Register
Ludlum Corporation-- citation].
Brackenridge).
Boyertown Foundry Company.... 06-05063 Berks.............. 8/1/20 8/19/2022, 52.2064(j)(3).
[insert Federal
Register
citation].
Grove US LLC Shady Grove 28-05004 Franklin........... 1/1/21 8/19/2022, 52.2064(j)(4).
Plant. [insert Federal
Register
citation].
INDSPEC Chemical Corporation 10-00021 Butler............. 12/17/20 8/19/2022, 52.2064(j)(5).
Petrolia. [insert Federal
Register
citation].
Texas Eastern Transmission LP 11-00258 Cambria............ 12/10/21 8/19/2022, 52.2064(j)(6).
Lilly Station. [insert Federal
Register
citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The cross-references that are not Sec. 52.2064 are to material that pre-date the notebook format. For more
information, see Sec. 52.2063.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 52.2064 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2064 EPA-approved Source-Specific Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).
* * * * *
(j) Approval of source-specific RACT requirements for 1997 and/or
2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards for the
facilities listed in this paragraph are incorporated as specified.
(Rulemaking Docket No. EPA-OAR-2022-0165).
(1) ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Coatesville--Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 15-00010, effective March 18, 2020, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. 15-0010,
effective May 6, 1999, except for Conditions 18, 19, and 23-31 which
remain as RACT requirements. See also Sec. 52.2063(c)(143)(i)(B)(11),
for prior RACT approval.
(2) ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, LLC--Installation Permit No.
0059-I009a effective December 3, 2020 and Installation Permit No. 0059-
I008d effective April 21, 2021, as redacted by ACHD, which supersede
RACT Order 260, issued December 19, 1996 to Allegheny Ludlum
Corporation, except for conditions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.9, and 1.10.
(3) Boyertown Foundry Company--Incorporating by reference Permit
No. 06-05063, effective on August 1, 2020, as redacted by PADEP.
(4) Grove US LLC Shade Grove Plant--Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 28-05004, effective January 1, 2020, as redacted by
Pennsylvania.
(5) INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia--Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 10-00021, effective December 17, 2020, as redacted
by Pennsylvania. All permit conditions in the prior RACT Permit No.
#10-021, effective October 10, 1998, remain as RACT requirements. See
also Sec. 52.2063(c)(186)(i)(B)(2), for prior RACT approval.
(6) Texas Eastern Transmission LP Lilly Station--Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 11-00258, effective December 10, 2021 as redacted
by Pennsylvania.
[FR Doc. 2022-17448 Filed 8-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 19, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.