[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 240 (Monday, December 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80616-80626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23857]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0562; FRL-10014-11-Region 3]


Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Under the 2008 
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving two 
state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania. These revisions address certain reasonably available 
control technology (RACT) requirements, specifically those related to 
control technique guidelines (CTGs) for volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs) and the addition of regulations controlling VOC emissions from 
industrial cleaning solvents. These submissions are part of 
Pennsylvania's efforts to implement RACT for the 2008 ozone national 
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is approving these revisions 
to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0562. 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: David Talley, Planning & 
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2117. Mr. Talley can also be reached via electronic mail at 
talley.david@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 5, 2020, (85 FR 12877), EPA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the NPRM, 
EPA proposed approval of two SIP revisions which were submitted by the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and were 
intended to address RACT requirements for sources of VOC emissions 
required by section 184(b)(l)(B) of the CAA and the implementing 
regulations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015; 40 
CFR part 51, subpart AA). In addition, the submittals were intended to 
address certain parts of the finding EPA issued in 2017 that 
Pennsylvania failed to submit required SIP revisions. ``Findings of 
Failure to Submit State Implementation Plan Submittals for the 2008 
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' (82 FR 9158; February 
3, 2017). The formal SIP revisions were submitted by the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania on August 13, 2018.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    Pennsylvania's August 13, 2018 SIP submissions are intended to meet 
the RACT requirements for VOCs under section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA 
and the implementing regulations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS found at 40 
CFR part 51, subpart AA. These submittals are discussed in detail in 
sections II.A. and B. of this preamble. Additional

[[Page 80617]]

information can be found in the NPRM and in EPA's Technical Support 
Document (TSD) in the docket for this action.

A. Pennsylvania's RACT Certification of CTGs and Request To Incorporate 
New Source Performance Standards Into the SIP

    The first submittal is entitled: ``Certification of Reasonably 
Available Control Technology for Control Techniques Guidelines Under 
the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Incorporation 
of 25 Pa Code Chapter 122 (Relating to National Standards of 
Performance for New Stationary Sources) into the Commonwealth's State 
Implementation Plan.'' This submittal: (1) Certifies that PADEP's 
adoption and implementation of regulations to control VOC emissions is 
consistent with EPA's CTGs and therefore represents RACT for these 
covered CTG sources for the 2008 ozone standard; (2) incorporates 25 
Pa. Code Chapter 122 (relating to national standards of performance for 
new stationary sources) into the Pennsylvania SIP and certifies that 
those provisions represent RACT for certain facilities subject to such 
standards of performance; and (3) incorporates specific permit 
conditions for certain facilities for the purpose of establishing 
source-specific RACT-level controls for those facilities.
1. CTGs
    PADEP developed regulations consistent with each CTG addressed by 
the submittal and has determined that each represents RACT for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS. A list of the CTGs for which Pennsylvania has adopted 
regulations that PADEP considered in making this determination is found 
in Table 1, beginning on page 12 of the August 13, 2018 submittal. 
PADEP based this certification on the following: (1) Certification that 
Pennsylvania's regulations meet the CAA RACT requirements, are based on 
the most currently available technically and economically feasible 
controls, and represent RACT for implementation purposes pertaining to 
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) certification that PADEP has adopted 
and implemented provisions or regulations addressing applicable EPA CTG 
source categories and that these provisions or regulations represent 
RACT control levels or control levels more stringent than RACT under 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS; (3) certification that PADEP has implemented all 
CTG RACT controls indicated in this SIP revision, based on the EPA's 
guidance and standards, and that they represent current RACT control 
levels under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and (4) certification that 
PADEP has determined that there is a CTG source category for which it 
has made a negative declaration because there are no existing sources 
for RACT purposes in Pennsylvania.
    PADEP has determined that there are no sources in Pennsylvania 
(excluding Philadelphia County and Allegheny County) covered by EPA's 
CTG ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large 
Petroleum Dry Cleaners,'' (EPA-450/3-82-009; September 1982) and 
therefore submitted a negative declaration for that CTG source type.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In Pennsylvania, the SIP program is implemented primarily by 
PADEP, but also by local air agencies in Philadelphia County (the 
City of Philadelphia Air Management Services (AMS)) and Allegheny 
County (Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD)). EPA has 
previously approved SIP submittals addressing CTG requirements for 
AMS and ACHD. See 84 FR 56946; October 24, 2019 and 84 FR 18736; May 
2, 2019, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Incorporation by Reference of New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS)
    Pennsylvania has incorporated by reference and therefore adopted 
all of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) promulgated by EPA 
under section 111 of the CAA and found at 40 CFR part 60. 25 Pa. Code 
122. PADEP determined that for certain source categories, the Federal 
requirements of 40 CFR part 60--Standards of Performance for New 
Stationary Sources, provide RACT level control. PADEP has submitted 25 
Pa. Code 122 for inclusion into the SIP. PADEP's August 13, 2018 
submittal specifically cites the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts NNN (relating to synthetic organic chemical manufacturing 
industry (``SOCMI'') distillation operations), RRR (relating to SOCMI 
reactor processes), and subparts KKK, OOOO, and OOOOa (relating to 
natural gas processing facilities), and certifies that the requirements 
of these NSPS constitute VOC RACT for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the 
affected source categories.
    EPA's CTG entitled ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 
from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations Processes in the 
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, EPA-450/4/-91-031, 
August 1993'' provides that the NSPS requirements of subparts NNN and 
RRR meet the RACT level controls recommended by the CTG. The required 
control efficiency of the CTG (98% destruction by weight, or 20 parts 
per million by volume (ppmv) dry basis, corrected to 3% oxygen) is the 
same as required by the NSPS.\2\ Essentially, any process vent that is 
controlled with a combustion device to meet the requirements of the 
NSPS would meet the RACT recommendations of the CTG. PADEP identified 
five facilities subject to subparts NNN and RRR. Four of these are 
subject to control requirements, while one is subject only to record 
keeping requirements based on a de minimis emissions exemption, 
consistent with the CTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 40 CFR 60.662 and 60.702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25 Pa. Code 122 also incorporates the Federal NSPS requirements of 
40 CFR part 60 subparts KKK, OOOO, OOOOa, and the cross-referenced 
equipment leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements of subparts VV 
and VVa. The NSPS requirements from subpart KKK are equivalent to the 
1983 CTG for the oil and natural gas industry (1983 CTG).\3\ Subparts 
OOOO and OOOOa incorporate the requirements of subpart KKK. PADEP 
provided a comparison between the applicable provisions of the NSPS and 
EPA's 1983 CTG.\4\ Based on this comparison, PADEP has determined that 
the NSPS rules in 40 CFR part 60, subparts KKK, OOOO, and OOOOa, with 
cross references to subparts VV and VVa, are at least as stringent as 
the requirements in the 1983 CTG for this source category. Therefore, 
the Federal NSPS provisions applicable to all of Pennsylvania's current 
natural gas processing facility sources are sufficient to meet the 
requirements of the 1983 Oil and Natural Gas CTG for purposes of the 
2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA notes that PADEP's August 13, 2018 submittal did 
not address EPA's ``Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and 
Natural Gas Industry, EPA-453/B-16-001, October 2016,'' (2016 Oil and 
Gas CTG). Nothing in this action is intended to speak to SIP 
obligations related to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural 
Gas Industry, EPA-453/B-16-001, October 2016, Section 8.3.2.1. pp. 
8-12, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/2016-ctg-oil-and-gas.pdf.
    \4\ See Appendix F of PADEP's August 13, 2018 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Incorporation of Source Specific Permit Limits
    PADEP found only two sources covered by the ``Shipbuilding/Repair 
ACT (EPA 453/R-94-032, April 1994)'' and the EPA's ``CTG for 
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating) (61 FR 44050, 
August 27, 1996)'' and one source subject to ``Control of Volatile 
Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic 
Organic Chemical

[[Page 80618]]

Manufacturing Industry, EPA-450/3-84-015, December 1984'' (SOCMI CTG). 
Rather than promulgate a rule to address the RACT requirements of those 
two CTGs for only three affected sources, PADEP has incorporated the 
control requirements of the CTGs into Federally enforceable permits and 
submitted the applicable permit terms for incorporation into the SIP.
    Redacted versions of Permit Nos. 25-00930 (Donjon Shipbuilding) and 
26-00545 (Heartland Fabrication) were submitted for incorporation into 
the Commonwealth's SIP. Generally, the control strategy is to limit the 
VOC content of the coatings and materials used. The relevant portions 
of the permits are consistent with the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 
Operations (Surface coating) CTG and satisfy the RACT requirements for 
these sources. A redacted version of Permit No. 39-00024 (Geo. 
Specialty Chem. Trimet Div.) was also submitted for incorporation into 
the SIP. PADEP certified that this is the only source that falls within 
the SOCMI CTG. Pursuant to that CTG, ``It is recommended that air 
oxidation facilities for which an existing combustion device is 
employed to control process VOC emissions should not be required to 
meet the 98 percent emissions limit until the combustion device is 
replaced for other reasons. In other words, no facility would be 
required to upgrade or replace an existing control device.'' \5\ PADEP 
determined that the facility's formaldehyde process and catalytic 
incinerator were installed in 1980, before the December 1984 
applicability date of the CTG. PADEP further determined that neither 
the process nor the control device have been modified since the 1980 
installation date. PADEP therefore certified that the existing control 
strategy and emission limitations in the permit constitute RACT for 
this particular source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from 
Air Oxidation Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry, EPA, 450/3-84-015, December 1984,'' Page 4-
1, available at: https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ctgact/198412vocepa4503-84-015airoxidationprocesses.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory Revisions Related to VOCs and NOX RACT

    The changes proposed by PADEP in this second submittal, entitled 
``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Industrial 
Cleaning Solvents; General Provisions; Aerospace Manufacturing and 
Rework; Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of 
NOX and VOCs,'' (2006 ICS CTG) include: (1) The addition of 
25 Pa. Code 129.63a (relating to the control of VOCs from industrial 
cleaning solvents (ICS)); (2) amendments to 25 Pa. Code sections 121.1 
and 129.51 (definitions and ``general'' provisions, respectively) in 
order to support the addition and implementation of section 129.63a; 
(3) a correction to the VOC emission limit table in 25 Pa. Code section 
129.73 (relating to aerospace manufacturing and re-work); and (4) 
amendments to 25 Pa. Code sections 129.96, 129.97, 129.99, and 129.100 
to clarify certain requirements and to update the list of exemptions 
under RACT II because of previously adopted presumptive VOC RACT 
regulations.
    PADEP determined that the recommendations in EPA's 2006 ICS CTG are 
technically and economically feasible for sources in this source 
category, and developed section 129.63a to adopt the relevant limits of 
the 2006 ICS CTG to implement VOC RACT for sources subject to this CTG 
in Pennsylvania. Pursuant to section 129.63a(a), the regulation applies 
to owners/operators of facilities in which industrial cleaning solvents 
are ``used or applied in a cleaning activity at a cleaning unit 
operation, a work production-related work area, or a part, product, 
tool, machinery, equipment, vessel, floor or wall.'' Facilities are 
subject to section 129.63a if the combined actual emissions of VOCs 
from all subject cleaning operations exceed 2.7 tons in any 12-month 
rolling period, before consideration of controls.
    As previously discussed, EPA recently approved sections 129.96, 
129.97, and 129.100, and conditionally approved sections 129.98 and 
129.99 as part of the May 9, 2019 final action related to 
Pennsylvania's RACT II regulations.\6\ The RACT II Rule applies 
statewide to existing major NOX and/or VOC sources in 
Pennsylvania, except those subject to other Pennsylvania regulations, 
as specified in 25 Pa. Code 129.96(a)-(b). The emission limits and 
substantive requirements of sections 129.96, 129.97, 129.99, and 
129.100 were not amended. Other specific requirements of PADEP's August 
13, 2018 submittals and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are 
explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 84 FR 20274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Response to Comments Received

    EPA received five sets of relevant comments on the March 5, 2020 
NPRM (85 FR 12877). All comments received are in the docket for this 
action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided 
herein.
    The first set of comments raised concerns about EPA's proposed 
approval based generally on the adequacy of PADEP's analysis of CTG 
RACT, and specifically on the analysis for natural gas processing 
plants.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Comments 1 and 2 of this preamble, were submitted jointly on 
behalf of multiple groups. Therefore, responses 1 and 2 of this 
preamble refer to ``commenters'' in plural.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 1: The commenters first allege that PADEP's analysis is 
flawed because it hinges upon a determination that Pennsylvania's VOC 
controls are ``. . . at least as stringent as'' the CTGs. The 
commenters assert that equivalency with the CTGs is not the test that 
must be passed in a RACT analysis, but rather a starting point. The 
commenters contend that although CTGs are presumptive norms, EPA is not 
required to defer to states' reliance on them, nor do CTGs create a 
rebuttable presumption for the public to overcome. The commenters also 
take issue with PADEP's assertion that they are unaware of changes in 
control technology significant enough to generate different results in 
a RACT analysis. The commenters assert that it is not enough to be 
unaware, and further, that it is not the public's responsibility to 
raise such awareness. Additionally, the commenters assert that the 
absence of information regarding PADEP's review process makes it 
impossible to determine whether the submittal meets RACT requirements, 
and whether EPA properly reviewed the submittal in accordance with CAA 
sections 110(k)(3) and 110(l). Further, the commenters assert that RACT 
analyses are supposed to be ``technology forcing,'' and that it is 
implausible that a thorough and proper analysis of all forty-three 
CTGs, especially the very old ones, would find that they continue to 
represent RACT for the affected sources. Finally, the commenters assert 
that EPA has failed its statutory duty under CAA section 183(b) to 
review and revise the CTGs and must do so, particularly if limited 
state resources are to be considered a legitimate reason for failing to 
perform a more thorough analysis.
    Response 1: States have primary responsibility for ensuring air 
quality within their jurisdictions by submitting SIPs that specify the 
manner by which the NAAQS will be achieved and maintained. Under the 
CAA, EPA is tasked with developing CTGs containing recommended 
presumptive RACT-level controls for certain categories of VOC sources, 
see CAA sections 108 and 183, while states with Moderate or above 
nonattainment areas or located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) are

[[Page 80619]]

tasked with ensuring that sources subject to those CTGs adopt RACT-
level controls for VOCs. As EPA stated in 1979 ``. . . each CTG 
contains recommendations to the States of what EPA calls the 
``presumptive norm'' for RACT, based on EPA's current evaluation of the 
capabilities and problems general to the industry.'' State 
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on 
Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas--Supplement (On 
Control Techniques Guidelines), 44 FR 53761, 53762 (September 17, 1979) 
(hereafter CTG Supplement). The CTG Supplement then states ``[f]or 
emission limitations that are consistent with the information in the 
CTGs, therefore, the State may be able to rely solely on the 
information in the CTG to support its determination that the adopted 
requirements represent RACT.'' For emission limitations that are not 
consistent with the CTGs, ``EPA believes that the State must submit 
justification of its own, to support its determination.'' Id. at 53762.
    It is still EPA's view that CTGs represent the presumptive norm for 
RACT. In the October 20, 2016 memo entitled ``Implementing [RACT] 
Requirements for Sources Covered by the 2016 Control Techniques 
Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industries,'' EPA reiterated 
that ``[t]he recommended controls in the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG are the 
`presumptive norm' based on general industry parameters and published 
assumptions.'' Memo, p.2.8 9 EPA has consistently made this 
claim that CTGs represent the presumptive norms for RACT. See Control 
of VOC Emissions from Coating Operations at Aerospace manufacturing and 
Rework Operations, (October 1996), p. 1-1; Control of [VOC] Emissions 
from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations (April 1996), pp. 1-1 to 
1-2.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The memo can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/implementing_reasonably_available_control_technology_requirements_for_sources_covered_by_the_2016_control_techniques_guidelines_for_the_oil_and_natural_gas_industry.pdf (last accessed July 7, 2020).
    \9\ See 85 FR 12877, March 5, 2020.
    \10\ These and other CTGs can be found at https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/control-techniques-guidelines-and-alternative-control-techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS allows an 
approach ``. . .where states should refer to the existing CTGs and ACTs 
for purposes of meeting their RACT requirements, as well as all 
relevant information (including recent technical information and 
information received during the public comment period).'' \11\ The 2008 
Ozone Implementation Rule also allowed states to conclude that CTG and 
ACT sources already addressed by RACT determinations for the 1-hour 
and/or 1997 ozone NAAQS do not need to implement additional controls to 
meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS RACT requirement, ``. . . because the 
fundamental control techniques, as described in the CTGs and ACTs, are 
still applicable.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 80 FR 12279, March 6, 2015.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the absence of contrary information, Pennsylvania can rely on 
the equivalency of its existing CTG implementation regulations with the 
recommended RACT controls in the CTGs. If Pennsylvania has determined 
that their existing RACT-level controls for sources covered by certain 
CTGs are equivalent to controls recommended in the CTGs, and in the 
absence of countervailing information, Pennsylvania's determination is 
entitled to a certain amount of deference. If the state adopts a level 
of VOC control less than the recommended CTG level of VOC control, then 
the state must provide information supporting its determination that 
the CTG RACT level controls are not technically or economically 
feasible, and EPA must determine if that deviation is justified. 
Pennsylvania has not indicated that it is deviating from CTG levels of 
control for any of the sources currently subject to CTGs within its 
jurisdiction, and the commenters have not submitted any specific 
information suggesting otherwise for any CTG except the 1983 Oil and 
Gas CTG.
    The commenters also claim that Pennsylvania must do more than be 
``unaware'' of new control technologies by affirmatively searching for 
information about such technologies. However, Pennsylvania did conduct 
an assessment of the NSPS and NESHAPs applicable to CTG sources that 
could have shown new technological developments. As noted by the 
commenters, Section 6 of PADEP's submittal discusses the process that 
it followed to evaluate whether the regulations Pennsylvania adopted to 
implement the CTGs still contain RACT-level controls consistent with 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The submittal states: ``PADEP staff began the 
certification process by reviewing the CAA RACT requirements and CTG 
recommendations, followed by the review of additional guidance or 
regulations currently implemented for the affected VOC sources, 
including but not limited to, EPA's Available Control Technology (ACT) 
documents, Federal NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, and National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants in 40 CFR part 63 for the 
applicable source categories.'' While PADEP did not explicitly state 
that it researched the availability of new VOC control technologies for 
sources subject to CTGs, a review of the NSPS and NESHAPS applicable to 
CTG-covered sources would likely turn up any new control technologies 
available for VOCs or control of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), some 
of which are also VOCs (e.g benzene, toulene, formaldehyde). See CAA 
section 112(b), 40 CFR 51.100(s).
    Furthermore, while it is not necessarily the public's job to make 
Pennsylvania aware of new control technologies, EPA notes that an 
important reason for providing the opportunity for public comment at 
both the state and Federal level is to give the public and stakeholders 
the opportunity to identify technologies or control methods that the 
state or Federal government has not considered. Other than the 1983 Oil 
and Gas CTG, the commenters have not provided specific information 
challenging the recommended RACT level of controls in the other CTGs 
which Pennsylvania is certifying as still meeting the RACT requirements 
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Also, PADEP, as the primary CAA enforcement 
and permitting entity within most of Pennsylvania, is well-positioned 
to be aware of whether new control technologies exist which could be 
used by the many varied sources it regulates. In the absence of 
information provided by the commenters showing that there are new 
technologies available to control VOCs at the sources covered by the 
CTGs, and in light of Pennsylvania's statement that it reviewed the 
NSPS and NESHAPs applicable to CTG sources, EPA will not second-guess 
the validity of Pennsylvania's search effort.
    Regarding the assertion that RACT must be ``technology forcing,'' 
EPA notes that RACT limits are not meant to be the lowest achievable 
emissions rate for each particular source. Rather, since the 1970's, 
EPA has consistently defined ``RACT'' as the lowest emission limit that 
a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of the 
control technology that is reasonably available considering 
technological and economic feasibility. 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,''

[[Page 80620]]

and 44 FR 53761 at 53762 (September 17, 1979). As noted in this long-
standing definition, technical and economic feasibility must also be 
considered when assessing whether a new technology should be adopted as 
the presumptive norm of RACT level control for CTG sources. After 
reciting the above definition of RACT, the Strelow memo goes on to 
state: ``Thus, RACT encompasses stringent, or even `technology 
forcing,' requirement that goes beyond simple `off-the-shelf' 
technology.'' Strelow Memo, p. 2.\13\ In the paragraph following this 
statement, the Strelow memo also states that other factors should be 
considered in determining RACT: ``The determination of RACT and the 
corresponding emission rate, ensuring the proper application and 
operation of RACT, may vary from source to source due to source 
configuration, retrofit feasibility, operation procedures, raw 
materials, and other technical or economic characteristics of an 
individual source or group of sources.'' Id. Thus, RACT is not 
necessarily a ``one-size-fits-all'' technology. The commenter quotes 
the following from EPA's discussion of RACT in the 1977 CAA amendments 
``In many cases appropriate controls would be more or less stringent.'' 
See Comment of Air Law for All, p. 6, citing EPA's CTG Supplement, 44 
FR 53761, 53762 (September 17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ On August 27, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals 
issued a decision in Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA, et al., No. 19-2562, 
which struck down EPA's approval of certain provisions of 
Pennsylvania's RACT II SIP related to existing Electric Generating 
Units equipped with Selective Catalytic Reduction for the reduction 
of Oxides of Nitrogen. In that ruling, the Court pointed to the 
``technology forcing'' language of the Strelow memo incorporated 
with EPA's longstanding definition of RACT as ``the lowest emission 
limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the 
application of control technology that is reasonably available 
considering technological and economic feasibility.'' Opinion at 
p.5. Thus, the court affirmed EPA's longstanding approach to 
analyzing RACT, that is to determine what is technologically and 
economically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's role is to review the SIP or SIP revision. EPA cannot 
disapprove of state regulations that form a SIP or SIP revision because 
EPA decides that the regulations are not stringent enough, as long as 
the SIP meets the CAA requirements. The commenters assert that it is 
``implausible'' that a thorough review of all 43 CTGs would find that 
all still meet RACT requirements for the affected sources, and that 
PADEP and EPA have neglected to look for information to the contrary. 
However, with the exception of the 1983 Oil and Gas CTG discussed under 
``Response 2,'' the commenters have not provided any available 
information allegedly overlooked or ignored by PADEP, nor identified 
any applicable CAA requirements lacking in PADEP's submittal and EPA's 
proposed approval.
    EPA also does not agree that Pennsylvania's submittal lacked enough 
information to determine whether Pennsylvania's current regulations 
still meet RACT requirements. As noted by the commenters, Section 6 of 
PADEP's submittal discusses the process that it used to evaluate 
whether the regulations Pennsylvania adopted to implement the CTGs 
still contain RACT-level controls consistent with the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 
The submittal states: ``PADEP staff began the certification process by 
reviewing the CAA RACT requirements and CTG recommendations, followed 
by the review of additional guidance or regulations currently 
implemented for the affected VOC sources, including but not limited to, 
EPA's Available Control Technology (ACT) documents, Federal NSPS in 40 
CFR part 60, and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants in 40 CFR part 63 for the applicable source categories. Each 
regulation adopted by Pennsylvania has been evaluated against 
applicable CTGs, and were found to continue to meet RACT for the 
applicable source categories.'' Table 1 in the submittal then lists 
each CTG and the citation for the Pennsylvania regulation adopted to 
implement each CTG, with a brief description of how the CTG limits 
emissions of VOCs. This allows for a straight-forward comparison of 
Pennsylvania's adopted regulation with the presumptive RACT set forth 
in the applicable CTG or CTGs. Again, the commenters also did not 
identify new technologies or updated limits that should have been 
considered for any CTG other than the 1983 Oil and Gas CTG. 
Pennsylvania's failure to ``show [its'] work'' did not in this instance 
prevent the commenters from doing its own work (i.e. search for newer 
control technologies) in response.
    Finally, with regard to the commenters' claim that EPA has failed 
to comply with its statutory obligation under CAA section 183(b) to 
review and revise the CTGs, EPA notes that this comment is beyond the 
scope of this action. EPA's role in this action is to review the SIP 
submitted by Pennsylvania and, if it meets the applicable requirements 
of the CAA, approve the SIP. See CAA section 110(k)(3) (``In the case 
of any submittal on which the Administrator is required to act. . ., 
the Administrator shall approve such submittal as a whole if it meets 
all of the applicable requirements of this chapter.''). If the 
commenters believe that EPA has an outstanding obligation to review and 
revise existing CTGs, the commenters may petition the Agency to do so.
    EPA evaluated PADEP's submittal, as described in the NPRM, and 
reiterated in this document. In accordance with CAA section 110(l), EPA 
believes approval of the August 13, 2018 submittal will not interfere 
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and/or reasonable 
further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirements. The net 
effect of the continued operation of controls already implemented in 
accordance with the CTGs, the addition of new controls via the newly 
adopted permit requirements, and the newly adopted CTG for Industrial 
Cleaning Solvents, will be to maintain the current level of reduction 
of VOCs for many sources while reducing VOC emissions from newly 
covered sources. Therefore, EPA asserts that approval of this 
certification for section 182(b)(2) will not interfere with attainment 
or reasonable further progress for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or any other 
identified CAA requirement. For these reasons, EPA disagrees with the 
commenters and is finalizing approval of PADEP's submittal, in 
accordance with CAA section 110(k)(3).
    Comment 2: The commenters assert that EPA's 2008 ozone 
implementation rule required that states refer to existing CTGs and 
alternative control techniques (ACTs) for purposes of meeting their 
RACT requirements, as well as all relevant information available at the 
time they are developing the SIP. The commenters allege that PADEP 
failed to evaluate a number of available control technologies or 
strategies related to leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements at 
natural gas processing facilities, instead relying on a conclusory 
determination that applicable new source performance standards (NSPS) 
are at least as stringent as the requirements of the 1983 CTG.\14\ The 
commenters point out that PADEP's submittal identifies fourteen natural 
gas processing facilities subject to VOC RACT under the 1983 CTG. Ten 
of these are older gas processing plants that are also subject to the 
NSPS of 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK (and thus the LDAR requirements of 
subpart VV, which is incorporated by reference into subpart KKK), by 
the applicability criteria of subpart KKK. The other four are newer gas 
processing plants that are subject to NSPS OOOO because they were 
constructed or

[[Page 80621]]

reconstructed after August 23, 2011, which is one of the applicability 
criteria for subpart OOOO. Subpart OOOO incorporates by reference the 
more stringent LDAR requirements of subpart VVa. The commenters assert 
that EPA should disapprove PADEP's submittal because they did not 
evaluate whether applying the LDAR requirements of VVa to the older 
facilities was cost effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from 
natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants;'' EPA-450/3-83-007; December 
1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, because EPA initially evaluated the cost effectiveness 
of subparts VV and VVa as part of the best system of emissions 
reduction (BSER) analysis for the NSPS, then re-evaluated cost-
effectiveness as part of the promulgation of subpart OOOO, and did so 
again for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, the commenters contend that the 
LDAR requirements of VVa are ``available,'' and should have been 
evaluated for control of VOCs at the ten older facilities. The 
commenters further assert that although the cost analysis performed 
during the promulgation of subpart OOOO only addressed new/
reconstructed sources, there are no retrofit costs associated with the 
older plants switching from following VV to following VVa, and 
therefore VVa should have been considered and required for the older 
facilities.
    The commenters also identify the Texas Commission on Environmental 
Quality's (TCEQ) ``28LAER'' program as being an additional available 
control technology which could and should have been evaluated by PADEP. 
Additionally, the commenters note that the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG 
identifies optical gas imaging (OGI) as an alternate work practice 
which is another available control option, but PADEP failed to consider 
OGI in its analysis.
    To support their argument that the LDAR program required by VVa is 
both available and economically reasonable, the commenters performed a 
cost effectiveness analysis and determined that VVa's cost of removal 
is $3766/ton of VOC removed. The commenters assert that EPA determined 
in the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG that $4400-$5000/ton of VOC removed was 
reasonable, and that DEP's own analysis in their 2006 RACT submittal 
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS determined that $3000-$5000/ton was 
reasonable. Therefore, the commenters assert that the LDAR requirements 
of VVa are technically and economically reasonable and should have been 
evaluated and applied. In sum, the commenters assert that PADEP's 
submittal fails to adequately justify its RACT determination and should 
therefore be disapproved.
    Finally, the commenters identify an error in EPA's approval of 
PADEP's 2006 VOC RACT submittal as it pertains to natural gas 
processing plants. PADEP's 2006 RACT submittal included a negative 
declaration that there were no sources covered by the 1983 CTG, but the 
commenters allege that PADEP's 2018 submittal identifies six plants 
that were constructed before 2006 and therefore subject. Additionally, 
EPA didn't approve the submittal until 2017, by which time all 14 
plants had been constructed. The commenters assert that EPA must now 
correct that error. To the extent EPA believes this is beyond the 
scope, the commenters state that this comment should be considered a 
petition under section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedures Act 
(APA).
    Response 2: As clearly stated in the NPRM for this SIP, 
Pennsylvania's SIP submission is only certifying for the 1983 Oil and 
Gas CTG, and is not intended to be a certification for the 2016 Oil and 
Gas CTG.\15\ 85 FR 12877, 12880, March 5, 2020. This has two 
ramifications. First, when developing this SIP submission, Pennsylvania 
only evaluated whether existing natural gas processing plants were 
meeting the recommended RACT standards of the 1983 CTG. Nothing in 
Pennsylvania's SIP submission claims to address whether these plants 
meet the control levels recommended by the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. 
Pennsylvania has published a proposed regulation to address the 2016 
Oil and Gas CTG, and the proposal states that when the regulation is 
final, it will be submitted to EPA as a revision to the State's SIP. 50 
Pa B. 2633 (May 23, 2020). The second ramification is that EPA does not 
have before it in this SIP the question of whether these natural gas 
processing plants have adopted the RACT level controls recommended in 
the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. Therefore, nothing in EPA's action on this 
SIP should be interpreted as a decision concerning the adequacy of 
Pennsylvania's future SIP submittal(s) for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``EPA notes that PADEP's August 13, 2018 submittal did not 
address EPA's `Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural 
Gas Industry, EPA-453/B-16-001, October 2016,' (2016 Oil and Gas 
CTG). EPA is, therefore, not proposing action on the submittal in 
relation to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.'' 85 FR 12877, 12880, March 5, 
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG explicitly states that it 
replaces the 1983 Oil & Gas CTG. Section 8 of the CTG, entitled 
``Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas Processing Plants,'' says: ``This 
CTG and the recommended RACT included in this CTG replaces the 
following: Guideline Series. Control of Volatile Organic Compound 
Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants. December 
1983. EPA-450/3-83-007.'' 2016 Oil & Gas CTG, p.8-1. At the time 
Pennsylvania submitted this SIP in August 2018, the 1983 Oil and Gas 
CTG had been superseded by the 2016 CTG, but Pennsylvania had not yet 
adopted new regulations for the 2016 CTG. Given those circumstances, 
Pennsylvania decided to certify for the 1983 CTG rather than include no 
certification at all for natural gas processing plants.
    The main concern of the commenters seems to be that in certifying 
for the 1983 CTG, Pennsylvania should have evaluated other and newer 
sources of information, including the 2016 CTG, in order to determine 
whether the control measures in the 1983 CTG still constitute RACT 
levels of control. However, EPA already has done much of this work in 
updating the 2016 CTG, and Pennsylvania is not certifying in its SIP 
submission that the control measures they have in place for the 1983 
CTG meet the 2016 CTG. Moreover, when Pennsylvania submitted this SIP, 
an updated SIP addressing the 2016 CTG was not yet due because the 2016 
CTG gave affected states two years from the date of publication of the 
2016 CTG (October 27, 2016, 81 FR 74798) to submit a SIP addressing the 
CTG. Therefore, EPA thinks that these concerns and comments are better 
directed to Pennsylvania's future SIP submission(s) for the 2016 Oil 
and Gas CTG and any certification contained therein for the purpose of 
meeting section 182(b)(2) of the CAA. Asking Pennsylvania to re-
evaluate RACT level controls for the oil and gas industry in this SIP 
submittal, for the purpose of certifying for a superseded 1983 CTG, 
seems like an unnecessary exercise for the state, and EPA declines to 
require it as part of our consideration of this SIP.
    In reaching this conclusion, EPA is not drawing any further 
conclusions about other claims made by the commenters, such as what the 
2008 ozone implementation rule requires, whether newer leak detection 
and repair (LDAR) technologies are available for gas processing plants, 
the cost-effectiveness of applying NSPS subpart VVa to older gas 
processing plants, or the cost analysis submitted by the commenters. 
EPA is merely saying that in the context of the specific facts of 
Pennsylvania's certification for the 1983 Oil and Gas CTG, it does not 
make sense to analyze these issues until Pennsylvania submits its SIP 
revision addressing the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. At that time, the issues 
identified by the commenters should be addressed in Pennsylvania's SIP 
submission, and if not addressed, raised again by the

[[Page 80622]]

commenters in any action EPA takes to approve that SIP.
    The commenters' concern that many of the CTGs have not been 
reviewed and updated for many years is noted, but this concern for the 
1983 Oil and Gas CTG has been addressed by EPA with the 2016 CTG, and 
PADEP is in the process of updating its regulations to address the 2016 
CTG. PADEP submitted this revision with the intention of meeting the 
requirements of the old CTG. EPA notes that PADEP has published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking in order to adopt the requirements of the 
2016 CTG.\16\ When the provisions of that action are effective and 
submitted to EPA as a revision to the SIP, they will be evaluated for 
consistency with the 2016 CTG and RACT. In the meantime, EPA is 
finalizing approval of the August 13, 2018 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ http://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pabull?file=/secure/pabulletin/data/vol50/50-21/684.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the commenters' assertion that EPA must correct the 
erroneous approval of a 2006 submittal from PADEP, that is beyond the 
scope of this action, which is only evaluating whether the particular 
provisions of Pennsylvania's August 13, 2018 SIP meet the requirements 
of the CAA. Nevertheless, EPA acknowledges that, based on the 
information in Table A1 of Appendix A in Pennsylvania's August 13, 2008 
submittal, EPA's 2017 approval of Pennsylvania's negative declaration 
for the 1983 Oil and Gas CTG under the 1997 ozone NAAQS may have been 
in error.\17\ According to Table A1, there were six sources which were 
constructed prior to Pennsylvania's September 25, 2006 submittal, but 
for which PADEP declared that there were no sources subject to the 1983 
Oil and Gas CTG. However, EPA disagrees that the remedy for this error 
is to now disapprove the 2006 submittal with respect to 1983 CTG RACT 
requirements for natural gas processing plants. The sources at issue 
did not escape regulation, and were subject to the same RACT level 
controls via the NSPS which Pennsylvania has certified are consistent 
with the 1983 CTG. Even if EPA were now to disapprove PADEP's 2006 
submittal, the remedy would be for Pennsylvania to acknowledge that 
those sources existed in 2006, and that they are subject to RACT level 
controls consistent with the 1983 CTG, which they have already done in 
their August 13, 2018 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 82 FR 31464, July 7, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: The commenter expresses uncertainty and sought 
clarification on the interplay between the CTGs and the NSPS, 
specifically as it pertains to applicability. The commenter asks 
whether PADEP's reliance on NSPS requirements to implement RACT for 
certain CTG categories has the effect of applying NSPS requirements to 
any source subject to such a CTG, regardless of the effective date of 
the NSPS, or whether the source had undergone modifications.
    Response 3: NSPS are Federal regulations that are applicable to 
sources nationwide, regardless of an area's status with respect to an 
ozone NAAQS or whether the state has adopted the NSPS as part of its 
SIP. In some cases, such as with subpart KKK discussed previously, EPA 
and some states (including Pennsylvania) have determined that the 
control requirements of a particular NSPS are both equivalent to the 
control requirements of a particular CTG and constitute RACT-level 
controls. A source that is subject to the CTG can therefore meet RACT 
control requirements by meeting the NSPS control requirements, and the 
state can meet its obligation under CAA section 182(b)(2) for that 
particular CTG so long as the NSPS is incorporated into the SIP (as 
Pennsylvania is doing here). In the case where the NSPS control 
requirements also constitute RACT for the CTG sources, if all sources 
subject to the particular CTG in the state are also subject to the NSPS 
(that is, meet all the applicability criteria for the NSPS and are in 
compliance), then the state would not have to adopt separate, stand-
alone regulations to implement the CTG requirements because these 
sources would already be meeting RACT via the NSPS. As discussed in 
Section II of this preamble, and in response to Comment 2, PADEP 
identified all sources which were subject to the 1983 Oil and Gas CTG, 
identified the various NSPS provisions to which each source is already 
subject, and determined that the NSPS control requirements are at least 
as stringent as the controls required by the 1983 CTG, which are 
presumed to be RACT-level controls. Similarly, PADEP identified all 
sources to which EPA's CTG entitled ``Control of Volatile Organic 
Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations 
Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, 
EPA-450/4/-91-031, August 1993'' apply, and identified how the NSPS 
requirements applicable to those same sources are at least as stringent 
as the CTG, which are presumed to be RACT-level controls. PADEP's 
incorporation by reference of the NSPS, and the incorporation of 25 Pa 
Code 122 into the Pennsylvania SIP, does not confer NSPS applicability 
upon sources that are otherwise not subject to that NSPS because the 
source does not meet the applicability criteria of the NSPS. Rather, 
PADEP has determined that all of the sources subject to the 1983 Oil 
and Gas CTG, and the SOCMI CTG are also currently subject to NSPS 
provisions, and that these NSPS control requirements are at least 
equivalent to RACT level controls. The incorporation of 25 Pa 122 into 
the SIP is the vehicle through which PADEP and EPA are ensuring that 
the Pennsylvania SIP contains federally enforceable RACT control 
measures for the subject sources. Incorporation of the NSPS into the 
SIP does not mean that when a source covered by a CTG is exempt from a 
NSPS due to, for example, being constructed before the NSPS 
applicability date, that source is automatically subject to the NSPS. 
In that instance, Pennsylvania would need to find another mechanism for 
incorporating Federally enforceable RACT level control measures into 
the SIP, such as adopting a stand-alone regulation (as Pennsylvania did 
with 25 Pa Code 29.163a, discussed in Section II.B of this preamble), 
or submitting a permit with source specific RACT determinations (as 
Pennsylvania did with the permits discussed in Section II.A.3 of this 
preamble). Therefore, the commenter's assertion that ``. . . the EPA 
and PADEP are now requiring any source that falls under the CTG 
category, regardless of modifications and repairs to the source, to now 
be subject to the NSPS,'' is incorrect.
    Comment 4: The commenter asserts that EPA cannot approve provisions 
related to subparts OOOO and OOOOa as RACT for the 1983 Oil and Gas 
CTG, because the Agency has proposed significant revisions to both 
subparts. The commenter asserts that EPA will have to re-evaluate 
whether these NSPS, if modified, continue to represent RACT, and 
therefore must wait until completion of any revisions before asserting 
that they meet RACT requirements.
    Response 4: EPA disagrees with the commenter. EPA's analysis in the 
1983 CTG determined that the existing levels of NSPS control were those 
that were economically and technologically feasible and thereby met the 
definition of RACT for this category of sources. Pennsylvania's 
incorporation by reference of the NSPS automatically updates to include 
new or revised NSPS. However, the adoption of any new or expanded 
control requirements

[[Page 80623]]

in these NSPS would not automatically become presumptive RACT for these 
two CTGs and may require additional analysis to determine whether the 
costs of the revised NSPS controls meet the economic feasibility 
portion of EPA's longstanding definition of RACT. Therefore, EPA is 
finalizing approval of PADEP's submittal.
    Comment 5: The commenter asserts that EPA cannot approve subparts 
NNN and RRR as RACT for sources subject to the CTG for reactor and 
distillation processes in the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing 
industry (SOCMI).\18\ According to the commenter, hundreds of chemical 
compounds are not subject to subparts NNN or RRR. Because PADEP 
attempted to identify sources subject to the CTG by searching for 
sources subject to the NSPS, commenter asserts that the entire universe 
of sources subject to the CTG was not captured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from 
Reactor Processes and Distillation operations Processes in the 
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry;'' EPA-450/4/91-
031; August 1993 (1993 CTG).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 5: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertions. First, 
PADEP searched for sources known to be operating in the SOCMI sector 
using, at a minimum, their ``Air Information Management System,'' or 
``AIMS.'' Pennsylvania's SIP submittal notes, in response to a similar 
comment made during the state public notice period, that any sources 
that were not identified by this search would likely be operating in 
violation of the NSPS, as well as Pennsylvania's permitting 
regulations. EPA thinks that PADEP, using both the information at its 
disposal and its knowledge of the sources of VOC emissions gained from 
years of inspections, enforcement, and SIP development, has likely 
identified all the sources potentially subject to this CTG. Those 
sources not identified are still subject to the CTG, and as noted in 
Pennsylvania's submission, are likely in violation of multiple 
Pennsylvania requirements and Federal NSPS. The commenter has not 
provided any evidence to the contrary, and in the absence of such 
evidence, EPA believes that PADEP made a reasonable and rational effort 
to identify sources potentially subject to the SOCMI CTG.
    Second, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for an air 
agency to search for sources subject to the CTG or NSPS based solely on 
its use of a particular VOC. The list of chemicals covered by the 1993 
CTG for Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor 
Processes and Distillation Operations Processes in the Synthetic 
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (the ``SOCMI CTG'') is 
extensive.\19\ Also, some of the NSPS applicable to the SOCMI industry 
regulate the listed chemicals if they are a product, by-product, co-
product, or intermediary. SOCMI CTG, pp. 7-3 to 7-11. EPA is not aware 
of any database which would identify sources potentially subject to the 
SOCMI CTG based on the list of chemicals covered, particularly when the 
chemicals covered include some chemicals used as intermediaries or 
produced as co-products. As EPA noted in the CTG, ``. . . there are 
different regulations that can apply to the same SOCMI facility, 
process unit, or process vent. For example, a given SOCMI facility 
could be subject to all three NSPS (air oxidation,\20\ 
distillation,\21\ reactor processes \22\), to the Hazardous Organic 
NESHAP (HON) \23\ (for process vents), and to regulations developed in 
accordance with this CTG. The required control efficiency for a 
combustion control device is the same in all these various regulations. 
Thus, any process vent that is controlled with a combustion device to 
meet the requirements of the HON, NSPS, or regulations in accordance 
with the air oxidation CTG would meet recommended RACT in this CTG, and 
it is unnecessary to test for applicability for VOC regulation 
developed in accordance with this CTG (emphasis added).'' \24\ A review 
of Table A-1 in the CTG (cited by the commenter) indicates that there 
are very few, if any, compounds covered by the CTG that are not also 
covered by one or more of the NSPS/NESHAP regulations which the CTG 
identifies as providing RACT level controls. Therefore, EPA is 
approving PADEP's submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Table 7-1 of the SOCMI CTG for a list of the chemicals 
covered by the SOCMI CTG, the 1984 Air Oxidation CTG, and various 
NSPS. SOCMI CTG, p.7-3.
    \20\ 40 CFR part 60, subpart III.
    \21\ 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN.
    \22\ 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR.
    \23\ 40 CFR part 63, subpart G.
    \24\ See 1993 CTG at pp 1-2, 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 6: Additionally, two commenters asserted that EPA should 
extend the public comment period due to the extenuating circumstances 
resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the commenters 
additionally requested a 15-day extension, based on the complexity and 
size of Pennsylvania's submittal.
    Response 6: EPA acknowledges the many and varied challenges 
presented by the pandemic. However, the NPRM for this action was 
published prior to any interruptions in normal business activities. The 
supporting materials associated with the NPRM were available online, 
without interruption, for the entire 30-day public comment period. 
Additionally, the Regional staff, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of the NPRM, were working and available throughout the 
entire comment period. Furthermore, neither commenter identified a 
specific limitation arising from the pandemic that prevented them or 
anyone else from being able to adequately review the proposed approval 
and submit comments. With respect to commenter's assertion that the 
size and complexity of the submittal warrant a 15-day extension, EPA 
disagrees. While EPA acknowledges that the action is complex and 
addresses two submittals concurrently, large portions of the submittals 
are included as background information and/or supporting documentation. 
For example, there are approximately sixty-five pages of documentation 
related to Pennsylvania's public notices. Consequently, EPA finds that 
the size and complexity of the actual analysis in Pennsylvania's 
submittals is not extraordinary, and therefore does not require an 
extraordinary or extended comment period. Therefore, EPA disagrees with 
the commenters, and is denying the request for an extended public 
comment period.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving Pennsylvania's August 13, 2018 submittals as a 
revision 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 the 
Pennsylvania rules regarding definitions and permitting requirements 
discussed in section II of this preamble. 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 rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be

[[Page 80624]]

incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP 
compilation.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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 it is not a significant regulatory 
action 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. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

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 February 12, 2021. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action relating to VOC RACT measures in Pennsylvania 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, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 22, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 
52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c)(1) is amended by:
0
1. Under ``Chapter 121--General Provisions,'' adding a third entry for 
``Section 121.1'' after a second existing entry for ``Section 121.1'';
0
2. Under Title 25, adding the heading entitled ``Chapter 122--National 
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources'' and entries 
``Section 122.1'', ``Section 122.2'', and ``Section 122.3'' after the 
entry ``Section 121.11'';
0
3. Under ``Chapter 129--Standards for Sources'':
0
i. Revising the entry ``Section 129.51'';
0
ii. Adding the entry ``Section 129.63a'' in numerical order; and
0
iii. Revising the entries ``Section 129.73'', ``Section 129.96'', 
``Section 129.97'', ``Section 129.99'', and ``Section 129.100'';
0
b. The table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by adding entries for 
``Donjon Shipbuilding'', ``Heartland Fabrication, LLC'', and ``Geo 
Specialty Chem Trimet Div'' at the end of the table; and
0
c. The table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding the entry 
``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for the 2008 ozone 
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)'' at the end of the 
table.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.2020   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

[[Page 80625]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Additional
          State citation               Title/subject          State       EPA approval date    explanation/Sec.
                                                         effective date                        52.2063 citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Title 25--Environmental Protection
                                           Article III--Air Resources
                                         Chapter 121--General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 121.1.....................  Definitions........         8/11/18  12/14/20, [insert    Definition of
                                                                          Federal Register     ``Cleaning
                                                                          citation].           solvent'' is
                                                                                               amended.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Chapter 122--National Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 122.1.....................  Purpose............        08/01/79  12/14/20, [insert
                                                                          Federal Register
                                                                          citation].
Section 122.2.....................  Scope..............        08/01/79  12/14/20, [insert
                                                                          Federal Register
                                                                          citation].
Section 122.3.....................  Adoption of                12/26/97  12/14/20, [insert
                                     Standards.                           Federal Register
                                                                          citation].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Chapter 129--Standards for Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 129.51....................  General............         8/11/18  12/14/20, [insert    Amended to add
                                                                          Federal Register     references to
                                                                          citation].           Section 129.63a.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 129.63a...................  Control of VOC              8/11/18  12/14/20, [insert    Added new Section
                                     emissions from                       Federal Register     129.63a.
                                     industrial                           citation].
                                     cleaning solvents.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 129.73....................  Aerospace                   8/11/18  12/14/20, [insert    Correction to
                                     manufacturing and                    Federal Register     numbering in
                                     rework.                              citation].           Table II.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 129.96....................  Applicability......         8/11/18  12/14/20, [insert    Subsections (a)
                                                                          Federal Register     and (b) are
                                                                          citation].           revised.
Section 129.97....................  Presumptive RACT            8/11/18  12/14/20, [insert    Section
                                     requirements, RACT                   Federal Register     129.97(k)(1)(ii)
                                     emission                             citation].           is revised.
                                     limitations and
                                     petition for
                                     alternative
                                     compliance
                                     schedule.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 129.99....................  Alternative RACT            8/11/18  12/14/20, [insert    Section
                                     proposal and                         Federal Register     129.99(i)(1)(ii)
                                     petition for                         citation].           is revised.
                                     alternative
                                     compliance
                                     schedule.
Section 129.100...................  Compliance                  8/11/18  12/14/20, [insert    Section 129.100(a)
                                     demonstration and                    Federal Register     is revised.
                                     recordkeeping                        citation].
                                     requirements.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                         Additional
                                                                                                                                     explanations/Sec.
           Name of source                    Permit No.                   County                State         EPA approval date      Sec.   52.2063 and
                                                                                           effective date                          52.2064 citations \1\
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Donjon Shipbuilding................  25-00930.................  Erie.....................         9/26/17  12/14/20, [insert
                                                                                                            Federal Register
                                                                                                            citation].
Heartland Fabrication, LLC.........  26-00545.................  Fayette..................         9/28/17  12/14/20, [insert
                                                                                                            Federal Register
                                                                                                            citation].
Geo Specialty Chem Trimet Div......  39-00024.................  Lehigh...................         3/21/17  12/14/20, [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.


[[Page 80626]]

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable           State                                Additional
             revision                geographic area    submittal date   EPA approval date       explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Reasonably Available Control       Statewide..........         8/13/18  12/14/20, [insert    This action
 Technology (RACT) for the 2008                                          Federal Register     pertains to
 ozone national ambient air                                              citation].           control technique
 quality standard (NAAQS).                                                                    guideline (CTG)
                                                                                              source categories.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-23857 Filed 12-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


