Je veux savoir à propos de…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations However, again, these two cases are most relevant in circumstances where an existing SIP standard is being weakened or a net emissions increase is expected, which are not the circumstances presented by the SIP
revisions that EPA is approving here.
In a more analogous case to the situation presented here, EPAs interpretation of section 110l was upheld in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 759 F.3d 1064 9th Cir. 2014. There, the court rejected a challenge to an EPA
action approving a regional haze plan and concluded that WildEarth had identified nothing in the SIP that weakens or removes any pollution controls. And even if the SIP merely maintained the status quo, that would not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. 9 For that reason, the court concluded that WildEarth had failed to show that EPAs approval of the SIP contravened section 110l. The courts holding demonstrates that a SIP approval that does not weaken or remove pollution controls would not violate section 110l.
The WildEarth decision informs the approach to section 110l EPA is taking to approve the Pennsylvania CbC RACT
SIP revisions. Here, contrary to the commenters characterization, Pennsylvania is not relaxing standards or eliminating a program, but rather, is only re-evaluating the technical and economic feasibility of air pollution controls for subject air pollution sources as required by implementation of the 1997 and 2008 8-hour NAAQS. Based on that review, the state, as explained in more detail below, has made determinations that either retain or make more stringent existing NOX
emission limits. Emissions are not expected to increase, and will likely decrease, as a result of PADEPs RACT
II NOX CbC determinations and EPAs approval hereof. Additionally, the supporting documents submitted by PADEP identify numerous NOX sources that were subject to RACT I but that are no longer operating and have been permanently closed. Under these circumstances, Pennsylvanias demonstration to meet the requirements of section 110l for its CbC RACT II
determinations is not one of modeling or identifying equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for or offset an emissions increase because the revisions are not resulting in emissions increases, but rather to establish that its new CbC NOX RACT determinations are preserving the status quo air quality or achieving additional reductions beyond the status quo.
9 Id.

at 1074.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:01 Aug 31, 2021

Jkt 253001

With this rulemaking action, EPA is only approving revisions that add specific NOX and VOC CbC RACT II
determinations to the Pennsylvania SIP.
In the subject RACT II CbC
determinations, PADEP has made an adequate showing that its CbC
determinations for individual sources at the eight facilities at issue not only preserve the status quo air quality, but likely reduce the cumulative NOX
emissions from the subject sources. As described in its technical review memorandums and related documents, which are included in the docket for this rulemaking, PADEP evaluated both the technical and economic feasibility of various control equipment for these sources and used that evaluation to determine the RACT II requirements.
PADEP also considered the prior RACT
I requirements to determine whether the RACT II requirements were as stringent as the previously established standards.
In circumstances where the RACT I
requirements were more stringent, they were retained and remain effective.
Contrary to the commenters assertion, this demonstration included in the documents in the docket satisfies the requirements of Part 51, Appendix V.
The record supporting EPAs approval of Pennsylvanias CbC RACT II SIP
revisions is sufficient, so there is no need to supplement the record. As such, commenters reference to EPAs inability to supplement the record, and to Ober v. U.S. EPA, 84 F.3d 304,312
9th Cir. 1996, is not applicable to EPAs current action.
The facilities addressed in this final rule breakdown into the categories listed below.10 As explained in the proposed rulemaking notice, EPA views each facility as a separable SIP revision, and that should it receive comment on one facility but not others, EPA may take separate, final action on the remaining facilities.
Facilities with only VOC sources The following facilities are major source VOC emitting facilities that are minor sources of NOX. As such, individual VOC sources at these facilities must comply with RACT II requirements.
EPAs approval in this rulemaking for these facilities only relates to specific CbC VOC RACT II determinations.
EPAs approval of the Pennsylvania CbC
VOC RACT II SIP revisions for sources at these facilities does not involve NOX
emissions, maintains the status quo, and does not result in an increase in VOC or 10 While the commenter also references a ninth facility, Montour, LLC, EPA is not acting on PADEPs CbC RACT II determination for this facility at this time. As indicated in the proposed rulemaking, EPA will be acting on sources located at this facility in a separate future rulemaking.

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

48911

NOX emissions. Therefore, as explained previously, EPA has determined these SIP revisions will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA, pursuant to section 110l.
Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corp Letterkenny Army Depot Volvo Construction Equipment North America Facilities with VOC and NOX Sources Only VOC CbCThe following facilities are major NOX and VOC
emitting facilities, and individual NOX
and VOC sources at these facilities must comply with RACT II requirements.
However, EPAs approval in this rulemaking for these facilities only relates to specific CbC VOC RACT II
determinations. EPAs approval of the Pennsylvania CbC VOC RACT II SIP
revisions for sources at these facilities does not involve any NOX emissions, maintains the status quo, and does not result in an increase in VOC or NOX
emissions. Therefore, as explained previously, EPA has determined these SIP revisions will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA, pursuant to section 110l.
E.I DuPont de Nemours and Co.
National Fuel Gas Supply CorporationRoystone Compressor Station Facilities with CbC NOX SourcesThe following are major NOX emitting sources and contain individual sources subject to CbC NOX requirements that EPA is taking final action on here. More specific information on those individual facilities follows:
Carmeuse Lime Inc.EPA proposed to approve PADEPs RACT II CbC NOX
determination for one source at this facility. The other NOX sources that were subject to RACT I are now shut down. In its RACT II determination for Source 107 No. 5 Kiln, PADEP
concluded that the use of a low NOX
burner with good combustion and burner optimization were technically and economically feasible as RACT and were incorporated as part of the burner management plan.11 Based on an analysis of historical performance testing data from 2000 to 2017, the existing short-term emissions limit of 6.0 lbs NOX/ton of lime produced was reduced to 4.6 lbs NOX/ton of lime 11 See PADEPs Technical Review Memo, dated November 19, 2018, which is part of the docket for this rulemaking.

E:FRFM01SER1.SGM

01SER1