Rule2021-18752
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology Determinations for Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
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
September 1, 2021
Effective
October 1, 2021
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 nine major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and/or nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) pursuant to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's conditionally approved RACT regulations. In this rulemaking action, EPA is only approving source-specific (also referred to as "case-by-case") RACT determinations or alternative NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits for sources at eight 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 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 86 Issue 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48908-48915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18752]
[[Page 48908]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0597; FRL-8873-02-R3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology Determinations
for Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
multiple state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These revisions were submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to
establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT)
for nine major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and/or
nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) pursuant to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania's conditionally approved RACT regulations. In this
rulemaking action, EPA is only approving source-specific (also referred
to as ``case-by-case'') RACT determinations or alternative
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits for sources at eight 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 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving these revisions to the
Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and EPA's implementing regulations.
DATES: This final rule is effective on October 1, 2021.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0597. All documents in the docket are listed on
the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://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="https://www.regulations.gov">https://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: Ms. Emily Bertram, Permits Branch
(3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
The telephone number is (215) 814-5273. Ms. Bertram can also be reached
via electronic mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fd9f988f898f9c90d39890949184bd988d9cd39a928b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e7c7b6c6a6c7f73307b737772675e7b6e7f30797168">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On February 11, 2021, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM). 86 FR 9031. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of case-by-case
RACT determinations or alternative NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits for
eight sources included in the subject SIP submission for the 1997 and
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The case-by-case RACT determinations and
alternative NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits for these sources were
included in a SIP revision submitted by PADEP on March 9, 2020.
Under certain circumstances, states are required to submit SIP
revisions to address RACT requirements for major sources of
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 therefore to be
addressed for RACT revisions, is dependent on the location of each
source within the Commonwealth. Sources located in nonattainment areas
would be subject to the ``major source'' definitions established under
the CAA based on the area's current classification(s). In Pennsylvania,
sources located outside of moderate or above ozone nonattainment areas
are subject to the major source threshold of 50 tons per year (tpy)
because of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) requirements in CAA section
184(b)(2).
On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT for
both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania. PADEP's May
16, 2016 SIP revision intended to address certain outstanding VOC CTG
RACT and major source VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements for both
standards. The SIP revision requested approval of Pennsylvania's 25 Pa.
Code 129.96-100, Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and VOCs, (the RACT I rule) to
meet RACT for major sources of VOC and NO<INF>X</INF>. The requirements
of the RACT I rule remain approved into Pennsylvania's SIP and continue
to be implemented.\1\ On September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted a
supplemental SIP revision, dated September 22, 2017, which committed to
address various deficiencies identified by EPA in PADEP's May 16, 2016
``presumptive'' RACT II rule SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The RACT I Rule was approved by EPA into the Pennsylvania
SIP on March 23, 1998. 63 FR 13789. Through this rulemaking, certain
source-specific RACT I requirements will be superseded by more
stringent requirements. See Section II of the preamble to this Final
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally approved the RACT II rule based
on the commitments PADEP made in its September 22, 2017 supplemental
SIP revision.\2\ 84 FR 20274. In EPA's final conditional approval, EPA
noted that PADEP would be required to submit, for EPA's approval, SIP
revisions to address any facility-wide or system-wide 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, specifically May 9, 2020. Through
multiple submissions between 2017 and 2020, PADEP has submitted to EPA
for approval various SIP submissions to implement its RACT II case-by-
case determinations and alternative NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits.
This rulemaking is based on EPA's review of one of these SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On August 27, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
issued a decision vacating EPA's approval of three provisions of
Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT II rule applicable to certain coal-
fired power plants. Sierra Club v. EPA, 972 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2020).
None of the sources in this rulemaking are subject to the three
presumptive RACT II provisions at issue in that Sierra Club
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
A. Summary of SIP Revision
To satisfy a requirement from EPA's May 9, 2019 conditional
approval, PADEP submitted to EPA SIP revisions addressing alternative
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. In the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions, PADEP included a case-
by-case RACT determination for the existing emissions units at each of
the major sources of NO<INF>X</INF> and/or VOC
[[Page 48909]]
that required a source-specific RACT determination or alternative
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits for major sources seeking such limits.
In PADEP's case-by-case RACT determinations, an evaluation was
completed to determine if previously SIP-approved, case-by-case RACT
emission limits or operational controls (herein referred to as RACT I
and contained in RACT I permits) were more stringent than the new RACT
II presumptive or case-by-case requirements. If more stringent, the
RACT I requirements will continue to apply to the applicable source. If
the new case-by-case RACT II requirements are more stringent than the
RACT I requirements, then the RACT II requirements will supersede the
prior RACT I requirements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ While the prior SIP-approved RACT I permit will remain part
of the SIP, this RACT II rule will incorporate by reference the RACT
II requirements through the RACT II permit and clarify the ongoing
applicability of specific conditions in the RACT I permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In PADEP's RACT determinations involving NO<INF>X</INF> averaging,
an evaluation was completed to determine that the aggregate
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions emitted by the air contamination sources
included in the facility-wide or system-wide NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
averaging plan using a 30-day rolling average are not greater than the
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions that would be emitted by the group of included
sources if each source complied with the applicable presumptive
limitation in 25 Pa. Code 129.97 on a source-specific basis.
Here, EPA is taking action on SIP revisions pertaining to case-by-
case RACT requirements and alternative NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits
for eight major sources of NO<INF>X</INF> and/or VOC in Pennsylvania,
as summarized in Table 1 in this document.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ PADEP's March 9, 2020 package of SIP revisions included
source-specific RACT II determinations for sources at nine
facilities. As indicated in the proposed rulemaking, EPA is only
acting on eight of these facilities at this time. EPA will be acting
on sources located at the Montour, LLC facility in a separate future
rulemaking.
Table 1--Eight Major NOX and/or VOC Sources In Pennsylvania Subject to Case-by-Case RACT II Determinations Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RACT II permit
Major source (county) 1-hour ozone RACT source? (RACT I) Major source pollutant (NOX and/or VOC) (effective date)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volvo Construction Equipment North No................................... VOC.......................................... 28-05012 (6/1/2019)
America (Franklin).
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation-- Yes.................................. NOX and VOC.................................. 62-141H (1/16/2018)
Roystone Compressor Station (Warren).
E.I DuPont de Nemours and Co. (Bradford). Yes.................................. NOX and VOC.................................. 08-00002 (9/28/2018)
Carmeuse Lime Inc. (Lebanon)............. Yes.................................. NOX.......................................... 38-05003 (3/6/2019)
Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corp. (Carbon).. No................................... VOC.......................................... 13-00008 (10/27/2017)
Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Corp. (formerly Yes.................................. NOX and VOC.................................. 46-00005 (1/5/2017)
Merck and Co., Inc.--West Point
Facility) (Montgomery).
Letterkenny Army Depot (formerly Yes.................................. VOC.......................................... 28-05002 (6/1/2018)
Department of the Army) (Franklin).
Fairless Energy, LLC (Bucks)............. No................................... NOX and VOC.................................. 09-00124 (12/6/2016)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP consist of
an evaluation of all reasonably available controls at the time of
evaluation for each affected emissions unit, resulting in a PADEP
determination of what specific emission limit or control measures
satisfy RACT for that particular unit. The adoption of new, additional,
or revised emission limits or control measures to existing SIP-approved
RACT I requirements were specified as requirements in new or revised
Federally enforceable permits (hereafter RACT II permits) issued by
PADEP to the source. Similarly, PADEP's determinations of alternative
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits are included in RACT II permits. These
RACT II permits have been submitted as part of the Pennsylvania RACT
SIP revisions for EPA's approval in the Pennsylvania SIP under 40 CFR
52.2020(d)(1). The RACT II permits submitted by PADEP are listed in the
last column of Table 1, along with the permit effective date, and are
part of the docket for this rule, which is available online at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0597.\5\ EPA is
incorporating by reference in the Pennsylvania SIP, via the RACT II
permits, source-specific RACT emission limits and control measures and
alternative NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits under the 1997 and 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for certain major sources of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The RACT II permits included in the docket for this
rulemaking are redacted versions of the facilities' Federally
enforceable permits. They reflect the specific RACT requirements
being approved into the Pennsylvania SIP via this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA's Final Action
PADEP's SIP revisions incorporate its determinations of source-
specific RACT II controls for individual emission units at major
sources of NO<INF>X</INF> and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, where those units
are not covered by or cannot meet Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT
regulation or where included in a NO<INF>X</INF> emissions averaging
plan. After thorough review and evaluation of the information provided
by PADEP in its SIP revision submittals for sources at eight major
NO<INF>X</INF> and/or VOC emitting facilities in Pennsylvania, EPA
found that: (1) PADEP's case-by-case RACT determinations and
conclusions establish limits and/or controls on individual sources that
are reasonable and appropriately considered technically and
economically feasible controls (2) PADEP's determinations on
alternative NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits demonstrate that emissions
under the averaging plan are equivalent to emissions if the individual
sources were operating in accordance with the applicable presumptive
limit, and (3) PADEP's determinations are consistent with the CAA, EPA
regulations, and applicable EPA guidance.
PADEP, in its RACT II determinations, considered the prior source-
specific RACT I requirements and, where more stringent, retained those
RACT I requirements as part of its new RACT determinations. In the
NPRM, EPA proposed to find that all the proposed revisions to
previously SIP-approved RACT I requirements would result in equivalent
or additional reductions of NO<INF>X</INF> and/or VOC emissions. The
proposed revisions should not interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment of
[[Page 48910]]
the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or other applicable
requirements under section 110(l) of the CAA.
Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's 1997 and 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS case-by-case RACT determinations and alternative
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits and the rationale for EPA's proposed
action were explained in the NPRM, and its associated technical support
document (TSD), and will not be restated here.
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA received comments from four commenters on the February 11, 2021
NPRM. 86 FR 9031. A summary of the comments and EPA's response are
discussed in this section. A copy of the comments can be found in the
docket for this rule action.
Comment 1: The commenter claims that EPA cannot approve the
proposed Pennsylvania RACT II case-by-case (CbC) determinations under
the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the CAA section 110(l)
analysis is inadequate. In particular, the commenter focuses on the
proposed 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>).) The commenter argues that under CAA section
110(k)(1)(a) and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, 2.2(d), a state must
demonstrate that the NAAQSs are protected if a SIP is to be approved
and that Pennsylvania has not made an adequate demonstration under
section 110(l) related to the potential impact of these RACT
determinations on the 2010 1-hour NO<INF>X</INF> NAAQS. The commenter
then suggests that EPA is unable to approve Pennsylvania's CbC RACT II
determinations unless such a demonstration has been made, even though
the rules reduce NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. The commenter highlights
their concern by including results from air dispersion modeling of
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the Bighorn well pad 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 commenter states that EPA
must undertake a modeling analysis to determine if the proposed CbC
RACT II determinations will cause or contribute to 2010 1-hour
NO<INF>X</INF> NAAQS violations. The commenter indicates that EPA must
repropose this action including any such modeling information or other
information utilized in the demonstration that the NAAQS will be
protected.
Response 1: As described in the proposed rulemaking, Pennsylvania
was required through implementation of the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS to determine RACT II requirements for major NO<INF>X</INF> and
VOC emitting sources within the Commonwealth. PADEP had previously
established CbC RACT requirements under the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\6\
PADEP finalized its overall RACT II program, which included presumptive
RACT for certain sources, and it was conditionally approved by EPA.\7\
As part of the EPA's conditional approval, PADEP was required to
complete source-specific CbC RACT II determinations for subject
NO<INF>X</INF> or VOC sources that could not meet the presumptive
requirements or for which a presumptive limit did not exist. As
required by its regulations, PADEP then conducted a RACT II CbC
analysis examining what air pollution controls are available for those
individual sources to determine the lowest emission limit that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technologically and
economic feasibility.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1).
\7\ 84 FR 20274 (May 9, 2019).
\8\ See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to Regional
Administrators, ``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas,'' and 44 FR 53762 (September
17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through its RACT II CbC determinations, PADEP has established
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC limits and requirements for various sources that
either reaffirm existing emission limits or makes the limits more
stringent. PADEP submitted those determinations to EPA as bundled
packages of individual SIP revisions. EPA is now approving the RACT II
CbC SIP revisions for individual NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC sources at
eight facilities. For the reasons explained below, EPA concludes that
the arguments presented by the commenter do not prohibit approval of
these SIP revisions.
CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision if
the revision would ``interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any
other applicable requirement of this chapter.'' 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
While EPA interprets section 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are
in effect, including those for which a relevant SIP submission may not
have been made, the level of rigor needed for any CAA section 110(l)
demonstration will vary depending on the nature and circumstances of
the revision. For example, an in-depth section 110(l) analysis is more
appropriate where there is a reasonable expectation that an existing
SIP standard is being weakened or that there will be a net emissions
increase because of approval of the SIP revision under consideration.
However, here, the Pennsylvania CbC RACT II SIP revisions are either
retaining an existing standard or establishing a more stringent one.
EPA, for these reasons, did not include a detailed section 110(l)
analysis at the proposal stage. Since the commenter raised the issue,
EPA is responding in this final action by explaining why its approval
is consistent with section 110(l).
In circumstances where an existing SIP standard is being weakened
or a net emissions increase is expected, there are two generally
recognized paths for satisfying CAA section 110(l). First, a state may
demonstrate through an air quality modeling analysis that the revision
will not interfere with the attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement. This is the approach the
commenter claims is required for the Pennsylvania CbC SIP revisions.
Second, a state may substitute equivalent or greater emissions
reductions to compensate for any change to a plan to ensure actual
emissions to the air are not increased and thus preserve status quo air
quality. A showing that the substitute measures preserve status quo air
quality is generally sufficient to demonstrate noninterference through
this alternative approach. Courts have upheld EPA's approval of a SIP
revision based on a state's use of substitute measures. Kentucky
Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006) and
Indiana v. EPA, 796 F. 3d 803 (7th Cir. 2015).
Both the Kentucky Resources and Indiana cases involved
circumstances where a state sought to revise provisions within its SIP
related to its vehicle emissions testing program. In both situations,
the petitioners were concerned with increased emissions that might
occur due to the changes to the testing program. The state in each case
justified its SIP revision, in part, by demonstrating that it had
substitute emission reductions that would fully compensate for the
expected emissions increase caused by the modifications to the testing
program. The court in each case upheld EPA's interpretation of section
110(l), which allows states to substitute equivalent emissions
reductions to compensate for any change to a plan to ensure actual
emissions to the air are not increased and thus preserve status quo air
quality.
[[Page 48911]]
However, again, these two cases are most relevant in circumstances
where an existing SIP standard is being weakened or a net emissions
increase is expected, which are not the circumstances presented by the
SIP revisions that EPA is approving here.
In a more analogous case to the situation presented here, EPA's
interpretation of section 110(l) was upheld in WildEarth Guardians v.
EPA, 759 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2014). There, the court rejected a
challenge to an EPA action approving a regional haze plan and concluded
that WildEarth had identified ``nothing in [the] SIP that weakens or
removes any pollution controls. And even if the SIP merely maintained
the status quo, that would not interfere with the attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS.'' \9\ For that reason, the court concluded
that WildEarth had failed to show that EPA's approval of the SIP
contravened section 110(l). The court's holding demonstrates that a SIP
approval that does not weaken or remove pollution controls would not
violate section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. at 1074.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WildEarth decision informs the approach to section 110(l) EPA
is taking to approve the Pennsylvania CbC RACT SIP revisions. Here,
contrary to the commenter's characterization, Pennsylvania is not
relaxing standards or eliminating a program, but rather, is only re-
evaluating the technical and economic feasibility of air pollution
controls for subject air pollution sources as required by
implementation of the 1997 and 2008 8-hour NAAQS. Based on that review,
the state, as explained in more detail below, has made determinations
that either retain or make more stringent existing NO<INF>X</INF>
emission limits. Emissions are not expected to increase, and will
likely decrease, as a result of PADEP's RACT II NO<INF>X</INF> CbC
determinations and EPA's approval hereof. Additionally, the supporting
documents submitted by PADEP identify numerous NO<INF>X</INF> sources
that were subject to RACT I but that are no longer operating and have
been permanently closed. Under these circumstances, Pennsylvania's
demonstration to meet the requirements of section 110(l) for its CbC
RACT II determinations is not one of modeling or identifying equivalent
emissions reductions to compensate for or offset an emissions increase
because the revisions are not resulting in emissions increases, but
rather to establish that its new CbC NO<INF>X</INF> RACT determinations
are preserving the status quo air quality or achieving additional
reductions beyond the status quo.
With this rulemaking action, EPA is only approving revisions that
add specific NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions from the subject sources. As described in its technical
review memorandums and related documents, which are included in the
docket for this rulemaking, PADEP evaluated both the technical and
economic feasibility of various control equipment for these sources and
used that evaluation to determine the RACT II requirements. PADEP also
considered the prior RACT I requirements to determine whether the RACT
II requirements were as stringent as the previously established
standards. In circumstances where the RACT I requirements were more
stringent, they were retained and remain effective. Contrary to the
commenter's assertion, this demonstration included in the documents in
the docket satisfies the requirements of Part 51, Appendix V. The
record supporting EPA's approval of Pennsylvania's CbC RACT II SIP
revisions is sufficient, so there is no need to supplement the record.
As such, commenter's reference to EPA's inability to supplement the
record, and to Ober v. U.S. EPA, 84 F.3d 304,312 (9th Cir. 1996), is
not applicable to EPA's current action.
The facilities addressed in this final rule breakdown into the
categories listed below.\10\ As explained in the proposed rulemaking
notice, EPA views each facility as a separable SIP revision, and that
should it receive comment on one facility but not others, EPA may take
separate, final action on the remaining facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ While the commenter also references a ninth facility,
Montour, LLC, EPA is not acting on PADEP's CbC RACT II determination
for this facility at this time. As indicated in the proposed
rulemaking, EPA will be acting on sources located at this facility
in a separate future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities with only VOC sources--The following facilities are
major source VOC emitting facilities that are minor sources of
NO<INF>X.</INF> As such, individual VOC sources at these facilities
must comply with RACT II requirements. EPA's approval in this
rulemaking for these facilities only relates to specific CbC VOC RACT
II determinations. EPA's approval of the Pennsylvania CbC VOC RACT II
SIP revisions for sources at these facilities does not involve
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, maintains the status quo, and does not result
in an increase in VOC or NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. Therefore, as
explained previously, EPA has determined these SIP revisions will not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the
CAA, pursuant to section 110(l).
<bullet> Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corp
<bullet> Letterkenny Army Depot
<bullet> Volvo Construction Equipment North America
Facilities with VOC and NOX Sources (Only VOC CbC)--The following
facilities are major NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emitting facilities, and
individual NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC sources at these facilities must
comply with RACT II requirements. However, EPA's approval in this
rulemaking for these facilities only relates to specific CbC VOC RACT
II determinations. EPA's approval of the Pennsylvania CbC VOC RACT II
SIP revisions for sources at these facilities does not involve any
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, maintains the status quo, and does not result
in an increase in VOC or NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. Therefore, as
explained previously, EPA has determined these SIP revisions will not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the
CAA, pursuant to section 110(l).
<bullet> E.I DuPont de Nemours and Co.
<bullet> National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation--Roystone Compressor
Station
Facilities with CbC NOX Sources--The following are major
NO<INF>X</INF> emitting sources and contain individual sources subject
to CbC NO<INF>X</INF> requirements that EPA is taking final action on
here. More specific information on those individual facilities follows:
Carmeuse Lime Inc.--EPA proposed to approve PADEP's RACT II CbC
NO<INF>X</INF> determination for one source at this facility. The other
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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
NO<INF>X</INF>/ton of lime produced was reduced to 4.6 lbs
NO<INF>X</INF>/ton of lime
[[Page 48912]]
produced as a RACT II case-by-case requirement. A burner management
plan, testing once every five years, and daily monitoring and
recordkeeping of fuel used hourly were also required. Through
imposition of this more stringent emission limit along with related
monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping requirements, Pennsylvania has
demonstrated that the status quo in 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See PADEP's Technical Review Memo, dated November 19, 2018,
which is part of the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Corp.--EPA proposed to approve PADEP's RACT
II CbC NO<INF>X</INF> determination for two sources at this facility.
Numerous NO<INF>X</INF> sources that were subject to RACT I have been
shut down. In its determinations for the remaining two sources, PADEP
has determined that the RACT II CbC NO<INF>X</INF> is continued use of
low NO<INF>X</INF> burners and good operating practices and continued
compliance with the existing NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits.\12\
Through retention of the existing emission limits and continued use of
the low NO<INF>X</INF> burners, Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the
status quo in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions has been maintained. As such,
EPA's approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision is adequately justified
under section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See PADEP Revised Technical Review Memo, dated October 9,
2019, which is part of the docket for this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fairless Energy, LLC--EPA proposed to approve PADEP's RACT II
determination related to a NO<INF>X</INF> averaging plan for four
sources at this facility pursuant to 25 Pa. Code Sec. 129.98(a). The
averaging plan provision authorized in section 129.98 allows a facility
to establish an alternative facility-wide or system-wide RACT
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limit as long as it demonstrates that the
resulting NO<INF>X</INF> emissions using a 30-day rolling average would
not be greater than NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the group of included
sources if they each complied with the applicable presumptive
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT emissions limit as individual sources. Fairless
will be averaging the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for four sources to meet
the RACT II requirements, an alternative emission limit, that will be
at least as stringent as the presumptive emission limit, which was
conditionally approved by EPA in a prior rulemaking.\13\ PADEP's
approval of the NO<INF>X</INF> averaging plan ensures that total
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from these sources will be no greater than the
total individual emissions from each source if each were to comply with
the existing presumptive emission limit. The NO<INF>X</INF> averaging
plan also does not eliminate any other existing non-RACT emission
restrictions applicable to these sources. Through these measures,
Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the status quo in NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions has been maintained. As such, EPA's approval of PADEP's SIP
revision is adequately justified under section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 84 FR 20274 (May 9, 2019) as to EPA's conditional
approval of the presumptive limit and PADEP's Technical Review Memo,
dated November 29, 2016, as to PADEP's analysis of the
NO<INF>X</INF> averaging plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described above, EPA determined that Pennsylvania had adequately
justified its RACT II CbC NO<INF>X</INF> determinations. 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 commenter. As noted
previously, the commenter included an air dispersion modeling analysis
of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from a well pad at the Bighorn Pad 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.\14\
The modeling analysis provided by the commenter indicated that
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the well pad area in Colorado could have
NO<INF>2</INF> impacts within 50 kilometers of the source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 77 FR 9532 (February 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This modeling analysis from Colorado does not trigger a need for
EPA or Pennsylvania to conduct modeling on the impact of NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions from each individual PA CbC RACT source at issue in this
rulemaking in order for EPA to approve these SIP revisions. First, as
discussed previously, modeling is not the sole method available to
satisfy section 110(l) requirements. Second, the differences in the
meteorology, terrain, and facility configurations between the Bighorn
well pad and the Pennsylvania CbC RACT II sources are too significant
to rely on the Bighorn facility modeling results to serve as surrogate
modeling indicating that the Pennsylvania RACT II sources have the
potential to cause exceedances of the 2010 1-hour NO<INF>X</INF> NAAQS
in Pennsylvania. The commenter has not provided any comparison or
information to show why the Bighorn Pad Facility modeling results
should apply to these specific RACT II sources in Pennsylvania.
Further, the commenter has not presented any specific information
suggesting the RACT II CbC NO<INF>X</INF> determinations for these
specific sources could somehow lead to violations of the 2010 1-hour
NO<INF>X</INF> NAAQS. Without a more specific allegation from the
commenter about the sources in question, the commenter's allegations
are too speculative in nature to prevent EPA from approving PADEP's
RACT II CbC NO<INF>X</INF> determinations for sources at the eight
subject facilities.
Comment 2: The commenter is supportive of EPA's proposed
rulemaking, stating that it will positively affect citizens in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for multiple reasons and has suggested
some editorial improvements for future rulemakings that could aid
citizen comprehension.
Response 2: EPA recognizes the commenter's support and suggestions.
EPA will consider such suggestions for future rulemakings.
Comment 3: The commenter states that the RACT limit for Carmeuse
Lime, Inc of 4.6 lb/NO<INF>X</INF> per ton of lime is too lenient.
Additionally, the commenter asserts the testing requirement to verify
the emissions limit by stack test once every five years is insufficient
and should have required a Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS)
unit to monitor instantaneous emissions from the kiln or established an
emissions profile dependent on a number of factors that might impact
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions.
Response 3: As detailed in the facility files for Carmeuse Lime
contained in the docket for this action, the existing short-term
NO<INF>X</INF> limit for the No. 5 Kiln established under RACT I was
6.0 lbs NO<INF>X</INF>/ton of lime produced. The RACT II NO<INF>X</INF>
limit of 4.6 lb/ton approved here represents a reduction of emissions
from RACT I and was established through a statistical analysis using 17
years of historical performance testing data. PADEP also reviewed the
RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse to determine emission limits for similar
kilns and found that such limits ranged from 3.59 to 9.98 lb/ton. Based
on this information included in the docket, EPA determined that the
NO<INF>X</INF> limit of 4.6 lb/ton comports with the CAA requirements
for RACT.
The requirement for stack testing every five years is consistent
with Pennsylvania's RACT II compliance demonstration requirements in 25
Pa. Code 129.100, which is a part of Pennsylvania's SIP-approved RACT
regulations. Under those regulations, a
[[Page 48913]]
five-year stack testing period for sources without a CEMS is
authorized. In addition to the stack testing, PADEP's RACT II
determination includes requirements for a burner management plan to
ensure good combustion and burner optimization. It also requires daily
recordkeeping on limestone used, lime produced, and fuel consumed to
provide a current picture of source operations.\15\ The sufficiency of
the stack testing requirement is further justified in light of a long
history of stack testing on this kiln, which produced the data that
enabled the lowering of the NO<INF>X</INF> limit. The RACT II
requirements for Kiln No. 5 are also consistent with the current
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime
Manufacturing Plants, 40 CFR 63, Subpart AAAAA, of which the source is
also subject. Given the basis of the emissions limit and the stack
testing requirement, plus the establishment of other burner and daily
recordkeeping requirements, EPA continues to find PADEP's analysis
reasonable and is finalizing the RACT determination for Carmeuse Lime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See PADEP Technical Review Memo, dated November 19, 2018,
which is part of the docket for this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: The comment requests that EPA clarify which company is
subject to Permit No. 46-0005, included as part of EPA's proposed
rulemaking docket EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0597.
Response 4: Permit No. 46-0005 is the title V operating permit
number for Merck, Sharp, & Dohme Corp.'s facility located in West
Point, Upper Gwynedd Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The
cover page (page 1) of Permit No. 46-0005 contains additional owner,
plant, owner, and responsible official contact information for this
facility. Merck, Sharpe, and Dohme is the company name referred to in
the provisions to be incorporated into the SIP.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving case-by-case RACT determinations and/or
alternative NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits for eight sources in
Pennsylvania, as required to meet obligations pursuant to the 1997 and
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of source-
specific RACT determinations and alternative NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
limits under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain major
sources of VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> in Pennsylvania. EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://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 by November 1, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action approving Pennsylvania's NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC
RACT requirements for eight facilities for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS may not be challenged later in
[[Page 48914]]
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 17, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania
0
2. In Sec. 52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries ``Merck and Co., Inc.--West Point Facility;''
``National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.--Roystone Compressor Station;'' and
``Department of the Army;'' and
0
b. Adding the following entries at the end of the table: ``Volvo
Construction Equipment North America;'' ``National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation--Roystone Compressor Station;'' ``E.I. DuPont de Nemours
and Co.;'' ``Carmeuse Lime Inc.;'' ``Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corp.;''
``Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Corp. (formerly referenced as Merck and Co.,
Inc.--West Point Facility);'' ``Letterkenny Army Depot (formerly
referenced as Department of the Army);'' ``Fairless Energy, LLC.''
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional explanations/Sec.
Name of source Permit No. County State effective EPA approval date Sec. 52.2063 and 52.2064
date citations \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Merck and Co., Inc.--West Point OP-46-0005 Montgomery............ 1/13/97 6/23/00 4/18/01, 66 FR 19858. See also 52.2064(d)(6).
Facility.
* * * * * * *
National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.-- OP-62-141F Warren................ 4/1/03 10/27/04, 69 FR 62583 See also 52.2064(d)(2).
Roystone Compressor Station.
* * * * * * *
Department of the Army............. 28-02002 Franklin.............. 2/3/00 3/31/05, 70 FR 16416. See also 52.2064(d)(7).
* * * * * * *
Volvo Construction Equipment North 28-05012 Franklin.............. 6/1/19 9/1/21, [insert 52.2064(d)(1).
America. Federal Register
citation].
National Fuel Gas Supply 62-141H Warren................ 1/16/18 9/1/21, [insert 52.2064(d)(2).
Corporation--Roystone Compressor Federal Register
Station. citation].
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co...... 08-00002 Bradford.............. 9/28/18 9/1/21, [insert 52.2064(d)(3).
Federal Register
citation].
Carmeuse Lime Inc.................. 38-05003 Lebanon............... 3/6/19 9/1/21, [insert 52.2064(d)(4).
Federal Register
citation].
Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corp...... 13-00008 Carbon................ 10/27/17 9/1/21, [insert 52.2064(d)(5).
Federal Register
citation].
Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Corp. 46-00005 Montgomery............ 1/5/17 9/1/21, [insert 52.2064(d)(6).
(formerly referenced as Merck and Federal Register
Co., Inc.--West Point Facility). citation].
Letterkenny Army Depot (formerly 28-05002 Franklin.............. 6/1/18 9/1/21, [insert 52.2064(d)(7).
referenced as Department of the Federal Register
Army). citation].
Fairless Energy, LLC............... 09-00124 Bucks................. 12/6/16 9/1/21, [insert 52.2064(d)(8).
Federal Register
citation].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 52.2064 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2064 EPA-Approved Source Specific Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).
* * * * *
(d) Approval of source-specific RACT requirements for 1997 and 2008
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards for the facilities
listed below are incorporated as specified below. (Rulemaking Docket
No. EPA-OAR-2020-0597).
(1) Volvo Construction Equipment North America, LLC.--Incorporating
by reference Permit No. 28-05012, effective June 1, 2019, as redacted
by Pennsylvania.
(2) National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation Roystone Compressor
Station--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 62-141H, effective
January 16, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania. All permit conditions in
the prior RACT Permit No. OP-62-141F, effective April 1, 2003, remain
as RACT requirements except for the Penneco boiler (1.5 MMBtu/hr) and
Struthers boiler (2.5 MMBtu/hr), which are no longer in operation. See
also Sec. 52.2063(c)(213)(i)(B)(1) for prior RACT approval.
(3) E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company--Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 08-00002, effective September 28, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania.
(4) Carmeuse Lime, Inc--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 38-
05003, effective March 6, 2019, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
(5) Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corporation--Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 13-00008, effective October 27, 2017, as redacted
by Pennsylvania.
(6) Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corporation--Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 46-00005, issued January 5, 2017, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. OP-46-0005,
issued January 13, 1997 and revised June 23, 2000, except for the
following conditions, which remain as a RACT requirements applicable to
the following sources:
[[Page 48915]]
Conditions #4A, #9C, and #13D for boiler 3 (Source ID 033); conditions
#4A, #9C, and #13D for boiler 5 (Source ID 035); conditions #4B and #9
for the gas turbine (Source ID 039); conditions #6A, #6B, and #6D for
any remaining shell freezers (Source ID 105); conditions #6A and #6D
for air emissions (disinfection; Source IDs 105, 107, 108, and 111);
conditions #4C and #9 for any remaining generators (various Source
IDs); condition #8 for research and development (Section C); and
condition #11 for any remaining deminimus sources (Section C). See also
Sec. 52.2063(c)(154)(i)(D) for prior RACT approval.
(7) Letterkenny Army Depot--Incorporating by reference Permit No.
28-05002, effective June 1, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania, which
supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. 28-02002, effective February 3,
2000 except for conditions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 which also
remain as RACT requirements. See also Sec. 52.2063(d)(1)(g) for prior
RACT approval.
(8) Fairless Energy, LLC--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 09-
00124, effective December 6, 2016 as redacted by Pennsylvania.
[FR Doc. 2021-18752 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 1, 2021.
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.