ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
52
[
EPA­
R03­
OAR­
2006­
0123;
FRL­
]

Approval
and
Promulgation
of
Air
Quality
Implementation
Plans;
Pennsylvania;
RACT
Determinations
for
Thirteen
Individual
Sources
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
is
approving
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
revisions
submitted
by
the
Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania
(
Pennsylvania).
The
revisions
impose
reasonably
available
control
technology
(
RACT)
on
thirteen
major
sources
of
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
or
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)
located
in
the
Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania.
EPA
is
approving
these
revisions
to
establish
RACT
requirements
in
the
SIP
in
accordance
with
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA
or
the
Act).

EFFECTIVE
DATE:
This
final
rule
is
effective
on
[
insert
date
30
days
from
date
of
publication].

ADDRESSES:
ADDRESSES:
EPA
has
established
a
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
Number
EPA­
R03­
OAR­
2006­
0123.
All
documents
in
the
docket
are
listed
in
the
www.
regulations.
gov
website.
Although
listed
in
the
electronic
docket,
some
information
is
not
publicly
available,
i.
e.,
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
2
docket
materials
are
available
either
electronically
through
www.
regulations.
gov
or
in
hard
copy
for
public
inspection
during
normal
business
hours
at
the
Air
Protection
Division,
U.
S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
III,
1650
Arch
Street,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
19103.
Copies
of
the
State
submittal
are
available
at
the
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,
Bureau
of
Air
Quality,
P.
O.
Box
8468,
400
Market
Street,
Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania
17105.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Marcia
Spink
(
215)
814­
2104
or
by
e­
mail
at
spink.
marcia@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
Background
On
April
18,
2000
(
65
FR
20788),
EPA
published
a
direct
final
rule
approving
RACT
determinations
submitted
by
the
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
for
twenty­
six
major
sources
of
NOx
and/
or
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
and
a
companion
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking.
We
received
adverse
comments
on
the
direct
final
rule
and
a
request
for
an
extension
of
the
comment
period.
We
had
indicated
in
our
April
18,
2000
direct
final
rulemaking
that
if
we
received
adverse
comments,
we
would
withdraw
the
direct
final
rule
and
address
all
public
comments
in
a
subsequent
final
rule
based
on
the
proposed
rule
(
65
FR
20788).
On
June
19,
2000
(
65
FR
38168),
EPA
published
a
withdrawal
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
informing
the
public
that
the
direct
final
rule
did
not
take
effect.
On
June
19,
2000
(
65
FR
38169),
we
also
published
a
notice
providing
an
extension
of
the
comment
period
and
making
3
corrections
to
our
original
proposed
rule.

This
rule
takes
final
action
approving
RACT
for
thirteen
of
the
twenty­
six
sources
that
were
included
in
the
April
18,
2000
proposed
rulemaking
(
65
FR
20788).
Approvals
of
RACT
for
ten
of
the
twenty­
six
sources
have
already
been
the
subjects
of
separate
final
rulemakings.
Elsewhere
in
today's
Federal
Register,
EPA
is
withdrawing
its
April
18,
2000
proposed
rule
with
regard
to
the
three
remaining
sources,
namely,
Doverspike
Brothers
Coal
Co.,
Hedstrom
Corporation,
and
the
thermal
coal
dryers
at
EME
Homer
City,
LP.
These
formerly
RACT­
subject
sources
have
been
permanently
shut
down,
and
the
Pennsylvania
DEP
has
indicated
to
EPA
that
no
RACT
need
be
approved
for
them.

II.
Summary
of
the
SIP
Revisions
The
Pennsylvania
DEP
submitted
NOx
and/
or
VOC
RACT
determinations
for
thirteen
sources
located
in
the
Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania.
The
names
of
those
sources,
the
DEP
Plan
Approval
(
PA)
or
Operating
Permit
(
OP)
number
for
each
source,
the
name
of
the
County
in
which
each
source
is
located,
and
the
pollutant
for
which
RACT
has
been
imposed
are
provided
in
the
following
table.

Name
of
Source
PA
or
OP
#
County
Pollutant
*
Cogentrix
of
Pennsylvania
Inc.
(
Now
Village
Farms
LP)
33­
0137
33­
302­
014
33­
399­
004
Jefferson
NOx
*
Scrubgrass
Generating
Company,
LP
61­
0181
Venango
NOx
*
Wheelabrator
Frackville
Energy
Co.
54­
005
Schuylkill
NOx
4
*
Indiana
University
of
Pennsylvania
­
S.
W.
Jack
Cogeneration
Facility
32­
000­
200
Indiana
NOx
Fleetwood
Motor
Homes
49­
0011
Northcumberland
VOC
*
Piney
Creek,
LP
16­
0127
Clarion
NOx
Statoil
Energy
Power
Paxton,
LP
(
Now
NRG
Energy
CTR
Paxton
LLC)
22­
02015
Dauphin
NOx
Harrisburg
Steamworks
(
Now
owned
by
NRG
Energy
CTR
Paxton
LLC)
22­
02005
Dauphin
NOx
Cove
Shoe
Company
(
Now
H.
H.
Brown
Shoe
Company)
07­
02028
Blair
VOC
PP&
L
­
Fichbach
C.
T.
Facility
54­
0011
Schuylkill
NOx
PP&
L
­
Allentown
C.
T.
Facility
39­
0009
Lehigh
NOx
PP&
L
­
Harwood
C.
T.
Facility
40­
0016
Luzerne
NOx
PP&
L
­
Jenkins
C.
T.
Facility
40­
0017
Luzerne
NOx
*
For
these
large
NOx
sources,
the
Commonwealth
has
adopted
and
implemented
additional
"
post
RACT
requirements"
to
reduce
seasonal
NOx
emissions
in
the
form
of
a
NOx
cap
and
trade
regulation,
25
Pa
Code
Chapters
121
and
123,
based
upon
a
model
rule
developed
by
the
States
in
the
Ozone
Transport
Region.
That
regulation
was
approved
as
SIP
revision
on
June
6,
2000
(
65
FR
35842).
Pennsylvania
has
also
adopted
25
Pa
Code
Chapter
145
to
satisfy
the
NOx
SIP
call.
That
regulation
was
approved
as
a
SIP
revision
on
August
21,
2001
(
66
FR
43795).
Federal
approval
of
a
source­
specific
RACT
determination
for
these
major
sources
of
NOx
in
no
way
relieves
those
sources
from
any
applicable
requirements
found
in
25
PA
Code
Chapters
121,
123
and
145.

On
April
18,
2000
(
65
FR
20788),
EPA
proposed
to
approve
RACT
SIP
revisions
for
these
thirteen
sources.
Detailed
descriptions
of
the
RACT
determination
for
these
thirteen
sources
were
provided
in
EPA's
Technical
Support
Documents
(
TSDs)
prepared
in
support
of
its
April
18,
2000
rulemaking
as
well
as
in
the
SIP
submissions
made
by
DEP,
and
shall
not
be
restated
here.
In
short,
EPA
proposed
that
the
DEP
had
established
and
imposed
RACT
requirements
in
5
accordance
with
the
criteria
set
forth
in
the
SIP­
approved
RACT
regulations
applicable
to
these
sources.
The
DEP
has
also
imposed
record­
keeping,
monitoring,
and
testing
requirements
on
these
sources
sufficient
to
determine
compliance
with
the
applicable
RACT
determinations.

II.
Summary
of
Public
Comments
Received
and
EPA's
Responses
EPA
received
comments
on
its
April
18,
2000
proposal
to
approve
Pennsylvania's
RACT
SIP
submittals
from
Citizens
for
Pennsylvania's
Future
(
PennFuture)
and
from
a
concerned
citizen.

Those
comments
and
EPA's
responses
are
as
follows:

PennFuture's
Comments:
PennFuture
comments
that
EPA
should
require
that
each
RACT
submittal
include
"
effective
and
enforceable
numerical
emission
limits"
as
a
condition
for
approval.
Additionally,
PennFuture
requests
that
EPA
only
approve
limits
that
are
no
higher
than
the
best
emission
rate
actually
achieved
after
the
application
of
RACT,
adjusted
only
to
reflect
legally
and
technically
valid
averaging
times
and
deviations.
PennFuture
contends
that
such
an
approach
will
ensure
maximum
environmental
benefits
and
minimize
the
opportunity
for
sources
to
generate
spurious
emission
reduction
credits
(
ERCs)
against
limits
that
exceed
emission
levels
actually
achieved
following
the
application
of
RACT.
Lastly
PennFuture
comments
that
EPA
should
describe
the
RACT
determinations
in
its
rulemaking
notices
published
in
the
Federal
Register
rather
than
simply
citing
to
technical
support
documents
and
other
materials
available
in
docket
of
the
rulemaking.

EPA's
Responses:
While
RACT,
as
defined
for
an
individual
source
or
source
category,
often
6
does
specify
an
emission
rate,
such
is
not
always
the
case.
EPA
has
issued
Control
Technique
Guidelines
(
CTGs)
which
states
are
to
use
as
guidance
in
development
of
their
RACT
determinations/
rules
for
certain
sources
or
source
categories.
Not
every
CTG
issued
by
EPA
includes
an
emission
rate.
There
are
several
examples
of
CTGs
issued
by
EPA
wherein
equipment
standards
and/
or
work
practice
standards
alone
are
provided
as
RACT
guidance
for
all
or
part
of
the
processes
covered.
Such
examples
include
the
CTGs
issued
for
Bulk
gasoline
plants,
Gasoline
service
stations
­
Stage
I,
Petroleum
Storage
in
Fixed­
roof
tanks,
Petroleum
refinery
processes,
Solvent
metal
cleaning,
Pharmaceutical
products,
External
Floating
roof
tanks
and
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturing
(
SOCMI)/
polymer
manufacturing.
(
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
catc/
dir1/
ctg.
txt
).

In
EPA's
proposed
conditional
limited
approval
of
the
Commonwealth's
RACT
regulations
(
62
FR
43134,
August
12,
1997)
and
in
EPA's
final
conditional
limited
approval
of
those
regulations
(
63
FR
13789,
March
23,
1998),
EPA
addressed
the
issue
of
what
types
of
RACT
provisions
would
be
acceptable.
In
the
proposed
rule
EPA
noted
that
while
it
defines
RACT
as
"
the
lowest
emission
limitation
that
a
source
is
capable
of
meeting
by
the
application
of
control
technology
that
is
reasonably
available
considering
technological
and
economic
feasibility."
the
definition
of
emission
limitation
did
not
necessarily
require
the
establishment
of
a
numerical
emission
limitation.
EPA
further
noted
that
"[
s]
ection
302
of
the
Act
in
turn
defines
`
emission
limitation'
as
a
`
requirement
.
.
.
which
limits
the
quantity,
rate
or
concentration
of
air
pollutants
on
a
continuous
basis,
.
.
.
,
and
any
design,
equipment,
work
practice
or
operational
standard
promulgated
under
this
chapter.'
"
Furthermore,
in
the
March
23,
1998
final
rule
EPA
stated
7
that,
"
it
is
possible
that
RACT
for
certain
sources
and
source
categories
could
consist
of
requirements
that
do
not
specifically
include
emission
limitations,
but
instead
have
other
limitations."

With
regard
to
the
criteria
EPA
uses
to
determine
whether
to
approve
or
disapprove
RACT
SIP
revisions
submitted
by
DEP
pursuant
to
25
Pa
Code
Chapter
129.91
­
129.95,
we
look
to
the
provisions
of
those
SIP­
approved
regulations
and
to
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
relevant
EPA
guidance.
As
previously
stated,
on
March
23,
1998
(
63
FR
13789),
EPA
granted
conditional
limited
approval
of
Pennsylvania's
generic
RACT
regulations,
25
PA
Code
Chapters
121
and
129,
thereby
approving
the
definitions,
provisions
and
procedures
contained
within
those
regulations
under
which
the
Commonwealth
would
require
and
impose
RACT.
Subsection
129.91,
Control
of
major
sources
of
NOx
and
VOCs,
requires
subject
facilities
to
submit
a
RACT
plan
proposal
to
both
the
Pennsylvania
DEP
and
to
EPA
Region
III
by
July
15,
1994
in
accordance
with
subsection
129.92,
entitled,
RACT
proposal
requirements.
Under
subsection
129.92,
that
proposal
is
to
include
among
other
information
(
1)
A
list
of
each
subject
source
at
the
facility;
(
2)
The
size
or
capacity
of
each
affected
source,
and
the
types
of
fuel
combusted,
and
the
types
and
amounts
of
materials
processed
or
produced
at
each
source;
(
3)
A
physical
description
of
each
source
and
its
operating
characteristics;
(
4)
Estimates
of
potential
and
actual
emissions
from
each
affected
source
with
supporting
documentation;
(
5)
A
RACT
analysis
which
meets
the
requirements
of
subsection
129.92
(
b),
including
technical
and
economic
support
documentation
for
each
affected
source;
(
6)
A
schedule
for
implementation
as
expeditiously
as
practicable
but
not
later
than
May
15,
1995;
(
7)
The
testing,
monitoring,
recordkeeping
and
8
reporting
procedures
proposed
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
RACT;
and
(
8)
any
additional
information
requested
by
the
DEP
necessary
to
evaluate
the
RACT
proposal.
Under
subsection
129.91,
the
DEP
will
approve,
deny
or
modify
each
RACT
proposal,
and
submit
each
RACT
determination
to
EPA
for
approval
as
a
SIP
revision.
The
conditional
nature
of
EPA's
March
23,

1998
conditional
limited
approval
did
not
impose
any
conditions
pertaining
to
the
regulation's
procedures
for
the
submittal
of
RACT
plans
and
analyses
by
subject
sources
and
approval
of
caseby
case
RACT
determinations
by
the
DEP.
Rather,
EPA
stated
that
"...
RACT
rules
may
not
merely
be
procedural
rules
(
emphasis
added)
that
require
the
source
and
the
State
to
later
agree
to
the
appropriate
level
of
control;
rather
the
rules
must
identify
the
appropriate
level
of
control
for
source
categories
or
individual
sources."

EPA
reviews
the
case­
by­
case
RACT
plan
approvals
and/
or
permits
submitted
as
individual
SIP
revisions
by
the
Commonwealth
to
verify
and
determine
if
they
are
consistent
with
the
RACT
requirements
of
the
Act
and
any
relevant
EPA
guidance.
EPA
first
reviews
a
SIP
submission
to
ensure
that
the
source
and
the
Commonwealth
followed
the
SIP­
approved
generic
rule
when
applying
for
and
imposing
RACT,
respectively.
Then
EPA
performs
a
thorough
review
of
the
technical
and
economic
analyses
conducted
by
the
source
and
the
state.
If
EPA
believes
additional
information
may
further
support
or
would
undercut
the
RACT
analyses
submitted
by
the
state,
then
we
may
add
additional
EPA­
generated
analyses
to
the
record.
Thus,
EPA
does
not
believe
it
would
be
appropriate
to
only
approve
limits
that
are
no
higher
than
the
best
emission
rate
actually
achieved
after
the
application
of
RACT,
adjusted
only
to
reflect
legally
and
technically
valid
averaging
times
and
deviations.
9
EPA
does
note
that
an
approved
RACT
emission
limitation
alone
does
not
constitute
the
baseline
against
which
ERCs
may
be
generated.
There
are
many
other
factors
that
must
be
considered
in
the
calculation
of
eligible
ERCs
under
Pennsylvania's
approved
SIP
regulations
governing
the
creation
ERCs.
Moreover,
the
scenario
posed
in
PennFuture's
comment
would
not
create
eligible
ERC's
under
the
Commonwealth
approved
SIP
regulations.
Under
the
Commonwealth's
regulations
pertaining
to
ERCs,
found
at
25
Pa.
Code
Chapter
127,
sections
127.206
through
127.210
[
approved
by
the
EPA
at
62
FR
64722
on
December
9,
1997],
sources
cannot
obtain
ERCs
if
they
find
that
their
RACT
controls
result
in
lower
emissions
than
allowed
by
their
specified
RACT
limits.

EPA
believes
that
Federal
rulemaking
procedures
allow
for
the
format
used
in
April
18,
2000
rulemaking
(
65
FR
20788).
EPA
believes
that
anyone
interested
in
the
specific
requirements
of
the
individual
RACT
determinations
did
have
the
opportunity
to
obtain
that
information,
as
in
the
preamble
of
the
April
18,
2000
Federal
Register
notice,
EPA
offered
to
send
anyone,
upon
request,
a
copy
of
the
our
TSDs
prepared
in
support
of
the
action.
Copies
of
those
TSDs
are
included
in
the
docket
established
for
this
final
rule
under
Docket
ID
Number
at
EPA­
R03­
OAR­

2006­
0123.

Additional
Comments:
A
private
citizen
submitted
comments
on
the
NOx
RACT
determinations
made
for
the
PP&
L
facilities
and
for
Harrisburg
Steamworks.
With
regard
to
the
PP&
L
facilities,
the
commenter
suggests
if
the
capacity
factors
upon
which
the
RACT
determinations
are
based
are
ever
exceeded,
the
RACT
determinations
should
be
re­
reviewed,
and
10
that
such
a
condition
should
be
placed
in
the
RACT
permits
with
appropriate
record­
keeping
and
reporting.
With
regard
to
Harrisburg
Steam,
the
commenter
cites
to
the
fact
that
EPA's
Technical
Support
Document
(
TSD)
states
that
the
boilers
typically
operate
at
a
15%
capacity
factor,
and
asserts
that
if
this
capacity
factor
was
used
to
determine
RACT,
then
the
permit
should
either
limit
the
capacity
factor
of
the
boilers
or
require
RACT
to
be
re­
evaluated
when
the
capacity
factor
reaches
30%
or
some
other
reasonable
capacity
factor.

EPA's
Responses:
EPA
concurs
with
these
comments.
Pennsylvania's
SIP­
approved
generic
RACT
rules
require
that
sources
operate
in
accordance
with
the
parameters
specified
in
their
RACT
applications
and/
or
RACT
permits
including
capacity
factors.
The
DEP
has
imposed
record­
keeping,
monitoring,
and
testing
requirements
on
these
sources
sufficient
to
determine
compliance
with
the
applicable
parameters
of
their
applications
and
RACT
determinations.

Sources
seeking
variances
from
the
operating
parameters
specified
in
their
applications
and/
or
RACT
permits
that
could
result
in
emissions
increases
are
subject
to
re­
evaluation
to
determine
whether
those
emission
increases
trigger
a
more
stringent
RACT
determination
or
the
more
stringent
Pennsylvania
SIP
requirements
for
new
source
review.

III.
Final
Action
EPA
is
approving
thirteen
revisions
to
the
Pennsylvania
SIP
submitted
by
DEP
to
establish
and
require
VOC
and/
or
NOx
RACT
the
thirteen
sources
indicated
herein.
EPA
is
approving
these
RACT
SIP
submittals
because
DEP
established
and
imposed
these
RACT
requirements
in
accordance
with
the
criteria
set
forth
in
the
SIP­
approved
RACT
regulations
applicable
to
these
11
sources
and
EPA
has
determined
they
meet
the
RACT
requirements
of
section
182
of
the
CAA.

The
DEP
has
also
imposed
recordkeeping,
monitoring,
and
testing
requirements
on
these
sources
sufficient
to
determine
compliance
with
the
applicable
RACT
determinations.

IV.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
General
Requirements
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
this
action
is
not
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
and
therefore
is
not
subject
to
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget.
For
this
reason,
this
action
is
also
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
"
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use"
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001).
This
action
merely
approves
state
law
as
meeting
Federal
requirements
and
imposes
no
additional
requirements
beyond
those
imposed
by
state
law.
Accordingly,
the
Administrator
certifies
that
this
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
under
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.).
Because
this
rule
approves
pre­
existing
requirements
under
state
law
and
does
not
impose
any
additional
enforceable
duty
beyond
that
required
by
state
law,
it
does
not
contain
any
unfunded
mandate
or
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
as
described
in
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
Public
Law
104­
4).
This
rule
also
does
not
have
tribal
implications
because
it
will
not
have
a
substantial
direct
effect
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
by
Executive
Order
13175
(
65
FR
67249,
November
9,
2000).
This
action
also
does
not
have
Federalism
implications
because
it
12
does
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999).

This
action
merely
approves
a
state
rule
implementing
a
Federal
requirement,
and
does
not
alter
the
relationship
or
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
established
in
the
Clean
Air
Act.

This
rule
also
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
"
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks"
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997),
because
it
is
not
economically
significant.
In
reviewing
SIP
submissions,
EPA's
role
is
to
approve
state
choices,

provided
that
they
meet
the
criteria
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
In
this
context,
in
the
absence
of
a
prior
existing
requirement
for
the
State
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
(
VCS),
EPA
has
no
authority
to
disapprove
a
SIP
submission
for
failure
to
use
VCS.
It
would
thus
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
for
EPA,
when
it
reviews
a
SIP
submission,
to
use
VCS
in
place
of
a
SIP
submission
that
otherwise
satisfies
the
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
do
not
apply.
This
rule
does
not
impose
an
information
collection
burden
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.).

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
exempts
from
section
801
the
following
types
of
rules:
(
1)
rules
of
particular
applicability;
(
2)
13
rules
relating
to
agency
management
or
personnel;
and
(
3)
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).
EPA
is
not
required
to
submit
a
rule
report
regarding
today's
action
under
section
801
because
this
is
a
rule
of
particular
applicability
establishing
source­
specific
requirements
for
thirteen
named
sources.

C.
Petitions
for
Judicial
Review
Under
section
307(
b)(
1)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
petitions
for
judicial
review
of
this
action
must
be
filed
in
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
appropriate
circuit
by
[
insert
date
60
days
from
date
of
publication
of
this
document
in
the
Federal
Register].
Filing
a
petition
for
reconsideration
by
the
Administrator
of
this
final
rule
does
not
affect
the
finality
of
this
rule
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
revisions
to
the
Pennsylvania
SIP
submitted
by
DEP
to
establish
and
require
VOC
and/
or
NOx
RACT
for
thirteen
sources
located
in
the
Commonwealth
of
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,
Nitrogen
dioxide,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Volatile
organic
compounds.

___________________________
Dated:
February
28,
2006
William
Early,
Acting
Regional
Administrator,
Region
III.
40
CFR
part
52
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
52
­
[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
52
continues
to
read
as
follows:
Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401
et
seq.

Subpart
NN 
Pennsylvania
2.
In
Section
52.2020,
the
table
in
paragraph
(
d)(
1)
is
amended
by
adding
the
entries
for
Cogentrix
of
Pennsylvania
Inc.;
Scrubgrass
Generating
Company,
LP;
Wheelabrator
Frackville
Energy
Co.;
Indiana
University
of
Pennsylvania
­
S.
W.
Jack
Cogeneration
Facility;
Fleetwood
Motor
Homes;
Piney
Creek,
LP;
Statoil
Energy
Power
Paxton,
LP;
Harrisburg
Steamworks;
Cove
Shoe
Company;
PP&
L
­
Fichbach
C.
T.
Facility;
PP&
L
­
Allentown
C.
T.
Facility;
PP&
L
­
Harwood
C.
T.
Facility;
and
PP&
L
­
Jenkins
C.
T.
Facility
at
the
end
of
the
table
to
read
as
follows:

§
52.2020
Identification
of
plan.

*
*
*
*
*

(
d)
*
*
*

(
1)
*
*
*

Name
of
Source
Permit
Number
County
State
Effective
Date
EPA
Approval
Date
Additional
Explanation/
§
52.2063
citation
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Cogentrix
of
Pennsylvania
Inc.
OP­
33­
0137
Jefferson
1/
27/
98
[
Insert
Federal
Register
publication
date]
[
Insert
page
number
where
the
document
begins]
52.2020(
d)(
1)(
l)

PA­
33­
302­
014
11/
15/
90
Except
for
all
ton
per
year
limits
and
expiration
dates
in
these
permits,
for
Conditions
4,5,
and
6;

OP­
33­
302­
014
5/
31/
93
Except
for
Condition
2
PA
33 
399 
004
10/
31/
98
Except
for
Conditions
1,
2,
3,
4b,
4c,
4d,
4e,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
12,
13,
14,
15,
and
16;
Name
of
Source
Permit
Number
County
State
Effective
Date
EPA
Approval
Date
Additional
Explanation/
§
52.2063
citation
15
OP
33 
399 
004
5/
31/
93
Except
for
Condition
2.

Scrubgrass
Generating
Company,
LP
OP­
61­
0181
Venango
4/
30/
98
[
Insert
Federal
Register
publication
date]
[
Insert
page
number
where
the
document
begins]
52.2020(
d)(
1)(
l)
Except
for
Conditions
4,
6,
7,
and
9
Wheelabrator
Frackville
Energy
Co.
OP­
54­
005
Schuylkill
9/
18/
98
[
Insert
Federal
Register
publication
date]
[
Insert
page
number
where
the
document
begins]
52.2020(
d)(
1)(
l)
Except
for
the
particulate
and
SO2
emission
limits
found
in
Condition
4,
Condition
5,
6,
7,
9,
10,
11,
12
and
13
and
the
expiration
date
Indiana
University
of
Pennsylvania
­
S.
W.
Jack
Cogeneration
Facility
OP­
32­
000­
200
Indiana
9/
24/
98
[
Insert
Federal
Register
publication
date]
[
Insert
page
number
where
the
document
begins]
52.2020(
d)(
1)(
l)
Except
for
the
expiration
date
and
Conditions
5,
7,
10,
12,
20,
21,
and
22;

Fleetwood
Motor
Homes
OP­
49­
0011
Northumberland
10/
30/
98
[
Insert
Federal
Register
publication
date]
[
Insert
page
number
where
the
document
begins]
52.2020(
d)(
1)(
l)
Except
for
Conditions
3,
5,
23 
31
and
the
expiration
date
Piney
Creek,
LP
OP­
16­
0127
Clarion
12/
18/
98
[
Insert
Federal
Register
publication
date]
[
Insert
page
number
where
the
document
begins]
52.2020(
d)(
1)(
l)
Except
for
the
ton
per
year
and
#/
hr
limits
in
Condition
4,
Conditions
5
and
9
Name
of
Source
Permit
Number
County
State
Effective
Date
EPA
Approval
Date
Additional
Explanation/
§
52.2063
citation
16
Statoil
Energy
Power
Paxton,
LP
OP­
22­
02015
Dauphin
6/
30/
99
[
Insert
Federal
Register
publication
date]
[
Insert
page
number
where
the
document
begins]
52.2020(
d)(
1)(
l)
Except
for
the
expiration
date
and
Conditions
6,
16,
19
and
20
Harrisburg
Steamworks
OP­
22­
02005
Dauphin
3/
23/
99
[
Insert
Federal
Register
publication
date]
[
Insert
page
number
where
the
document
begins]
52.2020(
d)(
1)(
l)
Except
for
Conditions
5,
8,
11,
9,
10,18,
19,
22,
23,
24
and
the
expiration
date;

Cove
Shoe
Company
OP­
07­
02028
Blair
4/
7/
99
[
Insert
Federal
Register
publication
date]
[
Insert
page
number
where
the
document
begins]
52.2020(
d)(
1)(
l)
except
for
Conditions
5,
10
and
the
expiration
date;

PP&
L
­
Fichbach
C.
T.
Facility
OP­
54­
0011
Schuylkill
6/
1/
99
[
Insert
Federal
Register
publication
date]
[
Insert
page
number
where
the
document
begins]
52.2020(
d)(
1)(
l)
Except
for
the
expiration
date
PP&
L
­
Allentown
C.
T.
Facility
OP­
39­
0009
Lehigh
6/
1/
99
[
Insert
Federal
Register
publication
date]
[
Insert
page
number
where
the
document
begins]
52.2020(
d)(
1)(
l)
Except
for
the
expiration
date
PP&
L
­
Harwood
C.
T.
Facility
OP­
40­
0016
Luzerne
6/
1/
99
[
Insert
Federal
Register
publication
date]
[
Insert
page
number
where
the
document
begins]
52.2020(
d)(
1)(
l)
Except
for
the
expiration
date
Name
of
Source
Permit
Number
County
State
Effective
Date
EPA
Approval
Date
Additional
Explanation/
§
52.2063
citation
17
PP&
L
­
Jenkins
C.
T.
Facility
OP­
40­
0017
Luzerne
6/
1/
99
[
Insert
Federal
Register
publication
date]
[
Insert
page
number
where
the
document
begins]
52.2020(
d)(
1)(
l)
Except
for
the
expiration
date
*
*
*
*
*
