                    RESPONSES TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

                               Final Rulemaking
         Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOx and VOCs
       25 Pa. Code Chapters 121 and 129
46 Pa. B. 2036 (April 23, 2016)

The final-form regulation amends 25 Pa. Code Chapter 129 to adopt presumptive reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements and RACT emission limitations for certain major stationary sources of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions (hereinafter RACT II). The final-form rulemaking also provides for a petition process for an alternative compliance schedule, a facility-wide or system-wide NOx emissions averaging plan, an alternative RACT proposal petition process, and compliance demonstration and recordkeeping requirements.  The final-form rulemaking also amends § 121.1 to revise or add terms to support interpretation of the RACT final-form regulation.  In May 2016, the regulation was submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as a revision to the State Implementation Plan.

General:

 Question:  Do the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) states have similar RACT II regulations and did the Department collaborate with the other OTR states for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) regulation consistency?

DEP Response:  The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP or Department) reviewed and considered RACT regulations from various states when evaluating what constitutes reasonably available control technology for the types of sources affected by the final rulemaking.  Source categories in Pennsylvania are diverse with numerous individual sources having varying characteristics.  The Department evaluated these source categories and determined that the presumptive RACT requirements and emission limitations included in the final-form regulation are appropriate.

 Question:  What is the implication of changing the VOC definition in the revised rule?

DEP Response: The definition of volatile organic compound (VOC) contained in 25 Pa. Code §121.1 was not revised.  Since the Department's VOC definition incorporates the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) VOC definition in 40 CFR §51.100, any amendment of the EPA definition of VOC is automatically incorporated in the Pennsylvania Code and effective on the same effective date as the Part 51 amendment.

 Question:  Will the Department publish a technical guidance document that includes the Department's interpretations of certain rule provisions?

DEP Response:  This FAQ document should address all implementation issues, including interpretation of the RACT II rule provisions. This document will be updated periodically to address additional implementation issues.

 Question:  Can you buy or sell excess NOx or VOC emissions reduction credits (ERCs) to comply with RACT?

DEP Response:  Emission reduction credit (ERC) is defined as, "A permanent, enforceable, quantifiable and surplus [emphasis added] emissions reduction which can be considered as a reduction for the purpose of offsetting emissions increases."   An owner or operator cannot buy NOx ERCs to comply with RACT and cannot generate NOx ERCs by complying with RACT unless the reductions are generated from the over-control of NOx or VOC emissions.

In accordance with 25 Pa. Code §127.206(c), ERCs shall be proportionally reduced prior to use in a plan approval in an amount equal to the reductions that the generating facility is or would have been required to make in order to comply with new RACT requirements which apply to the generating facility after the ERCs were created.  ERCs that have been used in a plan approval or will be used in a plan approval by no later than January 1, 2017, for a new source or modification of an existing source will not be affected by the new RACT requirements.

 Question:  Is the DEP regional office responsible to send other states' notices or is the applicant?
DEP Response:  As required under 25 Pa. Code § 127.522 (Operating permit application review by the EPA and affected states), the Department provides notice of each proposed permit to a State within 50 miles of the Title V facility and any contiguous state whose air quality may be affected on or before the time that the Department provides this notice to the public.   The notices are provided by DEP's Regional Air Program Managers.
 Question:  Is the October 24[th] deadline based on postmark date or received date?
DEP Response:  Petitions and applications due by October 24[th] are considered timely if they are postmarked on or before October 24[th].
 Question:  What fees are required for a RACT submittal?
DEP Response:  Apart from the fees associated with the applications for the various permitting actions, there are no additional fees for a RACT application submission.

Applicability:

 Question:  If multiple processes/equipment which have separate stacks are under one Source ID in a facility's operating permit, can they be evaluated individually for exemption/applicability under RACT II?  A common example of this is a group of space heaters under one Source ID which collectively could not be exempted or limited to a default of good operating practices.

DEP Response:  Such an evaluation will be made on a case-by-case basis.  These sources will generally be evaluated individually to determine their potential-to-emit with regard to applicability and eligibility for presumptive requirements, unless the exhaust from multiple units is diverted to a single stack.

 Question:   What is the department's stance on presumptive RACT for process heaters between 20 and 50 MMBtu/hr and for furnaces greater than 50 MMBtu/hr?  Specifically, since neither of the categories have a presumptive standard, will the Department consider allowing facilities to demonstrate RACT using presumptive limits for combustion sources of the same size categories described above?

DEP Response:  No presumptive RACT requirements are included for process heaters with a rated heat input equal to or greater than 20 million Btu/hour and less than 50 million Btu/hour and furnaces with a rated heat input equal to or greater than 20 million Btu/hour.  Therefore, these units will require a case-by-case RACT evaluation.

 Question:  Does a flare (not exemptible), which is both a control device for VOC and an air emission unit (source) for NOx, require a RACT evaluation?

DEP Response:  Yes, the flare is a source of NOx emissions and therefore is subject to RACT requirements.  However, the presumptive RACT requirements included in 25 Pa. Code §129.97(c) are applicable to flares that control VOC emissions.

 Question:  There is no definition of a combined heat and power combustion turbine in the RACT II regulation.  A client has a natural gas fired combustion turbine (greater than 1,000 hp and less than 180 MW) that was designed and installed over 20 years ago, but for which they use the hot exhaust to aid in drying their product.  As a simple cycle combustion turbine, they are allowed under RACT 150 ppmvd NOx and 9 ppmvd VOC.  As a combined heat and power combustion turbine under RACT they are allowed 42 ppmvd NOx and 5 ppmvd VOC.  They are not a modern combined heat and power turbine, but seem to meet a general definition of combined heat and power.  Since this is actually a simple cycle turbine for which the hot exhaust is utilized, this older combustion turbine does not appear to be the same type of heat and power combustion turbine for which PADEP intended their presumptive limit under the RACT II regulations.  Please confirm whether this source can be submitted as a simple cycle turbine.

DEP Response:  Such an evaluation will be made on a case-by-case basis.  It is possible that the source described above could be considered as a simple cycle turbine.

 Question:   For a turbine located at a major source of NOx and minor source of VOC, please confirm that the turbine would not be subject to the turbine VOC presumptive RACT limits in 25 Pa. Code §129.97.

DEP Response:   The turbine would only be subject to the presumptive NOx RACT limit.  The turbine would not be subject to the VOC presumptive RACT limits in 25 Pa. Code §129.97 for turbines because it is not a major VOC-emitting source.

 Question:   If a major NOx-emitting facility has a NOx PAL, is it subject to the RACT II requirements, presumptive limits, etc.?

DEP Response:  Yes, a plant-wide applicability limit (PAL) provides relief only for nonattainment new source review (NNSR) purposes.

 Question:   25 Pa. Code §129.96 exempts sources subject to 25 Pa. Code §129.63 from RACT requirements.  Looking at 25 Pa. Code §129.63, it states a few times, "Except for those subject to the Federal National emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for halogenated solvent cleaners under 40 CFR Part 63 (relating to National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for source categories), this subsection applies to..."  So if there is a situation where a degreaser is subject to the NESHAP, are they exempt from RACT since the NESHAP fulfills any obligations under 25 Pa. Code §129.63 or are they required to submit case-by-case RACT since being subject to the NESHAP means that they are not subject to 25 Pa. Code §129.63?

DEP Response:  25 Pa. Code §129.96 only applies if a requirement or limitation has not been established under 25 Pa. Code §129.63.  The requirement for cleaners under 25 Pa. Code §129.63 is the NESHAP.  Therefore, these sources are not subject to RACT II requirements.

 Question:   There is no presumptive RACT or any RACT II limitations for paint booths.  Are paint booths at a major facility exempt from the regulation?

DEP Response:  As per 25 Pa Code § 129.96, the VOC requirements apply to the owner and operator of a major VOC emitting facility that was in existence on or before July 20, 2012, for which a requirement or emission limitation, or both, has not been established in §§ 129.51 -- 129.52c, 129.54 -- 129.69, 129.71 -- 129.73, 129.75, 129.77, 129.101 -- 129.107 and 129.301 -- 129.310.

Most of the paint booths may be covered under above referenced sections. Any paint booth not covered under these sections must submit a RACT proposal for a case-by-case RACT determination if VOC PTE for a single source is greater than or equal to 2.7 tons per year.

 Question:   For sources subject to and complying with standards in 25 Pa. Code §§ 129.51 -- 129.52c, 129.54 -- 129.69, 129.71 -- 129.73, 129.75, 129.77, 129.101 -- 129.107 or 129.301 -- 129.310, does the owner or operator need to submit anything to the Department under RACT II, indicating that they comply through the applicable standard?

DEP Response:  In accordance with 25 Pa. Code §129.96(a), sources subject to 25 Pa. Code §§ 129.51 -- 129.52c, 129.54 -- 129.69, 129.71 -- 129.73, 129.75, 129.77, 129.101 -- 129.107 or 129.301 -- 129.310 are not subject to the requirements of 25 Pa. Code §§129.96  -  129.100.  Therefore, no further action is required to be taken for these sources under RACT II.

 Question:   A facility exists prior to July 20, 2012, but the owner or operator of the facility constructs sources at that facility after July 20, 2012.  Are those new sources subject to the RACT II rule?

DEP Response:  No, the RACT II rule applies for the facility as it existed as of July 20, 2012.  Therefore, only sources at the facility constructed on or before July 20, 2012 are subject to RACT II requirements.  The only exception would be a facility that is a minor NOx and/or VOC emitting facility on July 20, 2012 that becomes a major NOx and/or VOC emitting facility after July 20, 2012 [see 25 Pa. Code §129.96(b)].  New facilities that come into existence after July 20, 2012 are not subject to the RACT II rule.

 Question:   If a facility contains sources that are subject to standards in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 129 that are exempted from the RACT II rule, but have processes that do not have emission limits under those standards, such as the use of stains or cleanup solvents, are the owner or operators required to submit a case-by-case analysis for those processes?

DEP Response:  For processes that are covered under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 129 standards and have emission limitations, VOC content limitations, or work practice standards under the Chapter 129 standards, the owner or operators are not required to submit a case-by-case RACT analysis.  Owners or operators are required to submit case-by-case RACT analyses for those processes if the potential-to-emit VOCs from any individual process is 2.7 tons per year or greater and there are no limitations or work practice requirements already covering the process.

Source Rating:

 Question:  Can an owner or operator take a heat input or power output permit restriction on a source in order to avoid tighter presumptive emission limitations?  Is a heater limited by permit to be under 50 MMBtu/hr (but capable of burning more) subject to presumptive RACT for sources over 50 MMBtu/hr?

DEP Response:  A permit restriction on heat input or power output is not sufficient.  Any de-rating of a source must be physical and permanent for the purposes of presumptive RACT emission limitations.  The de-rating of the source must be included in a DEP-issued operating permit before January 1, 2017.  Any physical change would trigger NSR applicability analysis.

  Question:  Can a facility use a source heat input rating less than the nameplate rated capacity in order to calculate NOx PTE to use as a cost-effectiveness calculation baseline in a case-by-case analysis?

DEP Response:  An owner or operator may take mass emission based limitations (in tons per year) for each source to calculate cost-effectiveness.  A permanent physical change to restrict the heat input of the source is not necessary when there is a PTE restriction.

 Question:  At what conditions is the power output of a turbine determined?

DEP Response:  Power output, for RACT applicability purposes, is determined at International Organization for Standardization (ISO) conditions.

 Question:  Does the rating for combined cycle combustion turbines cover the entire unit, including the duct burners?

DEP Response:  Yes, the entire unit must be considered to determine source rating.

Enforceable Restrictions:

 Question:  Is the major source potential-to-emit based on the facility as a whole or each emission unit?

DEP Response:  The potential-to-emit (PTE) thresholds described in the definitions of
 Major NOx-emitting facility and Major VOC-emitting facility contained in 25 Pa. Code §121.1 apply to a facility as a whole.

 Question:   If a facility wants to take a permit limit below the RACT NOx and/or VOC applicability threshold, will the limit need to be federally enforceable by Jan.1, 2017?  What happens if an amended operating permit incorporating a limit is not issued final by January 1, 2017?

DEP Response:  In accordance with 25 Pa. Code §129.96(d), an owner or operator of a facility seeking to become a minor facility for NOx and/or VOC to avoid RACT II requirements must have practically enforceable emission limitations in a DEP-issued plan approval or operating permit before January 1, 2017.  After this date, the owner or operator of a major NOx and/or VOC facility is required to be in compliance with the RACT regulation.

 Question:   If the owner/operator of an affected source elects to comply with a presumptive RACT requirement of 5 tpy of NOx PTE, must the federally enforceable 5 tpy limit be incorporated in a permit by Jan. 2017?

DEP Response:  If a source has a NOx PTE of greater than 5 tons per year (TPY), then the owner or operator must have a federally enforceable 5 TPY limit by January 1, 2017, in order to fall into that presumptive NOx RACT requirement category.  However, if the source has a natural or uncontrolled PTE of 5 TPY or less, then a specific NOx emission limitation is not required.  In this case, the owner or operator would need to keep records to show the PTE calculation for the source and be made available to the Department upon request.

 Question:   If the owner or operator of a major facility wants to be a minor facility by reducing emissions from one or more sources and bring down facility TPY emissions below major source thresholds, how would the new limits (or limitations) be established in revised Operating Permits, by minor modification administrative amendment, or significant modification?

DEP Response:  PTE restrictions may be incorporated into the permit through the minor modification or significant modification permitting procedures, as appropriate. The administrative amendment process cannot be used to incorporate these restrictions.  Additionally, if a plan approval is to be issued for other reasons, the PTE restrictions will be incorporated into the plan approval.

 Question:   Does an owner or operator of units which operate as backup units under the 5% annual capacity factor limit or 500 operating hours per year operating limit in 25 Pa. Code §129.97(c) need to have that limitation established as an enforceable permit limit prior to the January 2017 compliance date of the rule?

DEP Response:  The owner or operator of backup units opting to operate under the 5% annual capacity factor or 500 operating hours per year limit to meet the presumptive RACT requirements prescribed in §129.97(c) is not required to include the 5% annual capacity factor limit or 500 operating hours per year limit as an enforceable permit in the operating permit prior to the compliance date of the rule, which is January 1, 2017.  However, if such a unit is found to be operating in excess of the 5% annual capacity factor or 500 operating hours per year limit, as applicable, after the compliance date of January 1, 2017, the unit will not be in compliance with the RACT final-form regulation.

 Question:   If the operator proposes a federally enforceable restriction to limit the aggregate total annual NOx emissions for a facility without any add on controls and as if the entire facility complied with the applicable NOX RACT limitation (i.e., a facility wide limit) would the department approve such a proposal?

DEP Response:  No, the RACT is a source specific rule and not facility wide.  RACT must be evaluated for each source.

Emission Limits:

  Question:   The presumptive limits for reciprocating engines is in the form of VOC minus formaldehyde, while the limits for turbines are listed as VOC (as propane).  Are both limits excluding formaldehyde, or does the turbine limit include formaldehyde?

DEP Response:  The presumptive VOC limits for combustion turbines do include formaldehyde.  However, source testing of formaldehyde emissions from combustion turbines is not necessary for quantification since formaldehyde emissions from combustion turbines tend to be very small compared to other VOCs.  The owner or operator may use an alternative method, such as emission factors, to quantify formaldehyde emissions from turbines for the purposes of determining whether the facility is a major VOC emitting facility for RACT II applicability.

 Question:   Does the Department consider operating SCR at less than 600 degrees F as "bypassing the SCR" and still require the 0.12 lb NOx/MMBtu, or would another limit, such as the 0.35 lb NOx/MMBtu limit for a tangentially fired combustion unit, then apply?

DEP Response:  If a combustion unit has an SCR, then it can be subject to two different RACT standards, depending on temperature.  Low exhaust gas temperatures from the combustion unit are not considered as bypassing the SCR.

Multiple Fuels:

 Question:  Fuels representing < 1% of a unit's annual fuel consumptions on a heat-input basis are excluded from the requirement to determine the weighted average fuel limit.  In the example of a boiler that is a Gas 1 unit under the Boiler MACT but is permitted to fire oil during natural gas curtailment, when would the requirement to calculate the weighted average multiple fuel limit (average of fuel oil and natural gas presumptive limits) be triggered?

DEP Response:  The compliance date for the RACT II rule is January 1, 2017.

 Question:  In such cases, should the owners and operator of facilities be tracking oil usage on a 12-month rolling basis and start using a multiple fuel limit if the 12-month average fuel oil consumption becomes >= 1%?

DEP Response:  Yes, oil usage should be tracked on a 12-month rolling basis. The multiple fuel limit will apply if the 12-month average fuel oil consumption becomes >= 1%.

 Question:  Do they go back to the natural gas-only presumptive limit when the 12-month average fuel oil consumption becomes < 1% again?

DEP Response:  Yes, the natural gas-only presumptive limit will apply when the 12-month average fuel oil consumption is less than 1%.

 Question:  For units firing multiple fuels required to stack test to demonstrate compliance, is stack testing required on each fuel every 5 years?

DEP Response:  Yes, stack testing is required on each fuel type every five years.

 Question:  Is stack testing required for a fuel expected to represent more than 1% of the unit's annual fuel consumption?

DEP Response:  Yes, stack testing is required for a fuel expected to represent more than 1% of the unit's annual fuel consumption.

 Question:  It appears that 25 Pa. Code §129.97(g) is not limited to combustion sources, so (g)(4) could be construed as applying to a fuel-burning process (but not a combustion unit, per se)?
 Question:  How do you determine the presumptive RACT limit when you burn two (2) fuels (e.g. oil and gas) at varying relative rates?

DEP Response:  The requirements of 25 Pa. Code §129.97(g)(4) apply in situations where a single unit subject to 25 Pa. Code §§129.97(g)(1)  -  (3) (i.e. combustion unit, process heater, or turbine) fires multiple fuels within a compliance period (30-day rolling average for units with CEMS or during a stack test for units without CEMS).  This could apply for sources that fire multiple fuels simultaneously or sequentially.

 Question:  I've read 25 Pa. Code §129.97 (g)(4)(i) several times, but don't quite understand how to calculate or look up Ei. How is Ei calculated?

DEP Response:  In the equation, Ei is each presumptive RACT emission limitation given in 25 Pa. Code §§ 129.97(g)(1)  -  (3).  For example, for a boiler that fires both natural gas and #2 fuel oil within the compliance period, Ei would be 0.10 lb NOx/MMBtu for natural gas and 0.12 lb NOx/MMBtu for #2 fuel oil.

 Question:   In 25 Pa. Code §129.97(c)(7), it states that fuel-burning equipment with an annual capacity factor < 5% is subject to work practices  -  i.e., are exempt from numerical emission limits.  What about combustion sources with a capacity factor for a given fuel limited to < 5%?

DEP Response:  The presumptive RACT requirement of 25 Pa. Code §129.97(c)(7) specifies an annual capacity factor of 5%.  This capacity factor takes into account all fuels fired by the fuel-burning unit.  Should a unit subject to a presumptive RACT emission limit in 25 Pa. Code §129.97(g)(1)  -  (3) fire an alternate fuel that is greater than 1% of the unit's annual fuel consumption on a heat-input basis, the provisions of 25 Pa. Code §129.97(g)(4) would apply to determine the applicable RACT emission limit.  If such a unit does not show compliance with the presumptive emission limit through CEMS, a stack test would need to be conducted for each fuel fired by the unit.

 Question:   Because it is difficult to predict with certainty the contribution to the total heat input from secondary fuel(s) on an annual basis, the company is requesting the Department's concurrence that that the phrase "is excluded" can also mean "may be excluded."

DEP Response:  Yes, the operator of the affected unit may choose not to exclude any fuel representing less than 1% of the unit's annual fuel consumption on a heat-input basis.

 Question:  The owners or operators of a source (that utilizes Department-certified CEMS) envision they will be excluding a fuel representing less than 1% of the unit's annual fuel consumption on a heat-input basis when determining the applicable RACT multiple fuel emission limit.  How should this information be communicated to the Department?

DEP Response:  The owners or operators of the source must include corroborating information in the cover letter of the quarterly emissions report if a Department-certified CEMS is utilized.  The owners or operators of the source may petition the Department to include a fuel representing less than 1% of the unit's annual fuel consumption in the emission limit.

Emissions Averaging Plans:

 Question:   If the owner or operator of a facility would like to establish a NOx averaging plan pursuant to the provisions of 25 Pa. Code §129.98 but does not operate continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) on all sources to be included in the plan, how is stack test data utilized to demonstrate compliance in a NOx averaging plan?
 Question:   Is continuous monitoring required for averaging or is daily emission limit established by annual stack test?

DEP Response:  Sources without CEMS may be included in the averaging plan provided an adequate compliance demonstration could be conducted to ensure that the cumulative actual emissions will be less than the cumulative allowable emissions at all times.  The acceptability of such a plan will depend on the variability of the NOx emissions from the sources proposed to be included in the plan.  There may be more frequent stack testing and more rigorous periodic monitoring requirements. Should such an averaging plan be approved by DEP, the owner or operator should use the emission rate from the stack testing as the actual emissions in the averaging equation.

 Question:  If an owner or operator of one of the sources to be averaged will be installing controls and petitions for an alternative compliance schedule (up to 3 years), but there are other sources to be averaged that are not installing controls, can the facility seek the compliance extension for all sources to be averaged (even those that are not installing controls)?

DEP Response:  No, the three years compliance demonstration timeline applies only for sources that will require the installation of an air cleaning device to comply with RACT emissions limits.

 Question:   Can a NOx averaging plan include only a particular group of NOx sources in lieu of all NOx sources in a facility?

DEP Response:  The provisions of 25 Pa. Code §129.98 can be applied system-wide, facility-wide, or to a subset or smaller group of sources within a system or facility.

 Question:  How is a 30-day rolling average under a NOx averaging plan adjusted for months where a plant is shutdown or where lower-than-normal production takes place?

DEP Response:  Emissions averaging is on a mass basis.  The RACT II rule stipulates that cumulative actual emissions from the sources included in the averaging plan must be no greater than the cumulative allowable emissions for those sources on a 30-day rolling total basis.

 Question:  Can units in a NOx averaging plan be subject to an alternative RACT II limit and/or compliance schedule?

DEP Response:  All sources included in an averaging plan must be subject to a presumptive numerical NOx RACT limit in 25 Pa. Code §129.97.  However, an owner or operator may propose facility-wide or system-wide averaging as part of a case-by-case RACT proposal.  Sources with an alternate compliance schedule can be included in an averaging plan provided that those sources are subject to interim NOx RACT emission limitations.

 Question:  Will the Department be receptive to an averaging plan submitted as a back-up for compliance with RACT standards?

DEP Response:  Should an owner or operator elect to submit an averaging plan, compliance with the presumptive NOx RACT emission limitations would assure compliance with the approved NOx RACT averaging plan.

 Question:  Can you do emissions averaging between any source categories?  For example, if boilers are averaged with turbines, then with which presumptive limits does the owner or operator need to comply?  Boiler presumptive limits are in lbs/MMBtu and turbine presumptive limits are in ppm corrected to % O2.

DEP Response:  Yes, emissions averaging may be done across different source categories since the compliance demonstration for emissions averaging between sources is based on mass emissions.  The cumulative actual emissions from the sources included in the averaging plan must be no greater than the cumulative allowable emissions from the sources on a 30-day rolling basis.

 Question:  What is the reporting frequency for an averaging plan?

DEP Response:  The owner or operator of sources contained in a NOx RACT averaging plan shall submit reports to the appropriate DEP regional office(s) on at least a quarterly basis.  The actual reporting frequency will be approved by the Department on a case-by-case basis for each averaging plan.

 Question:   What is the appropriate permitting mechanism for an averaging plan approval?

DEP Response:  An approved averaging plan may be incorporated into the permit(s) through the minor modification or significant modification permitting procedures, as appropriate. The administrative amendment process cannot be used to incorporate the approved averaging plan.  Additionally, if a plan approval is to be issued for other reasons, the averaging plan will be incorporated into the plan approval.

 Question:   The preamble to the regulation (25 Pa. §129.98(a) Preamble page 2040) implies a system wide emissions averaging approach option for compliance can be used if the facilities are located in areas that are designated as unclassifiable/attainment and the operator has a common control for multiple facilities across Pennsylvania. Please clarify if this interpretation is correct.

DEP Response:  That is correct, provided, however that averaging must be done within the same ozone non-attainment area.  All areas located in unclassifiable/attainment are considered to be the same ozone non-attainment area.

 Question:   Within a system wide emissions averaging plan (reference 25 Pa. §129.98(m) Page 2041), can an individual facility with multiple affected engines have a cap to distinguish each facility contribution and thus whether it is liable or not for exceeding an emission average.

DEP Response:  The owner or operator cannot distinguish each facility contribution to emissions in an averaging plan for liability conditions.  In accordance with 25 Pa. Code §129.98(m), the owner and operator of the air contamination sources included in a facility-wide or system-wide NOx emissions averaging plan shall be liable for a violation of an applicable NOx RACT emission limitation at each source included in the NOx emissions averaging plan.

 Question:   In what units of measurement would facility-wide or system-wide averaging of emissions be based?  How would emissions data from CEMS be utilized?

DEP Response:  Facility-wide or system-wide averaging would compare actual pounds of pollutant vs. allowable pounds of pollutant.  If this comparison is done with CEMS data, you would need to compare the same underlying data set for each of the sources.  For example, let's assume you will be averaging emissions from three sources at a facility.  If any of the sources operated and produced emissions during day "x", day "x" would be included in the calculations for all the sources for facility-wide averaging purposes.  Therefore, you could have zero emissions for one or two of the sources on day "x" that would be utilized in the calculation of the 30-operating day actual vs. allowable pounds of pollutant.  The CEMDPS will perform the calculations for facility-wide averaging for source with CEMS.

Case-by-Case RACT Proposals:

 Question:  If a source subject to 25 Pa. Code §§ 129.96  -  129.100 has no presumptive RACT requirement or emission limitation, must it be included in a case-by-case RACT proposal?

DEP Response:  Yes, the owner or operator is required to submit a case-by-case RACT proposal by October 24, 2016.

 Question:  What is the cost-effectiveness threshold for NOx and VOC?

DEP Response:  There are no bright-line amounts for cost-effective control for case-by-case RACT that are appropriate in every situation.  The presumptive RACT benchmarks are $2,800/ton NOx and $5,500/ton VOC.  The RACT II preamble notes that a 25% buffer to the cost-effectiveness will not change the presumptive RACT determinations.  This increases the presumptive benchmarks to 3,500/ton NOx and $7,000/ton VOC.  The cost benchmarks for presumptive NOx RACT used by
other states are as follows: Wisconsin, $2,500 per ton NOx; Illinois, $2,500 - $3,000 per ton NOx; Maryland, $3,500 - $5,000 per ton NOx; Ohio, $5,000 per ton NOx; New York, $5,000 - $5,500 per ton NOx; New Jersey, did not consider any cost benchmark, however noted that costs of over $20,000 per ton NOx were considered reasonable for some source categories.

 Question:  What is the incremental cost for economically feasible NOx and VOC reductions?

DEP Response:  Incremental cost represents the additional cost for reducing emissions after one control technology has already been considered or applied.  For example, the total control cost is the annualized cost to reduce emissions from an uncontrolled level to the level achieved by the control device being evaluated.  The incremental cost is the cost to reduce the emissions from the level achieved by the first control device considered or already installed, to the new level achieved by the second device being evaluated.  If there is no existing control device associated with the source, then total cost of control is the governing factor.

 Question:   What are acceptable controls?  If there are process analyzers or combustion analyzers on the stacks, will they be acceptable?  Will such devices require Plan Approval?

DEP Response:  Process and/or combustion analyzers can be considered air cleaning devices as part of a facility's combustion unit control strategy.  An owner or operator seeking to establish a process and/or combustion analyzer as an air cleaning device would need to demonstrate how such a device effectively reduces NOx emissions from the unit.  The installation of an air cleaning device may require a plan approval unless the source is exempted from permitting through the request for determination (RFD) process.

 Question:   What is the appropriate permitting mechanism for a case-by-case RACT proposal?

DEP Response:  Case-by-case RACT proposals may be approved by the Department through a plan approval or significant operating permit modification.  Case-by-case RACT proposals cannot be approved through minor operating permit modifications or administrative amendments.

 Question:   Can an operator choose to invest in replacing some emissions units with newer, cleaner emissions units while foregoing installation of air cleaning devices on other existing emissions units that results in facility wide emissions equal to or less than the emissions allowed by the RACT final form regulation? How do the operator handle interim compliance until such replacement is made?

DEP Response:  Yes, you may replace the old unit with new one in accordance with [129.99(i)(2)(v)] in order to comply with RACT requirements for this specific unit. The new or cleaner unit will be considered a new source and be subject to BAT requirements.  In the interim, the owner or operator must justify that the current limit is RACT or based on actual stack test results the Department may establish an interim limit that is actually achievable.

If the question is about installation of  air cleaning devices on other existing emissions units that results in facility wide emissions equal to or less than the emissions allowed by the RACT final form regulation, then such cases the Plan Approval with the facility wide NOx and VOC limit must be issued before January 1, 2017.   Then the facility will become a synthetic minor facility and these sources won't be subject to RACT.

If the question is about not installing controls, then the company must justify on a source specific basis that any controls are technically or economically infeasible.

Compliance Timing and Alternative Compliance Schedule Petitions:

 Question:  Is there any way that existing sites/units can change their compliance strategy AFTER the 6-month window of the rule being published by which they need to submit an averaging plan or case-by-case proposal?

DEP Response:  Yes; however, if the compliance strategy is switched from unit-by-unit to emissions averaging, the compliance on a unit-by-unit must be maintained until the averaging plan is approved.

 Question:  For case-by-case RACT determinations, there is a 6-month timeline to submit the case-by-case proposal.  If there is any back and forth with the department, it is likely that the proposal will not be finalized until after the January 1, 2017, compliance date.  Does DEP expect/recommend an alternative compliance schedule petition with every case-by-case proposal?

DEP Response:  Please note that an alternate compliance schedule can only be approved by DEP if the owner or operator is proposing to install an air cleaning device.  The case-by-case proposal must include interim emission limits in addition to final emission limits and, if applicable, an alternate compliance schedule.  As provided in Section 129.99 (i)(2)(iv) of the RACT II final-form regulation, the proposed interim emission limitation "will be imposed on the affected air contamination source until compliance is achieved with the applicable RACT requirements or RACT emission limitation."

 Question:  If subject to presumptive RACT and need to obtain a plan approval in order to install controls, Section 129.97(k)(1)(v) indicates that a petition for alternate compliance schedule shall be submitted within 6 months of rule finalization and that the approved petition for an alternate compliance schedule shall be incorporated into the plan approval for the new control equipment.  Can the proposed alternate schedule start with "plan approval issuance date" rather than a specific calendar date?  If not, what happens if plan approval issuance or actual construction takes longer than the anticipated alternate schedule?  Will the agency take enforcement action if the proposed schedule is not adhered to due to factors out of owner/operator's control?  There is a similar provision in Section 129.99(i) for sources submitting an alternative RACT proposal that requires installation of controls.  What if the alternative RACT proposal is denied by DEP?

DEP Response:  The owner or operator may propose a final compliance date that is contingent upon the approval date of the alternative compliance schedule petition.  If the owner or operator submits the petition simultaneously with the necessary complete plan approval application, the owner or operator may request that the Department render decisions on the petition and plan approval at the same time.  The DEP will determine appropriate enforcement action on a case-by-case basis.  If an alternative RACT proposal is denied by the Department, the owner or operator should seek an enforceable compliance schedule for demonstrating compliance with the RACT II final rulemaking.

 Question:  Can we submit a petition for an extension under 25 Pa. Code §129.97(k) with the thought that the installation of natural gas at the plant is considered an "air cleaning device"?

DEP Response:   No, the petition process under 25 Pa. Code §129.97(k) is limited to the installation of an air cleaning device.  Using an alternate fuel, such as natural gas, would not qualify as an "air cleaning device."

 Question:  In the interim period between January 1, 2017, and the date of issuance of a plan approval or operating permit modification incorporating alternate RACT emission limitations determined through the case-by-case process, is a facility subject to the published presumptive RACT emission limits?

DEP Response:  Yes, on or after January 1, 2017, the owner or operator must be in compliance with the presumptive RACT limits until the alternate RACT emission limitations are established.

 Question:  Between 10/24/2016 filing deadline and 1/1/2017 RACT compliance deadline, could an operator expect all plan approvals/modifications filed with the PADEP be approved given certain public notice requirements, PSD review if CO emissions were to be exceeded or EPA review? If not approved, could a permit shield be issued?

DEP Response:  No, we cannot guarantee that all plan approvals (for installation of control)/modifications filed with the PADEP be approved within certain timeframe.  If the owner or operators feel that they do not have enough time to demonstrate compliance with RACT regulations for sources that will be installed with add-on control then the facility may request an alternative compliance demonstration date with timeline and interim limit.  The DEP will evaluate such request on a case-by-case basis, but the compliance demonstration deadline cannot be extended beyond three years from the approval of petition.

 Question:  Must an owner or operator have all of their compliance testing and records in place before the compliance deadline?
 Question:  Would an operator need to test sources prior to 1/1/2017 deadline if the emission controls will not be implemented and the facility utilizes an averaging plan?

DEP Response:  Yes, compliance testing and supporting documentation must be completed by January 1, 2017.

 Question:  Will the Department accept multiple compliance options in a written petition for an alternative compliance schedule?

DEP Response:  The Department could possibly entertain multiple options in the petition with specific milestones; however when the owner or operator submits the plan approval application, they must choose a specific option for the installation.

Recordkeeping/Compliance Demonstration:

 Question:  How can an owner or operator demonstrate that a source falls under one of the de minimis levels for RACT?

DEP Response:  The owner or operator must keep records sufficient to demonstrate how a particular source's potential to emit NOx and/or VOC is calculated and the records must be made available to the Department, upon request.

 Question:   For emissions units that qualify for the presumptive RACT requirements for sources below the 5 tpy NOx/2.7 tpy VOC thresholds, what would be required to demonstrate compliance?
 Question:   How does an owner or operator demonstrate compliance with good operating practices?

DEP Response:  In accordance with 25 Pa. Code §129.97(c), certain categories of sources, including a NOx air contamination source that has the potential to emit less than 5 tpy of NOx and a VOC air contamination source that has the potential to emit less than 2.7 tpy of VOC, is the installation, maintenance, and operation of the source in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and with good operating practices.  Owners and operators must keep records of what these specifications and operating practices are and how they complied with the specifications and operating practices, and the records must be made available to the Department upon request.  The necessary compliance demonstration requirements will be included in the operating permit.

 Question:  What if a source is subject to MACT (e.g., VOC MACT)?  Could the RACT proposal simply point to MACT compliance?
 Question:  Many emissions units subject to RACT II are also subject to other equally as stringent or in some cases more stringent Federal regulations (i.e., NESHAPS, NSPS, etc.).  Can facilities rely on compliance with such Federal requirements as RACT II?

DEP Response:  The owner or operator must demonstrate compliance with all applicable RACT requirements  in 25 Pa. Code §§ 129.96 - 129.100.  However, the owner or operator may propose a definitive determination that complying with other requirements, such as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) or New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), ensures compliance with the RACT II requirements.

 Question:   If all sources at a major NOx or VOC facility are subject to emission limits and meeting those limits, does the facility have to submit any documentation of compliance?  Same question for a facility having only sources that are subject to presumptive RACT and meeting those requirements  -  do they have to submit any documentation?

DEP Response:  The owner or operator of a facility that includes only sources that are subject to presumptive RACT requirements and/or presumptive RACT emission limitations that meet those requirements without the installation of control equipment needs only to keep records sufficient to show compliance with the requirements and/or emission limitations.  This would include approved stack test results.  The owner or operator shall provide these records to the Department upon request.

 Question:   If the source meets the RACT II emission limits or presumptive RACT requirements (e.g. tune-ups, oxygen trim system, etc.), do these requirements need to be incorporated in the Title V permit?  If so, is a minor modification an acceptable mechanism for making such change or not?
DEP Response:  All applicable requirements, including RACT II presumptive requirements and emission limitations, will be incorporated as applicable requirements into the subject Title V operating permit.  The RACT II provisions will be incorporated in Title V Permits according to the timeline prescribed in 25 Pa. Code §127.463.  These requirements would be incorporated as applicable requirements at the time of permit renewal, if less than 3 years remain in the permit term, as specified under 25 Pa. Code § 127.463(c) (relating to operating permit revisions to incorporate applicable standards).  If 3 years or more remain in the permit term, the requirements would be incorporated as applicable requirements in the permit through minor permit modification within 18 months of the promulgation of the final rulemaking, as required under § 127.463(b).  This date is October 24, 2017.  It is important to note that §127.463(e) requires compliance accordance to the timeframes regardless of whether the permit is required under this section.
 Question:  Does a tune-up of a boiler count as demonstrating compliance for a boiler subject to 25 Pa. Code §129.97(b) if it occurs prior to the effective date of the rule?

DEP Response:  The presumptive RACT requirement for a combustion unit with a rated heat input equal to or greater than 20 million Btu/hour and less than 50 million Btu/hour is the performance of a biennial tune-up conducted in accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR 63.11223. The boiler tune-up conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 63.11223 can be considered as a demonstration of compliance with 25 Pa. Code §129.97(b).  If the tune-up had not been conducted in accordance with the procedures prescribed in 40 CFR 63.11223, a tune-up must be performed prior to January 1, 2017.  In addition, the owner or operator must continue to fulfill any applicable presumptive RACT requirements contained in 25 Pa. Code §129.93 that they are subject to, including annual adjustment or tune-up of a combustion process.

 Question:  What is the definition of an operating day as it applies to the rule?

DEP Response:  An operating day is a 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 midnight which the source operates at any time and produces emissions.  This time period includes emissions that were generated during startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions.

 Question:  25 Pa. Code §129.100(a), which references 25 Pa. Code §129.97 (presumptive categories), states that the owner or operator, "...shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable RACT requirement or RACT limitation by performing the following monitoring or testing procedures:."  Note that the citation identifies any requirement or limitation, like a 5% capacity factor, and specifies monitoring or testing.  Item (4) specifically requires: "...monitoring and testing in accordance with a Department-approved emissions source test that meets the requirements of Chapter 139...".  Note that it indicates monitoring and testing (not or) and that it must be an emissions test.  Must these turbines be stack tested for NOx?

DEP Response:  Emission testing is only required to show compliance with an emission limitation.  The Department did not intend that stack testing be used to show compliance with presumptive RACT requirements that are not emission limitations.

 Question:  Is the use of predictive emission monitoring systems (PEMS) permitted to demonstrate compliance with RACT 2?

DEP Response:  Department certified PEMS may be used to demonstrate compliance with RACT 2.

 Question:  Will Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties explicitly follow the source testing and monitoring guidance issued by the DEP Central Office?

DEP Response:  The owner or operator of applicable sources in Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties should contact those programs directly for guidance on the implementation of RACT 2.

Stack Testing:

 Question:  As a result of delays in the publication of RACT II and with a Jan. 1, 2017, fixed compliance date, will PADEP allow a waiver for compliance testing performed in 2015 but that may be greater than 12 months from final publication?  Also, if source testing is delayed for compliance purposes by the late finalization of RACT II, will there be any extensions of the compliance demonstration that is needed by Jan. 1, 2017, because companies were unable to get testing completed by Jan. 1, 2017?

DEP Response:  A petition cannot be used to extend the deadline for a compliance demonstration, such as stack testing, when installation of an air cleaning device is not proposed by the owner or operator.  Any Department enforcement action, including consent orders and agreements, will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Any test waiver approval cannot be used to extend the deadline for stack testing for other fuels or sources.

 Question:   How do you stack test when two or more sources (e.g., 2 heaters) combine into one stack?  Same question if a CEMS is present.

DEP Response:  Source testing protocols must be approved by the Bureau of Air Quality's Source Testing and Monitoring Division. Therefore, an owner or operator should contact the Source Testing and Monitoring Division regarding the test protocols.

If compliance with a presumptive RACT limit cannot be demonstrated for each individual source, the owner or operator may petition the Department to show compliance through an emissions averaging plan for the sources exhausting to a single stack.  Otherwise, the owner or operator may submit a case-by-case RACT proposal to the appropriate DEP Regional Office by October 24, 2016.

 Question:   For RACT II compliance demonstration purposes, are facilities allowed to use portable analyzers or does a full stack test need to be performed?

DEP Response:  25 Pa. Code §129.100 requires that compliance demonstration testing for an air contamination source without a CEMS must be conducted in accordance with a Department-approved emissions source test that meets the requirements of Chapter 139, Subchapter A (relating to sampling and testing methods and procedures).  Section 2.10 of the Source Testing Manual states that portable analyzers, such as electrochemical cells, are not acceptable for compliance determinations.  Portable analyzers were not acceptable for the demonstration of compliance with RACT I and are therefore not acceptable for the RACT II compliance demonstrations.

 Question:  Will there be a standard RACT II stack testing protocol that can be agreed to by the facility as long as the testing doesn't require changes to that protocol?

DEP Response:  The Department has discussed the use of standard protocols for various regulatory requirements; however, the development of these is not likely to occur before the initial RACT II testing.  Thus, a protocol will need to be submitted for each source to be tested.  There is a provision in the Department's Source Testing Manual that allows the owners or operators of the facility to reference a previously approved test protocol, provided they agree to meet all conditions of acceptance for the protocol and provided that nothing has changed since approval was granted (i.e. same relevant testing requirements, same process operating conditions, same testing subcontractor, etc.).

 Question:  Under what operating level and conditions should source testing be conducted?

DEP Response:  Performance tests shall be conducted while the source is operating at maximum routine operating conditions or under such other conditions, within the capacity of the equipment, as may be requested by the Department [25 Pa. Code §139.11(1)].  Such conditions may be stipulated in a plan approval, permit, or order.  Any questions pertaining to a specific source or situation should be directed to Department Source Testing Section staff or appropriate Department Regional Office staff.

 Question:  The RACT II rule does not contain anything regarding the source firing rate during stack testing.  Sources such as process heaters fire at various rates depending on variables such as feed rates.   Can an owner or operator test these sources at normal rates?

DEP Response:  Testing at the "normal rate" is not permissible; an owner or operator must test at maximum normal conditions (MNOC), also known as "worst-case", and if 110% of that rate is exceeded in the future, the owner or operator will be required to do another test at the higher load.  They do not need to test at the rated capacity of the equipment.

 Question:  Compliance with RACT 2 emission standards may require testing for NOx (lb/MMBtu). The Department's Source Testing Manual requires lb/hr to be quantified as well.  The addition of stack flow and moisture (not needed for compliance with RACT 2) can increase the cost of the testing by as much as 20%.  Will PADEP consider alleviating this requirement for RACT 2 testing?

Department Response:  Although this has been a requirement in all three revisions of the Department's Source Testing Manual, the Department will certainly consider eliminating this prior to revising the Source Testing Manual.  However, this is not likely to occur before the initial RACT 2 testing.

 Question:  Please define the term "5-year calendar period" as used in 25 Pa. Code §129.100(a)(4).

Department Response:  A 5-year calendar period, for the purpose of determining stack test frequency, is a five calendar year period beginning with the calendar year that the latest stack test is performed.  For example, if the owner or operator performs a stack test for NOx RACT compliance in 2016, then a subsequent stack test shall be conducted by the end of 2021.  If this subsequent stack test is performed in 2019, then the next stack test shall be conducted by the end of 2024.  Please note that after the initial compliance testing, a regular testing schedule established under a Title V operating permit may be used to comply with this requirement.

Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS):

 Question:  Will the owners or operators of sources that operate Department-certified continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) be required to make changes to their CEMS to comply with the rule?  Could this include the addition of new equipment?

DEP Response:  Yes, all underlying emission results, CEMS, and analyzers must conform to the requirements of Chapter 139, Subchapter C (which includes the Department's Continuous Source Monitoring Manual) and as outlined in this rule.  Additional equipment or analyzers may need to be installed to comply with the rule.  The Department may approve the use of analyzers that have been "certified" under an applicable Federal program (i.e. 40 CFR Part 75, etc.).  The Department will evaluate if/what additional testing may be required.

For an air contamination source without a Department-certified CEMS, monitoring and testing should be conducted in accordance with a Department-approved emissions source test that meets the requirements of Chapter 139, Subchapter A (relating to sampling and testing methods and procedures).

 Question:  Can the owners or operators of a source that is subject to 40 CFR Part 75 (and therefore uses 40 CFR Part 75 data substitution) submit the verification documentation submitted and approved by EPA to satisfy the Department's data acquisition and handling system verification requirement?

DEP Response:  No, additional data acquisition and handling system verifications will be required by the Department.

 Question:  What changes must the owners or operators of applicable sources with Department-certified CEMS make to demonstrate compliance with the rule?

DEP Response:  A monitoring plan must be submitted in the Department's CEM Data Processing System (CEMDPS) by the owner or operator of the facility.  The monitoring plan should include any new emission and data availability standards required by the rule.

For a combustion unit or process heater with CEMS, the following should be included in the monitoring plan:
 New emission results and CEMS for hourly mass emissions (lbs/hr) and hourly heat input (MBtu/hr). If the owners or operators of the source already report hourly lbs/hr to the Department; they may elect to have the Department utilize this data to calculate the 30-day rolling average emissions rate (lbs/MBtu) for RACT 2 purposes.  If the owners or operators of the source already report hourly lbs/hr and hourly lbs/MBtu to the Department; they may elect to have the Department calculate the hourly heat input (MBtu/hr) from these inputs and use it for RACT 2 purposes.  The use of existing emission results and CEMS for RACT 2 purposes is contingent upon the acceptance of the underlying data set for all purposes.  Otherwise, new emission results and CEMS must be created.
 A new emission result and CEMS for the hourly allowable emissions (lbs/MBtu) should also be added for sources that have a variable emission standard.  Department software will calculate a 30-day rolling average emission rate in lbs/MBtu from the hourly mass emissions (lbs/hr), hourly heat input (MBtu/hr), or existing monitoring systems reported by the owner or operator of the facility each quarter and compare it to the applicable standard.  Department software will generate an allowable emission rate for sources that have a variable emission standard as per the instructions contained in the rule.

For a combustion turbine with CEMS, the following should be included in the monitoring plan:
 A new emission result and CEMS for hourly concentration (PPMVD @ 15% O2).  If the owners or operators of the source already report hourly concentration (PPMVD @ 15% O2) to the Department; they may elect to have the Department utilize this data to calculate the 30-day rolling average if only a single fuel may be fired (i.e. no data substitution required).
 A new emission result and CEMS for hourly allowable concentration (PPMVD @ 15% O2) must be included for sources with a variable standard.  A new emission result and CEMS for hourly heat input (MBtu/hr) must be added for sources that may fire multiple fuels.  Department software will calculate a 30-day rolling average emission rate in PPMVD @ 15% O2 from the hourly emissions data reported by the owner or operator of the facility each quarter and compare it to the applicable standard.  Department software will generate an allowable emission rate for sources that have a variable emission standard as per the instructions contained in the rule.

For a Portland cement kiln with CEMS, the following should be included in the monitoring plan:
 New emission results and CEMS for hourly mass emissions (lbs/hr) and hourly clinker production (tons/hr).  If the owners or operators of the source already report hourly lbs/hr to the Department; they may elect to have the Department utilize this data to calculate the 30-day rolling average emissions rate (lbs/ton-clinker) for RACT 2 purposes.
 Department software will calculate a 30-day rolling average emission rate in lbs/ton-clinker from the hourly mass emissions (lbs/hr) and hourly clinker production (tons/hr), or existing emission result reported by the owner or operator of the facility each quarter and compare it to the applicable standard.
Please note that the required content of the monitoring plan may vary from the guidance outlined above, depending on individual circumstances.  The owners or operators of applicable sources that submit a monitoring plan must also complete the certification process.  This would entail the submittal of a test protocol, results of testing, results of any verification tests, and sample quarterly emissions report.

 Question:  How should the owners or operators of applicable sources that utilize the CEMDPS demonstrate compliance on either a facility-wide or system-wide basis?

DEP Response:

 The following criteria must be met for the owners or operators of applicable sources to demonstrate compliance on a facility-wide basis utilizing the CEMDPS:
 All underlying emission results, CEMS, and analyzers must conform to the requirements of Chapter 139, Subchapter C (which includes the Department's Continuous Source Monitoring Manual) and as outlined by this rule.
 The Department may approve the use of analyzers or equipment that have been "certified" under an applicable Federal program (i.e. 40 CFR Part 75, etc.) or temporary use of analyzers or equipment to demonstrate compliance with RACT 2 if the owners or operators can satisfactorily demonstrate that they will be unable to install and operate the analyzers or equipment by January 1, 2017.  The Department will determine what additional testing is required.

 Those not meeting the requirements in paragraph A:
 Submit a quarterly compliance report to the applicable DEP Regional Office to demonstrate compliance on a facility-wide basis.

 All demonstrations of compliance on a system-wide basis should be submitted as a quarterly compliance report to the applicable DEP Regional Office.  If more than one DEP Region is involved, a copy of the report must be submitted to all.

 Question:  When would data substitution apply for CEMS associated with sources subject to the rule?

DEP Response:  Data substitution is required for invalid hours (which monitoring is required) for combustion units, process heaters, and Portland cement kilns.

For combustion turbines; if multiple fuels may be fired, data substitution is required for invalid hours (which monitoring was required) for hourly concentration (PPMVD @ 15% O2), allowable concentration (PPMVD @ 15% O2), and hourly heat input (MBtu/hr).

The owner or operator of a source may utilize pre-existing data substitution procedures (if they are currently data substituting) for RACT 2 purposes.  The Department will memorialize the data substitution procedure to be utilized for RACT 2 purposes during the certification process.  Existing practices in evaluating and determining the data substitution procedure will be followed.

 Question:  What data validation criteria would apply to any CEMS utilized to demonstrate compliance with the rule?

DEP Response:  Data validation criteria as outlined in Chapter 139, Subpart C and the DEP Continuous Source Monitoring Manual, Revision No. 8, are applicable to CEMS under the rule.

 Question:  How will the 30-day rolling average emission rate (lbs/ton-clinker) be calculated for Portland cement kilns?

DEP Response:  The owners or operators of the source will submit hourly mass emissions (lbs) and hourly clinker production (tons) to the Department each calendar quarter.  Department software will identify the hourly mass emissions (lbs) and hourly clinker production (tons) that will be used to calculate the 30-day rolling average emissions rate (lbs/ton-clinker).

The total pounds of pollutant emitted from the Portland cement kiln for each operating hour of the current operating day and the previous 29 operating days will be summed.  The total clinker production to the Portland cement kiln for each operating hour of the current operating day and the previous 29 operating days will be summed.  The total pounds of pollutant emitted by the Portland cement kiln for the 30 operating days will be divided by the total clinker production to the Portland cement kiln for the 30 operating days to determine the 30-day rolling average emissions rate in lbs/ton-clinker.

Each operating day will have a 30-day rolling average emissions rate in lbs/ton-clinker.  Department software will compare each of these operating day 30-day rolling average emissions rates in lbs/ton-clinker to the applicable standard.

 Question:  Will the owners or operators of sources that operate Department certified continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) be required to make changes to their CEMS to comply with the rule?  Could this include the addition of new equipment?

DEP Response:  Yes, all underlying emission results, CEMS, and analyzers must conform to the requirements of Chapter 139, Subchapter C (which includes the Department's Continuous Source Monitoring Manual) and as outlined in this rule.  Additional equipment or analyzers may need to be installed to comply with the rule.  The Department may approve the use of analyzers that have been "certified" under an applicable Federal program (i.e. 40 CFR Part 75, etc.) or temporary use of analyzers or equipment to demonstrate compliance with RACT 2 if the owners or operators can satisfactorily demonstrate that they will be unable to install and operate the analyzers or equipment by January 1, 2017.  The Department will determine what additional testing is required.

 Question:  When is emissions data utilized to comply with RACT 2 for an air contamination source with a CEMS?

DEP Response:  Emissions data must be utilized starting with the first hour of operation on January 1, 2017.  If the source did not operate on January 1, 2017, start with the first hour of operation following that date.  The first hour of operation in which a source is subject to the rule must be used as the starting point for sources that are subject to the rule after January 1, 2017.  The CEMDPS will not calculate and display a 30-day rolling average emission rate or an allowable (if applicable) until 30 operating days have elapsed from the starting point.

 Question:  Should daily averages be calculated as an interim step to calculating the 30-day rolling average emission rate?

DEP Response:  No, the CEMDPS will calculate the 30-day rolling average emission rate based on the information provided by the owner or operator of the source for individual hours of operation.  The CEMDPS will not calculate any daily averages as part of this process.

 Question:  Are Periodic Self-Audits (otherwise known as relative accuracy test audits (RATAs)) required to be conducted on the new CEMS?

DEP Response:  For combustion units and process heaters; RATAs are not required to be conducted on CEMS for hourly mass emissions (lbs/hr), hourly heat input (MBtu/hr), and allowable hourly emission rate (lbs/MBtu).  For combustion turbines; RATAs are not required to be conducted on CEMS hourly heat input (MBtu/hr) or allowable concentration (PPMVD @ 15% O2).  For Portland cement kilns; RATAs are not required to be conducted on CEMS for hourly mass emissions (lbs/hr) and hourly clinker production (tons/hr).

 Question:  May the owner or operator of a source utilize certain provisions of 40 CFR Part 75 for Department reporting purposes (diluent cap, over-scaling, data substitution, etc.)?  If so, must the Department be petitioned for such use?

DEP Response:  The owner or operator of the source may petition the Department to utilize such alternatives.  Requests may also be made to the Department in the monitoring plan or during the certification process.

NNSR/PSD:

 Question:  When evaluating PSD/NNSR for installation of controls required to meet RACT II or for future projects post-RACT II implementation, can reductions realized from the RACT control project be considered creditable decreases in net emissions increase?  My understanding is that the baseline emissions would need to be adjusted to RACT II emission rates (i.e., cannot take credit for reductions that are required by RACT II only reductions beyond the RACT II level).  Please confirm.

DEP Response:  In accordance with 25 Pa. Code §127.207(1)(i),  baseline emissions  must be adjusted to accommodate the RACT requirements.

 Question:   Also, is this true for BOTH NOx (NNSR) as well as NO2 (PSD)?

DEP Response:  Yes, the baseline actual emissions must be adjusted to address the applicable requirements including RACT II requirements.


[Federal Register: August 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 158)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45905-45908]
[DOCID:fr16au07-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-84559]

Louisiana: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Louisiana has applied to the EPA for final authorization of
the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has determined that these
changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this
immediate final action. The EPA is publishing this rule to authorize
the changes without a prior proposal because we believe this action is
not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. Unless we
receive written comments which oppose this authorization during the
comment period, the decision to authorize Louisiana's changes to its
hazardous waste program will take effect. If we receive comments that
oppose this action, we will publish a document in the Federal Register
withdrawing this rule before it takes effect, and a separate document
in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register will serve as a
proposal to authorize the changes.

DATES: This final authorization will become effective on October 15,
2007, unless the EPA receives adverse written comment by September 17,
2007. If the EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of this immediate final rule in the Federal Register and
inform the public that this authorization will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization
Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia
Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Alima
Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal
Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,
EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or e-mail. The Federal
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to the EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. You can view and
copy Louisiana's application and associated publicly available
materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday at the
following locations: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 602
N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2178, phone number (225)
219-3559 and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,
phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two
weeks in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional
Authorization Coordinator, State-Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O),
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER>) and e-mail address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from the EPA under
RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous
waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less
stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes,
States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the
changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or
State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain
other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs
because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.

B. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule?

    We conclude that Louisiana's application to revise its authorized
program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Louisiana final authorization
to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in
the authorization application. Louisiana has responsibility for
permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its
borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of
the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject
to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal
regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take
effect

in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements.
Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in
Louisiana including issuing permits, until the State is granted
authorization to do so.

C. What Is the Effect of Today's Authorization Decision?

    The effect of this decision is that a facility in Louisiana subject
to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements
instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with
RCRA. Louisiana has enforcement responsibilities under its State
hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA
retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003,
which include, among others, authority to:
     Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses,
or reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits
and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State
has taken its own actions.
    This action does not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations for which Louisiana is
being authorized by today's action are already effective under State
law, and are not changed by today's action.

D. Why Wasn't There a Proposed Rule Before Today's Rule?

    The EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we
view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that
oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public
comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of
today's Federal Register we are publishing a separate document that
proposes to authorize the State program changes.

E. What Happens if the EPA Receives Comments That Oppose This Action?

    If the EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we
will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the Federal
Register before the rule becomes effective. The EPA will base any
further decision on the authorization of the State program changes on
the proposal mentioned in the previous paragraph. We will then address
all public comments in a later final rule. You may not have another
opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization,
you must do so at this time. If we receive comments that oppose only
the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste
program, we will withdraw only that part of this rule, but the
authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose
will become effective on the date specified above. The Federal Register
withdrawal document will specify which part of the authorization will
become effective, and which part is being withdrawn.

F. For What Has Louisiana Previously Been Authorized?

    The State of Louisiana initially received final authorization on
February 7, 1985 (50 FR 3348), to implement its base Hazardous Waste
Management Program. We granted authorization for changes to their
program on November 28, 1989 (54 FR 48889) effective January 29, 1990;
August 26, 1991 (56 FR 41958) effective August 26, 1991; November 7,
1994 (59 FR 55368) effective January 23, 1995; December 23, 1994 (59 FR
66200) effective March 8, 1995; there were technical corrections made
on January 23, 1995 (60 FR 4380), effective January 23, 1995; and
another technical correction was made on April 11, 1995 (60 FR 18360)
effective April 11, 1995; October 17, 1995 (60 FR 53704) effective
January 2, 1996; March 28, 1996 (61 FR 13777) effective June 11, 1996;
December 29, 1997 (62 FR 67572) effective March 16, 1998; October 23,
1998 (63 FR 56830) effective December 22, 1998; August 25, 1999 (64 FR
46302) effective October 25, 1999; September 2, 1999 (64 FR 48099)
effective November 1, 1999; February 28, 2000 (65 FR 10411) effective
April 28, 2000; January 2, 2001 (66 FR 23) effective March 5, 2001;
December 9, 2003 (68 FR 68526) effective February 9, 2004, June 10,
2005 (70 FR 33852) effective August 9, 2005 and November 13, 2006 (71
FR 66116) effective January 13, 2007. On September 18, 2006, Louisiana
applied for approval of its program revisions for RCRA Cluster XV. In
this application, Louisiana is seeking approval of RCRA Cluster XV in
accordance with 40 CFR 271.21(b)(3).
    Since 1979, through the Environmental Affairs Act, Act 449 enabling
the Office of Environmental Affairs within the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources, as well as, the Environmental Control Commission
conducted an effective program designed to regulate those who generate,
transport, treat, store, dispose or recycle hazardous waste. During the
1983 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, Act 97 was adopted,
which amended and reenacted La. R.S. 30:1051 et seq. as the
Environmental Quality Act, renaming the Environmental Affairs Act (Act
1938 of 1979). This Act created Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality LDEQ), including provisions for new offices within this new
Department of Environmental Quality. Act 97 also transferred the duties
and responsibilities previously delegated to the Department of Natural
Resources, Office of Environmental Affairs, to the new Department. The
LDEQ has lead agency jurisdictional authority for administering the
Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA) Subtitle C program in
Louisiana. Also, the LDEQ is designated to facilitate communication
between the EPA and the State. During the 1999 Regular Session of
Louisiana Legislature, Act 303 revised the La. R.S. 30:2011 et seq.
allowing LDEQ to reengineer the Department to perform more efficiently
and to meet its strategic goals.
    It is the intention of the State, through this application, to
demonstrate its equivalence and consistency with the federal statutory
tests, which are outlined in the United States Environmental Protection
Agency regulatory requirements under 40 CFR 271, Subpart A, for final
authorization. The submittal of this application is in keeping with the
spirit and intent of RCRA, which provides equivalent States the
opportunity to apply for final authorization to operate all aspects of
their hazardous waste management programs in lieu of the Federal
government. The Louisiana Environmental Quality Act authorizes the
State's program, Subtitle II of Title 30 of the Louisiana Revised
Statutes. With this application Louisiana is applying for authorization
for specific areas of the State regulations identified as requiring
authorization and the listed Checklists 206 and 207 will allow the
State to implement the equivalent RCRA Subtitle C portion of the
program.

G. What Changes Are We Authorizing With Today's Action?

    On February 3, 2006, Louisiana submitted a final complete program
revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in
accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision,
subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that
Louisiana's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the
requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore,
we grant the State of Louisiana Final authorization for the following
changes: The State of Louisiana's program revisions consist of
regulations which specifically govern RCRA Cluster XV as documented
below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of federal
 requirement (include   Federal Register date
 checklist ,   and page (and/or RCRA  Analogous state authority
     if relevant)        statutory authority)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Nonwastewaters From  70 FR 9138-9180        Louisiana Revised
 Dyes and Pigments.      February 24, 2005.     Statutes (LRS) 30:
 (Checklist 206)                                Section 2001 et seq.,
                                                with specific cites of
                                                2174, 2175, and 2180
                                                effective December 31,
                                                2004; Supplement
                                                effective June 2006;
                                                Louisiana Hazardous
                                                Waste Regulations (LHWR)
                                                Sections 105.D.2.p,
                                                105.D.2.p.i-v,
                                                4901.C.Table 2,
                                                4901.C.1.a, 49o.C.2, -3,
                                                4901.C.3.a-b,
                                                4901.C.3.b.i-iv,
                                                4901.C.3.b.iv.(a)-(c),
                                                4901.C.3.c, 4901.C.3.c.i-
                                                iii, 4901.C.3.c.iii.(a)-
                                                (d), 4901.3.c.iv,
                                                4901.C.3.c.iv.(a)-(b),
                                                4901.C.3.3.c.v-x,
                                                4901.C.3.c.(a)-(d),
                                                4901.C.3.c.xi,
                                                4901.C.3.xi.(a)-(d),
                                                4901.C.3.e,
                                                Chapter.49.Table 6,
                                                Chapter.31.Table 1,
                                                2208.B.5, 2208.C,
                                                Chapter.22.Table,
                                                2299.Table 7, as
                                                effective May 20, 2006.
2. Uniform Hazardous    70 FR 10776-10825      Louisiana Revised
 Waste Manifest Rule.    March 4, 2005.         Statutes (LRS) 30:
 (Checklist 207)                                Section 2001 et seq.,
                                                with specific cites of
                                                2174, 2175, and 2180
                                                effective December 31,
                                                2004; Supplement
                                                effective June 2006;
                                                Louisiana Hazardous
                                                Waste Regulations (LHWR)
                                                Sections 109, 1108
                                                incorporate the federal
                                                rules by reference,
                                                1109.F, 1109.F.l,-2,
                                                1109.C-E, 1109.E.13,
                                                1109.E.13.a-b, 1113,
                                                1113.E.3, 1113.E.5,
                                                1123.C, 1123.C.1-2,
                                                1307, 1307.A .2, 1301,
                                                1307.G, 1307.G.1-G4,
                                                1309, 1309.B, 1309.B.1,
                                                1309.B.1.a, 1309.B.1.b,
                                                1516, 1516.A.1,
                                                1516.A.2, 1516.B.1,
                                                1516.B., 1516.B.1.a-e,
                                                1516.B.5, 1516.B.5.a-b,
                                                1516.C.1, 1516.c.1.a-c,
                                                1516.C.3, 1516.C.4.a-b,
                                                1516.C.5, 1516.C.5.a-g,
                                                1516.C.6.a, 1516.C.6.a.i-
                                                iii, and 1516.D, as
                                                effective May 20, 2006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Where Are the Revised State Rules Different From the Federal Rules?

    The State's hazardous regulations for Checklists 206 and 207 are
consistent, equivalent and no less stringent than the Federal
regulations. There are no provisions that are more stringent or broader
in scope. Broader in scope requirements are not part of the authorized
program and EPA can not enforce them.

I. Who Handles Permits After the Authorization Takes Effect?

    Louisiana will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is
authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will
continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of
permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this
authorization. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions
of permits for the provisions listed in the Table in this document
after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue
to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which
Louisiana is not yet authorized.

J. How Does Today's Action Affect Indian Country in Louisiana?

    Louisiana is not authorized to carry out its Hazardous Waste
Program in Indian Country within the State. This authority remains with
EPA. Therefore, this action has no effect in Indian Country.

K. What Is Codification and Is the EPA Codifying Louisiana's Hazardous
Waste Program as Authorized in This Rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste
program into the CFR. We do this by referencing the authorized State
rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272,
subpart T for this authorization of Louisiana's program changes until a
later date. In this authorization application the EPA is not codifying
the rules documented in this Federal Register notice.

L. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action
from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This
action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, I certify that this action 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 action
authorizes preexisting 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 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this action also does
not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal
governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). This action will 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), because it merely authorizes State
requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without
altering the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is
not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on
environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
    Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants a State's application for
authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA.
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it
reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard
that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. 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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988
(61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken
the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53
FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the
rule in accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings'' issued under the Executive Order. 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.).
    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. The EPA will submit a report containing this document
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 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). This
action will be effective October 15, 2007.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections
2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: July 25, 2007.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 07-4001 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 21536]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09336]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL17-69-000]

Buffalo Dunes Wind Project, LLC, and Enel Green Power North
America, Inc. Alabama Power Company, and Southern Company Services,
Inc., as Agent v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on May 1, 2017, pursuant to sections 206 and 306
of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e, and Rule 206 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., on
behalf its subsidiary, Buffalo Dunes Wind Project, LLC, and Southern
Company Services, Inc., as agent for Alabama Power Company
(collectively, Complainants) filed a formal complaint against Southwest
Power Pool, Inc. (Respondent) alleging that Respondent's plans to
allocate congestion management rights and revenues to customers with
firm transmission service subject to redispatch for the upcoming 2017-
2018 allocation year is unjust and unreasonable and unduly
discriminatory and preferential, all as more fully explained in the
complaint.
    Complainants certify that a copy of the complaint and motion has
been served on the contacts for Respondent as listed on the
Commission's list of Corporate Officials on its Web site.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 31, 2017.

    Dated: May 3, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09336 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P