[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 201 (Friday, October 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65706-65722]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21139]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0686; FRL-10014-39-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology Determinations
for Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
multiple state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These revisions were submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to
establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT)
for individual major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) pursuant to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania's conditionally approved RACT regulations. In this action,
EPA is only approving source-specific (also referred to as ``case-by-
case'') RACT determinations for 19 major sources. These RACT
evaluations were submitted to meet RACT requirements for the 1997 and
2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA
is approving these revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's implementing
regulations.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0686. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Emily Bertram, Permits Branch
(3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Bertram can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 20, 2020, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM). 85 FR 16021. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of case-by-case
RACT determinations for 19 sources in Pennsylvania for the 1997 and
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The case-by-case RACT determinations for these
19 sources were included in SIP revisions submitted by PADEP on August
14, 2017, November 21, 2017, April 26, 2018, June 26, 2018, and October
29, 2018.
    Under certain circumstances, states are required to submit SIP
revisions to address RACT requirements for major sources of
NOX and VOC or any source category for which EPA has
promulgated control technique guidelines (CTG) for each ozone NAAQS.
Which NOX and VOC sources in Pennsylvania are considered
``major,'' and therefore to be addressed for RACT revisions, is
dependent on the location of each source within the Commonwealth.
Sources located in nonattainment areas would be subject to the ``major
source'' definitions established under the CAA based on their
classification. In the case of Pennsylvania, sources located in any
areas outside of moderate or above nonattainment areas, as part of the
Ozone Transport Region (OTR), are subject to source thresholds of 50
tons per year (tpy). CAA section 184(b).
    On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT
under both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania.
PADEP's May 16, 2016 SIP revision intended to address certain
outstanding non-CTG VOC RACT, VOC CTG RACT, and major NOX
RACT requirements for both standards. The SIP revision requested
approval of Pennsylvania's 25 Pa. Code 129.96-100, Additional RACT
Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs (the
``presumptive'' RACT II rule). Prior to the adoption of the RACT II
rule, Pennsylvania relied on the NOX and VOC control
measures in 25 Pa. Code 129.92-95, Stationary Sources of NOX
and VOCs, (the RACT I rule) to meet RACT for non-CTG major VOC sources
and major NOX sources. The requirements of the RACT I rule
remain approved into Pennsylvania's SIP and sources are obligated to
follow them.\1\ On September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted a supplemental
SIP, dated September 22, 2017, which committed to address various
deficiencies identified by EPA in their May 16, 2016 ``presumptive''
RACT II rule SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The RACT I Rule was approved by EPA into the Pennsylvania
SIP on March 23, 1998. 63 FR 13789.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally approved the RACT II rule based
on the commitments PADEP made in its September 22, 2017 supplemental
SIP. 84 FR 20274. In EPA's final conditional approval, EPA noted that
PADEP would be required to submit, for EPA's approval, SIP revisions to
address any facility-wide or system-wide averaging plan approved under
25 Pa. Code 129.98 and any case-by-case RACT determinations under 25
Pa. Code 129.99. PADEP committed to submitting these additional SIP
revisions within 12 months of EPA's final conditional approval,
specifically May 9, 2020. The SIP revisions addressed in this rule are
part of PADEP's efforts to meet the conditions of its supplemental SIP
and EPA's conditional approval of the RACT II Rule.

II. Summary of SIP Revisions and EPA Analysis

A. Summary of SIP Revisions

    To satisfy a requirement from EPA's May 9, 2019 conditional
approval, PADEP has submitted to EPA SIP revisions addressing case-by-
case RACT requirements for major sources in Pennsylvania subject to 25
Pa. Code 129.99. In the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions, PADEP included
a case-by-case RACT determination for the existing emissions units at
each of the major sources of NOX and/or VOC that required a
source-specific RACT determination. In PADEP's RACT determinations, an
evaluation was completed to determine if previously SIP-approved, case-
by-case RACT emission limits or operational controls (herein referred
to as RACT I and contained in RACT I permits) were more stringent than
the new RACT II presumptive or case-by-case requirements. If more
stringent, the RACT I requirements will continue to apply to the
applicable source. If the new case-by-case RACT II requirements are
more stringent than the RACT I requirements, then the RACT II
requirements will supersede the prior RACT I requirements.\2\ Here, EPA
is taking action on SIP revisions pertaining to case-by-case RACT
requirements for 19 major sources of NOX and/or VOC in
Pennsylvania as summarized in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While the prior SIP-approved RACT I permit will remain part
of the SIP, this RACT II rulemaking will incorporate by reference
the RACT II requirements through the RACT II permit and clarify the
ongoing applicability of specific conditions in the RACT I permit.

  Table 1--Nineteen Major NOX and/or VOC Sources in Pennsylvania Subject to Case-by-Case RACT II Determinations
                                   Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        1-Hour ozone RACT source?   Major source  pollutant     RACT II permit
        Major source  (county)                   (RACT I)              (NOX and/or VOC)        (effective date)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Generation--Fairless Hills       Yes......................  NOX.....................  09-00066 (01/27/17)
 (Bucks).
The Boeing Co. (Delaware).............  Yes......................  NOX and VOC.............  23-00009 (01/03/17)
Cherokee Pharmaceuticals, LLC           Yes......................  VOC.....................  49-00007 (04/24/17)
 (Northumberland).
First Quality Tissue, LLC (Clinton)...  No.......................  VOC.....................  18-00030 (09/18/17)
JW Aluminum Company (Lycoming)........  No.......................  VOC.....................  41-00013 (03/01/17)
Ward Manufacturing, LLC (Tioga).......  No.......................  VOC.....................  59-00004 (01/10/17)
Wood-Mode Inc. (Snyder)...............  Yes......................  VOC.....................  55-00005 (07/12/17)
Foam Fabricators Inc. (Columbia)......  No.......................  VOC.....................  19-00002 (12/20/17)
Resilite Sports Products Inc.           Yes......................  VOC.....................  49-00004 (08/25/17)
 (Northumberland).
NRG Energy Center Paxton, LLC           Yes......................  NOX.....................  22-05005 (03/16/18)
 (Dauphin).
Containment Solutions/Mt. Union Plant   Yes......................  VOC.....................  31-05005 (07/10/18)
 (Huntingdon).
Armstrong World Ind./Marietta Ceiling   Yes......................  VOC.....................  36-05001 (06/28/18)
 Plant (Lancaster).
Jeraco Enterprises Inc.                 Yes......................  VOC.....................  49-00014 (01/26/18)
 (Northumberland).
Blommer Chocolate Company (Montgomery)  No.......................  VOC.....................  46-00198 (01/26/17)
Texas Eastern--Bernville (Berks)......  Yes......................  NOX.....................  06-05033 (03/16/18)
Texas Eastern--Shermans Dale (Perry)..  Yes......................  NOX.....................  50-05001 (03/26/18)
Texas Eastern--Perulack (Juniata).....  Yes......................  NOX and VOC.............  34-05002 (03/27/18)
Texas Eastern--Grantville (Dauphin)...  Yes......................  NOX.....................  22-05010 (03/16/18)
Texas Eastern--Bechtelsville (Berks)..  Yes......................  NOX.....................  06-05034 (04/19/18)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP consist of
an evaluation of all reasonably available controls at the time of
evaluation for each affected emissions unit, resulting in a PADEP
determination of what specific emission limit or control measures, if
any, satisfy RACT for that particular unit. The adoption of new,
additional, or revised emission limits or control measures to existing
SIP-approved RACT I requirements were specified as requirements in new
or revised Federally enforceable permits (hereafter RACT II permits)
issued by PADEP to the source. The RACT II permits, which revise or
adopt additional source-specific limits and/or controls, have been
submitted as part of the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions for EPA's
approval in the Pennsylvania SIP under 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1). The RACT
II permits submitted by PADEP are listed in the last column of Table 1
of this preamble, along with the permit effective date, and are part of
the docket for this rule, which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0686.\3\ EPA is
incorporating by reference in the Pennsylvania SIP, via the RACT II
permits, source-specific RACT emission limits and control measures
under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain major sources of
NOX and VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The RACT II permits are redacted versions of a facility's
Federally enforceable permits and reflect the specific RACT
requirements being approved into the Pennsylvania SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Proposed Action

    PADEP's SIP revisions incorporate its determinations of source-
specific RACT II controls for individual emission units at major
sources of NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, where those units
are not covered by or cannot meet Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT
regulation. After thorough review and evaluation of the information
provided by PADEP in its five SIP revision submittals for 19 major
sources of NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, EPA proposed to
find that PADEP's case-by-case RACT determinations and conclusions
establish limits and/or controls on individual sources that are
reasonable and appropriately considered technically and economically
feasible controls.
    PADEP, in its RACT II determinations, considered the prior source-
specific RACT I requirements and, where more stringent, retained those
RACT I requirements as part of its new RACT determinations. In the
NPRM, EPA proposed to find that all the proposed revisions to
previously SIP approved RACT I requirements would result in equivalent
or additional reductions of NOX and/or VOC emissions. The
proposed revisions should not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment or

reasonable further progress with the NAAQS or section 110(l) of the
CAA.
    Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's 1997 and 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS case-by-case RACT determinations and the rationale for
EPA's proposed action were explained in the NPRM, and its associated
technical support document (TSD), and will not be restated here.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA received comments from 27 commenters on the March 20, 2020
NPRM. 85 FR 16021. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are
discussed in this section of the preamble. A copy of the comments can
be found in the docket for this action.
    Comment 1: EPA received two nearly identical comments that stated,
``EPA should extend the comment period for this and all rulemakings
until the global pandemic of SARS-COV-2 is over.'' The commenters
further stated that ``EPAs [sic] decision to continue the regulatory
process during the COVID-19 pandemic is unlawful because EPA is forcing
the public to choose between their own health and safety or participate
in this public process.'' The commenters noted that environmental
advocacy groups have asked EPA to put rulemakings on hold because they
``violate the APA and don't allow the public to fully review EPA's
decision while a global pandemic is in full force.'' The commenters
request EPA extend the public comment period for an additional 30 days
after the ``President's National Emergency Order or Pennsylvania's
Emergency Order are pulled back.'' Lastly, one commenter stated that
``EPA has released numerous orders waiving environmental requirements
such as monitoring required by Part 75 and waiving enforcement of
environmental rules due to COVID-19, recognizing that industry may not
be able to comply with these rules due to the global pandemic but EPA
still expects the public to review and comment on rulemakings such as
this.''
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the commenters' assertion that it
should extend all public comment periods until the end of the ``global
pandemic of SARS-COV-2.'' EPA also disagrees that ``EPAs decision to
continue the regulatory process during the COVID-19 pandemic is
unlawful because EPA is forcing the public to choose between their own
health and safety or participate in this public process.'' Prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic, EPA was providing the public with online access to
rulemaking actions and supporting documentation. During the pandemic,
EPA has continued to make those materials available to the public; this
proposed rulemaking was no exception. EPA also disagrees that its
action, proposing approval of RACT for 19 facilities in Pennsylvania,
violates the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). EPA followed
necessary APA procedures for this proposed rulemaking, which included
providing the public with a 30-day comment period and access to all
supporting documentation related to the proposed rulemaking.
    Finally, EPA understands the commenters' concerns with respect to
the challenges the public is facing with respect to COVID-19 and the
global pandemic, but that alone is not a reason for EPA to extend its
public comment period for this proposed rulemaking. The commenters
failed to provide new information or a compelling reason as to why EPA
should extend the public comment period for this specific rulemaking
action. The public was given adequate time and access to information
necessary to formulate comments on this rule. Therefore, EPA continues
to believe that the 30-day comment period was appropriate and did not
feel compelled to extend the public comment period, as requested by the
commenters. In this action, EPA is finalizing its rulemaking action in
accordance with APA requirements.
    Comment 2: One commenter questioned why EPA is reproposing this
action, since it already proposed action on these RACT permits in July
2019 under Docket EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0290. The commenter then goes on to
assert that ``EPA is attempting to circumvent the comments submitted
under this prior proposal and trying to avoid responding to these
comments!'' The commenter further asserts that EPA should be ``forced
to publish the comments and properly respond to them'' noting that the
``previous proposal received 66 comments, and then for some reason most
of the documents associated with that proposal have disappeared from
the docket.'' The commenter makes statements that ``what EPA is doing
is illegal'' and responding to those comments is ``required by the
APA'' and that EPA should ``respond to each of them as required.''
Lastly, the commenter attempts to ``incorporate by reference all those
comments into this comment and request EPA to respond to those comments
as if they were copied here verbatim.''
    Response 2: EPA acknowledges that it previously proposed to approve
certain source-specific RACT determinations for 21 facilities in its
July 31, 2019 NPRM. See 84 FR 37167. In its current proposed
rulemaking, EPA explained that on August 30, 2019, the last day of the
comment period for the July 31, 2019 NPRM, EPA became aware through a
comment submitted to Regulations.gov that one of the files contained in
the SIP submission--which EPA made public in the docket for that
rulemaking proposing to approve the submission (Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2017-0290-0064)--contained potential CBI. EPA restricted public access
in Regulations.gov to that file containing potential CBI the same day,
prior to the end of the comment period. On September 30, 2019, EPA
became aware through additional comments submitted to Regulations.gov
during the comment period that additional potential CBI was contained
in other files EPA had posted to Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0290-0064.
EPA restricted public access in Regulations.gov to the entire docket
that same day. In accordance with EPA's CBI regulations at 40 CFR part
2, subpart B, EPA has contacted each business affected by the inclusion
of potential CBI in the docket files to inform them that potential CBI
was made publicly available on Regulations.gov, and afforded each
business an opportunity to assert a claim of business confidentiality
for any of their information posted by EPA to Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2017-0290-0064. See 85 FR 16021, 16022 (March 20, 2020).
    EPA subsequently proposed to approve 19 of the 21 Pennsylvania
case-by-case RACT determinations in this new rulemaking. EPA has
established a docket for this new rulemaking that does not include any
materials claimed as CBI (Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0686). In
EPA's NPRM, commenters were instructed to submit any comments they have
on EPA's proposed approval of these 19 case-by-case RACT determinations
to this new docket number. Because this is a new rulemaking, EPA will
not consider any comments on its prior proposal made at Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0290-0064. The proposal that is being finalized here
specifically stated that ``[a]ny prior comments will need to be
resubmitted to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0686 during the comment
period for this proposed rulemaking for EPA to consider them.'' Id.
Also, the NPRM contains standard language explaining that the written
comment is considered the official comment and should include all the
points the commenter wants to make. Comments or comment content outside
the primary

submission are generally not considered.
    For the reasons stated here, and in its March 20, 2020 NPRM, EPA
disagrees with the commenter's assertion that it is trying to
``circumvent the comments'' or that it is doing something ``illegal.''
To the contrary, EPA made its intentions clear to the public that this
was a new rulemaking and provided the public with the legally required
30-day public comment period. In its March 20, 2020 NPRM, EPA
articulated that the previous comments would not be responded to and
the public would be required to resubmit any comments based on the
documentation provided in the docket for the March 20, 2020 rulemaking.
Similarly, the commenter is not able to ``incorporate by reference all
those comments into this comment and request EPA to respond to those
comments as if they were copied here verbatim.'' As instructed, if the
commenter wanted EPA to address comments made on the previous July 31,
2019 NPRM, the commenter needed to resubmit those specific comments
during this public comment period and EPA would respond to them, as
required by the APA.
    Comment 3: The commenter asserts that for the sources at Blommer
Chocolate Company (Blommer), EPA is proposing to approve 12-month
rolling tpy VOC limits as case-by-case RACT despite EPA policy guidance
documents that require daily VOC RACT limits and in no case should
those limits exceed 30-day averages because ozone is a short-term
standard. The commenter cites several prior comments that EPA made to
PADEP that suggested that these 12-month rolling tpy limits proposed as
case-by-case VOC RACT for the sources at Blommer Chocolate are
inadequate based on existing policy guidance. The commenter demands
that EPA disapprove PADEP's case-by-case RACT determination for Blommer
Chocolate and requests re-evaluation so that appropriate VOC emission
limits with averages no greater than 30-days can be imposed on the
sources at this facility.
    Response 3: While the commenter does not specify the particular EPA
policy guidance documents being referenced, EPA agrees that existing
guidance does highlight the need for emission controls that are
reasonably consistent with protecting a short-term NAAQS such as ozone.
In those cases where an emission limit for a RACT control can be
quantified, EPA guidance states that averaging periods for such limits
should be as short as practicable and in no case longer than 30
days.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the January 20, 1984 EPA guidance memorandum titled
``Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits--SIP
Revision Policy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the 1970's, EPA has consistently defined RACT as the lowest
emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by the
application of the control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility. The establishment
of case-by-case RACT requirements to reduce VOC and/or NOX
emissions considers not only numeric emission limits, but also design
and equipment specifications, operational and throughput constraints
and work practice standards. Each of these requirements can take
different forms depending on the types of processes and emissions at a
facility. For example, emission controls can include material content
limits (pound (lb) per gallon (gal) material used) or emission limits
(lb per hour (hr) limits, lb per day limits, and lb per month limits).
These forms of controls are all considered suitable RACT requirements.
Each source is different and not every form of an emission control is
possible for every source. For example, in some cases, one or more of
the various forms of short-term emission limits may be infeasible based
on an evaluation of the RACT-subject facility. The commenter is also
correct that EPA provided comments to PADEP when reviewing a draft
permit that questioned the adequacy and enforceability of some of the
proposed limits at Blommer, including the tpy limit, based on EPA
guidance.
    As determined by PADEP, the technically feasible control strategies
for the nine sources subject to case-by-case RACT at Blommer were not
economically feasible, except for the good operating practices option.
Having concluded through the RACT evaluation process that the type of
control options available for the Bloomer sources (upon which short-
term limits could be imposed) were not technically or economically
feasible, PADEP imposed good operating practices along with the
requirement to install, maintain, and operate each source in accordance
with manufacturer's specifications as the RACT requirements for these
sources.\5\ Additionally, PADEP included source-specific recordkeeping
and reporting requirements. Monthly recordkeeping requirements are
required for calculating both VOC emissions and the amount of cocoa
nibs processed.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See PADEP Technical Review Memo, dated February 1, 2017,
which is part of the record for this docket.
    \6\ For example, see Blommer redacted Permit No. 46-00198,
Section D, Source ID 105, Condition IV. #004, which is part of the
record for this docket and will be incorporated by reference into
the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these RACT requirements, PADEP also included in its
SIP submittal a request to incorporate existing permitted annual VOC
emission limits for the sources into the Pennsylvania SIP. Those annual
limits were previously established for each source through a Best
Available Technology (BAT) evaluation at the time each source was
permitted, and ensure the SIP requires the conditions under which the
PADEP analyzed RACT feasibility.\7\ In response to PADEP's request, EPA
is approving those annual limits into the SIP in addition to the RACT
requirements PADEP determined to be technically and economically
feasible for Blommer. Because Pennsylvania analyzed what should be RACT
under operating conditions that included annual limits from the Blommer
permit, and PADEP included those requirements in its SIP submittal to
us, EPA is incorporating those annual emission limits into the SIP not
as RACT control limits but for the purpose of SIP strengthening. For
these reasons, we consider the annual limits to be separate from RACT
and believe the commenter's assertion is misplaced.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Alternative RACT Compliance Proposal, Blommer Chocolate
Company, October 2016, which is part of the record for this docket.
BAT is defined by Pennsylvania as ``[e]quipment, devices, methods,
or techniques as determined by the Department which will prevent,
reduce, or control emissions of air contaminants to the maximum
degree possible and which are available or may be made available.''
25 Pa. Code 121.1.
    \8\ EPA notes that PADEP, in its RACT SIP revisions for the
following facilities (The Boeing Co.; JW Aluminum Company; Ward
Manufacturing, LLC; Wood-Mode Inc.; Texas Eastern Transmission,
L.P.--Bernville; Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.--Shermans Dale;
Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.--Perulack; Texas Eastern
Transmission, L.P.--Grantville; Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.--
Bechtelsville; NRG Energy Center Paxton, LLC; Containment Solutions,
Inc.; Jeraco Enterprises, Inc.;, and Foam Fabricators, Inc.)
included some form of annual limits in the RACT II permits for those
facilities. Even though a public comment was not submitted
concerning the annual limits for these other facilities, EPA wishes
to clarify that it is not approving any such annual limits as RACT
control limits. Rather, because PADEP conducted its RACT analysis
under operating conditions that included annual limits from the
existing facility permit, and PADEP included those requirements in
its SIP submittal to us, EPA is incorporating those annual limits
into the SIP not as RACT control limits but for the purpose of SIP
strengthening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: The commenter states that EPA is proposing case-by-case
VOC RACT for the sources at Jeraco Enterprises, Inc. (Jeraco) to be in
compliance with 40 CFR part 63 subparts WWWW and PPPP (National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAP) for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products;
NESHAP for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production). The commenter
states that EPA does not quantify how much VOC emission reductions this
might achieve. According to the commenter, VOC emissions cannot be
controlled under this strategy because while some hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) are VOCs, not all VOCs are HAPs. Thus, the commenter
asserts that EPA must evaluate what percentage of VOC reductions are
being achieved through the control of HAPs at the sources at Jeraco,
and from there, determine what additional controls are necessary to
address non-HAP VOC emissions.
    Response 4: EPA disagrees with the commenter's claim that case-by-
case VOC RACT for the five sources at Jeraco is in compliance with 40
CFR part 63 subparts WWWW and PPPP. While the commenter is correct in
stating that the facility is indeed subject to NESHAPs WWWW and PPPP,
PADEP did not determine that the five sources could meet RACT
requirements only by meeting the NESHAP requirements. EPA also
disagrees with the commenter on the alleged inadequacy of PADEP's
evaluation of VOC emissions at the facility. PADEP followed the RACT
provisions of 25 Pa. Code 129.99 and evaluated the technical and
economic feasibility of potential VOC control options for the five
case-by-case sources at Jeraco. Through that evaluation, PADEP
considered the control of all VOCs, not just VOCs that were HAPs. As
PADEP evaluated potential control options for all VOCs, there was no
need to evaluate what percentage of VOC control is achieved through the
applicable NESHAP as suggested by the commenter because compliance with
the NESHAP, which was an existing baseline condition at the facility,
was not one of the control requirements considered for purposes of
fulfilling RACT requirements.
    The redacted version of the facility's permit (No. 49-00014), which
is being incorporated by reference into the SIP and is available in the
docket for this action, documents the RACT requirements to be
incorporated into the SIP for this facility. These requirements are
summarized in the TSD (under the heading ``PADEP Conclusions''). The
requirements for the Jeraco sources include, in most instances,
specific VOC emission limitations, VOC content restrictions, material
usage requirements, and detailed work practice requirements to minimize
VOC emissions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, see Jeraco redacted Permit No. 49-00014,
Section D, Source 102A, Conditions I. #003 and #004, IV. #006-#008,
VI. #014-#019, and VII. #021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 5: The commenter asserts that for the boardmill line at
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (Armstrong), there is a discrepancy
between what is reported as the source's exhaust temperature and the
moisture content of that exhaust in the evaluation of activated carbon
adsorption as a VOC control versus that which is reported for these
measures during the evaluation of the catalytic oxidizer. The commenter
demands that EPA disapprove PADEP's case-by-case RACT determination for
Armstrong and requests re-evaluation of these technologies with the
actual exhaust temperature and moisture content.
    Response 5: EPA disagrees that there is a discrepancy in what is
being reported as the boardmill line source's exhaust temperature and
moisture content when evaluating the technical feasibility of the two
VOC control strategies (activated carbon adsorption/zeolite adsorption
and a catalytic oxidizer) as RACT. Actual exhaust temperatures and
moisture content (i.e., saturation) for the two different exhaust
streams (at the venturi scrubber inlet and outlet) have been provided
by Armstrong. Stack test results for the boardmill line, pre and post-
scrubber, with data on both exhaust temperature and moisture content
are provided in Armstrong's RACT II proposal.\10\ Table 2-1 (scrubber
inlet) of that report shows exhaust temperatures averaging 344 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F) and 341 [deg]F for the North and South locations
respectively. Moisture content averages 36.6 percent (%) and 36.1%,
respectively. Table 2-2 (scrubber outlet) of that report shows exhaust
temperatures averaging 170 [deg]F for both locations and moisture
content averaging 37.9% and 37.8%, respectively, for both locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See TRC Environmental Corporation's Report for Armstrong
World Industries, Marietta Boardmill Dryer, Marietta, Pennsylvania,
which is part of the record for this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These temperature and moisture content values were used
consistently in Armstrong's RACT analysis. In the evaluation of the
adsorption control technology, the company cites vendor information
that states that adsorbents will not function in a saturated gas stream
or function for a process gas with temperatures greater than 104
[deg]F.\11\ The same letter also explains that catalytic oxidation is
not feasible at the scrubber exhausts because the temperature is too
low and would have to be significantly increased to about 650 [deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See letter dated October 31, 2017 from Liberty
Environmental, Inc. to PADEP, which is part of the record in this
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 6: The commenter states that EPA is proposing case-by-case
VOC RACT for the sources at Containment Solutions--Mt. Union Plant
(Containment Solutions) to be in compliance with 40 CFR part 63 subpart
WWWW (NESHAP for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production). The
commenter states that EPA does not quantify how much VOC emission
reductions this might achieve. The commenter asserts that EPA must
evaluate what percentage of VOC reductions are being achieved through
the control of HAPs at the layup source at Containment Solutions.
    Response 6: The commenter is partially correct in that for the
single source at Containment Solutions that is subject to a case-by-
case VOC RACT determination (the layup area), PADEP has determined RACT
to include, among other requirements, compliance with NESHAP WWWW.
However, PADEP's RACT determination did not rely solely on compliance
with NESHAP WWWW. EPA disagrees with the commenter on the alleged
inadequacy of PADEP's evaluation of VOC emissions at the facility.
PADEP followed the RACT provisions of 25 Pa. Code 129.99 to evaluate
the technical and economic feasibility of potential VOC control options
for the case-by-case source at Containment Solutions. Through that
evaluation, PADEP considered the control of all VOCs, not just VOCs
that were HAPs. As PADEP evaluated potential control options for all
VOCs, there was no need to evaluate what percentage of VOC control is
achieved through the applicable NESHAP as suggested by the commenter
because compliance with the NESHAP was an existing baseline condition
at the facility.
    Other RACT requirements imposed by PADEP for this source also
include a restriction on total resin use (shall not exceed 12,910,000
lbs per 12-month consecutive period) and specific work practice
requirements (such as the use of a ``tank fabrication'' resin pouring
layup method and a ban on the use of solvent-based resin cleanup
solutions). PADEP also included specific recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Containment Solutions redacted Permit No. 31-05005,
Section E, Group 06, RACT II Requirements for Source ID 101,
Condition VII, which is being incorporated by reference into the SIP
and is part of the record for this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 7: The commenter asserts that EPA does not specify the

monitoring and recordkeeping being required as RACT for Containment
Solutions.
    Response 7: EPA disagrees with this comment. Specific monitoring
and recordkeeping requirements associated with the RACT requirements
for the layup area (Source ID 101) at Containment Solutions can be
found in the redacted version of the facility's permit. Daily records,
which inherently require monitoring, are required on resin
identification, resin usage, VOC emissions and hours of operation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 8: The commenter asserts that the PADEP economic benchmark
for case-by-case RACT determinations is too low and not appropriate for
all case-by-case evaluations, such as those for Texas Eastern
Bechtelsville. The commenter states that an absolute cost threshold
should not be used. The commenter goes on to discuss New Jersey's RACT
program in comparison to Pennsylvania's, stating that New Jersey's
program does not consider an absolute cost threshold, and the range of
dollar per ton of NOX removed in the New Jersey evaluations
allows for more control options to be considered economically feasible.
    Response 8: EPA is aware that Pennsylvania considered cost-
effectiveness levels ($/ton removed) that are lower than other states,
such as New Jersey as the commenter notes, when developing the RACT II
rule. However, EPA has not set a single cost, emission reduction, or
cost-effectiveness figure to fully define cost-effectiveness in meeting
the NOX or VOC RACT requirement. Therefore, states have the
discretion to determine what costs are considered reasonable when
establishing RACT for their sources. Each state must make and defend
its own determination on how to weigh these values in establishing
RACT.
    As PADEP explained in its RACT II rulemaking, it did not establish
a bright-line cost effectiveness threshold in determining what is
economically reasonably for purposes of defining RACT.\14\ Instead, it
developed as guidance a cost-effectiveness threshold of $2,800 per ton
of NOX controlled and $5,500 per ton of VOC controlled for
RACT. Pennsylvania also determined that even evaluating control
technology options with an additional 25% margin, an upper bound cost-
effectiveness threshold of $3,500 per ton NOX controlled and
$7,000 per ton VOC controlled, would not affect the add-on control
technology decisions required by RACT.\15\ Pennsylvania determined that
these higher cost-effectiveness thresholds did not impact the
determination of what add on control technology was feasible.
Pennsylvania also reviewed examples of benchmarks used by other states:
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; and New York, $5,000--$5,500 per
ton NOX.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 46 Pa. Bulletin 2036 (April 23, 2016).
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ PADEP Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, Final
Rulemaking RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and
VOCs. October 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its conditional approval of Pennsylvania's overall RACT II
program, EPA found that PADEP's cost effectiveness thresholds are
reasonable and reflect control levels achieved by the application and
consideration of available control technologies, after considering both
the economic and technological circumstances of Pennsylvania's own
sources. See 84 FR 20274, 20286 (May 9, 2019).
    Comment 9: The commenter requests that EPA and PADEP re-evaluate
Texas Eastern Bechtelsville's RACT analysis, taking into account the
NOX emission reductions achieved in practice by other
existing sources in New Jersey and other states. The commenter cites a
similar natural gas compressor station operated by Texas Eastern in New
Jersey that has two identical turbines (two Dresser Clark DC-990
turbines) as those found at Texas Eastern Bechtelsville. The commenter
states that under the New Jersey RACT program, in order to comply with
the presumptive NOX RACT limit of 42 parts per million by
volume, dry (ppmvd) at 15% oxygen (O2), the
facility proposed replacement of the turbines with two new turbines
that utilize low NOX emissions technology and will reduce
NOX emissions from 172.5 ppmvd to 9
ppmvd at 15% O2 (or 25 tpy).
    Response 9: The commenter is correct that the Texas Eastern
Bechtelsville facility does appear to have one source (Source ID 101,
Dresser Clark DC 990 turbine) which is similar if not identical to the
two sources the commenter discusses that are allegedly found at the
natural gas compressor station in New Jersey. However, under the
Pennsylvania RACT program, Source ID 101 at Texas Eastern Bechtelsville
will meet Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT requirements per 25 Pa. Code
129.97(g)(2)(iii) and 129(g)(2)(iv). It is not part of the facility's
case-by-case RACT proposal and EPA is not taking any action on Source
ID 101 in this rulemaking. The presumptive RACT determination for
Source ID 101 is not part of this rulemaking action, thus the comment
is outside the scope of this action.
    Comment 10: The commenter asks EPA to re-evaluate the RACT
determination for the two boilers at NRG Energy Center Paxton, LLC
(NRG), specifically for the boilers when operating on No. 6 fuel oil.
The commenter states that the proposed NOX short-term
emission limit of 0.44 pound per million British thermal units (lb/
MMBtu) is ``entirely too high for a boiler of this size.'' The
commenter suggests that switching to No. 2 fuel oil and/or a permanent
restriction on the use of No. 6 residential fuel oil to only emergency
situations when natural gas is unavailable should be evaluated as RACT.
    Response 10: EPA continues to find that Pennsylvania's RACT
determination for Boiler Nos. 13 and 14 (Source IDs 032 and 033) at NRG
is reasonable given the technological and economic feasibility analysis
required by 25 Pa. Code Sections 129.92 and 129.99. Through the RACT
analysis, PADEP reviewed the available control options with a
reasonable potential for application at the source and determined that
the short-term NOX emission limit of 0.44 lb/MMBtu for
Boilers 13 and 14 when operating on No. 6 fuel oil is the appropriate
RACT requirement.
    Through the RACT II process, PADEP also added new requirements for
Boilers 13 and 14. Under the new RACT II permit, each of the two
boilers will now be subject to an annual NOX emission limit
of 46 tpy, a limit that is in addition to the short-term RACT limit and
strengthens the SIP. Furthermore, each boiler will now be subject to
operating restrictions on fuel usage--No. 6 fuel oil limited to
1,533,300 gallons per year (gal/yr) and natural gas limited to
584,000,000 cubic feet/year.\17\ PADEP had added these requirements to
reflect the fact that these are not full time operating units and
impose the conditions upon which the feasibility analysis was
conducted. Because Pennsylvania analyzed what should be RACT under
operating conditions that included annual limits from the NRG permit,
and PADEP included those requirements in its SIP submittal to us, EPA
is incorporating those annual emission limits into the SIP not as

RACT control limits but for the purpose of SIP strengthening.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See NRG redacted permit No. 22-05005, Section E, Group 003,
RACT II Requirements for Source IDs 032 and 033, which is being
incorporated by reference into the SIP and is part of the record for
this docket.
    \18\ As a result of reviewing PADEP's RACT II determination for
NRG in response to this comment, EPA has also updated its TSD for
this facility to clarify its RACT I status. The updated TSD has been
added to the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 11: The commenter suggests that EPA should disapprove the
short-term NOX emission limit of 116 parts per million (ppm)
at Texas Eastern Grantville because the limit is too high. The
commenter cites stack test results in which the applicable sources were
able to maintain a NOX emission rate of 84.3 ppm with the
highest run being 86.8 ppm. The commenter demands that EPA send the
RACT determination back to the state for a re-evaluation showing the
lowest achievable emission limit for the sources.
    Response 11: EPA disagrees with the commenter on the stack test
results referenced in the comment. The values included in the comment
refer to stack test results for the facility's Dresser Clark DC 990
turbine (Source ID 032), which is subject to presumptive RACT
requirements at 25 Pa. Code 129.97(g)(2)(iii) and (iv).\19\ The test
results do not refer to the Westinghouse W52 turbines (Source IDs 033
and 034), which are subject to this case-by-case RACT rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See letter from Spectra Energy Partners to PADEP, dated
October 21, 2016 (Re: Request for Compliance Demonstration Waiver),
which is part of the record for this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two Westinghouse W52 turbines (Source IDs 033 and 034) have a
short-term NOX limit of 116 ppm. Assuming the commenter was
objecting to the 116 ppm short-term NOX limit for the
Westinghouse turbines, EPA continues to find that Pennsylvania's RACT
determinations for those turbines are reasonable given the analysis of
technological and economic feasibility, which is part of the record for
this docket, and that the short-term NOX emission limit of
116 ppm for these turbines is appropriate. As part of the case-by-case
NOX RACT analysis, the facility evaluated the technical and,
where appropriate, economic feasibility of available control strategies
for the two Westinghouse turbines and determined that there were no
reasonably available control technologies that were technically or
economically feasible for the conditions at this facility.
Technological and economic feasibility are how EPA analyzes what is
RACT for purposes of implementation of the ozone NAAQS--the standard is
not lowest achievable emission rates, as suggested by the
commenter.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Since the 1970's, EPA has consistently defined ``RACT'' as
the lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of
meeting by the application of the control technology that is
reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility. See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to Regional
Administrators, ``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas,'' and 44 FR 53762 (September
17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PADEP imposed, as a RACT II requirement, a continuation of the
current RACT I short-term NOX limit of 116 ppmvd
at 15% O2 at all times. This limit is based on a statistical
analysis of historical stack test results (for Texas Eastern's entire
fleet of Westinghouse W52 turbines in Pennsylvania). The analysis
showed that lowering the short-term emission rate without the
availability of any additional feasible controls would present a
significant compliance risk.\21\ Ultimately, Pennsylvania agreed with
the facility's evaluation of feasible controls and that case-by-case
NOX RACT short-term emission limits cannot be based on
individual stack test results alone in this instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See letter dated October 24, 2017 from Enbridge to PADEP,
which is part of the record for this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 12: The commenter suggests that EPA should disapprove the
short-term NOX emission limit of 120 ppm at Texas Eastern
Perulack because the limit is too high. The commenter cites stack test
results in which the applicable source was able to maintain a
NOX emission rate of 66.5 ppm with the highest run being
67.5 ppm. The commenter demands that EPA send the RACT determination
back to the state for a re-evaluation showing the lowest achievable
emission limit for the source.
    Response 12: EPA continues to find that Pennsylvania's RACT
determination for the General Electric Frame 5 turbine at Texas Eastern
Perulack (Source ID 037) is reasonable given the analysis of
technological and economic feasibility, which is part of the record for
this docket, and that the short-term NOX emission limit of
120 ppm for these turbines is appropriate. As part of the case-by-case
NOX RACT analysis, the facility evaluated the technical and,
where appropriate, economic feasibility of available control strategies
for the General Electric Frame 5 turbine and determined that there were
no reasonably available control technologies that were technically or
economically feasible for the conditions at this facility.
Technological and economic feasibility are how EPA analyzes what is
RACT for purposes of implementation of the ozone NAAQS--the standard is
not lowest achievable emission rates, as suggested by the
commenter.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See footnote 20 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PADEP imposed, as a RACT II requirement, a continuation of the
current RACT I short-term NOX limit of 120 ppmvd
at 15% O2 at all times. This limit is based on a statistical
analysis of historical stack test results (for Texas Eastern's entire
fleet of General Electric Frame 5 turbines in Pennsylvania). The
analysis showed that lowering the short-term emission rate without the
availability of any additional feasible controls would present a
significant compliance risk.\23\ Ultimately, Pennsylvania agreed with
the facility's evaluation of feasible controls and that case-by-case
NOX RACT short-term emission limits cannot be based on
individual stack test results alone in this instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See letter dated October 24, 2017 from Enbridge to PADEP,
which is part of the record for this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 13: The commenter suggests that EPA should disapprove the
short-term NOX emission limit of 120 ppm at Texas Eastern
Shermans Dale because the limit is too high. The commenter cites stack
test results in which the applicable sources were able to maintain a
NOX emission rate of no greater than 94.8 ppm and 107.7 ppm,
respectively. The commenter demands that EPA disapprove the RACT
determination and send it back to the state for a re-evaluation showing
the lowest achievable emission limit for the sources.
    Response 13: EPA continues to find that Pennsylvania's RACT
determination for the two General Electric Frame 5 turbines at Texas
Eastern Shermans Dale (Source IDs 031 and 032) are reasonable given the
analysis of technological and economic feasibility, which is part of
the record for this docket, and that the short-term NOX
emission limit of 120 ppm for these turbines is appropriate. As part of
the case-by-case NOX RACT analysis, the facility evaluated
the technical and, where appropriate, economic feasibility of available
control strategies for the two General Electric turbines and determined
that there were no reasonably available control technologies that were
technically and economically feasible for the conditions at this
facility. Technological and economic feasibility are how EPA analyzes
what is RACT for purposes of implementation of the ozone NAAQS--the
standard is not lowest achievable emission rates, as suggested by the
commenter.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See footnote 20 of this preamble.

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

    PADEP imposed, as a RACT II requirement, a continuation of the
current RACT I short-term NOX limit of 120 ppmvd
at 15% O2 at all times on each turbine. This limit is based
on a statistical analysis of historical stack test results (for Texas
Eastern's entire fleet of General Electric Frame 5 turbines in
Pennsylvania). The analysis showed that lowering the short-term
emission rate without the availability of any additional feasible
controls would present a significant compliance risk.\25\ Ultimately,
Pennsylvania agreed with the facility's evaluation of feasible controls
and that case-by-case NOX RACT short-term emission limits
cannot be based on individual stack test results alone in this
instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See letter dated October 24, 2017 from Enbridge to PADEP,
which is part of the record for this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 14: The commenter asks EPA to clarify the potential to emit
(PTE) supporting documentation for Texas Eastern Shermans Dale, citing
footers for Tables A-1 and A-2 of Attachment 4 of the source's
application, which cite a different Texas Eastern compressor station
(Bernville). The commenter further states that the tables are identical
to those included with the RACT determination for Texas Eastern
Bernville. The commenter asks EPA to supplement the record with the
correct PTE in order to properly determine cost effectiveness and RACT
for the sources at Texas Eastern Shermans Dale.
    Response 14: EPA acknowledges that Table A-1 in Attachment 4 of the
facility's RACT II proposal (submitted by Trinity Consultants), which
is included in the record for this docket, contains a footer that
mistakenly references the Texas Eastern Bernville facility, not the
Texas Eastern Shermans Dale facility. Table A-1 in the Shermans Dale
supporting documentation provides the ``Hourly and Annual Emission
Estimates'' for the gas-fired General Electric turbine, model M5241. As
the commenter noted, Table A-1 in Attachment 4 in the RACT II Proposal
for the Bernville station contains the same information as in Table A-1
for the Shermans Dale station. This is accurate and appropriate since
both tables provide emission estimates for the same type of General
Electric M5241 model turbine, which is used at each facility.
Therefore, the mistaken reference in Table A-1 in the Shermans Dale
proposal is just a typographical error and the PTE data is correct.
There is no need to supplement the record. Finally, EPA disagrees with
the commenter regarding Table A-2 in Attachment 4. The footer
associated with Table A-2 properly references the Texas Eastern
Shermans Dale facility.
    Comment 15: The commenter states that the presses, which vent
within the building, and the autoclaves should be evaluated for RACT at
Boeing. The commenter references statements in Boeing's RACT analysis
that allegedly state that it is seeking a case-by-case RACT for the
autoclaves and disagrees with Boeing's alleged claim that only the
autoclaves are subject to case-by-case RACT because no odors from the
presses have been detected by the workers.
    Response 15: While the commenter's concern addresses the autoclaves
and presses at the Boeing facility, it is important to note that in the
present action, EPA is only approving the case-by-case RACT
determination for Source ID 251, which is a Composite Manufacturing
Area. It is the only emission unit for which Boeing has requested such
a source-specific determination and the only case-by-case RACT
determination for this facility made by PADEP. There is no request for
a case-by-case RACT determination for the autoclaves or the presses.
The autoclaves are subject to RACT pursuant to 25 Pa. Code
129.97(c)(3).
    Comment 16: The commenter stated that an improper economic
feasibility analysis was conducted for Exelon because a 10% interest
rate rather than the recommended 3% to 7% interest rate was used.
    Response 16: The current economic feasibility analysis produces
cost per ton calculations over $21,000/ton of pollutant removed. The
interest rate is one factor in a complex, multi-factor cost analysis. A
change in interest rate from 10% to 3%-7% would not reduce the cost per
ton figure sufficiently to make add-on controls economically feasible
for the Exelon boilers. The RACT requirement for the two boilers at
Exelon when burning landfill gas (LFG) is 0.1 lbs NOX/MMBtu,
which is comparable to Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT requirements
when burning natural gas, and the operation of a continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS). Therefore, although EPA agrees with the
commenter about the suitability of the interest rate used in the
analysis, a lower interest rate does not change the final conclusions
of the analysis and EPA is finalizing the proposed RACT requirements
for Exelon.
    Comment 17: The commenter stated that the generic recordkeeping
provisions of 25 Pa. Code 129.100 are insufficient for Exelon. The
commenter states that the records must include sufficient data and
calculations to demonstrate that the requirements of 25 Pa. Code
129.96-129.99, as applicable, are met. Specifically, the commenter
referred to EPA's response to the final approval of the Pennsylvania
rule, which stated that 129.99(d)(6) requires sources to include such
methods for demonstrating compliance and that EPA would evaluate these
when they are submitted for SIP approval.
    Response 17: EPA reviewed and evaluated the specific compliance
demonstration provisions imposed by PADEP for the Exelon case-by-case
RACT determination under 129.99(d)(6). Specific monitoring and
recordkeeping provisions are contained in both the Exelon RACT I and
RACT II permits that are incorporated or will be incorporated into the
SIP.\26\ For example, both permits require a CEMS, which monitors and
records the required emissions information on a continuous basis. More
specific recordkeeping requirements on fuel usage are also contained
and will be retained in the SIP via the incorporated RACT I permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Exelon's RACT I permit (formerly PECO Energy--USX Fairless
Works Powerhouse), Permit No. OP-09-0066, issued December 31, 1998
and revised April 6, 1999, was approved by EPA into the SIP on
December 15, 2000. 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(143)(i)(B)(15). Incorporation
of Exelon's redacted RACT II permit is the subject of this
rulemaking. The monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in the
RACT I permit are being retained in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 18: The commenter stated that EPA and PADEP did not
consider burner replacement as a control option for Exelon and claims
that dual-fuel fired (vs. single-fuel fired) burners should have
specifically been considered as a technically and economically feasible
option.
    Response 18: EPA continues to find that Pennsylvania's RACT
determination for the boilers (Source IDs 044 and 045) at Exelon--
Fairless Hills is reasonable given the technological and economic
feasibility analysis required by 25 Pa. Code Sections 129.92 and
129.99. Through the RACT analysis, PADEP reviewed the available control
options with a reasonable potential for application at the sources and
determined that the short-term NOX emission limit of 0.10
lb/MMBtu for these boilers when burning LFG is the appropriate RACT
requirement. The case-by-case RACT determination for these boilers is
only required when they are burning LFG. The sources must comply with
Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT II requirements at 25 Pa. Code
129.97(g)(1), respectively, when burning natural gas or No. 4 residual
oil. With the use of low NOX burners (LNBs),

Exelon achieves a RACT NOX emission rate when burning LFG
equivalent to the NOX emission rate in Pennsylvania's
presumptive RACT requirements applicable to burning natural gas.
    Comment 19: The commenter claims that without knowing the exit flue
gas temperature, it is not possible to discount selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR) as an option for the boilers at Exelon and that SNCR
should not have been discounted as a feasible option for the boilers.
    Response 19: As described in the supporting documentation for
Exelon's RACT determination, which is part of the record for this
docket, SNCR was determined to be technically infeasible when burning
LFG for several reasons, including the high exhaust temperatures
required by SNCR. Burning LFG naturally reduces combustion
temperatures, and this lower combustion temperature reduces
NOX conversions when using SNCR, making the control
technology less effective for this use. Further, EPA has not identified
any application of SNCR to boilers when burning LFG. When using natural
gas or No. 4 residual oil, these Exelon boilers will be required to
meet the presumptive RACT requirements at 25 Pa. Code 129.97(g)(1)(i)
and (ii), respectively.
    Comment 20: The commenter stated that EPA has numerous guidance
policies requiring short-term limits for RACT and has informed PADEP of
these policies. Therefore, the commenter claims that an annual
emissions cap for First Quality Tissue as RACT is insufficient.
    Response 20: See Response 3, of this preamble, for a discussion of
EPA policy on RACT and short-term limits. As explained there, the
establishment of case-by-case RACT requirements to reduce VOC and/or
NOX emissions considers not only numeric emission limits,
but also design and equipment specifications, operational and
throughput constraints and work practice standards. Each of these
requirements can take different forms depending on the types of
processes and emissions at a facility.
    For the First Quality Tissue emission units subject to case-by-case
RACT, PADEP's RACT determination includes numerous continuous limits on
the VOC content and usage rate of materials used at the facility. For
example, materials used in the Adhesive Operation (Source ID 108) are
restricted in VOC Content and usage rate as follows: Laminating Glue--
0.0005 lb/gal per 4,000 gallons per day (gpd); Transfer Glue--0.010 lb/
gal per 300 gpd; and Core Glue--0.008 lb/gal per 700 gpd.\27\ In
addition to these continuous limits, PADEP also included in its RACT II
permit annual VOC limits for various units. These annual limits are
existing legal requirements at the facility. Because Pennsylvania
analyzed what should be RACT under operating conditions that included
annual limits from the First Quality Tissue permit, and PADEP included
those requirements in its SIP submittal to us, EPA is incorporating
those annual emission limits into the SIP not as RACT control limits
but for the purpose of SIP strengthening. For these reasons, we
consider the annual limits to be separate from RACT and believe the
commenter's assertion is misplaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, for example, First Quality Tissue's redacted Permit
No. 18-00030, Section D., Source ID P102, I. Condition #003; Source
ID P103, I. Conditions #001 and #003; Source ID P106, I. Condition
#001; Source ID P108, VI. Condition #004; and Source ID P110, VI.
Condition #006, which will be incorporated by reference into the SIP
and is part of the record for this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In preparing the response to this comment, EPA noticed that the
First Quality Tissue RACT II permit was improperly redacted in that it
did not contain all of the requirements imposed by PADEP's RACT
determination. Additional RACT provisions located in the First Quality
Tissue Permit No. 18099939, Section C, Conditions #007, 026, 027 and
028 were erroneously redacted. Through a May 27, 2020 email from Mr.
Viren Trivedi, PADEP, to Ms. Cristina Fernandez, EPA, PADEP has now
corrected the First Quality Tissue RACT II permit to include these
provisions and this corrected version will be incorporated into the
Pennsylvania SIP. The corrected RACT II permit has been added to the
docket of this rulemaking.
    Comment 21: Two commenters state that EPA should not allow for the
consideration of plant shutdown as part of the economic feasibility
analysis for JW Aluminum. They claim that eliminating such
consideration would likely make a number of control technologies
economically feasible at Mills 1 and/or 2. The commenters conclude that
EPA should disapprove the permit and require JW Aluminum to recalculate
the costs of installing pollution control devices without considering
shutdown.
    One of the commenters also states that the economic feasibility
analysis for JW Aluminum improperly included state taxes, property
taxes, duties, value added tax (VAT), plant shutdown, and inflated
interest rates. The commenter concludes that EPA should disapprove the
permit and require JW Aluminum to recalculate the costs of installing
pollution control devices without these improper factors.
    One commenter states that the use of 12% interest rate in the JW
Aluminum cost analysis does not reflect current Fed Funds interest
rates, which are available from https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/openmarket.htm, and now vary between 0 and 0.25%.
Furthermore, the commenter states that EPA's guidance indicates it is
feasible to use 3-7% interest rates where firm-specific rates or prime
rates are not available. However, the commenter further summarizes that
the EPA guidance also states that the 3% to 7% interest is not
appropriate when assessing private costs by firms making investments.
Without making these changes, EPA should return the permit to PADEP and
require a recalculation of costs for the JW Aluminum RACT analysis.
    Response 21: EPA agrees with the commenter that the values used for
certain factors such as interest rate, taxes, and plant shutdown in the
cost analysis may not have been justified in this case. These values
are among many other values used in a complex, multi-factor cost
analysis. However, even with adjustments to address questionable
interest rates, taxes, and plant shutdown, the lowest cost/ton numbers
to reduce emissions from these sources are still more than $7,600/ton,
a level that does not change the conclusion about the economic
feasibility of controls for the rolling mills. Therefore, although EPA
agrees with the commenter that the values used for certain factors in
the economic feasibility analysis may not have been appropriate, the
adjustment of such factors does not change the conclusions of the
analysis.
    Comment 22: The commenter states that the generic recordkeeping
provisions of 25 Pa. Code 129.100 are insufficient for Cherokee. The
commenter states that the records must include sufficient data and
calculations to demonstrate that the requirements of 25 Pa. Code
129.96-129.99 are met. Specifically, the commenter referred to EPA's
response to the final approval of the Pennsylvania rule, which stated
that 25 Pa. Code 129.99(d)(6) requires sources to include such methods
for demonstrating compliance and that EPA would evaluate these when
they are submitted for SIP approval.
    Response 22: EPA reviewed and evaluated the specific compliance
determination provisions imposed by PADEP for the Cherokee case-by-case
RACT determination under 129.99(d)(6). There are specific recordkeeping

provisions for Source ID 101 in Cherokee's. The records needed to
support the calculations necessary to verify compliance with the VOC
emission limitation may include emissions data and information on
emission modeling method and emission factors.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Cherokee's redacted RACT Permit No. 49-00007, Section
D. Source ID 101, IV. Condition #004, which will be incorporated
into the SIP with this rulemaking and is part of the record in this
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 23: The commenter states that EPA must require that the 95%
reduction from NESHAP subpart GGG is RACT for Cherokee because the
annual emission cap alone is not sufficient for RACT purposes. The
commenter further states that an annual emissions cap is not sufficient
as EPA guidance and instruction to Pennsylvania has previously stated
that RACT should consist of short-term limits such as daily averages.
    Response 23: See Response 3, of this preamble, for a discussion of
EPA policy on RACT and short-term limits. As explained in that
response, the establishment of case-by-case RACT requirements to reduce
VOC and/or NOX emissions under EPA policy considers not only
numeric emission limits, but also design and equipment specifications,
operational and throughput constraints, and work practice standards.
Each of these requirements can take different forms depending on the
types of processes and emissions at a facility.
    Cherokee's Source 101 is a collection of covered and uncovered
tanks in the wastewater treatment plant and is already required to
comply with 40 CFR part 63 subpart GGG, including the 95% reduction
requirement. The 95% reduction requirement applies to all components of
Source 101 and has reduced the potential VOC emissions from this source
from 146 tpy to 15 tpy. Compliance with the 95% reduction requirement
of subpart GGG and the VOC emissions limit of 15 tpy are existing legal
requirements for this source.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Cherokee title V Permit No. 49-00007, Section D.,
Source ID 101, I. Condition #01 and VII. Condition #013, which is
part of the record for this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the case-by-case RACT analysis required under 25 Pa.
Code 129.99, the facility evaluated the technical and, where
appropriate, economic feasibility of available controls on the various
individual components of Source 101. Tank covers were found to be
feasible for certain tanks and are now RACT requirements; however,
covers were found to be technically or economically infeasible for
certain other tanks. PADEP's RACT determination for Source 101 also
requires that biodegradation is maximized, which requires ambient
exposure of volatiles, which in turn precludes the use of a tank cover
in certain cases because the processes require tank access for mixing
and aeration. Having concluded through the RACT evaluation process that
the type of control options available for certain tanks (upon which
short-term limits could be imposed) were not technically or
economically feasible, PADEP imposed good operating practices along
with the requirement to e.g., to maximize biodegradation of volatiles.
Overall, RACT for Source 101 includes tank covers, maximization of
biodegradation, and good operating practices.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Cherokee redacted Permit No. 49-00007, Section D.,
Source ID 101, VI. Conditions #010 and #011 and VII. Condition #014,
which is part of the record for this docket and will be incorporated
by reference into the SIP. See also, footnote 28 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these RACT requirements, PADEP has also included the
existing annual VOC emissions cap referenced by the commenter in its
redacted RACT II permit. Because Pennsylvania analyzed what should be
RACT under operating conditions that included annual limits from the
Cherokee permit, and PADEP included those requirements in its SIP
submittal to us, EPA is incorporating those annual emission limits into
the SIP not as RACT control limits but for the purpose of SIP
strengthening. For these reasons, we consider the annual limits to be
separate from RACT and believe the commenter's assertion is misplaced.
    Comment 24: The commenter states that EPA should disapprove the
Texas Eastern Bernville case-by-case RACT determination because the
NOX emission limits proposed for RACT are not the lowest
achievable emission rates for the subject sources and do not reflect
their actual emissions. The commenter notes that the NOX
emission rates for Source 101 and 102 are identified in the
documentation as 115.75 lbs/hr and 110.29 lbs/hr, respectively, while
RACT limit being proposed is 120 lb/hr.
    Response 24: Initially, EPA needs to clarify certain information
referenced by the commenter. The NOX emission rates found in
the documentation referenced by the commenter were provided by the
manufacturer. They are generic rates; not measured NOX
emission rates at the Texas Eastern Bernville sources. Also, RACT for
Source IDs 101 and 102 is being proposed at 120 ppm at 15%
O2 and not 120 lbs NOX/hr, as apparently assumed
by the commenter.
    EPA also continues to find that Pennsylvania's RACT determination
for the two General Electric Frame 5 turbines at Texas Eastern
Bernville (Source IDs 101 and 102) are reasonable given the analysis of
technological and economic feasibility, which is part of the record for
this docket, and that the short-term NOX emission limit of
120 ppm for these turbines is appropriate. As part of the case-by-case
NOX RACT analysis, the facility evaluated the technical and,
where appropriate, economic feasibility of available control strategies
for the two General Electric turbines and determined that there were no
reasonably available control technologies that were technically and
economically feasible for the conditions at this facility.
Technological and economic feasibility are how EPA analyzes what is
RACT for purposes of implementation of the ozone NAAQS--the standard is
not lowest achievable emission rates, as suggested by the
commenter.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See footnote 20 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PADEP imposed, as a RACT II requirement, a short-term
NOX limit of 120 ppmvd at 15% O2 at
all times on each turbine. This limit is based on a statistical
analysis of historical stack test results (for Texas Eastern's entire
fleet of General Electric Frame 5 turbines in Pennsylvania). The
analysis showed that lowering the short-term emission rate without the
availability of any additional feasible controls would present a
significant compliance risk.\32\ Ultimately, Pennsylvania agreed with
the facility's evaluation of feasible controls and that case-by-case
NOX RACT short-term emission limits cannot be based on
individual stack test results alone in this instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See letter dated October 24, 2017 from Enbridge to PADEP,
which is part of the record for this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 25: The commenter states that the compliance date required
under RACT is January 1, 2017 and claims that approval of the case-by-
case RACT for Texas Eastern Bernville Sources 101 and 102 includes an
impermissible compliance date extension until January 1, 2024.
    Response 25: The two turbines at issue would generally be subject
to the presumptive RACT requirements specified in 25 Pa. Code
129.97(g)(2), but the source has demonstrated that the presumptive RACT
limits are not in fact economically and technologically achievable for
these two turbines. Accordingly, the source submitted, PADEP approved,
and EPA is now

agreeing that these two turbines will have a source-specific RACT
determination, and accompanying limits, for purposes of implementation
of the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Texas Eastern evaluated the turbines under the source-specific RACT
provisions as authorized by 25 Pa. Code 129.97(a). Following the case-
by-case requirements of 25 Pa. Code 129.99, Texas Eastern evaluated the
technical and economic feasibility of installing controls on the Frame
5 turbines to reduce NOX emissions as required by RACT.
Texas Eastern determined that there were no technically and
economically feasible controls to implement on the turbines. PADEP
reviewed Texas Eastern's RACT II analysis on control measures and
determined that the RACT II requirements were a continuation of the
existing RACT I emission limits. PADEP also included in its RACT II
permit, emission, fuel usage, and operating hour caps that were
utilized in the economic feasibility analysis. As explained in our
proposal document and TSD provided in the docket, we agree with PADEP's
determination. Source IDs 101 and 102 at Texas Eastern's Bernville
facility are subject to RACT II requirements established through the
source-specific alternative provisions of 25 Pa. Code 129.99. Those
requirements currently apply to the turbines through Texas Eastern
Bernville's title V permit, which is part of the record for this docket
and was effective on March 16, 2018.\33\ The redacted version of that
permit includes the RACT requirements and is being incorporated into
the SIP through this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Texas Eastern Bernville's title V permit No. 06-05033,
Section E., Group No. SG05, Sources 101 and 102, VII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of its RACT analysis, Texas Eastern determined that
it would replace these turbines as part of a major modernization
project on the Texas Eastern pipeline. Texas Eastern indicated that the
turbines would be replaced with turbine(s) resulting in a reduction of
the facility's PTE NOX of at least 290 tpy more than the
presumptive RACT limit. However, because the modernization project
would be implemented statewide, Texas Eastern indicated that it would
be a seven-year project with a completion date of January 1, 2024. As
described by Texas Eastern, the turbine replacements are part of an
extensive modernization project across multiple facilities in
Pennsylvania that requires extensive engineering and scheduling
considerations as the operation of the compressor stations are
inherently dependent on each other--for example, to maintain
appropriate line pressures throughout the pipeline.\34\ Accordingly,
Texas Eastern said that the replacement of the turbines could not occur
until January 1, 2024, a date that, as commenter notes, exceeds the
implementation deadline for RACT for purposes of the 1997 and 2008
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See RACT II Proposal, Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.,
Bernville, PA, prepared by Trinity Consultants, October 2016, which
is part of the record for this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Texas Eastern considered the replacement of these turbines
by January 1, 2024 in their RACT proposal to PADEP, and PADEP included
that requirement in their SIP submittal to us, we are approving that
requirement into the SIP solely for the purposes of SIP strengthening
to ensure that the conditions utilized in the economic feasibility
analysis are implemented and enforceable. Because the turbine
replacement is not a RACT-level requirement for this source,
commenter's allegation that EPA is improperly extending the RACT
implementation deadline beyond statutory and regulatory requirements is
misplaced.
    Comment 26: The commenter states that Texas Eastern Bernville's
RACT evaluation is improper and should be cost effective. The commenter
argues that EPA should not grant this RACT permit for Texas Eastern
Bernville until full and complete environmental studies have been
conducted and completed on the proposed site as soon as possible.
    Response 26: Texas Eastern Bernville is an existing, not a
proposed, source. PADEP and EPA have evaluated the subject sources at
the Bernville facility under the requirements of the RACT regulations,
which includes an analysis of potential controls for technical and
economic feasibility.\35\ The RACT analysis does not require an
environmental study of the site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See RACT II Proposal, Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.,
Bernville, PA, prepared by Trinity Consultants, October 2016, which
is part of the record for this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 27: The commenter states that EPA should reevaluate the
cost analysis for Wood-Mode's lumber drying sources as the analysis of
the thermal oxidizer inappropriately used a 10% interest rate and
considered state and property taxes. The commenter suggests that these
factors may change the feasibility of the thermal oxidizer and
concludes that EPA should return the permit to PADEP and disapprove the
current submittal.
    Response 27: Wood-Mode's lumber drying sources (Source ID 154) are
not being evaluated under the case-by-case RACT provisions and are
exempt pursuant to 25 Pa. Code 129.97(c)(2). Therefore, they are not
relevant to the current rulemaking action. Only the hand-wipe staining
operations (Source IDs 143 and 146) at Wood-Mode are being evaluated
for case-by-case RACT determinations. The RACT analysis for the hand-
wipe staining operations included an assessment of a thermal oxidizer.
EPA agrees with the commenter that the values used for certain factors
such as interest rate and taxes in the cost analysis for these sources
may not have been justified in this case. However, the economic
feasibility of the thermal oxidizer for Source IDs 143 and 146, which
utilize materials with low VOC concentrations, is estimated at over
$20,000/ton and over $30,000/ton, respectively. Even with adjustments
to address questionable interest rates and taxes, the cost/ton numbers
to reduce emissions from these sources remain elevated and do not
change the conclusion about the economic feasibility of controls for
the hand-wiped stain sources.
    Comment 28: The commenter states that the newspaper proof of
publication for Ward is unreadable because of a redaction on the page.
Because of this, the commenter concludes that proof of publication for
Ward Manufacturing was not provided and such proof of publication must
be resubmitted.
    Response 28: The commenter's concerns about an adequate proof of
publication relate to a redacted version of the proof of publication on
the first page in the supporting materials for Ward Manufacturing
(Ward), which is contained in the docket. That page includes a
partially obscured copy of the newspaper's proof of publication of
PADEP's notice of its RACT determination for Ward. However, the second
page of the supporting materials for Ward contains a second view of the
proof of publication along with the full version of the actual
newspaper notice. For these reasons, EPA reasonably determined that
PADEP had met its obligation to provide proof of publication of its
public notice for Ward.
    Comment 29: The commenter states that Source 149A at Ward
Manufacturing did not go through a RACT analysis as required and,
instead, is inappropriately permitted to comply with 129.97. The
commenter argues that Source 149A has a PTE of 5 tpy and is ineligible
for the presumptive RACT requirements of 25 Pa. Code 129.97(c)(2).
    Response 29: Source 149A, which is a grouping of individual
emission units

(coring machines), is subject to the presumptive RACT requirements at
25 Pa. Code 129.97(c)(2) due to enforceable permit conditions that
limit the potential VOC emissions for each coring machine source in
this overall grouping.\36\ The Pennsylvania regulations at 25 Pa. Code
121.1 define potential emissions as ``[t]he maximum capacity of a
source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design.
Any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the source to
emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment and
limitations on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material
combusted, stored or processed shall be treated as part of the design
if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions is Federally
enforceable or legally and practicably enforceable by an operating
permit condition. The term does not include secondary emission from an
offsite facility.'' Therefore, with an enforceable emissions limitation
on each individual emission unit within the grouping under Source 149A,
no case-by-case RACT analysis is required for this source. Source 149A
meets the presumptive RACT applicability at 25 Pa. Code 129.97(c)(2)
based on using lower VOC content coatings that allow these emission
units to meet their potential to emit emission caps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Ward's title V permit No. 59-00004, Section D. Source
ID 149A, I. Condition #003, which is part of the record for this
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 30: The commenter questions EPA's approval of annual RACT
limits for Resilite. The commenter asserts that EPA's guidance requires
shorter term RACT limits with no greater than 30-day rolling averages.
    Response 30: As explained in response to Comment 3, of this
preamble, the establishment of case-by-case RACT requirements to reduce
VOC and/or NOX emissions considers not only numeric emission
limits, but also design and equipment specifications, operational and
throughput constraints and work practice standards. Each of these
requirements can take different forms depending on the types of
processes and emissions at a facility. For example, emission controls
can include material content limits or emission limits. Short-term
emission limits are typically expressed as lb/hr or lb/day limits. VOC
material content limits, on the other hand, are typically expressed as
lb/gal material used and are considered continuous controls in that
they ensure that there is continuous VOC reduction by limiting the
types of materials that can be used. Similarly, operational or
throughput constraints are continuous controls on VOC/NOX
emissions. Therefore, these forms of controls are all considered
suitable RACT requirements. Each source is different and not every form
of an emission control is economically or technically feasible for
every source. In some cases, one or more of the various forms of short-
term emission limits may be infeasible based on an evaluation of the
RACT-subject facility.
    Source IDs 106, 201, and 202 at Resilite are subject to the case-
by-case RACT analysis prescribed by 25 Pa. Code 129.99. As part of the
case-by-case NOX RACT analysis, the facility evaluated the
technical and, where appropriate, economic feasibility of available
controls. A material change of solvent blends was determined to be
technically and economically feasible as RACT with new, lower lb/gal
material limits. Through the current RACT analysis, the RACT I VOC
limit of 6.83 lbs/gal (minus water) for mat coating material was
reduced to 4.97 lbs/gal.\37\ It should also be noted that the adhesives
or sealants applied at Source 106 are now limited to 2.1 lb/gal per 25
Pa. Code 129.77, not the RACT I limit of 5.98 lbs/gal.\38\ In addition,
PADEP is also retaining as RACT requirements work practices such as
limiting what equipment can be cleaned with VOC-containing materials
and restrictions on how spray guns are cleaned that were established as
part of RACT I.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Resilite redacted Permit No. 49-00004, Section D,
Source ID 106, I. Condition #001, which is part of the record for
this docket and will be incorporated by reference into the SIP with
this rule.
    \38\ See Resilite title V Permit No. 49-00004, Section D, Source
ID 106, VII. Condition #008, which is part of the record for this
docket, and 80 FR 36482 (June 25, 2015).
    \39\ See Resilite redacted Permit No. 49-00004, Section D,
Source ID 106, VI. Condition #005, and Section D, Source ID 202, VI.
Condition #004, which is part of the record for this docket and will
be incorporated by reference into the SIP with this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PADEP also established annual emission limits for each source that
are derived from the VOC-content of the materials used at that source.
In doing so, PADEP eliminated a former annual emissions cap for the
facility. Because Pennsylvania developed annual limits for the Resilite
permit, and PADEP included those requirements in its SIP submittal to
us, EPA is incorporating those annual emission limits into the SIP not
as RACT control limits but for the purpose of SIP strengthening. For
these reasons, we consider the annual limits to be separate from RACT
and believe the commenter's assertion is misplaced.
    Comment 31: The commenter questions the assumed capture efficiency
for the molding process in Foam Fabricator's cost effectiveness
analysis. The commenter asserts that the cost effectiveness of controls
on the molding operations should be reevaluated with updated capture
efficiency to find controls effective.
    Response 31: PADEP and EPA evaluated the sources at Foam
Fabricators subject to the RACT case-by-case requirements set forth in
25 Pa. Code 129.99. The RACT analysis determined that the three
technically feasible control scenarios for the molding operations were
economically infeasible, with the cost to remove VOCs ranging from
$15,702/ton to $23,699/ton.\40\ Capture efficiency is one factor in a
complex, multi-factor cost analysis. EPA has examined PADEP's cost
effectiveness analysis and finds that an updated evaluation with an
increased capture efficiency would not impact the cost analysis enough
to change the RACT determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See RACT 2 Applicability and Compliance Evaluation for Foam
Fabricators, Inc., Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, January 2017, which is
part of the record for this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving case-by-case RACT determinations for 19 sources in
Pennsylvania, as required to meet obligations pursuant to the 1997 and
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of source-
specific RACT determinations under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for certain major sources of VOC and NOX in Pennsylvania.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III
Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further
Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in
the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will
be

incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 15, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action approving Pennsylvania's NOX and VOC
RACT requirements for 19 case-by-case facilities for the 1997 and 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 21, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by:
0
a. In the heading of the last column by removing the text ``Sec.
52.2063 citation'' and adding in its place the text ``Sec. Sec.
52.2063 and 52.2064 citations'' and adding a footnote 1 to the table;
0
b. In the last column, under the new heading ``Additional explanation/
Sec. Sec.  52.2063 and 52.2064 citations'' by removing the text
``52.2020'' wherever it appears;
0
c. Revising the entries ``Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.--
Bernville''; ``Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.--Bechtelsville'';
``Boeing Defense & Space Group--Helicopters Div''; ``PECO Energy Co.--
USX Fairless Works Powerhouse''; ``Containment Solutions, Inc.
(formerly called Fluid Containment--Mt. Union)''; ``Resilite Sport
Products, Inc''; ``Jeraco Enterprises, Inc''; ``Texas Eastern
Transmission Corporation'' (Permit No. 22-2010); ``Armstrong World
Industries, Inc'' (Permit No. 36-2001); ``Statoil Energy Power Paxton,
LP''; ``Harrisburg Steamworks''; ``Texas Eastern Transmission Corp'';
``Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation'' (Permit No. OP-34-2002);
``Merck and Co., Inc''; and
0
d. Adding the entries at the end of the table ``First Quality Tissue,
LLC''; ``JW Aluminum Company''; ``Ward Manufacturing, LLC''; ``Foam
Fabricators Inc.''; ``Blommer Chocolate Company''; ``Wood-Mode Inc.'';
``Exelon Generation--Fairless Hills (formerly referenced as PECO Energy
Co.--USX Fairless Works Powerhouse)''; ``The Boeing Co. (formerly
referenced as Boeing Defense & Space Group--Helicopters Div)'';
``Cherokee Pharmaceuticals, LLC (formerly referenced as Merck and Co.,
Inc)''; ``Resilite Sports Products Inc.''; ``NRG Energy Center Paxton,
LLC (formerly referenced as Harrisburg Steamworks and Statoil Energy
Power Paxton, LP)''; ``Containment Solutions, Inc./Mt. Union Plant
(formerly referenced as Containment Solutions, Inc. and Fluid
Containment--Mt. Union)''; ``Armstrong

World Industries, Inc.--Marietta Ceiling Plant (formerly referenced as
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.)''; ``Jeraco Enterprises Inc.'';
``Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.--Bernville (formerly referenced as
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.--Bernville)''; ``Texas Eastern
Transmission, L.P.--Shermans Dale (formerly referenced as Texas Eastern
Transmission Corp)''; ``Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.--Perulack
(formerly referenced as Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation)'';
``Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.--Grantville (formerly referenced as
Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation)''; and ``Texas Eastern
Transmission, L.P.--Bechtelsville (formerly referenced as Texas Eastern
Transmission Corp.--Bechtelsville)''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020   Identification of plan.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
                                                                                explanations/Sec.
           Name of source                  Permit No.                County           State effective date    EPA approval date      Sec.   52.2063 and
                                                                                52.2064  citations\1\

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

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.--   OP-06-1033............  Berks.................  1/31/97..............  4/18/97, 62 FR 19049.  See also
 Bernville.                                                                                52.2064(a)(15).
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.--   OP-06-1034............  Berks.................  1/31/97..............  4/18/97, 62 FR 19049.  See also
 Bechtelsville.                                                                                52.2064(a)(19).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Boeing Defense & Space Group--       CP-23-0009............  Delaware..............  9/3/97...............  12/15/00, 65 FR 78418  See also
 Helicopters Div.                                                                                52.2064(a)(8).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
PECO Energy Co.--USX Fairless Works  OP-09-0066............  Bucks.................  12/31/98, 4/6/99.....  12/15/00, 65 FR 78418  See also
 Powerhouse.                                                                                52.2064(a)(7).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Containment Solutions, Inc.          OP-31-02005...........  Huntingdon............  4/9/99...............  8/6/01, 66 FR 40891..  See also
 (formerly called Fluid                                                                                52.2064(a)(12).
 Containment--Mt. Union).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Resilite Sport Products, Inc.......  OP-49-0003............  Northumberland........  12/3/96..............  10/17/03, 68 FR 59741  See also
                                                                                52.2064(a)(10).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Jeraco Enterprises, Inc............  OP-49-0014............  Northumberland........  4/6/97...............  3/29/05, 70 FR 15774.  See also
                                                                                52.2064(a)(14).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Texas Eastern Transmission           22-2010...............  Dauphin...............  1/31/97..............  3/31/05, 70 FR 16423.  See also
 Corporation.                                                                                52.2064(a)(18).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Armstrong World Industries, Inc....  36-2001...............  Lancaster.............  7/3/99...............  11/2/05, 70 FR 66261.  See also
                                                                                52.2064(a)(13).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Statoil Energy Power Paxton, LP....  OP-22-02015...........  Dauphin...............  6/30/99..............  3/8/06, 71 FR 11514..  See also
                                                                                52.2064(a)(11).
Harrisburg Steamworks..............  OP-22-02005...........  Dauphin...............  3/23/99..............  3/8/06, 71 FR 11514..  See also
                                                                                52.2064(a)(11).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp....  OP-50-02001...........  Perry.................  4/12/99..............  4/28/06, 71 FR 25070.  See also
                                                                                52.2064(a)(16).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Texas Eastern Transmission           OP-34-2002............  Juniata...............  1/31/97..............  7/11/06, 71 FR 38995.  See also
 Corporation.                                                                                52.2064(a)(17).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Merck and Co., Inc.................  OP-49-0007B...........  Northumberland........  5/16/01..............  3/4/08, 73 FR 11553..  See also
                                                                                52.2064(a)(9).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
First Quality Tissue, LLC..........  18-00030..............  Clinton...............  9/18/17..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(1).
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                CITATION].
JW Aluminum Company................  41-00013..............  Lycoming..............  3/01/17..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(2).
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                CITATION].
Ward Manufacturing, LLC............  59-00004..............  Tioga.................  1/10/17..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(3).
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                CITATION].
Foam Fabricators Inc...............  19-00002..............  Columbia..............  12/20/17.............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(4).
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                CITATION].
Blommer Chocolate Company..........  46-00198..............  Montgomery............  1/26/17..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(5).
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                CITATION].
Wood-Mode Inc......................  55-00005..............  Snyder................  7/12/17..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(6).
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                CITATION].
Exelon Generation--Fairless Hills    09-00066..............  Bucks.................  1/27/17..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(7).
 (formerly referenced as PECO                                                                                Federal Register
 Energy Co.--USX Fairless Works                                                                              CITATION].
 Powerhouse).
The Boeing Co. (formerly referenced  23-00009..............  Delaware..............  1/03/17..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(8).
 as Boeing Defense & Space Group--                                                                           Federal Register
 Helicopters Div).                                                                                CITATION].
Cherokee Pharmaceuticals, LLC        49-00007..............  Northumberland........  4/24/17..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(9).
 (formerly referenced as Merck and                                                                           Federal Register
 Co., Inc).                                                                                CITATION].
Resilite Sports Products Inc.......  49-00004..............  Northumberland........  8/25/17..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(10).
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                CITATION].
NRG Energy Center Paxton, LLC        22-05005..............  Dauphin...............  3/16/18..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(11).
 (formerly referenced as Harrisburg                                                                          Federal Register
 Steamworks and Statoil Energy                                                                               CITATION].
 Power Paxton, LP).
Containment Solutions, Inc./Mt.      31-05005..............  Huntingdon............  7/10/18..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(12).
 Union Plant (formerly referenced                                                                            Federal Register
 as Containment Solutions, Inc. and                                                                          CITATION].
 Fluid Containment--Mt. Union).
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.--   36-05001..............  Lancaster.............  6/28/18..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(13).
 Marietta Ceiling Plant (formerly                                                                            Federal Register
 referenced as Armstrong World                                                                               CITATION].
 Industries, Inc.).
Jeraco Enterprises Inc.............  49-00014..............  Northumberland........  1/26/18..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(14).
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                CITATION].

Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.--   06-05033..............  Berks.................  3/16/18..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(15).
 Bernville (formerly referenced as                                                                           Federal Register
 Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.--                                                                          CITATION].
 Bernville).
Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.--   50-05001..............  Perry.................  3/26/18..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(16).
 Shermans Dale (formerly referenced                                                                          Federal Register
 as Texas Eastern Transmission                                                                               CITATION].
 Corp).
Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.--   34-05002..............  Juniata...............  3/27/18..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(17).
 Perulack (formerly referenced as                                                                            Federal Register
 Texas Eastern Transmission                                                                                CITATION].
 Corporation).
Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.--   22-05010..............  Dauphin...............  3/16/18..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(18).
 Grantville (formerly referenced as                                                                          Federal Register
 Texas Eastern Transmission                                                                                CITATION].
 Corporation).
Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.--   06-05034..............  Berks.................  4/19/18..............  10/16/20, [INSERT      52.2064(a)(19).
 Bechtelsville (formerly referenced                                                                          Federal Register
 as Texas Eastern Transmission                                                                               CITATION].
 Corp.--Bechtelsville).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The cross-references that are not Sec.   52.2064 are to material that pre-date the notebook format. For more information, see Sec.   52.2063.

* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.2064 is added to subpart NN to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2064   EPA-approved Source-Specific Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).

    This section explains the EPA-approved Source-Specific Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) Requirements for Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) incorporated by
reference as part of the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP)
identified in Sec.  52.2020(d)(1).
    (a) Approval of source-specific RACT requirements for 1997 and 2008
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards for the facilities
listed below are incorporated as specified below. (Rulemaking Docket
No. EPA-OAR-2019-0686).
    (1) First Quality Tissue, LLC--Incorporating by reference Permit
No. 18-00030, issued September 18, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
    (2) JW Aluminum Company--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 41-
00013, issued March 1, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
    (3) Ward Manufacturing, LLC--Incorporating by reference Permit No.
59-00004, issued January 10, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
    (4) Foam Fabricators Inc.--Incorporating by reference Permit No.
19-00002, issued December 20, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
    (5) Blommer Chocolate Company--Incorporating by reference Permit
No. 46-00198, issued January 26, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
    (6) Wood-Mode Inc.--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 55-00005,
issued July 12, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
    (7) Exelon Generation--Fairless Hills--Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 09-00066, issued January 27, 2017, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. OP-09-0066,
issued December 31, 1998 and amended April 6, 1999, except for
Conditions 10, 11.A, 11.C, 11.D, 12, 13, 14, and 15, which remain as
RACT requirements for the two remaining Boilers No. 4, Serial 2818 (now
Source ID 044) and No. 5, Serial 2819 (now Source ID 045). See also
Sec.  52.2063(c)(143)(i)(B)(15) for prior RACT approval.
    (8) The Boeing Co.--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 23-00009,
issued August, as redacted by Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior
RACT Permit No. CP-23-0009, issued September 3, 1997, except for
Conditions 5.A, 5.C.1-3, and 5.D.2 and 4 (applicable to Source ID 251,
Composite Manufacturing Operations); Conditions 7.A, 7.B.1-4, 7.D.1 and
7.E (applicable to Source ID 216, Paint Gun Cleaning); Condition 11.A,
11.C-E and 11.G (applicable to all solvent wiping and cleaning
facility-wide); Condition 12 (applicable to listed de minimis VOC

emission sources facility-wide); Condition 14.A (applicable to Source
IDs 041, 050 and 051, Emergency Generators and Diesel Fire Pump);
Conditions 15.B and 16.B (applicable to Source IDs 033 and 039, Cleaver
Brooks Boilers 1 and 2); Condition 15.D (applicable to Source ID 042, 4
combustion turbines); Condition 16.C (applicable to Source IDs 041,
050, 050A, 051, 051A, and 051B, Emergency Generators); and Condition
16.D (applicable to Source ID 039, Cleaver Brooks Boiler 2), which
remain as RACT requirements. See also Sec.  52.2063(c)(143)(i)(B)(1)
for prior RACT approval.
    (9) Cherokee Pharmaceuticals, LLC--Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 49-00007, issued April 24, 2017, as redacted by
Pennsylvania. All permit conditions in the prior RACT Permit No. OP-49-
0007B, issued May 16, 2001 remain as RACT requirements. See also Sec.
52.2063(d)(1)(v) for prior RACT approval.
    (10) Resilite Sports Products Inc--Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 49-00004, issued August 25, 2017, as redacted by
Pennsylvania. All permit conditions in the prior RACT Permit No. OP-49-
0003 issued December 3, 1996, remain as RACT requirements except for
Condition 5c, which is superseded by the new permit. See also Sec.
52.2063(c)(207)(i)(B)(1) for prior RACT approval.
    (11) NRG Energy Center Paxton, LLC--Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 49-00004, issued March 16, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit Nos. OP-22-02005
and OP-22-02015, both issued March 23, 1999, for Source IDs 032 and
033, Boilers No. 13 and 14. However, RACT Permit No. OP-22-02005
remains in effect as to Source IDs 031 and 034, Boilers No. 12 and 15,
except for Conditions 1(a), 7, 14, 16, 21; and RACT Permit No. OP-22-
02015 remains in effect as to Source IDs 102 and 103, Engines 1 and 2,
except for Conditions 1(a), 7, 8, 9, 10, 12(c), 13, 14. See also Sec.
52.2063(d)(1)(l) for prior RACT approval.
    (12) Containment Solutions, Inc./Mt. Union Plant--Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 31-05005, issued July 10, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. OP-31-02005,
issued April 9, 1999. See also Sec.  52.2063 (c)(149)(i)(B)(11) for
prior RACT approval.
    (13) Armstrong World Industries, Inc.--Marietta Ceiling Plant--
Incorporating by reference Permit No. 36-05001, issued June 28, 2018,
as redacted by Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No.
36-2001, issued July 3, 1999. See also Sec.  52.2063(d)(1)(b) for prior
RACT approval.
    (14) Jeraco Enterprises Inc.--Incorporating by reference Permit No.
49-00014, issued January 26, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania. All
permit conditions in the prior RACT Permit No. OP-49-0014, issued April
6, 1997, remain as RACT requirements. See also Sec.  52.2063(d)(1)(h)
for prior RACT approval.
    (15) Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.--Bernville--Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 06-05033, issued March 16, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. OP-06-1033,
issued January 31, 1997, except for Conditions 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and
13 which remain as RACT requirements. See also Sec.
52.2063(c)(120)(i)(B)(1) for prior RACT approval.
    (16) Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.--Shermans Dale--Incorporating
by reference Permit No. 50-05001, issued March 26, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. OP-50-02001,
issued April 12, 1999. See also Sec.  52.2063(d)(1)(n) for prior RACT
approval.
    (17) Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.--Perulack--Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 34-05002, issued March 16, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. OP-34-2002,
issued January 31, 1997, except for Conditions 5.c, 6.a and 15 which
remain as RACT requirements. See also Sec.  52.2063(d)(1)(r) for prior
RACT approval.
    (18) Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.--Grantville--Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 22-05010, issued March 27, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. 22-2010,
issued January 31, 1997. See also Sec.  52.2063(d)(1)(f) for prior RACT
approval.
    (19) Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.--Bechtelsville--Incorporating
by reference Permit No. 06-05034, issued April 19, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. OP-06-1034,
issued January 31, 1997. See also Sec.  52.2063(c)(120)(i)(B)(2) for
prior RACT approval.
    (b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2020-21139 Filed 10-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P