[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 1113]
[FR Doc No: X10-890108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending December 26, 2009

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2007-0007.
    Date Filed: December 22, 2009.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: January 12, 2010.
    Description: Application of Baltia Air Lines, Inc. (Baltia),
requesting that its experimental certificate of public convenience and
necessity for foreign air transportation, Route 890 be extended for
eight-month and that Baltia be reissued one round trip weekly frequency
between New York and St. Petersburg, Russia.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Alternate Federal
Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-127 Filed 1-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1861-1862]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00214]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9012-9]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements filed 12/30/2013
through 01/03/2014 pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

 Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20130384, Draft Supplement, USFS, NV, Ely Westside Rangeland
Project, Comment Period Ends: 02/24/2014, Contact: Vernon Keller 775-
335-5336
EIS No. 20140000, Draft EIS, USACE, NC, Village of Bald Head Island
Shoreline Protection Project, Comment Period Ends: 02/24/2014, Contact:
Ronnie Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20140001, Draft EIS, APHIS, 00, Determinations of Nonregulated
Status for 2, 4-D-Resistant Corn and Soybean Varieties, Comment Period
Ends: 02/24/2014, Contact: Sid Abel<PHONE_NUMBER>

    Dated: January 7, 2014.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-00214 Filed 1-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60168]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27217]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 713

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0421; FRL-9971-82]
RIN 2070-AK22

Mercury; Reporting Requirements for the TSCA Mercury Inventory;
Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a document in the Federal Register of October 26,
2017, concerning proposed reporting requirements for applicable persons
to provide information to assist in the preparation of an ``inventory
of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States.'' This document
extends the comment period for 16 days, from December 26, 2017 to
January 11, 2018. EPA received requests to extend the comment period
and believes it is appropriate to do so in order to give stakeholders
additional time to assess the impacts of the proposal, review technical
documents in the docket, and prepare comments.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2017-0421, must be received on or before January 11, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in
the Federal Register document of October 26, 2017 (82 FR 49564) (FRL-
9970-07).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Thomas Groeneveld, National
Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document extends the public comment
period established in the Federal Register document of October 26, 2017
(82 FR 49564) (FRL-9970-07). EPA is hereby extending the comment
period, which was set to end on December 26, 2017, to January 11, 2018.
    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the
detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register
document of October 26, 2017 (82 FR 49564) (FRL-9970-07). If you have
questions, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 713

    Environmental protection, Mercury, Elemental mercury, Mercury
compounds, Inventory, Supply, Use, Trade, Manufacture, Import, Export.

    Dated: December 6, 2017.
Charlotte Bertrand,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-27217 Filed 12-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 37)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8551-8554]
[DOCID:fr25fe10-27]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0172; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-189-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300, A300-600, and A310
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    In the past, some operators have reported difficulties to
pressurise the hydraulic reservoirs, due to leakage of the Crissair
reservoir air pressurisation check valves. * * * The leakage of the
check valves was caused by an incorrect spring material. The
affected Crissair check valves * * * were then replaced with
improved check valves P/N [part number] 2S2794-1 * * *.
    More recently, similar issues were again reported on aeroplanes
with Crissair check valves P/N 2S2794-1 installed. The
investigations * * * have shown that a spring, mounted inside the
valve, does not meet the Airbus type design specifications.
    This situation, if not corrected, can cause hydraulic system
functional degradation, possibly resulting in reduced control of the
aeroplane when combined with an air duct leak, air conditioning
system contamination or, if installed, malfunction of the fire
extinguishing system in the Class `C' cargo compartment.

* * * * *
    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room

W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0172;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-189-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that
address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to
provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The
comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which
is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0171, dated August 5, 2009 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    In the past, some operators have reported difficulties to
pressurise the hydraulic reservoirs, due to leakage of the Crissair
reservoir air pressurisation check valves. In some cases, the air
conditioning system was contaminated with hydraulic mist. The
leakage of the check valves was caused by an incorrect spring
material. The affected Crissair check valves Part Number (P/N)
2S2794 were then replaced with improved check valves P/N 2S2794-1 in
accordance with Airbus Service Information Letter 29-020.
    More recently, similar issues were again reported on aeroplanes
with Crissair check valves P/N 2S2794-1 installed. The
investigations carried out on those check valves have shown that a
spring, mounted inside the valve, does not meet the Airbus type
design specifications.
    This situation, if not corrected, can cause hydraulic system
functional degradation, possibly resulting in reduced control of the
aeroplane when combined with an air duct leak, air conditioning
system contamination or, if installed, malfunction of the fire
extinguishing system in the Class `C' cargo compartment.
    For the reasons described above, EASA AD 2008-0166 was issued to
require the inspection of the Crissair check valves P/N 2S2794-1, to
identify serial numbers (s/n) and the replacement of the affected
ones with serviceable units.
    Later on, further investigation by the vendor Crissair revealed
more suspect check valves P/N 2S2794-1. Based on this, it was
concluded that EASA AD 2008-0166 did not adequately address the
unsafe condition and also did not correctly identify the Functional
Item Numbers (FIN) of the various aeroplane installations of the
affected valves. Consequently, EASA AD Cancellation Notice No.:
2008-0166-CN was issued on 29 October 2008 to cancel EASA AD 2008-
0166.
    An updated list of suspect check valves with P/N 2S2794-1 has
now been issued by Crissair Inc., the manufacturer. Consequently,
this EASA AD requires the identification of the check valves by s/n
and the replacement of the affected ones with serviceable units.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued the following service bulletins:
     Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-29-0124, Revision
02, including Appendices 1, 2, and 3, dated March 10, 2009;
     Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-29-6060, Revision
01, including Appendices 1, 2, and 3, dated March 10, 2009; and
     Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-29-2097, Revision
01, including Appendices 1, 2, and 3, dated March 19, 2009.
    The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 206 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would

take about 12 work-hours per product, depending on airplane
configuration, to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed
AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $210,120, or $1,020 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2010-0172; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-
189-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 12, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C,
B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, B4-203, B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-
605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes;
and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325
airplanes; certificated in any category, all certified models and
all serial numbers on which any Crissair check valve part number
2S2794-1 is installed.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29:
Hydraulic Power; and 26: Fire Protection.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    In the past, some operators have reported difficulties to
pressurise the hydraulic reservoirs, due to leakage of the Crissair
reservoir air pressurization check valves. In some cases, the air
conditioning system was contaminated with hydraulic mist. The
leakage of the check valves was caused by an incorrect spring
material. The affected Crissair check valves Part Number (P/N)
2S2794 were then replaced with improved check valves P/N 2S2794-1 in
accordance with Airbus Service Information Letter 29-020.
    More recently, similar issues were again reported on aeroplanes
with Crissair check valves P/N 2S2794-1 installed. The
investigations carried out on those check valves have shown that a
spring, mounted inside the valve, does not meet the Airbus type
design specifications.
    This situation, if not corrected, can cause hydraulic system
functional degradation, possibly resulting in reduced control of the
aeroplane when combined with an air duct leak, air conditioning
system contamination or, if installed, malfunction of the fire
extinguishing system in the Class `C' cargo compartment.
    For the reasons described above, EASA [European Aviation Safety
Agency] AD 2008-0166 was issued to require the inspection of the
Crissair check valves P/N 2S2794-1, to identify serial numbers (s/n)
and the replacement of the affected ones with serviceable units.
    Later on, further investigation by the vendor Crissair revealed
more suspect check valves P/N 2S2794-1. Based on this, it was
concluded that EASA AD 2008-0166 did not adequately address the
unsafe condition and also did not correctly identify the Functional
Item Numbers (FIN) of the various aeroplane installations of the
affected valves. Consequently, EASA AD Cancellation Notice No.:
2008-0166-CN was issued on 29 October 2008 to cancel EASA AD 2008-
0166.
    An updated list of suspect check valves with P/N 2S2794-1 has
now been issued by Crissair Inc., the manufacturer. Consequently,
this EASA AD requires the identification of the check valves by s/n
and the replacement of the affected ones with serviceable units.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) At the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1 of
this AD: For Crissair check valves, P/N 2S2794-1, identify the
serial number using Appendix 1 of the applicable service bulletin
identified in Table 2 of this AD, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions in the applicable service bulletin
identified in Table 2 of this AD. Except as provided by paragraph
(f)(2) of this AD, for any valve having a serial number listed in
Appendix 1 of the applicable service bulletin identified in Table 2
of this AD, before further flight, install a new or modified check
valve in accordance with the applicable service bulletin identified
in Table 2 of this AD.

               Table 1--Affected Check Valve Installation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Affected check valve installation,
   identified by FIN (functional item            Compliance time
                number)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Airplanes having Hydraulic System    Within 4 months after the
 with FIN 29/1388, FIN 29/2388 and FIN    effective date of this AD.
 29/3388.
(ii) Cargo Compartment Fire              Within 4 months after the
 Extinguishing System, equipped with      effective date of this AD.
 Flow Metering System (A310 and A300-
 600 airplanes having
 ``post[dash]Airbus modification
 06403'' only) FIN 26/0203.

(iii) Airplanes having Hydraulic System  Within 30 months after the
 with FIN 29/1378, FIN 29/1382 and FIN    effective date of this AD.
 29/1394.
(iv) Hydraulic System (A300 airplanes    Within 30 months after the
 having configuration 01                  effective date of this AD.
 ``pre[dash]Airbus modification 03079''
 only) FIN 29/1381.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Check valves P/N 2S2794-1 marked with an ``R'' have already
been modified in accordance with Crissair Service Bulletin 20070407-
29-1 and do not need to be replaced. Check valves with P/N 2S2794
are not affected and do not need to be replaced.
    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install
any Crissair check valve, P/N 2S2794-1, on any airplane unless it
has a serial number other than those listed in Appendix 1 of the
applicable service bulletin identified in Table 2 of this AD, or
unless check valve P/N 2S2794-1 is marked with an ``R.''

                                          Table 2--Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Airbus Mandatory Service
          Airbus model--                    Bulletin--            Revision--                 Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300 airplanes....................  A300-29-0124, including                 02  March 10, 2009.
                                     Appendices 1, 2, and 3.
A300-600 airplanes................  A300-29-6060, including                 01  March 10, 2009.
                                     Appendices 1, 2, and 3.
A310 airplanes....................  A310-29-2097, including                 01  March 19, 2009.
                                     Appendices 1, 2, and 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Submit an inspection report of the inspection required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD to Airbus Customer Services Directorate,
1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France;
telephone +33 5 61 93 33 33; fax +33 5 61 93 42 51; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at the applicable time specified in
paragraph (f)(4)(i) or (f)(4)(ii) of this AD. The report must
include the information specified on the inspection report sheet
provided in the applicable service bulletin identified in Table 2 of
this AD.
    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: Although the MCAI states not to install the part
identified in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD after accomplishing the
actions specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, this AD prohibits
installation of the part as of the effective date of this AD.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to Attn: Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal
avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal
inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC
approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the Information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0171, dated
August 5, 2009; and the service bulletins identified in Table 2 of
this AD; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 17, 2010.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-3817 Filed 2-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8743-8748]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02586]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0598; FRL-10018-68-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) Determinations for Case-by-Case Sources Under the
2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve 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 major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) pursuant to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's
conditionally approved RACT regulations. In this rulemaking action, EPA
is only proposing to approve source specific (also referred to as
``case-by-case'') RACT determinations for nine major sources located in
Philadelphia County. These RACT evaluations were submitted to meet RACT
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0598 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of

submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Riley Burger, Permits Branch
(3AD10), Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Burger can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 7, 2020, PADEP submitted two
revisions to its SIP to address case-by-case NOX and/or VOC
RACT for 93 major facilities. These SIP revisions are intended to
address the NOX and/or VOC RACT requirements under sections
182 and 184 of the CAA for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Table
1 of this document lists the SIP submittal date and the facilities
included in PADEP's submittal that EPA is proposing to approve in this
action. EPA views each facility as a separable SIP revision and may
take separate final action on one or more facilities. In this
rulemaking action, EPA is only proposing to approve case-by-case RACT
determinations for nine of the 93 sources submitted to EPA by PADEP on
behalf of Philadelphia Air Management Services (AMS) for facilities
located in Philadelphia County.
    The SIP revisions in this action only establish 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS RACT requirements. Applicable RACT requirements under the CAA for
sources located in Philadelphia for the 1997 8-hr ozone NAAQS were
previously satisfied. See 81 FR 69687 (October 7, 2016, effective
November 7, 2016). For additional background information on
Pennsylvania's ``presumptive'' RACT II SIP see 84 FR 20274 (May 9,
2019) and on Pennsylvania's source-specific or ``case-by-case'' RACT
determinations see the appropriate technical support document (TSD)
which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0598.

    Table 1--PADEP SIP Submittals for Major NOX and/or VOC Sources in
  Philadelphia County Subject to Source-Specific RACT Under the 2008 8-
                           Hour Ozone Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SIP submittal date                      Major source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/7/2020.....................  AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC--
                                Frankford Plant (formerly, Honeywell
                                International--Frankford Plant).
                               Exelon Generation Company--Richmond
                                Generating Station.
                               Grays Ferry Cogeneneration Partnership--
                                Schuylkill Station.
                               Vicinity Energy Philadelphia--Schuylkill
                                Station (formerly Veolia Energy
                                Philadelphia--Schuylkill Station).
                               Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC--
                                Philadelphia Terminal.
                               Naval Surface Warfare Center--
                                Philadelphia Divison (formerly Naval
                                Surface Warfare Center--Carderock
                                Division, Ship Systems Engineering
                                Station).
                               Newman and Company, Inc (formerly
                                Paperworks Industries, Inc).
                               Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining
                                and Marketing LLC.
                               Philadelphia Shipyard Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is
created by chemical reactions between NOX and VOC in the
presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities, electric
utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical
solvents are some of the major sources of NOX and VOC.
Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems, particularly
for children, the elderly, and people of all ages who have lung
diseases such as asthma. Ground level ozone can also have harmful
effects on sensitive vegetation and ecosystems.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a standard for ground level ozone
based on 8-hour average concentrations. 62 FR 38856. The 8-hour
averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the
level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to
0.08 ppm. EPA has designated two moderate nonattainment areas in
Pennsylvania under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, namely Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE (the Philadelphia Area) and
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley (the Pittsburgh Area). See 40 CFR 81.339.
    On March 12, 2008, EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone standards, by
revising its level to 0.075 ppm averaged over an 8-hour period (2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS). On May 21, 2012, EPA designated five marginal
nonattainment areas in Pennsylvania for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Lancaster, Reading, the Philadelphia Area,
and the Pittsburgh Area. 77 FR 30088; see also 40 CFR 81.339.
    On March 6, 2015, EPA announced its revocation of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for all purposes and for all areas in the country,
effective on April 6, 2015. 80 FR 12264. EPA has determined that
certain nonattainment planning requirements continue to be in effect
under the revoked standard for nonattainment areas under the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, including RACT.
    On November 7, 2016 EPA determined that the Philadelphia 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS RACT demonstration satisfies all applicable RACT
requirements under the CAA for Philadelphia for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. 81 FR 69687 (October 7, 2016).

B. RACT Requirements for Ozone

    The CAA regulates emissions of NOX and VOC to prevent
photochemical reactions that result in ozone formation. RACT is an
important strategy for reducing NOX and VOC emissions from
major stationary sources within areas not meeting the ozone NAAQS.
    Areas designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS are subject to
the general nonattainment planning requirements of CAA section 172.
Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides

that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available
control measures (RACM) for demonstrating attainment of all NAAQS,
including emissions reductions from existing sources through the
adoption of RACT. Further, section 182(b)(2) of the CAA sets forth
additional RACT requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified
as moderate or higher.
    Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA sets forth requirements regarding RACT
for the ozone NAAQS for VOC sources. Section 182(f) subjects major
stationary sources of NOX to the same RACT requirements
applicable to major stationary sources of VOC.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``major source'' is defined based on the source's
potential to emit (PTE) of NOX or VOC, and the applicable
thresholds for RACT differs based on the classification of the
nonattainment area in which the source is located. See sections
182(c)-(f) and 302 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA applies the RACT requirements in
section 182(b)(2) to nonattainment areas classified as marginal and to
attainment areas located within ozone transport regions established
pursuant to section 184 of the CAA. Section 184(a) of the CAA
established by law the current Ozone Transport Region (OTR) comprised
of 12 eastern states, including Pennsylvania. This requirement is
referred to as OTR RACT. As noted previously, a ``major source'' is
defined based on the source's PTE of NOX, VOC, or both
pollutants, and the applicable thresholds differ based on the
classification of the nonattainment area in which the source is
located. See sections 182(c)-(f) and 302 of the CAA.
    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.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 also 44 FR 53762
(September 17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has provided more substantive RACT requirements through
implementation rules for each ozone NAAQS as well as through guidance.
In 2004 and 2005, EPA promulgated an implementation rule for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS in two phases (``Phase 1 of the 1997 Ozone
Implementation Rule'' and ``Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone Implementation
Rule''). 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR 71612 (November 29,
2005), respectively. Particularly, the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation
Rule addressed RACT statutory requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 70 FR 71652 (November 29, 2005).
    On March 6, 2015, EPA issued its final rule for implementing the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (``the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule''). 80
FR 12264. At the same time, EPA revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
effective on April 6, 2015.\3\ The 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule
provided comprehensive requirements to transition from the revoked 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as codified in 40
CFR part 51, subpart AA, following revocation. Consistent with previous
policy, EPA determined that areas designated nonattainment for both the
1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS at the time of revocation, must retain
implementation of certain nonattainment area requirements (i.e., anti-
backsliding requirements) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as specified
under section 182 of the CAA, including RACT. See 40 CFR 51.1100(o). An
area remains subject to the anti-backsliding requirements for a revoked
NAAQS until EPA approves a redesignation to attainment for the area for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. There are no effects on applicable
requirements for areas within the OTR, as a result of the revocation of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus, Pennsylvania, as a state within the
OTR, remains subject to RACT requirements for both the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On February 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. Court) issued an opinion
on the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule. South Coast Air Quality
Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, No. 15-1115 (D.C. Cir. February 16, 2018). The
D.C. Cir. Court found certain parts reasonable and denied the
petition for appeal on those. In particular, the D.C. Cir. Court
upheld the use of NOX averaging to meet RACT requirements
for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. However, the Court also found certain
other provisions unreasonable. The D.C. Cir. Court vacated the
provisions it found unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addressing RACT, the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule is
consistent with existing policy and Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone
Implementation Rule. In the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA
requires RACT measures to be implemented by January 1, 2017 for areas
classified as moderate nonattainment or above and all areas of the OTR.
EPA also provided in the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule that RACT
SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where
appropriate that existing provisions are RACT, and/or negative
declarations stating that there are no sources in the nonattainment
area covered by a specific control technique guidelines (CTG) source
category. In the preamble to the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA
clarified that states must provide notice and opportunity for public
comment on their RACT SIP submissions, even when submitting a
certification that the existing provisions remain RACT or a negative
declaration. States must submit appropriate supporting information for
their RACT submissions, in accordance with the Phase 2 of the 1997
Ozone Implementation Rule. Adequate documentation must support that
states have considered control technology that is economically and
technologically feasible in determining RACT, based on information that
is current as of the time of development of the RACT SIP.
    In addition, in the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA clarified
that states can use weighted average NOX emissions rates
from sources in the nonattainment area for meeting the major
NOX RACT requirement under the CAA, as consistent with
existing policy.\4\ EPA also recognized that states may conclude in
some cases that sources already addressed by RACT determinations for
the 1979 1-hour and/or 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS may not need to
implement additional controls to meet the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS RACT
requirement. See 80 FR 12278-12279 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA's NOX RACT guidance ``Nitrogen Oxides
Supplement to the General Preamble'' (57 FR 55625; November 25,
1992) encouraged states to develop RACT programs that are based on
``area wide average emission rates.'' Additional guidance on area-
wide RACT provisions is provided by EPA's January 2001 economic
incentive program guidance titled ``Improving Air Quality with
Economic Incentive Programs,'' available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/eipfin.pdf. In addition, as mentioned previously,
the D.C. Cir. Court recently upheld the use of NOX
averaging to meet RACT requirements for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, No. 15-1115 (D.C. Cir.
February 16, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Applicability of RACT Requirements in Pennsylvania

    As indicated earlier, RACT requirements apply to any ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or higher (serious, severe
or extreme) under CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f). Pennsylvania has
outstanding ozone RACT requirements for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Philadelphia County only has outstanding ozone RACT
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The entire Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania is part of the OTR established under section 184 of the
CAA and thus is subject statewide to the RACT requirements of CAA
sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f), pursuant to section 184(b).

    At the time of revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (effective
April 6, 2015), only two moderate nonattainment areas remained in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for this standard, the Philadelphia and
the Pittsburgh Areas. As required under EPA's anti-backsliding
provisions, these two moderate nonattainment areas continue to be
subject to RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Given its location
in the OTR, the remainder of the Commonwealth is also treated as
moderate nonattainment area under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for any
planning requirements under the revoked standard, including RACT. The
OTR RACT requirement is also in effect under the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS throughout the Commonwealth, since EPA did not designate any
nonattainment areas above marginal for this standard in Pennsylvania.
Thus, in practice, the same RACT requirements continue to be applicable
in Pennsylvania for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. RACT
must be evaluated and satisfied as separate requirements under each
applicable standard.
    RACT applies to major sources of NOX and VOC under each
ozone NAAQS or any VOC sources subject to CTG RACT. Which
NOX and VOC sources in Pennsylvania are considered ``major''
and are therefore subject to RACT 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. In the case of Pennsylvania, sources located in any areas
outside of moderate or above nonattainment areas, as part of the OTR,
shall be treated as if these areas were moderate.
    In Pennsylvania, the SIP program is implemented primarily by the
PADEP, but also by local air agencies in Philadelphia County (the City
of Philadelphia's Air Management Services [AMS]) and Allegheny County,
(the Allegheny County Health Department [ACHD]). These agencies have
implemented numerous RACT regulations and source-specific measures in
Pennsylvania to meet the applicable ozone RACT requirements.
Historically, statewide RACT controls have been promulgated by PADEP in
Pennsylvania Code Title 25--Environmental Resources, Part I--Department
of Environmental Protection, Subpart C--Protection of Natural
Resources, Article III--Air Resources, (25 Pa. Code) Chapter 129. AMS
and ACHD have incorporated by reference Pennsylvania regulations, but
have also promulgated regulations adopting RACT controls for their own
jurisdictions. In addition, AMS and ACHD have submitted, through PADEP,
separate source-specific RACT determinations as SIP revisions for
sources within their respective jurisdictions, which have been approved
by EPA. See 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1).
    States were required to make RACT SIP submissions for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS by September 15, 2006. PADEP submitted a SIP revision
on September 25, 2006, certifying that a number of previously approved
VOC RACT rules continued to satisfy RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the remainder of Pennsylvania.\5\ PADEP has met its
obligations under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for its CTG and non-CTG
VOC sources. See 82 FR 31464 (July 7, 2017). RACT control measures
addressing all applicable CAA RACT requirements under the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS have been implemented and fully approved in the
jurisdictions of ACHD and AMS. See 78 FR 34584 (June 10, 2013) and 81
FR 69687 (October 7, 2016). For the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states
were required to submit RACT SIP revisions by July 20, 2014. On May 16,
2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT under both the
1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania. Specifically, the May
16, 2016 SIP submittal intended to satisfy sections 182(b)(2)(C),
182(f), and 184 of the CAA for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for Pennsylvania's major NOX and VOC non-CTG sources,
except ethylene production plants, surface active agents manufacturing,
and mobile equipment repair and refinishing.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The September 15, 2006 SIP submittal initially included
Pennsylvania's certification of NOX RACT regulations;
however, NOX RACT portions were withdrawn by PADEP on
June 27, 2016.
    \6\ EPA's conditional approval of PADEP's May 16, 2016 SIP
revision covered relevant sources located in both Philadelphia and
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. EPA's Conditional Approval for Pennsylvania's RACT Requirements
Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    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 under the CAA 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 in
effect and continue to be implemented as RACT.\7\ On September 26,
2017, PADEP submitted a supplemental SIP revision which committed to
address various deficiencies identified by EPA in their May 16, 2016
``presumptive'' RACT II rule SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These requirements were initially approved as RACT for
Pennsylvania under the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally approved the RACT II rule based
on PADEP's September 26, 2017 commitment letter.\8\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On August 27, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
vacated three provisions of Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT II rule
applicable to certain coal-fired power plants. Sierra Club v. EPA,
No. 19-2562 (3rd Cir. August 27, 2010). None of the sources in this
proposed rulemaking are subject to the presumptive RACT II
provisions at issue in the Sierra Club decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, as authorized in CAA section 110(k)(3) and (k)(4),
Pennsylvania was required to submit the following as case-by-case SIP
revisions, by May 9, 2020, for EPA's approval as a condition of
approval of 25 Pa. Code 128 and 129 in the May 16, 2016 SIP revision:
(1) All facility-wide or system-wide averaging plans approved by PADEP
under 25 Pa. Code 129.98 including, but not limited to, any terms and
conditions that ensure the enforceability of the averaging plan as a
practical matter (i.e., any monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, or
testing requirements); and (2) all source-specific RACT determinations
approved by PADEP under 25 Pa. Code 129.99, including any alternative
compliance schedules approved under 25 Pa. Code 129.97(k) and
129.99(i); the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted to EPA for
approval into the SIP should include any terms and conditions that
ensure

the enforceability of the case-by-case or source-specific RACT emission
limitation as a practical matter (i.e., any monitoring, reporting,
recordkeeping, or testing requirements). See May 9, 2019 (84 FR 20274).
Through multiple submissions between 2017 and 2020, PADEP has submitted
to EPA for approval various SIP submissions to implement its RACT II
case-by-case determinations and averaging plans. This proposed
rulemaking is based on EPA's review of some of these SIP revisions.

II. Summary of SIP Revisions

    In order 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. As noted in Table 1 of this
document, on May 7, 2020, PADEP submitted to EPA, on behalf of AMS, SIP
revisions pertaining to Pennsylvania's case-by-case NOX and/
or VOC RACT determinations for 9 major sources located in Philadelphia
County. AMS provided documentation in its SIP revisions to support its
case-by-case RACT determinations for affected emission units at each
major source subject to 25 Pa. Code 129.99. Specifically, in this SIP
submittal, AMS evaluated a total of nine major NOX and/or
VOC sources in Pennsylvania for case-by-case RACT.
    In the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revision, AMS included a case-by-case
RACT determination for the existing emissions units at each of these
major sources of NOX and/or VOC that required a source
specific RACT determination. In AMS' RACT determinations an evaluation
was completed to determine if previously SIP-approved, case-by-case
RACT requirements were more stringent and required to be retained in
the sources Title V air quality permit and subsequently, the Federally-
approved SIP, or if the new case-by-case RACT requirements are more
stringent and supersede the previous Federally-approved provisions.
    EPA, in this action, is taking action on nine major sources of
NOX and/or VOC in Philadelphia County, subject to
Pennsylvania's case-by-case RACT requirements, as summarized in Table
2.

           Table 2--Nine Major NOX and/or VOC Sources in Philadelphia County Subject to Case-by-Case RACT II Under the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Major  source pollutant  (NOX and/
           Major source                1997 8-Hour ozone  RACT source?                  or VOC)                     RACT II permit  (effective date)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC--   Yes.................................  NOX and VOC........................  IP16-000276 (3/5/2020)
 Frankford Plant (formerly
 Honeywell International--
 Frankford Plant).
Exelon Generation Company--         Yes.................................  NOX................................  IP16-000246 (4/20/2020)
 Richmond Generating Station.
Grays Ferry Cogeneneration          Yes.................................  NOX................................  IP-16-000250 (3/4/2020)
 Partnership--Schuylkill Station.
Vicinity Energy Philadelphia--      Yes.................................  NOX................................  IP16-000249 (3/4/2020)
 Schuylkill Station (formerly
 Veolia Energy Philadelphia--
 Schuylkill Station).
Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals,    Yes.................................  VOC................................  IP16-000233 (4/20/2020)
 LLC--Philadelphia Terminal.
Naval Surface Warfare Center--      Yes.................................  NOX................................  IP16-000235 (3/20/2020)
 Philadelphia Division (formerly
 Naval Surface Warfare Center--
 Carderock Division, Ship Systems
 Engineering Station).
Newman and Company, Inc (formerly   Yes.................................  NOX................................  IP-000223 (3/31/2020)
 Paperworks Industries, Inc).
Philadelphia Energy Solutions       Yes.................................  NOX and VOC........................  IP-16-00269 (4/24/2020)
 Refining and Marketing LLC.
Philadelphia Shipyard Inc.........  No..................................  VOC................................  IP16-000300 (4/8/2020)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP, on behalf
of AMS, consist of an evaluation of all reasonably available controls
at the time of evaluation for each affected emissions unit, resulting
in an AMS determination of what specific control requirements, if any,
satisfy RACT for that particular unit. The adoption of new or
additional controls or the revisions to existing controls as RACT were
specified as requirements in new or revised Federally enforceable
permits (hereafter RACT II permits) issued by AMS to the source. The
RACT II permits, which revise or adopt additional source-specific
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, on behalf of
AMS, are listed in the last column of Table 2 of this document, along
with the permit effective date, and are part of the docket for this
rulemaking, which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov,
Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0598.\9\ EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference in the Pennsylvania SIP, via the RACT II permits, source-
specific RACT determinations under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
certain major sources of NOX and VOC emissions in
Philadelphia County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The RACT II permits are termed RACT Plan Approvals by AMS
and reflect the specific RACT requirements being approved into the
Pennsylvania SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Evaluation of SIP Revisions

    After thorough review and evaluation of the information provided by
PADEP on behalf of AMS in its SIP revision submittals for nine major
sources of NOX and/or VOC in Philadelphia County, EPA finds
that AMS' case-by-case RACT determinations and conclusions provided are
reasonable and appropriately considered technically and economically
feasible controls, while setting lowest achievable limits. EPA finds
that the proposed source-specific RACT controls for the sources subject
to this rulemaking action adequately meet the CAA RACT requirements for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the major sources of NOX
and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, as they are not covered by or cannot meet

Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT regulation.
    EPA also finds that all the proposed revisions to previously SIP
approved RACT requirements, under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, as
discussed in AMS' SIP revisions, will result in equivalent or
additional reductions of NOX and/or VOC emissions and should
not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or
reasonable further progress with the NAAQS or interfere with other
applicable CAA requirement in section 110(l) of the CAA.
    EPA's complete analysis of AMS' case-by-case RACT SIP revisions is
included in the TSD available in the docket for this rulemaking action
and available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-
R03-OAR-2020-0598.

IV. Proposed Action

    Based on EPA's review, EPA is proposing to approve the Pennsylvania
SIP revisions for the nine case-by-case RACT facilities listed in Table
2 of this document and incorporate by reference in the Pennsylvania
SIP, via the RACT II permits, source specific RACT determinations under
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain major sources of NOX
and VOC emissions. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action. As EPA views each facility as a separable SIP
revision, should EPA receive comment on one facility but not others,
EPA may take separate, final action on the remaining facilities.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference source specific RACT determinations via the RACT II permits
as described in Sections II and III of this document--Summary of SIP
Revisions and EPA's Evaluation of SIP Revisions. 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).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 proposed 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 it is not a significant regulatory
action 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 proposed rulemaking, addressing the
NOX and VOC RACT requirements for nine case-by-case
facilities for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 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.

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: February 3, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2021-02586 Filed 2-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P