[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 203 (Friday, October 19, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53090-53094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-26405]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA-4154; FRL-7083-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; NOX RACT Determinations for Two Individual Sources in the 
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania). The revisions impose reasonably available 
control technology (RACT) on two major sources of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) located in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area (the 
Pittsburgh area). EPA is approving these revisions to establish RACT 
requirements in the SIP in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on November 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air 
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; and the Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 
8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia Spink (215) 814-2104 or by e-
mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On April 18, 2000, EPA published a direct final rule approving RACT 
determinations submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection (PADEP) for twenty-six major sources of 
NOX and/or volatile organic compounds (VOC) and a companion 
notice of proposed rulemaking (65 FR 20788). We received adverse 
comments on the direct final rule and a request for an extension of the 
comment period. We had indicated in our April 18, 2001 direct final 
rulemaking that if we received adverse comments, we would withdraw the 
direct final rule and address all public comments in a subsequent final 
rule based on the proposed rule (65 FR 20788). On June 19, 2000 (65 FR 
38168), EPA published a withdrawal notice in the Federal Register 
informing the public that the direct final rule did not take effect. On 
June 19, 2000 (65 FR 38169), we also published a notice providing an 
extension of the comment period and making corrections to our original 
proposed rule. This final rule pertains to two of the twenty-six 
sources which were included in the April 18, 2001 rulemaking, namely 
Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporations's Vandergrift Plant located in 
Westmoreland County and INDSPEC Chemical Corporation's Petrolia Plant 
located in Butler County. The remaining twenty-four sources will be the 
subject of separate rulemakings.

II. Summary of the SIP Revisions

    On March 21, 1996, December 7, 1998 and April 9, 1999, the PADEP 
submitted NOX RACT determinations for Allegheny Ludlum Steel 
Corporations's Vandergrift Plant located in Westmoreland County and 
INDSPEC Chemical Corporation's Petrolia Plant located in Butler County 
to EPA as SIP revisions. On April 18, 2001 (65 FR 20788), EPA proposed 
to approve these SIP revisions. Brief descriptions of the RACT 
requirements imposed for these sources are provided at II. A and B.

A. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporations's Vandergrift Plant

    This is a major NOX facility as defined in 25 Pa. Code 
Chapter 121, section 121.1 of Pennsylvania's SIP approved regulations. 
Therefore the facility is subject to the RACT requirements of Chapter 
129, section 129.91 of Pennsylvania's SIP approved regulations. The 
facility submitted a RACT proposal in accordance with the SIP-approved 
requirements section 129.92. Boiler's #1 and #2 are combustion units 
with a rated input equal to or greater than 20MMBtu/hr but less than 
50MMBtu/hr. Allegheny Ludlum elected to comply with the SIP-approved 
presumptive RACT requirements applicable to such size boilers found at 
section 129.93(b)(2). The PADEP cited to these requirements in 
Condition 4 of RACT Operating Permit No. 65-000-137 issued to Allegheny 
Ludlum Steel Corporations's Vandergrift Plant. The two remaining 
sources at the facility that require a RACT analysis are the No. 90 
line anneal furnace used to anneal stresses introduced during rolling 
operations, and the associated pickling line process where steel is 
submerged in a an acid bath which dissolves and removes oxidized metal 
and other materials from the surface of the steel. Brief descriptions 
of the RACT requirements imposed by PADEP are provide below. The RACT 
plan proposal submitted by Allegheny County Ludlum on March 17, 1994 
and PADEP's Review of the RACT Application, dated June 22, 1995, detail 
the technical and economic analyses performed to rank control 
technology options in accordance with 25 Pa Code 129.92. Those 
documents, among others generated by PADEP, are included in the docket 
for this rulemaking.
    The 90 line furnace is capable of annealing steel at temperatures 
ranging from 1350 degrees to 2200 degree F. Control technology options 
were analyzed and ranked by Allegheny Ludlum for the 90 line furnace 
including: (1) Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and Low 
NOX Burners (LNB); (2) SCR only; (3) LNB and flue gas 
recirculation (FGR); and FGR alone. The costs per ton of NOX 
removed calculated to $9285/ton for SCR and LNB; $8958/ton for SCR; 
$9160/ton for LNB and FGR; and $3349/ton for FGR. The pickling line 
uses a nitric acid/hydrofluoric acid bath and is currently employing 
absorption and chemical reaction technology. Several control options 
were evaluated for this source. An oxidation/absorption system with 
chemical reaction and 85% control efficiency was evaluated and found to

[[Page 53091]]

have a total cost effectiveness of $4807/ton reduced. A hydrogen 
peroxide injection system was also investigated. This system was found 
to have a 75% control efficiency at a cost effectiveness of $3767/ton. 
Both SCR an selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) were evaluated. 
These were deemed to be technologically infeasible due to the low 
operating temperature of the needed scrubber. Therefore, the PADEP 
concluded no additional controls, beyond those already employed, were 
required as RACT for the 90 anneal line furnace and the pickling line. 
The PADEP did impose maximum annual NOX emissions from each 
unit to be met over every consecutive 12 month period in RACT Permit 
No. 65-000-137. The No. 90 A& P line furnace is limited to 25.9 tons/
year, the No. 90 A&P line scrubber to 103.0 tons/year, Boilers #1 and 
#2 to 14.3 tons/year each; and the Roller Hearth Line to 10.6 tons/
year. RACT Permit No. 65-000-137 also requires that Allegheny Ludlum 
comply with the record keeping requirements of SIP-approved 25 Pa Code 
Chapter 129, section 129.95.

B. INDSPEC Chemical Corporation's Petrolia Plant

    On December 7, 1995, PADEP issued a RACT approval, Permit Number: 
PA 10-021, to INDSPEC Chemical Corporation's Petrolia Plant located in 
Butler County. On October 19, 1998, PADEP issued an amended RACT 
approval to this facility retaining the same Permit Number: PA 10-021. 
The permit was issued to INDSPEC Chemical Corporation (INDSPEC) for 
achieving compliance with the SIP-approved provisions of 25 Pa Code 
Section 129.91 through 129.95. The facility and PADEP submitted 
extensive RACT analyses in accordance with the SIP-approved provisions 
of 129.91 and 129.92. These analyses are included in docket for this 
rulemaking. Boiler #3 has been removed from service completely. The 
PADEP has determined that were it to have remained in service after May 
31, 1995, RACT would have been that it be operated and maintained in 
accordance with manufacturer's recommendations and with good air 
pollution control practices. For boilers #4, #5, and #7 which by design 
or by de-rates imposed in enforceable permit conditions, INDSPEC has 
elected to comply with the SIP-approved presumptive RACT requirements 
of 129.93. The PADEP has determined that RACT for Boiler #8 is that it 
be operated and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's 
recommendations and with good air pollution control practices. Boiler 
#9 had been permitted under 25 Pa Code Chapter 127, and had installed 
low NOX burners as Best Available Technology (BAT). BAT is 
the control technology requirement imposed on new sources and 
modifications not otherwise subject to Best Available Control 
Technology (BACT) or Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) under the 
SIP-approved new source review program. The PADEP reaffirmed the 1993 
BAT requirement as RACT. In addition, the PADEP has imposed the 
following emission NOX emission limitations under condition 
8 of Permit No. PA 10-021:

Boiler #3--0.51 lbs/MMBtu, 25.5 lbs/hr, 111.7 tons/year
Boiler #7--0.14 lbs/MMBtu, 8.4 lbs/hr, 15.6 tons/year
Boiler #8--0.51 lbs/MMBtu, 60.2 lbs/hr, 263.6 tons/year
Boiler #9--0.11 lbs/MMBtu, 22 lbs/hr, 96.4 tons/yr

    The ton/yr limits must be met on a 12 month rolling basis. Boiler 
#7 shall not burn more than 223 mmcf of natural gas per year (also 
based on a 12 month rolling total). INDSPEC must install, operate and 
maintain continuous emission monitoring systems in accordance with 25 
Pa Code Chapter 139 and 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Db. INDSPEC must 
monitor and record the amount of steam produced, the pressure at which 
it is produced, the boiler efficiency and the heat input to boilers #4 
and #5 to insure compliance with their de-rated heat input capacity of 
49.5 MMBtu/hr.
    As RACT for VOC, the PADEP has imposed condition 6 in Permit No. PA 
10-021 to require that INDSPEC install combination flame arrester 
conservation vents on its four ether feed tanks, T-869, T-870, T-1085, 
and T-1086. Condition 7 of Permit No. PA 10-021 requires that the VOC 
emissions from these tanks shall be reduced by 96.5%.
    Permit No. PA 10-021 also requires that stack tests be performed in 
accordance with Chapter 139 to of the approved-SIP regulations to 
demonstrate compliance with the emission limits imposed in condition 7 
(for the 96.5% percent reduction in VOCs) and condition 8 (for the #7 
boiler). The combustion units rated greater than 100 MMBtu shall be 
stack tested to comply with the requirements of 129.91. Permit No. PA 
10-021 also requires INDSPEC to comply with the record keeping 
requirements of 129.95.
    On April 18, 2000 EPA proposed to approve these RACT determinations 
(65 FR 20788) because the PADEP established and imposed these RACT 
requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in the SIP-
approved RACT regulations applicable to these sources. The PADEP has 
also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on 
these sources sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable 
RACT determinations.

II. Summary of Public Comments Received and EPA's Responses

    EPA received comments on its April 18, 2000 proposal to approve 
Pennsylvania's RACT SIP submittals for twenty six--six sources from 
Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture), and from a concerned 
citizen. The comments that are germane to the RACT determinations for 
Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporations's Vandergrift Plant and INDSPEC 
Chemical Corporation's Petrolia Plant are summarized below. EPA's 
responses are provided after each comment.
    A. Comment: PennFuture comments that EPA should require that each 
RACT submittal include ``effective and enforceable numerical emission 
limits'' as a condition for approval. Additionally, PennFuture requests 
that EPA only approve limits that are no higher than the best emission 
rate actually achieved after the application of RACT, adjusted only to 
reflect legally and technically valid averaging times and deviations. 
PennFuture contends that such an approach will ensure maximum 
environmental benefits and minimize the opportunity for sources to 
generate spurious emission reduction credits (ERCs) against limits that 
exceed emission levels actually achieved following the application of 
RACT. Lastly PennFuture comments that EPA should describe the RACT 
determinations in its rulemaking notices published in the Federal 
Register rather than simply citing to technical support documents and 
other materials available in docket of the rulemaking.
    Response: While RACT, as defined for an individual source or source 
category, often does specify an emission rate, such is not always the 
case. EPA has issued Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) which states 
are to use as guidance in development of their RACT determinations/
rules for certain sources or source categories. Not every CTG issued by 
EPA includes an emission rate. There are several examples of CTGs 
issued by EPA wherein equipment standards and/or work practice 
standards alone are provided as RACT guidance for all or part of the 
processes covered. Such examples include the CTGs issued for Bulk 
gasoline plants, Gasoline service stations--Stage I, Petroleum Storage 
in Fixed-roof tanks, Petroleum refinery processes, Solvent metal 
cleaning, Pharmaceutical products, External Floating roof tanks

[[Page 53092]]

and Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (SOCMI)/polymer 
manufacturing. (See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/ctg.txt ). That 
said, the RACT determinations made by PADEP for Allegheny Ludlum Steel 
Corporations's Vandergrift Plant and INDSPEC Chemical Corporation's 
Petrolia Plant include both SIP-approved presumptive RACT requirements 
and numerical emission rates.
    With regard to the criteria EPA uses to determine whether to 
approve or disapprove RACT SIP revisions submitted by PADEP pursuant to 
25 Pa Code Chapter 129.91-129.95, we look to the provisions of those 
SIP-approved regulations and to the requirements of the Clean Air Act 
and relevant EPA guidance. On March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13789), EPA granted 
conditional limited approval of Pennsylvania's generic RACT 
regulations, 25 PA Code Chapters 121 and 129, thereby approving the 
definitions, provisions and procedures contained within those 
regulations under which the Commonwealth would require and impose RACT. 
Subsection 129.91, Control of major sources of NOX and VOCs, 
requires subject facilities to submit a RACT plan proposal to both the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and to EPA 
Region III by July 15, 1994 in accordance with subsection 129.92, 
entitled, RACT proposal requirements. Under subsection 129.92, that 
proposal is to include the following information: (1) A list each 
subject source at the facility; (2) The size or capacity of each 
affected source, and the types of fuel combusted, and the types and 
amounts of materials processed or produced at each source; (3) A 
physical description of each source and its operating characteristics; 
(4) Estimates of potential and actual emissions from each affected 
source with supporting documentation; (5) A RACT analysis which meets 
the requirements of subsection 129.92 (b), including technical and 
economic support documentation for each affected source; (6) A schedule 
for implementation as expeditiously as practicable but not later than 
May 15, 1995; (7) The testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
procedures proposed to demonstrate compliance with RACT; and (8) any 
additional information requested by the DEP necessary to evaluate the 
RACT proposal. Under subsection 129.91, the DEP will approve, deny or 
modify each RACT proposal, and submit each RACT determination to EPA 
for approval as a SIP revision. The conditional nature of EPA's March 
23, 1998 conditional limited approval did not impose any conditions 
pertaining to the regulation's procedures for the submittal of RACT 
plans and analyses by subject sources and approval of case-by case RACT 
determinations by the DEP. Rather, EPA stated that ``* * *RACT rules 
may not merely be procedural rules (emphasis added) that require the 
source and the State to later agree to the appropriate level of 
control; rather the rules must identify the appropriate level of 
control for source categories or individual sources.''
    EPA reviews the case-by-case RACT plan approvals and/or permits 
submitted as individual SIP revisions by Commonwealth to verify and 
determine if they are consistent with the RACT requirements of the Act 
and any relevant EPA guidance. EPA first reviews a SIP submission to 
ensure that the source and the Commonwealth followed the SIP-approved 
generic rule when applying for and imposing RACT, respectively. Then 
EPA performs a thorough review of the technical and economic analyses 
conducted by the source and the state. If EPA believes additional 
information may further support or would undercut the RACT analyses 
submitted by the state, then we may add additional EPA-generated 
analyses to the record. Thus, EPA does not believe it would be 
appropriate to only approve limits that are no higher than the best 
emission rate actually achieved after the application of RACT, adjusted 
only to reflect legally and technically valid averaging times and 
deviations.
    EPA does note that an approved RACT emission limitation alone does 
not constitute the baseline against which ERCs may be generated. There 
are many other factors that must be considered in the calculation of 
eligible ERCs under Pennsylvania's approved SIP regulations governing 
the creation ERCs. Moreover, the scenario posed in PennFuture's comment 
would not create eligible ERC's under the Commonwealth approved SIP 
regulations. Under the Commonwealth's regulations pertaining to ERCs, 
found at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127, sections 127.206 through 127.210 
(approved by the EPA at 62 FR 64722 on December 9, 1997), sources 
cannot obtain ERCs if they find that their RACT controls result in 
lower emissions than allowed by their specified RACT limits.
    While EPA believes that Federal rulemaking procedures allow for the 
format and procedures used in its April 18, 2000 rulemaking notices, we 
have nonetheless described the RACT determinations made for Allegheny 
Ludlum Steel Corporations's Vandergrift Plant located in Westmoreland 
County and INDSPEC Chemical Corporation's Petrolia Plant in this 
document.
    B. Comment: A private citizen expresses concern that the RACT 
requirements for INDSPEC Chemical Corporation's #8 and #3 boilers might 
not be sufficiently stringent. He believes that at if this was the 
case, the Company might be able to claim excessive amounts of emission 
reduction credits (ERCs). With respect to Boiler #8, the citizen was 
concerned that the Commonwealth had established a RACT emissions limit 
based upon this boiler operating as a coal-fired unit and not as a gas-
fired unit. He points out that the Company had, in 1994, converted 
Boiler #8 to gas-firing, resulting in significant reductions in 
NOX emissions. In particular, he questions the conclusion 
that the cost effectiveness of the conversion was $5,500 per ton of 
NOX removed. He contends that INDSPEC's motivations for the 
conversion from coal to gas may have been driven based on economic 
considerations citing that perhaps the boiler was too costly to 
maintain on coal, or perhaps the company was faced with the prospect of 
adding other emissions controls. He contends that by converting to gas, 
the company derives savings on personnel, maintenance on fuel handling 
and burning equipment, wear and tear on the boiler and maintenance on 
air pollution control equipment. With respect to Boiler #3, the citizen 
is also concerned that the Commonwealth might have established a RACT 
emissions limit which was too high. He notes the boiler had been 
shutdown and that the Commonwealth had established a RACT emissions 
limit for the boiler using an emissions factor. He maintains that the 
emissions limit should have been based on CEM or EPA-reference method 
data. He also maintains that EPA must assure that ERCs are based on the 
lower of actual or allowable emissions. The citizen concludes by saying 
that the entire steam generating plant should be capped such that prior 
actual emissions are discounted for the generation of ERCs, after RACT 
has been implemented; and that the implementation of RACT should not be 
allowed to create ERCs, only reductions beyond RACT are allowed for ERC 
creation.
    Response: EPA concurs with the Commonwealth's analyses that the 
cost of removing NOX by converting Boiler #8 to gas firing, 
at $5,500 per ton of NOX removed, is higher than the cost 
which has typically considered to be reasonable when determining RACT 
controls. The Commonwealth has set out objective requirements for all 
subject facilities to make a case-by-case

[[Page 53093]]

RACT proposals in sections 129.91, 129.92, and 129.93 and EPA has 
approved them as part of the SIP. Trying to ascertain other motives 
that INDSPEC may have had for the conversion and then taking into 
account the types of cost savings which the citizen identified is not 
consistent with an objective approach toward determining RACT.
    Given that Boiler #3 was shutdown in 1992, and the absence of any 
available CEM or EPA-reference method emissions data, EPA believes that 
the Commonwealth's decision to establish a RACT limit for this boiler 
based on an emissions factor was reasonable. With respect to the 
citizen's concerns regarding the possibility of the Company obtaining 
excessive ERCs, again EPA notes that the Commonwealth's SIP-approved 
regulations pertaining to ERC generation and creation, found at 25 Pa. 
Code Chapter 127, sections 127.206 through 127.210, contain provisions 
which would prevent the granting of excess ERCs. The regulations 
require all ERCs to be surplus, permanent, quantified, and Federally 
enforceable. Moreover, under the Pennsylvania SIP, ERCs must also meet 
the offset requirements of the Commonwealth's new source review 
program. The calculation of eligible ERCs under the Pennsylvania SIP 
does not allow for ``only on paper credits.'' Under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 
127, sections 127.206 through 127.210 such calculations take into 
account the generating source's actual operating history and only 
actual emission reductions are creditable.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by 
PADEP to establish and require VOC and/or NOX RACT for 
Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporations's Vandergrift Plant located in 
Westmoreland County and INDSPEC Chemical Corporation's Petrolia Plant 
located in Butler County. EPA is approving these RACT SIP submittals 
because PADEP established and imposed these RACT requirements in 
accordance with the criteria set forth in the SIP-approved RACT 
regulations applicable to these sources. The PADEP has also imposed 
record keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources 
sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT 
determinations.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not 
have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct 
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, 
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule 
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP 
submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they 
meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence 
of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP 
submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in 
place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types 
of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to 
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 
because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing source-
specific requirements for two named sources.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 18, 2001. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action approving revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP 
submitted by PADEP to establish and require VOC and/or NOX 
RACT for Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporations's Vandergrift Plant 
located in Westmoreland County and INDSPEC Chemical Corporation's 
Petrolia Plant located in Butler County 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, Intergovernmental relations,

[[Page 53094]]

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 3, 2001.
Thomas C. Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

    2. Section 52.2020 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(186) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (186) Revisions to the Pennsylvania Regulations, Chapter 129.91 
pertaining to NOX RACT, submitted on March 21, 1996, 
December 7, 1998 and April 9, 1999.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letters submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection transmitting source-specific NOX 
RACT determinations in the form of plan approvals or operating permits 
on March 21, 1996, December 7, 1998 and April 9, 1999.
    (B) Plan approvals (PA), and Operating permits (OP) for the 
following sources:
    (1) Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation, Westmoreland County, OP 65-
000-137, effective May 17, 1999, except for the expiration date.
    (2) INDSPEC Chemical Corporation, Butler County, PA 10-021, as 
amended and effective on October 19, 1998 except for Condition 4.
    (ii) Additional materials. Other materials submitted by the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in support of and pertaining to the RACT 
determinations submitted for the sources listed in paragraph 
(c)(186)(i)(B) of this section.

[FR Doc. 01-26405 Filed 10-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P