[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 160 (Friday, August 19, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50945-50952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17448]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0165; FRL-10132-02-R3]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 19, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0165. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through 
www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Riley Burger, Permits Branch 
(3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region III, Four Penn Center, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2217. Mr. Burger can also be reached via electronic mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 17, 2022, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM). 87 FR 15161. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of case-by-case 
RACT determinations for sources at eight facilities, as EPA found that 
the RACT controls for these sources met the CAA RACT requirements for 
the 1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The case-by-case RACT 
determinations for sources at these facilities were initially included 
in PADEP's May 7, 2020 SIP submission and supplemented by submissions 
on February 9, 2021, July 20, 2021, and January 28, 2022. One facility 
is located in Allegheny County and was submitted by PADEP on behalf of 
the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD), the government agency 
responsible for air permitting in that county.
    As more fully explained in the NPRM, under certain circumstances, 
states are required to submit SIP revisions to address RACT 
requirements for both major sources of NOX and VOC and any 
source covered by control technique guidelines (CTG), for each ozone 
NAAQS. 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 based on the area's current 
classification(s). In Pennsylvania, sources located in any ozone 
nonattainment areas outside of moderate or above are subject to source 
thresholds of 50 tons per year (tpy) because of the Ozone Transport 
Region (OTR) requirements in CAA section 184(b)(2).
    On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT for 
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 source VOC and NOX RACT 
requirements for both standards. The SIP revision requested approval of 
Pennsylvania's 25 Pennsylvania 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 as previously 
approved in Pennsylvania's SIP and continue to be

[[Page 50946]]

implemented as RACT.\1\ On September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted a 
supplemental SIP revision including a letter, dated September 22, 2017, 
which committed to address various deficiencies identified by EPA in 
PADEP's original May 16, 2016 ``presumptive'' RACT II rule SIP 
revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA granted conditional limited approval of 
Pennsylvania's case-by-case RACT I Rule on March 23, 1998 pending 
Pennsylvania's submission of and EPA's determination on proposals 
for facilities subject to case-by-case (source-specific) RACT 
requirements. 63 FR 13789. On May 3, 2001, EPA removed the 
conditional status of its 1998 approval once the state certified 
that it had submitted case-by-case RACT I proposals for sources 
subject to the RACT requirements, but retained the limited nature of 
the approval. 66 FR 22123. EPA granted full approval on October, 22, 
2008 once it approved all case-by-case RACT I proposals submitted by 
Pennsylvania. 73 FR 62891. Through this RACT II rule, certain 
source-specific RACT I requirements will be superseded by more 
stringent requirements. See Section II of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally approved the RACT II rule based 
on the commitments PADEP made in its September 22, 2017 letter.\2\ 84 
FR 20274. In EPA's final conditional approval, EPA established 
conditions requiring PADEP submit, for EPA's approval, SIP revisions to 
address any facility-wide or system-wide NOX emissions 
averaging plans 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 (i.e., by May 9, 2020). Through multiple 
submissions between 2017 and 2020, PADEP submitted to EPA for approval 
the various SIP submissions to implement its RACT II case-by-case 
determinations and alternative NOX emissions limits. This 
rule takes final action on SIP revisions for sources at six facilities, 
based on EPA's review.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On August 27, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals 
issued a decision vacating EPA's approval of three provisions of 
Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT II rule applicable to certain coal-
fired power plants. Sierra Club v. EPA, 972 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2020). 
None of the sources in this final rule are subject to the 
presumptive RACT II provisions at issue in that Sierra Club 
decision.
    \3\ In its March 17, 2022 NPRM (87 FR 15161), EPA had proposed 
approval of SIP revisions pertaining to case-by-case RACT 
requirements for sources at eight major NOX and/or VOC 
emitting facilities. At this time, EPA is only approving such SIP 
revisions at six of those facilities and is not taking final action 
on the SIP revisions related to Procter & Gamble Paper Products 
Company Mehoopany and ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Monessen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SIP revisions in this action for ATI Flat Rolled products 
Holdings, LLC, the facility located in Allegheny County, only establish 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS RACT requirements. Applicable RACT requirements 
under the CAA for sources located in Allegheny County for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS were previously satisfied. See 78 FR 34584 (June 10, 
2013).

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

A. Summary of SIP Revisions

    To satisfy a requirement from EPA's May 9, 2019 conditional 
approval, PADEP submitted to EPA SIP revisions addressing alternative 
NOX emissions limits and/or case-by-case RACT requirements 
for major sources in Pennsylvania subject to 25 Pa. Code 129.98 or 
129.99. Among the submitted SIP revisions were case-by-case RACT 
determinations for sources in Allegheny County, which PADEP submitted 
on behalf of ACHD. PADEP's submission included SIP revisions pertaining 
to case-by-case RACT determinations for the existing emissions units at 
each of the major sources of NOX and/or VOC that required a 
case-by-case RACT determination.
    In the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP, and 
PADEP on behalf of ACHD, an evaluation was completed to determine if 
previously SIP-approved, case-by-case RACT emissions limits or 
operational controls (herein referred to as RACT I and contained in 
RACT I permits) were more stringent than the RACT II presumptive or 
case-by-case requirements new to the SIP. If more stringent, the RACT I 
requirements would continue to apply to the applicable source. If case-
by-case RACT II requirements that are new to the SIP are more stringent 
than the RACT I requirements, then the RACT II requirements would 
supersede the prior RACT I requirements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ While the prior SIP-approved RACT I permit will remain part 
of the SIP, this RACT II rule will incorporate by reference the RACT 
II requirements through the RACT II permit and clarify the ongoing 
applicability of specific conditions in the RACT I permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here, EPA is approving SIP revisions pertaining to case-by-case 
RACT requirements for sources at six NOX and/or VOC emitting 
facilities in Pennsylvania, as summarized in Table 1 in this document. 
As indicated in the NPRM, EPA views each facility as a separable SIP 
revision.

      Table 1--Six Major NOX and/or VOC Emitting Facilities in Pennsylvania Subject to Case-BY-Case RACT II
                          Determinations Under the 1997 and/or 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     1-Hour ozone RACT source?   Major source pollutant (NOX     RACT II permit
       Major source (county)                  (RACT I)                   and/or VOC)            (effective date)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Coatesville  Yes......................  NOX and VOC..................           15-00010
 (formerly Lukens Steel Co.--                                                                        (3/18/2020)
 Coatesville) (Chester).
ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings,   Yes......................  NOX and VOC..................         0059-I009a
 LLC (formerly Allegheny Ludlum                                                                      (12/3/2020)
 Corporation--Brackenridge)                                                                           0059-I008d
 (Allegheny).                                                                                        (4/21/2021)
Boyertown Foundry Company (Berks)..  Yes......................  VOC..........................           06-05063
                                                                                                      (8/1/2020)
Grove US LLC Shady Grove Plant       Yes......................  VOC..........................           28-05004
 (Franklin).                                                                                          (1/1/2021)
INDSPEC Chemical Corporation         Yes......................  NOX and VOC..................           10-00021
 Petrolia (Butler).                                                                                 (12/17/2020)
Texas Eastern Transmission LP Lilly  Yes......................  NOX and VOC..................           11-00258
 Station (Cambria).                                                                                 (12/10/2021)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP, and PADEP 
on behalf of ACHD, consist of an evaluation of all reasonably available 
controls at the time of evaluation for each affected emissions

[[Page 50947]]

unit, resulting in a determination of what specific emissions limit or 
control measures satisfy RACT for that particular unit. The adoption of 
new, additional, or revised emissions limits or control measures to 
existing SIP-approved RACT I requirements were specified as 
requirements in new or revised federally enforceable permits (hereafter 
RACT II permits) issued by PADEP or ACHD to the source. These RACT II 
permits 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 being approved in this action are 
listed in the last column of Table 1 of this preamble, along with the 
permit effective date, and are part of the docket for this rule, which 
is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2022-0165.\5\ For certain sources at major NOX and VOC 
emitting facilities, EPA is incorporating by reference in the 
Pennsylvania SIP the source-specific emissions limits and control 
measures and/or alternative NOX emissions limits in the RACT 
II permits, and is determining that these provisions satisfy the RACT 
requirement under the 1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The RACT II permits included in the docket for this rule are 
redacted versions of the facilities' federally enforceable permits. 
They reflect the specific RACT requirements being approved into the 
Pennsylvania SIP via this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Final Action

    This CbC RACT SIP revision incorporates determinations by PADEP and 
ACHD of source-specific RACT II controls for individual emission units 
at major sources of NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, where 
those units are not covered by or cannot meet Pennsylvania's 
presumptive RACT regulation. After thorough review and evaluation of 
the information submitted to EPA by PADEP, in its SIP revision 
submittals for sources at six major NOX and/or VOC emitting 
facilities in Pennsylvania, EPA found that: (1) PADEP's and ACHD's 
case-by-case RACT determinations and conclusions establish limits and/
or controls on individual sources that are reasonable and appropriately 
considered technically and economically feasible controls; and (2) 
PADEP's and ACHD's determinations are consistent with the CAA, EPA 
regulations, and applicable EPA guidance.
    In the NPRM, EPA proposed to find that all the proposed revisions 
to previously SIP-approved RACT I requirements would result in 
equivalent or additional reductions of NOX and/or VOC 
emissions. Consistent with section 110(l) of the CAA the proposed 
revisions will not result in additional NOX emissions and 
thus should not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment.
    Below is a summary of information that was set forth in the NPRM, 
associated technical support document (TSD), and supporting documents 
in the record regarding the source-specific RACT II NOX 
determinations for the four facilities with major NOX 
sources and how those particular requirements are at least as stringent 
as the RACT I requirements. Additional material regarding this source 
determination is available in the NPRM, associated TSD, and other 
support documents in the record, and are not set forth herein.
Arcelor Mittal Plate LLC Coatesville
    EPA proposed to approve PADEP's RACT II CbC NOX 
determination for twenty-seven sources at this facility. For all 
twenty-seven sources, PADEP determined that CbC RACT II NOX 
requirements would be continuing use of good operating and maintenance 
practices. This RACT II requirement now being incorporated into the SIP 
is as stringent as the RACT I SIP requirement because the RACT I SIP 
also required good operating and maintenance practices. PADEP also will 
continue to require the same throughput restrictions as follows: 267 
million cubic feet of natural gas each year (mmcf/yr) for the EMS 
boiler, 1.55 million tons of steel processed per year for the ``D'' 
electric furnace, and 3,942 mmcf/yr of natural gas for fifteen soaking 
pits. These throughput restrictions being incorporated into the SIP as 
RACT are as stringent because they are the same as the RACT I 
restrictions incorporated into the current SIP.
    For two NAB furnaces and eight BHT furnaces, EPA is approving more 
stringent RACT II requirements now being incorporated into the SIP that 
will supersede the RACT I requirements in the SIP. PADEP established 
throughput restrictions for the 145' NAB furnace and the 200' NAB 
furnace of 481.8 and 510 mmcf/yr of natural gas respectively, which 
together are more stringent than the prior SIP RACT I collective limit 
of 1331.52 mmcf/yr for the two NAB furnaces together. For the eight BHT 
furnaces, PADEP established a throughput restriction of 2495.7 mmcf/yr 
of natural gas, which is less than the prior RACT I SIP collective 
limit of 2688.88 mmcf/yr for nine BHT furnaces, and is therefore more 
stringent. Finally, PADEP established a monthly limit of 34.1 tons per 
month NOX that is new to the SIP for the ``D'' electric 
furnace.\6\ This short-term emission limit now being incorporated into 
the SIP is more stringent because EPA never approved a prior short-term 
emission limit in the SIP before for this source. Through its 
establishment of as stringent and more stringent RACT, and related 
testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements, Pennsylvania has 
demonstrated that the status quo in NOX emissions has been 
maintained if not improved. As such, EPA's approval of Pennsylvania's 
SIP revision is consistent with CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA included the following annual NOX emission 
limits only as SIP strengthening measures for each CbC 
NOX source that were not incorporated into the prior SIP: 
19.62 tpy for the EMS boiler, 340.6 tpy for the ``D'' electric 
furnace, 173.6 tpy for the eight BHT furnaces, 33.7 tpy for the 145' 
NAB furnace, 30.6 tpy for the 200' NAB furnace, 502.8 tpy for 
fifteen soaking pits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Texas Eastern Transmission LP Lilly Station
    EPA proposed to approve PADEP's CbC RACT II NOX 
determination for three sources at this facility.\7\ For two of the 
three sources, Westinghouse turbines, PADEP determined that the RACT 
CbC NOX is good combustion practices, defined as following 
manufacturer's procedures, routine maintenance, a preventative 
maintenance schedule, and inspection as well as an operating hours 
limit of 8,000 hr/yr, fuel throughput limit of 491.3 MMScf/year, and a 
NOX emissions rate of 116 ppmvd (parts per million volume, 
dry) corrected to 15% oxygen. For the remaining source, a General 
Electric turbine, PADEP determined that RACT CbC NOX 
consists of good combustion practices, defined as following 
manufacturer procedures, routine maintenance, a preventative 
maintenance schedule, inspection as well as an operating hours limit of 
8,000 hr/yr, and a NOX emission rate of 120 ppmvd corrected 
to 15% oxygen. Because EPA had not previously approved any RACT for 
this source into the SIP, these RACT requirements now being 
incorporated into the SIP are more stringent than the current SIP. 
Through its establishment of more stringent RACT for these sources, and 
related testing monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, Pennsylvania 
has demonstrated that the status quo in NOX emissions has 
been maintained, if not improved. As such, EPA's approval of 
Pennsylvania's SIP

[[Page 50948]]

revision is consistent with section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As SIP strengthening measures EPA has also approved PADEP's 
annual emission limits of 107 tons per year for the Westinghouse 
turbines and 292 tons per year for the GE turbine as well as a 
requirement to shut down operation of the GE turbine by January 1, 
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, LLC (Allegheny County)
    EPA proposed to approve ACHD's CbC RACT II NOX 
determination for five sources at this facility. A number of 
NOX sources under RACT I are now shut down. For two sources 
currently still in use, consisting of two electric arc furnaces, ACHD 
determined that the RACT II CbC NOX is the continued 
requirement for good work practices, such as minimizing intake of 
outside air and the opening of the slag. For the Argon-Oxygen 
Decarburization Vessel source, ACHD determined that the RACT II CbC 
NOX is to continue the requirement to implement good 
operating practices and the requirement to comply with manufacturer's 
specifications. These RACT II requirements for these three sources are 
as stringent as the current SIP because the RACT I requirements in the 
SIP also consisted of good operating practices for these sources and 
have been retained. For the two remaining sources, No. 1 and No. 2 A&P 
lines HNO3/HF pickling operations, ACHD determined the RACT 
II CbC NOX is to continue good operating and maintenance 
practices as well as several requirements new to the SIP: direct 
emissions to the wet scrubber (while tracking and maintaining specific 
operating parameters related thereto), meet emission limits of 15.5 lbs 
NOX/hr and 11.07 lbs NOX/hr, and annual 
production limits of 262,800 tons of steel and 148,920 tons of 
steel.\8\ The good operating and maintenance practice requirement being 
incorporated into the SIP for these sources is as stringent because the 
current RACT I SIP for these sources also required good operating 
practices. The requirement to direct emissions to the wet scrubber as 
well as the numerical emission and production limits now being 
incorporated are new to the SIP for these two sources and do not 
supersede any prior RACT requirements in the current SIP, and thus are 
more stringent. Through its establishment of as or more stringent RACT, 
and related monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping requirements, 
Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the status quo in NOX 
emissions has been maintained, if not improved. As such EPA's approval 
of Pennsylvania's SIP revision is adequately justified under section 
110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In addition, for those two sources, EPA included as SIP 
strengthening measures only annual NOX emission limits of 
67.8 tpy and 48.49 tpy which EPA has not approved into the SIP 
before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia
    EPA proposed to approve PADEP's CbC RACT II NOX 
determinations for two sources at this facility, spray dryers No. 1 and 
No. 3. PADEP determined that the RACT II CbC NOX for both 
sources is use of good combustion practices and minimizing excess air. 
These RACT requirements now being incorporated into the SIP are more 
stringent because EPA has never approved RACT requirements into the SIP 
before for the spray dryers. The existing RACT I conditions in the SIP 
are unrelated to these two CbC NOX sources and remain as 
RACT requirements. INDSPEC ceased manufacturing in September 2017, and 
the NOX and VOC sources subject to PADEP's RACT II 
determination have all permanently shut down.\9\ Through imposition of 
these more stringent operating practices for these now permanently shut 
down sources, Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the status quo in 
NOX emissions has been maintained, if not improved. As such, 
EPA's approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision is consistent with 
section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ PADEP requested that the operating permit conditions, which 
pertain to the implementation of NOX and VOC CbC RACT II 
requirements under 25 Pa. Code Sec.  129.99, be incorporated into 
the Commonwealth's SIP to determine baseline emissions for the 
purpose of issuing emission reduction credits (ERC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other specific requirements of the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
case-by-case RACT determinations and alternative NOX 
emissions limits and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are 
explained thoroughly in the NPRM, and its associated technical support 
document (TSD), and will not be restated here.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA received three sets of comments on the March 17, 2022 NPRM. 87 
FR 15161. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are discussed 
in this section. A copy of the comments can be found in the docket for 
this rule action.
    Comment 1: This comment from ACHD identifies that the permits for 
ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, LLC in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking should be identified as No. 0059-I009a (December 3, 2020) 
and No. 0059-I008d (April 21, 2021).
    Response 1: The permits included in the submission to EPA are No. 
0059-I009a (December 3, 2020) and No. 0059-I008d (April 21, 2021) as 
indicated by the commenter. References to these permits in this rule 
have been updated.
    Comment 2: The comment from Cleveland-Cliffs Monessen Coke LLC 
requests that EPA not take final action on the revisions pertaining to 
ArcelorMittal Monessen LLC Monessen Coke Plant as certain RACT 
requirements are involved in the appeal of the facility's permit before 
the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board. The comment requests EPA 
delay action until the appeal is adjudicated or resolved, and any 
modifications to the permit are finalized. The comment indicates there 
is a settlement agreement in principle with PADEP to prepare and issue 
a modification of the permit.
    Response 2: EPA is not taking final action on the ArcelorMittal 
Monessen LLC Monessen Coke Plant RACT determination at this time and 
will act on this SIP revision in a later rulemaking. EPA will respond 
to the comment at that time.
    Comment 3: A comment from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) 
claims that EPA cannot approve the proposed Pennsylvania RACT II CbC 
determinations under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the CAA 
section 110(l) analysis is inadequate. In particular, the comment 
focuses on the proposed NOX limitations and whether they 
will cause or contribute to violations of the 2010 1-hour 
NOX NAAQS. (The 2010 1-hour NAAQS is for oxides of nitrogen, 
as measured by nitrogen dioxide (NO2).)
    Response 3: As described in the proposed rulemaking, Pennsylvania 
was required through implementation of the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS to determine RACT II requirements for major NOX and 
VOC emitting sources within the Commonwealth. PADEP had previously 
established CbC.\10\ \11\ As part of the EPA's conditional approval, 
PADEP was required to complete source-specific RACT II determinations 
for subject NOX or VOC sources that could not meet the 
presumptive requirements or for which a presumptive limit did not 
exist. For subject sources located in Allegheny County, ACHD makes such 
determinations. As required by Pennsylvania's RACT II regulations, 
PADEP and ACHD then conducted, for sources seeking a CbC determination, 
an analysis examining what air pollution controls were available for 
those individual sources to determine the lowest emissions limit that a 
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control 
technology that is reasonably available considering

[[Page 50949]]

technological and economic feasibility.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1).
    \11\ 84 FR 20274 (May 9, 2019).
    \12\ See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow, 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to Regional 
Administrators, ``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP 
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas,'' and 44 FR 53762 (September 
17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through its source-specific RACT II determinations, PADEP and ACHD 
through PADEP have established NOX and VOC limits and 
requirements for various sources that either reaffirm existing 
emissions limits or make the limits more stringent. PADEP, on behalf of 
itself and ACHD, submitted those determinations to EPA as bundled 
packages of individual SIP revisions. EPA is now approving the RACT II 
CbC SIP revisions for individual NOX and VOC sources at six 
facilities throughout Pennsylvania (including one in Allegheny County). 
For the reasons explained below, EPA concludes that the arguments 
presented by the comment do not prohibit approval of these SIP 
revisions.
    CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision if 
the revision would ``interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any 
other applicable requirement of this chapter.'' 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). 
While EPA interprets section 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are 
in effect, including those for which a relevant SIP submission may not 
have been made, the level of rigor needed for any CAA section 110(l) 
demonstration will vary depending on the nature and circumstances of 
the revision. For example, an in-depth section 110(l) analysis is more 
appropriate where there is a reasonable expectation that an existing 
SIP standard is being weakened or that there will be a net emissions 
increase because of approval of the SIP revision under consideration. 
However, here, the Pennsylvania CbC RACT II SIP revisions are either 
retaining an existing standard or establishing a more stringent one. 
For these reasons, EPA did not include a detailed section 110(l) 
analysis at the proposal stage. Since the comment raised the issue, EPA 
is responding in this final action by explaining why its approval is 
consistent with section 110(l).
    In circumstances where an existing SIP standard is being weakened 
or a net emissions increase is expected, there are two generally 
recognized paths for satisfying CAA section 110(l). First, a state may 
demonstrate through an air quality analysis, including modeling, that 
the revision will not interfere with the attainment of the NAAQS, 
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement. This 
is the approach the comment claims is required for the Pennsylvania CbC 
RACT II SIP revisions. Second, a state may substitute equivalent or 
greater emissions reductions to compensate for any change to a plan to 
ensure actual emissions to the air are not increased and thus preserve 
status quo air quality. In the context of substitution, courts have 
upheld the concept that substitute measures resulting in a net zero 
increase in emissions, i.e. status quo emissions, is sufficient to 
demonstrate noninterference. Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 
467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006); Indiana v. EPA, 796 F. 3d 803 (7th Cir. 
2015).
    In a more analogous case to the situation presented here, EPA's 
interpretation of section 110(l) was upheld in WildEarth Guardians v. 
EPA, 759 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2014). There, the court rejected a 
challenge to an EPA action approving a regional haze plan and concluded 
that WildEarth Guardians had identified ``nothing in [the] SIP that 
weakens or removes any pollution controls. And even if the SIP merely 
maintained the status quo, that would not interfere with the attainment 
or maintenance of the NAAQS.'' \13\ For that reason, the court 
concluded that the petitioner in WildEarth Guardians failed to show 
that EPA's approval of the SIP contravened section 110(l). The court's 
holding demonstrates that a SIP approval that does not weaken or remove 
pollution controls would not violate section 110(l). Thus, a showing 
that the approved SIP measures preserve status quo emissions is 
generally sufficient to demonstrate noninterference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 759 F.3d at 1074.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here, contrary to the comment's characterization, PADEP and ACHD 
are not relaxing standards or eliminating a program; rather, PADEP and 
ACHD are reevaluating the technical and economic feasibility of air 
pollution controls for subject air pollution sources as required by 
implementation of the 2008 8-hour NAAQS. Based on that review, PADEP 
and ACHD, as explained in detail in Section II of this preamble, have 
made determinations that either retain or make more stringent existing 
NOX emissions limits. Under these circumstances, PADEP's or 
ACHD's demonstration to meet the requirements of section 110(l) for its 
source-specific RACT II determinations is not one of modeling or 
identifying equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for or offset 
an emissions increase because the revisions are not resulting in 
emissions increases, but rather to establish that its new source-
specific NOX RACT determinations are preserving the status 
quo emissions or achieving additional reductions beyond the status quo. 
As described in the preamble above, as well as the NPRM, associated 
TSD, and supporting record documents, EPA has approved for each of the 
facilities with CbC NOX RACT II determinations requirements 
that are at least as stringent as the prior CbC NOX RACT 
determinations.
    Comment 4: CBD asserts that EPA's section 110(l) analysis must 
determine whether NOX emissions from VOC RACT control 
devices that use combustion will cause or contribute to a violation of 
the 2010 1-hour NOX NAAQS.
    Response 4: No VOC combustion control devices are approved as part 
of the VOC CbC RACT II determinations for any of these six facilities, 
therefore consideration of whether NOX emissions from VOC 
RACT control devices will cause or contribute to a violation of the 
NAAQS as measured by NO2 is not relevant to our final action 
in this rule. Furthermore, no areas in Pennsylvania are designated as 
non-attainment areas for the 2010 1-hour NOX NAAQS under 40 
CFR 81.339.
    Comment 5: CBD states that the SIP submission is ``incomplete'' 
because it does not contain a ``demonstration that the national ambient 
air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration 
increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, 
as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented,'' 
per 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (Appendix V), 2.2(d), and therefore 
``does not contain `the information necessary to enable the 
Administrator to determine whether the plan submission complies with 
the provisions of [the Clean Air Act],' as required by Section 
110(k)(1)(A) of the Act.'' This comment further asserts that because 
Pennsylvania has not submitted the demonstration referenced above, EPA 
cannot now supplement the record with the supposedly missing 
information as part of this final rule. Lastly, the comment states that 
because in the commenter's experience it is ``not possible for public 
commenters to carry out a complete analysis'' the comment asserts is 
missing, that ``the state and EPA . . . bear the responsibility of 
carrying out a full and complete assessment of whether the rule will 
interfere with the NAAQS.''
    Response 5: This comment fundamentally misunderstands the purpose 
of Appendix V, CAA 110(k)(1)(A) and the concept of ``completeness.'' 
Under CAA section

[[Page 50950]]

110(k)(1), with a single exception known as parallel processing, which 
is not relevant in this action, a SIP submission must either be 
determined to be ``complete'' by EPA or become complete by operation of 
law before EPA can formally propose action on the submission. Appendix 
V was promulgated consistent with CAA 110(k)(1)(A), that directed EPA 
``to promulgate minimum criteria that any plan submission must meet 
before the Administrator is required to act on such submission under 
this subsection.'' Thus, Appendix V provides EPA the criteria that it 
uses to affirmatively determine completeness of a SIP submission, which 
then allows EPA to move forward with formal action on the submission. 
However, a SIP submission that does not meet the Appendix V 
completeness criteria may become complete by operation of law pursuant 
to CAA 110(k)(1)(B) if EPA does not affirmatively determine that the 
SIP submission is complete by ``the date 6 months after receipt of the 
submission'' from the state. The submissions at issue in this rule 
became complete by operation of law in October 2020 for ArcelorMittal 
Plate LLC Coatesville, Boyertown Foundry Company, Texas Eastern 
Transmission LP Lilly Station, and ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, 
LLC, and in August 2021 for INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia and 
Grove US LLC Shady Grove Plant, six months after Pennsylvania made the 
submissions because EPA did not make an affirmative determination of 
completeness.\14\ It is unclear from the comment precisely what the 
commenter believes are the repercussions of the alleged incompleteness; 
to the extent it implies that the alleged incompleteness is a barrier 
to EPA's proposed or final rule in this action, that belief is 
incorrect, because these submissions are deemed complete by operation 
of law. To the extent the comment implies that Appendix V and CAA 
110(k)(1)(A) impose substantive approval criteria to require a 
``demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, 
prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further 
progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if 
the plan is approved and implemented'' in this approval, EPA's 
responses to Comments 3 and 6, that the record supporting EPA's 
approval of PADEP's and ACHD's source-specific RACT II SIP revisions is 
sufficient, and therefore EPA does not need to supplement the record. 
As such, the comment's reference to EPA's inability to supplement the 
record, and to Ober v. U.S. EPA, 84 F.3d 304, 312 (9th Cir. 1996), is 
inapplicable to this action. Similarly, because EPA has determined that 
the existing record supports this action, the comment's discussion of 
the relative burden of providing any analysis beyond that already in 
the record is not relevant to our final action in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ PADEP submitted the last of the original SIP revisions by 
letters dated February 9, 2021. Therefore, all proposed SIP 
revisions were complete by operation of law well before the March 
17, 2022 (87 FR 15161) NPRM (although, PADEP submitted supplemental 
materials for several facilities, these supplemental submittals did 
not re-start the six-month completeness by-operation-of-law clock 
set forth at CAA 110(k)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(B)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 6: CBD's final comment relates to the results from air 
dispersion modeling of NOX emissions from the JBS Swift Beef 
Company (JBS) facility in Colorado that they claim shows the potential 
impact of NOX emissions on 1-hour NOX NAAQS 
violations. The comment states that EPA or Pennsylvania must undertake 
a modeling analysis to determine if the proposed CbC RACT II 
determinations will cause or contribute to 2010 1-hour NOX 
NAAQS violations. CBD asserts that EPA and Pennsylvania have the 
responsibility for conducting the modeling to affirmatively demonstrate 
that the SIP revision does not interfere with the NAAQS. Relatedly, 
this comment indicates that EPA must repropose this action and allow 
for comment on any such modeling information or other information 
utilized in the demonstration that the NAAQS will be protected.
    Response 6: With this rule action, EPA is only approving revisions 
that add specific NOX and VOC source-specific RACT II 
determinations to the Pennsylvania SIP. In the subject RACT II source-
specific determinations, PADEP and ACHD have made an adequate showing 
that its source-specific determinations for individual sources at the 
six facilities at issue will preserve the status quo in NOX 
emissions. As described in the TSD and related documents, which are 
included in the docket for this rule, PADEP and ACHD evaluated both the 
technical and economic feasibility of various control equipment for 
these sources and used that evaluation to determine the RACT II 
requirements. PADEP and ACHD also considered the prior RACT I 
requirements to determine whether the RACT II requirements were as 
stringent as the previously established standards. In circumstances 
where the RACT I requirements were more stringent, they were retained 
and remain effective. EPA determined that PADEP and ACHD adequately 
justified their RACT II CbC NOX determinations and 
alternative NOX emissions limits. EPA also concluded, under 
section 110(l), that the status quo in NOX emissions had 
been maintained, if not improved, and that there is no need to conduct 
the modeling suggested by the comment. The record supporting EPA's 
approval of PADEP's and ACHD's source-specific RACT II SIP revisions is 
sufficient, there is no need to supplement the record, and the 
comment's reference to EPA's inability to supplement the record is 
inapplicable to this action.
    The comment also included an air dispersion modeling analysis of 
NOX emissions from the JBS facility in Colorado to highlight 
an alleged potential of NOX emissions to cause or contribute 
to violations of the 2010 1-hour NOX NAAQS. The NAAQS for 
nitrogen oxides is a 1-hour standard at a level of 100 ppb based on the 
3-year average of 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour 
daily maximum NO2 concentrations. In 2012, EPA designated 
areas within Pennsylvania as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 
standard.\15\ The modeling analysis provided by the comment indicated 
that NOX emissions from the JBS facility in Colorado could 
have significant NO2 impacts--the maximum NO2 
concentration would occur within a 1-kilometer radius of the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 77 FR 9532 (February 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This modeling data analysis from Colorado does not trigger a need 
for EPA, Pennsylvania, or ACHD to conduct modeling on the impact of 
NOX emissions from each individual source at issue in this 
rule in order for EPA to approve these SIP revisions. First, as 
discussed previously, modeling is not the sole method available to 
satisfy section 110(l) requirements. Second, the differences in the 
meteorology, terrain, and facility configurations between the JBS 
facility and the Pennsylvania RACT II sources are too significant to 
rely on the JBS facility modeling results to serve as surrogate 
modeling indicating that the Pennsylvania RACT II sources have the 
potential to cause exceedances of the 2010 1-hour NOX NAAQS 
in Pennsylvania. The comment does not provide any comparison or 
information to show why the JBS facility modeling results would inform 
our analysis of the specific RACT II sources in Pennsylvania at issue 
in this rule. Furthermore, the comment has not presented any specific 
information suggesting the RACT II CbC NOX determinations or 
alternative NOX emissions limits for these specific sources 
could somehow lead to violations of the 2010 1-hour NOX 
NAAQS. Without a more specific

[[Page 50951]]

allegation from the comment about the sources in question, the 
comment's allegations are too speculative in nature to prevent EPA from 
approving PADEP's and ACHD's RACT II CbC NOX determinations 
or alternative NOX emissions limits for sources at the 
subject facilities.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving case-by-case RACT determinations and/or 
alternative NOX emissions limits for sources at six 
facilities in Pennsylvania, as required to meet obligations pursuant to 
the 1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as revisions to the 
Pennsylvania SIP.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of source-
specific RACT II permits listed in table 1 of this preamble. These 
permits establish and require reasonably available control technology 
(RACT) for certain sources at four major volatile organic compound 
(VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emitting facilities and two 
major volatile organic compound (VOC) emitting facilities. Entries for 
two facilities with requirements incorporated by reference previously 
under the RACT I rule are also revised to add new citations. EPA has 
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available 
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please 
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these 
materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been 
incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally 
enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective 
date of the final rule of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by 
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

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

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit October 18, 2022. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action approving Pennsylvania's NOX and VOC 
RACT requirements for six facilities for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52

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

Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended 
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries ``Lukens Steel Co.--Coatesville''; and 
``Allegheny Ludlum Corporation--Brackenridge''; and
0
b. Adding entries at the end of the table for ``ArcelorMittal Plate LLC 
Coatesville (formerly referenced as

[[Page 50952]]

Lukens Steel Co.--Coatesville)''; ``ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, 
LLC (formerly referenced as Allegheny Ludlum Corporation--
Brackenridge)''; ``Boyertown Foundry Company''; ``Grove US LLC Shady 
Grove Plant''; ``INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia''; and ``Texas 
Eastern Transmission LP Lilly Station''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Additional
                                                                                                  explanation/
                                                                    State       EPA approval       Sec.  Sec.
        Name of source          Permit No.         County         effective         date          52.2063  and
                                                                     date                            52.2064
                                                                                                  citations \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Lukens Steel Co.--Coatesville   OP-15-0010  Chester............       5/6/99  12/15/00,.......  See also
                                                                              65 FR 78418.....   52.2064(j)(1).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Allegheny Ludlum Corporation--      CO-260  Allegheny..........     12/19/96  10/18/01,.......  See also
 Brackenridge.                                                                66 FR 52851.....   52.2064(j)(2).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
ArcelorMittal Plate LLC           15-00010  Chester............      3/18/20  8/19/2022,        52.2064(j)(1).
 Coatesville (formerly                                                         [insert Federal
 referenced as Lukens Steel                                                    Register
 Co.--Coatesville).                                                            citation].
ATI Flat Rolled Products        0059-I009a  Allegheny..........      12/3/20  8/19/2022,        52.2064(j)(2).
 Holdings, LLC (formerly        0059-I008d                           4/21/21   [insert Federal
 referenced as Allegheny                                                       Register
 Ludlum Corporation--                                                          citation].
 Brackenridge).
Boyertown Foundry Company....     06-05063  Berks..............       8/1/20  8/19/2022,        52.2064(j)(3).
                                                                               [insert Federal
                                                                               Register
                                                                               citation].
Grove US LLC Shady Grove          28-05004  Franklin...........       1/1/21  8/19/2022,        52.2064(j)(4).
 Plant.                                                                        [insert Federal
                                                                               Register
                                                                               citation].
INDSPEC Chemical Corporation      10-00021  Butler.............     12/17/20  8/19/2022,        52.2064(j)(5).
 Petrolia.                                                                     [insert Federal
                                                                               Register
                                                                               citation].
Texas Eastern Transmission LP     11-00258  Cambria............     12/10/21  8/19/2022,        52.2064(j)(6).
 Lilly Station.                                                                [insert Federal
                                                                               Register
                                                                               citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The cross-references that are not Sec.   52.2064 are to material that pre-date the notebook format. For more
  information, see Sec.   52.2063.

* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.2064 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (j) Approval of source-specific RACT requirements for 1997 and/or 
2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards for the 
facilities listed in this paragraph are incorporated as specified. 
(Rulemaking Docket No. EPA-OAR-2022-0165).
    (1) ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Coatesville--Incorporating by reference 
Permit No. 15-00010, effective March 18, 2020, as redacted by 
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. 15-0010, 
effective May 6, 1999, except for Conditions 18, 19, and 23-31 which 
remain as RACT requirements. See also Sec.  52.2063(c)(143)(i)(B)(11), 
for prior RACT approval.
    (2) ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, LLC--Installation Permit No. 
0059-I009a effective December 3, 2020 and Installation Permit No. 0059-
I008d effective April 21, 2021, as redacted by ACHD, which supersede 
RACT Order 260, issued December 19, 1996 to Allegheny Ludlum 
Corporation, except for conditions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.9, and 1.10.
    (3) Boyertown Foundry Company--Incorporating by reference Permit 
No. 06-05063, effective on August 1, 2020, as redacted by PADEP.
    (4) Grove US LLC Shade Grove Plant--Incorporating by reference 
Permit No. 28-05004, effective January 1, 2020, as redacted by 
Pennsylvania.
    (5) INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia--Incorporating by 
reference Permit No. 10-00021, effective December 17, 2020, as redacted 
by Pennsylvania. All permit conditions in the prior RACT Permit No. 
#10-021, effective October 10, 1998, remain as RACT requirements. See 
also Sec.  52.2063(c)(186)(i)(B)(2), for prior RACT approval.
    (6) Texas Eastern Transmission LP Lilly Station--Incorporating by 
reference Permit No. 11-00258, effective December 10, 2021 as redacted 
by Pennsylvania.
[FR Doc. 2022-17448 Filed 8-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P