[Federal Register: March 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 45)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11514-11519]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08mr06-5]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0123; FRL-8042-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; RACT Determinations for Thirteen Individual Sources
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 thirteen major sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) or nitrogen oxides (NOX) located in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. EPA is approving these revisions to
establish RACT requirements in the SIP in accordance with the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act).
DATES: This final rule is effective on April 7, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0123. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy 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. Copies of the State
submittal are available at 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 spink.marcia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 18, 2000 (65 FR 20788), EPA published a direct final rule
approving RACT determinations submitted by the
[[Page 11515]]
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for twenty-
six major sources of NOX and/or volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and a companion notice of proposed rulemaking. 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, 2000
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 rule takes final action approving RACT for thirteen of the
twenty-six sources that were included in the April 18, 2000 proposed
rulemaking (65 FR 20788). Approvals of RACT for ten of the twenty-six
sources have already been the subjects of separate final rulemakings.
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA is withdrawing its April 18,
2000 proposed rule with regard to the three remaining sources, namely,
Doverspike Brothers Coal Co., Hedstrom Corporation, and the thermal
coal dryers at EME Homer City, LP. These formerly RACT-subject sources
have been permanently shut down, and the Pennsylvania DEP has indicated
to EPA that no RACT need be approved for them.
II. Summary of the SIP Revisions
The Pennsylvania DEP submitted NOX and/or VOC RACT
determinations for thirteen sources located in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The names of those sources, the DEP Plan Approval (PA) or
Operating Permit (OP) number for each source, the name of the County in
which each source is located, and the pollutant for which RACT has been
imposed are provided in the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of source PA or OP No. County Pollutant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cogentrix of Pennsylvania Inc. (Now 33-0137, 33-302-014, 33- Jefferson.............. NOX
Village Farms LP)*. 399-004.
Scrubgrass Generating Company, LP*..... 61-0181................. Venango................ NOX
Wheelabrator Frackville Energy Co.*.... 54-005.................. Schuylkill............. NOX
Indiana University of Pennsylvania-- 32-000-200.............. Indiana................ NOX
S.W. Jack Cogeneration Facility*.
Fleetwood Motor Homes.................. 49-0011................. Northcumberland........ VOC
Piney Creek, LP*....................... 16-0127................. Clarion................ NOX
Statoil Energy Power Paxton, LP (Now 22-02015................ Dauphin................ NOX
NRG Energy CTR Paxton LLC).
Harrisburg Steamworks (Now owned by NRG 22-02005................ Dauphin................ NOX
Energy CTR Paxton LLC).
Cove Shoe Company (Now H.H. Brown Shoe 07-02028................ Blair.................. VOC
Company).
PP&L--Fichbach C.T. Facility........... 54-0011................. Schuylkill............. NOX
PP&L--Allentown C.T. Facility.......... 39-0009................. Lehigh................. NOX
PP&L--Harwood C.T. Facility............ 40-0016................. Luzerne................ NOX
PP&L--Jenkins C.T. Facility............ 40-0017................. Luzerne................ NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ For these large NOX sources, the Commonwealth has adopted and implemented additional ``post RACT
requirements'' to reduce seasonal NOX emissions in the form of a NOX cap and trade regulation, 25 Pa Code
Chapters 121 and 123, based upon a model rule developed by the States in the Ozone Transport Region. That
regulation was approved as a SIP revision on June 6, 2000 (65 FR 35842). Pennsylvania has also adopted 25 Pa
Code Chapter 145 to satisfy the NOX SIP call. That regulation was approved as a SIP revision on August 21,
2001 (66 FR 43795). Federal approval of a source-specific RACT determination for these major sources of NOX in
no way relieves those sources from any applicable requirements found in 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145.
On April 18, 2000 (65 FR 20788), EPA proposed to approve RACT SIP
revisions for these thirteen sources. Detailed descriptions of the RACT
determination for these thirteen sources were provided in EPA's
Technical Support Documents (TSDs) prepared in support of its April 18,
2000 rulemaking as well as in the SIP submissions made by DEP, and
shall not be restated here. In short, EPA proposed that the DEP had
established and imposed RACT requirements in accordance with the
criteria set forth in the SIP-approved RACT regulations applicable to
these sources. The DEP has also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and
testing requirements on these sources sufficient to determine
compliance with the applicable RACT determinations.
III. 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 from Citizens for Pennsylvania's
Future (PennFuture) and from a concerned citizen. Those comments and
EPA's responses are as follows:
PennFuture's Comments: 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.
EPA's Responses: 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
[[Page 11516]]
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
and Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (SOCMI)/polymer
manufacturing. (See http://www. epa.gov/ ttn/catc/ dir1/ctg. txt.)
In EPA's proposed conditional limited approval of the
Commonwealth's RACT regulations (62 FR 43134, August 12, 1997) and in
EPA's final conditional limited approval of those regulations (63 FR
13789, March 23, 1998), EPA addressed the issue of what types of RACT
provisions would be acceptable. In the proposed rule EPA noted that
while it defines RACT as ``the lowest emission limitation that a source
is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is
reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility,'' the definition of emission limitation did not
necessarily require the establishment of a numerical emission
limitation. EPA further noted that ``[s]ection 302 of the Act in turn
defines `emission limitation' as a `requirement * * * which limits the
quantity, rate or concentration of air pollutants on a continuous
basis, * * *, and any design, equipment, work practice or operational
standard promulgated under this chapter.' '' Furthermore, in the March
23, 1998 final rule EPA stated that, ``it is possible that RACT for
certain sources and source categories could consist of requirements
that do not specifically include emission limitations, but instead have
other limitations.''
With regard to the criteria EPA uses to determine whether to
approve or disapprove RACT SIP revisions submitted by DEP 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. As previously stated, 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 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
among other information (1) A list of 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 the 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.
EPA believes that Federal rulemaking procedures allow for the
format used in April 18, 2000 rulemaking (65 FR 20788). EPA believes
that anyone interested in the specific requirements of the individual
RACT determinations did have the opportunity to obtain that
information, as in the preamble of the April 18, 2000 Federal Register
notice, EPA offered to send anyone, upon request, a copy of the our
TSDs prepared in support of the action. Copies of those TSDs are
included in the docket established for this final rule under Docket ID
Number at EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0123.
Additional Comments: A private citizen submitted comments on the
NOX RACT determinations made for the PP&L facilities and for
Harrisburg Steamworks. With regard to the PP&L facilities, the
commenter suggests if the capacity factors upon which the RACT
determinations are based are ever exceeded, the RACT determinations
should be re-reviewed, and that such a condition should be placed in
the RACT permits with appropriate record-keeping and reporting. With
regard to Harrisburg Steam, the commenter cites to the fact that EPA's
Technical Support Document (TSD) states that the boilers typically
operate at a 15% capacity factor, and asserts that if this capacity
factor was used to determine RACT, then the permit should either limit
the capacity factor of the boilers or require RACT to be re-evaluated
when the capacity factor reaches 30% or some other reasonable capacity
factor.
EPA's Responses: EPA concurs with these comments. Pennsylvania's
SIP-
[[Page 11517]]
approved generic RACT rules require that sources operate in accordance
with the parameters specified in their RACT applications and/or RACT
permits including capacity factors. The DEP has imposed record-keeping,
monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources sufficient to
determine compliance with the applicable parameters of their
applications and RACT determinations. Sources seeking variances from
the operating parameters specified in their applications and/or RACT
permits that could result in emissions increases are subject to re-
evaluation to determine whether those emission increases trigger a more
stringent RACT determination or the more stringent Pennsylvania SIP
requirements for new source review.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving thirteen revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP
submitted by DEP to establish and require VOC and/or NOX
RACT at the thirteen sources indicated herein. EPA is approving these
RACT SIP submittals because DEP established and imposed these RACT
requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in the SIP-
approved RACT regulations applicable to these sources and EPA has
determined they meet the RACT requirements of section 182 of the CAA.
The DEP has also imposed recordkeeping, monitoring, and testing
requirements on these sources sufficient to determine compliance with
the applicable RACT determinations.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 (Pub. L. 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
requirement, 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 thirteen 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 May 8, 2006. 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 DEP to establish and require VOC and/or NOX
RACT for thirteen sources located in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
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, Nitrogen dioxide,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 28, 2006.
William Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
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 adding
the entries for Cogentrix of Pennsylvania Inc.; Scrubgrass Generating
Company, LP; Wheelabrator Frackville Energy Co.; Indiana University of
Pennsylvania--S.W. Jack Cogeneration Facility; Fleetwood Motor Homes;
Piney Creek, LP; Statoil Energy Power Paxton, LP; Harrisburg
Steamworks; Cove Shoe Company; PP&L--Fichbach C.T.
[[Page 11518]]
Facility; PP&L--Allentown C.T. Facility; PP&L--Harwood C.T. Facility;
and PP&L--Jenkins C.T. Facility at the end of the table to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) EPA-Approved Source--Specific Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Requirements for Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
State EPA approval explanation/
Name of source Permit No. County effective date date Sec. 52.2063
citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Cogentrix of Pennsylvania OP-33-0137..... Jefferson...... 1/27/98 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
Inc. page number )
where the
document
begins].
PA-33-302-014.. ............... 11/15/90 ............... Except for all
ton per year
limits and
expiration
dates in these
permits, for
Conditions 4,
5, and 6.
OP-33-302-014.. ............... 5/31/93 ............... Except for
Condition 2.
PA-33-399-004.. ............... 10/31/98 ............... Except for
Conditions 1,
2, 3, 4b, 4c,
4d, 4e, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10,
12, 13, 14,
15, and 16.
OP-33-399-004.. ............... 5/31/93 ............... Except for
Condition 2.
Scrubgrass Generating OP-61-0181..... Venango........ 4/30/98 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
Company, LP. page number ) Except for
where the Conditions 4,
document 6, 7, and 9.
begins].
Wheelabrator Frackville OP-54-005...... Schuylkill..... 9/18/98 3//8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
Energy Co. page number ) Except for
where the the
document particulate
begins]. and SO2
emission
limits found
in Condition
4, Condition
5, 6, 7, 9,
10, 11, 12 and
13 and the
expiration
date.
Indiana University of OP-32-000-200.. Indiana........ 9/24/98 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
Pennsylvania--S.W. Jack page number ) Except for
Cogeneration Facility. where the the expiration
document date and
begins]. Conditions 5,
7, 10, 12, 20,
21, and 22.
Fleetwood Motor Homes....... OP-49-0011..... Northumberland. 10/30/98 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
page number ) Except for
where the Conditions 3,
document 5, 23-31 and
begins]. the expiration
date.
Piney Creek, LP............. OP-16-0127..... Clarion........ 12/18/98 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
page number ) Except for
where the the ton per
document year and
begins]. /hr
limits in
Condition 4,
Conditions 5
and 9.
Statoil Energy Power Paxton, OP-22-02015.... Dauphin........ 6/30/99 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
LP. page number ) Except for
where the the expiration
document date and
begins]. Conditions 6,
16, 19 and 20.
Harrisburg Steamworks....... OP-22-02006.... Dauphin........ 3/23/99 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
page number ) Except for
where the Conditions 5,
document 8, 11, 9, 10,
begins]. 18, 19, 22,
23, 24 and the
expiration
date.
Cove Shoe Company........... OP-07-02028.... Blair.......... 4/7/99 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
page number ) except for
where the Conditions 5,
document 10 and the
begins]. expiration
date.
PP&L--Fichbach C.T. Facility OP-54-0011..... Schuylkill..... 6/1/99 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
page number ) Except for
where the the expiration
document date.
begins]..
PP&L--Allentown C.T. OP-39-0009..... Lehigh......... 6/1/99 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
Facility. page number ) Except for
where the the expiration
document date.
begins].
PP&L--Harwood C.T. Facility. OP-40-0016..... Luzerne........ 6/1/99 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
page number ) Except for
where the the expiration
document date.
begins].
[[Page 11519]]
PP&L--Jenkins C.T. Facility. OP-40-0017..... Luzerne........ 6/1/99 3/8/06 [Insert 52.2020(d)(1)(l
page number ) Except for
where the the expiration
document date.
begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-2150 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P