Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2841 

1EPA’s regulations implementing CAA section 

169A are located at 40 CFR 51.308 and require 

states to establish long-term strategies for making 

reasonable progress toward meeting the national 

goal in CAA section 169A. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0342; FRL–9921–64– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; 

Pennsylvania Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan Revision: Sulfur 

Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide Best 

Available Retrofit Technology Limits 

for the Cheswick Power Plant 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing limited 

approval and limited disapproval of a 

revision to the Pennsylvania State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

through the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP). 

This SIP revision addresses the sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) requirements for Boiler Number 

1 of the Cheswick Generating Station 

(Cheswick) in Allegheny County. EPA is 

proposing a limited approval of the SIP 

revision for Cheswick’s SO2 and NOX

BART requirements on the basis that the 

revision corrects an error in the SIP and 

strengthens the Pennsylvania SIP, while 

EPA is also proposing a limited 

disapproval of this part of the SIP 

revision because the SIP revision relies 

on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

and not the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR) which has replaced CAIR. 

EPA is proposing limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the Pennsylvania 

SIP revision addressing the SO2 and 

NOX BART requirements in accordance 

with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules for BART. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0342, by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0342, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0342. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., 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 in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy 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 

Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by 

email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

III. EPA’s Analysis of SIP Revision 

IV. EPA’s Analysis of 110(l) 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, and 

soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., SO2,

NOX, and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) 

and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). 

Fine particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5), which impairs visibility 

by scattering and absorbing light. 

Visibility impairment reduces the 

clarity, color, and visible distance that 

one can see. Section 169A of the CAA 

establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory class I Federal 

areas which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution’’ and requires 

SIPs for states whose emissions may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas to contain emission limits, 

compliance schedules and other 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas.1 A regional 

haze SIP generally must include, among 

other measures, source-specific BART 

emission limits for each source subject 

to BART. A detailed discussion of the 

requirements of the regional haze 

program can be found in our earlier 

notice proposing action on 

Pennsylvania’s regional haze SIP. See 77 

FR 3984 (January 26, 2012). 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2). EPA made such a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2842 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

2CAIR required certain states like Pennsylvania 

to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX that 

significantly contribute to downwind 

nonattainment of the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5 and 

ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR was 

later found to be inconsistent with the requirements 

of the CAA and the rule was remanded to EPA. See 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). The court left CAIR in place until replaced 

by EPA with a rule consistent with its opinion. Id. 

3CSAPR was proposed by EPA to replace CAIR 

and to help states reduce air pollution and attain 

CAA standards. See 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010) 

(proposal) and 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (final 

rule). The United States Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit issued a decision in EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), 

vacating CSAPR and keeping CAIR in place 

pending the promulgation of a valid replacement 

rule. Subsequently, on April 29, 2014, the United 

States Supreme Court reversed the August 21, 2012 

opinion of the D.C. Circuit which had vacated 

CSAPR and remanded the matter to the D.C. Circuit 

for further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). After the 

Supreme Court’s decision, EPA filed a motion to lift 

the stay of CSAPR and asked the D.C. Circuit to toll 

CSAPR’s compliance deadlines by three years, so 

that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 2015 

and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013), and the Phase 

2 emissions budgets apply in 2017 and beyond 

(instead of 2014 and beyond). On October 23, 2014, 

the D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s motion and lifted the 

stay on CSAPR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order 

at 3. EPA views the D.C. Circuit’s October 23, 2014 

Order as also granting EPA’s request to toll CSAPR’s 

compliance deadlines and will therefore commence 

implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 2015. 79 

FR 71663 (Dec. 3, 2014) (interim final rule revising 

CSAPR compliance deadlines). 

4 In response to a petition for review of EPA’s 

limited approval of the Pennsylvania regional haze 

SIP in the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Third Circuit, EPA successfully moved for a 

voluntary remand without vacatur. On April 30, 

2014, EPA reissued its final limited approval of the 

Pennsylvania SIP to implement the 

Commonwealth’s regional haze program for the first 

planning period through 2018. 79 FR 24340. 

5The BART Guidelines provide a process for 

making BART determinations that states and local 

agencies can use in implementing the regional haze 

BART requirements on a source-by-source basis, as 

provided in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). 

6 Detailed information regarding EPA’s rationale 

for proposing to correct the PM BART for Cheswick 

is available at 79 FR 64539. 

7The December 20, 2010 regional haze SIP 

submission included the following BART emission 

limits for Cheswick: 67,452 tons per year (tpy) of 

SO2, 10,840 tpy of NOX, and 361 tpy of coarse PM 

(PM10). According to Pennsylvania and explained in 

its March 25, 2014 SIP submittal, these emission 

limits were included in error. The May 4, 2009 

Cheswick BART review memo identified the 67,452 

tpy of SO2 and 10,840 tpy of NOX as Cheswick’s 

potential to emit SO2, and NOX. 

8The comments from the owner of Cheswick on 

the proposed Cheswick BART are available in the 

rulemaking docket from our approval of the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP, docket number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002, at 

www.regulations.gov. 

9As stated previously, EPA has proposed to 

approve the revision to Cheswick’s PM BART 

emission limit in a separate rulemaking. See 79 FR 

64539. 

10The March 25, 2014 SIP revision also updates 

the owner’s name of Cheswick from Orion Power 

to GenOn Power Midwest LP and updates the 

permit numbers and dates of issuance for 

Cheswick’s Boiler No. 1. However, the present 

owner of Cheswick is now NRG Energy. 

demonstration for the CAIR.2 70 FR 

39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA’s regulations 

provided that states participating in the 

CAIR cap and trade program under 40 

CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPAapproved CAIR SIP or which remain 

subject to the CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR 

part 97, do not require affected BART 

eligible electric generating units (EGUs) 

to install, operate, and maintain BART 

for emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(4). EPA subsequently 

determined that the trading programs in 

the CSAPR, which was promulgated to 

replace CAIR, would achieve greater 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal than would BART and 

could also serve as an alternative to 

source-by-source BART. See 77 FR 

33641 (June 7, 2012).3

On December 20, 2010, PADEP 

submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania 

SIP to address regional haze as required 

by the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308. At the 

time of the development and 

submission of Pennsylvania’s December 

20, 2010 regional haze SIP submission, 

EPA had not yet promulgated CSAPR to 

replace CAIR. On July 13, 2012, EPA 

finalized a limited approval of the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP. 77 FR 

41279. Our approval was limited due to 

Pennsylvania’s reliance upon CAIR for 

certain regional haze requirements 

including BART for EGUs. On June 7, 

2012, EPA had also finalized the limited 

disapproval of Pennsylvania’s regional 

haze SIP (and other states’ regional haze 

SIPs that relied similarly on CAIR) due 

to its reliance on CAIR as EPA had 

issued the CSAPR to replace CAIR at 

that time. 77 FR 33641. On June 7, 2012, 

EPA also finalized a limited FIP for 

Pennsylvania and other states, which 

merely substituted reliance on EPA’s 

more recent CSAPR NOX and SO2

trading programs for EGUs for the SIP’s 

reliance on CAIR.4 See 77 FR 33641. 

For the December 20, 2010 regional 

haze SIP, the Allegheny County Health 

Department (ACHD) had performed a 

BART analysis for Cheswick, a 

Pennsylvania EGU. In the May 4, 2009 

Cheswick BART review memo, ACHD 

stated it performed its BART analysis in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e) and 

40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, Guidelines 

for BART Determinations Under the 

Regional Haze Rule (BART Guidelines).5

The May 4, 2009 Cheswick BART 

review memo was included in 

Pennsylvania’s December 20, 2010 

regional haze SIP (in Appendix J) and 

specifically stated that SO2 and NOX

limits were not considered in the memo 

since the source was participating in 

CAIR. The May 4, 2009 BART Review 

Memo for Cheswick and the December 

20, 2010 regional haze SIP submission 

also contained an error concerning the 

recommended particulate matter (PM) 

BART for Cheswick. EPA has proposed 

to correct that error in a separate 

rulemaking and is not taking public 

comment on Cheswick’s revised PM 

BART in this action. See 79 FR 64539 

(October 30, 2014).6

The December 20, 2010 regional haze 

SIP submission explicitly provided that 

BART for Pennsylvania EGUs was 

participation in CAIR; however, the SIP 

submission incorrectly identified SO2

and NOX BART emission limits for 

Cheswick in error.7 After EPA proposed 

limited approval of the Pennsylvania 

regional haze SIP on January 26, 2012 

(77 FR 3984), the owner of Cheswick 

commented that Cheswick’s BART 

emission limits proposed by PADEP 

were in error including the SO2 and 

NOX limits because PADEP had 

intended to rely on CAIR for SO2 and 

NOX BART limits for EGUs.8

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On March 25, 2014, the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

through PADEP submitted a SIP 

revision to revise the incorrect PM 

BART emission limit for Cheswick’s 

Boiler No. 1 and to remove the errant 

inclusion of the SO2 emission limit of 

67,452 tons per year (tpy) and the NOX

emission limit of 10,840 tpy for 

Cheswick’s Boiler No. 1 from the 

regional haze SIP because Pennsylvania 

intended CAIR as SO2 and NOX BART 

for all EGUs including Cheswick.9

PADEP submitted this SIP revision in 

accordance with the visibility and 

regional haze provisions of Sections 

169A and 169B of the CAA and the 

regional haze rule at 40 CFR 51.308.10

PADEP stated in its submittal that the 

SO2 and NOX BART emission limits for 

Cheswick were included in the BART 

table in its December 10, 2010 regional 

haze SIP in conflict with the ACHD 

Cheswick BART review memo and the 

narrative portion of the December 20, 

2010 SIP submittal which discussed 

CAIR as satisfying SO2 and NOX BART 

for BART-eligible EGUs in 

Pennsylvania. In the March 25, 2014 SIP 

revision submittal, PADEP stated the 

SO2 and NOX BART emission limits for 

Cheswick were included in error. The 

analysis included in the December 20, 

2010 regional haze SIP relied upon all 

Pennsylvania EGUs complying with 

CAIR for BART for SO2 and NOX. 

Therefore, PADEP concluded that the 

removal of the limits included in the 

December 20, 2010 regional haze SIP in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2843 

11The SO2 and NOX BART emission limits 

recommended in error in the December 20, 2010 

regional haze SIP submission by PADEP are 

Cheswick’s potentials to emit SO2 and NOX. See the 

May 4, 2009 Cheswick BART review memo in 

Appendix J to the Pennsylvania December 20, 2010 

regional haze SIP which is available in the 

rulemaking docket from our approval of the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP, docket number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002, at 

www.regulations.gov. CAIR and CSAPR set 

allowance numbers for emissions of SO2 and NOX

from certain EGUs including Cheswick, reflecting 

emission reductions which would be below a 

source’s potential to emit. See 70 FR 39104 (CAIR) 

and 76 FR 48208 (CSAPR). 

12The December 20, 2010 Pennsylvania regional 

haze SIP submission is available in the EPA 

rulemaking docket for our approval of the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP, docket number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002, at 

www.regulations.gov. 

13The May 4, 2009 BART memo for Cheswick 

was included in Appendix J to the December 20, 

2010 regional haze SIP, available in the EPA 

rulemaking docket for our approval of the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP, docket number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002, at 

www.regulations.gov. The November 7, 2012 BART 

memo for Cheswick is included with the March 25, 

2014 regional haze SIP revision in the rulemaking 

docket for this action. 

14EPA believes the evidence discussed in 

Pennsylvania’s March 25, 2014 SIP revision 

submittal and in this rulemaking clearly support 

that neither Pennsylvania nor ACHD intended to set 

source-specific BART emission limits for Cheswick 

for SO2 or NOX and that the inclusion of those 

limits in the regional haze SIP submittal and in 

EPA’s limited approval of the regional haze SIP was 

inadvertent and in error. 

15PADEP concluded in its December 20, 2010 

regional haze SIP that its long term strategy and 

BART determinations provide sufficient reductions 

to mitigate impacts of emissions from sources 

located in Pennsylvania on affected Class I areas. 

See Section 3.0 of the December 20, 2010 regional 

haze SIP. 

16As explained further in this proposed 

rulemaking, once CSAPR is implemented, EPA 

believes the reliance upon CAIR for SO2 and NOX

BART at Cheswick, a Pennsylvania EGU, will be 

replaced by reliance upon CSAPR for SO2 and NOX

BART through the June 7, 2012 FIP which replaced 

CSAPR for CAIR for all Pennsylvania EGU’s SO2

and NOX BART. 

error will not interfere with visibility 

improvement, with Pennsylvania’s 

reasonable progress to achieving natural 

visibility conditions as required by the 

CAA, nor with any applicable 

requirement under the CAA. 

ACHD had updated the BART 

analysis for Boiler No. 1 at Cheswick 

with a new memo on November 7, 2012 

which retained the recommendation of 

CAIR as SO2 and NOX BART for 

Cheswick and recommended a new PM 

BART emissions limit. The November 7, 

2012 BART review memo explained that 

Cheswick has stringent pollution 

controls installed including flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) for SO2 control, 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for 

NOX control, and an electrostatic 

precipitator (ESP) for PM control. The 

November 7, 2012 BART review memo 

also indicated that two separate 

modeling studies show that visibility 

impacts from Cheswick are minimal. 

III. EPA’s Analysis of SIP Revision 

EPA proposes a limited approval to 

the March 25, 2014 SIP revision to the 

Cheswick SO2 and NOX BART limits 

included in the Pennsylvania regional 

haze SIP because the removal of the 

specific SO2 and NOX emission limits 

corrects an error in the regional haze SIP 

and strengthens the Pennsylvania SIP 

overall through replacing the incorrect 

BART limits with an emission trading 

program which should reduce SO2 and 

NOX emissions more than the limits 

approved in the regional haze SIP in 

error.11 EPA proposes a limited 

disapproval to the portion of the SIP 

revision addressing SO2 and NOX BART 

for Cheswick because the revision relies 

on replacing the specific SO2 and NOX

limits with CAIR which the D.C. Circuit 

remanded to EPA and which EPA 

replaced with CSAPR. Although certain 

issues regarding CSAPR remain for 

resolution in the D.C. Circuit, the D.C. 

Circuit has lifted the stay on CSAPR 

which will enable EPA to commence 

forthwith the implementation of CSAPR 

to replace CAIR as the emissions trading 

program for SO2 and NOX for EGUs in 

certain states including Pennsylvania. 

See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 

EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 

2014), Order at 3. 

For Cheswick’s SO2 and NOX BART 

requirements, EPA finds Pennsylvania 

intended in its December 20, 2010 

regional haze SIP to rely on CAIR as an 

alternative to source-specific BART 

emission limits for EGUs for SO2 and 

NOX. In its December 20, 2010 regional 

haze SIP submission, PADEP clearly 

explained that BART determinations for 

EGUs were conducted for PM emissions 

only because BART-eligible EGUs 

located in Pennsylvania are subject to 

the Federal CAIR program for SO2 and 

NOX. See Section 8.2 ‘‘EGUs and CAIR’’ 

in Pennsylvania’s December 20, 2010 

regional haze SIP.12 In addition, the 

May 4, 2009 and November 7, 2012 

BART review memos by ACHD for 

Cheswick also clearly stated that EPA 

has determined that BART requirements 

for EGUs covered by CAIR are satisfied 

by the CAIR requirements for NOX and 

SO2 so a BART engineering analysis was 

not required for these pollutants.13

EPA finds our prior approval of the 

source specific SO2 and NOX BART 

limits for Cheswick was in error. 

According to explicit statements in its 

December 20, 2010 SIP submittal, 

Pennsylvania clearly relied on CAIR as 

an alternative to SO2 and NOX BART 

emission limits for all EGUs in its 

regional haze SIP and therefore 

intended Cheswick, an EGU, to have 

CAIR for SO2 and NOX BART. Thus, 

EPA finds the SO2 and NOX BART 

limits for Cheswick were inadvertently 

included in the December 20, 2010 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

therefore approved by EPA as part of the 

regional haze SIP in error.14 EPA finds 

no further analysis is needed for the 

removal of the specific SO2 and NOX

BART emission limits at Cheswick’s 

Boiler No. 1 and replacement with a 

Federally enforceable emissions trading 

program as BART for SO2 and NOX. See 

CAA section 110(k)(6) (providing EPA 

authority to correct SIPs when EPA 

finds an error). Pennsylvania’s analysis 

and conclusions, including related 

modeling and technical support 

documents regarding its regional haze 

SIP containing sufficient limits and 

measures so as to not interfere with 

reasonable progress and visibility 

improvement generally and not to 

interfere with other states achieving 

their reasonable progress goals (RPGs) at 

Class I areas, specifically were based on 

Pennsylvania EGUs complying with 

CAIR for BART and other regional haze 

requirements not relevant here.15 16

Thus, EPA proposes its limited approval 

of this SIP revision to remove the 

specific Cheswick SO2 and NOX BART 

limits in accordance with sections 

110(k)(6) and 169A of the CAA because 

EPA determined the prior limited 

approval of the regional haze SIP was in 

error relating to Cheswick’s BART limits 

for SO2 and NOX. EPA proposes a 

limited disapproval of this SIP revision 

for Cheswick’s SO2 and NOX BART 

limits in accordance with section 169A 

of the CAA because Pennsylvania relied 

upon CAIR for SO2 and NOX BART for 

Cheswick (and all Pennsylvania EGUs) 

and CSAPR is replacing CAIR as the 

emissions trading program for SO2 and 

NOX. Upon final action on this limited 

disapproval, Cheswick will be subject to 

EPA’s June 7, 2012 FIP which replaced 

CAIR with CSAPR as SO2 and NOX

BART for Pennsylvania EGUs. 

EPA’s 2012 limited approval and 

disapproval of the Pennsylvania 

regional haze SIP was based on 

Pennsylvania EGUs having CAIR as an 

alternative to SO2 and NOX specific 

BART emission rates. EPA finds that 

Cheswick has installed controls for SO2

and NOX, including a FGD and SCR, to 

comply with CAIR and CSAPR which 

will limit emissions from Cheswick of 

visibility-impairing pollutants and 

minimize visibility impacts from the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2844 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

17According to the Cheswick BART review 

memos prepared by ACHD, Cheswick also installed 

a new, shorter stack with installation of its FGD and 

SCR. 

18Before CAIR was remanded by the D.C. Circuit, 

EPA had found CAIR provides greater reasonable 

progress than source-specific BART, and the D.C. 

Circuit specifically upheld CAIR as an alternative 

to BART in accordance with the requirements of 

Section 169A of the CAA. Utility Air Regulatory 

Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 2006) 

(finding EPA’s conclusion that CAIR provides 

greater reasonable progress reasonable and citing 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(4) and 70 FR 39104, 39136 (July 6, 

2005)). 

19CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions from EGUs in 28 states in the 

Eastern United States that significantly contribute 

to downwind nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

plant.17 EPA finds the removal of these 

source-specific limits and the 

replacement with CSAPR when 

implemented, will not interfere with 

visibility improvement or with any 

applicable requirement under the CAA, 

particularly the visibility and regional 

haze provisions of sections 169A and 

169B of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308. 

EPA believes this removal and 

replacement with CSAPR strengthens 

the Pennsylvania SIP because EPA 

found CSAPR is ‘‘Better than BART’’ 

and provides greater reasonable progress 

towards natural visibility conditions 

than source-specific BART limits for 

EGUs. See 77 FR 33641.18

EPA does not believe that the status 

of CAIR or CSAPR limits EPA’s ability 

to propose the limited approval of this 

SIP revision for SO2 and NOX BART for 

Cheswick. In August 2011 after 

Pennsylvania had developed and 

submitted its regional haze SIP to EPA 

with its reliance upon CAIR, EPA 

replaced CAIR with CSAPR (76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011)) to address 

issues raised in North Carolina v. EPA 

by the D.C. Circuit. See 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). CSAPR requires 

substantial reductions of SO2 and NOX

emissions from EGUs in 28 states in the 

Eastern United States that significantly 

contribute to downwind nonattainment 

of the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Implementation of the rule was 

scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, 

when CSAPR’s cap-and-trade programs 

would have superseded the CAIR capand-trade programs. However, 

numerous parties filed petitions for 

review of CSAPR, and on December 30, 

2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order 

staying CSAPR pending resolution of 

the petitions and directing EPA to 

continue to administer CAIR. EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 

11–1302 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 2011), Order 

at 2. 

Nevertheless, on June 7, 2012, EPA 

issued a FIP for Pennsylvania, which 

substituted Pennsylvania’s reliance on 

CAIR for SO2 and NOX BART for EGUs 

with CSAPR’s NOX and SO2 trading 

programs for BART for the Pennsylvania 

EGUs as EPA expected CSAPR to 

replace CAIR pending the conclusion of 

litigation in the DC Circuit. See 77 FR 

33641. Following EPA’s actions for 

Pennsylvania’s regional haze 

requirements, the DC Circuit issued a 

decision in EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), 

vacating CSAPR and ordering EPA to 

continue administering CAIR. On April 

29, 2014, the United States Supreme 

Court reversed the DC Circuit’s decision 

and remanded the matter, including 

CSAPR, to the DC Circuit for further 

proceedings in accordance with its 

ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). 

EPA had filed a motion to lift the stay 

on CSAPR in light of the Supreme 

Court’s decision and also asked the DC 

Circuit to toll CSAPR’s compliance 

deadlines by three years, so that the 

Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 

2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 

2013), and the Phase 2 emissions 

budgets apply in 2017 and beyond 

(instead of 2014 and beyond). On 

October 23, 2014, the DC Circuit granted 

EPA’s motion to lift the stay on CSAPR. 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 

EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 

2014), Order at 3. EPA views the DC 

Circuit’s October 23, 2014 Order as also 

granting EPA’s request to toll CSAPR’s 

compliance deadlines and will therefore 

commence implementation of CSAPR 

on January 1, 2015. 79 FR 71663 

(December 3, 2014) (interim final rule 

revising CSAPR compliance deadlines). 

Therefore, the CAIR provisions will 

sunset on December 31, 2014 and be 

replaced by CSAPR. CSAPR will be 

implemented as a FIP by EPA, until 

such time as Pennsylvania adds the 

provisions of CSAPR to its SIP.19

EPA does not believe that the status 

of EME Homer City, or CAIR and CSAPR 

in particular, limits EPA’s ability to 

propose action on this SIP revision to 

Cheswick’s BART for SO2 and NOX

limitations for several reasons. First, 

EPA will commence implementation of 

CSAPR forthwith, and Pennsylvania 

EGUs including Cheswick are subject to 

CSAPR pursuant to the CSAPR FIP (76 

FR 48208) in general. Thus, EGUs in 

Pennsylvania, including Cheswick, will 

be subject to the Federally enforceable 

requirements of CSAPR upon its 

imminent implementation. Pursuant to 

the June 7, 2012 FIP for Pennsylvania 

for certain regional haze requirements, 

EGUs in the Commonwealth are subject 

to CSAPR as their BART requirement for 

SO2 and NOX. See 77 FR 33641. Nothing 

in EPA’s June 7, 2012 FIP (77 FR 33641) 

excludes Cheswick, an EGU otherwise 

subject to Federal CSAPR requirements, 

from the June 7, 2012 FIP replacing 

Pennsylvania’s reliance upon CAIR with 

reliance upon CSAPR for EGU BARTs. 

Therefore, upon final approval of this 

rulemaking proposing limited approval 

and limited disapproval of the March 

25, 2014 SIP revision, Cheswick’s SO2

and NOX BART limits will be subject to 

CSAPR like every other EGU in 

Pennsylvania. Because EPA determined 

CSAPR achieves greater reasonable 

progress towards the national goal of 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

in Class I areas than source-specific 

BART in those states covered by 

CSAPR, EPA expects greater emissions 

reductions of SO2 and NOX from 

Pennsylvania EGUs subject to CSAPR 

than from Cheswick’s prior limits or 

from CAIR. See 77 FR 33641 

(concluding CSAPR was better than 

BART) and 76 FR 48208 (promulgating 

CSAPR). 

EPA therefore proposes its limited 

approval and limited disapproval of this 

portion of the March 25, 2014 SIP 

revision addressing SO2 and NOX

BART. CAA section 110(c)(1) provides 

that EPA must promulgate a FIP within 

two years after disapproving a SIP 

submission in whole or in part, unless 

EPA approves a SIP revision correcting 

the deficiencies within that two-year 

period. EPA believes our limited 

disapproval of the March 25, 2014 SIP 

submission does not result in any new 

FIP obligation for EPA because EPA 

already promulgated a FIP on June 7, 

2012 to address the identified 

deficiency (replacing CAIR with CSAPR 

for SO2 and NOX BART for 

Pennsylvania EGUs), and thus that FIP 

fully addresses Cheswick’s SO2 and 

NOX BART. Under section 179(a) of the 

CAA, final disapproval of a submittal 

that addresses a requirement of part D 

of title I of the CAA (CAA sections 171– 

193) or is required in response to a 

finding of substantial inadequacy as 

described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP 

Call) starts a sanctions clock. 

Pennsylvania’s March 25, 2014 SIP 

revision submittal for revising 

Cheswick’s BART was not submitted to 

meet either of these requirements. 

Therefore, EPA’s limited disapproval of 

Pennsylvania’s SIP submission 

concerning Cheswick’s SO2 and NOX

BART does not trigger mandatory 

sanctions under CAA section 179. 

In summary, EPA finds the SIP 

revision for the SO2 and NOX BART for 

Cheswick removes an error in the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2845 

20As discussed previously, EPA expects this SIP 

revision if finalized will replace Cheswick’s specific 

SO2 and NOX BART emission limitations with 

reliance upon CSAPR for BART based on EPA’s 

June 7, 2012 FIP for Pennsylvania EGU SO2 and 

NOX BARTs. 

21For further discussion of progress towards 

RPGs and current visibility conditions in nearby 

Federal Class I areas based on the latest available 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data, see 

EPA’s approvals of Virginia’s and Delaware’s fiveyear progress reports on regional haze at 79 FR 

25019 (May 2, 2014) (Virginia) and 79 FR 25506 

(May 5, 2014) (Delaware). See also 79 FR 10451 

(February 25, 2014) (proposed approval of 

Virginia’s progress report) and 79 FR 10442 

(February 25, 2014) (proposed approval of 

Delaware’s progress report). EPA’s proposed 

approval of West Virginia’s five-year progress report 

on regional haze is at 79 FR 14460 (March 14, 

2014). EPA has reviewed Cheswick’s compliance 

with CAIR through data at EPA’s Clean Air Markets 

Division (CAMD) database at http://www.epa.gov/

airmarket/. 

22Cheswick’s emissions data is available at EPA’s 

CAMD database at http://www.epa.gov/airmarket/. 

EPA has reviewed preliminary SO2 data for 

Cheswick for 2014 and finds it consistent with 

2012–13 data and with CAIR requirements. 

23For a discussion of CSAPR and CSAPR 

allowances as promulgated, see 76 FR 48208. 

24The Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area was 

designated moderate nonattainment for the 1997 

eight-hour ozone NAAQS. However, EPA found the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area attained the 1997 

ozone NAAQS by its June 15, 2010 attainment date 

and also found previously that the area continued 

to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS with monitored 

data from 2009–2011 and preliminary data for 2012. 

78 FR 20244 (April 4, 2013). During this time, 

Cheswick operated with its CAIR requirements. 

Therefore, EPA does not find the SIP revision for 

Cheswick’s NOX BART will interfere with the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area’s continued 

attainment and maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

25EPA notes the preliminary 2012–2014 design 

value for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 

nonattainment area shows improving ozone air 

quality and reflects the area’s ozone air quality 

approaching attainment with the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. The 2014 data is not complete, quality 

assured or certified at this time. During this time, 

Cheswick has been complying with CAIR. EPA has 

reviewed preliminary 2014 NOX data for Cheswick 

and finds it consistent with 2012–13 data and with 

CAIR requirements. 

Pennsylvania SIP and strengthens the 

Pennsylvania SIP. EPA proposes a 

limited approval for the Cheswick SO2

and NOX BART SIP revision in 

accordance with sections 110(k)(6), 

169A and 169B of the CAA. EPA 

proposes a limited disapproval because 

the SIP revision relies upon CAIR and 

not CSAPR for Cheswick’s SO2 and NOX

BART. However, EPA finds Cheswick is 

subject to EPA’s June 7, 2012 FIP which 

replaced CSAPR for CAIR for SO2 and 

NOX BART for Pennsylvania EGUs. 

IV. EPA’s Analysis of 110(l) 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

‘‘[t]he Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of this chapter.’’ 

EPA does not interpret section 110(l) to 

require a full attainment or maintenance 

demonstration before any changes to a 

SIP may be approved. Generally, a SIP 

revision may be approved under section 

110(l) if the EPA finds that it will at 

least preserve status quo air quality, 

particularly where the pollutants at 

issue are those for which an area has not 

been designated nonattainment. EPA 

does not believe the proposed limited 

approval and limited disapproval of the 

SO2 and NOX BART emission 

limitations will interfere with the CAA 

requirements for BART or for preventing 

interference with other states’ programs 

to protect visibility because this 

proposal is supported by an evaluation 

that those CAA requirements are met. 

This SIP revision will correct errors 

from PADEP in the BART limits 

determined for Cheswick and will 

replace BART emission limitations with 

limits intended by Pennsylvania which 

EPA finds reasonable. This SIP revision 

will not result in any substantive 

changes to other CAA requirements. 

Cheswick will continue to be subject to 

CAA requirements for BART. 

The SIP revision replaces a prior 

determination that was in error for SO2

and NOX as Pennsylvania intended 

EGUs to have CAIR for SO2 and NOX

BART. As discussed above, 

Pennsylvania’s analysis supporting its 

regional haze SIP was based on EGUs 

having CAIR for SO2 and NOX BART.20

Thus, EPA does not anticipate the 

revisions to Cheswick’s BARTs to 

interfere with neighboring states’ ability 

to achieve RPGs given Cheswick’s 

minimal visibility impact, Cheswick’s 

SO2, NOX and PM controls and newer 

shorter stack, Cheswick’s current 

compliance with CAIR, and recent 

monitored data from neighboring states 

showing progress towards RPGs.21

EPA also believes that approval of the 

submitted SIP revision will not interfere 

with attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. Cheswick’s previous SO2

BART limit in the regional haze SIP was 

67,452 tpy. Cheswick is not located in 

an area designated nonattainment for 

any SO2 NAAQS, Cheswick’s actual SO2

emissions for 2012 and 2013 are well 

below the BART limit according to data 

from EPA’s CAMD Web site,22 and 

Cheswick’s SO2 allowances through 

CAIR and now CSAPR, which is 

replacing CAIR, will be lower than the 

prior SO2 BART established previously 

for Cheswick. In general, EPA expects 

CSAPR allowances for EGUs such as 

Cheswick to be less than the CAIR 

emission allowances.23 As Cheswick 

has been subject to CAIR since 2009, 

EPA does not anticipate the BART 

revision for SO2 to interfere with the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS in the area near 

Cheswick as Cheswick has been in 

compliance with CAIR and Cheswick’s 

new BART limit replaces the facility’s 

prior limit which was its potential to 

emit SO2. 

Cheswick’s prior NOX BART limit 

was 10,840 tpy. Cheswick is not located 

in an area designated nonattainment for 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, but Cheswick is 

located in an area designated marginal 

nonattainment for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS.24 However, Cheswick’s actual 

NOX emissions for 2012 and 2013 are 

well below the prior BART limit 

according to data from EPA’s CAMD 

Web site, and Cheswick’s NOX

allowances through CAIR and CSAPR 

are also lower than the prior NOX BART 

established previously for Cheswick. As 

stated previously, Cheswick has 

complied with CAIR since 2009. 

Therefore, EPA does not anticipate the 

NOX BART revision for Cheswick will 

interfere with or delay Pennsylvania’s 

ability to reach attainment in the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment 

area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.25

In addition, EPA does not anticipate 

any increase in emissions of SO2 or NOX

from the submitted SIP revision which 

replaces prior BART limits set in error 

with CSAPR based on our review of 

Cheswick’s recent emissions data 

indicating Cheswick has complied with 

CAIR requirements and because CSAPR 

should produce equivalent or greater 

reductions than CAIR. EPA believes the 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of Pennsylvania’s revision 

will not contribute to conditions of 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of any standard. Thus, 

EPA finds this SIP revision to 

Cheswick’s BARTs complies with 

section 110(l) of the CAA and will not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirements concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA, 

such as the visibility and regional haze 

provisions of sections 169A and 169B of 

the CAA. 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of the portion of the Pennsylvania 

March 25, 2014 revision to its regional 

haze SIP which removes specific SO2

and NOX BART emission limitations for 

Cheswick set in error and is proposing 

a limited disapproval of the SIP revision 

due to its reliance upon CAIR which has 

been replaced with CSAPR. As EPA 

issued a FIP for SO2 and NOX BART 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2846 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

emission limitations for EGUs in 

Pennsylvania which includes Cheswick, 

no further action by EPA would be 

required to address the limited 

disapproval if finalized. This conclusion 

is based on our review of the March 25, 

2014 SIP revision as well as 

Pennsylvania’s December 20, 2010 

regional haze SIP submission including 

technical data and supporting analysis. 

Upon final action on this SIP revision, 

CSAPR for SO2 and NOX BART will 

supercede the previous SO2 and NOX

BART determinations for Cheswick 

included in Pennsylvania’s regional 

haze SIP as EPA will implement CSAPR 

beginning January 1, 2015. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule 

revising Pennsylvania’s regional haze 

SIP pertaining to BART requirements for 

Cheswick does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: December 23, 2014. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00742 Filed 1–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0804; FRL–9921–84– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria (HGB), and 

Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) 1997 8-Hour 

ozone nonattainment areas. The HGB 

area consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort 

Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, 

Montgomery and Waller counties. The 

DFW area consists of Collin, Dallas, 

Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, 

Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant counties. 

Specifically, we are proposing to 

approve portions of multiple revisions 

to the Texas SIP submitted by the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) as meeting Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

requirements. The RACT requirements 

apply to sources of Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of 

Nitrogen (NOX) in these areas. This 

action is in accordance with the federal 

Clean Air Act (the Act, CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2013–0804, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Alan Shar at shar.alan@

epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Air Planning 

Section Chief (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013– 

0804. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through www.regulations.gov or email 

that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected from disclosure. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters and any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS