Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 4049 

1For example, Bergin, M.S. et al. (2007). Regional 

air quality: Local and interstate impacts of NOX and 

SO2 emissions on ozone and fine particulate matter 

in the eastern United States. Environmental Sci. & 

Tech. 41: 4677–4689. 

2On February 20, 2020, Maine petitioned EPA 

under CAA section 176A(a) for removal of certain 

areas of the state from the OTR. EPA has not yet 

acted on the petition. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–0351; FRL–10018–10– 

OAR] 

Ozone Transport Commission 

Recommendation that EPA Require 

Daily Limits for Emissions of Nitrogen 

Oxides From Certain Sources in 

Pennsylvania 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Public Hearing and 

Supplemental Information. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is issuing this notice of 

public hearing and supplemental 

information regarding a 

recommendation submitted by the 

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) to 

address ongoing ozone pollution in the 

northeastern United States. The OTC 

has recommended that EPA require 

Pennsylvania to revise its state 

implementation plan (SIP) to include 

additional control measures that would 

establish daily limits on emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) from coal-fired 

electricity generating units (EGUs) with 

already-installed selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) or selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) controls. 

According to the recommendation, the 

additional control measures are to 

ensure that the SCR and SNCR controls 

are optimized to minimize NOX

emissions each day of the ozone season 

(May 1 through September 30), and the 

measures must be as stringent as any 

one of several specified state rules 

already approved into the SIPs of 

Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey. 

This notice discusses the relevant 

provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

the Act), summarizes the 

recommendation and the supporting 

information submitted by the OTC, and 

provides additional information that 

EPA believes may be relevant in 

reaching a decision on the 

recommendation. This notice also 

announces the date of a public hearing 

and opens a public comment period on 

the recommendation, the supporting 

information provided by the OTC, and 

the additional information being 

provided by EPA. 

DATES: EPA will hold a virtual public 

hearing on February 2, 2021. Please 

refer to https://www.epa.gov/interstateair-pollution-transport/ozone-transportcommission-otc-section-184crecommendation for additional 

information on the public hearing, 

including registration procedures. 

Comments must be received on or 

before March 8, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2020–0351, at https://

www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from the docket. EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit to EPA’s docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit https://

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. Please note that to reduce the 

risk of transmitting COVID–19, written 

comments submitted by mail are 

temporarily suspended, no hand 

deliveries will be accepted, and EPA is 

temporarily suspending access to its 

Docket Center and Reading Room for 

public visitors. Additional materials 

related to this action, including 

submitted comments, can be viewed 

online at regulations.gov under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–0351. Our 

Docket Center staff will continue to 

provide remote customer service via 

email, phone, and webform. For further 

information and updates on EPA Docket 

Center services, please visit us online at 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth 

Murray, Clean Air Markets Division, 

Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office 

of Air and Radiation, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 202–343–9115, 

murray.beth@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document concerns a recommendation 

submitted by the OTC to EPA under 

CAA section 184(c). In section I, EPA 

discusses the relevant statutory 

provisions. Section II describes the steps 

EPA is following to facilitate public 

participation in the Agency’s process for 

reaching a decision on the 

recommendation. In Section III, EPA 

discusses the OTC recommendation, 

including the Delaware, Maryland, and 

New Jersey rules that OTC believes 

should become the standards for EPA’s 

approval of a responsive SIP revision 

from Pennsylvania. In section III, EPA 

also identifies the potentially affected 

Pennsylvania EGUs, and summarizes 

the supporting information provided by 

the OTC. Sections IV and V provide 

additional information on the 

potentially affected EGUs’ historical 

emissions and on regulatory context that 

may be relevant to EPA’s decision on 

the recommendation. 

EPA is holding a public hearing on 

the recommendation as required by 

section 184(c) and is also taking 

comment on the recommendation, the 

supporting information submitted by 

the OTC, and the additional information 

provided by EPA. 

I. Statutory Provisions 

A. Summary of CAA Section 184 

Ground-level ozone is a secondary air 

pollutant created by chemical reactions 

between the ozone precursor pollutants 

NOX and volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) in the presence of sunlight. 

Precursor pollutant emissions can be 

transported downwind directly or, after 

transformation in the atmosphere, as 

ozone. Studies have established that 

ozone formation, atmospheric residence, 

and transport can occur on a regional 

scale (i.e., across hundreds of miles) 

over much of the eastern U.S.1

The Ozone Transport Region (OTR) 

was established by operation of law 

under CAA section 184 and comprises 

the states of Connecticut, Delaware, 

Maine,2 Massachusetts, Maryland, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and 

Vermont, the District of Columbia, and 

the portion of Virginia that is within the 

Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical 

Area that includes the District of 

Columbia. 

Under CAA section 184(a), the 

Administrator established a commission 

for the OTR, the OTC, consisting of the 

Governor of each state or their designee, 

the Administrator or their designee, the 

Regional Administrators for the EPA 

regional offices affected (or the 

Administrator’s designees), and an air 

pollution control official representing 

each state in the region, appointed by 

the Governor. Section 184(b) sets forth 

certain control measures that OTR states 

are required to include in their SIPs, 

including enhanced vehicle inspection 

and maintenance in certain 

4050 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 

3CAA section 184(b) requires RACT for sources 

of VOC in OTR states and CAA section 182(f)(1) 

extends the requirement for RACT to major sources 

of NOX. 

4Because its decision rested on other grounds, 

the court found it unnecessary to resolve other 

claims challenging EPA’s authority under CAA 

section 184(c), including claims—contested by 

EPA—that the section is unconstitutional because 

of the role assigned to the OTC. 108 F.3d at 1410. 

metropolitan statistical areas and 

implementation of reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) for certain 

sources of VOC and NOX 3 in the state. 

CAA section 184(c) specifies a 

procedure for the OTC to develop 

recommendations for additional control 

measures to be applied within all or a 

part of the OTR if the OTC determines 

that such measures are necessary to 

bring any area in the OTR into 

attainment with national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone by 

the applicable attainment deadlines. 

Section 184(c)(1) provides that: 

Upon petition of any states within a 

transport region for ozone, and based on a 

majority vote of the Governors on the 

Commission (or their designees), the 

Commission may, after notice and 

opportunity for public comment, develop 

recommendations for additional control 

measures to be applied within all or a part 

of such transport region if the Commission 

determines such measures are necessary to 

bring any area in such region into attainment 

by the dates provided by [subpart II of part 

D of CAA title I]. 

Section 184(c) also lays out 

procedures the Administrator is to 

follow in responding to 

recommendations from the OTC. After 

receipt of the recommendations, the 

Administrator is to immediately publish 

a Federal Register notice stating that the 

recommendations are available and is to 

provide an opportunity for a public 

hearing within 90 days. The 

Administrator is also to ‘‘commence a 

review of the recommendations to 

determine whether the control measures 

in the recommendations are necessary 

to bring any area in such region into 

attainment by the dates provided by 

[subpart II] and are otherwise consistent 

with [the Act].’’ Finally, in undertaking 

the review, the Administrator is to 

consult with members of the OTC and 

is to consider the data, views, and 

comments received pursuant to the 

public hearing. 

CAA sections 184(c)(4) and (5) govern 

EPA’s response to the OTC 

recommendations. Under section 

184(c)(4), the Administrator is to 

determine whether to approve, 

disapprove, or partially approve and 

partially disapprove the 

recommendations within nine months 

of receipt. For any disapproval or partial 

disapproval, the Administrator is to 

specify: 

(i) Why any disapproved additional control 

measures included in the recommendation 

are not necessary to bring any area in such 

region into attainment by the dates provided 

by [subpart II] or are otherwise not consistent 

with the Act; and 

(ii) Recommendations concerning equal or 

more effective actions that could be taken by 

the commission to conform the disapproved 

portion of the recommendations to the 

requirements of [section 184]. 

Section 184(c)(5) provides that, upon 

approval or partial approval of any 

recommendations, the Administrator is 

to issue, to each state in the OTR to 

which an approved requirement applies, 

a finding under CAA section 110(k)(5) 

that the SIP for that state is inadequate 

to meet the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D), often referred to as the 

‘‘good neighbor provision.’’ Section 

110(a)(2)(D) provides, in pertinent part, 

that each state’s SIP shall contain 

adequate provisions: 

(i) Prohibiting, consistent with the 

provisions of [CAA title I], any source or 

other type of emissions activity within the 

state from emitting any air pollutant in 

amounts which will— 

(I) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state with respect 

to any [NAAQS]. 

Under section 184(c)(5), the 

Administrator’s finding of inadequacy 

under section 110(a)(2)(D) is to require 

that each affected state revise its SIP to 

include the approved additional control 

measures within one year after the 

finding is issued. 

B. Judicial Interpretation of CAA 

Section 184(c) 

EPA has taken action under CAA 

section 184(c) once before. On February 

10, 1994, the OTC submitted a 

recommendation under the section that 

EPA require all states in the OTR to 

adopt a Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) 

program equivalent to the LEV program 

already adopted by California. After 

proposing to approve the 

recommendation and soliciting public 

comment, EPA published a final action 

approving the OTC’s recommendation 

and issuing a SIP call that required each 

OTR state either to adopt the LEV 

program or to adopt other measures of 

the state’s choosing that would achieve 

a level of NOX emission reductions 

identified by EPA. 60 FR 4712 (Jan. 25, 

1995). In the final action, EPA took the 

position that authority to promulgate 

these requirements was provided 

independently by both CAA section 

184(c) and CAA section 110. Id. at 

4716–18. 

On review, the U.S. Court of the 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated EPA’s 

action. Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397 

(D.C. Cir. 1997). Although the court’s 

decision ultimately rested on other 

grounds, the court interpreted certain 

aspects of CAA section 184(c), in part by 

contrasting it with CAA section 110. 

The court first determined that, as a 

practical matter, the SIP call mandated 

adoption of the LEV program because 

the purported alternative allowing states 

to adopt other control measures was so 

much less attractive that it was, in the 

court’s view, ‘‘no alternative at all.’’ 108 

F.3d at 1404. The court then explained 

that because section 110 does not 

authorize EPA to condition approval of 

a state’s SIP on the adoption of specific 

control measures chosen by EPA, 

section 110(k)(5) alone could not 

provide authority for a SIP call requiring 

adoption of the LEV program. Id. at 

1410. The court then considered 

whether section 184(c), in contrast to 

section 110, would allow EPA to 

condition approval of a state’s SIP upon 

the adoption of specific control 

measures and concluded that the 

language of section 184(c) ‘‘answers 

with an emphatic yes.’’ Id. However, 

because the court also found that other 

CAA provisions—specifically, CAA 

sections 177 and 202—barred EPA from 

requiring states to adopt the LEV 

program at that time, the court vacated 

the SIP call without regard to whether 

issuance of the SIP call otherwise would 

have been within EPA’s authority under 

section 184(c). Id. at 1411–13.4

C. Options for Action on a CAA Section 

184(c) Recommendation 

After the OTC submits a 

recommendation to EPA, under CAA 

section 184(c)(4) the Administrator may 

approve, disapprove, or partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

recommendation. The section’s 

requirement that, in conjunction with a 

disapproval or partial disapproval, EPA 

must identify ‘‘equal or more effective 

actions that could be taken by the 

commission to conform the disapproved 

recommendation to [CAA section 184]’’ 

suggests that EPA does not have 

authority to simply adopt such 

conforming modifications on its own 

initiative as part of an action otherwise 

approving the recommendation. We 

interpret these provisions as limiting the 

Agency’s ability to modify or 

supplement an OTC recommendation, 

except insofar as EPA may partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

recommendation. Consistent with the 

court’s discussion in Virginia, this 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 4051 

5We note that in EPA’s only prior action on a 

section 184(c) recommendation in 1994–1995, the 

Agency elected to employ CAA section 307(d) 

rulemaking procedures in acting on the OTC’s 

recommendation, but stated that it was not legally 

obligated to do so. See 80 FR 21270, 21274 (Apr. 

26, 1994). 

6The supporting materials submitted by the OTC 

include documentation that notice-and-comment 

procedures were followed. See Part 3 of Attachment 

2, ‘‘Policy and Technical Rationale Supporting 

OTC’s Recommendation for Additional Control 

Measures Under CAA Section 184(c),’’ and 

Attachment 3, ‘‘Response to Comments Received on 

OTC 184(c) Recommendation,’’ available in the 

docket. 

statutory interpretation recognizes that, 

under CAA section 110, EPA generally 

does not have authority to require states 

to include particular control measures 

in their SIPs, and that section 184(c) 

provides a limited exception to this 

general principle only with respect to 

control measures that have been 

specifically recommended to EPA by the 

OTC in accordance with statutory 

procedures. 

EPA requests comment on this 

interpretation of its options for action 

on the OTC’s recommendation. 

EPA also requests comment on the 

standard that should be applied in 

acting on the OTC’s recommendation. 

CAA sections 184(c)(2)(B) and (c)(4)(i) 

provide that EPA is to determine 

whether the OTC’s recommended 

additional control measures are 

‘‘necessary to bring any area in [the 

OTR] into attainment by the [areas’ 

attainment dates].’’ However, CAA 

section 184(c)(5) states that where the 

EPA approves or partially approves the 

OTC’s recommendation, the 

Administrator is to issue a finding 

under CAA section 110(k)(5) that the 

state at issue (here, Pennsylvania) has 

an implementation plan inadequate to 

meet the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D). In effect, this would be a 

determination that the plan does not 

contain adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions in amounts which will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state with 

respect to a NAAQS. EPA invites 

comment on how it should interpret 

these provisions in order to ensure 

consistent treatment throughout the 

section 184(c) process. 

II. Public Notice and Participation 

Under CAA Section 184(c) 

As noted in section I.A of this 

document, CAA section 184(c)(1) 

requires the OTC to provide notice and 

an opportunity for public comment on 

any recommendations for additional 

control measures to be applied within 

all or part of the OTR. After the OTC 

transmits such recommendations to 

EPA, EPA is to publish a notice stating 

that the recommendations are available, 

hold a public hearing, consult with 

members of the OTC, conduct a review 

of the OTC recommendation, and issue 

an approval, disapproval, or partial 

approval and partial disapproval of the 

recommendation within nine months of 

receiving the recommendation. CAA 

section 184(c)(1)–(4). The CAA requires 

that EPA publish its determination in 

the Federal Register. 

The provision also requires that EPA 

‘‘shall take into account the data, views, 

and comments received’’ pursuant to its 

notification of the available 

recommendation and the public 

hearing. EPA is in this notice providing 

information the Agency has developed 

and that it is considering in light of the 

OTC’s recommendation, and we are 

providing an opportunity for the public 

to submit comments on the OTC’s 

recommendation and this information 

by March 8, 2021. This opportunity to 

comment is in addition to the statutorily 

mandated public hearing.5

Specifically, EPA seeks public 

comments on the OTC’s 

recommendation; the information the 

OTC submitted to EPA in support of its 

recommendation, consisting of certain 

technical analyses and a summary of 

OTC’s response to the comments 

submitted to the OTC; and the 

information EPA is providing in this 

document and in other materials 

referenced in this document and 

included in the docket established for 

this action. 

As discussed elsewhere in this 

document, EPA is considering several 

issues in determining whether to 

approve or disapprove the OTC 

recommendation and invites comments 

on all these issues. In addition to 

providing the opportunity to file written 

comments and present oral views at the 

February 2, 2021 hearing, EPA intends 

to consult with the affected states as 

required by section 184(c)(3) prior to 

making a final decision on the 

recommendation. If EPA approves or 

partially approves the OTC’s 

recommendation, per CAA section 

184(c)(5), the Agency shall issue a 

finding under CAA section 110(k)(5), 

also known as a SIP call, that the 

implementation plan for such state is 

inadequate to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D). 

III. Discussion of the OTC’s 

Recommendation 

A. The OTC’s Section 184(c) 

Recommendation for NOX Limits on 

Certain Pennsylvania EGUs 

In 2015, EPA revised the NAAQS for 

ozone to 70 parts per billion (ppb). 80 

FR 65292 (October 28, 2015). In 2018, 

EPA designated certain areas as 

nonattainment with respect to this 

NAAQS and identified each area’s 

classification according to the severity 

of its air quality problems. 83 FR 25776 

(June 4, 2018). Five areas within the 

OTR were designated as nonattainment: 

Baltimore, MD; Greater Connecticut, CT; 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, 

PA-NJ-MD-DE; Washington, DC-MD-VA; 

and New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT. Id. The first four 

of these areas were classified as 

Marginal and the New York area was 

classified as Moderate. Id. The 

attainment deadlines for the Marginal 

and Moderate areas are three and six 

years after the effective date of their 

nonattainment designations, or August 

3, 2021 and August 3, 2024, 

respectively. 83 FR 10376 (March 9, 

2018). 

On May 30, 2019, Maryland 

petitioned the OTC to adopt a 

recommendation calling for additional 

control measures to be applied within 

part of the OTR. In response to 

Maryland’s petition, the OTC 

commenced a notice-and-comment 

process that culminated in a June 3, 

2020 vote by a majority of OTR states to 

submit a recommendation to EPA under 

CAA section 184(c).6 EPA received the 

recommendation on June 8, 2020 and 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register of the availability of the 

recommendation on July 13, 2020 (85 

FR 41974). The recommendation itself is 

published as an appendix to this 

document, and the recommendation as 

well as the supporting materials 

submitted to EPA by the OTC are 

available in the docket. 

The OTC has recommended that EPA 

require Pennsylvania to revise its SIP to 

establish daily NOX emissions limits for 

coal-fired EGUs with existing SCR or 

SNCR controls to ensure optimization of 

the controls to minimize NOX emissions 

each day of the ozone season. The 

recommendation calls for the new 

Pennsylvania requirements to be as 

stringent as the requirements in any one 

of certain existing rules adopted by 

Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey 

that were incorporated by reference into 

the recommendation. Each of the 

referenced rules was intended to 

establish some form of daily NOX

control requirements for the respective 

state’s coal-fired EGUs. The 

recommendation requests that EPA 

require Pennsylvania to implement the 

requested control measures as 

4052 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 

7The recommendation also specifically requests 

that EPA require Pennsylvania to establish daily 

NOX limits for the 2020 and 2021 ozone seasons. 

expeditiously as practicable.7 The OTC 

recommendation did not address 

sources other than coal-fired EGUs in 

Pennsylvania. 

The OTC highlighted four main 

reasons for making the 

recommendation. First, several areas in 

the OTR are not expected to attain the 

2015 ozone NAAQS by 2021, the 

statutory deadline for areas classified as 

Marginal. If the areas do not attain by 

the deadline, they will be reclassified 

(i.e., ‘‘bumped up’’) and subject to more 

stringent requirements. Additionally, 

there are still some areas that have not 

attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 

OTC’s second line of reasoning points to 

research showing that large regional 

NOX reductions lower peak ozone 

across the eastern U.S. and that 

additional NOX reductions are needed 

for attainment of the 2008 and 2015 

ozone NAAQS. Third, the OTC 

references EPA information identifying 

emissions from Pennsylvania as 

contributing to downwind 

nonattainment and includes estimates 

developed by Maryland of additional 

NOX reductions from Pennsylvania 

EGUs that could be achieved through 

daily NOX limits. Finally, the OTC 

states that it decided to use the CAA 

section 184(c) process after a 

collaborative process resulted in some 

states adopting daily NOX limits, while 

Pennsylvania, with the largest NOX

emissions from coal-fired EGUs of any 

state in the OTR, has not. 

In the cover letter accompanying the 

recommendation, the OTC recognizes 

that Pennsylvania has a regulatory 

process underway to update its RACT 

requirements for the EGUs that are the 

subject of the recommendation 

(Pennsylvania calls the planned 

requirements ‘‘RACT III’’). Pennsylvania 

has periodically provided the OTC with 

information on the progress and 

components of the RACT III regulatory 

process. The OTC’s letter states that the 

OTC will withdraw the CAA section 

184(c) recommendation if Pennsylvania 

adopts final RACT III requirements that 

address the recommendation. 

B. Pennsylvania Units Affected by the 

Recommendation 

EPA has identified the operating 

Pennsylvania coal-fired EGUs 

(including units that combust coal 

refuse) that are believed to have already 

installed SCR controls (10 units) or 

SNCR controls (8 units) and that 

therefore would be affected by a full 

approval of the OTC’s recommendation. 

Table III–1 lists the units and indicates 

for each unit the associated generator 

capacity, boiler type, and NOX control 

type as well as NOX mass emissions and 

NOX emission rate for the 2019 ozone 

season. In Table III–2, EPA lists 

operating Pennsylvania coal-fired EGUs 

that are believed not to have already 

installed SCR or SNCR controls. The 

two tables exclude units that are 

believed to have either retired or 

permanently discontinued coal 

combustion. 

EPA requests comment on whether 

the Pennsylvania units that would be 

affected by a full approval of the OTC’s 

recommendation have been correctly 

identified. 

TABLE III–1—PENNSYLVANIA OPERATING COAL-FIRED EGUS WITH SCR OR SNCR CONTROLS †

Unit 

Generator 

summer 

capacity 

(MW) 

Boiler type Post-combustion 

NOX controls 

2019 ozone 

season NOX

emissions 

(tons) 

2019 ozone 

season NOX

emission rate 

(lb/mmBtu) 

Cheswick unit 1 ............................................ 565 Tangential ................. SCR .......................... 331 0.192 

Colver unit AAB01 ........................................ 110 Fluidized bed ............ SNCR ........................ 309 0.157 

Conemaugh unit 1 ........................................ 850 Tangential ................. SCR .......................... 1,350 0.132

Conemaugh unit 2 ........................................ 850 Tangential ................. SCR .......................... 1,719 0.149

Homer City unit 1 .......................................... 623 Dry bottom wall ......... SCR .......................... 504 0.106 

Homer City unit 2 .......................................... 633 Dry bottom wall ......... SCR .......................... 465 0.107 

Homer City unit 3 .......................................... 650 Dry bottom wall ......... SCR .......................... 456 0.089 

Keystone unit 1 ............................................. 850 Tangential ................. SCR .......................... 1,778 0.136 

Keystone unit 2 ............................................. 850 Tangential ................. SCR .......................... 1,368 0.134 

Montour unit 1 ............................................... 752 Tangential ................. SCR .......................... 143 0.101 

Montour unit 2 ............................................... 752 Tangential ................. SCR .......................... 120 0.106 

Northampton unit NGC01 ............................. 112 Fluidized bed ............ SNCR ........................ 12 0.075 

Panther Creek unit 1 .................................... †† 83 Fluidized bed ............ SNCR ........................ 3 0.123 

Panther Creek unit 2 .................................... †† 83 Fluidized bed ............ SNCR ........................ 5 0.116 

Scrubgrass unit 1 .......................................... †† 85 Fluidized bed ............ SNCR ........................ 52 0.118 

Scrubgrass unit 2 .......................................... †† 85 Fluidized bed ............ SNCR ........................ 53 0.131 

Seward unit 1 ................................................ †† 521 Fluidized bed ............ SNCR ........................ 107 0.095 

Seward unit 2 ................................................ †† 521 Fluidized bed ............ SNCR ........................ 91 0.088 

Totals/Wtd. average (all units) ............... 8,286 ................................... ................................... 8,866 0.129 

Totals/Wtd. average (SCR-equipped 

units).

7,375 ................................... ................................... 8,233 0.130 

† Data sources: EPA Clean Air Markets, Power Sector Emissions Data, Air Markets Program Data (AMPD) and EIA Form 860. ‘‘Coal-fired’’ 

EGUs include units combusting coal refuse. Several of the units report ‘‘ammonia injection’’ controls which EPA interprets as SNCR controls. ††This generator is served by multiple boilers. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 4053 

8EPA has already approved the three referenced 

state rules into the respective states’ SIPs. See 

Delaware SIP approval (73 FR 50723, Aug. 28, 2008; 

75 FR 48566, Aug. 11, 2010); Maryland SIP 

approval (82 FR 24546, May 30, 2017); New Jersey 

SIP approval (83 FR 50506, Oct. 9, 2018). 

TABLE III–2—PENNSYLVANIA OPERATING COAL-FIRED EGUS WITHOUT SCR OR SNCR CONTROLS †

Unit 

Generator 

summer 

capacity 

(MW) 

Boiler type Post-combustion 

NOX controls 

2019 ozone 

season NOX

emissions 

(tons) 

2019 ozone 

season NOX

emission rate 

(lb/mmBtu) 

Brunner Island unit 1 †† ................................. 306 Tangential ................. none .......................... 176 0.121 

Brunner Island unit 2 †† ................................. 363 Tangential ................. none .......................... 115 0.103 

Brunner Island unit 3 †† ................................. 742 Tangential ................. none .......................... 283 0.109 

Ebensburg unit 031 ...................................... 50 Fluidized bed ............ none .......................... 83 0.079 

Gilberton unit 031 ......................................... †† 80 Fluidized bed ............ none .......................... 62 0.071 

Gilberton unit 032 ......................................... †† 80 Fluidized bed ............ none .......................... 62 0.072 

Mt. Carmel unit SG–101 ............................... 43 Fluidized bed ............ none .......................... 23 0.069 

St. Nicholas unit 1 ........................................ 86 Fluidized bed ............ none .......................... 110 0.052 

Westwood unit 031 ....................................... 30 Fluidized bed ............ none .......................... 61 0.132 

Totals/Wtd. average .............................. 1,700 ................................... ................................... 976 0.090 

† Data sources: EPA Clean Air Markets, Power Sector Emissions Data, Air Markets Program Data (AMPD) and EIA Form 860. ‘‘Coal-fired’’ 

EGUs include units combusting coal refuse. †† Reported data indicate that this unit combusted primarily natural gas during the 2019 ozone season. †††This generator is served by multiple boilers. 

C. Referenced State Rules for Delaware, 

Maryland, and New Jersey 

As noted in section III.A of this 

document, the OTC’s recommendation 

calls for EPA to require Pennsylvania to 

adopt requirements into its SIP that are 

at least as stringent as the requirements 

in referenced state rules adopted by 

Delaware, Maryland, or New Jersey.8

Following approval or partial approval 

of the OTC’s recommendation, EPA 

would be required to issue a SIP call, 

and Pennsylvania would be required to 

submit a responsive SIP revision within 

one year. In order to approve the SIP 

revision, if EPA were to approve the 

recommendation in full, EPA would 

then need to determine whether the 

requirements adopted by Pennsylvania 

in response to the resulting SIP call in 

fact are at least as stringent as the 

requirements previously adopted by one 

of the other three states. These three 

referenced rules are therefore important 

components of the OTC’s 

recommendation, because the rules 

provide the only benchmark for 

comparison against which EPA would 

determine the approvability of a future 

submission from Pennsylvania. In this 

section, EPA summarizes the relevant 

provisions of the Delaware, Maryland, 

and New Jersey state rules and requests 

comment on how EPA would use the 

rules as standards for determining 

whether a SIP revision submitted by 

Pennsylvania is approvable. 

1. Delaware 

The Delaware rule referenced in the 

OTC’s recommendation is 7 DE Admin. 

Code 1146, Electric Generating Unit 

(EGU) Multi-Pollutant Regulation. 

Section 4.3 requires each existing coalfired and residual oil-fired EGU with a 

nameplate capacity rating of 25 MW or 

more to limit its NOX emission rate to 

0.125 lb/mmBtu on a 24-hour rolling 

average basis. The rule does not 

differentiate among EGUs based on the 

type of boiler or control technology and 

contains no exceptions based on load 

levels or particular operating conditions 

(such as start-up or shut-down). 

Delaware has one operating coal-fired 

EGU. The unit is equipped with SCR 

controls. 

TABLE III–3—DELAWARE OPERATING COAL-FIRED EGUS †

Unit 

Generator 

summer 

capacity 

(MW) 

Boiler type Post-combustion 

NOX controls 

2019 ozone 

season NOX

emissions 

(tons) 

2019 ozone 

season NOX

emission rate 

(lb/mmBtu) 

Indian River unit 4 ........................................ 410 Dry bottom turbo ....... SCR .......................... 48 0.082 

† Data sources: EPA Clean Air Markets, Power Sector Emissions Data, Air Markets Program Data (AMPD) and EIA Form 860. 

2. Maryland 

The Maryland rule referenced in the 

OTC’s recommendation is COMAR 

26.11.38, Control of Nitrogen Oxide 

Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric 

Generating Units. Maryland’s rule 

establishes requirements that vary 

across units as well as groups of units 

under common ownership, with 

differences that appear to reflect factors 

including boiler type, control 

technology, and other characteristics of 

individual units. 

One of Maryland’s operating coalfired EGUs is a fluidized bed boiler 

equipped with SNCR controls. Section 

.03D(2) requires this unit to limit its 

NOX emissions to 0.10 lb/mmBtu on a 

24-hour block average basis without any 

exceptions based on load levels or 

operating conditions (such as start-up or 

shut-down). There is little overlap 

between the requirements established 

for this unit and the requirements 

established for other Maryland coalfired EGUs under the referenced rule. 

4054 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 

9Chalk Point unit 2 is equipped with selective 

autocatalytic reduction (SACR) controls. SACR 

controls use simultaneous injections of ammonia 

and hydrocarbons (e.g., natural gas) to create a 

catalytic chemical reaction that reduces NOX

without a separate catalyst. See https://

www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/featuresacrpromises-low-nox-at-low-cost/ (March 5, 2002). 10At the time Maryland adopted COMAR 

26.11.38, section .04 applied to seven coal-fired 

units without SCR controls. Chalk Point unit 2 is 

the only one of these seven EGUs that is still 

operating as a coal-fired unit. 

11For units with heat rates of 9,000, 10,000, and 

11,000 Btu/kWh, an emission rate limit expressed 

as 1.5 lb/MWh would be equivalent to emission rate 

limits expressed as 0.167, 0.150, and 0.136 lb/ 

mmBtu, respectively. 

Maryland’s seven other operating 

coal-fired EGUs are tangentially fired or 

dry bottom wall-fired boilers, six of 

which are equipped with SCR and one 

of which is equipped with another type 

of ammonia-based post-combustion 

NOX control.9 For these units, the rule 

establishes a multi-part set of ozone 

season requirements. First, section 

.03A(1) requires the owner of each unit 

to submit for approval a plan addressing 

how the unit’s NOX controls will be 

operated under various possible 

operating conditions. Second, section 

.03A(2) requires each of these EGUs ‘‘to 

minimize NOX emissions by operating 

and optimizing the use of all installed 

pollution control technology and 

combustion controls consistent with the 

technological limitations, 

manufacturers’ specifications, good 

engineering and maintenance practices, 

and good air pollution control practices 

for minimizing emissions (as defined in 

40 CFR 60.11(d)) for such equipment 

and the unit at all times the unit is in 

operation while burning any coal.’’ 

Third, section .03B(1) limits owner-level 

average NOX emission rates to 0.15 lb/ 

mmBtu on a 30-day rolling average 

basis. (Depending on the owner’s choice 

of compliance options for its units 

without SCR controls under section .04, 

the owner-level 30-day rolling average 

emission rate limit may be phased down 

to 0.09 lb/mmBtu by 2020.) Fourth, 

section .03C incorporates a set of unitlevel and owner-level caps on ozone 

season NOX mass emissions established 

under COMAR 26.11.27. Fifth, section 

.04 requires that by June 1, 2020 each 

coal-fired unit not already equipped 

with SCR controls (except the fluidized 

bed unit) either install SCR controls, 

retire, switch to natural gas combustion, 

or, in conjunction with the owner’s 

other units, meet either an owner-level 

daily NOX emission rate limit of 0.13 lb/ 

mmBtu or an owner-level daily cap on 

NOX mass emissions of 21 tons.10

Finally, in addition to the plans, 

operational standards and limits, and 

control requirements of the rules, 

section .05 establishes compliance 

demonstration requirements, including 

detailed daily reporting requirements 

that apply for days on which affected 

units exceed specified benchmark 24- 

hour block average NOX emission rates. 

For the SCR-equipped units, each unit 

is assigned a unit-specific benchmark 

NOX emission rate of 0.07 or 0.08 lb/ 

mmBtu, one unit is also assigned a 

second unit-specific benchmark rate of 

0.15 lb/mmBtu that applies at lower 

load levels, and one unit is also 

assigned an alternative facility-wide 

benchmark rate in conjunction with a 

co-located unit that does not have SCR 

controls. For the units not equipped 

with SCR controls (except the fluidized 

bed unit), each unit is assigned a unitspecific benchmark rate ranging from 

0.24 to 0.34 lb/mmBtu and several units 

are also assigned alternative facilitywide benchmark rates. Section .05A(4) 

generally provides that exceedances of 

the benchmark NOX emission rates are 

not violations of the requirement under 

section .03A(2) to operate and optimize 

installed controls as long as the owner 

has followed its approved plan for 

operating and optimizing the controls 

under section .03A(1). 

TABLE III–4—MARYLAND OPERATING COAL-FIRED EGUS †

Unit 

Generator 

summer 

capacity 

(MW) 

Boiler type Post-combustion 

NOX controls 

2019 ozone 

season NOX

emissions 

(tons) 

2019 ozone 

season NOX

emission rate 

(lb/mmBtu) 

Brandon Shores unit 1 .................................. 635 Dry bottom wall ......... SCR .......................... 235 0.064 

Brandon Shores unit 2 .................................. 638 Dry bottom wall ......... SCR .......................... 299 0.065 

Chalk Point unit 1 †† ...................................... 333 Dry bottom wall ......... SCR .......................... 105 0.133 

Chalk Point unit 2 †† ...................................... 337 Dry bottom wall ......... SACR ........................ 129 0.189 

Morgantown unit 1 ........................................ 596 Tangential ................. SCR .......................... 108 0.046 

Morgantown unit 2 ........................................ 609 Tangential ................. SCR .......................... 122 0.039 

Wagner unit 3 ............................................... 305 Dry bottom wall ......... SCR .......................... 17 0.069 

Warrior Run unit 001 .................................... 180 Fluidized bed ............ SNCR ........................ 184 0.066 

Totals/Wtd. average (all units) ............... 3,633 ................................... ................................... 1,198 0.066 

Totals/Wtd. average (SCR-equipped 

units).

3,116 ................................... ................................... 885 0.060 

† Data sources: EPA Clean Air Markets, Power Sector Emissions Data, Air Markets Program Data (AMPD) and EIA Form 860. 

††This unit has a proposed retirement date of June 1, 2021. See https://www.genon.com/genon-news/genon-holdings-inc-announces-retirement-of-chalk-point-coal-units (August 10, 2020). 

3. New Jersey 

The New Jersey rule referenced in the 

OTC’s recommendation is N.J.A.C. 7:27– 

19.4, Control and Prohibition of Air 

Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen: 

Boilers serving electric generating units. 

Under section 19.4(a), each existing 

coal-fired EGU is required to limit NOX

emissions during the ozone season to 

1.50 lb/MWh.11 Section 19.4(d) 

incorporates the provisions of N.J.A.C. 

7:29–19.15(a), which generally require 

EGUs to demonstrate compliance with 

this emission rate limit on a 24-hour 

block average basis during the ozone 

season. Under section 19.4(e), emissions 

occurring during certain start-up and 

shut-down hours when a unit is not 

combusting coal may be excluded from 

the emission rate calculations. The rule 

does not differentiate among EGUs 

based on the type of boiler or control 

technology. New Jersey has three 

operating coal-fired EGUs, all of which 

are equipped with SCR controls. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 4055 

TABLE III–5—NEW JERSEY OPERATING COAL-FIRED EGUS †

Unit 

Generator 

summer 

capacity 

(MW) 

Boiler type 

Postcombustion 

NOX controls 

2019 ozone 

season NOX

emissions 

(tons) 

2019 ozone 

season NOX

emission rate 

(lb/mmBtu) 

Carneys Point unit 1001 ............................... †† 244 Dry bottom wall ......... SCR .......................... 110 0.102 

Carneys Point unit 1002 ............................... †† 244 Dry bottom wall ......... SCR .......................... 90 0.098 

Logan unit 1001 ............................................ 219 Dry bottom wall ......... SCR .......................... 160 0.119 

Totals/Wtd. average .............................. 463 ................................... ................................... 360 0.108 

† Data sources: EPA Clean Air Markets, Power Sector Emissions Data, Air Markets Program Data (AMPD) and EIA Form 860. 

††This generator is served by multiple boilers. 

D. Use of the Delaware, Maryland, and 

New Jersey Rules as Standards for 

Evaluating a Pennsylvania SIP 

Submission 

Under the OTC’s recommendation, 

Pennsylvania would be required to 

revise its SIP to include control 

measures establishing daily NOX

emission limits that ensure optimization 

of existing SCR and SNCR controls and 

that are at least as stringent as the 

requirements for Delaware, Maryland, or 

New Jersey EGUs described above. The 

diversity of the other states’ rules 

provides Pennsylvania with flexibility 

in designing its responsive SIP revision 

but the lack of precise specifications for 

the required additional control 

measures also raises the possibility that 

EPA would not have an objectively clear 

standard for determining whether the 

SIP revision would in fact comply with 

the OTC’s recommendation. 

The Delaware and New Jersey rules— 

and the Maryland rule as applied to one 

EGU—establish binding daily NOX

emission rate limits but do not appear 

to require operation or optimization of 

installed NOX controls. Also, the 

stringencies of the daily NOX emission 

rate limits differ across the three states, 

and the rules do not contain information 

indicating whether or how the physical 

or operating characteristics of each 

state’s units might have been considered 

for purposes of setting the stringency of 

that state’s emission rate limits. 

In contrast, Maryland’s rule—as 

applied to all but one of the state’s coalfired EGUs—requires daily operation 

and optimization of installed NOX

controls but does not establish binding 

daily NOX emission rate limits, although 

it does establish non-binding 

benchmark daily NOX emission rates. In 

addition, while variations in the 

benchmark rates across units indicate 

that some unit-specific characteristics 

were considered when setting those 

rates, the rule does not contain 

information indicating how such 

characteristics were considered. 

EPA requests comment on whether 

the Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey 

rules have been accurately summarized 

in this document. EPA also requests 

comment on how those rules could be 

used as standards for evaluating a SIP 

revision submitted by Pennsylvania, 

including but not limited to the 

following questions: 

• If Pennsylvania establishes 

requirements for daily NOX emission 

rate limits that are at least as stringent 

as those in Delaware’s rule or New 

Jersey’s rule, could the SIP revision be 

approved if it does not also establish 

requirements to operate and optimize 

installed NOX controls? Alternatively, if 

Pennsylvania establishes requirements 

to operate and optimize controls 

comparable to Maryland’s rule for the 

majority of its sources, could the SIP 

revision be approved if it does not also 

establish binding daily NOX emission 

rate limits or benchmark daily NOX

emission rates? 

• If Pennsylvania’s SIP revision 

would have to establish binding daily 

NOX emission rate limits or benchmark 

daily NOX emission rates, could those 

limits or benchmark rates be higher than 

the limits or benchmark rates set by 

Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey if 

supported by differences in the physical 

or operating characteristics of the coalfired units in the respective states? 

Conversely, would EPA need to 

consider whether Pennsylvania could 

have set limits or benchmark rates lower 

than the limits or benchmark rates set 

by the other states based on differences 

in the units’ physical or operating 

characteristics? 

• Are there other ways in which EPA 

could consider differences in the 

physical or operating characteristics of 

Pennsylvania’s coal-fired EGUs relative 

to the other states’ EGUs when 

evaluating a responsive Pennsylvania 

SIP revision? For example, could EPA 

approve a SIP revision that exempts or 

establishes less stringent control 

requirements for Pennsylvania EGUs 

whose unit sizes (e.g., MW capacity) or 

historical emissions fall below the 

ranges of unit sizes or historical 

emissions for the other states’ units? 

• Is EPA’s authority under section 

184(c) to modify the OTC’s 

recommendation limited such that 

when evaluating Pennsylvania’s 

responsive SIP revision, EPA may not 

consider unit-specific characteristics 

that the OTC did not identify in the 

recommendation as being potentially 

relevant? 

• Is EPA’s authority under section 

184(c) to modify the OTC’s 

recommendation limited such that EPA 

may not establish parameters for 

Pennsylvania regarding whether specific 

elements of a responsive SIP revision 

would (or would not) be consistent with 

the OTC’s recommendation? As one 

hypothetical example, if EPA approves 

the OTC’s recommendation, would it be 

permissible under CAA section 184(c) 

for EPA to identify a presumption that 

an approvable SIP would require 

compliance to be demonstrated on a 

unit-specific basis rather than through 

multi-unit averaging, even though the 

recommendation does not specifically 

state such a condition? 

E. Materials Provided by the OTC To 

Support the Recommendation 

In addition to the recommendation 

itself (including the Delaware, 

Maryland, and New Jersey rules 

discussed in section III.C of this 

document), the OTC provided two other 

attachments of materials intended to 

support the recommendation. In this 

section, EPA summarizes these 

supporting materials and requests 

comment on them. 

The first supporting attachment to the 

OTC’s recommendation is entitled 

‘‘Policy and Technical Rationale 

Supporting OTC’s Recommendation for 

Additional Control Measures Under 

CAA Section 184(c).’’ The attachment 

includes background information, 

information intended to document the 

OTC’s compliance with CAA section 

184(c)’s procedural requirements, and a 

statement of the policy rationale 

summarized in section III.A of this 

4056 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 

12Based on the document’s content, it appears 

that the title contains a typographical error and was 

intended to reference the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

13The data in Table III–2 show that Pennsylvania 

coal-fired units without SCR or SNCR controls 

emitted an additional 976 tons of NOX in the 2019 

ozone season. 

14The CSAPR Update and Pennsylvania RACT 

rules are discussed in sections V.A. and V.B. of this 

document. 

document. In addition, the attachment 

contains materials intended to serve as 

technical support for the 

recommendation, most of which were 

provided as part of Maryland’s 2019 

petition to the OTC: 

• A table showing, for a subset of 

ozone monitoring locations across the 

OTR, preliminary 2017–2019 ozone 

design values, certified 2018 fourth 

highest ozone measurements, 

preliminary 2019 fourth highest ozone 

measurements, and calculated threshold 

values for 2020 fourth highest 

measurements that would result in 

2018–2020 design values of 70 ppb or 

75 ppb. 

• A set of tables showing, for selected 

dates in the 2017 and 2018 ozone 

seasons that correspond to ozone 

exceedances in Maryland, for various 

individual Pennsylvania coal-fired 

EGUs and the group of EGUs 

collectively, the amounts by which 

these units’ reported NOX emissions 

exceeded Maryland’s estimates of the 

emissions that would have occurred if 

the units’ daily emission rates had 

equaled 30-day rolling average emission 

rates or ozone-season average emission 

rates achieved by the same units during 

past ozone seasons in which those units 

reported their lowest average emission 

rates (attachment 3 to Maryland’s 

petition). 

• A set of tables and charts showing, 

for selected ozone monitoring locations 

across the OTR and for each OTR state 

on average, differences in modeled 

ozone values between a case where 

Pennsylvania coal-fired EGUs’ 

emissions were projected to reflect NOX

control performance targets identified 

by Maryland versus a case where the 

units’ emissions were projected to 

reflect Maryland’s estimates of the units’ 

allowable emissions without additional 

control measures (attachment 4 to 

Maryland’s petition). 

• A table showing, for individual 

Pennsylvania coal-fired EGUs, the 24- 

hour block average emission rates and 

30-day rolling average emission rates 

that Maryland proposed as an ‘‘Initial 

Straw-Man Draft’’ of required control 

measures to be included in an OTC 

recommendation (attachment 5 to 

Maryland’s petition). 

• A document describing the 

methodology Maryland followed to 

develop the tables and charts provided 

as attachments 3 through 5 to its 

petition (attachment 6 to Maryland’s 

petition). 

The second supporting attachment to 

the OTC’s recommendation is a 

summary of the OTC’s responses to 

comments that it received in its 

proceeding to develop the 

recommendation. One of the responses 

is a separate document entitled ‘‘2017 

OTR Ozone Season Exceedances of 2017 

NAAQS.’’ 12 This separate document 

describes an analysis of pollution backtrajectories that the OTC found shows 

potential connections between the 

locations of some Pennsylvania EGUs 

and the locations of some ozone 

exceedances in the OTR during 2017. 

EPA requests comment on the 

information provided by the OTC to 

support its recommendation, 

particularly with respect to the question 

of whether the information does or does 

not support a determination by EPA that 

the control measures included in the 

recommendation are necessary to bring 

areas of the OTR into attainment with 

the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

IV. Historical Emissions Data for 

Pennsylvania Coal-Fired EGUs 

Potentially Affected by the 

Recommendation 

To assist in evaluating the OTC’s CAA 

section 184(c) recommendation, EPA 

has examined historical emissions data 

for coal-fired EGUs in Pennsylvania as 

well as Delaware, Maryland, and New 

Jersey, focusing on the units that 

continue to operate, as listed in Tables 

III–1 through III–5 above. With respect 

to NOX mass emissions, the data in 

those tables show that the 18 listed coalfired EGUs with SCR or SNCR controls 

in Pennsylvania emitted 8,866 tons of 

NOX during the 2019 ozone season, 

compared to a total of 1,606 tons 

emitted by the 12 listed units in 

Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey, all 

of which have SCR, SNCR, or 

comparable controls.13

With respect to NOX emission rates, 

EPA has focused on comparing SCRequipped units because the SCRequipped units are generally larger than 

the SNCR-equipped units and have 

historically produced greater amounts of 

both electricity and NOX emissions. 

Table IV–1 shows the weighted average 

NOX emission rates for the 2015–2019 

ozone seasons for all SCR-equipped 

coal-fired EGUs that continue to operate 

in each of the four states. The data 

indicate that the weighted average 

emission rates for the Pennsylvania 

SCR-equipped units were considerably 

higher than the weighted average rates 

for the other three states in 2015 and 

2016, then declined sharply in 2017. In 

that year, a more stringent emissions 

budget for the units in Pennsylvania (as 

well as Maryland and New Jersey) was 

implemented under the CSAPR Update, 

and Pennsylvania units also became 

subject to more stringent RACT 

requirements.14 In 2017 and 2018, the 

average emission rates for the 

Pennsylvania units were below the 

average rate for the New Jersey units but 

above the average rates for the Delaware 

and Maryland units. The average 

emission rate for the Pennsylvania units 

increased above the average rate for the 

New Jersey units in 2019 but remained 

well below 2015–2016 levels. 

TABLE IV–1—WEIGHTED AVERAGE OZONE SEASON NOX EMISSION RATES AT OPERATING SCR-EQUIPPED COAL-FIRED

EGUS

[lb/mmBtu] †

Year Pennsylvania 

units 

Delaware 

units 

Maryland 

units 

New Jersey 

units 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 0.252 0.094 0.059 0.117 

2016 ................................................................................................................. 0.233 0.078 0.058 0.111 

2017 ................................................................................................................. 0.099 0.084 0.057 0.112 

2018 ................................................................................................................. 0.102 0.086 0.064 0.112 

2019 ................................................................................................................. 0.130 0.082 0.060 0.108 

† Includes only SCR-equipped units listed in Table III–1 and Tables III–3 through III–5. Each weighted average emission rate is computed as 

the sum of ozone season NOX emissions for the group of units divided by the sum of ozone season heat input for the group of units. Data are 

from EPA Clean Air Markets, Power Sector Emissions Data, Air Markets Program Data (AMPD). 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 4057 

15EPA grouped the hourly data for each unit into 

ten evenly spaced ‘‘bins’’ based on the relationship 

of the unit’s heat input in that hour to the unit’s 

maximum hourly heat input capacity. Thus, bin 1 

includes hours when the unit combusted between 

0% and 10% of its maximum hourly heat input 

capacity and bin 10 includes hours when the unit 

combusted between 90% and 100% of its maximum 

hourly heat input capacity. 16 Data for the ozone season with each unit’s 

third-lowest emission rate during the 2009–2019 

period are included for comparability with the data 

sets EPA has used to identify emission reduction 

opportunities in the CSAPR Update and the 

proposed Revised CSAPR Update. Data for the 

ozone season with each unit’s lowest emission rate 

during the same period are also included for greater 

comparability with the data provided by the OTC 

to support its CAA section 184(c) recommendation. 

EPA notes that for some units the OTC has provided 

data for ozone seasons before 2009. 

17Pennsylvania’s current RACT rules are 

summarized in section V.B. of this document. 

18The Keystone, Conemaugh, and Brandon 

Shores plants each have two coal-fired EGUs, and 

in each case EPA’s data analysis for the plant’s 

other unit resulted in charts similar to the charts for 

the plant’s unit shown here. The charts for all the 

units are included in the Emissions Data TSD 

available in the docket. 

EPA has also examined the historical 

emissions data for individual coal-fired 

units in the four states. In recent years, 

many coal-fired units have experienced 

reduced overall utilization and more 

frequent cycling between lower and 

higher levels of output. In theory, more 

frequent cycling can cause a unit’s 

average emission rate to increase 

because SCR controls may be less 

effective at lower load levels with 

correspondingly lower operating 

temperatures. To account for the 

possible impacts of changing operating 

patterns on NOX emission rates, for this 

unit-specific analysis EPA has grouped 

the hourly emission rate data for each 

unit according to the unit’s heat input 

for the hour (using hourly heat input as 

a proxy for both hourly operating level 

and hourly operating temperature).15

The unit-specific analyses for all the 

units are compiled into a technical 

support document entitled ‘‘Analysis of 

Ozone Season NOX Emissions Data for 

Coal-fired EGUs in Four Mid-Atlantic 

States’’ (referred to here as the 

‘‘Emissions Data TSD’’) available in the 

docket for this action. 

For each unit, the Emissions Data TSD 

includes charts with data for the ozone 

seasons in the 2009–2019 period during 

which the unit achieved its lowest and 

third-lowest average NOX emission 

rates.16 In addition, data are also shown 

for the 2019 ozone season if that was not 

the year of the lowest or third-lowest 

average NOX emission rate. To indicate 

how operating patterns may have 

changed over time, an initial chart for 

each unit shows, for the set of selected 

ozone seasons, the number of hours 

during each of the ozone seasons in 

which the unit operated at each of the 

operating levels described above. 

Additional individual charts for each of 

the selected ozone seasons then display 

the unit’s emission rate data and mass 

emissions data at each of the operating 

levels. The mass emissions data are 

displayed as bar charts, with each bar 

indicating the total NOX emitted during 

the selected ozone season in hours 

when the unit operated at that operating 

level. The hourly emission rate data 

values for each operating level are 

displayed by means of a ‘‘box plot’’ or 

‘‘box-and-whisker plot.’’ Each ‘‘box’’ 

represents the middle half of all the 

hourly data values—that is, the hourly 

data values that fall in the ‘‘interquartile 

range’’ between the 25th percentile and 

75th percentile hourly data values. The 

horizontal line in the box represents the 

median hourly data value. Vertical 

lines, or ‘‘whiskers,’’ extend to the 

highest and lowest hourly data values 

that fall above or below the top or 

bottom edges of the box within a 

distance of up to 1.5 times the 

interquartile range. Any outlying hourly 

data values that fall above or below the 

top or bottom edges of the box by a 

distance of more than 1.5 times the 

interquartile range are shown as 

individual dots. Thus, a lower median 

data value and lower overall placement 

of the box on the chart indicate 

generally lower hourly emission rates, 

while shorter vertical distances between 

the top and bottom edges of the box and 

between the top and bottom ends of the 

whiskers, as well as fewer outliers, 

indicate lower variability (or greater 

consistency) of a unit’s hourly emission 

rates at a given operating level. In this 

way, each box plot provides visual 

representations of both the magnitude 

and variability of a unit’s hourly NOX

emission rates at a given operating level 

in a single chart. For comparison 

purposes, each box plot also includes a 

horizontal dashed line showing the 0.12 

lb/mmBtu emission rate limit that 

Pennsylvania’s SCR-equipped units are 

required to meet—under certain 

operating conditions, on a 30-day 

rolling average basis—by the state’s 

current RACT rules.17

As examples of the more 

comprehensive analysis included in the 

Emissions Data TSD, the figures below 

show results for three SCR-equipped 

units: Keystone unit 1 and Conemaugh 

unit 2, the two Pennsylvania units with 

the highest overall NOX mass emissions 

in the 2019 ozone season, and Brandon 

Shores unit 2, a Maryland unit that 

produced the largest amount of NOX

emissions during the 2019 ozone season 

of any coal-fired EGU in Delaware, 

Maryland, or New Jersey.18

Figures IV–1 and IV–2 show data for 

Brandon Shores unit 2 for 2017 (thirdlowest average rate for 2009–2019) and 

2019 (lowest average rate). Although the 

chart of operating hours indicates that 

in 2019 the unit spent more hours at 

operating levels 4–5 and fewer hours at 

operating levels 6–9 than in 2017, the 

distributions of the hourly emission rate 

data for 2017 and 2019 are still quite 

similar. In both years, hourly emission 

rate data for operating levels 4–10 are 

quite consistent, with half of the hourly 

data captured in thin boxes at emission 

rates below 0.10 lb/mmBtu. The hourly 

emission rate data for operating levels 

1–3, generally representing start-up or 

shut-down conditions as indicated by 

the small numbers of operating hours, 

are less consistent and higher (at 

operating levels 2–3), indicating that the 

unit’s SCR controls may not have 

operated until the unit reached 

operating level 4. The main difference 

between the emission rate data in the 

2017 and 2019 box plots is a decrease 

in the number of outlier hours at 

operating level 6. Relative to 2017, mass 

emissions in 2019 increased slightly at 

operating levels 4–5 and decreased by 

larger amounts at operating levels 6–9, 

with both the increases and decreases 

driven primarily by changes in the 

numbers of hours spent at the respective 

operating levels. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

4058 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 


EN15JA21.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 4059 

19EPA notes that additional analysis showed that 

the outlier values in the Keystone unit 1 hourly 

emission rate data at operating level 8 were spread 

across the ozone season and were not concentrated 

in a manner that would suggest controls were being 

intentionally idled on particular days. See 

Emissions Data TSD at Section 3.2. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

Figures IV–3 and IV–4 show data for 

Keystone unit 1 for 2010 (lowest average 

rate for 2009–2019), 2017 (third-lowest 

average rate), and 2019. The data for 

2010 show that almost all hours were 

spent at operating levels 6–8, and that 

hourly emission rates at load levels 6– 

9 were very consistent, with half of the 

hourly data captured in thin boxes at 

emission rates below 0.10 lb/mmBtu. In 

2017, there was a shift of hours from 

operating level 8 to operating level 7, 

emission rates continued to show 

consistency with thin boxes at operating 

levels 7–9 but showed much greater 

variability at operating level 6, and the 

level of the boxes was higher than in 

2010. In 2019, hours were spread more 

broadly, down to operating level 4 and 

a few hours at operating level 10, and 

emission rates showed less consistency 

at operating level 7 than in either 2010 

or 2017.19 Relative to 2010 and 2017, 

the changes to mass emissions in 2019 

include, first, an increase in emissions 

at operating level 8 that appears to be 

driven primarily by generally higher 

hourly emission rates at this operating 

level, and second, an increase in 

emissions at operating level 5 that 

appears to be driven primarily by an 

increase in hours spent at this operating 

level. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


EN15JA21.020</GPH>
4060 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 


EN15JA21.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 4061 

20EPA notes that additional analysis showed that 

the outlier values in the Conemaugh unit 2 hourly 

emission rate data at operating level 9 were spread 

across the ozone season and were not concentrated 

in a manner that would suggest controls were being 

intentionally idled on particular days. See 

Emissions Data TSD at Section 3.2. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

Figures IV–5 and IV–6 show data for 

Conemaugh unit 2 for 2016 (thirdlowest average rate for 2009–2019), 2018 

(lowest average rate), and 2019. The 

data for 2016 show that hours were 

spread across operating levels 4–9, and 

only operating levels 8–9 showed 

somewhat thin boxes indicating 

relatively consistent hourly emission 

rates. In 2018, hours were spread across 

operating levels 5–9, with a heavy 

concentration at operating level 9, and 

the unit’s emission rate data showed 

consistently thin boxes across all of 

those load levels at emission rates below 

0.10 lb/mmBtu, although with outliers 

at most operating levels. In 2019, hours 

were again spread across operating 

levels 5–9, with an increase at operating 

level 5, and consistent emission rates 

with a thin box were achieved only at 

operating level 9, with a relatively high 

frequency of outlier values.20 Relative to 

2016 and 2018, the changes to mass 

emissions in 2019 include, first, 

increases in emissions at operating level 

6–8 that appear to be driven primarily 

by generally higher hourly emission 

rates at these operating levels, and 

second, a large increase in emissions at 

operating level 5 that appears to be 

driven primarily by generally higher 

hourly emission rates at this operating 

level but also to some extent by an 

increase in hours spent at this operating 

level. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


EN15JA21.022</GPH>
4062 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 


EN15JA21.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 4063 

21EPA’s CSAPR Close-Out, 83 FR 65878 (Dec. 21, 

2018), determined that no further NOX reductions 

were required in upwind states to address 

downwind nonattainment and maintenance 

problems for the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on 

EPA’s assessment of the analytical year 2023. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

EPA requests comment on the 

analysis of emissions and operating data 

contained in the Emissions Data TSD 

and summarized in this section, 

including but not limited to the 

following questions: 

• To what extent do the data support 

a conclusion that that coal-fired EGUs in 

Pennsylvania equipped with SCR or 

SNCR controls could further optimize 

operation of those controls to reduce 

NOX emissions during the ozone season, 

notwithstanding changes in the units’ 

operating patterns in recent years? 

• To what extent do the data support 

a conclusion that any particular type of 

control measure—i.e., a requirement to 

operate and optimize controls, a daily 

NOX emission rate limit, or some 

combination of the two—would be more 

or less effective at reducing ozone 

season NOX emissions from the 

Pennsylvania units? 

V. Current Regulatory Context 

The OTC’s CAA section 184(c) 

recommendation is made in the context 

of ongoing activities addressing other 

CAA provisions. At least two such 

activities appear to have the potential to 

cause reductions in emissions from the 

Pennsylvania EGUs potentially affected 

by the OTC’s recommendation by the 

point in time at which emissions 

reductions could be anticipated in 

response to an approval or partial 

approval of the OTC’s recommendation, 

and the resulting SIP call and 

implementation. The first is EPA’s 

Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking to 

address the interstate pollution 

transport obligations of states including 

Pennsylvania with respect to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, 85 FR 68964 (October 

30, 2020). The second is Pennsylvania’s 

proceedings to revise NOX RACT 

requirements applicable to the state’s 

coal-fired EGUs. In this section, EPA 

discusses these activities and requests 

comment on the relevance of these or 

other activities to EPA’s decision on 

whether to approve, disapprove, or 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove the OTC’s recommendation. 

A. Revised CSAPR Update 

Starting more than two decades ago, 

EPA has issued multiple rules requiring 

reductions in NOX emissions to address 

the interstate transport of NOX as an 

ozone precursor, including the NOX SIP 

Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998); 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 

FR 25162 (May 12, 2005); the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011); and the CSAPR 

Update, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 

2016).21 These actions were all taken 

under the authority of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), often referred to as the 

‘‘good neighbor provision.’’ The rules 

were implemented through enforceable 

emission limits (emission budgets) that 

were designed to incentivize emission 

reductions while providing sources with 

flexibility as to the specific control 

strategies employed. Depending on the 

rule, the budgets were set at stringencies 

reflecting control measures that include 

new combustion or post-combustion 

controls, operation of existing postcombustion controls, and shifting of 

generation to lower emitting units. 

The CSAPR Update addressed ozone 

transport under the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

by establishing more stringent statewide 


EN15JA21.024</GPH>
4064 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 

22The D.C. Circuit vacated the CSAPR Close-Out 

determination in New York v. EPA, 781 Fed. App’x 

4 (D.C. Cir. 2019), for the same flaw it found in the 

CSAPR Update in Wisconsin. 

23For both the CSAPR Update and the proposed 

Revised CSAPR Update, EPA based its assessment 

of the emission reductions achievable through 

operation and optimization of SCR controls on the 

average of the third-lowest ozone season average 

emission rates achieved by SCR-equipped units 

nationwide. For the CSAPR Update, EPA 

considered data for the period from 2009 through 

2015 and the resulting average emission rate was 

0.10 lb/mmBtu. For the proposed revised CSAPR 

Update, EPA considered data for the period from 

2009 through 2019 and the resulting average 

emission rate was 0.08 lb/mmBtu. See 85 FR at 

68990–91. 

24See New Jersey v. EPA, No. 1:20–cv–01425 

(S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2020). 

25As previously noted, for a typical range of heat 

rates for coal-fired units of 9,000 to 11,000 Btu/ 

kWh, an emission rate limit of 1.5 lb/MWh would 

be equivalent to emission rate limits in a range of 

0.136 to 0.167 lb/mmBtu. 

budgets for ozone season NOX emissions 

from EGUs in 22 states starting in 2017. 

The covered states include 

Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New 

Jersey. In Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 

303 (D.C. Cir 2019), the D.C. Circuit 

court upheld the CSAPR Update in most 

respects but remanded the rule to EPA 

for failing to fully address good 

neighbor obligations of the affected 

states with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

dates.22 On October 30, 2020, EPA 

published a proposal for a Revised 

CSAPR Update in response to the 

court’s remand that, based on new 

analysis, would establish reduced NOX

ozone season emission budgets for 12 

states including Pennsylvania. 85 FR 

68964. Under EPA’s proposal, if 

finalized, this rule would fully resolve 

the outstanding good neighbor 

obligations for Pennsylvania and the 

other eleven states for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. The rule does not, however, 

address the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As 

under the CSAPR Update, the proposed 

budgets are based on emission 

reductions achievable through full 

operation of existing SCR controls, 

upgrade of combustion controls where 

possible, and limited generation 

shifting. 

To develop the proposed emission 

budgets for the Revised CSAPR Update, 

EPA identified SCR-equipped units in 

the relevant upwind states whose 2019 

emission rate data suggested they were 

not optimizing their SCR controls to 

achieve an average emission rate of 0.08 

lb/mmBtu or less during the ozone 

season.23 EPA then projected the 

emission reductions that would be 

achieved if each of these units reduced 

its average emission rate to 0.08 lb/ 

mmBtu, while units already achieving 

lower emission rates continued to do so. 

This methodology resulted in projected 

emission reductions from Pennsylvania 

units (implemented through an ozone 

season cap) of over 3,100 tons through 

SCR optimization alone. The proposed 

2021 budget for Pennsylvania is 33% 

lower than the state’s 2019 ozone season 

emission levels. EPA has a courtordered deadline to take final action on 

the Revised CSAPR Update by March 

15, 2021.24

In focusing on emission reductions 

achievable through optimization of 

existing SCR controls, the Revised 

CSAPR Update bases its emission 

budgets for Pennsylvania to a 

considerable extent on the same units 

from which emission reductions are 

sought under the OTC’s section 184(c) 

recommendation. The two regulatory 

initiatives would employ different 

compliance mechanisms, with the 

OTC’s recommendation centered on 

unit-specific daily limits while the 

Revised CSAPR Update would employ a 

flexible trading program implemented 

through regionwide emission caps, and 

state emission budgets and assurance 

levels. The Revised CSAPR Update’s 

budgets would reflect a much more 

stringent target emission rate of 0.08 lb/ 

mmBtu (on an ozone season average 

basis) than the 0.125 lb/mmBtu and 1.5 

lb/MWh rates (on a daily basis) in the 

Delaware and New Jersey rules.25 EPA 

also notes that under the procedural 

requirements of section 184(c), it is 

likely that any emission reductions 

resulting from approval of the OTC’s 

recommendation could not be 

anticipated until the 2022 ozone season, 

given that EPA’s deadline for acting on 

the recommendation falls in March 2021 

and would be followed by a SIP call 

process. In contrast, EPA has proposed 

to implement the Revised CSAPR 

Update starting in the 2021 ozone 

season. 

In light of the substantial overlap in 

the Pennsylvania sources that would be 

affected by the Revised CSAPR Update 

and by the OTC’s section 184(c) 

recommendation, and recognizing the 

differences in the proposed structure, 

stringency, and implementation timing 

of the two initiatives, EPA requests 

comment on whether and how the 

potential finalization and 

implementation of the Revised CSAPR 

Update bears on the question of whether 

the additional control measures sought 

in the OTC’s section 184(c) 

recommendation are necessary to 

achieve attainment of the 2008 or 2015 

ozone NAAQS in the OTR. 

B. Pending Revisions to Pennsylvania 

NOX RACT Requirements 

Under CAA sections 184(b) and 

182(f)(1), all states in the OTR must 

implement NOX RACT on a statewide 

basis for sources meeting certain 

criteria, generally including coal-fired 

EGUs. In addition, each OTR state 

generally must update its RACT 

determinations for each revised ozone 

NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1116 and 

51.1316. Pennsylvania most recently 

updated its NOX RACT requirements for 

coal-fired EGUs in 2016 to address the 

2008 ozone NAAQS (Pennsylvania calls 

these requirements ‘‘RACT II’’). The 

requirements, which first became 

effective in January 2017, are codified at 

25 Pa. Code §§ 129.96–129.100: 

Additional RACT Requirements for 

Major Sources of NOX and VOC. Section 

129.97 sets ‘‘presumptive’’ RACT 

requirements for certain categories of 

sources, including coal-fired 

combustion units with SCR controls 

(129.97(g)(1)(viii)) and coal-fired 

combustion units with SNCR controls 

(129.97(g)(1)(ix)). Section 

129.97(g)(1)(viii) requires that existing 

SCR-equipped coal-fired EGUs not 

exceed a NOX emission rate limit of 0.12 

lb/mmBtu when operating with an SCR 

inlet temperature greater than or equal 

to 600 degrees Fahrenheit. Section 

129.97(g)(1)(ix) requires that coal-fired 

combustion units with SNCR controls 

must operate their SNCR controls when 

operating with a temperature in the 

reagent injection area greater than or 

equal to 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit but 

does not set a NOX limit. Section 

129.97(g)(1)(vi) establishes additional 

NOX emission rate limits that apply to 

coal-fired combustion units with rated 

heat input capacities greater than 250 

million Btu per hour but operating at 

lower temperatures without regard to 

their installed control equipment: 0.16 

lb/mmBtu for fluidized bed units, 0.35 

lb/mmBtu for tangentially fired units, 

and 0.40 lb/mmBtu for all other types of 

units. Under section 129.100(a)(1), 

compliance with all of these limits must 

be demonstrated on a 30-day rolling 

average basis. Section 129.98 allows the 

emission rate limits to be met through 

averaging with other units subject to 

Pennsylvania’s RACT requirements 

(including non-coal-fired units) under 

the control of the same owner or 

operator. EPA conditionally approved 

Pennsylvania’s rules as satisfying NOX

RACT requirements in a revision to 

Pennsylvania’s SIP, but the limits in 

section 129.97(g)(1)(viii) and (ix) were 

fully approved. 84 FR 20274 (May 8, 

2019). However, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Third Circuit 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 4065 

26The Court also found that the recordkeeping 

and reporting requirement in section 129.100(d)(1) 

was inadequate to ensure that the 0.12 lb/mmBtu 

limit was being met because it did not specifically 

require that the inlet temperature to the SCR be 

recorded and reported. Sierra Club v. EPA, 972 F.3d 

290, 307–309 (3d Cir. 2020). 27See Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, ‘‘Draft Proposed RACT 

III Rulemaking’’ (Feb. 13, 2020) at 15–21, available 

in the docket for this action and at http://

files.dep.state.pa.us/Air/AirQuality/AQPortalFiles/ 

Advisory%20Committees/Air%20Quality%20

Technical%20Advisory%20Committee/2020/2-13- 

20/RACT%20III%20Requirements%20AQTAC%20

Presentation%202-13-2020.pdf. 

28On December 5, 2019, EPA published findings 

that Pennsylvania and several other states had 

failed to submit SIP revisions to address their good 

neighbor obligations with respect to the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. 84 FR 66612. 

subsequently vacated and remanded the 

portion of EPA’s approval concerning 

the 0.12 lb/mmBtu limit for coal-fired 

EGUs with SCR controls, and the 600 

degree temperature exemption for that 

limit, both of which are found in section 

129.97(g)(1)(viii). The court held that 

the approval of this specific provision 

was not supported by adequate facts or 

reasoning in the record. Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 972 F.3d 290, 299–307 (3d Cir. 

2020).26 EPA has not yet proposed any 

action in response to the remand, nor 

has Pennsylvania proposed or adopted 

updates to its RACT II rules. 

In 2019, Pennsylvania started the 

process of updating its RACT 

requirements for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS (referred to as ‘‘RACT III’’) by 

discussing potential concepts for a rule 

at its Air Quality Technical Advisory 

Committee meetings. For EGUs, the 

draft rule would require SCR-equipped 

and SNCR-equipped units to optimize 

the use of their controls consistent with 

technological limitations, manufacturer 

specifications, good engineering and 

maintenance practices, and good air 

pollution control practices. The rule 

would continue to differentiate the 

applicable emission rate limits based on 

specified temperature thresholds and 

generally would not change the levels of 

the emission rate limits for SCRequipped coal-fired EGUs established in 

the RACT II rule, but would require 

compliance to be demonstrated on a 

daily average basis instead of a 30-day 

rolling average basis. In addition, a new 

emission rate limit of 0.10 lb/mmBtu on 

a 30-day rolling average basis would be 

established for SCR-equipped coal-fired 

units when operating with an SCR inlet 

temperature greater than or equal to 600 

degrees Fahrenheit. Compliance 

generally could still be demonstrated by 

averaging across units under the control 

of the same owner or operator. The new 

rules would generally be implemented 

by January 1, 2023.27 The OTC 

recognizes Pennsylvania’s efforts to 

update its RACT requirements and has 

indicated its intention to withdraw the 

CAA section 184(c) recommendation if 

Pennsylvania adopts a rule addressing 

the recommendation. EPA notes that the 

draft RACT III rule described above was 

prepared before the court remand of 

EPA’s approval of the state’s RACT II 

rule. 

EPA requests comment on whether 

and how Pennsylvania’s RACT III 

rulemaking, as well as the remand of 

EPA’s approval of Pennsylvania’s RACT 

II SIP submittal, may bear on EPA’s 

decision to approve, disapprove, or 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove the OTC’s section 184(c) 

recommendation, including but not 

limited to the following questions: 

• If EPA approved the OTC’s section 

184(c) recommendation and, in 

response to the resulting SIP call, 

Pennsylvania submitted a rule along the 

lines of the draft RACT III rule 

discussed above, could EPA approve the 

draft rule as meeting the OTC’s 

recommendation? That is, could EPA 

determine that the draft rule is as 

stringent as the Delaware, Maryland, or 

New Jersey rules included in the OTC’s 

recommendation? If the rule would not 

be approvable, how would Pennsylvania 

need to modify the draft rule to make it 

meet the OTC’s recommendation? 

• Is it appropriate for EPA to evaluate 

the necessity of additional measures for 

bringing areas in the OTR into 

attainment prior to the establishment of 

OTR RACT for VOC and NOX under 

CAA section 184(b) (and, for NOX, the 

extension provision of CAA section 

182(f)(1))? Given that section 184(c) and 

section 184(b) establish independent 

requirements, is it appropriate for EPA 

to conclude that a specific set of 

recommended additional measures may 

be necessary under section 184(c) and 

mandate their implementation without 

having first given Pennsylvania an 

opportunity to adopt a potentially 

different set of measures as RACT for 

purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS that 

could render some or all of the 

recommended additional measures 

unnecessary as related to that NAAQS? 

C. Other Pending Regulatory Activities 

In addition to the proposed Revised 

CSAPR Update and Pennsylvania’s 

efforts to update RACT requirements, it 

is possible that activities being 

undertaken to meet other CAA 

requirements could result in 

requirements for coal-fired EGUs in 

Pennsylvania to reduce NOX emissions. 

For example, promulgation of the 2015 

ozone NAAQS triggered a requirement, 

which has not yet been met, for 

Pennsylvania to revise its SIP to address 

the state’s obligations under the good 

neighbor provision for this NAAQS.28

Also, on March 12, 2018, New York 

submitted a petition to EPA under CAA 

section 126(b) seeking a finding that 

approximately 350 sources in nine 

states, including all of the Pennsylvania 

EGU facilities potentially affected under 

the OTC’s section 184(c) 

recommendation, emit or would emit 

NOX in violation of the good neighbor 

provision with respect to the 2008 and 

2015 ozone NAAQS. Although EPA 

denied that petition, 84 FR 56058 (Oct. 

18, 2019), the D.C. Circuit subsequently 

vacated the denial and remanded for 

EPA to promulgate a revised response, 

New York v. EPA, 964 F.3d 1214, 1226 

(D.C. Cir. 2020). 

EPA requests comment on whether 

and how regulatory activities besides 

the proposed Revised CSAPR Update 

and Pennsylvania’s efforts to update 

RACT requirements, including but not 

limited to activities addressing the 

requirements noted above, may bear on 

EPA’s decision to approve, disapprove, 

or partially approve and partially 

disapprove the OTC’s section 184(c) 

recommendation. 

Dated: December 15, 2020. 

Anne L. Austin, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator. 

Appendix: OTC Recommendation 

OTC Recommendation for Establishing Daily 

Limits for Coal-Fired EGUs in Pennsylvania 

To Ensure That Existing Control 

Technologies are Optimized To Minimize 

Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Each Day of the 

Summer Ozone Season 

The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 

recommends that the U.S. EPA require 

Pennsylvania to revise the Pennsylvania 

State Implementation Plan to include 

additional control measures which would 

establish daily nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

emission limits for all coal-fired EGUs with 

already installed Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR) or Selective Non Catalytic 

Reduction (SNCR) control technology to 

ensure that these technologies are optimized 

to minimize NOX emissions each day of the 

ozone season. 

These requirements must be as stringent as 

any one of the rules attached. These rules all 

establish daily limits designed to optimize 

the use of SCR and SNCR control 

technologies to minimize NOX emissions 

each day of the ozone season. Daily NOX

limits for coal-fired EGUs have been adopted 

by Delaware, New Jersey and Maryland, three 

of the states adjacent to and directly 

downwind of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania 

contributes significantly to four downwind 

nonattainment areas in the OTC including 

Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and 

4066 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 

New York City. During the summer of 2018, 

NOX emissions from coal-fired EGUs in 

Pennsylvania equipped with SCR and SNCR 

were more than four times greater than the 

NOX emissions from coal-fired EGUs in 

Delaware, New Jersey and Maryland 

combined. 

Pennsylvania has not yet adopted daily 

NOX limits for coal-fired EGUs. Therefore, 

the OTC is recommending that EPA require 

Pennsylvania to adopt and implement daily 

NOX limits as expeditiously as practicable. It 

is our hope that the three options embodied 

in the Delaware, New Jersey and Maryland 

regulations will provide Pennsylvania with 

the flexibility to implement daily NOX limits 

in a time frame to help downwind OTC states 

attain the 2015 ozone standard by the dates 

required in the Clean Air Act. 

Because this recommendation does not 

involve the purchase or installation of new 

control technologies, the OTC urges EPA to 

require that Pennsylvania implement these 

requirements in time to reduce ozone levels 

during the summers of 2020 and 2021. All of 

the marginal nonattainment areas in the 

Ozone Transport Region (OTR) are on a path 

to not attain the 2015 ozone standard by 

2021, the mandated attainment date for 

marginal nonattainment areas, if additional 

NOX reductions are not achieved. 

Attachments [not shown]: 

1. Delaware Administrative Code, Title 7 

Natural Resources & Environmental 

Control, 1100 Air Quality Management 

Section, 1146 ‘‘Electric Generating Unit 

(EGU) Multi-Pollutant Regulation’’ 

(pages 1–9). 

2. New Jersey State Department of 

Environmental Protection, New Jersey 

Administrative Code, Title 7, Chapter 27, 

Subchapter 19, ‘‘Control and Prohibition 

of Air Pollution from Oxides of 

Nitrogen’’ (pages 1 & 27–29). 

3. Maryland—Code of Maryland Regulations 

(COMAR), Title 26 Department of the 

Environment, Subtitle 11 Air Quality, 

Chapter 38, ‘‘Control of NOX Emissions 

from Coal-Fired Electric Generating 

Units’’ (pages 1–6). 

[FR Doc. 2021–00864 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OEI–2011–0096; FRL–10018–48– 

OMS] 

Proposed Information Collection 

Request; Comment Request; CrossMedia Electronic Reporting Rule 

(Renewal) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an 

Information Collection Request (ICR), 

‘‘Cross-Media Electronic Reporting 

Rule’’ (EPA ICR No. 2002.08, OMB 

Control No. 2025–0003) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before 

doing so, EPA is soliciting public 

comments on specific aspects of the 

proposed information collection as 

described below. This is a proposed 

extension of the ICR, which is currently 

approved through August 31, 2021. An 

Agency may not conduct or sponsor and 

a person is not required to respond to 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before March 16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OEI–2011–0096, online using 

www.regulations.gov (our preferred 

method), by email to oei.docket@

epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket 

Center, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes profanity, threats, 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shirley Miller or Dipti Singh, 

Information Exchange Services Division, 

Office of Information Management, 

Office of Mission Support (2823T), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460; telephone number: 202–566– 

2908 or 202–566–0739 respectively; 

email address: miller.shirley@epa.gov or 

singh.dipti@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Supporting documents which explain in 

detail the information that the EPA will 

be collecting are available in the public 

docket for this ICR. The docket can be 

viewed online at www.regulations.gov 

or in person at the EPA Docket Center, 

WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. 

The telephone number for the Docket 

Center is 202–566–1744. For additional 

information about EPA’s public docket, 

visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of 

the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments 

and information to enable it to: (i) 

Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (ii) evaluate the 

accuracy of the Agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (iv) minimize the burden 

of the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including through 

the use of appropriate automated 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. EPA will consider the 

comments received and amend the ICR 

as appropriate. The final ICR package 

will then be submitted to OMB for 

review and approval. At that time, EPA 

will issue another Federal Register 

notice to announce the submission of 

the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to 

submit additional comments to OMB. 

Abstract: The scope of this ICR is the 

electronic reporting components of the 

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule 

(CROMERR), which is designed to: (i) 

allow EPA to comply with the 

Government Paperwork Elimination Act 

of 1998; (ii) provide a uniform, 

technology-neutral framework for 

electronic reporting across all EPA 

programs; (iii) allow EPA programs to 

offer electronic reporting as they 

become ready for CROMERR; and (iv) 

provide states with a streamlined 

process—together with a uniform set of 

standards—for approval of their 

electronic reporting provisions for all 

their EPA-authorized programs. 

Responses to the collection of 

information are voluntary. In order to 

accommodate CBI, the information 

collected must be in accordance with 

the confidentiality regulations set forth 

in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

Additionally, EPA will ensure that the 

information collection procedures 

comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 

and the OMB Circular 108. 

Form Numbers: None. 

Respondents/affected entities: Entities 

that report electronically to EPA and 

state or local government authorized 

programs; and state and local 

government authorized programs 

implementing electronic reporting. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Voluntary, required to obtain or retain a 

benefit (CROMERR was established to 

ensure compliance with the 

Government Paperwork Elimination Act 

(GPEA)). 

Estimated number of respondents: 

About 119,800 (total). 

Frequency of response: On occasion. 

Total estimated burden: About 77,000 

hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.03(b).