24340 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 83 / Wednesday, April 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1CAIR required certain states, including 

Pennsylvania, to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX

that significantly contribute to downwind 

nonattainment of the 1997 NAAQS for ozone and 

PM2.5. 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 

2EPA promulgated CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 

8, 2011) as a replacement to CAIR in response to 

the United States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit’s decision in North Carolina v. 

EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: March 20, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.2570 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(131) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(131) On February 24, 2014, the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources submitted revisions to its 

nitrogen oxide (NOX) combustion 

turbine rule for the Milwaukee-Racine 

former nonattainment area. This 

revision is contained in ‘‘2013 

Wisconsin Act 91—Senate Bill 371’’ 

which allows alternative NOX emission 

requirements for simple cycle 

combustion turbines, that undergo a 

modification on or after February 1, 

2001, if dry low NOX combustion is not 

technically or economically feasible. 

This revision is approvable because it 

provides for alternative NOX

requirements subject to EPA approval 

on a case-by-case basis and therefore 

satisfies the reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (Act). 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

Wisconsin statute, Section 285.27 (3m), 

Exemption from Standards for Certain 

Combustion Turbines, as revised by 

2013 Wisconsin Act 91 enacted 

December 13, 2013. (A copy of 2013 

Wisconsin Act 91 is attached to Section 

285.27(3m) to verify the enactment 

date.) 

[FR Doc. 2014–09724 Filed 4–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002; FRL–9910–06– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is reissuing its final 

limited approval of the Pennsylvania 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 

implement the regional haze program 

for the first planning period through 

2018. EPA originally finalized a limited 

approval of the Pennsylvania regional 

haze SIP on July 13, 2012. In response 

to a petition for review of that final 

action in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Third Circuit, EPA 

successfully moved for a voluntary 

remand, without vacatur, to more 

adequately respond to certain public 

comments. EPA is providing new 

responses to those comments in this 

rulemaking notice. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 30, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the Commonwealth’s 

submittal are available at the 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air 

Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 

Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 

17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Asrah Khadr, U.S. EPA, Region 3, (215) 

814–2071, or by email at khadr.asrah@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Summary of Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On January 26, 2012, EPA proposed a 

limited approval of the Pennsylvania 

regional haze SIP as meeting most of the 

applicable requirements of sections 

169A and 169B of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.308–309 

(Regional Haze Rule) and 40 CFR 51, 

appendix Y (BART Guidelines). 77 FR 

3984. In that same action, EPA proposed 

to approve the Pennsylvania regional 

haze SIP as meeting the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA relating to visibility protection for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. EPA received 

several adverse comments on its 

proposed limited approval, including 

comments from Earthjustice on behalf of 

Sierra Club, the National Parks 

Conservation Association, and the Clean 

Air Council. 

In a separate but related action, EPA 

had previously proposed a limited 

disapproval of the Pennsylvania 

regional haze SIP for relying on the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 1 to 

satisfy the best available retrofit 

technology (BART) requirement for 

emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) from 

Pennsylvania’s BART-eligible electric 

generating units (EGUs). 76 FR 82219. In 

that same action, EPA proposed a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that 

replaced Pennsylvania’s reliance on 

CAIR with reliance on the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 83 / Wednesday, April 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24341 

3See Motion at 11 n.6. 

On June 7, 2012, EPA finalized the 

limited disapproval of the Pennsylvania 

regional haze SIP for relying on CAIR 

and the FIP relying on CSAPR. 77 FR 

33642. On July 13, 2012, EPA finalized 

the limited approval of the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP and 

approved the Pennsylvania regional 

haze SIP as meeting the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

relating to visibility protection for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 77 FR 

41279. 

Following these actions, the DC 

Circuit issued a decision in EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 

7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 U.S. 

2,857 (2013), vacating CSAPR and 

keeping CAIR in place pending EPA’s 

promulgation of a valid replacement 

rule for CSAPR. EPA believes that the 

United States Supreme Court’s decision 

in EME Homer City will impact the 

reasoning that formed the basis for 

EPA’s limited disapproval of the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP and 

expects to propose an appropriate action 

regarding the limited disapproval upon 

final resolution of that case. 

On September 11, 2012, the 

aforementioned public interest groups 

filed a petition for review of EPA’s final 

limited approval of the Pennsylvania 

regional haze SIP in the Third Circuit. 

See Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n, et 

al. v. EPA, No. 12–3534 (3d Cir. Sept. 

11, 2012). In response to the petition, 

EPA moved the court for a voluntary 

remand of the final limited approval, 

without vacatur, so that EPA could 

provide a more detailed and complete 

response to some of the petitioners’ 

adverse comments. See Motion for 

Voluntary Remand at 3, Nat’l Parks 

Conservation Ass’n, et al. v. EPA, No. 

12–3534 (3d Cir. Sept. 27, 2013). On 

October 22, 2013, the court granted 

EPA’s motion for a voluntary remand 

without vacatur. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA received several comments on 

our January 6, 2012 proposed limited 

approval of the Pennsylvania regional 

haze SIP. Commenters included the U.S. 

Forest Service, the National Park 

Service, the State of New Jersey 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, GenOn Energy, Inc., a 

private citizen, and Earthjustice (on 

behalf of Sierra Club, the National Parks 

Conservation Association, and the Clean 

Air Council). As EPA explained in the 

motion for voluntary remand, EPA does 

not intend to readdress Earthjustice’s 

comments relating to CAIR/CSAPR 

issues.3 Consistent with this 

representation, EPA does not readdress 

these comments in this rulemaking 

notice. In addition to comments from 

Earthjustice, we are also responding to 

significant comments from the National 

Park Service and the State of New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

in this rulemaking notice. EPA believes 

that the previous responses to all other 

significant comments were adequate. 

Please refer to the July 13, 2012 Federal 

Register rulemaking notice for these 

comment summaries and responses. 77 

FR 41279. 

BART Determinations for EGUs and 

Non-EGUs 

Comment: One commenter raised a 

number of concerns with Pennsylvania’s 

BART determinations for both EGUs 

and non-EGUs. Some of these concerns 

focused on the overall level of detail, 

structure, analysis, and supporting 

documentation that Pennsylvania 

provided in its BART analyses, while 

other concerns targeted specific 

technical deficiencies in Pennsylvania’s 

cost-effectiveness estimates and 

visibility modeling. For EGUs, the 

commenter criticized Pennsylvania for 

rejecting fabric filter baghouses, which 

are generally considered to be the most 

stringent control technology available 

for particulate matter (PM) emissions. 

The commenter went into considerable 

detail pointing out various shortcomings 

and errors in Pennsylvania’s PM BART 

analyses that allegedly resulted in 

grossly inflated costs and 

underestimated visibility benefits for 

baghouses. In regards to Pennsylvania’s 

cost calculations, the commenter alleged 

that: (1) Baseline emission estimates 

were unrealistic and unsupported; (2) 

supporting data for the cost calculations 

was not available for public review and 

comment; (3) lack of data made it 

impossible to know whether the 

overnight cost method was followed as 

required by the Cost Control Manual 

and BART Guidelines; (4) remaining 

useful lives of the sources were 

unsupported; and (5) control 

efficiencies for the control options 

analyzed were arbitrarily low and 

unsupported. To account for these 

deficiencies, the commenter hired a 

contractor to recalculate the costeffectiveness of fabric filter baghouses 

for two of the EGUs—Homer City Unit 

2 and Hatfield’s Ferry Unit 2. The 

commenter found that the installation of 

baghouses at these units would be costeffective at $2,245 per ton and $2,745 

per ton, respectively. 

This commenter also alleged that 

Pennsylvania’s source-specific BART 

determinations contained ‘‘systemic 

deficiencies.’’ These deficiencies 

include: (1) Missing source-specific 

design information, such as megawatt 

rating of boilers and exhaust gas flow 

rates and composition, which prevented 

accurate costing; (2) improper use of the 

dollars per deciview ($/dv) metric as a 

cutpoint in making BART 

determinations, contrary to EPA 

guidance and EPA’s statements in other 

regional haze actions; (3) lack of clear 

cost and visibility thresholds for 

determining when controls will be 

required or rejected; (4) failure to 

consider cumulative visibility impacts 

at all five Class I areas impacted by 

Pennsylvania sources; and (5) failure to 

follow the five-step BART process as 

outlined in the BART Guidelines, 

including the omission of available 

control options in Step 1, a lack of 

feasibility demonstrations in Step 2, a 

lack of control-effectiveness ranking in 

Step 3, and a summary dismissal of 

energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts in Step 4. 

Another commenter took issue with 

Pennsylvania’s cost analyses for several 

non-EGUs, including cement kilns and 

a pulp and paper mill. This commenter 

explained that selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR) has become the norm 

for controlling NOX emissions from 

cement kilns year-round, and that EPA 

should require a minimum of 35 percent 

NOX reduction on a 30-day rolling basis 

at all kilns. This commenter also 

disagreed with Pennsylvania’s cost 

analysis for the P.H. Glatfelter Company 

(Glatfelter) pulp and paper mill. The 

commenter argued that Pennsylvania 

overestimated the costs of wet scrubbers 

by deviating from the Control Cost 

Manual in several ways. As a result of 

these deviations, the commenter found 

that the cost-effectiveness of wet 

scrubbers was only $1,204 per ton 

instead of the $1,667 per ton estimated 

by Pennsylvania. In light of this lower 

cost and the visibility benefits of 

controls, the commenter concluded that 

EPA should disapprove Pennsylvania’s 

BART determination for Glatfelter and 

require a 90 percent efficient wet 

scrubber. 

Finally, multiple commenters raised 

concerns with Pennsylvania’s 

consideration of the visibility factor for 

multiple BART-eligible sources. These 

commenters argued that Pennsylvania 

failed to consider the cumulative 

visibility impact at multiple Class I 

areas when evaluating potential control 

alternatives and disputed 

Pennsylvania’s decision that such an 

analysis was unwarranted. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

24342 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 83 / Wednesday, April 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

4As Pennsylvania relied on CAIR to meet the 

BART requirements for SO2 and NOX, Pennsylvania 

was only required to determine whether its BARTeligible EGUs should be required to install BART 

controls for direct emissions of PM. 

commenters also criticized 

Pennsylvania’s reliance on the $/dv 

metric, alleging that the use of such a 

metric would not be meaningful if it did 

not take into account the visibility 

improvement at multiple Class I areas. 

In addition, the commenters argued that 

Pennsylvania should have established 

an objective criteria for determining the 

acceptability of a given control 

technology’s visibility improvement. 

Response: In its regional haze SIP, 

Pennsylvania identified 34 BARTeligible sources. Consistent with the 

Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union 

(MANE–VU) protocol, Pennsylvania did 

not limit its BART analyses to those 

sources that it first determined ‘‘might 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to’’ visibility impairment in a 

Class I area based on air quality 

modeling. See section 169(b)(2)(A). 

Rather, Pennsylvania considered the 

appropriateness of BART controls at 

each BART-eligible source in 

Pennsylvania.4 EPA notes that in most 

other states, BART reviews were 

undertaken only for those BART-eligible 

sources shown to have a greater than 0.5 

deciview (dv) impact on a Class I area, 

the maximum threshold for this 

screening analysis. Of Pennsylvania’s 34 

BART-eligible sources, the regional haze 

SIP indicates that 26 had visibility 

impacts of less than 0.5 dv on any Class 

I area. EPA notes that in most states, the 

consideration of controls would have 

ended at this point in the analysis. 

Pennsylvania, however, considered 

whether additional controls would be 

appropriate for all 26 of these BARTeligible sources, regardless of whether 

or not the source by itself ‘‘cause[s] or 

contribute[s]’’ to visibility impairment. 

Based on EPA’s assessment of the 

information in Pennsylvania’s BART 

analyses, EPA has concluded that many 

of the comments criticizing 

Pennsylvania’s BART determinations 

are correct. Because of its approach to 

BART, Pennsylvania considered the 

appropriateness of BART controls at a 

large number of sources. But for almost 

all of these sources, the Pennsylvania 

regional haze SIP contains very limited 

information describing Pennsylvania’s 

analyses and consideration of the BART 

factors. Pennsylvania considered 

various control strategies and developed 

estimates of the costs of controls, but the 

cursory information available in the 

record does not allow for an assessment 

of how these numbers were derived or 

whether Pennsylvania’s analyses were 

reasonably done. Similarly, it is difficult 

to assess the estimates of the 

improvements in visibility associated 

with various controls given the limited 

information in the SIP as to the 

assumptions relied on in the modeling 

and the summary nature of the results 

provided. EPA also agrees with the 

commenters that, in considering the 

visibility improvement expected from 

the use of controls, Pennsylvania should 

have taken into account the visibility 

impacts at all impacted Class I areas 

rather than focusing solely on the 

benefits at the most impacted area. 

Similarly, EPA agrees with the 

commenters that Pennsylvania’s 

reliance on the $/dv metric was flawed 

for multiple reasons. 

Although Pennsylvania should have 

provided a more thorough and detailed 

analysis of costs and visibility impacts 

in its regional haze SIP, the information 

that Pennsylvania did provide has led 

EPA to conclude that Pennsylvania’s 

ultimate BART determinations were 

nevertheless reasonable. First, based on 

the cost estimates for other BART 

sources in other states, EPA has 

concluded that Pennsylvania’s cost 

numbers appear to be generally 

consistent for such controls, at least for 

purposes of screening type analyses. 

Where Pennsylvania estimated the costs 

of controls to be in the tens of thousands 

or hundreds of thousands of dollars per 

ton of pollutant removed, 

Pennsylvania’s conclusions that such 

controls are not cost-effective seem 

reasonable, even assuming that the true 

cost of controls are likely less than what 

Pennsylvania estimated. EPA agrees 

with the commenters, however, that 

many of the controls under 

consideration were likely cost-effective 

measures. Unfortunately, where controls 

were estimated to be more cost-effective, 

EPA cannot assess the extent to which 

Pennsylvania’s analyses are reasonable 

estimates for purposes of making a 

BART determination. When the other 

key BART factor—visibility—is taken 

into account, however, an overall 

picture emerges that supports 

Pennsylvania’s BART determinations. 

As noted earlier, Pennsylvania 

reviewed each of its BART-eligible 

sources regardless of whether they cause 

or contribute to visibility impairment 

under the test in the BART Guidelines. 

Given the magnitude of the sourcespecific impacts of these 26 BARTeligible sources, it is not surprising that 

Pennsylvania concluded that additional 

controls were not warranted. The 

visibility benefits of controls for this 

large subset of Pennsylvania’s BARTeligible sources were generally 

estimated to be only in the hundredths 

of a deciview. For example, 

Pennsylvania estimated that SO2

controls at the two kilns at Lafarge 

Corporation’s Whitehall Plant would 

result in 0.044 and 0.035 dv of 

improvement at Brigantine National 

Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey, the most 

impacted Class I area. No State has 

required BART controls where the 

benefits of control were in this range, 

and EPA does not consider 

Pennsylvania’s control determinations 

to be unreasonable given these visibility 

numbers. Taking into account the 

visibility impacts at multiple Class I 

areas would not have affected the 

reasonableness of Pennsylvania’s 

conclusion that the benefit of controls 

would have little or no impact on 

improving visibility given the 

magnitude of the visibility results 

shown at the most impacted area. 

Of the 26 facilities with visibility 

impacts less than 0.5 dv at any Class I 

area, the only source where the BART 

factors suggest that Pennsylvania 

reasonably could have come to a 

different conclusion is the Glatfelter 

pulp and paper production facility. 

Unlike the other 26 sources, where 

either the costs of control were 

unreasonable or the visibility benefits 

minimal, or both, Pennsylvania 

estimated the costs of SO2 controls at 

Glatfelter to fall within a range that is 

generally considered highly costeffective. Further, these controls would 

result in 0.219 dv of improvement at 

Shenandoah National Park, the most 

impacted Class I area. In its comments, 

the National Park Service argued that 

Pennsylvania had overestimated the 

costs of SO2 controls, but regardless of 

whether the costs were $1,667 per ton, 

as estimated by Pennsylvania, or $1,204 

per ton, as estimated by the National 

Park Service, the costs of installing a 

venturi scrubber (the SO2 controls under 

consideration) falls within a range that 

is generally considered very reasonable. 

The National Park Service also provided 

additional information regarding the 

visibility improvements to be expected 

at Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge 

(0.218 dv) and noted that Dolly Sods 

and Otter Creek Wilderness Areas had 

visibility impacts ‘‘about half’’ those at 

Shenandoah and Brigantine. EPA notes, 

however, that if Pennsylvania had 

chosen to screen out sources with 

impacts of less than 0.5 dv, it would not 

have been required to undertake a BART 

analysis for this source at all. For this 

reason, EPA is not disapproving 

Pennsylvania’s conclusion that BART 

controls should not be required at this 

source. 

Of the remaining eight BART-eligible 

sources, there is no information in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 83 / Wednesday, April 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24343 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP 

regarding the sources’ baseline visibility 

impacts for four of the sources— 

Allegheny Energy Supply’s Mitchell 

Power Station, PPL Generation LLC’s 

Brunner Island, Sunoco Chemicals’ 

Frankford Plant, and Sunoco, Inc.’s 

petroleum refining facility. 

Pennsylvania did consider the visibility 

benefits associated with the installation 

of controls at these facilities, however, 

and determined that on balance, the 

costs of controls were not justified by 

the expected minimal visibility impacts. 

At these four facilities, the greatest 

improvement in visibility was estimated 

to be 0.076 dv from the installation of 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) at the 

Frankford Plant (at $40,495 per ton). As 

the visibility benefits of controls were in 

the hundredths or thousandths of a 

deciview, EPA does not consider 

Pennsylvania’s BART determinations to 

be unreasonable for these four sources, 

for the same reasons as explained 

earlier. 

The remaining four BART-eligible 

sources were each estimated to have 

visibility impacts above 0.5 dv at a Class 

I area. These facilities are Lehigh 

Cement’s Evansville Cement Plant 

(Lehigh/Evansville), PPL Generation 

LLC’s Martins Creek Generating Station 

(Martins Creek), ConocoPhillips’ Trainer 

Refinery, and Sunoco’s Marcus Hook 

Refinery. Sunoco’s Marcus Hook 

Refinery has shut down, however, and 

has surrendered its Title V operating 

permit. Therefore, the question of 

appropriate BART controls for this 

source is now moot. 

Pennsylvania’s regional haze SIP 

indicates that both Lehigh/Evansville 

and Martins Creek are each estimated to 

have impacts of just over 0.6 dv at a 

Class I area. For Lehigh/Evansville, 

Pennsylvania found that NOX emissions 

from Kilns 1 and 2 are responsible for 

the preponderance of the visibility 

impacts, and considered both the costs 

and visibility benefits of a range of NOX

and SO2 controls. While certain of the 

controls under consideration were costeffective, the visibility benefits were 

between 0.005 and 0.040 dv. Although 

Pennsylvania considered only the most 

impacted Class I area, taking into 

account the visibility impacts at 

multiple Class I areas would not have 

changed Pennsylvania’s conclusion that 

no additional controls were justified 

given the magnitude of impacts at the 

most impacted area. For Martins Creek, 

an EGU, Pennsylvania considered only 

PM controls in light of the fact that it 

is relying on CAIR as an alternative to 

BART for SO2 and NOX. Its cost analysis 

indicated that emission controls for PM 

were over $100,000 per ton, while 

visibility benefits ranged from 0.037 dv 

at Brigantine to 0.022 dv at Lye Brook. 

Consequently, EPA believes that 

Pennsylvania’s conclusion that BART 

was no additional control was 

reasonable for this source as well. 

The last of the remaining BARTeligible sources is ConocoPhillips’ 

Trainer Refinery, which was found to 

have a 1.104 dv impact at Brigantine. 

This impact was due largely to 

emissions from two units, a CO boiler 

(CO1) and a platformer feed heater (Unit 

738). Pennsylvania noted that CO1 is 

subject to a Federal consent decree that 

requires the installation of a wet 

scrubber and enhanced SNCR to address 

SO2 and NOX emissions, respectively. 

Pennsylvania also noted that the unit’s 

PM emissions are subject to a new 

source performance standard (NSPS) 

PM limit of 0.5 pounds per 1000 pounds 

of coke burned. Pennsylvania concluded 

that no additional retrofit controls were 

feasible for this unit. EPA disagrees with 

this conclusion. Notably, EPA believes 

that SCR is likely a feasible control 

option for NOX emissions and should 

have been analyzed. Nevertheless, it is 

highly unlikely that Pennsylvania 

would have found SCR to be costeffective given that SNCR has already 

been installed on CO1. Therefore, while 

Pennsylvania should have performed an 

analysis of SCR, EPA cannot conclude 

that Pennsylvania’s determination that 

no further controls are warranted, was 

unreasonable. For Unit 738, 

Pennsylvania considered several 

possible SO2, NOX, and PM control 

options. Although Pennsylvania did not 

provide an adequate explanation as to 

why certain of the SO2 and PM controls 

were not feasible or provide supporting 

information for its cost analyses, EPA 

notes that the visibility impacts from 

Unit 738 for these two pollutants were 

estimated to be 0.000 dv and 0.001 dv 

respectively at the most impacted Class 

I area. Given this, EPA cannot conclude 

that Pennsylvania was unreasonable in 

finding that no further SO2 or PM 

controls were needed for this unit. The 

visibility impacts from Unit 738 for NOX

were estimated to be 0.159 dv. 

Pennsylvania determined that the most 

effective control, SCR in combination 

with ultra low-NOX burners, would cost 

over $70,000 per ton of NOX removed. 

The less costly but less effective use of 

ultra low NOX burners alone was 

estimated to cost of $16,042 per ton, 

with a visibility benefit of 0.025 dv. 

Even assuming that the cost of the 

burners was significantly less, EPA 

again does not disagree with 

Pennsylvania’s conclusion that these 

controls are unwarranted for BART. 

EPA has closely reviewed 

Pennsylvania’s BART determinations 

and concluded that Pennsylvania’s 

ultimate conclusions were not 

unreasonable, largely based on the 

expected minimal impacts on visibility, 

but also taking into account the very 

high costs of some controls. In other 

cases, changes in operating status or the 

existence of enforceable provisions 

requiring the installation of stringent 

new controls have convinced EPA that 

disapproving Pennsylvania’s regional 

haze SIP would result in no meaningful 

changes to Pennsylvania’s ultimate 

control determinations. As a result, 

notwithstanding the large number of 

errors in Pennsylvania’s BART 

determinations, EPA is re-finalizing the 

limited approval of the 

Commonwealth’s regional haze SIP. 

PM BART Emission Limits for EGUs 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that Pennsylvania improperly set the 

PM BART emission limits at every EGU 

source at 0.1 pound per million British 

thermal units (lb/MMBtu). The 

commenter explained that 0.1 lb/

MMBtu, the emission limit currently 

included in all of the EGUs’ operating 

permits, is based on 40-year old 

technology that does not satisfy the 

minimum statutory requirements of 

BART. The commenter argued that 0.1 

lb/MMBtu is substantially higher than 

limits accepted as BART elsewhere, as 

well as limits established as best 

available control technology (BACT). 

The commenter asserted that BACT 

limits are relevant for BART purposes 

because BACT is also derived by a fivestep process and must demonstrate 

achievable emission reductions. The 

commenter criticized Pennsylvania for 

not considering BACT technologies and 

associated emission limits in its BART 

analyses. The commenter then provided 

a substantial list of PM emission limits 

that have been established as either 

BACT or BART by other states and 

permitting authorities. The commenter 

explained that these lower limits could 

be met by both electrostatic 

precipitators (ESPs) and fabric filter 

baghouses and concluded that 

Pennsylvania’s failure to adopt such 

lower limits as PM BART for its EGUs 

was arbitrary and unlawful. Finally, the 

commenter pointed out that the BART 

Guidelines provide that maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

for control of hazardous air pollutants 

should be taken into account in 

determining BART. The commenter 

asserted that EPA could not lawfully or 

rationally approve Pennsylvania’s PM 

BART limits because they are less 

stringent than the 0.03 lb/MMBtu 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

24344 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 83 / Wednesday, April 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

5 Instead of setting an output-based PM emission 

limit for GenOn Energy’s Cheswick generating 

station, Pennsylvania capped PM emissions at 361 

tons per year (tpy). However, as EPA has previously 

stated, Pennsylvania appears to have set the PM 

BART limit for Cheswick in error. 77 FR 41279, 

41283 (July 13, 2012). Pennsylvania has submitted 

a SIP revision to EPA that includes a revised PM 

BART emission limit for Cheswick to address this 

concern which EPA intends to act upon 

expeditiously. See Letter to Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, EPA, from E. Christopher 

Abruzzo, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (March 25, 2014), 

available at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/ 

deputate/airwaste/aq/plans/plans/cheswick/ 

Transmittal_Letter_to_EPA.pdf. 

emission limit that EPA recently 

established as MACT for existing 

sources in the final Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that Pennsylvania’s PM 

BART emission limits for EGUs must be 

disapproved. EPA acknowledges that 

BART is defined as ‘‘as an emission 

limitation based on the degree of 

reduction achievable through the 

application of the best system of 

continuous emission reduction for each 

pollutant which is emitted by an 

existing stationary facility.’’ 40 CFR 

51.301. Consequently, once a state has 

selected a control technology that 

represents BART, the state must then 

complete the BART analysis by 

selecting an emission limit that 

represents the emission-reduction 

capabilities of that control technology. 

While other BART limits should be 

examined when determining the 

effectiveness of the chosen control 

option, BART ultimately remains a sitespecific, case-by-case determination. 

Moreover, while BACT limits may prove 

useful in identifying the appropriate 

emission limit for BART, EPA disagree 

that BACT levels of control can 

automatically be presumed 

‘‘achievable’’ for BART purposes. 

Whereas BACT applies to new and 

modified sources, BART only applies to 

retrofits for older sources. Thus, there 

may be instances where a source 

installing BART cannot achieve the 

level of reductions that would be 

possible at an entirely new source. 

Here, Pennsylvania determined that 

PM BART for most of the subject-toBART EGUs 5 was their existing 

permitted emission limits of 0.1 lb/

MMBtu, which can be achieved by the 

existing ESPs. While EPA agrees with 

the commenter that Pennsylvania 

ideally should have examined whether 

0.1 lb/MMBtu actually reflects the 

‘‘degree of reduction achievable’’ for the 

particular ESP at each facility, EPA 

thinks that Pennsylvania’s failure to do 

so was not fatal in this instance for 

several reasons. First and most 

importantly, the impact of tightening 

the EGUs’ PM emission limits would be 

minimal from a visibility perspective. 

As explained in detail earlier, the 

modeling included in the Pennsylvania 

regional haze SIP clearly showed that 

the EGUs’ PM emissions were 

responsible for a minimal portion of the 

visibility impairment at the affected 

Class I areas. 

Second, many of the Pennsylvania 

EGUs have retired or put in motion 

plans to retire or to convert to cleaner 

burning fuels since Pennsylvania 

conducted its BART determinations. For 

example, in October 2013, First Energy’s 

Hatfield’s Ferry and Mitchell generating 

stations were retired. NRG Energy’s 

Portland generating station will cease 

combusting coal in June 2014 and plans 

to retire in early 2015. NRG Energy’s 

New Castle generating station has 

submitted an application to 

Pennsylvania to convert to natural gas 

as a fuel source prior to the MATS 

compliance deadline of 2015. Moreover, 

many of the EGUs have recently 

installed new pollution controls to 

comply with other CAA requirements 

that further limit PM emissions. 

Pennsylvania has issued a plan approval 

for construction of a baghouse and dry 

scrubber for Units 1 and 2 at Homer 

City, which also includes a new PM 

emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu for 

each unit. These recent developments 

have made the stringency of 

Pennsylvania’s PM BART limits a moot 

issue for many facilities. 

Finally, as the commenter notes, the 

aforementioned MATS Rule will limit 

PM emissions at each of the 

Pennsylvania EGUs to 0.03 lb/MMBtu 

by 2015. While EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that EPA must disapprove 

Pennsylvania’s PM BART emission 

limits for EGUs due to the pending 

implementation of MATS, the fact 

remains that MATS will imminently 

supersede BART as the required level of 

PM control at Pennsylvania’s EGUs, 

largely mooting the issue. Disapproving 

Pennsylvania’s PM BART limits due to 

MATS would be inappropriate, 

however, because EPA cannot require 

states to predict future requirements at 

the time they are developing their SIPs. 

EPA proposed MATS on May 13, 2011 

(76 FR 24976) and promulgated the final 

version of MATS on February 16, 2012 

(77 FR 9304), well after Pennsylvania 

developed its regional haze SIP and 

made the relevant BART 

determinations. Furthermore, EPA 

proposed its limited approval of 

Pennsylvania’s regional haze SIP on 

January 26, 2012, a full three weeks 

before MATS was finalized. EPA also 

revised MATS on April 24, 2013 (78 FR 

24073). While the BART Guidelines 

indicate that states may rely on 

previously issued MACT standards for 

purposes of BART, they do not require 

states to revise BART determinations ex 

post facto when EPA subsequently 

establishes new MACT standards. For 

all of these reasons, EPA believes that 

the limits of 0.1 lb/MMBtu are 

sufficiently reasonable for PM BART at 

the Pennsylvania EGUs and can be 

approved. Where appropriate, however, 

EPA expects Pennsylvania to revisit the 

issue in the next regional haze 

implementation period. 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that Pennsylvania’s PM BART emission 

limits are invalid because they are 

expressed as total filterable PM. The 

commenter argued that EPA must 

disapprove the limits and set separate 

emission limits for filterable coarse 

particulate matter (PM10) and PM2.5, as 

well as condensable PM. Alternatively, 

EPA could set emission limits for the 

individual pollutants that form 

condensable PM, such as sulfuric acid 

mist. 

Response: EPA disagrees that 

Pennsylvania was required to set 

separate emission limits for filterable 

PM10 and PM2.5 and condensable PM. 

While the BART Guidelines do instruct 

states to consider both PM10 and PM2.5

when determining whether sources 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment, the BART Guidelines are 

silent as to how PM emission limits 

should be expressed, so long as they are 

enforceable, continuous, and contain 

appropriate averaging times, compliance 

verification procedures, and 

recordkeeping requirements. In practical 

terms, the function of a BART emission 

limit is to ensure that the technology 

selected as BART, or another technology 

that is at least as effective, is installed 

and properly operated. For the EGUs in 

Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth 

selected the existing ESPs as BART for 

filterable PM emissions. An emission 

limit that restricts total filterable PM 

will, by definition, restrict emissions of 

both filterable PM10 and PM2.5 because 

these are subsets of total filterable PM. 

Thus, EPA believes that it is 

unnecessary for states to set separate 

emission limits for filterable PM10 and 

PM2.5 in order to ensure that the existing 

ESPs are properly operated and that 

both coarse and fine particulates are 

adequately controlled. In regards to 

condensable PM, when emitted from 

coal-fired EGUs, these emissions are 

composed almost entirely of inorganic 

sulfates that are controlled by scrubbers 

or dry sorbent injection, not by ESPs or 

fabric filter baghouses. Consequently, 

EPA believes that Pennsylvania’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 83 / Wednesday, April 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24345 

6See ‘‘Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 

Visibility Union (MANE–VU) Concerning a Course 

of Action within MANE–VU toward Assuring 

Reasonable Progress’’ (January 20, 2007), also 

known as the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask,’’ in Appendix M of 

the Pennsylvania regional haze SIP. 

7Pennsylvania regional haze SIP, Appendix M 

(requiring ‘‘outer zone’’ states ‘‘to further reduce the 

sulfur content of distillate oil to 15 ppm by 2018, 

depending on supply availability’’). 

8See ‘‘Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 

Pennsylvania Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan—Mid Atlantic and Northeast Visibility Union 

(MANE–VU) ‘Asks’ Reasonable Progress Goals’’ 

(January 17, 2012). 

reliance on CAIR/CSAPR for SO2 BART 

is sufficient to ensure that condensable 

PM emissions will be controlled. 

Long-Term Strategy 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that Pennsylvania, in consultation with 

other states within MANE–VU, 

committed to include a low-sulfur fuel 

strategy as part of its long-term strategy 

to reduce emissions. These commenters 

noted that, as of February 2012, 

Pennsylvania had proposed, but not yet 

adopted, a low-sulfur fuel rule. Because 

Pennsylvania’s low-sulfur fuel rule had 

not been finalized at the time of EPA’s 

proposed limited approval of 

Pennsylvania’s regional haze SIP, the 

commenters concluded that 

Pennsylvania had not taken all of the 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emission reductions needed to meet 

the reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for 

downwind Class I areas. One of these 

commenters recommended that EPA 

condition its approval of the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP on the 

implementation of the low-sulfur fuel 

strategy in Pennsylvania. Another 

commenter criticized EPA for proposing 

to substitute SO2 reductions from EGUs 

and non-EGUs for reductions from a 

low-sulfur fuel rule, noting that the 

substitution resulted in a 5,702 ton 

shortfall. This commenter explained 

that because New Jersey relied on 

reductions from Pennsylvania’s low 

sulfur fuel strategy in demonstrating 

reasonable progress at Brigantine 

Wilderness Area, an EPA approval 

would jeopardize New Jersey’s ability to 

meet its regional haze commitments. A 

third commenter expressed concern that 

the emission reductions Pennsylvania 

needs to meet the RPGs for downwind 

Class I areas are not enforceable in the 

SIP. This commenter argued that 

finalizing an approval of Pennsylvania’s 

long-term strategy would be 

inconsistent with other EPA actions that 

have acknowledged that all reductions 

modeled in setting the RPGs must be 

enforceable. 

Response: EPA disagrees that 

Pennsylvania has failed to obtain its 

share of emission reductions that it 

committed to in the state consultation 

process. Pennsylvania participated fully 

in the MANE–VU consultation process, 

which resulted in a course of action for 

all participating states to reduce 

emissions to collectively meet the RPGs 

in the MANE–VU region.6 The MANE– 

VU ‘‘Ask’’ provided the MANE–VU 

states, including Pennsylvania, with up 

to ten years ‘‘to pursue adoption and 

implementation of reasonable and costeffective NOX and SO2 emissions 

reduction measures, as appropriate and 

necessary.’’ In its regional haze SIP, 

Pennsylvania stated that it ‘‘will pursue 

these measures, as appropriate and 

necessary, and in five years at the time 

of Pennsylvania’s first periodic SIP 

report, expects to report on progress 

toward adoption of these measures by 

2018.’’ With respect to the low-sulfur 

fuel strategy, the MANE–VU Ask 

established two sets of goals, one for the 

‘‘inner zone’’ states of the MANE–VU 

region (Delaware, New Jersey, New 

York, and Pennsylvania, or portions 

thereof) and one goal for the ‘‘outer 

zone’’ states. The ‘‘inner zone’’ goals 

contained more aggressive compliance 

schedules and sulfur content limits than 

the ‘‘outer zone’’ goals. Nevertheless, 

states in the ‘‘inner zone’’ could choose 

to comply with the ‘‘outer zone’’ goals 

if they experienced supply disruption 

issues, and the ‘‘Ask’’ effectively 

provided all states until 2018 to 

complete the implementation of their 

low-sulfur fuel strategies. Consistent 

with this approach, Pennsylvania 

indicated in its regional haze SIP that, 

‘‘[b]ased on supply concerns, 

Pennsylvania will pursue a strategy that 

will not be less stringent than the outer 

zone strategy and would meet the sulfur 

content emission limits listed above by 

2018.’’ Therefore, EPA disagrees with 

the commenter that Pennsylvania was 

required to finalize its low-sulfur fuel 

rule by 2012. The agreed-upon 

timeframe in the ‘‘Ask’’ provided up to 

ten years for adoption and 

implementation of the various 

measures. 

After EPA previously finalized the 

limited approval of the Pennsylvania 

regional haze SIP, Pennsylvania 

submitted a SIP revision to EPA that 

included a low-sulfur fuel rule that met 

the ‘‘outer zone’’-strategy requirements. 

EPA proposed to approve this SIP 

revision on February 20, 2014. 79 FR 

9701. EPA notes that Pennsylvania’s 

low-sulfur fuel rule does not require 

that the sulfur content of distillate oil be 

reduced to 15 parts per million (ppm) 

by 2018, as anticipated by the MANE– 

VU ‘‘Ask.’’ However, for ‘‘outer zone’’ 

states, the implementation of this 

requirement was dependent upon 

supply availability.7 Moreover, as EPA 

explained in detail in the technical 

support document (TSD) 8 that 

accompanied our July 13, 2012 final 

rule, Pennsylvania has secured an 

additional 23,051 tons in SO2

reductions that were not anticipated at 

the time of the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ When 

these reductions are considered in 

combination with reductions that will 

result from Pennsylvania’s low-sulfur 

fuel rule, EPA believes that a 15 ppm 

limit on distillate oil is no longer 

‘‘appropriate and necessary’’ to achieve 

the goals of the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ 

during the first planning period ending 

in 2018. Furthermore, EPA does not 

believe that Pennsylvania will 

experience a shortfall in emission 

reductions or that approval of the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP will 

prevent New Jersey from making 

reasonable progress at Brigantine. 

Finally, while EPA agrees with the third 

commenter that all reductions should be 

enforceable in the SIP itself, EPA 

believes that the proposed approval of 

Pennsylvania’s low-sulfur fuel rule SIP 

revision largely addresses this concern. 

Moreover, EPA expects Pennsylvania to 

review all of its emission reductions in 

its five-year progress report, at which 

time the additional reductions 

highlighted in our TSD can be included 

in the SIP as enforceable requirements 

as well. Consequently, EPA believes that 

the Pennsylvania regional haze SIP 

includes all measures necessary at this 

time to obtain its share of the emission 

reductions needed to meet the RPGs of 

downwind states and therefore has met 

the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that EPA must disapprove the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP because 

it failed to include a long-term strategy 

with a detailed retirement discussion. 

The commenter argued that the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP was 

inadequate because it contained no 

discussion of changes in energy and 

other markets and their likely effect on 

EGUs and non-EGUs. The commenter 

concluded that EPA must require a 

retirement discussion that provides a 

‘‘realistic picture of future emissions 

from BART-subject sources.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the Pennsylvania 

regional haze SIP must be disapproved 

for failure to include a retirement 

discussion in the long-term strategy. 

Pennsylvania considered the factors 

listed in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) when 

developing its long-term strategy, as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

24346 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 83 / Wednesday, April 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

9Pennsylvania also stated in its regional haze SIP 

that retirement and replacement would be managed 

in conformance with existing SIP requirements 

pertaining to new source review. 

described in detail in our January 26, 

2012 proposal. Pennsylvania included 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules as part of the emissions 

inventory that it used to project future 

conditions and provide a realistic 

estimate of future visibility impairing 

emissions from the identified sources. 

At the time that Pennsylvania’s analyses 

were completed, they were based on the 

best information available. The 

projected inventories for 2018 account 

for post-2002 emissions reductions from 

promulgated and proposed federal, 

state, local, and site-specific control 

programs. Pennsylvania developed its 

long-term strategy in coordination with 

the MANE–VU, identifying the 

emissions units within Pennsylvania 

that have the largest impacts on 

visibility at the MANE–VU Class I areas, 

estimating emissions reductions for 

2018, based on all controls required 

under Federal and state regulations for 

the 2002–2018 period (including 

BART), and comparing projected 

visibility improvement with the uniform 

rate of progress for the MANE–VU Class 

I areas. Pennsylvania’s long-term 

strategy includes measures needed to 

achieve its share of emissions 

reductions agreed upon through the 

consultation process with Class I area 

states and includes enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures 

necessary to achieve the RPGs 

established by MANE–VU for the Class 

I areas. 

These projections can be expected to 

change as additional information 

regarding future conditions becomes 

available. For example, new sources 

may be built, existing sources may shut 

down or modify production in response 

to changed economic circumstances, 

and facilities may change their 

emissions characteristics as they install 

control equipment to comply with new 

rules. To address these situations, the 

Regional Haze Rule calls for a five-year 

progress review after submittal of the 

initial regional haze SIP. See 40 CFR 

51.308(g). The purpose of this progress 

review is to assess the effectiveness of 

emissions management strategies in 

meeting RPGs and to provide an 

assessment of whether current 

implementation strategies are sufficient 

for the state or affected states to meet 

their RPGs. If a state concludes, based 

on its assessment, that the RPGs for a 

Class I area will not be met, the Regional 

Haze Rule requires the state to take 

appropriate action. See 40 CFR 

52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate 

action will depend on the basis for the 

state’s conclusion that the current 

strategies are insufficient to meet the 

RPGs. Pennsylvania specifically 

committed to follow this process in its 

long-term strategy.9

III. Summary of Final Action 

EPA is re-finalizing its limited 

approval of the Pennsylvania regional 

haze SIP, which was submitted on 

December 20, 2010 to address regional 

haze for the first implementation period. 

EPA is issuing a limited approval of the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP because, 

overall, the Pennsylvania SIP will be 

stronger and more protective of the 

environment with the implementation, 

Federal approval, and enforceability of 

its measures than it would without 

those measures. EPA has already 

finalized a limited disapproval of the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP in a 

separate rulemaking. See 77 FR 33642. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by June 30, 2014. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action 

finalizing the limited approval of the 

Pennsylvania Regional Haze SIP may 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 83 / Wednesday, April 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24347 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2) of the CAA. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: April 11, 2014. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(e)(1) is amended by revising the entry 

for ‘‘Regional Haze Plan’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of nonregulatory SIP revision Applicable 

geographic area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA 

approval date 

Additional 

explanation 

*******

Regional Haze Plan .................. Statewide ................................. 12/20/10 7/13/12, 77 FR 41279 .............. § 52.2042; Limited Approval. 

12/20/10 4/30/14 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Reissuing of Limited Approval. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–09726 Filed 4–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 168 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0607; FRL–9909–82] 

RIN 2070–AJ53 

Labeling of Pesticide Products and 

Devices for Export 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is amending the 

regulations that pertain to labeling of 

pesticide products and devices intended 

solely for export. This action will allow 

placement of the required information 

on collateral labeling attached to the 

shipping container of such products 

rather than on the immediate package of 

each individual product in such a 

shipment. This restores provisions that 

previously allowed exporters to use 

labeling attached to, or accompanying, 

the product shipping container of the 

export pesticide at all times when 

shipped or held for shipment in the 

United States. 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

July 29, 2014. 

Written adverse comments must be 

received on or before May 30, 2014. If 

EPA receives adverse comment, EPA 

will withdraw this direct final rule 

before its effective date. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0607, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathryn Boyle, Field and External 

Affairs Division (7506P), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (703) 305–6304; 

email address: boyle.kathryn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action affect me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you export a pesticide 

product, a pesticide device, or an active 

ingredient used in producing a 

pesticide. The following North 

American Industrial Classification 

System (NAICS) code category is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include, but are not limited 

to: Pesticide and other agricultural 

chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 

325320), e.g., pesticide manufacturing, 

insecticide manufacturing, herbicide 

manufacturing, and fungicide 

manufacturing. 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

This action is issued under the 

authority of section 25(a) of the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a), to carry 

out the provisions of FIFRA section 

17(a), 7 U.S.C. 136o(a). 

C. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is revising the regulations that 

pertain to labeling of pesticide products 

and devices intended solely for export. 

This action will allow placement of the 

required information on collateral 

labeling attached to a shipping 

container of such products rather than 

on the label of each individual product 

in such a shipment. 

D. What are the impacts of this action? 

There are no costs associated with 

this action, and the benefits provided 

are related to avoiding potential costs. 

Without these labeling provisions, 

registrants would be required to place 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES