Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64539 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0342; FRL–9918–67– 

Region–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; 

Pennsylvania Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan Revision— 

Particulate Matter Best Available 

Retrofit Technology Limit for the 

Cheswick Power Plant in Allegheny 

County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of 

a revision to the Pennsylvania State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

through the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP). 

This SIP revision addresses an error in 

the Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) requirements for Boiler Number 

1 of the Cheswick Generating Station 

(Cheswick) in Allegheny County. EPA is 

proposing approval of the portion of 

Pennsylvania’s SIP revision addressing 

the particulate matter (PM) BART 

requirements as it is in accordance with 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and EPA’s rules for BART. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 1, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0342, by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0342, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

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

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0342. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Allegheny County 

Health Department, Bureau of 

Environmental Quality, Division of Air 

Quality, 301 39th Street, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 15201. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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

email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

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

organic carbon, elemental carbon, and 

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

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia 

(NH3) and volatile organic compounds 

(VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in 

the atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5), which impairs visibility 

by scattering and absorbing light. 

Visibility impairment reduces the 

clarity, color, and visible distance that 

one can see. Section 169A of the CAA 

establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory class I Federal 

areas which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution’’ and requires 

SIPs for states whose emissions may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas to contain emission limits, 

compliance schedules and other 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. A regional 

haze SIP generally must include, among 

other measures, source-specific BART 

emission limits for each source subject 

to BART. A detailed discussion of the 

requirements of the regional haze 

program can be found in our earlier 

notice proposing action on 

Pennsylvania’s regional haze SIP. See 77 

FR 3984 (January 26, 2012). 

On December 20, 2010, PADEP 

submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania 

SIP to address regional haze 

requirements as required by the CAA. 

Among the measures included in the 

SIP submission and approved by EPA 

was a coarse PM (PM10) BART emission 

limit for Cheswick of 361 tons per year 

(tpy). PADEP has determined that this 

limit was set in error and has submitted 

this SIP revision to correct the PM10

BART emission limit. EPA originally 

finalized a limited approval of the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP on July 

13, 2012. 77 FR 41279. Our approval 

was limited due to Pennsylvania’s 

reliance upon the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

nitrogen oxide (NOX) BART for electric 

generating units (EGUs). On June 7, 

2012, EPA had finalized the limited 

disapproval of Pennsylvania’s regional 

haze SIP (and other states’ regional haze 

SIPs that relied similarly on CAIR) due 

to its reliance on CAIR as EPA had 

issued the Cross State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR. 77 FR 

33641. EPA also finalized a limited 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for 

Pennsylvania and other states, which 

merely substituted reliance on EPA’s 

more recent CSAPR NOX and SO2


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64540 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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

limited approval of Pennsylvania’s regional haze 

SIP in the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Third Circuit, EPA successfully moved for a 

voluntary remand without vacatur. On April 30, 

2014, EPA reissued its final limited approval of the 

Pennsylvania SIP to implement the 

Commonwealth’s regional haze program for the first 

planning period through 2018. 79 FR 24340. 

2The BART Guidelines provide a process for 

making BART determinations that states and local 

agencies can use in implementing the regional haze 

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

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

3Cheswick was formerly owned by Orion Power, 

but is presently owned by NRG Energy. 

4After the May 4, 2009 BART review memo, 

ACHD issued for Cheswick an Installation Permit 

(IP No. 0054–I004a) and a Title V Operating Permit 

(TVOP No. 0054). 

5The December 20, 2010 regional haze SIP 

submittal included the following BART emission 

limits for Cheswick: 67,452 tpy of SO2, 10,840 tpy 

of NOX, and 361 tpy of PM10. According to 

Pennsylvania and explained in the March 25, 2014 

SIP submittal, these emission limits were included 

in error. 

6The comments from the owner of Cheswick on 

the proposed Cheswick BART are available in the 

rulemaking docket from our approval of the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP, docket number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002, at 

www.regulations.gov. 

7The March 25, 2014 SIP revision also updates 

the owner’s name of Cheswick from Orion Power 

to GenOn Power Midwest LP and updates the 

permit numbers and dates of issuance for 

Cheswick’s Boiler No. 1. EPA notes the present 

owner of Cheswick is NRG Energy. 

8According to PADEP, the 180 lbs/hr PM10

emission limit equates to 788 tpy for Cheswick. 

trading programs for EGUs for the SIP’s 

reliance on CAIR. See 77 FR 33641.1

For the December 20, 2010 regional 

haze SIP, the Allegheny County Health 

Department (ACHD) had performed a 

BART analysis for Cheswick. In the May 

4, 2009 Cheswick BART review memo, 

ACHD stated it performed its BART 

analysis in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(e) and 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix 

Y, Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule (BART 

Guidelines).2 The May 4, 2009 

Cheswick BART review memo was 

included in Pennsylvania’s December 

20, 2010 regional haze SIP (in Appendix 

J) and recommended that the conditions 

of Cheswick’s operating permit and 

installation permits satisfied BART for 

PM for Cheswick, an EGU in Allegheny 

County.3 4 In the December 20, 2010 

regional haze SIP submittal, 

Pennsylvania specifically included a 

PM10 BART emission limit for Cheswick 

of 361 tpy in error even though ACHD 

had recommended permit conditions as 

BART.5 After EPA proposed limited 

approval of the Pennsylvania regional 

haze SIP on January 26, 2012 (77 FR 

3984), the owner of Cheswick 

commented that Cheswick’s BART 

emission limits including PM10 were 

inconsistent with the plant’s current 

permits which had a higher allowable 

PM10 emissions limitation than 361 tpy. 

Cheswick’s owner also commented that 

the 361 tpy potential to emit PM10

included in the May 4, 2009 Cheswick 

BART review memo in the ‘‘Process 

Description’’ section was derived from 

Cheswick’s 1995 Title V permit 

application which contained an error in 

the calculation of Cheswick’s potential 

to emit PM10.6

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

Since EPA first approved the regional 

haze SIP in July 2012, ACHD has 

updated the BART review memo for 

Cheswick to reflect the current control 

devices, emission limits, and 

regulations to which Cheswick is 

subject. This March 25, 2014 SIP 

revision revises the incorrect PM10

emission limit of 361 tpy to 180 pounds 

per hour (lbs/hr) for Boiler No. 1 and 

also seeks removal of the errant 

inclusion of an SO2 emission limit of 

67,452 tpy and a NOX emission limit of 

10,840 tpy for Cheswick’s Boiler No. 1 

from the regional haze SIP because 

Pennsylvania intended CAIR as SO2 and 

NOX BART for all EGUs including 

Cheswick.7 PADEP submitted this SIP 

revision in accordance with the 

visibility and regional haze provisions 

of sections 169A and 169B of the CAA 

and the regional haze rule at 40 CFR 

51.308. 

PADEP stated in its submittal that the 

SO2 and NOX BART emission limits for 

Cheswick were included in the BART 

table in its December 10, 2010 regional 

haze SIP in conflict with the ACHD 

Cheswick BART review memo and the 

narrative portion of the SIP submittal 

which discussed CAIR as satisfying SO2

and NOX BART for BART-eligible EGUs 

in Pennsylvania. In this rulemaking, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

corrected PM10 limit of 180 lbs/hr and 

will take later, separate action 

concerning the SO2 and NOX BART 

portion of the March 25, 2014 SIP 

revision submittal. 

PADEP explained in its March 25, 

2014 SIP revision that the PM10 BART 

emission limit of 361 tpy for Boiler No. 

1 at Cheswick included in the December 

20, 2010 regional haze SIP was found to 

be incorrect during the public comment 

period for EPA’s proposed approval of 

the regional haze SIP. The December 20, 

2010 regional haze SIP submittal 

included the 361 tpy PM10 limit because 

at the time PADEP was assessing the 

appropriate BART limits, it decided to 

base the PM10 BART limit on the May 

4, 2009 BART review memo for 

Cheswick which referred to conditions 

of certain permits for Cheswick as 

BART, and the review memo listed 

Cheswick’s potential to emit at 361 tpy. 

However, on April 20, 2010, ACHD 

issued an Installation Permit (IP No. 

0054–I004a) and a Title V operating 

permit (TVOP No. 0054) for Cheswick 

with a PM10 limit of 180 lbs/hr.8 During 

the permitting process in 2010, ACHD 

discovered the PM10 potential to emit 

included in the May 4, 2009 BART 

review memo was incorrect. Despite the 

PM10 emission limit in Cheswick’s 

permits of 180 lbs/hr and discovery of 

the incorrect PM10 potential to emit, the 

December 20, 2010 regional haze SIP 

submission incorrectly contained the 

361 tpy PM10 limit as BART for 

Cheswick. This March 25, 2014 SIP 

revision replaces the incorrect PM10

emission limit of 361 tpy with the 

correct BART PM10 emission limit for 

Boiler No. 1 of 180 lbs/hr, which 

includes condensable particulate matter, 

but excludes sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4). 

The 180 lbs/hr PM10 emission limit is 

the applicable PM10 emissions 

limitation in Cheswick’s permits. This 

SIP revision also contains corrected 

permit numbers and permit issuance 

dates for Boiler No. 1 of the Cheswick 

Plant. 

ACHD updated the BART analysis for 

Boiler No. 1 at Cheswick with a new 

memo on November 7, 2012. The 

November 7, 2012 BART review memo 

includes the current control devices in 

operation at Cheswick and the correct, 

applicable emission limits and 

regulations. The November 7, 2012 

BART review memo describes ACHD’s 

consideration of the five statutory BART 

factors for Cheswick and explained that 

Cheswick has the most stringent 

controls installed such that the flue gas 

stream is not allowed to bypass the SO2

control, flue gas desulfurization (FGD), 

or PM control, electrostatic precipitator 

(ESP) system, and that Cheswick has a 

new, shorter stack. The November 7, 

2012 BART review memo indicated the 

PM10 emission limit is in two Federallyenforceable permits (an Installation 

Permit and a Title V Permit), and that 

two separate modeling studies show 

that visibility impacts from Cheswick 

are minimal even without considering 

SO2 removal by the FGD or the newer, 

shorter stack. The review memo 

concluded that additional controls were 

not warranted given the minimal 

visibility impact of 0.0336 deciviews 

(dv) from the Cheswick Plant. 

PADEP included the November 7, 

2012 Cheswick BART review memo in 

the March 25, 2014 SIP revision and 

recommends the PM10 emission limit of 

180 lbs/hr as BART for Cheswick 

because the November 7, 2012 review 

memo followed the BART Guidelines 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64541 

9The December 20, 2010 Pennsylvania regional 

haze SIP submission is available in the EPA 

rulemaking docket for our approval of the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP, docket number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002, at 

www.regulations.gov. 

and showed that there are minimal 

visibility impacts to Class I areas and 

that additional controls were not cost 

effective given the visibility impact of 

0.0336 dv. The modeling of potential 

visibility impacts from Boiler No. 1 for 

purposes of the May 4, 2009 ACHD 

review memo was conducted prior to 

the installation of the FGD unit for SO2

control and the construction of a new 

stack which is 198.5 feet shorter than 

the previous stack. The modeled 

analysis was done by the Northeast 

States for Coordinated Air Use 

Management (NESCAUM) for the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 

(MANE–VU). BART modeling 

information provided independently by 

Cheswick’s owner and operator 

produced comparable results. PADEP 

and ACHD assert that the reductions in 

sulfur oxides and PM10 emissions due to 

the FGD installation as well as the 

significantly shorter stack will reduce 

even further the visibility impacts from 

Boiler No. 1 from what was originally 

modeled for Cheswick. Therefore, in the 

March 25, 2014 SIP revision, PADEP 

states that the revised BART PM10

emission limit will not interfere with 

any applicable CAA requirements, 

particularly the visibility and regional 

haze provisions of sections 169A and 

169B of the CAA, and the regional haze 

regulations codified at 40 CFR 51.308. 

III. EPA’s Analysis of SIP Revision for 

PM10 BART Limit 

EPA proposes to approve the revised 

PM10 emission limit of 180 lbs/hr for 

Cheswick based on the explanation 

provided by PADEP in its SIP submittal 

as the previous limit of 361 tpy was 

incorrectly determined by ACHD and 

PADEP and was an error. The May 4, 

2009 BART review memo for Cheswick 

referred to current permit conditions for 

Cheswick as the recommended PM10

BART limit. On April 20, 2010, ACHD 

had revised an Installation Permit (IP 

No. 0054–I004a) and issued a Title V 

Permit (TVOP No. 0052) for Cheswick 

with a PM10 limit of 180 lbs/hr. No 

permit for Cheswick had ever contained 

a 361 tpy PM10 limit, and ACHD 

discovered the error with the potential 

to emit calculation of PM10 while 

issuing the permits in 2010. Despite the 

discovery of the erroneous PM10

potential to emit calculation and the 

new PM10 emission limit of 180 lbs/hr, 

the December 20, 2010 regional haze SIP 

submission incorrectly recommended 

the 361 tpy PM10 calculation as BART 

for Cheswick. 

PADEP has explained the basis for its 

determination that the limit of 180 lbs/ 

hr is appropriate for BART. In the 

November 7, 2012 revised BART review 

memo for Cheswick, ACHD 

recommended the existing PM10 BART 

emission rate of 180 lbs/hr after 

considering the five CAA statutory 

factors for BART and following EPA’s 

BART Guidelines in 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix Y. In its review, ACHD 

evaluated retrofit control technologies, 

eliminated technically infeasible 

options and evaluated effectiveness and 

impacts of the remaining options. The 

ACHD’s conclusion for Cheswick was 

that the plant already had the most 

stringent controls available for a coalfired boiler, had Federally-enforceable 

permit limits for PM10 (Installation 

Permit and Title V Permit), as well as 

other FGD operating restrictions in 

Federally-enforceable permits, and had 

minimal estimated visibility impacts 

from PM10 emissions on Class I areas. 

Most of the modeling which supports 

the BART determinations in the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP was 

conducted by NESCAUM for MANE–VU 

in September 2006 for individual BARTeligible sources using CALPUFF. The 

MANE–VU modeling was in accordance 

with the BART Guidelines and was used 

by Pennsylvania to assess the degree of 

visibility improvement that could result 

from installation of BART controls. This 

was included in the December 20, 2010 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP as 

Appendix I.9 The minimal visibility 

impact from Cheswick’s emissions on 

the most impacted Class I area (Otter 

Creek Wilderness Area) of 0.0336 dv is 

from the MANE–VU CALPUFF 

modeling included in the December 20, 

2010 regional haze SIP which was 

conducted prior to installation and 

operation of the FGD and its lower 

stack. 

EPA also analyzed the source-specific 

January 2007 modeling from AECOM 

conducted for Cheswick. The AECOM 

modeling was included in the March 25, 

2014 SIP revision and is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. The AECOM 

modeling included cumulative visibility 

impacts from Cheswick on multiple 

Class I areas including Dolly Sods 

Wilderness Area, Otter Creek 

Wilderness Area and Shenandoah 

National Park. From our review of the 

AECOM modeling for Cheswick, EPA 

concludes Cheswick’s cumulative 

visibility impact of 0.06 dv from its 

PM10 emissions on these three Class I 

areas is likewise minimal. Because 

Cheswick has installed a FGD and a 

lower stack since the January 2007 

modeling, EPA believes Cheswick’s 

visibility impact on these Class I areas 

has likely been further reduced. EPA 

finds the corrected PM10 BART emission 

limit for Boiler No. 1 a reasonable 

application of the BART statutory 

factors and BART guidelines 

considering the controls installed at 

Cheswick, technical feasibility and costeffectiveness of additional controls, and 

Cheswick’s minimal visibility impacts 

as explained in ACHD’s November 7, 

2012 BART review memo. EPA 

proposes to approve this SIP revision for 

Cheswick’s PM10 BART limit in 

accordance with sections 169A and 

169B of the CAA. 

IV. EPA’s Analysis of Section 110(l) 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

‘‘[t]he Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of this chapter.’’ 

EPA does not interpret section 110(l) to 

require a full attainment or maintenance 

demonstration before any changes to a 

SIP may be approved. Generally, a SIP 

revision may be approved under section 

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

least preserve status quo air quality, 

particularly where the pollutants at 

issue are those for which an area has not 

been designated nonattainment. EPA 

does not believe the proposed approval 

of the revisions to the Cheswick BART 

emission limitations will interfere with 

the CAA requirements for BART or for 

preventing interference with other 

states’ programs to protect visibility 

because our proposal is supported by an 

evaluation that those CAA requirements 

are met. This SIP revision will correct 

an error by PADEP in the BART limit 

determined for Cheswick and approved 

by EPA in Pennsylvania’s regional haze 

SIP and will replace a BART emission 

limitation with a limit intended by 

Pennsylvania which EPA finds 

reasonable. This SIP revision for the 

PM10 BART for Cheswick will not result 

in any substantive changes to other CAA 

requirements. Cheswick will continue to 

be subject to CAA requirements for 

BART. 

The revised PM10 emission limitation 

reflects Cheswick’s applicable and 

enforceable PM10 emission limit which 

Pennsylvania intended to recommend 

for Cheswick’s BART. EPA does not 

expect any increase in PM10 emissions 

from this BART revision and does not 

expect this revision will interfere with 

visibility in Class I areas impacted by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64542 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

10 In fact, Cheswick has been subject to this 180 

lbs/hr. PM10 emissions rate since April 2010 well 

before EPA approved the Pennsylvania regional 

haze SIP in July 2012. Therefore, EPA does not 

expect any increase in PM10 emissions from this 

BART revision. 11EPA notes Cheswick has Selective Catalytic 

Reduction installed for NOX controls. For further 

discussion of progress towards RPGs and current 

visibility conditions in nearby Class I areas based 

on the latest available Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

monitoring data, see EPA’s approvals of Virginia’s 

and Delaware’s five-year progress reports on 

regional haze at 79 FR 25019 (May 2, 2014) 

(Virginia) and 79 FR 25506 (May 5, 2014) 

(Delaware). See also 79 FR 10451 (February 25, 

2014) (proposed approval of Virginia’s progress 

report) and 79 FR 10442 (February 25, 2014) 

(proposed approval of Delaware’s progress report). 

EPA’s proposed approval of West Virginia’s fiveyear progress report on regional haze is at 79 FR 

14460 (March 14, 2014). 

12EPA finalized a clean data determination for 

the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area for 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on October 12, 2012. See 77 FR 

62147. EPA finalized a clean data determination for 

the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area for 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (24-hour standard) on May 2, 

2014. See 79 FR 25014. 13EPA has not finalized designations of areas for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. However, 

because Cheswick has had the 180 lbs/hr PM10

emission limit since April 2010 and has been in 

compliance with that limit since 2010 according to 

stack test data EPA has reviewed from ACHD and 

Cheswick, EPA does not anticipate approval of this 

SIP revision will significantly impact the Pittsburgh 

Beaver Valley area. If the Pittsburgh Beaver Valley 

area is designated nonattainment, Pennsylvania will 

be required to submit an attainment plan in 

accordance with Section 172 of the CAA. 

14EPA has also not required separate emission 

limits for each form of particulates for BART, and 

the BART Guidelines do not specify that states must 

establish a BART limit for both PM10 and PM2.5. If 

PM2.5 emission limitations are needed for the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area to attain any PM2.5

NAAQS, ACHD can set such limits when 

implementing SIP attainment planning 

requirements in CAA section 172. 

Cheswick.10 Thus, EPA does not 

anticipate the revisions to Cheswick’s 

BARTs to interfere with neighboring 

states’ ability to achieve reasonable 

progress goals (RPGs) given Cheswick’s 

minimal visibility impact, Cheswick’s 

SO2, NOX, and PM controls and newer 

shorter stack, and recent monitored data 

from neighboring states showing 

progress towards RPGs.11

EPA also believes that approval of the 

submitted SIP revision will not interfere 

with attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. Cheswick has been subject to 

the 180 lbs/hr PM10 emission limit since 

April 2010. While Cheswick is in the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment 

area for 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

this area has had monitored clean data 

for PM2.5 for the last few years.12

Because Cheswick had the 180 lbs/hr 

PM10 limit during the time when 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley has monitored 

attainment, EPA does not anticipate this 

PM10 BART revision will interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.13 14 EPA 

believes approval of Pennsylvania’s 

revision will not contribute to 

conditions of nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of any standard. 

Thus, EPA finds this SIP revision to 

Cheswick’s PM10 BART complies with 

Section 110(l) of the CAA and will not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirements concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA, 

such as the visibility and regional haze 

provisions of sections 169A and 169B of 

the CAA. 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve a portion 

of Pennsylvania’s March 25, 2014 

revision to its regional haze SIP which 

revises the PM10 BART emission 

limitation for Cheswick. EPA will take 

later, separate action concerning the 

remainder of the March 25, 2014 SIP 

revision. This conclusion is based on 

our review of the March 25, 2014 SIP 

revision as well as Pennsylvania’s 

December 20, 2010 regional haze SIP 

submission including technical data and 

supporting analysis. If approved by 

EPA, the PM10 emission rate of 180 lbs/ 

hr (including condensables and 

excluding H2SO4) supercedes the 

previous PM10 BART determination for 

Cheswick included in the December 20, 

2010 regional haze SIP revision. EPA 

finds Pennsylvania’s PM10 BART 

determination for Cheswick reasonable 

and finds the revision will not interfere 

with visibility improvements or any 

other CAA requirements set forth in 

sections 110(l), 169A, and 169B of the 

CAA, as well as in our implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.308. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule to 

approve Pennsylvania’s regional haze 

SIP revision pertaining to Cheswick 

does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: October 21, 2014. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25848 Filed 10–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS