31798 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2022–0278 in the search box and 

click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this 

document in the Search Results column, 

and click on it. Then click on the 

Comment option. If you cannot submit 

your material by using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the 

person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this proposed rule 

for alternate instructions. 

Viewing material in docket. To view 

documents mentioned in this proposed 

rule as being available in the docket, 

find the docket as described in the 

previous paragraph, and then select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the 

Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the https://

www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. We review all 

comments received, but we will only 

post comments that address the topic of 

the proposed rule. We may choose not 

to post off-topic, inappropriate, or 

duplicate comments that we receive. 

Personal information. We accept 

anonymous comments. Comments we 

post to https://www.regulations.gov will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. For more about privacy 

and submissions to the docket in 

response to this document, see DHS’s 

eRulemaking System of Records notice 

(85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing 

to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T01–0278 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T01–0278 Safety Zone; Kittery Coast 

Guard Day Fireworks, Kittery, ME. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All navigable waters of the 

Piscataqua River, from surface to 

bottom, within a 500-foot radius of the 

firework launch floats, located 

approximately 1000 yards northwest of 

Fort Foster, Kittery, ME in position 

43°04′23.9′′ N, 070°41′57.4′′ W (NAD83. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section, designated representative 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a 

Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port Northern New England (COTP) 

in the enforcement of the safety zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

safety zone regulations in subpart C of 

this part, you may not enter the safety 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

representative via VHF–FM marine 

channel 16 or by contacting the Coast 

Guard Sector Northern New England 

Command Center at (207) 741–5465. 

Those in the safety zone must comply 

with all lawful orders or directions 

given to them by the COTP or the 

COTP’s designated representative. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 9:30 

p.m. on August 6, 2022. 

Dated: May 19, 2022. 

A. E. Florentino, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Northern New England. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11270 Filed 5–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2022–0347; FRL–9333–01– 

R3] 

Federal Implementation Plan 

Addressing Reasonably Available 

Control Technology Requirements for 

Certain Sources in Pennsylvania 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing a Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) for the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

(Pennsylvania or the Commonwealth). 

This FIP proposes to set emission limits 

for nitrogen oxides (NOX) emitted from 

coal-fired electric generating units 

(EGUs) equipped with selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) in order to meet the 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) requirements for the 1997 and 

2008 ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). The FIP is being 

proposed to ensure that EPA can, if 

necessary, meet a court-ordered 

deadline requiring EPA to approve an 

amended State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) or issue a FIP by August 27, 2022. 

This action is being taken under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

July 11, 2022. 

Public hearing: EPA will hold a 

virtual public hearing on June 9, 2022. 

Please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section for additional 

information on the public hearing. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2022–0347; via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred 

method). Follow the online instructions 

for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. Out of an abundance of 

caution for members of the public and 

our staff, the EPA Docket Center and 

Reading Room are open to the public by 

appointment only to reduce the risk of 

transmitting COVID–19. Our Docket 

Center staff also continues to provide 

remote customer service via email, 

phone, and webform. Hand deliveries 

and couriers may be received by 

scheduled appointment only. For 

further information on EPA Docket 

Center services and the current status, 

please visit us online at https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Talley, Permits Branch (3AD10), 

Air & Radiation Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The 

telephone number is (215) 814–2117. 

Mr. Talley can also be reached via 

electronic mail at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation 

A. Written Comments 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2022– 

0347 at https://www.regulations.gov 

(our preferred method), or the other 

methods identified in the ADDRESSES

section. Once submitted, comments 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31799 

1This proposed FIP pertains only to the major 

NOX RACT requirements for Pennsylvania’s coalfired EGUs already equipped with SCR (five 

facilities in total). 

2https://www3.epa.gov/region1/airquality/ 

noxract.html. 

cannot be edited or removed from the 

docket. EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit to EPA’s docket at https://

www.regulations.gov any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit https://

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

Due to public health concerns related 

to COVID–19, EPA Docket Center and 

Reading Room are open to the public by 

appointment only. Our Docket Center 

staff also continues to provide remote 

customer service via email, phone, and 

webform. Hand deliveries or couriers 

will be received by scheduled 

appointment only. For further 

information and updates on EPA Docket 

Center services, please visit us online at 

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

EPA continues to carefully and 

continuously monitor information from 

the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), local area health 

departments, and our Federal partners 

so that we can respond rapidly as 

conditions change regarding COVID–19. 

B. Participation in Virtual Public 

Hearing 

Please note that because of current 

CDC recommendations, as well as state 

and local orders for social distancing to 

limit the spread of COVID–19, EPA 

cannot hold in-person public meetings 

at this time. 

EPA will begin pre-registering 

speakers for the hearing no later than 1 

business day after publication of this 

document in the Federal Register. To 

register to speak at the virtual hearing, 

please use the online registration form 

available at https://www.epa.gov/pa/ 

epa-meetings-and-events-pennsylvania. 

The last day to pre-register to speak at 

the hearing will be June 6, 2022. EPA 

will post a general agenda for the 

hearing that will list pre-registered 

speakers in approximate order at: 

https://www.epa.gov/pa/epa-meetingsand-events-pennsylvania. 

The virtual public hearing will be 

held via teleconference on June 9, 2022. 

The virtual public hearing will convene 

at 4 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will 

conclude at 7 p.m. ET. EPA may close 

a session 15 minutes after the last preregistered speaker has testified if there 

are no additional speakers. For 

information or questions about the 

public hearing, please contact Ms. Karen 

Delgrosso at delgrosso.karen@epa.gov. 

EPA will announce further details at 

https://www.epa.gov/pa/epa-meetingsand-events-pennsylvania. 

EPA will make every effort to follow 

the schedule as closely as possible on 

the day of the hearing; however, please 

plan for the hearings to run either ahead 

of schedule or behind schedule. 

Each commenter will have 5 minutes 

to provide oral testimony. EPA 

encourages commenters to provide EPA 

with a copy of their oral testimony 

electronically (via email) by emailing it 

to delgrosso.karen@epa.gov. EPA also 

recommends submitting the text of your 

oral comments as written comments to 

the rulemaking docket. 

EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations, but will 

not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral comments 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. 

Please note that any updates made to 

any aspect of the hearing will be posted 

online at https://www.epa.gov/pa/epameetings-and-events-pennsylvania. 

While EPA expects the hearing to go 

forward as set forth above, please 

monitor our website or contact Ms. 

Karen Delgrosso at delgrosso.karen@

epa.gov to determine if there are any 

updates. EPA does not intend to publish 

a document in the Federal Register 

announcing updates. 

If you require the services of a 

translator or special accommodations 

such as audio description, please preregister for the hearing and describe 

your needs by June 6, 2022. EPA may 

not be able to arrange accommodations 

without advanced notice. 

II. Background 

A. RACT Requirements for Ozone 

The CAA regulates emissions of NOX

and volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

to prevent photochemical reactions that 

result in ozone formation. RACT is an 

important requirement for reducing 

NOX and VOC emissions from major 

stationary sources and sources covered 

by EPA’s control technique guidelines 

(CTG). Areas designated nonattainment 

for the ozone NAAQS are subject to 

section 182(b)(2) of the CAA which sets 

forth RACT requirements specific to 

ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

Moderate nonattainment or higher. 

Specifically, section 182(b)(2) of the 

CAA sets forth three distinct 

requirements regarding RACT for the 

ozone NAAQS. First, section 

182(b)(2)(A) requires states with ozone 

nonattainment areas designated 

Moderate or higher to submit a RACT 

rule (or negative declaration) for each 

category of VOC sources in the area 

covered by a CTG document issued by 

EPA between November 15, 1990, and 

the date of attainment for an ozone 

NAAQS. Second, section 182(b)(2)(B) 

requires a RACT rule (or negative 

declaration) for all VOC sources in the 

nonattainment area covered by any CTG 

issued before November 15, 1990. Third, 

section 182(b)(2)(C) requires a RACT 

rule or rules (or negative declaration) for 

any other major stationary sources of 

VOCs located in the nonattainment area. 

In addition, section 182(f) subjects 

major stationary sources of NOX to the 

same RACT requirements that are 

applicable to major stationary sources of 

VOC. Therefore, the RACT requirement 

for major stationary sources found in 

182(b)(2)(C) applies to sources of NOX. 

A ‘‘major source’’ for purposes of RACT 

applicability in section 182 is defined 

based on the source’s potential to emit 

(PTE) of NOX, VOC, or both pollutants, 

and the applicable thresholds are 

defined based on the classification of 

the nonattainment area in which the 

source is located. See sections 182(c)–(f) 

and 302 of the CAA. The ozone RACT 

requirements under section 182(b)(2) are 

usually referred to as VOC CTG RACT, 

non-CTG major VOC RACT, and major 

NOX RACT.1

Section 184(a) of the CAA, which was 

added by the 1990 Amendments to the 

CAA, established an Ozone Transport 

Region (the OTR) comprised of all or 

parts of 12 eastern states, and the 

District of Columbia, including all of 

Pennsylvania.2 Section 184(b)(1)(B) 

extends the VOC CTG RACT 

requirements in section 182(b)(2)(A) and 

(B) to all areas in the OTR regardless of 

NAAQS attainment status. Put another 

way, because the entire State of 

Pennsylvania is in the OTR, the 

requirements of CAA section 184 apply 

statewide even if all areas of the State 

were attaining the ozone NAAQS. 

Further, section 184(b)(2) states that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31800 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

3See ‘‘State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen 

Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 55620, 55622 

(November 25, 1992). 

4Memo, dated December 9, 1976, from Roger 

Strelow, Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste 

Management, to Regional Administrators, 

‘‘Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP 

Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas,’’ p. 2, 

available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ 

aqmguide/collection/cp2/19761209_strelow_

ract.pdf and 44 FR 53762, footnote 2 (September 17, 

1979) (Strelow Memo). 

5Additional guidance includes the General 

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (1992 General 

Preamble), 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), and the 

General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I 

of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; 

Supplemental Appendices to the General Preamble, 

57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). See also https://

www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/ractinformation. 

‘‘any stationary source that emits or has 

the potential to emit at least 50 tons per 

year (TPY) of volatile organic 

compounds shall be considered a major 

stationary source and subject to the 

requirements which would be 

applicable to major stationary sources if 

the area were classified as a Moderate 

nonattainment area.’’ This language 

applies the RACT requirement of 

182(b)(2)(C) to all stationary sources in 

the OTR that have a PTE of at least 50 

TPY of VOC. The EPA further clarified 

in 1992 that for purposes of applying 

section 182(f) requirements to NOX

sources in the OTR, and certain other 

areas, a major stationary source for 

purposes of NOX RACT applicability 

will be defined as any stationary source 

in the OTR that emits or has the 

potential to emit 100 tons per year or 

more of NOX.3 In total, these RACT 

requirement in section 184 are referred 

to as ‘‘OTR RACT.’’ 

Since the 1970’s, EPA has 

consistently defined RACT as ‘‘the 

lowest emission limit that a particular 

source is capable of meeting by the 

application of the control technology 

that is reasonably available considering 

technological and economic 

feasibility.’’ 4 Since then, EPA has 

provided more substantive information 

on RACT requirements through 

implementation rules for each ozone 

NAAQS, and has issued additional 

guidance documents on RACT.5 In 2004 

and 2005, EPA promulgated an 

implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in two phases: ‘‘Phase 1 

of the 1997 Ozone Implementation 

Rule;’’ and ‘‘Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone 

Implementation Rule.’’ See 69 FR 23951 

(April 30, 2004) and 70 FR 71612 

(November 29, 2005), respectively. 

Particularly, the Phase 2 Ozone 

Implementation Rule addressed RACT 

statutory requirements under the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 70 FR 71652. 

On March 6, 2015, EPA issued its 

final rule for implementing the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS (the ‘‘2008 Ozone 

SIP Requirements Rule’’). See 80 FR 

12264. At the same time, EPA revoked 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

effective on April 6, 2015. The 2008 

Ozone SIP Requirements Rule provided 

comprehensive requirements related to 

the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

codified in 40 CFR part 51, subpart AA. 

EPA determined that areas designated 

nonattainment for both the 1997 and 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS at the time 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was 

revoked retain certain nonattainment 

area requirements (i.e. anti-backsliding 

requirements) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, including RACT. See 40 CFR 

51.1105(a)(1); 51.1100(o). Pennsylvania 

is also required to implement certain 

RACT requirements statewide since the 

entirety of the state is in the OTR. CAA 

section 184(b). Thus, all of Pennsylvania 

remains subject to RACT requirements 

for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

B. Applicability of RACT Requirements 

in Pennsylvania 

As indicated previously, RACT 

requirements apply to any ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

Moderate or higher (Serious, Severe, or 

Extreme) under CAA sections 182(b)(2). 

Pennsylvania has a number of areas that 

are designated nonattainment for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including 

Allegheny and Armstrong Counties. 

Some areas are additionally required to 

implement RACT nonattainment 

requirements as anti-backsliding 

measures for the revoked 1997 8-hour 

NAAQS. Also, the entire 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is part 

of the OTR established under section 

184 of the CAA and thus subject 

statewide to the RACT requirements of 

CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f), 

pursuant to section 184(b). While RACT 

must be evaluated and satisfied as 

separate requirements under each 

applicable standard, in practice the 

same RACT requirements are applicable 

at this time in Pennsylvania for both the 

1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

States were required to make RACT 

SIP submissions for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS by September 15, 2006. 

The Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) 

submitted a SIP revision on September 

25, 2006, certifying that a number of 

previously approved VOC CTG and nonCTG major VOC RACT rules continued 

to satisfy RACT under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA approved PADEP’s 

September 25, 2006 submittal, so those 

requirements are not addressed in this 

action. See 82 FR 31464 (July 7, 2017). 

RACT control measures addressing all 

applicable CAA requirements under the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS have been 

implemented and fully approved in the 

jurisdictions of Allegheny County and 

Philadelphia County in Pennsylvania 

and are also not addressed here. See 78 

FR 34584 (June 10, 2013) and 81 FR 

69687 (October 7, 2016). For the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, states were 

required to submit RACT SIP revisions 

by July 20, 2014. 

C. Pennsylvania RACT Regulatory 

History, Legal Challenges and Partial 

Disapproval 

On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted 

a SIP revision addressing RACT under 

both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in Pennsylvania. Specifically, 

the May 16, 2016 SIP submittal 

intended to satisfy sections 182(b)(2)(C), 

182(f), and 184 of the CAA for both the 

1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 

Pennsylvania’s major NOX and non-CTG 

major VOC sources, with a few 

exceptions not relevant to this action. 

PADEP’s SIP revision included newly 

adopted regulations found at 25 

Pennsylvania Code (Pa. Code) sections 

129.96–129.100, titled ‘‘Additional 

RACT Requirements for Major Sources 

of NOX and VOCs’’ (the RACT II Rule) 

and amendments to 25 Pa. Code section 

121.1, including related definitions, to 

be incorporated into the Pennsylvania 

SIP. These regulatory amendments were 

adopted by PADEP on April 23, 2016, 

and became effective on the same date 

upon publication in the Pennsylvania 

Bulletin. 

On May 9, 2019, EPA published a 

final action fully approving certain 

provisions of PADEP’s RACT II rule, 

and conditionally approving other 

provisions of the SIP revision. 84 FR 

20274 (May 9, 2019). The Sierra Club 

commented on EPA’s proposed 

approval of the RACT II rule, and 

following EPA’s final approval, filed a 

petition for review with the U.S. Third 

Circuit Court of Appeals (Third Circuit). 

The petition challenged EPA’s approval 

of only that portion of the RACT II rule 

applicable to coal-fired EGUs equipped 

with SCR for control of NOX. 

Specifically, the petition challenged 

EPA’s approval of the presumptive 

RACT NOX limit for these EGUs of 0.12 

pounds (lb) of NOX per one million 

British thermal units (MMBtu) of heat 

input (lb/MMBtu) when the inlet 

temperature to the SCR was 600 degrees 

Fahrenheit or above, found at 25 Pa. 

Code 129.97(g)(1)(viii); the application 

of the less stringent NOX limits of 25 Pa. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31801 

6 25 Pa Code 129.97(g)(1)(vi) applies to coal-fired 

combustion units with a heat input greater than 250 

million MMBtu/hr that do not have SCR. 

7 Documentation for both closures is contained in 

the docket for this action. 

8Those portions of the SIP which were not 

subject to challenge in litigation remain approved 

by EPA’s May 2019 action. 

9The court did not vacate 25 Pa Code 

129.97(g)(1)(vi) generally. The court took issue with 

25 Pa Code 129.97(g)(1)(vi) only as it was being 

applied to EGUs with SCR when the inlet 

temperature to the SCR was below 600 degrees 

Fahrenheit. 

10EPA plans to finalize the September 15, 2021, 

proposed disapproval in the event we need to 

finalize this proposed FIP to meet the court-ordered 

deadline. The court-ordered deadline preempts the 

FIP timeline established by CAA section 110(c)(1) 

for a finalized disapproval. See 86 FR 51317. EPA 

may promulgate a FIP contemporaneously with or 

immediately following predicate final action on a 

SIP (or finding no SIP was submitted). In order to 

accomplish this, the EPA must necessarily be able 

to propose a FIP prior to taking final action to 

disapprove a SIP or make a finding of failure to 

submit. The Supreme Court recognized this in EME 

Homer City by stating ‘‘EPA is not obliged to wait 

two years or postpone its action even a single day: 

The Act empowers the Agency to promulgate a FIP 

‘at any time’ within the two-year limit.’’ EPA v. 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 489, 509 

(2014) (citations omitted). 

11See 51 Pa.B. 5834, September 11, 2021 

(Keystone); 51 Pa.B. 6259, October 2, 2021 

(Conemaugh); 51 Pa.B. 6558, October 16, 2021 

Continued 

Code 129.97(g)(1)(vi) to EGUs with SCR 

when the inlet temperature to the SCR 

was below 600 degrees Fahrenheit; 6 and 

the failure of the RACT II rule at 25 Pa. 

Code 129.100(d) to specifically require 

these EGUs to record temperature data 

for the inlet temperature to the SCRs 

and report that data to PADEP. At the 

time of EPA’s approval, there were six 

facilities in Pennsylvania which were 

subject to the portion of the RACT II 

rule which was relevant for purposes of 

the legal challenge: Bruce Mansfield 

Generating Station in Beaver County 

(Bruce Mansfield), Cheswick Generating 

Station in Allegheny County 

(Cheswick), Conemaugh Generating 

Station in Indiana County (Conemaugh), 

Homer City Generating Station in 

Indiana County (Homer City), Keystone 

Generating Station in Armstrong County 

(Keystone), and Montour Generating 

Station in Montour County (Montour). 

Subsequently, Bruce Mansfield ceased 

operations and surrendered their title V 

operating permit, and therefore is not 

included in this action. Additionally, 

Cheswick Generating Station was issued 

a title V modification which included 

an enforceable requirement to cease 

operations on or before April 1, 2022.7

Because the process of closure is still 

ongoing during development of this 

proposed rulemaking action, EPA 

cannot affirmatively determine at this 

time that operations at Cheswick have 

permanently and enforceably ceased. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing RACT 

limits for Cheswick. If operations have 

permanently and enforceably ceased 

prior to a final rulemaking action, EPA 

will not finalize RACT limits for 

Cheswick. 

On August 27, 2020, the Third Circuit 

Court of Appeals found for the Sierra 

Club on all three issues, vacated the 

Agency’s approval of the SIP 

submission on each of these three pieces 

of the Pennsylvania plan as it pertained 

to coal-fired EGUs equipped with SCRs 

(which was applicable to the six 

facilities listed above), and remanded to 

the Agency.8 Sierra Club v. EPA, 972 

F.3d 290 (3rd Cir. 2020) (Sierra Club). 

The court held that EPA’s approval of 

25 Pa. Code 129.97(g)(1)(viii) was 

arbitrary and capricious because the 

record did not support EPA’s finding 

that the emission rate limit of 0.12 lb/ 

MMBtu was RACT for these EGU 

sources, particularly in light of 

submitted evidence that EGUs in 

Pennsylvania regulated by 25 Pa. Code 

129.97(g)(1)(viii) had achieved much 

lower emission rates for NOX in the 

past, and that other states had adopted 

lower RACT NOX limits for coal-fired 

sources. Sierra Club at 299–303. In 

addition, the court held that EPA’s 

approval of the less stringent limits 

(found in 25 Pa Code 129.97(g)(1)(vi)) 

when the inlet temperature fell below 

600-degrees Fahrenheit was arbitrary 

and capricious because the record failed 

to support the need for that less 

stringent limit or explain why 600 

degrees was chosen as the threshold for 

the change in limits. Id. at 303–307. 

Thus, the court vacated EPA’s approval 

of the 0.12 lb/MMBtu limit, and the 600- 

degree temperature threshold, both of 

which are only found in 25 Pa. Code 

129.97(g)(1)(viii).9 See Id. at 309. 

Regarding the reporting and record 

keeping requirement of 25 Pa. Code 

129.100(d), the court also found EPA’s 

approval of the specific SIP revisions 

discussed above to be arbitrary and 

capricious based upon the lack of a 

specific record keeping and reporting 

requirement for the 600-degree inlet 

temperature alternative limits to the 

SCR. See Id. Specifically, the court held 

that ‘‘[b]ecause the SIP’s 600-degree 

threshold necessarily depends upon 

accurate temperature reporting, the 

EPA’s approval of such inadequate 

requirements on this record was 

arbitrary and capricious.’’ Id. at 309. 

Lacking evidence in the record that 

more general recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements contained in the 

SIP would require sources subject to 25 

Pa. Code 129.97(g)(1)(viii) to keep 

specific SCR temperature inlet data, 

report that data to PADEP, and make it 

available to the public, the court agreed 

with the Sierra Club. Id. at 308. Further, 

the court explained that ‘‘[t]he 

combination of this lack of mandatory 

reporting and the temperature waiver 

created a potent loophole for polluters 

to walk through.’’ Id. at 297. 

The court further stated that ‘‘[o]n 

remand, the agency must either approve 

a revised, compliant SIP within two 

years or formulate a new federal 

implementation plan.’’ Id. at 309. On 

September 15, 2021, EPA proposed 

disapproval of those portions of the 

prior approval which were vacated by 

the Court. See 86 FR 51315. EPA 

proposed that action in part to ensure 

that we have authority to promulgate a 

FIP if Pennsylvania does not submit a 

timely approvable SIP revision 

addressing the Third Circuit’s decision. 

EPA is now proposing this FIP to 

address these deficiencies, in 

accordance with the Court’s directive, 

should it be necessary to finalize a FIP 

to fulfill the Court’s order.10

D. Pennsylvania’s Efforts To Respond to 

the Court’s Decision 

PADEP undertook significant efforts 

to develop a SIP revision addressing the 

deficiencies identified by the Third 

Circuit in the Sierra Club decision. 

PADEP proceeded to develop source 

specific (‘‘case-by-case’’) RACT 

determinations for the Cheswick, 

Conemaugh, Homer City, Keystone, and 

Montour generating stations. As 

mentioned above, the Bruce Mansfield 

facility ceased operation, so there is no 

longer a need to address that facility. By 

April 1, 2021, each of the five facilities 

had submitted permit applications to 

PADEP with alternative RACT proposals 

in accordance with 25 Pa. Code 129.99. 

There are a total of ten affected EGUs/ 

units at the five facilities: Three at 

Homer City, two each at Conemaugh, 

Keystone and Montour, and one at 

Cheswick. Subsequently, PADEP issued 

technical deficiency notices to obtain 

more information needed to support the 

facilities’ proposed RACT 

determinations. Although additional 

information was provided in response to 

these notices, PADEP determined the 

proposals to be insufficient and began 

developing its own RACT determination 

for each facility. The outcome of this 

process was PADEP’s issuance of draft 

permits for each facility, which were 

developed with the intention of 

submitting each case-by-case RACT 

permit to be incorporated as a federally 

enforceable revision to the Pennsylvania 

SIP. Each draft permit underwent a 30- 

day public comment period,11 during 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31802 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(Homer City); 51 Pa.B. 6930, November 6, 2021 

(Montour); Allegheny County Health Department 

Public Notices, December 2, 2021 (Cheswick). 

12See Strelow Memo at 2. 

13See 86 FR 51315 (September 15, 2021). 

14For example, the CSAPR and certain other 

regulations addressing interstate transport of ozone 

and its precursors apply during ‘‘ozone season,’’ 

which is defined for purposes of those regulations 

as the period from May 1 to September 30 of each 

year. See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.38(b)(1). 15For the EPA Alternative Control Techniques 

Document for NOX Emissions from Utility Boilers, 

see https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=

2000INPN.txt. 16The Cost Manual can be found at https://

www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-airpollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidanceair-pollution. Additionally, the relevant section of 

the manual is included in the docket for this action. 

As of this publication, there are no sections 

addressing combustion controls. However, a section 

addressing low NOX and Ultra low NOX burners is 

in development. 

17For the TSD for the Revised CSAPR Update, see 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/ 

documents/egu_nox_mitigation_strategies_final_

rule_tsd.pdf. 

18See subsection 2.2.2 of section 4, Chapter 2 of 

the Cost Manual. 

which EPA provided source-specific 

comments to PADEP for each permit. 

The draft permits, technical support 

memos for each permit drafted by 

PADEP, and EPA’s comments on each 

draft permit are included in the docket 

for this proposed action. At this time, it 

is not known when, or if, PADEP will 

submit these permits to EPA as SIP 

revisions to address the Court’s 

decision. 

III. EPA’s RACT Analysis and Proposed 

Emission Limits 

RACT is not defined in the CAA. 

However, as discussed above, EPA’s 

longstanding definition of RACT is ‘‘the 

lowest emission limit that a particular 

source is capable of meeting by the 

application of control technology that is 

reasonably available considering 

technological and economic 

feasibility.’’ 12 Pennsylvania has 

adopted a very similar definition of 

RACT as ‘‘[t]he lowest emission limit for 

VOCs or NOX that a particular source is 

capable of meeting by the application of 

control technology that is reasonably 

available considering technological and 

economic feasibility.’’ 25 Pa. Code 

121.1. The Third Circuit decision 

‘‘assume[d] without deciding’’ that 

EPA’s definition of RACT is correct. 

Sierra Club at 294. EPA is using its 

longstanding definition of RACT to 

determine the limits proposed in this 

FIP. 

The collection of sources addressed 

by the RACT analysis in this proposed 

FIP has been determined by the scope 

of the Third Circuit’s order in the Sierra 

Club case and EPA’s subsequent 

proposed disapproval action.13 Herein, 

EPA is proposing RACT control 

requirements for the five remaining 

facilities that were subject to the SIP 

provision which the Court vacated 

EPA’s approval of and which EPA 

thereafter proposed to disapprove: 

Cheswick, Conemaugh, Homer City, 

Keystone, and Montour. 

EPA is proposing that the RACT 

limits in this FIP will apply throughout 

the year. For reasons explained in the 

next section, the proposed limits are 

technologically and economically 

feasible during the entire year. While 

other regulatory controls for ozone, such 

as the Cross State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR) and its updates, may apply 

during a defined ozone season,14 the 

proposed RACT limits do not authorize 

seasonal exemptions based on 

atmospheric conditions or other factors 

since the RACT emissions rates are 

technologically and economically 

feasible year-round. To the degree that 

the EPA analyses underlying the RACT 

emissions limits proposed here rely on 

past performance data, those 

calculations typically use ozone season 

data. This is because ozone season data 

generally represent the time period over 

which emissions rate performance of 

these units is the best. Put another way, 

the ozone season data for the facilities 

examined here are a reliable indicator of 

what is technologically and 

economically feasible for these facilities, 

and EPA has no reason to believe that 

achieving the same performance outside 

the ozone season would be 

technologically or economically 

infeasible. 

A. Technologically Feasible NOX

Controls for EGUs 

EPA has previously identified several 

technologically feasible controls for 

reducing NOX from EGUs. NOX control 

technologies are typically divided into 

combustion controls and postcombustion controls. Combustion 

controls reduce the formation of NOX

during the combustion of fuel, and 

include low-NOX burners (LNBs), over 

fire air (OFA), and natural gas reburn 

(NGR). Post-combustion controls ‘‘treat’’ 

NOX following its formation during 

combustion, and include Selective NonCatalytic Reduction (SNCR) and SCR. 

EPA’s Alternative Control Techniques 

Document for NOX Emissions from 

Utility Boilers provides technical 

information for developing and 

implementing regulatory programs to 

control NOX emission from fossil fuelfired boilers (EPA–453/R–94–023, 1994/ 

03).15 The EPA Air Pollution Control 

Cost Manual (Cost Manual) contains 

chapters with more recent information, 

including that for cost, for these postcombustion controls.16 The technical 

support document (TSD) for the Revised 

CSAPR Update rule also explored 

several technologies for reducing NOX

emissions from EGUs, including SCR 

and SNCR, and identified the likely cost 

of these controls.17

All ten of the EGUs at the five 

facilities at issue have been equipped 

with at least low NOX burners and 

overfire air since the 1990s, and with 

SCRs beginning in the early 2000s, with 

the exception of Conemaugh, which 

installed SCR in 2014. As such, lowNOX burners, overfire air, and SCR are 

clearly technologically feasible and 

proven technologies to reduce NOX for 

the EGUs at these facilities. The specific 

NOX and other pollutant controls on 

each EGU are discussed in the TSD for 

this action (See section B—Facility 

Details). Having determined that these 

technologies are technologically 

feasible, the question shifts to 

identifying, through the application of 

some or all of these technologies, what 

is the lowest NOX emission limitation at 

these EGUs reasonably available 

considering technological and economic 

feasibility. 

Section 4 (‘‘NOX Controls’’), Chapter 2 

(‘‘Selective Catalytic Reduction’’) of the 

Cost Manual contains a thorough 

description of how SCRs work and the 

multiple factors affecting the NOX

removal efficiency (performance) of 

SCRs. The major operational and design 

factors that affect the NOX removal 

performance of SCRs include: Reaction 

temperature range; residence time 

available in the optimum temperature 

range; degree of mixing between the 

injected reagent and the combustion 

gases; molar ratio of injected reagent to 

inlet NOX; inlet NOX concentration 

level; and ammonia slip. Additional 

factors affecting NOX removal efficiency 

of SCRs identified in the Cost Manual 

are: catalyst activity; catalyst selectivity; 

pressure drop across the catalyst; ash 

management (i.e., mitigating large 

particle ash (LPA) impacts on the 

catalyst) and dust loading; catalyst 

pitch; sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfur 

trioxide (SO3) concentrations in gas 

stream; catalyst deactivation; and 

catalyst management.18

The temperature of the flue gas 

entering the SCR is a critical factor 

affecting the performance of any SCR. 

The temperature of the flue gas entering 

the SCR affects the degree (percentage) 

of NOX reduction the SCR is capable of 

achieving, the likelihood of creating 

unfavorable emissions from the SCR, 

such as ammonia slip, and the potential 

for damage or fouling of the SCR 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31803 

19 Id. 

20 Id. 

21Sierra Club at 303–307. 

22CAA section 184(a) establishes a commission 

for the OTR, the OTC, consisting of the Governor 

of each state or their designees, the Administrator 

or their designee, the Regional Administrators for 

the EPA regional offices affected (or the 

Administrator’s designees), and an air pollution 

control official representing each state in the region, 

appointed by the Governor. Section 184(c) specifies 

a procedure for the OTC to develop 

recommendations for additional control measures 

to be applied within all or a part of the OTR if the 

OTC determines that such measures are necessary 

to bring any area in the OTR into attainment for 

ozone by the applicable attainment deadlines. On 

June 8, 2020, the OTC submitted a recommendation 

to EPA for additional control measures at certain 

coal-fired EGUs in Pennsylvania. See 85 FR 41972; 

July 13, 2020. 

23See p. 17 of the comments, in the docket for 

the section 184(c) petition, found at https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2020- 

0351-0022. 

24Conemaugh and Keystone submitted data in 

response to the OTC’s CAA section 184(c) petition 

identifying the MW input at which it typically 

operates or can operate the SCRs. EPA reviewed the 

historic operating data for these facilities as it did 

for Homer City, Montour, and Cheswick, and found 

that Keystone and Conemaugh’s stated thresholds 

were consistent with the data. EPA thus relied upon 

the stated values for Keystone and Conemaugh in 

the development of this action’s proposed rates. 

25https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/power-sectoremissions-data. 

26See Appendix 5 of the TSD for this action. 

catalyst. As stated in the Cost Manual: 

‘‘The NOX reduction reaction is effective 

only within a given temperature range. 

The use of a catalyst in the SCR process 

lowers the temperature range required 

to maximize the NOX reduction 

reaction. At temperatures below the 

specified range, the reaction kinetics 

decrease, and ammonia passes through 

the boiler (ammonia slip), but there is 

little effect on nitrous oxide (N2O) 

formation. At temperatures above the 

specified range, N2O formation 

increases and catalyst sintering and 

deactivation occurs, but little ammonia 

slip occurs.’’ 19 The Cost Manual also 

notes that ‘‘In an SCR system, the 

optimum temperature depends on both 

the type of catalyst used in the process 

and the flue gas composition. For the 

majority of commercial catalysts (metal 

oxides), the operating temperatures for 

the SCR process range from 480 to 

800 °F (250 to 430 °C). . . . [T]he rate of 

NOX removal increases with 

temperature up to a maximum between 

700 and 750 °F (370 to 400 °C). As the 

temperature increases above 750 °F 

(400 °C), the reaction rate and resulting 

NOX removal efficiency begin to 

decrease.’’ 20

Based in part on this language in the 

Cost Manual, EPA approved a 600- 

degree flue gas temperature threshold at 

which a 0.12 lb/MMBtu NOX rate 

applied in the Pennsylvania RACT II 

SIP. However, the Third Circuit found 

that both EPA’s and PADEP’s record 

lacked a reasonable explanation for why 

600 degrees was specifically selected by 

PADEP as the SCR inlet flue gas 

temperature below which the higher 

NOX emission rate applied.21

As part of the approach used to 

develop the proposed rates for this 

action, EPA examined data related to 

the threshold at which these facilities 

can effectively operate their SCR. Since 

the date of the Third Circuit decision 

(August 27, 2020), EPA has obtained 

from PADEP a few redacted pages of the 

SCR Operator’s Manual for Conemaugh 

and Keystone, as well as hourly flue gas 

temperature, reagent injection amounts, 

and NOX emission data for the years 

2017 through 2020 for those same 

facilities. These were submitted in 

response to PADEP’s technical 

deficiency letters and are included in 

the docket for this action. Conemaugh’s 

SCR manual lists 611 degrees 

Fahrenheit as the minimum temperature 

for injecting reagent, while Keystone’s 

manual says 612 degrees is the 

minimum continuous operating 

temperature for reagent injection, but 

reagent can be injected for up to 3 hours 

at temperatures between 582 and 611 

degrees before the system automatically 

shuts off reagent injection. Because 

these two facilities provided only a few 

select pages of their SCR manuals, EPA 

cannot be certain whether there are, or 

are not, other operating scenarios and/ 

or SCR inlet temperatures at which 

reagent could be injected. Furthermore, 

it is unclear whether the operating 

manual reflects a specific analysis of the 

injection protocol that would result in 

the greatest NOX reductions, as RACT 

requires. However, in comments 

submitted in response to the Ozone 

Transport Commission (OTC)’s CAA 

section 184(c) petition,22 Conemaugh 

and Keystone also identified the 

threshold in Megawatts (MW) at which 

they could operate their respective SCRs 

(see Table 1).23

PADEP also provided 30 days of 

similar data submitted by Montour, 

which included the inlet temperature 

and reagent injection amounts. Montour 

also provided an apparently complete 

copy of its SCR Operation and 

Maintenance Manual to PADEP, but this 

manual was not included in the 

information provided to EPA. 

Absent more complete temperature 

data and operating manuals for all 

facilities, EPA then analyzed historical 

operating data submitted to EPA by each 

of these facilities in order to determine 

the operating threshold at which 

Cheswick, Montour, and Homer City 

could inject reagent and run their SCRs 

to develop the same MW measure for 

these three facilities as for Conemaugh 

and Keystone.24 For Homer City, 

Montour, and Cheswick, EPA looked at 

hourly data for these sources in EPA’s 

Power Sector Emissions Data for ozone 

seasons 2002 through 2020, except for 

any years when the source did not have 

SCR installed.25 (See explanation in the 

introduction to this section for why 

these analyses use ozone season data) 

EPA created scatter plots showing 

hourly NOX emission rates by gross 

hourly load (MW/hr) for each unit’s 

three best performing ozone seasons (in 

terms of overall ozone season average 

rate), as well as data from its two most 

recent ozone seasons (which was 2019 

and 2020 at the time).26 From these 

scatter plots, the SCR threshold was 

approximated through visual 

inspection, i.e., by identifying each 

unit’s approximate gross load, above 

each unit’s minimum operating load, at 

which NOX rates below 0.2 lb/MMBtu 

were achieved in the years analyzed. 

The full analysis and methodology are 

discussed in detail in the TSD. The 

results of this analysis, as well as the 

reported values for Conemaugh and 

Keystone, are shown in Table 1 in this 

preamble. 

TABLE 1—OBSERVED SCR 

THRESHOLDS

Facility name Unit SCR threshold 

(MW) 

Conemaugh ................. 1 450 

Conemaugh ................. 2 450 

Keystone ..................... 1 660 

Keystone ..................... 2 660 

Homer City .................. 1 320 

Homer City .................. 2 320 

Homer City .................. 3 320 

Montour ....................... 1 380 

Montour ....................... 2 380 

Cheswick ..................... 1 290 

Given the role of gas temperature in 

SCR performance, EPA considered how 

best to use this information in 

establishing RACT limits that address 

the Third Circuit’s concerns about 

allowing less stringent limits when flue 

gas temperatures went below what it 

considered to be an arbitrary 

temperature threshold. This is a 

challenging factor to consider in cases 

when the operating temperature varies, 

and when the units spend some time at 

temperatures where SCR is very 

effective, and some time at temperatures 

where it is not. To assess whether the 

units in this FIP exhibit this pattern, 

EPA evaluated years of data submitted 

by these sources to EPA to characterize 

their variability in hours of operation or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31804 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

27See the Excel spreadsheet entitled ‘‘PA–MD– 

DE SCR unit data 2002–2020.xlsx’’ in the docket for 

this action. 

28PJM is a regional transmission organization 

(RTO) or grid operator which provides wholesale 

electricity throughout 13 states and the District of 

Columbia. 

29U.S. Energy Information Administration, 

‘‘Electric Power Annual 2020,’’ Table 3.1.A. Net 

Generation by Energy Source, https://www.eia.gov/ 

electricity/annual/. 

30U.S. EPA, ‘‘EPA Alternative Control 

Techniques Document for NOX Emissions from 

Utility Boilers’’ EPA–453/R–94–023, March 1994, p. 

5–119, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?

Dockey=2000INPN.txt. 

31See Sierra Club at 303–307. 

32 Id. at 303. 33See section C of the TSD for this action. 

level of operation.27 In particular, EPA 

used this information to identify 

whether, or to what degree, the EGUs 

have shifted from being ‘‘baseload’’ 

units (i.e., a steady-state heat input rate 

generally within SCR optimal 

temperature range) to ‘‘cycling’’ units 

(i.e., variable heat input rates, possibly 

including periods below the SCR 

optimal temperature range). All of these 

EGUs were designed and built as 

baseload units, meaning the boilers 

were designed to be operated at levels 

of heat input near their design capacity 

24 hours per day, seven days per week, 

for much of the year. As a result, the 

SCRs installed in the early 2000s were 

designed and built to work in tandem 

with a baseload boiler. In particular, the 

SCR catalyst and the reagent injection 

controls were designed for the 

consistently higher flue gas 

temperatures created by baseload boiler 

operation. In more recent years, for 

multiple reasons, these old, coal-fired 

baseload units have struggled to remain 

competitive when bidding into the PJM 

Interconnection (PJM) electricity 

market.28 Nationally, total electric 

generation has generally remained 

consistent, but between 2010 and 2020, 

generation at coal-fired utilities has 

declined by 68%.29 As a result, many of 

these units, on a daily basis, more 

recently have tended to cycle between 

high heat inputs, when electricity 

demand is high, and lower heat inputs 

or complete shutdowns, when demand 

is low. This cycling behavior can affect 

the ability of the EGUs to operate their 

SCRs because at lower heat inputs the 

temperature of the flue gas can drop 

below the operating temperature for 

which the SCR was designed.30

Accordingly, this proposal seeks to 

establish limits that account for the 

technical limits on SCR operation that 

can result from this cycling behavior. 

As alluded to above, PADEP 

attempted to address this cycling 

behavior by creating tiered emissions 

limits for different modes of operation 

based on the flue gas temperature, 

which its RACT II rule expressed as a 

transition from the 0.12 lb/MMBtu rate 

to much less stringent rates (between 

0.35 and 0.4 lb/MMBtu, depending on 

the type of boiler) based on a 

temperature cutoff of 600 degrees, with 

the less stringent rate essentially 

representing a ‘‘no-SCR’’ mode (i.e., an 

emission limit applicable at times when 

the SCR has been idled or bypassed and 

is not actively removing NOX). The 

Third Circuit rejected this approach 

because the selection of the cutoff 

temperature was not sufficiently 

supported by the record.31 The Third 

Circuit decision also questioned the 

need for a the less stringent rate, noting 

that nearby states do not have different 

emission rates based on inlet 

temperatures.32

EPA has considered the Court’s 

concerns and has further considered the 

practical and policy implications in 

structuring a tiered limit for these 

cycling EGUs based on operating 

temperature. As such, EPA has decided 

against proposing a tiered limit. The 

effectiveness of SCR does not drop to 

zero at a single temperature point and 

defining the minimum reasonable 

temperature range to begin reducing 

SCR operation for the purposes of 

creating an enforceable RACT limit is a 

highly technical, unit-specific 

determination that depends on several 

varying factors. EPA expects that 

defining a specific mode where SCR 

cannot or should not operate would be 

exceedingly complex and require 

information that EPA does not have, 

showing, for each unit, complete 

information on all the effects of varying 

temperature levels on SCR operation 

and emissions control performance. 

Such a tiered limit would also require 

extensive recordkeeping of the source’s 

relevant operating parameters that form 

the basis of the tiers in order to be 

enforceable, as the Court noted in its 

ruling regarding the need to keep 

detailed temperature records. 

EPA has an additional concern about 

addressing cycling operation through a 

tiered RACT limit based on operating 

temperature. It is reasonable to expect 

that, to the degree that the heat input of 

sources during cycling mode is under 

source control, the creation of a tiered 

limit that allows no-SCR operation at 

certain inlet temperatures would create 

an incentive for the source to cycle to 

temperatures where SCR is not required, 

in order to avoid SCR operating costs 

and potentially gain a competitive 

advantage. In the case of the 

Pennsylvania limits addressed by the 

Third Circuit’s decision, there was no 

limit on how much time the units could 

spend in no-SCR mode. In section C of 

the TSD for this action, EPA shows that 

over the last decade, some affected 

sources have varied the gross load level 

to which they cycle down, hovering 

either just above or just below the 

threshold at which the SCR can likely 

operate effectively. 

Depending on the unit, this slight 

change in electricity output could 

significantly affect SCR operation and 

the resulting emissions output. Though 

instances of cycling below SCR 

thresholds occurred in some cases prior 

to the implementation of Pennsylvania’s 

tiered RACT limit and thus the limit 

may not be the sole driver of the 

behavior following its implementation, 

the limit certainly allows this behavior 

to occur. While EPA acknowledges the 

need for EGUs to operate at times in 

modes where SCR cannot operate, EPA 

believes its RACT limit should 

minimize incentives to do that, and a 

tiered rate structure that effectively has 

no limit on no-SCR operation tends to 

do the opposite. 

On the other hand, EPA is also 

concerned about a RACT limit that 

treats these EGUs as always operating as 

baseload units by imposing a NOX

emission rate that applies at all times 

but can technically be achieved only if 

the boiler is operating at high loads. 

Recent data indicates that these units 

are not operating as baseload units and 

are not likely to do so in the future.33

Selecting the best baseload rate (the rate 

reflecting SCR operation in the optimal 

temperature range) and applying that 

rate at all times does not account for, 

and could essentially prohibit, some 

cycling operation of these units. Cycling 

has become more common at coal-fired 

EGUs because they are increasingly 

outcompeted for baseload power. In the 

past, these units were among the 

cheapest sources of electricity and 

would often run close to maximum 

capacity. Over time, other EGUs can 

now generate electricity at lower costs 

than the coal-fired units. Thus, the coalfired units now cycle to lower loads 

during hours with relatively low system 

demand (often overnight and especially 

during the spring and fall ‘‘shoulder’’ 

seasons when space heating and cooling 

demand is minimized) when their 

power is more expensive than the 

marginal supply to meet lower load 

levels. Hence, they cycle up and down 

as load, and demand-driven power 

prices, rise and fall and they operate 

when the price meets or exceeds their 

cost to supply power. EPA 

acknowledges that cycling down to a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31805 

34Because the facility installed SCR in late 2014, 

the only ozone seasons available to analyze 

Conemaugh’s operation with SCR are 2015–2021. In 

addition, Conemaugh’s average ozone season NOX

rates vary significantly over this time period. Given 

the relative newness of Conemaugh’s SCRs, and the 

fewer number of years of data and the wide 

variation in rates in those years, EPA decided that 

the second-best ozone season represents reasonable 

SCR performance for Conemaugh. 

no-SCR mode may sometimes happen, 

for example, when electricity demand 

drops unexpectedly, and other units 

provide the power at a lower cost. The 

consideration of the technical and 

economic feasibility of a given RACT 

limit should reflect, to the extent 

possible, consideration of the past, 

current, and future expected operating 

environment of a given unit. EPA seeks 

comment on how best to consider these 

feasibility issues to establish a rate for 

each unit that would reflect a reasonable 

level of load-following (cycling) (e.g., a 

level consistent with similar SCRequipped units) but that also accounts 

for the lower historic NOX rates that 

these units have achieved. 

B. Weighted Rates Approach and 

Analysis 

Given these concerns, EPA is 

proposing to express the RACT limits 

for these units using a weighted rate 

limit. The weighted rate incorporates 

both a lower ‘‘SCR-on’’ limit and a 

higher ‘‘SCR-off’’ limit. Through 

assignment of weights to these two 

limits based on the proportion of 

operation in SCR-on and SCR-off modes 

during a period of operation that 

represents a reasonably low amount of 

SCR-off operation, the SCR-on and SCRoff limits are combined into a single 

RACT limit that applies at all times. The 

weight given to the proposed SCR-off 

limit (established as described later in 

this section) has the effect of limiting 

the portion of time a cycling source can 

operate in SCR-off mode and 

incentivizes a source to shift to SCR-on 

mode to preserve headroom under the 

limit. While driving SCR operation, the 

weighted limit accommodates the need 

for an EGU to occasionally cycle down 

to loads below which SCR can operate 

effectively and does not prohibit no-SCR 

operation or dictate specific times when 

it must occur. In this way, the proposed 

approach avoids the difficulty of 

precisely establishing the minimum 

temperature point at which the no-SCR 

mode is triggered, effectively 

acknowledging the more gradual nature 

of the transition between modes where 

SCR is or is not effective. Finally, it is 

readily enforceable through existing 

Continuous Emission Monitoring 

Systems (CEMS), without the need for 

development of recordkeeping for 

additional parameters that define the 

SCR-off mode. The approach is 

described in more detail below. 

As a starting point for developing the 

weighted rates for each unit, EPA 

calculated both ‘‘SCR-on’’ and ‘‘SCRoff’’ rates using historic ozone season 

operating data for the unit to determine 

when the SCR was likely running and 

when it was likely not running, and 

then established rates that represent the 

lowest emission limit that is reasonably 

available considering economic and 

technological feasibility. Using the EPA 

(or source) derived minimum SCR 

operation threshold as described in 

section III.A in this preamble, expressed 

as Megawatts (MW) in Table 1 in this 

preamble, EPA calculated average ‘‘SCRon’’ and ‘‘SCR-off’’ rates for each unit 

based on historic operating data for that 

unit, when available, from 2003 to 2021. 

For detail on the development of these 

rates, see section D of the TSD for this 

action. The ‘‘SCR-on’’ rate is an average 

of all hours in which the SCR was likely 

running (operating above the threshold 

at which it can run the SCR with an 

hourly NOX emission rate below 0.2 lb/ 

MMBtu) during each unit’s third best 

ozone season from the period 2003 to 

2021. The third best ozone season was 

identified based on the unit’s overall 

average NOX emission rate during each 

ozone season from 2003 to 2021. This 

18-year time period captures all the 

years of SCR operation for each facility, 

with the exception of Conemaugh, 

which only installed SCR in 2014.34

EPA included all these years of data 

because the Third Circuit’s decision 

questioned EPA’s review of only certain 

years of emissions data for these sources 

in determining whether to approve 

Pennsylvania’s RACT II NOX emission 

rate for these EGUs. The use of the 3rdbest year accounts for degradation of 

control equipment over time. EPA used 

a third best ozone season approach for 

the Revised CSAPR Update (86 FR 

23054, April 30, 2021) and the proposed 

Good Neighbor Plan for 2015 Ozone 

NAAQS (87 FR 20036, April 6, 2022) 

(2015 Good Neighbor Plan). The ‘‘SCRoff rate’’ is an average of all hours in 

which the unit’s SCR was likely not 

running (operating below the threshold 

at which it can run the SCR with an 

hourly NOX rate above 0.2 lb/MMBtu) 

during all ozone seasons from 2003– 

2021. All ozone seasons in the time 

period were used to increase the sample 

size of this subset of the data, as an 

individual ozone season likely contains 

significantly fewer data points of nonSCR operation. 

Using the thresholds listed in Table 1 

in this preamble, EPA then calculated 

the SCR-on and SCR-off ‘‘weights,’’ 

which represent the amount of heat 

input spent above (SCR-on) or below 

(SCR-off) the SCR threshold, for each 

EGU. For the weights, EPA evaluated 

data from the 2011 to 2021 ozone 

seasons and selected the year in which 

the EGU had its third highest proportion 

of heat input spent above the SCR 

threshold during this time period, using 

that year’s weight (the ‘‘third best 

weight’’) together with the SCR-on/SCRoff rates described previously to 

calculate the weighted rate. The years 

2011–2021 were analyzed because they 

likely are representative of the time 

period that encompasses the years when 

the units began to exhibit a greater 

cycling pattern, and it is reasonable to 

expect that this pattern will continue for 

the foreseeable future. 

Using these data, EPA is proposing 

emissions limitations based on the 

following equation: 

(‘‘SCR-on’’ weight * ‘‘SCR-on’’ mean 

rate) + (‘‘SCR off’’ weight * ‘‘SCR 

off’’ mean rate) = emissions limit in 

lb/MMBtu. 

The calculation for each limit is based 

on the third best weight for each unit 

over the 2011 to 2021 time period. 

Using the third best weight will 

eliminate the weights that represent 

years with the most frequent ‘‘no-SCR’’ 

cycling, especially the years in which 

cycling to just below the SCR threshold 

became more prevalent, in order to act 

as a limit on the potential for excessive 

no-SCR operation and incentivize SCR 

use. At the same time, using the third 

best weight will also minimize the 

weights that represent periods when 

minimal cycling was occurring (i.e., 

baseload operation), in order to ensure 

that the limit is not forcing cycling to be 

infeasibly constrained. The third best 

weight is therefore consistent with the 

RACT requirement: It represents the 

lowest rate reflecting SCR application, 

taking both reasonable technological 

and economic feasibility into account. 

C. Proposed NOX Emission Rate Limits 

Table 2 in this preamble presents the 

proposed NOX Emission RACT rate 

limits for each facility that result from 

the application of the weighted 

approach. Table 2 in this preamble also 

presents the range of rates that would be 

generated using minimum (i.e., more 

baseload) and maximum (i.e., more 

cycling) weights over the period. EPA is 

taking comment on its proposed limits, 

and is also soliciting comment on all the 

values in this range as potential 

alternatives. More details about the 

weighted rates analysis can be found in 

section D of the TSD for this action. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31806 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

35See Coal-fired EGU new source performance 

standards (NSPS); 40 CFR 60.44. 

36EPA has approved 30-day rolling averages as 

‘‘short-term’’ RACT limitations in SIP revisions 

submitted by New York and Wisconsin. See 75 FR 

64155 (October 19, 2010) for Wisconsin and 78 FR 

41846 (July 12, 2013) for New York. 

37See ‘‘State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen 

Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990’’ at 57 FR 55625 (November 

25, 1992). 

38See ‘‘Technical Evaluation for Case-by-Case 

RACT, Conemaugh Generating Station’’ at 7. 

TABLE 2—PROPOSED NOX EMISSION RATE LIMITS

Facility name Unit Low range rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

High range rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Weighted rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Proposed 

facility-wide 

30-day average 

rate limit 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Cheswick ...................................................................... 1 0.085 0.195 0.099 0.099 

Conemaugh .................................................................. 1 0.071 0.132 0.091 0.091 

Conemaugh .................................................................. 2 0.070 0.132 0.094 

Homer City ................................................................... 1 0.102 0.190 0.102 0.088 

Homer City ................................................................... 2 0.088 0.126 0.088 

Homer City ................................................................... 3 0.096 0.136 0.097 

Keystone ...................................................................... 1 0.046 0.170 0.076 0.074 

Keystone ...................................................................... 2 0.045 0.172 0.074 

Montour ........................................................................ 1 0.047 0.131 0.069 0.069 

Montour ........................................................................ 2 0.048 0.145 0.070 

The resulting NOX emission rate 

limits will be based on a 30-day rolling 

average, and will apply at all times, 

including during operations when 

exhaust temperatures are too low for the 

SCR to operate, or operate optimally. 

For facilities with more than one unit, 

the proposed limit will allow facilitywide averaging for compliance, but the 

average limit will be based on the 

weighted rate achieved by the best 

performing unit. Using the best 

performing unit as the basis for RACT 

is appropriate, as it would prioritize 

increased utilization of the best 

performing units in SCR-on mode. EPA 

is proposing a 30-operating day, rolling 

average for this rate-based (i.e., lb/ 

MMBtu) limit. EPA and many states 

have used such 30-day average limits for 

this type of limit, where the measured 

daily lb/MMBtu rate can vary 

significantly depending on the way the 

boilers and SCRs are operated in a day, 

but the limit is designed to apply at all 

times. A 30-day average ‘‘smooths’’ this 

variability by averaging the current 

value with the prior values over a 

rolling 30-day period to determine 

compliance. While some period of lb/ 

MMBtu values over the target rate can 

occur without triggering a violation, 

they must be offset by corresponding 

periods where the lb/MMBtu rate is 

lower than the target rate (i.e., the 30- 

day rolling average rate). Such averaging 

periods have precedent not only in 

Federal rulemaking,35 but in EPA’s 

approval of SIPs.36 Such a limit can 

represent RACT so long as it is based on 

30-day periods that represent the lowest 

rate the source is capable of meeting 

over such period through the 

application of control technology that is 

reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility. 

When EPA previously provided 

presumptive RACT limits for coal-fired 

EGUs, it expressed them as 30-day 

averages.37 A 30-day average is similarly 

appropriate here, as the proposed rate 

limits here would apply at all times, 

throughout the year, to units that are 

expected to exhibit cycling operation as 

described previously. While there may 

be periods (typically when cycling 

down to where the SCR cannot operate 

effectively) where the lb/MMBtu rate is 

exceeded, these periods are limited in 

time by the weighted rate, and must be 

offset by periods where the lb/MMBtu 

rate is correspondingly lower to meet 

30-day average limit. 

D. Proposed Daily NOX Mass Emission 

Limits 

EPA is also proposing a unit-specific 

daily NOX mass emission limit (i.e., lb/ 

day) to complement the weighted 

facility-wide 30-day NOX emission rate 

limit and further ensure RACT is 

applied continuously. High emissions 

days are a concern, given the 8-hour 

averaging time of the underlying 1997 

and 2008 ozone NAAQS. This proposed 

daily NOX mass emission limit was 

calculated by multiplying the proposed 

facility-wide 30-day rolling average NOX

emission limit (in lb/MMBtu) by each 

unit’s heat input maximum permitted 

rate capacity (in MMBtu/hr) by 24 

hours. While the 30-day average rate 

limit ensures that SCR is operated 

where feasible while reasonably 

accounting for cycling, EPA is 

concerned that units meeting this limit 

might still occasionally have higher 

daily mass emissions on one or more 

days where no or limited SCR operation 

occurs, which could trigger exceedances 

of the ozone NAAQS if these high mass 

emissions occur on days conducive to 

ozone formation, such as especially hot 

summer days. Notably, the OTC also 

raised the issue of daily emission limits 

in its CAA section 184(c) petition. 

For example, in PADEP’s ‘‘Technical 

Evaluation for Case-by-Case RACT, 

Conemaugh Generating Station,’’ the 

performance of Conemaugh Unit 1 

during the month of April 2020 was 

evaluated. PADEP determined that for 

most of the month, the unit ran at 

approximately 75% heat capacity, yet 

no reagent was injected on most days. 

Daily NOX mass emissions were 

predictably high. For example, on April 

2, 2020, Unit 1 ran at roughly 75% heat 

capacity for about 20 out of the 24 

hours. The NOX emissions rate over that 

period was roughly 0.275 lb/MMBtu.38

Twenty hours at 75% heat capacity at 

0.275 lb/MMBtu results in 

approximately 34,000 lbs of NOX

emitted. In contrast, twenty hours at 

75% heat capacity at the proposed 0.091 

lb/MMBtu weighted rate would result in 

much less NOX being emitted: 

Approximately 11,260 lbs. The addition 

of a unit-specific daily mass emission 

limit at an appropriate level will 

address concerns that a facility-wide 30- 

day average emission rate, by itself, may 

not curtail certain days where higher 

emission rates result in higher mass 

emissions of NOX. These foregone 

emissions reductions could have serious 

NAAQS implications on days where 

high ozone levels are likely to occur. A 

properly operating SCR can reduce NOX

emissions by between 50% to 90%. For 

example, looking at the same 

Conemaugh Unit 1 data on a different 

day, September 30, 2017, the unit 

operated around 50% load for the entire 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31807 

39Title V Permit maximum heat input rates. 

day, but the facility apparently elected 

to operate the SCR since the NOX

emission rate for that day was 0.05 lb/ 

MMBtu, which is 82% lower than the 

April 2, 2020, NOX rate. 

For these reasons, EPA believes it is 

reasonable to propose an additional 

unit-specific lb/day mass limit as an 

additional safeguard. The proposed 

daily mass limit would be an additional 

constraint on no-SCR operation within a 

single day. It provides for some boiler 

operation without using the SCR, which 

may be unavoidable during part of any 

given day, but it constrains such 

operation because the mass limit will 

necessitate SCR operation (for example 

by raising heat input to a level where 

the SCR can operate) if the unit is to 

continue to operate while remaining 

below this limit. This provides greater 

consistency with the RACT definition. 

Table 3 in this preamble shows the 

proposed unit-specific NOX mass limits, 

which are to be met on a 24-hr basis. 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED NOX MASS LIMITS

Facility name Unit 

Permitted max 

hourly heat 

input rate 

(MMBtu/hr) 39

Proposed 

unit-specific 

mass limit 

(lb/day) 

Cheswick .............................................................................................................................................. 1 6,000 14,256 

Conemaugh ......................................................................................................................................... 1 8,280 18,084 

Conemaugh ......................................................................................................................................... 2 8,280 18,084 

Homer City ........................................................................................................................................... 1 6,792 14,345 

Homer City ........................................................................................................................................... 2 6,792 14,345 

Homer City ........................................................................................................................................... 3 7,260 15,333 

Keystone .............................................................................................................................................. 1 8,717 15,481 

Keystone .............................................................................................................................................. 2 8,717 15,481 

Montour ................................................................................................................................................ 1 7,317 12,117 

Montour ................................................................................................................................................ 2 7,239 11,988 

Table 4 in this preamble shows the 

reductions these proposed limits would 

realize when compared to 2021 

emissions data. 

TABLE 4—2021 ANNUAL NOX EMISSIONS AND RATES COMPARED TO PROPOSED RATES

Facility 

2021 average 

NOX rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Proposed 

30-day 

NOX rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Proposed 

rate vs. 

2021 average 

(%) 

2021 NOX

emissions 

(tons) 

Potential 

change in 

NOX mass 

emissions 

(tons) 

Cheswick .............................................................................. 0.139 0.099 ¥29 1,069 ¥309 

Conemaugh .......................................................................... 0.149 0.091 ¥39 5,506 ¥2,132 

Homer City ........................................................................... 0.133 0.088 ¥34 3,144 ¥1,060 

Keystone .............................................................................. 0.142 0.074 ¥48 5,481 ¥2,618 

Montour ................................................................................ 0.110 0.069 ¥37 649 ¥241 

Net ................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 15,850 *¥6,361 

*¥40% 

E. Technological and Economic 

Feasibility of EPA’s Proposed RACT 

Limits 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the limits discussed in the prior section 

are technologically feasible, in part 

because the limits have been met by 

each of the facilities affected by the 

proposed FIP. During the process of 

reviewing PADEP’s proposed source 

specific permits, EPA evaluated past 

performance of the units in question, as 

shown in Appendix 1 of the TSD for 

this action. EPA looked at data from the 

best and third-best ozone seasons 

(second best for Conemaugh) over its 

entire record of operation with SCR, as 

well as data from just recent ozone 

seasons (2010–2020), with 2019 shown 

individually. For each of those time 

periods, EPA calculated the best daily 

average, the mean daily average, and the 

99th percentile of daily average NOX

emissions. 

As previously discussed, RACT is not 

the lowest rate achievable by a 

particular source (or source category). 

Nor, as the Third Circuit pointed out, 

are RACT requirements satisfied by a 

limit that represents ‘‘. . . an average of 

the current emissions being generated 

by existing systems.’’ Sierra Club at 14– 

15. Rather, as previously discussed, 

RACT is the lowest emission limit that 

a particular source is capable of meeting 

by the application of the control 

technology that is reasonably available 

considering technological and economic 

feasibility. By considering historical 

data that represent the best performing 

years, as well as more recent years 

where the changing realities of electrical 

generation have presented legitimate 

technological challenges to meeting 

those best rates, EPA’s weighted rate 

approach is reasonable, and consistent 

with the CAA’s RACT requirements. It 

represents a considerable improvement 

over the status quo, and still allows 

these sources the flexibility to address 

fluctuating power demands from the 

grid operator, so long as operation 

without SCR is reasonably constrained. 

Economic feasibility in the context of 

RACT is not a ‘‘bright-line’’ or ‘‘onesize-fits-all’’ test with a clearly 

established threshold between what is 

and what is not economically feasible. 

Rather, it involves a case-by-case 

evaluation, and ‘‘. . . is largely 

determined by evidence that other 

sources in a source category have in fact 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31808 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

40See ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; 

Supplemental;’’ April 28, 1992; 57 FR 18074. See 

also 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979) (supplement 

to the general preamble on RACT) and EPA 

Memorandum titled ‘‘Criteria for Determining 

RACT in Region IV’’ dated June 19, 1985 (https:// 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/ 

documents/criteria_for_determining_ract_in_

region_iv_6-19-85.pdf). 

41 Id. 

42See ‘‘PA-MD-DE SCR unit data 2000– 

2020.xlsx’’ 

43EPA also notes that the cost of NOX allowances 

under the various trading programs varied widely. 

See ‘‘Allowance Price Data All.xlsx’’ in the docket 

for this action. 

44See https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/retrofitcost-analyzer for the ‘‘Retrofit Cost Analyzer 

(Update 1–26–2022)’’ Excel tool. 

applied the control technology in 

question.’’ 40 In the case of these five 

facilities, because the controls are 

already installed (no costs to install or 

retrofit control equipment), the 

economic analysis partially involves 

comparing the emissions limitations 

achieved by similar sources which 

operate under similar electrical dispatch 

constraints, as well as considering the 

extent to which all of these units have 

in fact demonstrated an ability to meet 

the proposed limits in the past. As 

discussed in more detail below, EPA’s 

cost analysis was consistent with the 

national, fleetwide approach applied in 

the context of the CSAPR rulemakings, 

and the 2015 Good Neighbor Plan. 

Additionally, EPA has made clear that 

economic feasibility should not be 

conflated with affordability: ‘‘Economic 

feasibility rests very little on the ability 

of a particular source to ‘afford’ to 

reduce emissions to the level of similar 

sources. Less efficient sources would be 

rewarded by having to bear lower 

emission reduction costs if affordability 

were given high consideration.’’ 41

Furthermore, EPA reviewed operating 

and emissions data of EGUs in 

neighboring states which are also 

contractually obligated to the PJM 

Interconnection and found that there 

was nothing unique about the operating 

patterns of the units in Pennsylvania. 

EPA performed an analysis comparing 

certain data for each of the Pennsylvania 

SCR-equipped EGUs to data for the 

remaining SCR-equipped coal-fired 

EGUs in Maryland (Brandon Shores 1,2, 

Morgantown 1,2, and Wagner 3) and 

Delaware (Indian River 4). The data 

were compiled into a spreadsheet which 

is included in the docket for this 

action.42 The data cover the period from 

2000 through 2020. The spreadsheet 

looks at the extent to which changes in 

units’ average ozone season NOX

emission rates over time can be 

explained by changes in their ozone 

season operating patterns—i.e., 

operating fewer hours and spending a 

larger fraction of the remaining 

operating hours at lower load levels. 

EPA identified a multi-year baseline 

period after installation of each 

analyzed unit’s SCR when operation of 

the unit seemed fairly stable and the 

NOX emission rate showed fairly 

consistent SCR optimization. These 

periods vary by unit and range from 2 

years to 9 years across parts of the 2001– 

2013 time period. For each unit, EPA 

then compared the averages of the unit’s 

seasonal average NOX emission rate, 

seasonal total operating hours, and 

seasonal average load level per 

operating hour during the baseline 

period to the same unit’s averages across 

the 2017–2019 period. EPA did not 

identify a baseline period or perform the 

same specific comparisons for 

Conemaugh units 1 and 2 because these 

units’ SCRs were not installed until 

2015. The comparisons support several 

observations: 

• Except for Keystone 1–2, all the 

units in all three states have 

experienced moderate to very large 

decreases in seasonal total operating 

hours—from 19% to 74%. By 

comparison, Keystone 1 and 2’s 

operating hours decreased only 3% and 

7%. (Conemaugh’s pattern of changes in 

operating hours is similar to 

Keystone’s). 

• Except for Keystone 1 and 2 and 

Conemaugh 1 and 2, all the units in 

Pennsylvania and Maryland have also 

experienced moderate to large decreases 

in seasonal average load levels per 

operating hour—from 20% to 37%. By 

comparison, Keystone 1 and 2’s average 

load levels per operating hour decreased 

only 6% and 9%. (Conemaugh’s pattern 

of changes is similar to Keystone’s, and 

Indian River 4 had a 10% decrease). 

• Except for Homer City 3 (and 

Conemaugh 1 and 2), all the 

Pennsylvania units experienced large 

increases in seasonal average NOX

emission rates from the baseline period 

to the 2017–2019 period—from 59% to 

130%. Comparison to the Maryland 

units calls into question whether these 

emission rate increases can reasonably 

be attributed to changes in either the 

units’ total operating hours or the units’ 

average load levels per operating hour, 

because the Maryland units—which had 

changes in both of these variables much 

larger than Keystone 1 and 2 and 

comparable to the other Pennsylvania 

units—all experienced decreases in 

average emission rates from ¥6% to 

¥25% (Indian River 4 experienced an 

emission rate increase of 21%, but 

stayed below 0.085 lb/MMBtu, and 

Homer City 3 experienced an emission 

rate decrease of ¥2%.). 

In summary, the comparisons show 

that all five Maryland units (and to a 

lesser extent the one Delaware unit) 

have experienced comparable or greater 

changes in total operating hours and 

average load levels per operating hour 

over time than the Pennsylvania units 

without a deterioration in NOX emission 

rates comparable to the deterioration 

shown by most of the Pennsylvania 

units.43

F. Increased Injection of Reagent and 

Increased Use of SCRs 

Fixed operation and maintenance 

(FOM) costs, such as operator salaries, 

are independent of the operation of the 

control system and are incurred by the 

operator regardless of variations in 

control utilization. Variable operation 

and maintenance (VOM) costs are 

proportional to the quantity of waste gas 

processed by the control system. 

Because the SCRs at each EGU have 

already been installed and have been 

operated for years (albeit in a less than 

optimal fashion), FOM costs for the 

SCRs have already been incurred. 

Therefore, the economic feasibility 

analysis for this proposal need only 

consider the VOM costs associated with 

increased use of the SCRs. The most 

significant of these costs is the cost of 

the additional reagent needed to meet 

the proposed NOX limits and the 

additional cost of more frequent catalyst 

replacement and maintenance that 

might occur from greater use of the 

SCRs (compared to the status quo) to 

meet the lower proposed NOX limit. 

EPA has recently evaluated VOM costs 

associated with increased use of SCRs in 

a number of national rulemaking actions 

related to the CAA’s interstate transport 

requirements, including most recently 

the proposed 2015 Good Neighbor Plan. 

In the ‘‘EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies 

Proposed Rule TSD’’ (2015 Good 

Neighbor Plan TSD) for the proposed 

rulemaking (included in the docket for 

this action), EPA used the capital 

expenses, and operation and 

maintenance costs for installing and 

fully operating emission controls based 

on the cost equations used within the 

Integrated Planning Model (IPM) that 

were researched by Sargent & Lundy, a 

nationally recognized architect/ 

engineering firm with EGU sector 

expertise. From this research, EPA 

created a publicly available Excel-based 

tool called the Retrofit Cost Analyzer 

(Update 1–26–2022) (Retrofit Cost 

Analyzer) that implements these cost 

equations.44

In the TSD for the 2015 Good 

Neighbor Plan, EPA used the Retrofit 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31809 

45See Appendix 3 of the TSD for this proposed 

FIP. 

46See 2015 Good Neighbor Plan TSD at 5. 

47See Id. at 4. 

48See Appendix 3. 

49 In 1985, EPA explained in a memo regarding 

cost effectiveness for RACT that while it would be 

inappropriate to set a specific threshold for 

economic feasibility, because RACT is necessarily 

a case-by-case determination, ‘‘[t]here are sources 

and source categories for which costs in excess of 

$2,000/ton have been determined to be reasonable.’’ 

EPA Memorandum titled ‘‘Criteria for Determining 

RACT in Region IV’’ dated June 19, 1985 (https:// 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/ 

documents/criteria_for_determining_ract_in_

region_iv_6-19-85.pdf). 

50See ‘‘NOX_Control_Retrofit_Cost_Tool_

Fleetwide_Assessment_Proposed_CSAPR_2015_

NAAQS’’ in the docket. 

51This is a high end assumption not necessarily 

representative of future markets, but used for the 

purposes of this sensitivity. Combining current 

market conditions with the RCA methodology 

would result in approximately $600 to $900 ton 

cost for the urea cost for the future. 

Cost Analyzer to estimate the cost of 

additional reagent, as well as additional 

VOM costs, including catalyst 

replacement and disposal. Based on 

those calculations EPA estimated a 

representative marginal cost of 

optimizing SCR controls to be 

approximately $1,600 per ton, 

consistent with its estimation in the 

Revised CSAPR Update for this 

technology. Additionally, depending on 

a unit’s control operating status, the 

representative cost at the 90th percentile 

unit (among the relevant fleet of coal 

units with SCR covered in this 

rulemaking) ranges between $900 and 

$1,700 per ton. EPA evaluated all coalfired units with SCR and determined 

that for those units with SCRs that are 

already partially operating, the cost of 

optimizing is often much lower than 

$1,600 per ton and is often under $900 

per ton. (87 FR 20077; April 6, 2022). 

EPA notes that while there is not a 

direct, one-to-one correlation, the cost of 

reagents is impacted directly by 

fluctuations in agricultural fertilizer 

markets. Fertilizer costs have risen 

considerably since this analysis was 

performed. In March of 2022, the cost of 

anhydrous ammonia was listed at 

roughly $1500/ton, and urea at roughly 

$900/ton.45 The analysis performed for 

the 2015 Good Neighbor Plan to arrive 

at a reagent cost of $500/ton involved 

calculations using the cost of urea.46

However, all of the sources covered by 

this proposed FIP currently use 

ammonia for reagent injection. 

Using the proposed NOX limits and 

associated predicted NOX reductions in 

Table 4 in this preamble, and the 

assumption from the 2015 Good 

Neighbor Plan TSD 47 that the chemical 

reaction requires 0.57 tons of ammonia 

for each ton of NOX reduced, we 

calculated an updated $/ton of NOX

removed using current (March 2022) 48

ammonia costs for the five facilities: 

TABLE 5—COST PER NOX ($/TON) REMOVED BASED ON ADDITIONAL REAGENT

Facility 

Predicted 

reduction 

(tons NOX

per year from 

2021 baseline) 

Additional 

reagent 

(tons per 

year from 

2021 baseline) * 

Total annual 

cost for 

additional 

reagent ∧

Cost per ton 

of NOX

removed for 

additional 

reagent 

($/ton) +

Cheswick .......................................................................................................... 309 176 $264,000 $854 

Conemaugh ..................................................................................................... 2,132 1,215 1,822,500 855 

Homer City ....................................................................................................... 1,060 604 906,000 855 

Keystone .......................................................................................................... 2,618 1,492 2,238,000 855 

Montour ............................................................................................................ 241 137 205,000 853 

Average cost/ton ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 854 

* Additional reagent = predicted reduction (tons) × 0.57 tons reagent/ton NOX reduction. ∧Total cost = additional reagent × $1500/ton reagent. + Cost per ton = total cost/predicted reduction. 

As previously noted, EPA’s general 

evaluation of the costs of optimizing an 

existing and already operating SCR in 

the 2015 Good Neighbor Plan TSD was 

estimated to be from $900/ton to $1600 

per ton of NOX removed in 2016 dollars. 

This includes reagent costs, as well as 

other VOM costs. EPA calculated the 

reagent-only portion of those costs to be 

$500 per ton of NOX removed. 

Therefore, the remaining, non-reagent 

VOM costs were determined to be $400– 

$1100 per ton. While other VOM costs 

may also have risen since this analysis 

was conducted, it is unlikely that they 

have been as volatile as soaring reagent 

costs, and EPA currently does not have 

reliable, updated information beyond 

what was presented in the 2015 Good 

Neighbor Plan on how VOM costs may 

have risen. Nevertheless, EPA believes 

that it is unnecessary to re-evaluate the 

non-reagent VOM costs for the purposes 

of this bounding analysis, aside from 

converting the figures to 2022 dollars, 

because EPA predicts that the effects of 

any change in non-reagent VOM would 

be minimal on the ultimate conclusion. 

Converting the higher non-reagent VOM 

cost of $1100/ton NOX removed to 2022 

dollars provides a revised non-reagent 

VOM cost of $1300/ton of NOX

removed. Combining this updated nonreagent cost and the average reagent cost 

of $854/ton NOX removed based on 

updated reagent prices (see Table 5 in 

this document), EPA estimates that the 

cost of optimizing the existing SCRs in 

use at each facility covered by this 

proposed FIP is approximately $2154/ 

ton of NOX removed. EPA finds this cost 

to be reasonable by any metric, and 

determine, therefore, that the proposed 

limits are economically feasible.49

Additionally, while the $1600/ton of 

NOX removed cost estimate used in the 

2015 Good Neighbor Plan was presented 

on a fleetwide basis, the Retrofit Cost 

Analyzer estimated individual costs for 

Homer City Units 1–3, Keystone Units 1 

and 2, Conemaugh Unit 1, and Montour, 

using $350/ton for a 50% solution of 

urea. Those costs (in 2021 dollars) 

ranged from a low of $980/ton of NOX

removed for Homer City 3, to a high of 

$1152/ton of NOX removed for 

Conemaugh.50 To assess the impact of 

the present, historic high reagent costs, 

EPA re-ran the Retrofit Cost Analyzer 

with a reagent cost of $1500/ton (of 

ammonia).51 EPA notes that we did not 

modify other parameters in the Retrofit 

Cost Analyzer to directly convert urea 

use to ammonia use. Rather, we took the 

conservative approach of using the 

highest fertilizer cost in a bounding 

analysis to evaluate whether past 

estimates of the cost effectiveness of 

increased reagent injection were still 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31810 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

52See ‘‘NOX_Control_Retrofit_Cost_Tool_

Fleetwide_Assessment_Proposed_CSAPR_2015_

NAAQS_PA’’ in the docket. 

53 In the case of Montour, PADEP determined that 

no upgrade was available, since Montour already 

has the best available installed. 

54See 2015 Good Neighbor Plan TSD at 16. 

55See ‘‘Technical Publication: State of the Art 

Low NOX Burners to Reduce SCR Operating Costs;’’ 

Babcock Power; available at https://

www.babcockpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/ 

02/state-of-the-art-low-nox-burners-to-reduce-scroperating-costs.pdf. 

56U.S. EPA. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone in 

27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 States. 

June 2011; Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, December 2011; 

and Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Particulate 

Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards; 

December 2012. 

57Fann N, Fulcher CM, Hubbell BJ. The influence 

of location, source, and emission type in estimates 

of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of 

air pollution. Air Qual Atmos Health. 

2009;2(3):169–176. doi:10.1007/s11869–009–004–0. 

reasonable. The resulting $/ton of NOX

removed estimates ranged from $2590/ 

ton of NOX removed for Homer City 3, 

to $2757/ton of NOX removed for 

Conemaugh.52 Given the likelihood of 

reagent costs returning to lower, 

historical levels, and the fact that the 

remaining costs in the analyses were 

selected at the 90th percentile, EPA 

believes this bounding analysis to be 

reasonable and conservative, and that 

these cost estimates, though higher than 

the fleetwide averages discussed above, 

continue to be economically feasible. 

G. Other Considerations 

EPA notes that in each of the draft 

permits submitted by PADEP, a number 

of additional control technologies were 

evaluated by PADEP in addition to SCR, 

but were determined to be either 

technologically or economically 

infeasible. For example, in all cases 

except Montour, PADEP determined 

that upgraded low NOX burners were 

economically infeasible.53 PADEP 

determined that the costs per ton of 

NOX removed ranged from $4,077 for 

Unit 1 at Conemaugh, to $15,129 for 

Unit 3 at Homer City. EPA is not 

evaluating PADEP’s determinations 

related to economic feasibility in this 

action. However, we did review this 

information for purposes of developing 

the proposed FIP, and note that 

PADEP’s source-specific analyses for 

ultra-low NOX burners are higher than 

the fleet wide estimate of $1600/ton of 

NOX removed by optimizing SCR use 

that EPA derived in the 2015 Good 

Neighbor Plan.54 Furthermore, neither 

the facilities nor PADEP considered the 

potential substantial impact that state of 

the art combustion controls can have on 

reducing operating costs of SCRs, 

including extended catalyst life and 

reducing reagent consumption: 

‘‘Installation of front-end low-NOX

combustion systems or upgrades can 

essentially reduce total ammonia 

consumption by as much as 45% and is 

a viable, cost-effective option to 

lowering plant cost over the long 

term.’’ 55

Additionally, PADEP also evaluated a 

number of post combustion technologies 

in their draft permits for these five 

facilities. These post-combustion 

technologies increase the temperature of 

the flue gas entering the SCR. Such 

technologies could, in the context of a 

weighted limit approach, help lower the 

SCR-off weight by allowing a greater 

range of SCR-on operating conditions. 

These include economizer bypass, ‘‘VTemp,’’ and flue gas reheat. Economizer 

bypass is installed at Homer City, and 

the V-Temp system, which similarly 

reduces heat consumption in the 

economizer and thus increases inlet 

temperatures at the SCR, is installed at 

Conemaugh, but was not used in 2019. 

PADEP determined that continued 

operation of V-Temp at Conemaugh was 

not technically feasible due to cycling 

operations. In the other cases, PADEP 

determined installation to be 

technologically infeasible. Flue gas 

reheat was not fully analyzed for 

technological and economic feasibility 

at any of the sources. Additionally, no 

analysis was presented to determine 

whether simply running at moderately 

higher loads could be an economically 

feasible method to achieve lower 

emissions rates. Finally, PADEP also 

determined in each case that it appeared 

that the boilers had not been tuned in 

a manner that would maximize NOX

reductions. As part of this proposal, 

EPA did not evaluate these technologies 

in the context of our RACT analysis. As 

stated previously, EPA is proposing that 

the optimization of the already installed 

equipment (the SCR) at each of these 

sources represents RACT. EPA is 

proposing rates that greatly reduce the 

30-day NOX emissions in relation to 

past performance. Our presumption is 

that the facilities have the flexibility to 

change their operations to emit less NOX

per unit of heat input, and we identify 

these technologies as additional ways 

for the facilities to do so, rather than 

requiring them as RACT. Moreover, we 

note that multiple control schemes 

cannot always be implemented 

simultaneously and do not always 

necessarily result in cumulative 

reductions. 

IV. Recordkeeping and Reporting for 

Compliance Assurance 

EPA has included proposed 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the regulatory language 

for this proposed FIP. The purpose of 

the requirements is to ensure that each 

of the facilities subject to the FIP can 

demonstrate compliance with their 

respective RACT limits as finalized. 

EPA is proposing to require that each 

facility submit a report to EPA every six 

months containing, among other things, 

the following: Unit-specific daily 

operating time (hours); unit-specific 

daily NOX mass emissions (lbs); unitspecific daily heat input (MMBtu); unitspecific daily NOX emission rate (lb/ 

MMBtu); facility-wide 30-day rolling 

average NOX emission rate (lb/MMBtu). 

The proposed regulatory language also 

defines certain terms and specifies the 

method for calculating the facility-wide 

30-day rolling average NOX emission 

rate. These reports are to be submitted 

to EPA within 30 days after the end of 

each six month reporting period. In 

addition, the proposed regulatory 

language requires the submission of a 

report containing certain information to 

EPA within 10 business days if the 

source violates its 30-day rolling average 

NOX limit or daily mass limit three or 

more times within any 30-day period. 

The EPA is soliciting comment on 

whether the six-month reporting period 

should be shorter (quarterly) and also on 

other possible ways to improve the 

proposed recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements included in this FIP. 

V. Economic Analysis 

Based on the information presented in 

section III in this preamble, in 2021, 

NOX emissions would have been 

reduced 6,361 tons. Using $1600/ton of 

NOX removed cost estimate as in the 

2015 Good Neighbor Plan would result 

in annual aggregate cost of 

approximately $10 million dollars for 

2021. As discussed in section III in this 

preamble, EPA believe that a specific 

analysis of individual plants would 

result in a lower estimate. 

In order to estimate the benefits of 

this rulemaking, EPA used a ‘‘benefit 

per ton’’ (BPT) approach. EPA has 

applied this approach in several 

previous Regulatory Impact Analyses 

(RIA) 56 in which the economic value of 

human health impacts is derived using 

previously established source-receptor 

relationships from photochemical air 

quality modeling.57 The rule will reduce 

emissions of NOX, a pollutant that is a 

precursor to both fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) and ground-level Ozone; for this 

reason, we quantify the benefits of 

reducing each pollutant. These BPT 

estimates provide the total monetized 

human health benefits (the sum of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31811 

58U.S. EPA. 2021. Technical Support Document 

(BPT TSD) on Estimating the Benefit per Ton of 

Reducing Directly-Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors 

and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors and its 

precursors from 21 sectors. Technical Support 

Document. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

benmap/reduced-form-tools-calculating-pm25- 

benefits. 

59 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

60 5 CFR 1320.3(c) (emphasis added). 

61Adjusted to 2019 dollars, the UMRA threshold 

becomes $164 million. 

62 64 FR 43255, 43255–43257 (August 10, 1999). 

63 64 FR 43255, 43257. 

premature attributable deaths and 

premature morbidity for either PM2.5 or 

Ozone) of reducing 1 ton of NOX from 

a specified source. This analysis draws 

upon benefit per-ton values quantified 

for the Electricity Generating Unit (EGU) 

sector in Pennsylvania. The method 

used to derive these estimates is 

described in the ‘‘Technical Support 

Document on Estimating the Benefit per 

Ton of Reducing Directly-Emitted PM2.5,

PM2.5 precursors and Ozone Precursors 

from 21 Sectors and its precursors from 

21 sectors.’’ 58 One limitation of using 

the BPT approach is an inability to 

provide estimates of the health benefits 

associated with exposure to nitrogen 

dioxide, the ambient concentrations of 

which may also change as a result of 

this rulemaking. Another limitation is 

that the photochemical-modeled 

emissions of the industrial point source 

sector-attributable PM2.5 concentrations 

used to derive the BPT values may not 

match the change in air quality resulting 

from the emissions controls imposed by 

this FIP. Finally, an additional 

limitation of this analysis is that we 

expect in future years that the annual 

benefits (and cost) estimates will fall 

because some of these units plan to 

retire by 2028. Table 6 in this preamble 

presents the estimated economic value 

ranges of this proposed action. 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED DISCOUNTED

ECONOMIC VALUE OF AVOIDED

PM2.5 AND OZONE-ATTRIBUTABLE

PREMATURE DEATHS AND ILLNESSES

FOR THE FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATION

PLAN, IF FINALIZED, IN 2022 

Discount 

rate Pollutant 

Estimated economic value 

range 

(in millions of 

2020$) A

3% ........ Ozone B ........... $48 and $350. 

PM2.5 ............... $41 and $42. 

Sum of Ozone 

and PM2.5 C.

$89 and $390. 

7% ........ Ozone ............. $43 and $320. 

PM2.5 ............... $37 and $38. 

Sum of Ozone 

and PM2.5.

$80 and $360. 

A Values rounded to two significant figures. 

Benefits quantified using a benefit per-ton estimate. 

BWe estimated ozone benefits for changes 

in NOX for the ozone season and PM2.5 attributable benefits resulting from annual changes 

in NOX. C Lower value calculated by summing ozone 

mortality estimated using the pooled shortterm ozone exposure risk estimate and the 

Turner et al. (2016) long-term PM2.5 exposure 

mortality risk estimate. Upper value calculated 

by summing the Turner et al. (2016) long-term 

ozone exposure risk estimate and the Di et al. 

(2017) long-term PM2.5 exposure mortality risk 

estimate. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA).59 A ‘‘collection of 

information’’ under the PRA means ‘‘the 

obtaining, causing to be obtained, 

soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to 

an agency, third parties or the public of 

information by or for an agency by 

means of identical questions posed to, 

or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or 

disclosure requirements imposed on, 

ten or more persons, whether such 

collection of information is mandatory, 

voluntary, or required to obtain or retain 

a benefit.’’ 60 Because this proposed rule 

includes RACT reporting requirements 

for five facilities, the PRA does not 

apply. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This rulemaking does 

not impose any requirements or create 

impacts on small entities as no small 

entities are subject to the requirements 

of this proposed rule. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on state, local 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, the 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for final rules with ‘‘Federal 

mandates’’ that may result in 

expenditures to state, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted for inflation) in any one year. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in any 

expenditures by state, local or tribal 

governments, and as explained in this 

document, the cost to the private sector 

of the requirements will not exceed the 

inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of 

$100 million 61 in any one year. Further, 

this proposed action will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism,62

revokes and replaces Executive Orders 

12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires the EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ 63 ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31812 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

64 Id. 

65 Id. 

66 65 FR 67249, 67250 (November 9, 2000). 

67Executive Order 12898 can be found 59 FR 

7629 (February 16, 1994). 

68The RIA for that separate EPA action can be 

found at www.regulations.gov under the docket 

number EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0668. Section 7.4 

begins on page 7–9. 

69See www.regulations.gov, Docket EPA–R03– 

OAR–2017–0615–0059, pp. 14 –17. 

the Executive order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 64 Under 

Executive Order 13132, the EPA may 

not issue a regulation ‘‘that has 

federalism implications, that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs, . . . 

and that is not required by statute, 

unless [the Federal Government 

provides the] funds necessary to pay the 

direct [compliance] costs incurred by 

the State and local governments,’’ or the 

EPA consults with state and local 

officials early in the process of 

developing the final regulation.65 The 

EPA also may not issue a regulation that 

has federalism implications and that 

preempts state law unless the agency 

consults with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

final regulation. 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. The proposed FIP will not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

National Government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments,’’ requires 

the EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by tribal officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have tribal implications.’’ 66 This 

proposed rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rulemaking. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it implements a previously 

promulgated health-based Federal 

standard. Further, the EPA believes that 

the ozone-related benefits from this 

proposed rule will further improve 

children’s health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. Section 12(d) of NTTAA, 

Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) directs the EPA to consider 

and use ‘‘voluntary consensus 

standards’’ in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 establishes 

Federal executive policy on 

environmental justice.67 Its main 

provision directs Federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898. EPA reviewed the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA) prepared for the 

recently proposed 2015 Ozone NAAQS 

transport FIP, and in particular the 

Ozone Exposure Analysis at section 7.4 

of the RIA.68 Although that analysis 

projected reductions in overall AS–MO3 

ozone concentrations in each state for 

all affected demographic groups 

resulting from newly proposed limits on 

EGUs and non-EGUs (see Figure 7–3 of 

the RIA), it also found that emission 

reductions from only EGUs would result 

in national reductions in AS–MO3 

ozone concentrations for all 

demographic groups analyzed (see 

Figure 7–2 of the RIA). In summation, 

that RIA concluded that the proposed 

FIP is expected to lower ozone in many 

areas, including residual ozone 

nonattainment areas, and thus mitigate 

some pre-existing health risks of ozone 

across all populations evaluated (RIA, p. 

7–32). Further, EPA reviewed an 

analysis of vulnerable groups near the 

Conemaugh, Homer City, and Keystone 

EGUs found in the TSD for EPA’s 

proposed disapproval of the S02

attainment plan for the Indiana, PA S02

nonattainment area.69

Based on EPA’s review of those 

documents, and consideration of the 

content of this proposed FIP including 

the proposed NOX limits, EPA believes 

that this proposed FIP will serve to 

lower ozone levels in many areas, 

including residual ozone nonattainment 

areas, and thus mitigate some preexisting health risks of ozone. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Continuous emission 

monitoring, Electric power plants, 

Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen 

oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Michael Regan, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31813 

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. Section 52.2065 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2065 Federal implementation plan 

addressing reasonably available control 

technology requirements for certain 

sources. 

(a) Applicability. This section shall 

apply to Cheswick, Conemaugh, Homer 

City, Keystone, and Montour, as defined 

in this section, as well as any of their 

successors or assigns. Each of the five 

listed facilities are individually subject 

to the requirements of this section. 

(b) Effective date. The effective date of 

this section is June 24, 2022. 

(c) Compliance date. Compliance with 

the requirements in this section shall 

commence immediately upon the 

effective date, except the Facility-wide 

30-Day Rolling Average NOX Emission 

Rate Limit requirement in paragraph 

(f)(1) of this section will commence for 

the Facility on the day that Facility has 

operated for thirty (30) Operating Days 

after, and possibly including, the 

effective date. 

(d) General provisions. This section is 

not a permit. Compliance with the terms 

of this section does not guarantee 

compliance with all applicable Federal, 

state, or local laws or regulations. The 

emission rates and mass emissions 

limits set forth in this section do not 

relieve the Facility from any obligation 

to comply with other State and Federal 

requirements under the Clean Air Act, 

including the Facility’s obligation to 

satisfy any State requirements set forth 

in the applicable SIP. 

(e) Definitions. Every term expressly 

defined by this section shall have the 

meaning given to that term in this 

section. Every other term used in this 

section that is also a term used under 

the Act or in Federal regulations in this 

chapter implementing the Act shall 

mean in this section what such term 

means under the Act or the regulations 

in this chapter. 

CEMS or Continuous Emission 

Monitoring System, means, for 

obligations involving the monitoring of 

NOX emissions under this section, the 

devices defined in 40 CFR 72.2 and 

installed and maintained as required by 

40 CFR part 75. 

Cheswick means, for purposes of this 

section, GenOn Power Midwest, LP’s 

Cheswick Generating Station consisting 

of one coal-fired unit designated as Unit 

1 (6,000 MMBtu/hr), located in 

Springdale, Allegheny County, 

Pennsylvania. 

Clean Air Act or Act means the 

Federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401– 

7671q, and its implementing regulations 

in this chapter. 

Conemaugh means, for purposes of 

this section, Keystone Conemaugh 

Project LLC’s Conemaugh Generating 

Station consisting of two coal-fired units 

designated as Unit 1 (8,280 MMBtu/hr) 

and Unit 2 (8,280 MMBtu/hr), located in 

West Wheatfield Township, Indiana 

County, Pennsylvania. 

Day or Daily means calendar day 

unless otherwise specified in this 

section. 

EGU means electric generating unit. 

EPA means the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Facility means each of the following 

as defined in this section: Cheswick; 

Conemaugh; Homer City; Keystone; and 

Montour. 

Facility-Wide 30-Day Rolling Average 

NOX Emission Rate for the Facility shall 

be expressed in lb/MMBtu and 

calculated in accordance with the 

following procedure: First, sum the total 

pounds of NOX emitted from all Units 

during the current Operating Day and 

the previous twenty-nine (29) Operating 

Days; second, sum the total heat input 

from all Units in MMBtu during the 

current Unit Operating Day and the 

previous twenty-nine (29) Operating 

Days; and third, divide the total number 

of pounds of NOX emitted from all Units 

during the thirty (30) Operating Days by 

the total heat input during the thirty 

(30) Operating Days. A new Facilitywide 30-Day Rolling Average NOX

Emission Rate shall be calculated for 

each new Operating Day. Each 30-Day 

Rolling Average NOX Emission Rate 

shall include all emissions that occur 

during all periods within any Operating 

Day, including, but not limited to, 

emissions from startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 

Fossil Fuel means any hydrocarbon 

fuel, including coal, petroleum coke, 

petroleum oil, fuel oil, or natural gas. 

Homer City means, for purposes of 

this section, Homer City Generation LP’s 

Homer City Generating Station 

consisting of three coal-fired units 

designated as Unit 1 (6,792 MMBtu/hr), 

Unit 2 (6,792 MMBtu/hr), and Unit 3 

(7,260 MMBtu/hr), located in Center 

Township, Indiana County, 

Pennsylvania. 

Keystone means, for purposes of this 

section, Keystone Conemaugh Project 

LLC’s Keystone Generating Station 

consisting of two coal-fired units 

designated as Unit 1 (8,717 MMBtu/hr) 

and Unit 2 (8,717 MMBtu/hr), located in 

Plumcreek Township, Armstrong 

County, Pennsylvania. 

lb/MMBtu means one pound per 

million British thermal units. 

Montour means, for purposes of this 

section, Talen Energy Corporation’s 

Montour Steam Electric Station 

consisting of two coal-fired units 

designated as Unit 1 (7,317 MMBtu/hr) 

and Unit 2 (7,239 MMBtu/hr), located in 

Derry Township, Montour County, 

Pennsylvania. 

NOX means oxides of nitrogen, 

measured in accordance with the 

provisions of this section. 

NOX Emission Rate means the number 

of pounds of NOX emitted per million 

British thermal units of heat input (lb/ 

MMBtu), calculated in accordance with 

this section. 

Operating Day means any calendar 

day on which a Unit fires Fossil Fuel. 

Title V Permit means the permit 

required for major sources pursuant to 

Subchapter V of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 

7661–7661e. 

Unit means collectively, the coal 

pulverizer, stationary equipment that 

feeds coal to the boiler, the boiler that 

produces steam for the steam turbine, 

the steam turbine, the generator, the 

equipment necessary to operate the 

generator, steam turbine, and boiler, and 

all ancillary equipment, including 

pollution control equipment and 

systems necessary for production of 

electricity. An electric steam generating 

station may be comprised of one or 

more Units. 

Unit-specific Daily NOX Mass 

Emissions shall be expressed in lb/day 

and calculated as the sum of total 

pounds of NOX emitted from the Unit 

during the Unit Operating Day. Each 

Unit-specific Daily NOX Mass Emissions 

shall include all emissions that occur 

during all periods within any Operating 

Day, including emissions from startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction. 

(f) NOX emission limitations. (1) The 

Facility shall achieve and maintain their 

Facility-wide 30-Day Rolling Average 

NOX Emission Rate to not exceed their 

Facility limit in Table 1 to this 

paragraph (f)(1). 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (f)(1)—FACILITY-WIDE 30-DAY ROLLING AVERAGE

NOX EMISSION RATE LIMITS

Facility 

Facility-wide 

30-day rolling 

average NOX

emission rate 

limit 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Cheswick ........................ 0.099 

Conemaugh .................... 0.091 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31814 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (f)(1)—FACILITY-WIDE 30-DAY ROLLING AVERAGE

NOX EMISSION RATE LIMITS—Continued 

Facility 

Facility-wide 

30-day rolling 

average NOX

emission rate 

limit 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Homer City ...................... 0.088 

Keystone ......................... 0.074 

Montour ........................... 0.069 

(2) The Facility shall achieve and 

maintain their Unit-specific Daily NOX

Mass Emissions to not exceed the Unitspecific limit in Table 2 to this 

paragraph (f)(2). 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (f)(2)—UNITSPECIFIC DAILY NOX MASS EMISSIONS LIMITS

Facility Unit 

Unit-specific 

daily NOX Mass 

emissions limit 

(lb/day) 

Cheswick ........ 1 14,256 

Conemaugh .... 1 18,084 

Conemaugh .... 2 18,084 

Homer City ...... 1 14,345 

Homer City ...... 2 14,345 

Homer City ...... 3 15,333 

Keystone ......... 1 15,481 

Keystone ......... 2 15,481 

Montour ........... 1 12,117 

Montour ........... 2 11,988 

(g) Monitoring of NOX emissions. (1) 

In determining the Facility-wide 30-Day 

Rolling Average NOX Emission Rate, the 

Facility shall use CEMS in accordance 

with the procedures of 40 CFR part 60 

and 40 CFR part 75, appendix F, 

Procedure 1. 

(2) For purposes of calculating the 

Unit-specific Daily NOX Mass Emissions 

Limits, the Facility shall use CEMS in 

accordance with the procedures at 40 

CFR part 75. Emissions rates, mass 

emissions, and other quantitative 

standards set by or under this section 

must be met to the number of significant 

digits in which the standard or limit is 

expressed. For example, an emission 

rate of 0.100 is not met if the actual 

emission rate is 0.101. The Facility shall 

round the fourth significant digit to the 

nearest third significant digit, or the 

sixth significant digit to the nearest fifth 

significant digit, depending upon 

whether the limit is expressed to three 

or five significant digits. For example, if 

an actual emission rate is 0.1004, that 

shall be reported as 0.100, and shall be 

in compliance with an emission rate of 

0.100, and if an actual emission rate is 

0.1005, that shall be reported as 0.101, 

and shall not be in compliance with an 

emission rate of 0.100. The Facility shall 

report data to the number of significant 

digits in which the standard or limit is 

expressed. 

(h) Recordkeeping and periodic 

reporting. (1) The Facility shall 

electronically submit to EPA a periodic 

report, within thirty (30) days after the 

end of each six-month reporting period 

(January through June, July through 

December in each calendar year). The 

portion of the periodic report containing 

the data required to be reported by this 

paragraph (h) shall be in an unlocked 

electronic spreadsheet format, such as 

Excel or other widely-used software, 

and contain data for each Operating Day 

during the reporting period, including, 

but not limited to: Facility ID (ORISPL); 

Facility name; Unit ID; Date; Unitspecific total Daily Operating Time 

(hours); Unit-specific Daily NOX Mass 

Emissions (lbs); Unit-specific total Daily 

Heat Input (MMBtu); Unit-specific Daily 

NOX Emission Rate (lb/MMBtu); 

Facility-wide 30-Day Rolling Average 

NOX Emission Rate (lb/MMBtu); Owner; 

Operator; Representative (Primary); and 

Representative (Secondary). In addition, 

the Facility shall maintain the following 

information for 5 years from the date of 

creation of the data and make such 

information available to EPA if 

requested: Unit-specific hourly heat 

input, Unit-specific hourly ammonia 

injection amounts, and Unit-specific 

hourly NOX emission rate. 

(2) In any periodic report submitted 

pursuant to this section, the Facility 

may incorporate by reference 

information previously submitted to 

EPA under its Title V permitting 

requirements in this chapter, so long as 

that information is adequate to 

determine compliance with the 

emission limits and in the same 

electronic format as required for the 

periodic report, and provided that the 

Facility attaches the Title V Permit 

report (or the pertinent portions of such 

report) and provides a specific reference 

to the provisions of the Title V Permit 

report that are responsive to the 

information required in the periodic 

report. 

(3) In addition to the reports required 

pursuant to this section, if the Facility 

exceeds the Facility-wide 30-day rolling 

average NOX emission limit on three or 

more days during any 30-day period, or 

exceeds the Unit-specific daily mass 

emission limit for any Unit on three or 

more days during any 30-day period, the 

Facility shall electronically submit to 

EPA a report on the exceedances within 

ten (10) business days after the Facility 

knew or should have known of the 

event. In the report, the Facility shall 

explain the cause or causes of the 

exceedances and any measures taken or 

to be taken to cure the reported 

exceedances or to prevent such 

exceedances in the future. If at any time, 

the provisions of this section are 

included in Title V Permits, consistent 

with the requirements for such 

inclusion in this section, then the 

deviation reports required under 

applicable Title V regulations in this 

chapter shall be deemed to satisfy all 

the requirements of this paragraph 

(h)(3). 

(4) Each report shall be signed by the 

Responsible Official as defined in Title 

V of the Clean Air Act, or his or her 

equivalent or designee of at least the 

rank of Vice President. The signatory 

shall also electronically submit the 

following certification, which may be 

contained in a separate document: 

This information was prepared either by 

me or under my direction or supervision in 

accordance with a system designed to assure 

that qualified personnel properly gather and 

evaluate the information submitted. Based on 

my evaluation, or the direction and my 

inquiry of the person(s) who manage the 

system, or the person(s) directly responsible 

for gathering the information, I hereby certify 

under penalty of law that, to the best of my 

knowledge and belief, this information is 

true, accurate, and complete. I understand 

that there are significant penalties for 

submitting false, inaccurate, or incomplete 

information to the United States. 

(5) Whenever notifications, 

submissions, or communications are 

required by this section, they shall be 

made electronically to the attention of 

the Air Enforcement Manager via email 

to the following address: R3_ORC_

mailbox@epa.gov. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10765 Filed 5–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 751 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0057; FRL–8332–03– 

OCSPP] 

RIN 2070–AK86 

Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos; 

Regulation of Certain Conditions of 

Use Under Section 6(a) of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA); 

Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposed a rule under 

the Toxic Substances Control Act 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1