this recalculation resulted in limits that are very much in line with
the alternate limits proposed by the facility in its technical
analysis. Specifically, EPA's methodology resulted in a facility-wide,
30-day NOX emission rate limit of 0.102 lb/MMBtu, and daily,
mass-based limits of 17,912 and 17,732 lbs NOX/day for Units
1 and 2, respectively. In the interest of consistency, EPA is
finalizing the limits derived from our original methodology rather than
the alternate limits proposed by Montour. Additionally, because EPA's
limits are in line with, and in fact very slightly higher than what
Montour proposed, EPA is not evaluating the remainder of Montour's
technical analysis.
    Comment: Several commenters assert that because achieving
compliance with MATS has a negative effect on NOX reduction
efficiency, EPA should not have considered years prior to MATS
requirements, and that the limits are therefore too stringent.
    Response: EPA recognizes the co-benefits of SCRs regarding the
oxidation and ultimate removal of mercury from flue gas. Commenters
suggest that there is a trade-off between NOX and mercury
removal, resulting in higher NOX rates to ensure sufficient
mercury capture. EPA has conducted analysis to evaluate this contention
in a previous rulemaking. Specifically, to respond to comments received
on the proposed CSAPR Update, EPA examined ozone-season NOX
rates from 86 units subject to the MATS rule with SCR and rates below
0.12 lbs NOX/MMBtu in 2015 (i.e., units that were removing
the necessary mercury while operating their SCRs during the 2015 ozone
season). EPA selected the rate cut-off of 0.12 lbs NOX/mmBtu
to clearly identify units that were operating their SCR. EPA found that
the average 2015 NOX rate at these 86 units was 0.072 lb/
MMBtu. The average rate for these same units in previous years was
0.080 and 0.078 lb/MMBtu for 2014 and 2013, which was prior to the MATS
compliance date when the units would have only needed to optimize
operations for purposes of NOX removal rather than mercury
removal. The 2014 and 2013 rates were each statistically significantly
higher than the rate in 2015 when these units were complying with the
MATS rule (Student's t-test probability (p) <0.03 and 0.03). Based on
the CSAPR Update analysis, which is included in the docket for this
rulemaking,\46\ EPA concludes that units are able to simultaneously
comply with MATS (i.e., remove mercury from flue gas) while maintaining
or even lowering their NOX rates, and that the comment
therefore does not provide a sufficient basis for EPA to exclude data
from years before MATS implementation from the analysis conducted for
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See MATS Compliance Impact on SCR Control Rates.xlsx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several commenters note the role PJM plays in directing
the units' dispatch and then assert various implications concerning the
feasibility or cost of the proposed emissions limits. For example,
Talen states that ``PJM retains complete and unilateral discretion for
calling the units to run at certain load profiles. In addition to
directing Montour SES when to start up the units, PJM's typical
dispatch also includes the lowering of the unit output down to minimum
load during off-peak periods daily.'' Talen further states that ``PJM
dispatch information can dictate the ramp rate of the unit after a
startup. It is not wholly in Montour SES's control to adjust unit
operation to fit EPA's proposed model.'' Homer City states that
``operations today are, in large part, determined by PJM and are beyond
control of the source operators'' and that the proposed emissions
limits would not accommodate emissions during ``startups, shutdowns,
and low-load operations directed by PJM.'' Homer City also asserts that
sometimes ``[PJM's] direction requires Homer City to operate at levels
. . . which [do] not allow for operation of the SCR.'' Key-Con states
that, ``in general'' dispatch of units in the PJM market ``is
controlled by PJM, not the EGU owner or operator.'' Key-Con suggests
EPA has assumed that unit owners can choose to ignore PJM's dispatch
instructions. Key-Con also states that the proposed emission rates
``will require Key-Con to forfeit most dispatch opportunities at lower
electrical loads as directed by PJM and suffer resultant revenue
impacts in order to maintain compliance with the limits.''
    Response: The fact that PJM generally directs the day-to-day and
hour-to-hour dispatch of the units subject to this rule is not in
dispute, and any comments

suggesting that EPA has assumed otherwise mischaracterize the
proposal.\47\ However, in EPA's view, the consequences that commenters
assert could result from requirements to follow PJM's dispatch
instructions are unrealistic because the commenters largely fail to
acknowledge sources' considerable ability to influence those
instructions through the offer prices and operating parameters that the
sources provide to PJM for use in PJM's decision-making process. In
particular, EPA does not agree with commenters' suggestions that PJM's
dispatch instructions would create a material obstacle to the sources'
efforts to comply with the limits in an economic manner. Rather, EPA
believes it is entirely reasonable to assume, first, that the source
owners will have the opportunity to consider their emission limits when
developing the information they supply to PJM for use in PJM's
decision-making process and, second, that PJM's subsequent dispatch
instructions will consider the information supplied by the owners when
determining the dispatch instructions. In other words, contrary to the
commenter's suggestions, EPA believes that the sources' role as
suppliers of inputs to PJM's decision-making process means that the
sources in fact are well positioned to prevent PJM's dispatch
instructions from interfering with the sources' compliance strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ For example, EPA views Key-Con's extended argument that
sources do not have incentives to violate PJM's dispatch
instructions not as an attempt to rebut anything EPA actually said
in the proposal but rather as the creation and subsequent rebuttal
of Key-Con's own strawman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A few examples of the information that sources can specify to PJM
for use in PJM's decision-making illustrate how the sources covered by
this rule could cause PJM to issue dispatch instructions that are
generally compatible with what the source owners consider necessary to
facilitate effective SCR operation. First, the operating parameters
that a source can specify include ``Economic Min (MW),'' representing
the owner's specification of ``the minimum energy available, in MW,
from the unit for economic dispatch'' under non-emergency
conditions.\48\ If a source is concerned about the possibility that PJM
otherwise might direct the unit to run extensively--for example, during
all or most overnight off-peak hours--at low load levels that would be
insufficient to maintain SCR inlet temperatures high enough for
effective SCR performance, the source can avoid that outcome by
specifying higher values for Economic Min (MW). Second, the operating
parameters include ``Ramp Rate (MW/Min),'' representing the default
rate, in MW per minute, for increasing or decreasing a unit's
output.\49\ If a source is concerned about the possibility that PJM
would otherwise frequently direct the unit to increase or decrease its
output at rates that would cause difficulty in sustaining consistent
SCR performance, the source can avoid that outcome by specifying lower
values for Ramp Rates. Third, sources can submit cost-based or price-
based values for a variety of parameters associated with unit start-
ups, such as ``Cold Startup Cost,'' ``Intermediate Startup Cost,'' and
``Hot Startup Cost,'' representing the cost-based or price-based offers
for the source's compensation for each start-up, differentiated
according to the unit's temperature before the start-up.\50\ If a
source believes that its compliance strategy should include efforts to
reduce start-up emissions by substituting gas or oil for some of the
coal that would otherwise be combusted during the start-up process, the
source generally can revise its offered Startup Cost values to reflect
any resulting changes in start-up fuel cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See the PJM Markets Gateway User Guide (PJM Guide),
available at https://pjm.com/~/media/etools/markets-gateway/markets-
gateway-user-guide.ashx, at 35.
    \49\ See PJM Guide at 35. Different Ramp Rate values can be
specified for different portions of a unit's overall load output
range, and different values can be specified for output increases
and output decreases. Id. at 38-40.
    \50\ See PJM Guide at 51-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recognizes that under certain emergency system conditions, PJM
may issue dispatch instructions that reflect various ``emergency''
parameters rather than the parameters discussed above that would be
used for economic dispatch under more typical system conditions. EPA
further recognizes that dispatch instructions issued by PJM in an
emergency could theoretically require a unit to temporarily operate in
a manner that precludes effective SCR operation until the emergency
ends or until PJM can implement alternative measures to address the
emergency. EPA is also aware that PJM's procedures include lead times
that may affect how soon sources could change certain elements of the
information they provide to PJM for use in PJM's decision-making.
However, EPA believes these considerations are sufficiently addressed
by the fact that the emission rate limits established in this rule are
defined as 30-day rolling averages and the fact that EPA is not making
the requirements established in this rule effective until 180 days
after the rule's effective date.
    EPA found no information in the comments indicating that the
sources could not improve their abilities to run their SCRs
continuously or at improved overall emissions rates by taking advantage
of opportunities to optimize the values they provide to PJM for offer
prices and operating parameters, potentially including but not limited
to Economic Min (MW), Ramp Rate (MW/Min), and Cold, Intermediate, and
Hot Startup Cost.\51\ Rather, in suggesting that PJM's dispatch
instructions could conflict with the proposed emission limits,
commenters relied solely on the fact that the sources generally must
comply with PJM's instructions once the instructions are issued, with
no discussion of the process by which PJM determines what its
instructions should be and no discussion of the sources' own
opportunities to influence that process.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ In addition to Economic Min (MW), sources can also specify
``Economic Max (MW),'' representing the owner's specification of the
maximum energy available from the unit for economic dispatch under
non-emergency conditions. See PJM Guide at 35. PJM evaluates whether
the ratio of the value submitted for Economic Max (MW) to the value
submitted for Economic Min (MW)--known as the ``Turn Down Ratio,''
see PJM Guide at 103, falls below a default floor value established
by PJM for that type of unit. If so, the source must obtain PJM's
approval for the submitted Economic Min and Economic Max parameter
values (i.e., an ``exception'' to the Turn Down Ratio default floor
value) by providing additional information to justify the source's
submitted values. In an attachment to its comments, Key-Con has
indicated its awareness of the availability of such exceptions and
its expectation that PJM would likely be willing to approve
exceptions if needed to facilitate continuous SCR operation during
overnight off-peak periods. See Key-Con comments, attachment 3 at
20-22. Moreover, the operating data reported for Keystone to EPA for
May and June of 2022 appear to show that Key-Con has in fact
received approval of such an exception, because the Keystone units'
ratios of daytime maximum load levels to overnight minimum load
levels for much of this period fall below the ratio's default floor
value that would apply to the units in the absence of an exception.
    \52\ The commenters generally chose not to discuss their
opportunities to influence PJM's dispatch instructions. However, the
comments do include some implicit recognition that those
opportunities exist, most of which consist of qualifiers such as
``in general,'' ``not wholly,'' or ``in large part'' to various
statements. The clearest confirmation that those opportunities exist
is found in a statement by Key-Con that the proposed emission rates
``will require Key-Con to forfeit most dispatch opportunities at
lower electrical loads as directed by PJM and suffer resultant
revenue impacts in order to maintain compliance with the limits.''
EPA views this statement as an implicit admission that Key-Con has
the ability to ``forfeit . . . dispatch opportunities'' when it
believes such forfeiture is in its interest. Given PJM's undisputed
role in directing units' dispatch, the only mechanism for a source
to accomplish such a ``forfeiture'' would be for the source to
provide information to PJM that causes PJM to issue dispatch
instructions that do not require the units to dispatch at low load
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, EPA notes that changes in the emissions and operating data
reported

by the Conemaugh and Keystone units for the first half of the 2022
ozone season relative to the data reported by these units for the 2021
ozone season appear to corroborate EPA's understanding that sources
have the ability to influence PJM's dispatch decisions. During the
periods of the 2021 ozone season when these units operated, a frequent
operating pattern for each of the units was to cycle between a full
load level of approximately 900 MW during daytime peak hours and a
lower load level of approximately 440 MW during overnight off-peak
hours, running their SCRs at the higher daytime loads and turning off
their SCRs at the lower nighttime loads. During the periods of the
first half of the 2022 ozone season when the units operated, while they
continued to display the same general daytime-nighttime cycling
pattern, the load levels to which they cycled down overnight were
higher than in 2021, apparently producing flue gas temperatures
sufficient to allow the units to run their SCRs overnight.
Specifically, during May and June 2022 the Conemaugh units generally
cycled down to a load level of approximately 545 MW, and the Keystone
units generally cycled down to a load level of approximately 700 MW.
EPA believes the reason for the change in overnight load levels is that
the sources must have provided higher values of Economic Min (MW) to
PJM for use in making dispatch decisions during the 2022 ozone season.
Taking such a step would have increased the likelihood that the units
would be given dispatch instructions that would allow them to run their
SCRs continuously and would have been a rational response by the
sources to the higher reported NOX allowance prices during
the 2022 ozone season.\53\ In summary, EPA finds these comments
unpersuasive when appropriately evaluated in the context of sources'
extensive ability to influence PJM's decision-making, which is
unchallenged in the comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ For the complete hourly data discussed in this paragraph,
see PA SCR unit 2021-2022 hourly ozone season data.xlsx, available
in the docket for this action. The spreadsheet contains graphs for
each unit illustrating the changes in load levels and SCR operation
described here. EPA notes that the 2022 data have not been used to
set the emission limits being finalized in this rule but are being
presented to support EPA's response to the sources' comments
relating to PJM's control of dispatch decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Final RACT Analysis and Emission Limits

    After consideration of all public comments, the EPA is establishing
the 30-day NOX Emission Rate Limits in Table 5 and Daily
NOX Mass Emission Limits in Table 8 for the four facilities
covered by this FIP to meet the statutory requirement to implement RACT
for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS.

 Table 5--Facility-Wide 30-Day Rolling Average NOX Emission Rate Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Facility-wide 30-day
                   Facility name                     average rate limit
                                                         (lb/MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conemaugh.........................................                 0.072
Homer City........................................                 0.096
Keystone..........................................                 0.075
Montour...........................................                 0.102
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The limits in Table 5 are based on a 30-day rolling average, and
apply at all times, including during operations when exhaust gas
temperatures at the SCR inlet are too low for the SCR to operate, or
operate optimally. As discussed in the proposal and in response to
comments, a 30-day average ``smooths'' operational 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 compliance rate (i.e., the 30-day rolling average rate).
    To calculate the final 30-day rates, EPA used the same weighted
rate methodology from the proposal, with three key changes. The data
underlying the weighted rates calculation for each unit is shown in
Table 6 below.

                                                       Table 6--Unit-Specific Weighted Rates Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Facility-wide
                 Facility name                     Unit     SCR on rate    SCR on weight   SCR off rate   SCR off weight   Weighted rate      average
                                                                                (%)                             (%)                        weighted rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conemaugh......................................        1           0.070            98.5           0.255             1.5           0.073           0.072
Conemaugh......................................        2           0.070            99.8           0.258             0.2           0.071
Homer City.....................................        1           0.103            99.8           0.341             0.2           0.103           0.096
Homer City.....................................        2           0.087            99.3           0.322             0.7           0.088
Homer City.....................................        3           0.096            99.6           0.292             0.4           0.097
Keystone.......................................        1           0.041            86.7           0.309            13.3           0.076           0.075
Keystone.......................................        2           0.043            88.4           0.312            11.6           0.074
Montour........................................        1           0.045            81.5           0.384            18.5           0.108           0.102
Montour........................................        2           0.047            85.7           0.396            14.3           0.096
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, using information from the comments, EPA revised the SCR
thresholds for certain sources. As explained previously, these
thresholds are applied to the historical data set for the purpose of
calculating SCR-on and SCR-off rates and weights to calculate the final
weighted rates. EPA revised the thresholds for Homer City Units 1 and 2
and Montour Units 1 and 2. Homer City did not provide a revised
threshold for Unit 3, so the same threshold from

the proposal was used for the final calculation for that unit. Key-Con
also did not provide updated thresholds for Keystone and Conemaugh,
though their thresholds from the proposal were based on comments from
Key-Con on the recommendation submitted to EPA by the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) under CAA Sec.  184(c).\54\ \55\ Table 7 of this
preamble shows the thresholds used for the final calculation. As
previously discussed, based on additional information received during
the public comment period, the thresholds for Homer City Units 1 and 2
increased slightly, while the thresholds for Montour increased more
significantly, as compared to the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ CAA 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.
    \55\ Conemaugh and Keystone submitted data in response to the
OTC's CAA section 184(c) recommendation 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.

                             Table 7--SCR Thresholds Used In Weighted Rates Analysis
                                              [Proposal vs. final]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              SCR threshold,     SCR threshold,
                       Facility name                             Unit         proposal  (MW)      final  (MW)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conemaugh.................................................               1                450                450
Conemaugh.................................................               2                450                450
Homer City................................................               1                320                340
Homer City................................................               2                320                335
Homer City................................................               3                320                320
Keystone..................................................               1                660                660
Keystone..................................................               2                660                660
Montour...................................................               1                380                440
Montour...................................................               2                380                440
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The threshold changes result in some changes to the data underlying
the weighted rate calculation for Homer City Units 1 and 2 and Montour
Units 1 and 2 from the proposal.\56\ The changes to the SCR thresholds
changed the SCR-on and -off rates for these units very slightly, as
some hours went from being classified as SCR-on to SCR-off. The SCR-on
and -off rates for the other units do not change from the proposal, and
EPA is still using the rate based on the EGU's third-best ozone season
average from 2003 to 2021 (second-best ozone season average for
Conemaugh due to its more limited years of SCR data as compared to
other units). The threshold changes altered the SCR-on and -off weights
slightly for the Homer City units and substantially for the Montour
units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Appendix 2 of the TSD for the proposal to compare the
proposed weights and rates to the final values in Table 6 of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, while EPA is retaining the use of the third-best weight
(the ozone season in which the EGU had its third highest proportion of
heat input spent above the SCR threshold) from the period 2011 to 2021
for Homer City, Keystone, and Montour, EPA is using the second-best
weight (the ozone season in which the EGU had its second highest
proportion of heat input spent above the SCR threshold) for Conemaugh.
As discussed previously in this action and in the proposal, Conemaugh
installed its SCR much later than the other sources. In response to
comments pointing out that Conemaugh's proposed limit was the highest
despite having the newest SCR as well as to account for the more
limited set of ozone seasons from which to draw data, the Agency
believes it is reasonable to use the second-best weight instead of the
third-best. EPA believes that the atypical result pointed out by the
commenter stems mainly from the fact that using a third-best weight
from a 7-year data set (as opposed to a third-best weight from an 11-
year data set used for the other sources with more years of SCR data)
would be more analogous to a mean rate, rather than the lowest rate the
source was capable of achieving as RACT requires. Given EPA's
determination, informed by the Court decision, that RACT should
represent a better rate than a mean rate, we believe that for
Conemaugh, the second-best weight would provide a more comparable
weight, while still excluding the low end. This results in a tightening
of Conemaugh's final limit, as compared to the proposal. EPA still
believes it is reasonable to use the time period 2011 to 2021 from
which to draw the weights for Homer City, Keystone, and Montour for the
final limit. EPA re-examined the occurrence of cycling at these
facilities and found that the drop in time spent above the SCR
threshold begins within this time period for these sources.
    Third, as discussed in section III of this preamble, because of the
unit-specific nature of EPA's weighted rate analysis, the EPA expects
that the unit-specific rates already represent RACT for each unit, and
that the most appropriate basis for a facility-wide average would be
the weighted rates for each of the units at the facility. Therefore,
EPA is calculating the final facility-wide 30-day limits as an
arithmetic average of the results of the weighted rates calculation for
each unit at the facility, instead of applying the best unit-specific
weighted rate facility-wide.

     Table 8--Revised Unit-Specific Daily NOX Mass Emissions Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Unit-specific
            Facility name                   Unit        mass limit  (lb/
                                                              day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conemaugh............................               1             14,308
Conemaugh............................               2             14,308
Homer City...........................               1             15,649
Homer City...........................               2             15,649
Homer City...........................               3             16,727
Keystone.............................               1             15,691
Keystone.............................               2             15,691
Montour..............................               1             17,912
Montour..............................               2             17,721
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final daily limits in Table 8, which complement the facility-
wide 30-day rate and further ensure RACT is applied continuously, are
calculated using the same methodology as the proposal but with the
updated final 30-day limits as shown in Table 5 of this preamble. The
final 30-day limits are multiplied by each unit's maximum permitted
heat input (in MMBtu/hr) by 24 hours.

V. Final Action

    Based on the considerations outlined at proposal, consideration of
all public comments, and for the reasons described in this action, EPA
is establishing the 30-day NOX emission rate limits in Table
5 of this preamble, Daily NOX mass emission limits in Table
8 of this preamble, and accompanying regulatory language added to 40
CFR 52.2065, as major stationary source NOX RACT
requirements for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS at four facilities in
Pennsylvania: Conemaugh; Homer City; Keystone; and Montour.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This final action is a rule of particular applicability and
therefore is exempt from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).\57\ 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.'' \58\ Because
this proposed rule includes RACT reporting requirements for four
facilities, the PRA does not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
    \58\ 5 CFR 1320.3(c) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action does not affect small governmental jurisdictions or small
organizations, and the affected entities are not small businesses as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201. Therefore, this action will not impose any requirements on
small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.

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.'' \59\ This 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 rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 65 FR 67249, 67250 (November 9, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 final 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

    This rulemaking does not involve technical 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.\60\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Executive Order 12898 can be found 59 FR 7629 (February 16,
1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income 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.\61\ 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, based on the analysis contained in that
RIA, EPA has concluded that the 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 SO2
attainment plan for the Indiana, PA SO2 nonattainment
area.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The 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.
    \62\ See www.regulations.gov, Docket EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0615-0059,
pp. 14 -17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular
applicability.

VII. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 31, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.
    This action setting RACT limits for certain EGUs in Pennsylvania
may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Continuous
emission monitoring, Electric power plants, Incorporation by reference,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. Section 52.2065 is added to subpart NN to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2065   Federal implementation plan addressing reasonably
available control technology requirements for certain sources.

    (a) Applicability. This section shall apply to Conemaugh, Homer
City, Keystone, and Montour, as defined in this section, as well as any
of their successors or assigns. Each of the four listed facilities are
individually subject to the requirements of this section.
    (b) Effective date. The effective date of this section is September
30, 2022.
    (c) Compliance date. Compliance with the requirements in this
section shall commence on March 29, 2023, except the Facility-wide 30-
Day Rolling Average NOX Emission Rate Limit requirement in
(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 compliance date of March 29, 2023.
    (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 within 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.
    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:
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 Facility-wide 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-wide 30-day
                                                   rolling average NOX
                    Facility                     emission rate limit (lb/
                                                          MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conemaugh......................................                    0.072
Homer City.....................................                    0.096
Keystone.......................................                    0.075
Montour........................................                    0.102
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The Facility shall achieve and maintain their Unit-specific
Daily NOX Mass Emissions to not exceed the Unit-specific
limit in Table 2 to this paragraph (f)(2).

   Table 2 to Paragraph (f)(2)--Unit-Specific Daily NOX Mass Emissions
                                 Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Unit-specific
                                                         daily NOX mass
               Facility                     Unit        emissions limit
                                                            (lb/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conemaugh............................               1             14,308
Conemaugh............................               2             14,308
Homer City...........................               1             15,649
Homer City...........................               2             15,649
Homer City...........................               3             16,727
Keystone.............................               1             15,691
Keystone.............................               2             15,691
Montour..............................               1             17,912
Montour..............................               2             17,721
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 parts 60 and
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 eate 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 peporting. (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; Unit-specific
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, 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 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: [email protected].

[FR Doc. 2022-18669 Filed 8-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 36 (Thursday, February 25, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11426-11428]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03974]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0098]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Ohio River, New Richmond, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zone for all
navigable waters of the Ohio River from mile marker (MM) 452.0 to MM
454.0 near New Richmond, OH. This action is necessary to provide for
the safety of life on these navigable waters near New Richmond, OH,
during a demolition project. Entry into, transiting through, or
anchoring within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 26, 2021 through February 28,
2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0098 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST1 Matthew Roberts, Waterways Department Marine Safety
Detachment Cincinnati, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. On February 15, 2021, the Coast Guard
was notified of a demolition event that will take place on the Ohio
River, between Mile Marker (MM) 452.0 to MM 454.0 near New Richmond, OH
from 9:30 a.m. through 10:30 a.m. on February 26, 2021 or if inclement
weather is present the demotion event will take place on February 27,
2021 or February 28, 2021, from 9:30 a.m. through 10:30 a.m. Notice of
the demolition event did not give the Coast Guard enough time to
publish an NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final rule before
the demolition work is set to begin. It would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest to delay promulgating this rule as it
is necessary to establish this safety zone on February 26, 2021 to
protect the safety of anyone within a two mile radius of the area
associated with the demolition. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making this

rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is necessary to respond to the potential safety hazards
associated with the demolition.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley
(COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the
demolition occuring on February 26, 2021, will be a safety concern for
anyone near the demolition site. The purpose of this rule is to ensure
safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before,
during, and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:30 a.m. through 10:30
a.m. on February 26, 2021. The back up dates will be February 27, 2021
or February 28, 2021, from 9:30 a.m. through 10:30 a.m. The temporary
safety zone would cover all navigable waters on the Ohio River
extending from MM 452.0 to MM 454.0 near New Richmond, OH. The duration
of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these
navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9:30 a.m.
through 10:30 a.m. demolition. No vessel or person will be permitted to
enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the temporary safety zone. The temporary
safety zone would only be in effect for 1 hour and limit access to a
two-mile stretch of the Ohio River near New Richmond, OH. The Coast
Guard expects minimum adverse impact to mariners. Also, mariners would
be permitted to request authorization from the COTP or a designated
representative to transit the temporary safety zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting 1 hour, which would prohibit entry within a 2-mile
stretch of the Ohio River near New Richmond, OH. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket,

see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

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 amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
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. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0098 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0098  Safety Zone; Ohio River, New Richmond, OH.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All
navigable waters of the Ohio River between MM 452.0 to MM 454.0 in New
Richmond, OH.
    (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 Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a
designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or
pass through the zone must request permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM radio
channel 16 or phone at 1-800-253-7465.
    (2) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must
transit at the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions
issued by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9:30
a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on February 26, 2021. The back up dates will be
February 27, 2021 or February 28, 2021, from 9:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m.
    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to
Mariners and the Local Notice to Mariners of the enforcement period for
the temporary safety zone as well as any changes in the planned
schedule.

    Dated: February 19, 2021.
A.M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2021-03974 Filed 2-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	April 2022

SUBJECT:	Estimated Costs/Impacts 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart TTTa

FROM:	Lisa Sutton, OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

TO:	Docket for NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines

Background
The focus of this memo is to measure the impact of BSER regulatory options that are more stringent than the current NSPS on spray booths at affected facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after January 8, 1986. Further, we have evaluated regulatory options in terms of 1) impacts on affected facilities--cost, environmental, and energy impacts, as well as 2) cost effectiveness of control options.
Model Plant
We expect no new, modified, or reconstructed sources to become subject to NSPS subpart TTTa over the next 8 years. However, we opted to evaluate impacts on a model plant basis.
Through a detailed analysis of the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database and by contacting individual facilities and reviewing their air permits, we determined that three facilities currently perform surface coating of plastic parts for business machines. To define the size of the model plant we looked at the VOC emissions of the active stationary sources. The table below presents the annual VOC emissions of these active facilities.
These facilities are largely job shops. Job shops are typically small manufacturing systems that handle job production such as small- to medium-size customer orders or batch jobs. Job shops typically move on to different jobs when each job is completed.

Table 1. Stationary sources that currently perform surface coating under Subpart TTT.
Stationary Source Name
                                   Location
                                  Booth Count
                            (Count Subject to TTT)
                                  Stationary
                                  Source Type
                               (Material Coated)
                     Annual VOC Emissions Mg/yr (tons/yr)

                                 Potential [a]
                                  Actual [b]
FM Structural Plastic Technology, Inc.
Rogers,
AR
                                      14
                                      (8)
Job Shop
(Medical Office Equipment)
                                     86.2
                                  (95.0) [c]
                                       d
Universal Plastics  -  Middlefield
Middlefield, OH
                                      10
                                     (10)
Job Shop
(Medical Office Equipment)
                                     24.4
                                    (26.9)
                                      6.3
                                    (6.98)
Xerox Corporation  -  Wilson Center
Webster,
NY
                                       4
                                      (1)
Original Equipment Manufacture
(Refurbish Production Equipment)
                                      9.3
                                  (10.3) [c]
                                      6.2
                                    (6.78)
Average
                                     40.0
                                    (44.1)
                                      6.2
                                    (6.88)
Notes
a  -  Potential emissions are characterized from the air permits.
b  -  Actual emissions are characterized from the 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI).
c  -  Emission includes activities not regulated under NSPS subpart TTT.
d  -  The State Agency reported annual emissions for FM Structural Plastic in the Emissions Inventory System (EIS) non-point inventory.

For the annual emissions of the TTTa model plant we selected a value of 27.2 Mg per year (30 tons per year) as a value between the average potential emissions represented by the active facilities air permits and the average actual emissions represented by the 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI).
Below is the historical basis we used to quantify the model plant volume of coating materials:
 The EPA's 1985 Background Information and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (BID) "small model plant" was estimated to be applying 1,730 liters of coating solids per year to plastic parts; 250 of that is for EMI-RFI shielding coatings, leaving 1,480 as exterior coating. Subpart TTTa will not have separate limits for EMI/RFI coatings.
 The 1988 NSPS provided a model plant with 1,480 liters of coating solids applied and a calculated VOC release of 2.67 Mg VOC. It is assumed that this ratio of coating deposited to VOC emissions is representative of other facilities.

As discussed above, we selected for the TTTa model plant a release of 27.2 Mg of VOC annually. Using the 1988 ratio of Mg VOC to liter solids applied, we estimate that the model plant will consume 15,100 liters of coating solids applied.
Control Options
Control techniques used to reduce VOC emissions from general surface coating processes include: 1) the use of more efficient coating application techniques, 2) low-VOC-content coatings, and 3) add-on controls. In reviewing the NSPS for surface coating of plastic parts for business machines, we considered each of these emission reduction techniques.
Application techniques options are limited for surface coating of plastic parts for business machines. First, plastic parts are mostly spray applied. Dip coating is uncommon because although it has a high transfer efficiency (TE), it is color specific and the customer (i.e., job shop) cannot easily switch colors. Dip coating may be used by original equipment manufacturers for large runs (Sherwin-Williams, 12/7/2021). Further, owners and operators are constrained in the extent to which TE can be improved. The type of plastic being coated affects the choice of coating, which in turn affects the choice of and efficiency of the spray application technique. Low-VOC-content coatings have been developed for surface coating of plastic parts for business machines and we determined that all three facilities currently subject to the 1988 NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, use low-VOC-coatings in combination with the TE specified in the rule for each spray application technology to comply with the emission limitations in the NSPS.
Consistent with these control techniques, we evaluated three regulatory options for control of VOC emissions from new (or modified or reconstructed) affected facilities. Options 1 and 2 rely on coating reformulation for low VOC coatings and are more stringent than the current NSPS. Option 3 is the use of add-on control.

Low-VOC-Content Coatings
Regulatory Options 1 and 2 rely on coating reformulation and are more stringent than the current NSPS. To evaluate Options 1 and 2, we estimated costs and emission reductions by assuming that all coatings are prime and color coating/top coating because they represent the majority of coating and have the same emission limits, and we did not include texture and touchup coatings in the impacts analysis.

Option 1
Option 1 is based on the 2008 Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) level of control. Specifically, the option 1 VOC emission limit both for primer and for topcoat (which the EPA believes to be equivalent to color coat) is, upon conversion to the NSPS format, 1.4 kg VOC/l (12 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied. If the model plant used 15,100 l/yr (4,000 gal/yr) of coating solids applied, then the estimated reduction in VOC emissions is 1.5 Mg/yr (1.7 tpy). The calculations are shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Control Option 1 Reductions.
                                 NSPS Baseline
                              Option 1 (2008 CTG)
                                   Reduction
                             Primer and Color Coat
                        kg VOC/l coating solids applied
                                 (lb VOC/gal)
                            Primer and Topcoat, [a]
                            kg VOC/l coating solids
                                 (lb VOC/gal)
                            Primer and Topcoat, [a]
                     kg VOC/l coating solids applied [b]
                                 (lb VOC/gal)
                                   Emission
                                   Reduction
                       kg VOC/l coatings solids applied
                                 (lb VOC/gal)
                      Model Plant, Emission Reduction [c]
                                   VOC Mg/yr
                                   (tons/yr)
                                      1.5
                                    (12.5)
                                     0.57
                                    (4.80)
                                      1.4
                                     (12)
                                      0.1
                                     (0.8)
                                      1.5
                                     (1.7)
Notes
a  -  The CTG emission rate limits specified in Table 9 did not include a color coat; topcoat is assumed to be an equivalent type (page 43 of 142).
b  -  An assumed transfer efficiency of 0.40 is necessary to convert the coating concentration from kg VOC /liter coating solids to kg VOC/liter coating solids applied.
c  -  Assumes 15,100 liters of coating solids applied.

New York State Regulations are equivalent to the 2008 CTG content limits. Therefore, all business machine plastic parts coatings in New York shall comply with these more stringent VOC emission limits. Thus, coatings manufacturers have been successful in reformulating coating products to meet more stringent limits. A Xerox facility in Webster NY is actively engaged in the surface coating of plastic parts for business machines and is complying with air permit limits that are more stringent than the VOC emission limits of the 1988 NSPS. As described later in this memorandum, we drew from compliance data collected from two sources to develop a representative list of compliant coatings currently available, and we identified those we found to be currently in use at one or both sources. Because at least one stationary source is already achieving this level of control entirely through use of currently available coating formulations, we assume the cost effectiveness of option 1 for the representative coating to be $0 per ton of VOC reduction, on expectation that new, modified, and reconstructed sources will be able to achieve that option's level of control entirely through use of currently available coating formulations at the same cost. We lack information sufficient to determine the incremental costs that sources may incur to make necessary substitutions of current coatings with lower-VOC-content coatings. However, we expect the costs to be minimal because we expect compliance can be achieved through substitution with reformulated coatings that are currently available. We recognize that there are aspects of coatings substitution for which we do not have cost comparison data. Multiple factors could affect both direct and indirect costs as well as coating performance; these include consideration of application method, durability, and color.

Option 2
Option 2 is based on the 1994 Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) level of control. Specifically, the option 2 VOC emission limits for primer and color coat are, upon conversion to the NSPS format, 0.43 kg VOC/l (3.6 lb VOC/gal) and 1.0 kg VOC/l (8.4 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied, respectively. The average VOC emission limit for those two types is 0.72 kg VOC/l (6.0 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied and is considered representative of the ACT level of control. If option 2's representative coating comprised the entirety of the stationary sources 15,100 l/yr (4,000 gal/yr) of coating solids applied, then the estimated reduction in VOC emissions is 11.8 Mg/yr (13.0 tpy). The calculations are shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Control Option 2 Reductions.
                                 NSPS Baseline
                              Option 2 (1994 ACT)
                                   Reduction
                            Primer and Color Coat
                        kg VOC/l coating solids applied
                                 (lb VOC/gal)
                         kg VOC/l coating, less water
                            and exempt solvents [a]
                                 (lb VOC/gal)

                              kg VOC/l solids [b]
                                 (lb VOC/gal)
                      kg VOC/l coating solids applied [c]
                                 (lb VOC/gal)
                                   Emission
                                   Reduction
                       kg VOC/l coatings solids applied
                                 (lb VOC/gal)
                      Model Plant, Emission Reduction [c]
                                   VOC Mg/yr
                                   (tons/yr)
                                      1.5
                                    (12.5)
                                 Primer: 0.14
                                     (1.2)
                                 Primer: 0.17
                                     (1.4)
                                 Primer: 0.43
                                     (3.6)
                                     0.78
                                     (6.5)
                                     11.8
                                    (13.0)

                               Color Coat: 0.28
                                     (2.3)
                               Color Coat: 0.40
                                     (3.4)
                               Color Coat: 1.00
                                     (8.4)

                                   Avg: 0.21
                                     (1.8)
                                   Avg: 0.29
                                     (2.4)
                                   Avg: 0.72
                                     (6.0)

Notes
a  -  The ACT emission rate limits specified in Table 4-1 level 2 reformulation (page 134 of 207).
b  -  An assumed VOC density of 0.88 kg/l is necessary to convert the coating VOC concentration from "kg VOC/liter coating less water and exempt solvents" to "kg VOC/liter coating solids."
c  -  An assumed transfer efficiency of 0.40 is necessary to convert the coating concentration from kg VOC /liter coating solids to kg VOC/liter coating solids applied.
d  -  Assumes 15,100 liters of coating solids applied.

We examined compliance demonstration records collected from two active facilities and the "plastic substrate" coatings available from Sherwin-Williams. The available coatings are presented in Table 4 below. Records show that of the 13 unique coatings, all but four can achieve the option 2 level of control without reformulation.

Table 4. Identified Coatings, Capable of Complying with Option 2 Limits.
User or
Vendor
Coating Details
Coating
Type
VOC content. Coating solids applied (kg/liter) [a]
Compliant with option 2 (1994 ACT)
Xerox [b]
1. Sherwin-Williams POLANE
W2 Celestial Blue (Paint No. F73L1502)
                                     color
                                     0.96
                                      Yes
Xerox [b]
2. Sherwin-Williams POLANE
W2 Matte Black (Paint No. F83B1018)
                                     color
                                     0.94
                                      Yes
Xerox [b]
3. KEM AQUA 600T and 600S,
xerox x-7 (Paint No. F73WXR2504-4366)
                                     color
                                     0.82
                                      Yes
Xerox [b]
4. KEM AQUA 600T and 600S,
xerox x-2 (Paint No. F73WXA8573-4366)
                                     color
                                     0.77
                                      Yes
Xerox, [b] Universal Plastics [c]
5. Sherwin-Williams POLANE
W2 Quartz White (Paint No. F73WC506)
                                     color
                                     0.95
                                      Yes
Xerox, [b] Universal Plastics [c]
6. KEM AQUA 600T and 600S,
Cosmic Blue (SP)(C/G) (Paint No. F73WXL13158-4366)
                                     color
                                     0.78
                                      Yes
Xerox, [b] Universal Plastics [c]
7. KEM AQUA 600T and 600S,
VUDU Blue 25/30 (Paint No. F73WXL11457-4366)
                                     color
                                     0.75
                                      Yes
Universal Plastics [c]
8. Sherwin-Williams POLANE
700T with Kem Aqua Colorants, BLACK (Paint No. F63WX)
                                     color
                                     0.70
                                      Yes
Universal Plastics, [c] Sherwin-Williams [d]
9. KEM AQUA
Bonding Primer for Plastic, White
                                     prime
                                     0.45
                                                                             No
Sherwin-Williams [d]
10. Sherwin-Williams POLANE
2.8T Plus- Becton White F63WC111
                                     color
                                     1.21
                                                                             No
Sherwin-Williams [d]
11. Sherwin-Williams POLANE
700T White F63W522
                                     color
                                     0.64
                                      Yes
Sherwin-Williams [d]
12. Sherwin-Williams POLANE
8880 High Gloss- White F63W280
                                     color
                                     1.86
                                                                             No
Sherwin-Williams [d]
13. Sherwin-Williams POLANE
8910- High Gloss White F63W200
                                     color
                                     1.13
                                                                             No
Notes
a  -  Assumed a TE of 0.40 to calculate, in the format of the NSPS, a conservatively low VOC emission rate for each coating.
b  -  Email from stationary source contact, Danelle Giannini (12/2/2021 3:23 PM). "I am also attaching records showing the calculations we use to calculate the content of VOCs in our coatings to show that they are compliant with both NSPS Subpart TTT requirements and NY's 6NYCRR Part 228 requirements."
c  -  Email from State inspector, Tracy Gu (11/4/2021 12:29 PM). Records collected for Dec. 2020 inspection.
d  -  Menu of Sherwin-Williams coatings general industrial website: https://industrial.sherwin-williams.com/na/us/en/general-industrial/catalog/category/products-by-industry/electronics/business-machines.10656533.html

Reformulation Costs
The EPA has estimated an annualized cost of $29,300 per reformulation and assumes that the model plant would bear the cost of reformulation--specifically, one product among each of four coating types, totaling $117,306 per year. The basis of this reformulation is the 1996 proposed rule for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emission standards for Architectural Coatings.

Add-on Control
Option 3 is the use of add-on control. The VOC from the spray booth can be captured and ducted to a control device. Typically, the volume of air is high, and the concentration of VOC is low. A regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) will control VOC emissions by combusting them to carbon dioxide and water. Destruction efficiency depends on design criteria (e.g., chamber temperature, residence time) and we estimate that 95 percent of VOC will be destroyed. We assumed that 80 percent of total VOC emissions that are estimated to enter the spray booth exhaust due to coating operations. The balance of the stationary source's VOC emissions is attributed to flash-off areas and ovens. Under option 3 we estimated that the VOC emissions reductions would be 20.7 Mg/yr (22.8 tpy) per facility (i.e., 27.2 Mg x 0.80 x 0.95 = 20.7 Mg).
It should be noted that none of the three facilities that currently perform surface coating of plastic parts for business machines use add-on controls to comply with NSPS subpart TTT. Further, dialogue with individual facilities did not yield an expected VOC concentration in spray booth exhaust. Through a series of operational assumptions (i.e., hours of operation, booth ventilation rate) the VOC concentration in the spray booth exhaust and entering the add on control was back calculated. The operational assumptions and about the model plant are listed below:
 2,000 annual hours of operation; the model plant operates 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, for 50 weeks a year.
 10,000 actual cubic feet/minute spray booth ventilation rate. Characterized in BID Table 6-1 Model Plant Parameters (pg. 95 of 276); consistent for all three models.
 167 ppmv VOC concentration in spray booth exhaust. The EPA used the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual spreadsheet for incinerators and oxidizers to back-calculate the concentration necessary to achieve 20.7 Mg/yr reduction. Further, all VOC is assumed to be a single pollutant, toluene. This assumption is necessary to determine heat content and the supplemental fuel requirements (i.e., natural gas).
We used the EPA cost manual spreadsheets to generate the following costs and energy impacts. We recognize there are other add-on controls that can achieve similar emission reductions at a similar cost, such as a VOC concentrator paired with an RTO.

Table 5. Control Option 3 (RTO) Cost Tool Outputs.

                               Cost Tool Outputs
Total Capital Investment Costs
                                   $917,808
Direct Annual Costs [a]
                                    $30,776
Total Annual Costs [b]
                                   $142,931
     Auxiliary fuel Energy Input
                                                                 26,240 Btu/min
     Fan Power Consumption
                                                                        46.9 kW
     VOC Destroyed
                                                                 22.7 tons/year
Notes
a  -  Includes electricity, fuel, labor, and maintenance costs.
b  -  Interest rate and equipment life are 4.25% and 20-years, respectively.

Cost Effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness refers to the annualized cost of implementing an air pollution control option divided by the amount of pollutant reductions realized annually. We consider a cost-effectiveness analysis as a useful metric, and a means of evaluating whether a given control achieves emission reduction at a reasonable cost. The table below presents the cost-effectiveness of each control option.

Table 6. Control Option Cost-Effectiveness.
                                Control Option
                                  Reduction
                                Mg/yr (ton/yr)
                                    Annual
                                     Cost
                              Cost-Effectiveness
                                    ($/ton)
                                 Annual Impact
Option 1 (2008 CTG)
                                   1.5 (1.6)
                                  $0 [Note 1]
                                       -
                                       -
Option 2 (1994 ACT)
                                   11.8 (13)
                                   $117,306
                                    $9,043
                                       -
Option 3 (RTO)
                                  20.7 (22.7)
                                   $142,931
                                    $6,299
                            Electricity: 93,737 kwh
                            Natural Gas: 3,149 mscf
                               GHG: 167 Mg CO2e
Note 1: The EPA assumes this cost to be $0/ton based on the lack of cost data available and on our understanding of the availability of other low-VOC-content coatings.