10530 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

the Administrator finds that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

(i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for the Gulfstream Model GVI because of 

a novel or unusual design feature, 

special conditions are prescribed under 

the provisions of § 21.16. 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should the type certificate 

for that model be amended later to 

include any other model that 

incorporates the same novel or unusual 

design features, the special conditions 

would also apply to the other model 

under provisions of § 21.101. 

In addition to complying with the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

and special conditions, the GVI must 

comply with the fuel vent and exhaust 

emission requirements of 14 CFR part 

34 and the noise certification 

requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The 

FAA must also issue a finding of 

regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 

611 of Public Law 92–574, the ‘‘Noise 

Control Act of 1972.’’ 

The FAA issues special conditions, as 

defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance 

with § 11.38, and they become part of 

the type certification basis under 

§ 21.17(a)(2). 

Novel or Unusual Design Features 

The GVI will incorporate the 

following novel or unusual design 

features: Digital systems architecture 

composed of several connected 

networks. The proposed architecture 

and network configuration may be used 

for, or interfaced with, a diverse set of 

functions, including: 

1. Flight-safety related control, 

communication, and navigation systems 

(aircraft control domain), 

2. Airline business and administrative 

support (airline information domain), 

3. Passenger information and 

entertainment systems (passenger 

entertainment domain), and 

4. The capability to allow access to or 

by external sources. 

Discussion of Proposed Special 

Conditions 

The proposed Model GVI architecture 

and network configuration may allow 

increased connectivity to and access by 

external airplane sources and airline 

operations and maintenance systems to 

the aircraft control domain and airline 

information domain. The aircraft control 

domain and airline information domain 

perform functions required for the safe 

operation and maintenance of the 

airplane. Previously these domains had 

very limited connectivity with external 

sources. 

The architecture and network 

configuration may allow the 

exploitation of network security 

vulnerabilities resulting in intentional 

or unintentional destruction, disruption, 

degradation, or exploitation of data, 

systems, and networks critical to the 

safety and maintenance of the airplane. 

The existing regulations and guidance 

material did not anticipate these types 

of airplane system architectures. 

Furthermore, 14 CFR regulations and 

current system safety assessment policy 

and techniques do not address potential 

security vulnerabilities, which could be 

exploited by unauthorized access to 

airplane systems, data buses, and 

servers. Therefore, these special 

conditions and a means of compliance 

are proposed to ensure that the security 

(i.e., confidentiality, integrity, and 

availability) of airplane systems is not 

compromised by unauthorized wired or 

wireless electronic connections. 

Applicability 

As discussed above, these proposed 

special conditions are applicable to the 

GVI. Should Gulfstream apply at a later 

date for a change to the type certificate 

to include another model incorporating 

the same novel or unusual design 

features, these proposed special 

conditions would apply to that model as 

well. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features of the GVI. It 

is not a rule of general applicability. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The authority citation for these 

special conditions is as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 

44702, 44704. 

The Proposed Special Conditions 

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) proposes the 

following special conditions as part of 

the type certification basis for the GVI 

airplanes. 

1. The applicant must ensure 

electronic system security protection for 

the aircraft control domain and airline 

information domain from access by 

unauthorized sources external to the 

airplane, including those possibly 

caused by maintenance activity. 

2. The applicant must ensure that 

electronic system security threats from 

external sources are identified and 

assessed, and that effective electronic 

system security protection strategies are 

implemented to protect the airplane 

from all adverse impacts on safety, 

functionality, and continued 

airworthiness. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

15, 2011. 

KC Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4232 Filed 2–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 49 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0683; FRL–9269–4] 

Supplemental Proposed Rule of 

Source Specific Federal 

Implementation Plan for Implementing 

Best Available Retrofit Technology for 

Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo 

Nation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On October 19, 2010, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published a proposal to promulgate a 

source specific Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) requiring the Four Corners 

Power Plant (FCPP), located on the 

Navajo Nation, to achieve emissions 

reductions required by the Clean Air 

Act’s Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) provision. On November 24, 

2010, Arizona Public Service (APS) 

acting on behalf of FCPP’s owners 

submitted a letter to EPA offering an 

alternative proposal to reduce visibilityimpairing pollution. In this action, EPA 

is supplementing our October 19, 2010 

BART proposal with our technical 

evaluation of APS’ alternative proposal. 

We are proposing to find that a different 

alternative emissions control strategy 

would achieve more progress than 

EPA’s BART proposal towards 

achieving visibility improvements in the 

surrounding Class I areas. 

DATES: Comments on this supplemental 

proposed rule must be submitted no 

later than May 2, 2011. 

Open houses and public hearings will 

be held on the following dates: 

Shiprock Chapter, Shiprock, New 

Mexico—March 29, 2011; 

Nenahnezad Chapter, Fruitland, New 

Mexico—March 30, 2011; 

Farmington, New Mexico—March 30, 

2011; 

Durango, Colorado—March 31, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0683, by one of the 

following methods: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10531 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

E-mail: r9air_fcppbart@epa.gov. 

Mail or deliver: Anita Lee (Air–3), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Hearings: EPA is holding public 

hearings in four locations in the Four 

Corners area to accept oral and written 

comments on our October 19, 2010 

proposed rulemaking and this 

supplemental proposed rule. See the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further 

information on the hearings. 

The open houses and public hearings 

will be held at the following locations: 

Shiprock Chapter, Shiprock, New 

Mexico—March 29, 2011, Open House 

from 3 p.m.–6 p.m. and Public Hearing 

from 7 p.m.–9 p.m. local time, Phil L. 

Thomas Performing Arts Center, 

Highway 64 West, Shiprock, New 

Mexico, 87420, (505) 368–2490; 

Nenahnezad Chapter, Fruitland, New 

Mexico—March 30, 2011, combined 

Open House and Public Hearing from 9 

a.m.–1 p.m. local time, Nenahnezad 

Chapter House, Multi-Purpose Room, 

Highway 64 to County Road 6675 to end 

of Navajo Route 365, (505) 960–9702; 

Farmington, New Mexico—March 30, 

2011, Open House from 3 p.m.–5 p.m. 

and Public Hearing from 6 p.m.–9 p.m. 

local time, San Juan College, Henderson 

Fine Arts Building Rooms 9006 and 

9008, Farmington, New Mexico, 97402, 

(505) 326–3311; 

Durango, Colorado—March 31, 2011, 

Open House from 3 p.m.–5 p.m. and 

Public Hearing from 6 p.m.–9 p.m. local 

time, Fort Lewis College, Center of 

Southwest Studies Lyceum Room, 1000 

Rim Drive, Durango, Colorado, 81301, 

(970) 247–7456. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anita Lee, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3958, r9air_fcppbart@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

EPA is providing 30 days advance 

notice of our scheduled hearings and 

opening a comment period on this 

supplemental proposed rule that 

extends from the publication date of this 

document until May 2, 2011, which is 

30 days after our last scheduled hearing, 

resulting in more than 60 days to 

comment on this supplemental 

proposed rule. On December 8, 2010, 

EPA extended the comment period for 

our October 19, 2010 BART proposal 

until March 18, 2011. EPA is accepting 

comment on both proposals 

concurrently. Accordingly, in this 

action, EPA is also extending the public 

comment period on the October 19, 

2010 BART proposal until May 2, 2011. 

EPA will not respond to comments 

during the public hearing. When we 

publish our final action, we will provide 

written responses to all oral and written 

comments received on our October 19, 

2010 proposal and on this supplemental 

proposed rule. To provide opportunities 

for questions and discussion, EPA will 

hold open houses prior to, or 

concurrently with, the public hearings. 

During these open houses, EPA staff 

will be available to informally answer 

questions on our proposed action and 

this supplemental proposed rule. Any 

comments made to EPA staff during the 

open houses must still be provided 

formally in writing or orally during a 

public hearing in order to be considered 

in the record. 

Oral testimony may be limited to 5 

minutes for each commenter to address 

the proposal or this supplemental 

proposed rule. We will not be providing 

equipment for commenters to show 

overhead slides or make computerized 

slide presentations. Any person may 

provide written or oral comments, in 

English or Dine ́, and data pertaining to 

our proposal at the Public Hearing. 

English-Dine ́ translation services will be 

provided at both the Open Houses and 

the Public Hearings in Shiprock, 

Fruitland, and Farmington. EnglishDine translation services will not be 

provided at the Durango Open House 

and Public Hearing unless it is 

requested by March 14, 2011. If you 

require a reasonable accommodation, by 

March 14, 2011, please contact Anita 

Lee using one of the methods provided 

in the ADDRESSES section of this 

supplemental proposed rule. Verbatim 

transcripts, in English, of the hearings 

and written statements will be included 

in the rulemaking docket. 

The public hearings for the three 

evening events are scheduled to close at 

9 p.m., but may close later, if necessary, 

depending on the number of speakers 

wishing to participate. 

If you are unable to attend the public 

hearings but wish to submit written 

comments on the proposed rule or this 

supplemental proposed rule, you may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0683, by 

one of the following methods listed in 

the ADDRESSES section. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Summary 

II. Legal Background for Proposing To 

Approve an Alternative Emissions 

Control Strategy as Achieving Better 

Progress Towards the National Visibility 

Goal 

III. EPA’s Technical Analysis of Better 

Reasonable Progress Towards National 

Visibility Goal 

A. Estimated NOX Emission Reductions 

1. Proposed NOX Emission Limit To Apply 

on Units 4 and 5 With Installation of 

SCR by July 31, 2018 

2. Alternative Emissions Control Strategy 

Will Result in Greater Visibility 

Improvement than BART 

B. Benefits in Addition to NOX Emissions 

Reductions 

C. Modeling and Demonstrating 

Reasonable Progress 

D. Alternative Emissions Control Strategy 

Has Lower Cost Than EPA’s Proposed 

BART Determination 

IV. EPA’s Supplemental Proposal 

V. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10532 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA’s revisions to APS’ proposal is referred to 

throughout this notice as ‘‘the alternative emission 

control strategy’’. 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Background and Summary 

EPA’s proposed BART determination, 

which was published on October 19, 

2010, provided a thorough discussion of 

the legal and factual background 

concerning our proposed BART 

rulemaking and FCPP. 75 FR 64221. 

APS is the sole owner of Units 1–3, a 

partial owner of Units 4 and 5, and the 

operator of FCPP. APS provided an 

initial response to EPA’s BART proposal 

during a meeting on November 9, 2010 

and by letter dated November 24, 2010. 

The initial response indicated that APS 

had reached an agreement on November 

8, 2010, to purchase the ownership 

interest in Units 4 and 5 from Southern 

California Edison (SCE). APS further 

announced that upon final authorization 

of purchasing SCE’s interest in Units 4 

and 5, APS would begin a process to 

shut down Units 1–3 that would be 

completed by the beginning of 2014. In 

addition, upon final authorization, APS 

would commence work in 2014 to 

install SCR on Units 4 and 5 with a 

schedule for the SCR to be fully 

installed and operational on both units 

by 2018. APS proposed a NOX

emissions limit of 0.11 lb/MMMBtu, to 

be achieved by the end of 2018. APS 

justified requesting its schedule of 2014 

to shut down Units 1–3 and 2018 to 

install SCR on Units 4 and 5 based on 

its need to secure several Federal, State, 

and Tribal authorizations to execute this 

alternative emissions control strategy. 

According to APS’ calculations, under 

their alternative strategy, FCPP would, 

beginning in 2019, emit 2,650 tons per 

year (tpy) less NOX pollution than under 

EPA’s October 19, 2010 BART proposal. 

APS also provided a summary of the 

significant annual and cumulative 

(through 2037) reductions of NOX, 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter 

(PM), mercury (Hg), water use, and 

carbon dioxide (CO2) that would result 

from shutting down Units 1–3 and 

operating SCR on Units 4 and 5. EPA’s 

October 19, 2010 BART proposal did 

not require reductions of SO2, Hg, or 

CO2 emissions or reductions in water 

use. 

APS states that revenue associated 

with operating FCPP comprises roughly 

35% of the Navajo Nation’s general 

fund. FCPP and the mine supplying the 

coal provide about 1,000 jobs, the 

majority of which are filled by Native 

American employees. FCPP and the 

mine also pay significant taxes and 

generate other revenue for the area. 

EPA requested APS to submit the 

emissions calculations and modeling 

files supporting the conclusions APS set 

forth in its letter of November 24, 2010. 

APS submitted those emissions 

calculations and modeling files to EPA 

on November 29, 2010 and December 3, 

2010. The emission calculation 

spreadsheet is available in our 

electronic docket (EPA–R09–OAR– 

2010–0683, document number 0080.1— 

identified as an xlsx file), and the 

modeling files are available upon 

request. 

EPA has conducted its own technical 

analysis of the alternative proposal APS 

put forward on November 24, 2010. Our 

analysis, as described in this 

supplemental proposed rule, finds that 

an alternative emission control strategy 

to shut down Units 1–3 by 2014 and 

operate SCR on Units 4 and 5 by July 

31, 2018 to achieve a more stringent but 

still feasible NOX emission limit of 

0.098 lb/MMBtu will result in greater 

visibility improvement than both EPA’s 

October 19, 2010 BART proposal and 

November 24, 2010 APS’ alternative 

proposal.1 Our analysis differs in some 

respects from APS regarding the 

emissions benefit and visibility 

improvement from APS’ proposal. 

However, when viewing the combined 

short term and long term effect of the 

alternative emission control strategy, 

EPA is proposing to find that shutting 

down Units 1–3 in 2014 and operating 

SCR on Units 4 and 5 by July 31, 2018 

will result in greater visibility 

improvement at the surrounding Class I 

areas. 

FCPP is comprised of five coal-fired 

units of different sizes and ownership. 

Ownership of Units 4 and 5, the two 

largest units at FCPP at 750 MW each, 

is currently shared between six 

entities—SCE, APS, Public Service 

Company of New Mexico (PNM), Salt 

River Project (SRP), El Paso Electric 

Company (EPEC), and Tucson Electric 

Power (TEP). Table 1 provides a brief 

summary of characteristics of the five 

units. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF UNITS 1–5 

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 

Year Operation Began ......................................................... 1963 1963 1964 1969 1970 

Capacity (MW) ..................................................................... 170 170 220 750 750 

Heat Input Rate (MMBtu/hr) ................................................ 1,863 1,863 2,400 7,411 7,411 

NOX Baseline emission rate (lb/MMBtu) ............................. 0.78 0.64 0.59 0.49 0.49 

PM Baseline emission rate (lb/MMBtu) ............................... 0.025 0.029 0.029 0.014 0.010 

Ownership ............................................................................ APS—100% SCE—48%, APS—15%, PNM— 

13%, SRP—10%, EPEC— 

7%, TEP—7%. 

Table 2 provides a summary of the 

annual and cumulative emissions and 

water use reductions that will result 

from APS’ proposal. Table 2 shows the 

emission reductions as stated by APS in 

its submittal, however, for the 

cumulative NOX emissions reduced, 

EPA believes with the correction of an 

evident calculation error on the part of 

APS this value should be 388,416 tons 

(16,184 tons per year × 24 years), not 

104,958. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10533 

2Annual emissions are based on APS’ current 

emissions reported to EPA. Cumulative emissions 

are based on APS’s proposal from 2014 to 2037 

prior to end of new lease (24 year period). 

TABLE 2—EMISSION REDUCTIONS ACHIEVED BY CLOSING UNITS 1–3, REPRODUCED FROM APS’ NOVEMBER 24, 2010 

SUBMITTAL 2

Annual Cumulative 

NOX (tons) ............................................................................................................................................................... 16,184 104,958 

SO2 (tons) ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,852 68,448 

PM (tons) ................................................................................................................................................................. 678 16,272 

Hg (pounds) ............................................................................................................................................................. 361 8,664 

Water use (acre-feet) ............................................................................................................................................... 6,000 144,000 

CO2 (million tons) .................................................................................................................................................... 5.2 125 

II. Legal Background for Proposing To 

Approve APS’ Alternative Emission 

Control Strategy as Achieving Better 

Progress Towards the National 

Visibility Goal 

Section 169A(b)(2) of the Clean Air 

Act requires a complete implementation 

plan for visibility improvement to 

contain such emissions limits, 

schedules of compliance, and other 

measures that may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the 

national visibility goal. The 

implementation plan provisions must 

include, as appropriate, BART under 

CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A) and a long 

term strategy under CAA section 

169A(b)(2)(B). 

In 1991, EPA considered a factual 

situation similar to the circumstances at 

hand. EPA had published a proposed 

rule requiring the owners and operators 

of Navajo Generating Station (NGS) to 

install emissions controls to reduce SO 2

emissions because those emissions from 

NGS were shown to impair visibility in 

the Grand Canyon National Park. 55 FR 

5173 (Feb. 8, 1991). The proposed 

rulemaking included an SO 2 emission 

limit, based on analysis of several 

different levels of SO 2 reduction, as 

BART pursuant to authority in CAA 

Section 169A(b)(2)(A). 56 FR 5178. 

Before EPA finalized the rule, the owner 

and operator of NGS, along with several 

environmental groups, submitted an 

alternative plan to EPA. The alternative 

plan would provide greater emissions 

reductions of SO 2 at a lower cost than 

EPA’s proposed rule. EPA published a 

Supplemental Notice seeking comments 

on the alternative plan. 56 FR 38399 

(Aug. 13, 1991). 

In the NGS Supplemental Notice, EPA 

examined its legal authority under 

Section 169A(b)(2). Id. Appendix B. 

EPA noted that in crafting the visibility 

reasonable progress requirements, 

Congress did not explicitly address, and 

apparently did not even consider, whether 

there could be greater visibility improvement 

at a lower cost in furtherance of the national 

goal through an implementation plan 

provision that relied more generally on 

subsection (b)(2), rather than on specific 

provisions of subparagraph (A) and/or 

subparagraph (B). Where Congress has not 

directly spoken to the precise question at 

issue, EPA may make a reasonable 

construction of the statute that is appropriate 

in the context of the particular program at 

issue. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 

837, 842–45 (1984). 

Id. at 38403. EPA evaluated the 

alternative plan and agreed that it 

would provide greater visibility 

improvement at lower cost than EPA’s 

proposed BART rulemaking. EPA’s 

Supplemental Notice stated: 

Based on the staff conclusions regarding 

the factual circumstances of this case, EPA 

could reasonably find that the present 

alternative, with its higher expected visibility 

improvement and lower expected costs (in 

comparison to the February 1991 proposed 

rule), best fulfills the overarching statutory 

requirement in section 169A(b)(2)(which 

incorporates the more specific provisions of 

subparagraphs (A) and (B)) that 

implementation plan revisions adopted 

under subparagraphs 169A make ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ toward the national visibility goal. 

Id. 

EPA finalized the proposed rule for 

NGS in October 1991. 56 FR 50172 (Oct. 

3, 1991). In the final rule, EPA adopted 

the rationale from the August 1991 

Supplemental Notice that EPA had legal 

authority under section 169A(b)(2) to 

finalize an alternative to BART provided 

it made greater reasonable progress 

towards the national visibility goal. Id. 

at 50177. 

The Central Arizona Project (CAP) 

petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals to review EPA’s final rule. The 

Ninth Circuit issued an opinion on 

March 25, 1993, upholding EPA’s legal 

authority to finalize an alternative to 

BART as making reasonable progress 

where that alternative resulted in greater 

visibility improvement at a lower cost. 

Central Arizona Water Conservation 

District v. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, 990 F.2d 1531 (9th 

Cir. Mar. 25, 1993). The Court noted that 

‘‘[u]nder the unique circumstances of 

this case, however, EPA chose not to 

adopt the emission control limits 

indicated by BART analysis, but instead 

to adopt an emission limitations 

standard that would produce greater 

visibility improvement at a lower cost.’’ 

Id. at 1543. The Court then held: 

Since the Act itself is ambiguous on the 

specific issue, we apply the Supreme Court’s 

deferential standard from Chevron and hold 

that the agency’s reliance on the ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ provisions is a ‘‘permissible 

construction of the statute,’’ 467 U.S. at 843, 

104 S.Ct. at 2782, since ‘‘reasonable progress’’ 

is the overarching requirement that 

implementation plan revisions under 42 

U.S.C. 7491(b)(2) must address. 

Id. 

EPA revised its regulations 

implementing sections 169A and 169B 

of the CAA in several iterations 

beginning in 1999. Among other things, 

the 1999 Regional Haze Rule codified 

the gap-filling approach EPA used in the 

1991 NGS rulemaking. 64 FR 35714, 

35739 (July 1, 1999). The Regional Haze 

Rule requires a State or Tribe to submit 

an implementation plan containing 

either emission limitations representing 

BART, 40 CFR 308(e)(1), or other 

alternative measures that will achieve 

greater reasonable progress than would 

have resulted from BART, 40 CFR 

308(e)(2). EPA anticipated at the time 

that ‘‘the most likely alternative 

measures adopted * * * will be an 

emissions trading program,’’ 64 FR at 

35743, but did not limit the States or 

Tribes to such an approach. The 

requirements for alternative programs 

designed to achieve better than BART 

are established at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). 

The EPA modified the regulations 

addressing alternatives to sourcespecific BART requirements in 2005 and 

again in 2006. In 2005, EPA established 

specific criteria for determining whether 

a trading program or other alternative 

measures provides for greater reasonable 

progress. 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). To 

assess whether an alternative meets this 

core requirement, States and Tribes 

must first consider the distribution of 

emissions that would result from BART 

as compared to the alternative. The 

regulations provide that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10534 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3The BART guidelines at 40 CFR part 51 

appendix Y, require averaging times for EGUs be 

based on a 30-day rolling average. 

4The SCR catalyst can oxidize sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) to sulfur trioxide (SO3, which, in the presence 

of water vapor, forms sulfuric acid) (H2SO4) aerosol, 

which causes visibility impairment. 

[i]f the distribution of emissions is not 

substantially different than under BART, and 

the alternative measure results in greater 

emissions reductions, then the alternative 

measures may be deemed to achieve greater 

reasonable progress. 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). Where the 

alternative would result in a different 

distribution of emissions, the 

regulations require dispersion modeling 

to determine differences in visibility 

between BART and the trading program 

and establish a test against which to 

measure the results of the modeling. Id. 

In 2006, EPA again revised the 

Regional Haze Rule, focusing on 

regulatory issues associated with the use 

of an emissions trading program as an 

alternative to BART. In this rulemaking, 

EPA allowed for a less prescriptive 

approach to determining whether an 

alternative program provides for greater 

reasonable progress based on the clear 

weight of evidence. 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).71 FR 60612 (Oct. 13, 

2006). 

To meet the requirement of the 

Regional Haze Rule that all necessary 

emission reductions take place during 

the period of the first long-term strategy 

for regional haze, if APS elects to 

implement this alternative emission 

control strategy, EPA is proposing to 

require Units 4 and 5 to comply with 

the 0.098 lb/MMBtu NOX emission limit 

by July 31, 2018, five months earlier 

than APS’ proposed schedule for 

complete SCR installation and 

operation. 

In today’s supplemental proposed 

rule, EPA is proposing to find, based on 

the weight of evidence, that a final rule 

requiring APS to shut down Units 1–3 

by 2014 and install and operate SCR on 

Units 4 and 5 by July 31, 2018 will 

result in greater reasonable progress 

towards the national visibility goal 

under section 169A(b)(2) than EPA’s 

October 19, 2010 BART proposal. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to add 

regulatory language to the proposed 

BART rule for FCPP that allows APS the 

option to implement its alternative 

emissions control strategy in lieu of 

EPA’s BART determination. 

III. EPA’s Technical Analysis of Better 

Reasonable Progress Towards National 

Visibility Goal 

Units 1–3 comprise approximately 

27% of the electricity-generating 

capacity at FCPP; however, Units 1–3 

contribute disproportionately to facilitywide emissions of NOX (36%), PM 

(43%), and Hg (61%). The alternative 

emissions control strategy of shutting 

down Units 1–3 will consequently 

result in substantial emissions 

reductions at FCPP of all pollutants 

emitted by those units, particularly 

NOX, PM, and Hg. See Table 2. 

As discussed below, this 

supplemental proposed rule proposes to 

require Units 4 and 5, by July 31, 2018, 

to meet a lower NOX emission limit than 

APS’ proposal, five months earlier than 

proposed by APS. In this supplemental 

proposed rule, EPA is proposing to 

approve this EPA revision of APS’ 

proposal as an alternative to BART 

because it demonstrates better 

reasonable progress towards the 

national visibility goal. Our evaluation 

shows that the alternative emissions 

control strategy will provide greater 

visibility improvement at all 16 Class I 

areas than EPA’s BART proposal. See 40 

CFR 51.308(e). We discuss our proposed 

NOX emissions limit for Units 4 and 5 

first because our subsequent analysis of 

the emissions reductions and visibility 

improvements rely in part on that limit. 

We will also briefly evaluate associated 

non-visibility environmental benefits 

from the alternative emission control 

strategy. Finally, we propose to retain 

and revise our October 19, 2010 BART 

proposal, with a revision described 

below regarding phase-in of new 

controls, as a contingent rule if APS 

does not implement its alternative 

emissions control strategy. 

By letter dated January 25, 2011, the 

National Parks Conservation 

Association, Black Mesa Water 

Coalition, Dine Care, Center for 

Biological Diversity, Heal Utah, Grand 

Canyon Trust, Natural Resources 

Defense Council, San Juan Citizens 

Alliance, Sevier Citizens for Clean Air & 

Water, Sierra Club and WildEarth 

Guardians submitted comments on 

EPA’s BART proposal and the proposal 

APS outlined in its November 24, 2010 

letter to EPA. The letter from the 

consortium of environmental groups 

requested EPA to require lower 

emission limits for several pollutants 

emitted by FCPP. EPA considers the 

January 25, 2011 letter a comment, 

which we have posted to our docket and 

will provide a response to in our final 

rulemaking. 

A. Estimated NOX Emissions Reductions 

1. Proposed NOX Emission Limit To 

Apply on Units 4 and 5 With 

Installation of SCR by July 31, 2018 

EPA’s October 19, 2010 BART 

proposal provided for a facility-wide 

heat input-weighted emission limit for 

FCPP’s Units 1-5 of 0.11 lb/MMBtu on 

a 30-day rolling average basis.3 EPA 

determined that FCPP could achieve 

this limit by reducing NOX emissions 

from each of its five units by 80%. The 

limit we proposed in our October 19, 

2010 BART proposal did not include or 

rely on combustion controls, i.e., new 

Low-NOX burners (LNB). As described 

in more detail in our October 19, 2010 

proposal (75 FR 64221), and the 

technical support document for the 

proposal, the original cell boiler design 

of Units 4 and 5 is difficult to retrofit 

with modern LNB technology, and even 

if combustion controls might result in 

some improvement in NOX

performance, the potential operational 

problems were not worth the small 

incremental reduction in NOX

emissions. EPA proposed to provide a 

plant-wide limit to allow flexibility to 

FCPP to accommodate anticipated SCR 

retrofit challenges associated with the 

small fireboxes for Units 1–3. 

EPA has evaluated the NOX emission 

limit we consider achievable under 

APS’ alternative emissions control 

strategy. In APS’ calculations for its 

November 24, 2010 proposal, APS 

assumed that under its proposed 

strategy, Units 4 and 5 would meet a 

limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu with installation 

and operation of SCR, not an 80% 

reduction from the Unit 4 and 5 baseline 

of 0.49 lb/MMBtu. If we apply an 80% 

emissions reduction solely to Units 4 

and 5, APS should be able to achieve a 

NOX limit of 0.098 lb/MMBtu for each 

unit. Our calculations are based on 

average baseline emissions from Units 4 

and 5 of 0.49 lb/MMBtu each, reduced 

by a conservative estimate of 80% 

control of baseline emissions. 

In calculating the NOX emission limit 

of 0.098 lb/MMBtu, EPA is taking into 

account the degradation of the SCR 

catalyst over its lifetime resulting in the 

need for periodic replacement to 

maintain its activity and performance. 

Historically, FCPP units are scheduled 

for outages only once every three years. 

Based on this, EPA anticipates that APS 

will change out its catalyst on the 

historic outage schedule and the new 

catalyst will be installed every three 

years. EPA has calculated the 30-day 

emission limit (0.098 lb/MMbtu) to 

reflect the capability of the catalyst to 

reduce NOX at the end of this three year 

period. 

EPA has also determined that 

pursuing higher levels of NOX reduction 

efficiency (i.e., greater than 80%) from 

SCR on Units 4 and 5 is limited by the 

formation of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) from 

the SCR catalyst.4 Although more layers 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10535 

5The heat-input-weighted limit would be based 

on the heat input generated by each individual unit, 

rather than the rated capacity, which is identical for 

Units 4 and 5. 

6This more strigent numerical NOX limit with the 

longer averaging time could reflect the capability of 

the catelyst over a more extended period than a 

short term limit that accommodates deterioration of 

catalyst activity just before new catalyst is installed. 

7Although ammonia also contributes to visibility 

impairment, as discussed in the Technical Support 

Document for our October 29, 2010 proposal, 

ammonia slip from the SCR is expected to react 

with SO3/H2SO4 in the flue gas to form particulate 

ammonium sulfate or bisulfate, which would be 

captured by the downstream air preheaters, 

scrubbers, and baghouses. 

8For PM, EPA proposed an emission limit of 

0.012 lb/MMBtu to Units 1–3 and 0.015 lb/MMbtu 

on Units 4 and 5. The limit on Units 1–3 would be 

achievable by installing and operating new 

particulate controls on those units, such as new 

electrostatic precipitators or baghouses, and by 

proper operation of the existing baghouses on Units 

4 and 5. 

9The Regional Haze Rule requires revisions to 

regional haze implementation plans be submitted to 

EPA by July 31, 2018 and every ten years thereafter. 

This date marks the end of the first long term 

strategy period. 

of catalyst could be used in the SCR unit 

to further enhance NOX removal, the 

presence of additional catalyst would 

result in higher emissions of sulfuric 

acid, which is also a visibility-impairing 

pollutant. Minimizing the formation of 

primary SO3/H2SO4 in the catalyst bed 

is most important for visibility 

improvement at Mesa Verde National 

Park, the closest Class I area to FCPP. 

Primary SO3/H2SO4 formed on the SCR 

catalyst would be capable of impairing 

visibility immediately after release into 

the atmosphere, whereas SO2 emissions 

need time and distance to convert to 

sulfuric acid or particulate ammonium 

sulfate before these emissions impact 

visibility. 

Finally, the achievable NOX emission 

limit for FCPP is affected by the high 

ash content in the coal burned by FCPP. 

The ash content is approximately 25%, 

which may adversely affect the 

capability of SCR to reach the highest 

end of the control efficiency range 

achieved at other power plants without 

the use of additional layers of catalyst 

or more frequent catalyst replacement. 

For these reasons, EPA is proposing to 

require a NOX emission limit in this 

supplemental proposed rule of 0.098 lb/ 

MMBtu. We are proposing to approve 

the alternative emission control strategy 

requiring Units 1–3 to shut down by 

January 1, 2014 and Units 4 and 5 to 

meet an 80% NOX reduction, with a 

limit of 0.098 lb/MMBtu, by July 31, 

2018. This emission limit can be met by 

installation of SCR. 

EPA is requesting comment on 

whether to provide FCPP with 

additional flexibility for meeting the 

0.098 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) 

limit by setting the limit as a heat-input 

weighted limit for Units 4 and 5,5

similar to our BART proposal on 

October 19, 2010 which set a plant-wide 

heat-input-weighted limit for Units 1–5. 

EPA is also requesting comment on 

whether our final rule should also set a 

lower NOX emission limit that would be 

averaged over a longer averaging time to 

reflect the capability of the SCR when 

the catalyst is fresher at the beginning 

of the three-year outage schedule. 

Therefore, EPA is requesting comment 

on whether an additional, more 

stringent (i.e., lower than 0.098 lb/ 

MMBtu) heat-input-weighted emission 

limit, representing greater than 80% 

control, and averaged over one or three 

years would be appropriate to assure the 

optimized operating efficiency for an 

SCR-controlled unit where EPA 

anticipates a three-year replacement of 

the catalyst.6 A heat-input-weighted 

limit averaged over one year could 

reflect the capability over the third year 

of the catalyst in use in either unit. A 

three-year average on an individual unit 

would reflect the capability of the 

catalyst to reduce NOX over its entire 

duration of use. EPA anticipates that the 

most stringent numerical limit would be 

for a single-unit limit on a 3-year rolling 

average. Under either of these 

approaches, the emission limit would be 

set such that the facility would be 

required to inject sufficient ammonia to 

maximize the reduction of the NOX no 

matter what the age of the catalyst.7

2. Alternative Emissions Control 

Strategy Will Result in Greater Visibility 

Improvement Than BART 

As noted above, EPA’s BART proposal 

was for a facility-wide heat inputweighted NOX emission limit on Units 

1–5 of 0.11 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day 

rolling average basis.8 If EPA were to 

finalize its BART proposal, the facilitywide NOX emission limit would apply 

5 years after the effective date of the 

final rule. To evaluate the alternative 

emissions control strategy, EPA is 

assuming that the earliest possible 

effective date for a final BART rule for 

FCPP would be January 1, 2012. This 

means that FCPP would be required to 

meet the facility-wide 0.11 lb/MMBtu 

NOX emission limit beginning in 2017. 

APS calculated this to mean that in 

2017 the total that could be emitted 

from Units 1–5 under EPA’s BART 

proposal would be 9,184 tpy NOX (See 

item number 0080.1 in the docket for 

this rulemaking: ‘‘Emissions calculations 

from APS for its Alternative Proposal 

11–29–10.xlsx’’). 

APS is proposing to reduce NOX (and 

other pollutants) by shutting down 

Units 1–3 by January 1, 2014, three 

years earlier than would be achieved by 

EPA’s BART proposal. Because of these 

shutdowns, APS projected that NOX

emissions from FCPP, under its 

proposed alternative, during 2014–2016 

would be lower than would be emitted 

in those years under EPA’s October 19, 

2010 proposal. However, under the 

alternative emission control strategy, 

emissions in 2017 and 2018 would be 

higher than in EPA’s October 19, 2010 

proposal, because APS would not 

achieve its final NOX reductions until 

the beginning of 2019. Under APS’ 

proposal, beginning in 2019, Units 4 

and 5 would meet an emission limit of 

0.11 lb/MMBtu, resulting in total 

emissions of 6,498 tpy NOX. Therefore, 

APS’ proposal would produce 

approximately 30% less NOX emissions 

per year than EPA’s BART proposal 

beginning in 2019. 

In contrast to APS’ proposal to meet 

a limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu by the end of 

2018, EPA is proposing as the 

alternative emission control strategy to 

require a lower NOX emission limit of 

0.098 lb/MMBtu beginning July 31, 

2018. EPA is proposing a compliance 

date five months earlier than APS’ 

proposal in order to meet the 

requirement of the Regional Haze Rule 

that all necessary emission reductions 

for an alternative measure take place 

during the period of the first long-term 

strategy for regional haze.9 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(iii). Under this alternative 

control strategy, total annual emissions 

of NOX from FCPP at 0.098 lb/MMBtu 

would be 5,798 tpy. EPA’s emissions 

calculations are included in the docket 

for this proposed rulemaking (see ‘‘EPA 

comparison of BART and alternative 

2–3–11.xlsx’’). If EPA finalizes a rule 

requiring APS to implement EPA’s 

alternative emissions control strategy 

with a NOX emission limit of 0.098 lb/ 

MMBtu, FCPP would produce 

approximately 37% less NOX emissions 

per year than under EPA’s BART 

proposal. 

The alternative emissions control 

strategy would realize the 37% greater 

NOX emissions reductions two years 

later than would potentially result from 

EPA’s BART proposal, but within the 

period of the first long-term strategy for 

regional haze. Our evaluation, 

supported by the modeled visibility 

improvements discussed in Section C, is 

that significantly lower NOX emissions 

from FCPP occurring within the period 

of the first long term strategy and 

continuing on into the future, but 

occurring two years later than could 

potentially occur through EPA BART 

proposal, will achieve better reasonable 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10536 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

10FCPP is a baseload power plant that operates 

its boilers year-round at full capacity except during 

outages. Power plants typically schedule periodic 

major and minor outages to allow for routine 

maintenance of its boiler units. To accomodate its 

five boiler units, EPA understands that the boilers 

at FCPP are on a three-year major outage cycle, with 

Units 4, 5, and 1–3 alternating major outages every 

3 years. 

11The interim limits that EPA included in the 

proposed BART rule included a larger margin of 

compliance with the interim limits to provide APS 

the flexibility to develop strategies for meeting the 

plant-wide limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu by 2017 in ways 

other than achieving 80% reduction equally on all 

units. 

12The annual emissions in both Tables 2 and 4 

are likely overestimated because they do not 

account for zero emissions from an individual unit 

(or set of units) when it is not operating during its 

scheduled outage. 

progress towards the Clean Air Act’s 

national visibility goal. 

The amount by which NOX will be 

reduced between 2014 and 2019 is 

somewhat less certain because of 

differing assumptions used in APS’ and 

EPA’s evaluations. APS compared NOX

emissions for each year from 2014 until 

2019 under its proposal against EPA’s 

October 19, 2010 BART proposal as 

reproduced in Table 3. 

TABLE 3—APS’ COMPARISON OF NOX EMISSIONS (TONS) BASED ON EPA BART PROPOSAL AND APS ALTERNATIVE

PROPOSAL, REPRODUCED FROM NOVEMBER 24, 2010 SUBMITTAL FROM APS 

EPA proposal APS proposal 

2014 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 45,132 28,948 

2015 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 45,132 28,948 

2016 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 45,132 28,948 

2017 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9,184 28,948 

2018 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9,184 28,948 

2019 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9,184 6,498 

The values APS used in Table 3, 

however, assume that EPA’s BART 

determination would not have required 

installation of any NOX emissions 

controls until 2017 and that SCR would 

become fully operational on all 5 units 

simultaneously in 2017. Therefore, APS 

interpreted EPA’s BART proposal to 

allow NOX emissions of 45,132 tpy to 

continue until the beginning of 2017. 

EPA’s BART proposal on October 19, 

2010, however, included interim 

emission limits for the 5 units that 

would (if finalized) have applied 

following a phased-in schedule for SCR 

installation. Historically FCPP has 

operated on a 3-year outage cycle for its 

boilers.10 Therefore, EPA’s BART 

proposal assumed that Units 1–3 would 

be retrofit simultaneously in one outage, 

Unit 4 would be retrofit in a second 

annual outage, and Unit 5 would be 

retrofit in the third annual outage. 

Table 4 compares our calculations of 

the short-term (2014–2019) NOX

emissions and Table 5 compares our 

calculations for short-term (2014–2019) 

PM emissions, between EPA’s BART 

proposal, assuming EPA could finalize 

the interim emissions limits to be 

effective January 1, 2012,11 and the 

alternative emissions control strategy 

with a final compliance date for 

installation and operation of SCR on 

Units 4 and 5 of July 31, 2018.12 (See 

‘‘EPA Comparison of BART and 

Alternative 2–3–11.xlsx’’ in the docket 

for this rulemaking). 

TABLE 4—EPA’S COMPARISON OF NOX EMISSIONS (TONS) BASED ON EPA BART PROPOSAL AND THE ALTERNATIVE

EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGY

EPA BART 

proposal 

Alternative 

emission control strategy 

Proposal with lower 

emissions 

2012 .................................................................................................................................. 45,132 45,132 Same. 

2013 .................................................................................................................................. 45,132 45,132 Same. 

2014 .................................................................................................................................. 45,132 28,947 Alternative. 

2015 .................................................................................................................................. 33,908 28,947 Alternative. 

2016 .................................................................................................................................. 22,074 28,947 EPA BART. 

2017 .................................................................................................................................. 9,026 28,947 EPA BART. 

2018 .................................................................................................................................. 9,026 19,302 EPA BART. 

2019 and beyond .............................................................................................................. 9,026 5,798 Alternative. 

TABLE 5—EPA’S COMPARISON OF PM EMISSIONS (TONS) BASED ON EPA BART PROPOSAL AND THE ALTERNATIVE

EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGY

EPA BART 

proposal 

Alternative 

emission control strategy 

Proposal with lower 

emissions 

2012 .................................................................................................................................. 1,564 1,564 Same. 

2013 .................................................................................................................................. 1,564 1,564 Same. 

2014 .................................................................................................................................. 1,564 886 Alternative. 

2015 .................................................................................................................................. 1,564 886 Alternative. 

2016 .................................................................................................................................. 1,179 886 Alternative. 

2017 .................................................................................................................................. 1,179 886 Alternative. 

2018 .................................................................................................................................. 1,179 886 Alternative. 

2019 and beyond .............................................................................................................. 1,179 886 Alternative. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10537 

13The percent reduction in PM emissions was 

calculated for Units 1–3 and assumed that imposing 

an emission limit on Units 4 and 5 would not 

change the measured emission rates from those 

units because Units 4 and 5 would continue to be 

controlled by the existing baghouses. Thus, the PM 

emission reduction is calculated as a MW-weighted 

average reduction from Units 1–3, using baseline 

emissions that range from 0.025 lb/MMBtu (Unit 1) 

to 0.029 lb/MMBtu (Units 2 and 3), and the 

proposed post-control BART limit of 0.012 lb/ 

MMBtu on Units 1–3. 

14Modeling files from APS and EPA modeling 

analyses are available from EPA upon request. 

Please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this supplemental proposed rule. 

Therefore, if finalized as proposed 

and effective on January 1, 2012, we 

estimate that EPA’s BART proposal 

would result in lower NOX emissions 

from 2016–2018, an additional year 

(2016) compared to APS’ calculations 

that do not account for interim limits. In 

2014 and 2015, and beginning in 2019 

into the future, the alternative emissions 

control strategy would result in lower 

NOX emissions than EPA’s BART 

proposal. For PM, starting in 2014, the 

alternative emission control strategy 

would always result in lower emissions 

of PM compared to EPA’s BART 

proposal because of the closure of Units 

1–3 in 2014. 

In today’s supplemental proposed 

rule, EPA acknowledges that the interim 

emission limits proposed on October 19, 

2010, were based on APS’ historic 

outage schedule and were required to 

ensure that the installation of new 

controls occurred as expeditiously as 

practicable. APS may have challenged 

those proposed interim emission limits 

and requested EPA to finalize a BART 

rule that allowed installation of SCR on 

all units simultaneously 5 years after the 

effective date of the final rule (i.e., in 

2017). Thus, if EPA’s re-evaluation of 

the interim limits resulted in a 

determination that the interim limits 

were not practicable, the interim 

emission reductions we estimated over 

2015–2016, might not have been 

realized if the final rule was issued 

without interim limits. In our October 

19, 2010 proposal, EPA also failed to 

include proposed regulatory language 

regarding the phased-in SCR 

installation, a gap which we address in 

Section D of this supplemental 

proposed rule. 

B. Benefits in Addition to NOX

Emissions Reductions 

On November 29, 2010, APS provided 

to EPA the spreadsheet on which its 

emission estimates were based. This 

spreadsheet is included in the docket 

for the proposed rulemaking (See the 

spreadsheet posted to the docket for this 

rulemaking: EPA–R09–OAR–2010– 

0683.0080.1, ‘‘Emissions calculations 

from APS for its Alternative Proposal 

11–29–10.xlsx’’). Baseline emissions 

reported by APS (labeled ‘‘status quo’’ in 

the spreadsheet) of NOX, SO2, PM, Hg, 

and CO2, are included in Table 6. 

Emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM are 

reported in tons per year (tpy); Hg 

emissions are reported in pounds per 

year (lb/yr); and CO2 emissions are 

reported in million tons per year. 

TABLE 6—BASELINE EMISSIONS OF NOX (TPY), PM (TPY), SO2 (TPY), HG (LB/YEAR), AND CO2 (MILLION TPY) REPORTED

BY APS 

NOX PM SO2 Hg CO2

Unit 1 ............................................................................................................................ 5,790 186 748 113 1.6 

Unit 2 ............................................................................................................................ 4,751 215 731 109 1.5 

Unit 3 ............................................................................................................................ 5,643 277 1,373 139 2.1 

Unit 4 ............................................................................................................................ 14,474 443 4,298 117 6.0 

Unit 5 ............................................................................................................................ 14,474 443 4,611 116 6.0 

The alternative emission control 

strategy to shut down Units 1–3 by 2014 

not only results in 100% control of 

NOX, but also 100% control of all other 

pollutants emitted by those units, 

including SO2, PM, Hg and other 

hazardous air pollutants, and CO2, 

whereas EPA’s proposal to install SCR 

on Units 1–5 and new PM controls on 

Units 1–3 would only result in 80% and 

57% 13 control of NOX and PM, 

respectively. 

C. Modeling and Demonstrating 

Reasonable Progress 

The Regional Haze Rule requires that 

implementation plans that rely on an 

alternative measure to BART 

demonstrate that the alternative 

achieves greater reasonable progress 

than would be achieved through the 

installation and operation of BART. 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2). The rule further states 

that ‘‘[i]f the distribution of emissions is 

not substantially different than under 

BART, and the alternative measure 

results in greater emissions reductions, 

than the alternative measures may be 

deemed to achieve greater reasonable 

progress’’. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). Because 

the emissions reductions under EPA’s 

October 19, 2010 BART proposal and 

the alternative emission control strategy 

proposed in this supplemental proposed 

rule occur from the same facility, the 

distribution of emissions under BART 

and the alternative are not substantially 

different. Therefore, because the 

alternative emission control strategy 

results in greater emissions reductions 

that our BART proposal, EPA may deem 

the alternative emission control strategy 

to achieve greater reasonable progress. 

Although an explicit modeling 

demonstration is not required based on 

the provisions of 40 CFR 31.08(e)(3), 

APS provided a modeling analysis 

demonstrating that its proposed 

alternative would result in greater 

visibility improvement than EPA’s 

October 2010 BART proposal. EPA 

evaluated the modeling submitted by 

APS and modeled our alternative 

emission control strategy in comparison 

to our October 2010 proposal. EPA 

compared our BART proposal to the 

alternative emissions control strategy 

based on emissions after full SCR 

installation is complete. For EPA’s 

BART proposal, SCR would have been 

completed on all units in 2017 if the 

final BART rule becomes effective in 

2012. For the alternative emissions 

control strategy, EPA is proposing 

emissions reductions from full SCR 

installation and operation on Units 4 

and 5 be completed by July 31, 2018. 

APS provided EPA with the modeling 

files generated by AECOM.14 EPA has 

evaluated those modeling files for this 

supplemental proposed rule. APS’ 

modeling differs in some minor ways 

from the modeling used to support 

EPA’s October 19, 2010 BART proposal. 

In the Technical Support Document 

(TSD) for our October 19, 2010 BART 

proposal, EPA provided the emission 

rates of various pollutants from each of 

the five units used in the CALPUFF 

modeling analysis. These modeling 

inputs for the SCR control case, in 

pounds per hour (lb/hr) are included in 

Table 7 and represent the 24-hour 

average actual emission rate from the 

highest emitting day of the 

meteorological period modeled (2001– 

2003), consistent with the guidelines 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10538 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

15 In our October 2010 BART proposal, we 

conducted our modeling analyses for NOX and PM 

controls separately. In Table 6, the emission inputs 

for NOX and SO4, from the SCR control case, are 

combined with inputs for SOA, PM fine, PM coarse, 

and EC, from the PM control case, for better 

comparison with APS’s representation of EPA’s 

BART proposal. Emission inputs for SO2 were 

identical for the SCR and PM control scenarios. 

provided in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix 

Y (BART Guidelines). The CALPUFF 

inputs require values for SO2, sulfate 

(SO4), NOX, secondary organic aerosol 

(SOA), fine PM, coarse PM, and 

elemental carbon (EC). 

The modeling inputs used by APS in 

its analysis of its proposal are included 

in Table 8. APS’ emission inputs for 

NOX and PM rely on EPA’s proposed 

30-day rolling average emission limits 

(as shown in Table 40 of our Technical 

Support Document). These inputs 

represent 80% control of baseline NOX

emissions: limit for Unit 1 = 0.16 lb/ 

MMBtu, Unit 2 = 0.13 lb/MMBtu, Unit 

3 = 0.12 lb/MMBtu, and Units 4 and 5 

= 0.10 lb/MMBtu each; and PM 

emission rates of 0.012 lb/MMBtu from 

Units 1–3 and 0.015 lb/MMBtu from 

Units 4 and 5. APS used the peak 24- 

hour average emissions when modeling 

the Baseline Impact, but used the lower 

30-day rolling average emission limits 

shown in Table 8 to model visibility 

benefits from controls rather than the 

highest emitting day average shown in 

Table 7. Thus, the baseline and SCR 

control scenarios from APS’ modeling 

are not directly comparable because of 

the different averaging times of the 

inputs (24-hour versus 30-day average). 

TABLE 7—EPA’S CALPUFF MODELING INPUTS USED FOR OUR OCTOBER 19, 2010 BART PROPOSAL WITH SCR ON

UNITS 1–5 AND PM CONTROLS ON UNITS 1–3 15

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 

SO2 .............................................................................................................................. 522.54 615.12 1042.09 2026.10 2131.85 

SO4 .............................................................................................................................. 8.57 8.58 11.06 2.24 2.25 

NOX .............................................................................................................................. 404.03 319.89 394.16 1003.20 901.71 

SOA .............................................................................................................................. 9.40 9.41 12.13 32.00 32.20 

PM fine ......................................................................................................................... 17.26 20.39 23.60 100.93 48.02 

PM coarse .................................................................................................................... 13.19 15.58 18.03 77.12 36.69 

EC ................................................................................................................................ 0.66 0.78 0.91 3.88 1.85 

TABLE 8—APS’ CALPUFF MODELING INPUTS REPRESENTING EPA’S BART PROPOSAL (UNITS 1–5), COMBINING NOX

AND PM CONTROLS, PROVIDED BY APS TO SUPPORT ITS ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL (UNITS 4 AND 5 ONLY) 

Units 1 and 2 Unit 3 Units 4 and 5 

SO2 .............................................................................................................................................. 1137.66 1042.09 4157.95 

SO4 .............................................................................................................................................. 17.15 11.06 4.49 

NOX .............................................................................................................................................. 681.62 363.84 1605.10 

SOA ............................................................................................................................................. 18.81 12.13 64.20 

PM fine ......................................................................................................................................... 27.71 17.87 122.89 

PM coarse .................................................................................................................................... 11.29 7.28 93.90 

EC ................................................................................................................................................ 1.06 0.69 4.72 

With respect to other modeling 

assumptions, APS used the same 

assumptions that supported EPA’s 

October 19, 2010 BART proposal. APS 

directly used EPA’s modeling inputs for 

the 1 ppb (IWAQM default) background 

ammonia scenario from our proposed 

BART determination and modeled 

additional scenarios: EPA’s BART 

proposal using emission inputs for 

Units 1–5 in Table 7, and APS’s 

proposed alternative using emission 

inputs from Table 7 for only Units 4 and 

5 (with no modeling of Units 1–3 to 

account for shut down of those units). 

EPA reviewed APS’ emission inputs 

and modeling files and determined that 

when APS modeled EPA’s October 19, 

2010 BART proposal, APS relied on 

lower NOX and PM emissions than EPA 

used in our proposal. NOX emissions 

modeled by AECOM were 6–16% lower 

than EPA’s modeling values from our 

proposal, and PM emissions as modeled 

by AECOM were 18–60% lower than 

our proposal. APS estimated that EPA’s 

BART proposal (using the inputs from 

Table 7) would reduce the impact of 

FCPP on the 16 Class I areas by an 

average of 59%. APS modeling showed 

that its alternative emissions control 

strategy would reduce the impact of 

FCPP on the 16 Class I areas by an 

average of 74% (See Table 8). 

TABLE 8—MODELING RESULTS—98TH PERCENTILE DELTA DV IMPROVEMENT AND PERCENT CHANGE IN DELTA DECIVIEW

(DV) 16 IMPACT FROM EPA’S BART PROPOSAL AND APS’ ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL COMPARED TO BASELINE IMPACTS FROM 2001–2003 USING 1 PPB AMMONIA BACKGROUND SCENARIO AS MODELED BY AECOM 

Class I area 

Distance to 

FCPP 

Baseline 

impact 

Improvement from EPA’s 

proposal 

Improvement from APS’ 

proposal 

Kilometers 

(km) 

Delta 

dv 

Delta 

dv % Delta dv % 

Arches National Park ....................................................... 245 4.11 2.5 58 3.08 75 

Bandelier Wilderness Area .............................................. 216 2.90 1.71 58 2.12 74 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison WA ................................. 217 2.36 1.47 62 1.84 76 

Canyonlands NP .............................................................. 214 5.24 2.97 54 3.86 72 

Capitol Reef NP ............................................................... 283 3.23 1.94 54 2.46 72 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10539 

16The Baseline Delta dv values represent the 

visibility impact of FCPP on the given Class I area. 

Higher Delta dv Improvement values represent a 

smaller anticipated visibility impact of FCPP on the 

Class I area after controls are applied, and thus 

greater percent improvement. 

17We proposed as BART a PM emission limit of 

0.012 lb/MMBtu that could be met by either a wet 

ESP or a baghouse. We did not specify which 

control technology must be used to meet the 

proposed BART limit. 

18The emission input calculations for this 

Supplemental Notice are provided in the docket as 

a spreadsheet titled ‘‘FCPP_Supplemental 

Emission_Inputs 01–04–11.xlsx’’. 

19 In our October 2010 proposal, our separate 

modeling analyses of the NOX and PM controls 

showed that individually, SCR on Units 1–5 would 

reduce the visibility impact of FCPP by an average 

of 57% and PM controls on Units 1–3 by less than 

1%. 

20EPA’s inputs for NOX are consistent with the 

BART guidelines for modeling anticipated visibility 

improvement. Additionally, in modeling the 

combined effects of SCR and PM controls on Units 

1–3 for the EPA BART scenario, EPA included a 

factor of 0.72 in the sulfuric acid calculation (as 

SO4) to account for the additional 28% sulfuric acid 

control provided by the wet ESP as reported in EPRI 

2010. AECOM did not include additional control of 

sulfuric acid from the new wet ESP on Units 1–3. 

TABLE 8—MODELING RESULTS—98TH PERCENTILE DELTA DV IMPROVEMENT AND PERCENT CHANGE IN DELTA DECIVIEW

(DV) 16 IMPACT FROM EPA’S BART PROPOSAL AND APS’ ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL COMPARED TO BASELINE IMPACTS FROM 2001–2003 USING 1 PPB AMMONIA BACKGROUND SCENARIO AS MODELED BY AECOM—Continued 

Class I area 

Distance to 

FCPP 

Baseline 

impact 

Improvement from EPA’s 

proposal 

Improvement from APS’ 

proposal 

Kilometers 

(km) 

Delta 

dv 

Delta 

dv % Delta dv % 

Grand Canyon NP ........................................................... 345 1.63 0.91 58 1.14 75 

Great Sand Dunes NM .................................................... 279 1.16 0.69 63 0.84 76 

La Garita WA ................................................................... 202 1.72 1.08 63 1.3 77 

Maroon Bells Snowmass WA .......................................... 294 1.04 0.65 64 0.79 78 

Mesa Verde NP ............................................................... 62 5.95 2.67 48 3.57 66 

Pecos WA ........................................................................ 258 2.16 1.19 59 1.55 74 

Petrified Forest NP .......................................................... 224 1.40 0.69 58 0.93 74 

San Pedro Parks WA ....................................................... 160 3.88 2.15 55 2.77 72 

West Elk WA .................................................................... 137 1.87 1.24 64 1.45 77 

Weminuche WA ............................................................... 245 2.76 1.76 61 2.08 75 

Wheeler Peak WA ........................................................... 265 1.53 0.88 60 1.12 75 

Total Delta dv or Average % Change in Delta dv .... .................... 42.93 24.5 59% 30.9 74% 

EPA re-modeled the visibility impact 

of combined SCR and PM controls as 

outlined in our October 2010 BART 

proposal (but were modeled separately 

in our proposal) and the visibility 

impact of the alternative emissions 

control strategy. EPA’s emission inputs 

continued to rely on the peak 24-hour 

average value over the meteorological 

period for NOX, rather than the 30-day 

rolling average emission limits used by 

APS. For PM, emission inputs are based 

on our proposed BART emission limits. 

Our emission inputs are shown in Table 

9 and the results of our modeling is 

shown in Table 10. 

Table 9 differs from EPA’s values in 

Table 7 because the combination of PM 

and NOX controls into a single modeling 

scenario results in lower sulfate 

emissions because new PM controls on 

Units 1–3 would provide additional 

control of the sulfuric acid produced by 

the SCR system. In estimating the 

reduction of sulfuric acid by the new 

PM controls, EPA chose to use the 

capture efficiency of a wet ESP (28%) in 

lieu of a baghouse (90%) 17 because a 

wet ESP is expected to result in a lower 

capture rate for sulfuric acid than a 

baghouse, thus providing a more 

conservative estimate of the visibility 

benefits of combined PM and NOX

controls from EPA’s BART proposal. 

TABLE 9—EPA’S CALPUFF MODELING INPUTS (LB/HR) 18 REPRESENTING OUR BART PROPOSAL (NOX AND PM 

CONTROLS COMBINED UNITS 1–5) AND APS’ ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL (UNITS 4 AND 5 ONLY WITH NOX CONTROLS) 

Units 1 and 2 Unit 3 Units 4 and 5 

SO2 .............................................................................................................................................. 1137.66 1042.09 4157.95 

SO4 .............................................................................................................................................. 12.51 8.07 4.49 

NOX .............................................................................................................................................. 723.92 394.16 1904.91 

SOA ............................................................................................................................................. 18.81 12.13 64.20 

PM fine ......................................................................................................................................... 27.70 17.87 122.89 

PM coarse .................................................................................................................................... 11.29 7.28 93.90 

EC ................................................................................................................................................ 1.06 0.69 4.72 

EPA’smodeling analysis shows that 

our BART proposal, which combines 

new NOX controls to achieve 80% 

reduction on Units 1–5 and new PM 

controls on Units 1–3, would reduce 

FCPP’s visibility impact on the 16 Class 

I areas by an average of 57%.19 The 

alternative emissions control strategy, to 

shut down Units 1–3 and install SCR on 

Units 4 and 5, would reduce FCPP’s 

visibility impact on the 16 Class I areas 

by an average of 72%. Our modeling 

analysis of the alternative emissions 

control strategy shows about 2% lower 

visibility improvement compared to 

APS’ analysis because we used slightly 

different emission inputs than APS.20


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10540 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

21The Delta dv values represent the visibility 

impact of FCPP on the given Class I area. Higher 

Delta dv Improvement values represent a smaller 

anticipated visibility impact of FCPP on the Class 

I area after controls are applied, and thus greater 

percent improvement. 

TABLE 10—MODELING RESULTS—98TH PERCENTILE DELTA DV IMPROVEMENT AND PERCENT CHANGE IN DELTA DECIVIEW

(DV) 21 IMPACT FROM EPA’S BART PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVE EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGY COMPARED TO

BASELINE IMPACTS FROM 2001–2003 USING 1 PPB AMMONIA BACKGROUND SCENARIO AS MODELED BY EPA 

Class I area 

Distance to 

FCPP 

Baseline 

impact 

Improvement from EPA’s 

proposal 

Improvement from alternative emission control 

strategy 

Kilometers 

(km) 

Delta 

dv 

Delta 

dv % Delta 

dv % 

Arches National Park ....................................................... 245 4.11 2.41 55 2.99 72 

Bandelier Wilderness Area .............................................. 216 2.90 1.65 56 2.06 72 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison WA ................................. 217 2.36 1.43 60 1.8 75 

Canyonlands NP .............................................................. 214 5.24 2.85 52 3.76 70 

Capitol Reef NP ............................................................... 283 3.23 1.88 52 2.4 70 

Grand Canyon NP ........................................................... 345 1.63 0.88 56 1.12 73 

Great Sand Dunes NM .................................................... 279 1.16 0.68 61 0.83 74 

La Garita WA ................................................................... 202 1.72 1.06 61 1.28 75 

Maroon Bells Snowmass WA .......................................... 294 1.04 0.65 63 0.78 77 

Mesa Verde NP ............................................................... 62 5.95 2.49 46 3.42 64 

Pecos WA ........................................................................ 258 2.16 1.18 57 1.52 72 

Petrified Forest NP .......................................................... 224 1.40 0.66 56 0.92 72 

San Pedro Parks WA ....................................................... 160 3.88 2.04 53 2.75 70 

Weminuche WA ............................................................... 137 1.87 1.2 62 1.42 76 

West Elk WA .................................................................... 245 2.76 1.74 59 2.04 73 

Wheeler Peak WA ........................................................... 265 1.53 0.85 58 1.1 73 

Total Delta dv or Average % Change in Delta dv .... .................... 42.94 23.65 57% 30.19 72% 

D. Alternative Emission Control Strategy 

Has Lower Cost Than EPA’s Proposed 

BART Determination 

APS did not provide any information 

to EPA on the cost of its proposed 

alternative. In our October 19, 2010 

BART proposal and TSD, we presented 

cost and cost effectiveness information 

for SCR on Units 1–5. The cost 

effectiveness of SCR ranged from 

$2,515–$2,678 per ton of NOX reduced. 

The total capital investment and total 

annual cost of SCR on Units 1–3 

represented approximately 39% of total 

facility-wide cost. Therefore, this 

alternative emissions control strategy, 

which calls for closing Units 1–3 and 

installing SCR on Units 4 and 5, should 

be approximately 39% less costly than 

EPA’s proposed BART determination 

requiring SCR retrofits on all five units. 

IV. EPA’s Supplemental Proposal 

In this proposal, EPA is proposing 

that the closure of Units 1–3 by 2014 

and installation and operation of SCR 

on Units 4 and 5 to meet a NOX

emission limit of 0.098 lb/MMBtu each 

by July 31, 2018, represents reasonable 

progress towards the national visibility 

goal under CAA Section 169A(b)(2) 

because it would result in better 

visibility improvement at a lower cost 

than our October 19, 2010 BART 

proposal. EPA is proposing to require 

FCPP to meet a NOX emission limit for 

Units 4 and 5 of 0.098 lb/MMBtu each 

on the 30-day rolling average by July 31, 

2018. 

EPA is supplementing our October 19, 

2010 BART proposal with regulatory 

language that would allow APS to 

comply with this alternative emission 

control strategy in lieu of complying 

with our October 19, 2010 BART 

proposal. EPA is continuing to propose 

to require APS to meet PM and 10% 

opacity limits on Units 4 and 5, as well 

as the 20% opacity limits for controlling 

dust from coal and ash handling and 

storage facilities, included in our 

October 19, 2010 proposal. The October 

2010 proposal required FCPP to meet 

the PM emission limits on Units 4 and 

5 180 days after the re-start of the units 

following the installation of SCR on 

those units. EPA is requesting comment 

on whether the PM emission limits and 

opacity limits on Units 4 and 5 should 

become effective prior to SCR 

installation, for both the proposed 

BART determination and the alternative 

emission control strategy. 

In this supplemental proposed rule, 

EPA is also including a proposed 

schedule for installation of add-on postcombustion NOX controls for our 

October 19, 2010 proposed BART 

determination, which was not included 

in the 2010 proposal, deleting the 

requirement under paragraph (i) to 

submit a plan and schedule for 

compliance to the Regional 

Administrator within 180 days of the 

effective date of the rule because it is 

redundant and less specific than the 

new requirement added as subparagraph 

(6) of paragraph (i) that a final plan be 

submitted by January 1, 2013, adding a 

test substitution allowance for PM 

testing on Units 4 and 5 that was 

included for Unit 1–3 but inadvertently 

excluded for Units 4 and 5 in the 

October 2010 proposal, and also 

replacing references to ‘‘SCR’’ in the 

regulatory language with ‘‘add-on postcombustion NOX controls’’. 

EPA is proposing to require FCPP to 

install and operate add-on postcombustion NOX controls on at least 560 

MW of net generation within 3 years of 

the effective date of the final rule, and 

on at least 1310 MW of net generation 

within 4 years of the effective date of 

the final rule. EPA’s proposed 

installation schedule requires add-on 

post-combustion NOX controls be 

installed on a given MW capacity rather 

than on specific units, in order to 

provide FCPP with the flexibility to 

determine the order of retrofits. As 

proposed, FCPP would have the option 

to begin retrofits on Units 1–3, or on 

Unit 4 or 5. 

EPA is requesting comment by May 2, 

2011 on both our October 19, 2010 

BART proposal and this supplemental 

proposed rule proposing to allow APS 

to implement this alternative emissions 

control strategy. We are additionally 

requesting comment on adding a NOX

emission limit requiring greater than 

80% control over longer averaging times 

weighted for heat-input, and the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10541 

appropriate effective date of the PM 

limits on Units 4 and 5. 

EPA understands that APS must 

receive approvals from several Federal 

and State agencies (e.g., the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, the 

Arizona Corporation Commission, and 

the California Public Utilities 

Commission), and lease renewals from 

the Navajo Nation, which are expected 

to occur by the end of 2012, in order to 

implement this alternative emission 

control strategy. If this Supplemental 

rulemaking is finalized as proposed, 

APS will be required either to comply 

with this alternative emissions control 

strategy or the requirements of EPA’s 

October 19, 2010 BART proposal as 

modified by this supplemental proposed 

rule regarding phase-in of controls. 

FCPP will be required to provide 

notification to EPA of its intended 

strategy for reducing NOX by June 1, 

2012 and its final decision by January 1, 

2013. 

V. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the 

terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) because it is 

supplementing a proposed rule that 

applies to only one facility and is not a 

rule of general applicability. This 

supplemental proposed rule, therefore, 

is not subject to review under EO 12866. 

This action proposes a source-specific 

FIP for the Four Corners Power Plant on 

the Navajo Nation. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a 

‘‘collection of information’’ is defined as 

a requirement for ‘‘answers to * * * 

identical reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements imposed on ten or more 

persons * * *.’’ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). 

Because the proposed FIP applies to a 

single facility, Four Corners Power 

Plant, the Paperwork Reduction Act 

does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c). 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

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 today’s supplemental 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-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this supplemental proposed 

rule to our proposed action on small 

entities, I certify that this supplemental 

proposed rule to our proposed action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The FIP for Four Corners Power 

Plant being addressed today would not 

impose any new requirements on small 

entities. See Mid-Tex Electric 

Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 

(DC Cir. 1985) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This supplemental proposed rule, if 

finalized, will impose an enforceable 

duty on the private sector owners of 

FCPP. However, this proposed rule does 

not contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million 

(in 1996 dollars) or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

EPA’s estimate for the total annual cost 

to install and operate SCR on all five 

units at FCPP and the cost to install and 

operate new PM controls on Units 1–3 

does not exceed $100 million (in 1996 

dollars) in any one year and the 

alternative emissions control strategy to 

shut down Units 1–3 and install SCR on 

Units 4 and 5 is expected to be less 

costly than EPA’s proposed BART 

determination. Thus, this supplemental 

proposed rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. This proposed action is also not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This supplemental 

proposed rule will not impose direct 

compliance costs on the Navajo Nation, 

and will not preempt Navajo law. This 

supplemental proposed rule will, if 

finalized, reduce the emissions of two 

pollutants from a single source, the Four 

Corners Power Plant. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Under section 6(b) of Executive Order 

13132, EPA may not issue an action that 

has federalism implications, that 

imposes substantial direct compliance 

costs on State or local governments, and 

that is not required by statute, unless 

the Federal government provides the 

funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by State and 

local governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

action. In addition, under section 6(c) of 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue an action 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 proposed 

action. 

EPA has concluded that this 

supplemental proposed rule, if 

finalized, may have federalism 

implications because it makes calls for 

emissions reductions of two pollutants 

from a specific source on the Navajo 

Nation. However, the supplemental 

proposed rule, if finalized, will not 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on the Tribal government, and will 

not preempt Tribal law. Thus, the 

requirements of sections 6(b) and 6(c) of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

action. 

Consistent with EPA policy, EPA 

nonetheless consulted with 

representatives of Tribal governments 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed action to permit them to have 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10542 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, Nov. 9, 2000), requires 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.’’ Under Executive Order 

13175, to the extent practicable and 

permitted by law, EPA may not issue a 

regulation that has Tribal implications, 

that imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on Indian Tribal 

governments, and that is not required by 

statute, unless the Federal government 

provides the funds necessary to pay 

direct compliance costs incurred by 

Tribal governments, or EPA consults 

with Tribal officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation 

and develops a Tribal summary impact 

statement. In addition, to the extent 

practicable and permitted by law, EPA 

may not issue a regulation that has 

Tribal implications and pre-empts 

Tribal law unless EPA consults with 

Tribal officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation and 

prepares a tribal summary impact 

statement. 

EPA has concluded that this 

supplemental proposed rule, if 

finalized, may have Tribal implications 

because it will require emissions 

reductions of two pollutants by a major 

stationary source located and operating 

on the Navajo reservation. However, this 

supplemental proposed rule, if 

finalized, will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Tribal governments nor pre-empt Tribal 

law because the proposed FIP imposes 

obligations only on the owners or 

operator of the Four Corners Power 

Plant. 

EPA has consulted with officials of 

the Navajo Nation in the process of 

developing our October 19, 2010 

proposed FIP. Additionally, EPA 

discussed our plans for supplementing 

our proposal with our analysis of APS’ 

alternative emissions control strategy 

with Navajo Nation Environmental 

Protection Agency. EPA had an inperson meeting with Tribal 

representatives prior to the October 19, 

2010 proposal and will continue to 

consult with Tribal officials during the 

public comment period on the proposed 

FIP. In addition, EPA provided Navajo 

Nation and other Tribal governments 

additional time to submit formal 

comments on our Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. Several Tribes, 

including the Navajo, submitted 

comments which EPA considered in 

developing this NPR. Therefore, EPA 

has allowed the Navajo Nation to 

provide meaningful and timely input 

into the development of this proposed 

rule and will continue to consult with 

the Navajo Nation and other affected 

Tribes prior to finalizing our BART 

determination. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be economically 

significant as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This supplemental proposed rule is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it requires emissions reductions 

of two pollutants from a single 

stationary source. Because this 

supplemental proposed rule only 

applies to a single source and is not a 

proposed rule of general applicability, it 

is not economically significant as 

defined under Executive Order 12866, 

and does not have a disproportionate 

effect on children. However, to the 

extent that the final rule will reduce 

emissions of PM and NOX, which 

contribute to ozone and PM formation, 

the rule will have a beneficial effect on 

children’s health be reducing air 

pollution that causes or exacerbates 

childhood asthma and other respiratory 

issues. 

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(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by the VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through annual 

reports to OMB, with explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS. 

Consistent with the NTTAA, the 

Agency conducted a search to identify 

potentially applicable VCS. For the 

measurements listed below, there are a 

number of VCS that appear to have 

possible use in lieu of the EPA test 

methods and performance specifications 

(40 CFR part 60, appendices A and B) 

noted next to the measurement 

requirements. It would not be practical 

to specify these standards in the current 

proposed rulemaking due to a lack of 

sufficient data on equivalency and 

validation and because some are still 

under development. However, EPA’s 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards is in the process of reviewing 

all available VCS for incorporation by 

reference into the test methods and 

performance specifications of 40 CFR 

Part 60, Appendices A and B. Any VCS 

so incorporated in a specified test 

method or performance specification 

would then be available for use in 

determining the emissions from this 

facility. This will be an ongoing process 

designed to incorporate suitable VCS as 

they become available. EPA is 

requesting comment on other 

appropriate VCS for measuring opacity 

or emissions of PM and NOX. 

Particulate Matter Emissions—EPA 

Methods 1 Through 5 

Opacity—EPA Method 9 and 

Performance Specification Test 1 for 

Opacity Monitoring 

NOX Emissions—Continuous Emissions 

Monitors 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. 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, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10543 

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. 

EPA has determined that this 

supplemental proposed rule, if 

finalized, will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

This proposed rule requires emissions 

reductions of two pollutants from a 

single stationary source, Four Corners 

Power Plant. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Indians, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 9, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Title 40, chapter I of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 49—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 49 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Section 49.23 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as 

follows: 

§ 49.23 Federal Implementation Plan 

Provisions for Four Corners Power Plant, 

Navajo Nation. 

* * * * * 

(i) Regional Haze Best Available 

Retrofit Technology limits for this plant 

are in addition to the requirements of 

paragraphs (a) through (h) of this 

section. All definitions and testing and 

monitoring methods of this section 

apply to the limits in paragraph (i) of 

this section except as indicated in 

paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this 

section. The interim NOX emission 

limits for each unit shall be effective 

180 days after re-start of the unit after 

installation of add-on post-combustion 

NOX controls for that unit and until the 

plant-wide limit goes into effect. The 

plant-wide NOX limit shall be effective 

no later than 5 years after the effective 

date of this paragraph. The owner or 

operator may elect to meet the plantwide limit early to remove the 

individual unit limits. Particulate limits 

for Units 1, 2, and 3 shall be effective 

180 days after re-start of the units after 

installation of the PM controls but no 

later than 5 years after the effective date 

of this paragraph (i). Particulate limits 

for Units 4 and 5 shall be effective 180 

days after re-start of the units after 

installation of the add-on postcombustion NOX controls. 

(1) Particulate Matter for units 1, 2, 

and 3 shall be limited to 0.012 lb/ 

MMBtu for each unit as measured by the 

average of three test runs with each run 

collecting a minimum of 60 dscf of 

sample gas and with aduration of at 

least 120 minutes. Sampling shall be 

performed according to 40 CFR Part 60 

Appendices A–1 through A–3, Methods 

1 through 4, and Method 5 or Method 

5e. The averaging time for any other 

demonstration of the particulate matter 

compliance or exceedence shall be 

based on a six hour average. Particulate 

testing shall be performed annually as 

required by paragraph (e)(3) of this 

section. This test with 120 minute test 

runs may be substituted and used to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

particulate limits in paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section. 

(2) Particulate Matter from units 4 and 

5 shall be limited to 0.015 lb/MMbtu for 

each unit as measured by the average of 

three test runs with each run collecting 

a minimum of 60 dscf of sample gas and 

with a duration of at least 120 minutes. 

Sampling shall be performed according 

to 40 CFR Part 60 Appendices A–1 

through A–3, Methods 1 through 4 and 

Method 5 or Method 5e. The averaging 

time for any other demonstration of the 

particulate matter compliance or 

exceedence shall be based on a six hour 

average. Particulate testing shall be 

performed annually as required by 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section. This test 

with 120 minute test runs may be 

substituted and used to demonstrate 

compliance with the particulate limits 

in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. 

(3) No owner or operator shall 

discharge or cause the discharge of 

emissions from the stacks of Units 1, 2, 

3, 4 or 5 into the atmosphere exhibiting 

greater than 10% opacity, excluding 

uncombined water droplets, averaged 

over any six (6) minute period. 

(4) Plant-wide nitrogen oxide 

emission limits. 

(i) The plant-wide nitrogen oxide 

limit, expressed as nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2), shall be 0.11 lb/MMBtu as 

averaged over a rolling 30 calendar day 

period. NOX emissions for each calendar 

day shall be determined by summing 

the hourly emissions measured as 

pounds of NO2 for all operating units. 

Heat input for each calendar day shall 

be determined by adding together all 

hourly heat inputs, in millions of BTU, 

for all operating units. Each day the 30 

day rolling average shall be determined 

by adding together that day’s and the 

preceding 29 days’ pounds of NO2 and 

dividing that total pounds of NO2 by the 

sum of the heat input during the same 

30 day period. The results shall be the 

30 day rolling pound per million BTU 

emissions of NOX. 

(ii) The interim NOX limit for each 

individual boiler with add-on postcombustion NOX control shall be as 

follows: 

(A) Unit 1 shall meet a rolling 30 

calendar day NOX limit of 0.21 lb/ 

MMBtu, 

(B) Unit 2 shall meet a rolling 30 

calendar day limit of 0.17 lb/MMBtu, 

(C) Unit 3 shall meet a rolling 30 

calendar day limit of 0.16 lb/MMBtu, 

(D) Units 4 and 5 shall meet a rolling 

30 calendar day limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu, 

each. 

(iii) Schedule for add-on postcombustion NOX controls installation 

(A) Within 3 years of the effective 

date of this rule, FCPP shall have 

installed add-on post-combustion NOX

controls on at least 560 MW (net) of 

generation. 

(B) Within 4 years of the effective date 

of this rule, FCPP shall have installed 

add-on post-combustion NOX controls 

on at least 1310 MW (net) of generation. 

(iv) Testing and monitoring shall use 

the 40 CFR part 75 monitors and meet 

the 40 CFR part 75 quality assurance 

requirements. In addition to these 40 

CFR part 75 requirements, relative 

accuracy test audits shall be performed 

for both the NOX pounds per hour 

measurement and the heat input 

measurement. These shall have relative 

accuracies of less than 20%. This testing 

shall be evaluated each time the 40 CFR 

part 75 monitors undergo relative 

accuracy testing. 

(v) If a valid NOX pounds per hour or 

heat input is not available for any hour 

for a unit, that heat input and NOX

pounds per hour shall not be used in the 

calculation of the 30 day plant wide 

rolling average. 

(vi) Upon the effective date of the 

plant-wide NOX average, the owner or 

operator shall have installed CEMS and 

COMS software that complies with the 

requirements of this section. 

(5) In lieu of meeting the NOX

requirements of paragraph (i)(4) of this 

section, FCPP may choose to 

permanently shut down Units 1, 2, and 

3 by January 1, 2014 and meet the 

requirements of this paragraph to 

control NOX emissions from Units 4 and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10544 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5. By July 31, 2018, Units 4 and 5 shall 

be retrofitted with add-on postcombustion NOX controls to reduce 

NOX emissions. Units 4 and 5 shall each 

meet a 0.098 lb/MMBtu emission limit 

for NOX expressed as NO2 over a rolling 

30 day average. Emissions from each 

unit shall be measured with the 40 CFR 

part 75 continuous NOX monitor system 

and expressed in the units of lb/MMBtu 

and recorded each hour. A valid hour of 

NOX data shall be determined per 40 

CFR part 75. For each calendar day, 

every valid hour of NOX lb/MMBtu 

measurement shall be averaged to 

determine a daily average. Each daily 

average shall be averaged with the 

preceding 29 valid daily averages to 

determine the 30 day rolling average. 

The NOX monitoring system shall meet 

the data requirements of 40 CFR 

60.49Da(e)(2) (at least 90% valid hours 

for all operating hours over any 30 

successive boiler operating days). 

Emission testing using 40 CFR part 60 

appendix A Method 7E may be used to 

supplement any missing data due to 

continuous monitor problems. The 40 

CFR part 75 requirements for bias 

adjusting and data substitution do not 

apply for adjusting the data for this 

emission limit. 

(6) By June 1, 2012, the owner or 

operator shall submit a letter to the 

Regional Administrator updating EPA of 

the status of lease negotiations and 

regulatory approvals required to comply 

with paragraph (i)(5) of this section. By 

January 1, 2013, the owner or operator 

shall notify the Regional Administrator 

by letter whether it will comply with 

paragraph (i)(5) of this section or 

whether it will comply with paragraph 

(i)(4) of this section and shall submit a 

plan and time table for compliance with 

either paragraph (i)(4) or (i)(5) of this 

section. The owner or operator shall 

amend and submit this amended plan to 

the Regional Administrator as changes 

occur. 

(7) The owner or operator shall follow 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 71 for 

submitting an application for permit 

revision to update its Part 71 operating 

permit after it achieves compliance with 

paragraph (i)(4) or (i)(5) of this section. 

(j) Dust. Each owner or operator shall 

operate and maintain the existing dust 

suppression methods for controlling 

dust from the coal handling and ash 

handling and storage facilities. Within 

ninety (90) days after promulgation of 

this paragraph, the owner or operator 

shall develop a dust control plan and 

submit the plan to the Regional 

Administrator. The owner or operator 

shall comply with the plan once the 

plan is submitted to the Regional 

Administrator. The owner or operator 

shall amend the plan as requested or 

needed. The plan shall include a 

description of the dust suppression 

methods for controlling dust from the 

coal handling and storage facilities, ash 

handling, storage, and landfills, and 

road sweeping activities. Within 18 

months of promulgation of this 

paragraph each owner or operator shall 

not emit dust with opacity greater than 

20 percent from any crusher, grinding 

mill, screening operation, belt conveyor, 

or truck loading or unloading operation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3998 Filed 2–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2007–0924; FRL–9270–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans, State of 

Louisiana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

portions of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions for the State of 

Louisiana. The rule revisions, which 

cover the years 1996–2006, were 

submitted by the State of Louisiana, and 

include formatting changes, regulatory 

wording changes, substantive or content 

changes, and incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of Federal rules. These cumulative 

revisions affect Louisiana 

Administrative Code (LAC) 33:III, 

Chapters 1, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 

22, 23, 25, 30, 60, 61, and 65. The 

overall intended outcome is to make the 

approved Louisiana SIP consistent with 

current Federal and State requirements. 

We are approving the revisions in 

accordance with 110 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s regulations. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 28, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2007–0924 by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’ 

Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/ 

r6coment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD’’ 

(Multimedia) and select ‘‘Air’’ before 

submitting comments. 

• E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at 

donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also 

send a copy by e-mail to the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. 

• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax 

number 214–665–7263. 

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such 

deliveries are accepted only between the 

hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays 

except for legal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2007– 

0924. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail that you consider to be CBI or 

otherwise protected from disclosure. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an anonymous access system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov, 

your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS