17010 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(1) For airplanes on which any LG selector 

valve having part number (P/N) 114079019 is 

installed and that have embodied Airbus 

Modification 38947 specified in Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–32–1348 during 

production or in service: Modify the LGCIU 

within 72 months after the effective date of 

this AD. 

(2) For airplanes on which any LG selector 

valve 40GA having a part number listed in 

paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (i)(2)(xii) of this 

AD, provided the valve has the marking ‘‘DI’’ 

or ‘‘DI–BE’’ recorded on its amendment 

plates: Modify the LGCIU within 72 months 

after the effective date of this AD. 

(i) P/N 114079001. 

(ii) P/N 114079005. 

(iii) P/N 114079009. 

(iv) P/N 114079013. 

(v) P/N 114079001A. 

(vi) P/N 114079005A. 

(vii) P/N 114079009A. 

(viii) P/N114079015. 

(ix) P/N 114079001AB. 

(x) P/N 114079005AB. 

(xi) P/N 114079009AB. 

(xii) P/N 114079017. 

(3) For all airplanes other than those 

identified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of 

this AD: Modify the LGCIU within 60 months 

after the effective date of this AD. 

(j) New Modification for Airplanes 

Previously Modified 

For airplanes that have been modified as of 

the effective date of this AD as specified in 

the applicable service information identified 

in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), (j)(3), or (j)(4) of this 

AD, except airplanes on which Airbus 

modification 37866 has been embodied in 

production: Within 72 months after the 

effective date of this AD, do the additional 

modification of the LGCIU, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–32–1346, 

Revision 05, dated January 13, 2012. 

(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–32–1346, 

Revision 01, dated October 27, 2009, which 

is not incorporated by reference in this AD. 

(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–32–1346, 

Revision 02, dated November 4, 2009, which 

is not incorporated by reference in this AD. 

(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–32–1346, 

Revision 03, dated January 7, 2010, which is 

not incorporated by reference in this AD. 

(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–32–1346, 

including Appendices 01 and 02, Revision 

04, dated April 22, 2011, which is 

incorporated by reference in AD 2013–13–04, 

Amendment 39–17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 

2013). 

(k) New Maintenance or Inspection Program 

Revision 

Before further flight after accomplishing 

the actions specified in paragraph (i) or (j) of 

this AD or within 7 days after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs later: 

Revise the maintenance or inspection 

program, as applicable, to incorporate Task 

32.30.00.17, ‘‘Functional Check of LGCIU 

Power Supply Relays,’’ of Section C–32 of 

Section C, Systems and Powerplant, of the 

Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Maintenance 

Review Board Report, Revision 18, dated 

March 2013. The initial compliance time is 

within 4,000 flight hours after accomplishing 

the additional modification of the LGCIU. 

(l) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for A319 

Corporate Jet airplanes for the modification 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD if that 

modification was performed before the 

effective date of this AD using Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–32–1349, dated December 4, 

2008; Airbus Service Bulletin A320–32–1349, 

Revision 01, dated August 31, 2009; or 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–32–1349, 

Revision 02, dated June 16, 2010. 

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: 

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone 425–227–1405; fax 425–227–1149. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116- 

AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. Before using 

any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 

principal inspector, or lacking a principal 

inspector, the manager of the local flight 

standards district office/certificate holding 

district office. The AMOC approval letter 

must specifically reference this AD. 

(2) AMOCs approved previously for AD 

2013–13–04, Amendment 39–17492 (78 FR 

41286, July 10, 2013) are approved as 

AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of 

this AD. 

(3) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the 

effective date of this AD, for any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer, the action must be 

accomplished using a method approved by 

the Manager, International Branch, ANM– 

116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or 

the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA); or Airbus’s EASA Design 

Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by 

the DOA, the approval must include the 

DOA-authorized signature. 

(n) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2013–0202, dated 

September 5, 2013, for related information. 

This MCAI may be found in the AD docket 

on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

by searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2015–0678. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness 

Office—EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 

31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 

5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email 

account.airworth-eas@airbus.com; Internet 

http://www.airbus.com. You may view this 

service information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

20, 2015. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07281 Filed 3–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0165; FRL–9925–31– 

Region 9] 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Regional Haze Federal Implementation 

Plan; Reconsideration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise part 

of the Arizona Regional Haze (RH) 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

applicable to the Coronado Generating 

Station (Coronado). In response to a 

petition for reconsideration from the 

Salt River Project Agricultural 

Improvement and Power District (SRP), 

the owner/operator of Coronado, we are 

proposing to replace a plant-wide 

compliance method with a unit-specific 

compliance method for determining 

compliance with the best available 

retrofit technology (BART) emission 

limits for nitrogen oxides (NOX) from 

Units 1 and 2 at Coronado. While the 

plant-wide limit for the NOX emissions 

from Units 1 and 2 were established as 

0.065 lb/MMBtu, we are proposing a 

unit-specific limit of 0.065 lb/MMBtu 

for Unit 1 and 0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit 

2. In addition, we are proposing to 

revise the work practice standard in the 

FIP for Coronado. Finally, we are 

proposing to remove the affirmative 

defense for malfunctions from the 

Arizona RH FIP, which applies to both 

Coronado and the Cholla Power Plant 

(Cholla). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the designated contact on 

or before May 15, 2015. Requests for a 

public hearing must be received on or 

before April 15, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0165, by one of the 

following methods: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17011 

1Although states and tribes may designate as 

Class I additional areas which they consider to have 

visibility as an important value, the requirements of 

the visibility program set forth in section 169A of 

the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal 

areas.’’ 

• Federal Rulemaking portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: webb.thomas@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 415–947–3579 (Attention: 

Thomas Webb). 

• Mail, Hand Delivery, or Courier: 

Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9, Air 

Division (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105. Hand 

and courier deliveries are only accepted 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for further instructions on where 

and how to learn more about this 

proposal, attend a public hearing, or 

submit comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 

Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105. Thomas Webb can be reached at 

telephone number (415) 947–4139 and 

via electronic mail at webb.thomas@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. Proposed FIP Revision 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

A. Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

• The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

• The initials ADEQ mean or refer to 

the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

• The words Arizona and State mean 

the State of Arizona. 

• The initials BART mean or refer to 

Best Available Retrofit Technology. 

• The term Class I area refers to a 

mandatory Class I Federal area.1

• The initials CBI mean or refer to 

Confidential Business Information. 

• The initials EGU mean or refer to 

Electric Generating Unit. 

• The words EPA, we, us, or our mean 

or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

• The initials FIP mean or refer to 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

• The initials LNB mean or refer to 

low-NOX burners. 

• The initials MMBtu mean or refer to 

million British thermal units. 

• The initials MW mean or refer to 

megawatts. 

• The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

• The initials NP mean or refer to 

National Park. 

• The initials OFA mean or refer to 

over fire air. 

• The initials RMB mean or refer to 

RMB Consulting and Research. 

• The initials S&L mean or refer to 

Sargent and Lundy, a consulting firm. 

• The initials SCR mean or refer to 

Selective Catalytic Reduction. 

• The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

• The initials SRP mean or refer to 

the Salt River Project Agricultural 

Improvement and Power District. 

• The initials UPL mean or refer to 

Upper Prediction Limit. 

B. Docket 

The proposed action relies on 

documents, information, and data that 

are listed in the index on http://

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0165. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available 

(e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

accessible either electronically at 

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

copy at the Planning Office of the Air 

Division, AIR–2, EPA Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105. EPA requests that you contact 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to view 

the hard copy of the docket from 

Monday through Friday, 9–5:00 PDT, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

C. Instructions for Submitting 

Comments to EPA 

Written comments must be submitted 

on or before May 15, 2015. Submit your 

comments, identified by docket number 

EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0165, by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: webb.thomas@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 415–947–3579 (Attention: 

Thomas Webb). 

• Mail, Hand Delivery, or Courier: 

Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9, Air 

Division (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105. Hand 

and courier deliveries are only accepted 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

EPA’s policy is to include all 

comments received in the public docket 

without change. We may make 

comments available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

for which disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that 

you consider to be CBI or that is 

otherwise protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. 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 email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, we will include 

your email address 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 not 

include special characters or any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

D. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not submit CBI to EPA through 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim as CBI. For 

CBI information in a disk or CD–ROM 

that you mail to EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, 

you must submit a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket. We will not disclose 

information so marked except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

E. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17012 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

2 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1). 

3 40 CFR 51.301. 

4See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492. 

5Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas, and national memorial 

parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 

parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 

U.S.C. 7472(a). When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ 

in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I 

Federal area.’’ 

6See generally 40 CFR 51.308. 

7 40 CFR 51.308(e). 

8 77 FR 42834. 

9 77 FR 42864. 

10 77 FR 72555. 

11 Id. 

information (e.g., subject heading, 

Federal Register date and page number). 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the identified comment 

period deadline. 

F. Public Hearings 

If anyone contacts EPA by April 15, 

2015 requesting to speak at a public 

hearing, EPA will schedule a public 

hearing and announce the hearing in the 

Federal Register. Contact Thomas Webb 

at webb.thomas@epa.gov or at (415) 

947–4139 to request a hearing or to 

determine if a hearing will be held. 

II. Background 

A. Summary of Statutory and 

Regulatory Requirements 

Congress created a program for 

protecting visibility in the nation’s 

national parks and wilderness areas in 

1977 by adding section 169A to the 

CAA. This section of the CAA 

establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas which impairment results 

from man-made air pollution.’’ 2 It also 

directs states to evaluate the use of 

retrofit controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 

to revise their State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs) to contain such measures as 

may be necessary to make reasonable 

progress towards the natural visibility 

goal, including a requirement that 

certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

best available retrofit technology 

(BART) controls. These sources are 

referred to as ‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources.3

In the 1990 CAA Amendments, 

Congress amended the visibility 

provisions in the CAA to focus attention 

on the problem of regional haze, which 

is visibility impairment produced by a 

multitude of sources and activities 

located across a broad geographic area.4

We promulgated the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) in 1999, which requires states to 

develop and implement SIPs to ensure 

reasonable progress toward improving 

visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas 5 by reducing emissions that cause 

or contribute to regional haze.6 Under 

the RHR, states are directed to conduct 

BART determinations for BART-eligible 

sources that may be anticipated to cause 

or contribute to any visibility 

impairment in a Class I area.7

B. History of FIP BART Determination 

The Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 

submitted a RH SIP (‘‘Arizona RH SIP’’) 

under Section 308 of the RHR to EPA 

Region 9 on February 28, 2011. The 

Arizona RH SIP included BART 

determinations for NOX, particulate 

matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

for Units 1 and 2 at the Coronado 

Generating Station. We proposed on 

July 20, 2012, to approve ADEQ’s BART 

determinations for PM and SO2, but to 

disapprove its determination for NOX at 

Coronado.8 In the same notice, we also 

proposed a FIP that included a NOX

BART emission limit of 0.050 lb/MMbtu 

for Unit 1 and 0.080 lb/MMbtu for Unit 

2 based on a 30-boiler-operating-day 

(BOD) rolling average. These limits 

correspond to the use of Selective 

Catalytic Reduction (SCR) control 

technology to reduce NOX emissions. 

We noted that a consent decree between 

SRP and EPA required the installation 

of SCR and compliance with a NOX

emission limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu (30– 

BOD rolling average) at Coronado Unit 

2 by June 1, 2014. We explained that: 

. . . the emission limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu 

established in the consent decree was not the 

result of a BART five-factor analysis, nor 

does the consent decree indicate that SCR at 

0.080 lb/MMBtu represents BART. 

Nonetheless, given the compliance schedule 

established in the consent decree and the 

preliminary information received from SRP 

regarding the status of design and 

construction of the SCR system, it appears 

that achieving a 0.050 lb/MMBtu emission 

rate may not be technically feasible. Even if 

it is feasible, achievement of this emission 

rate may not be cost-effective. Therefore, we 

are proposing an emission limit of 0.080 lb/ 

MMBtu as BART for NOX at Unit 2. However, 

if we do not receive sufficient documentation 

establishing that achievement of a more 

stringent limit is infeasible or not costeffective, then we may determine that a more 

stringent limit for this unit is required in our 

final action.9

In its comments on our proposal, SRP 

asserted that a NOX emission rate of 

0.050 lb/MMBtu was not achievable at 

either of the Coronado units, due to 

their startup/shutdown operating 

profile. In support of this assertion, SRP 

submitted reports by two consultants, 

Sargent and Lundy (S&L) and RMB 

Consulting and Research (RMB), which 

indicated that the Coronado units could 

achieve a rolling 30-day emission rate in 

the range of 0.053 to 0.072 lb/MMBtu.10

Specifically, the S&L report examined 

the effect of multiple startup/shutdown 

events on emission rates over a 30-day 

period for Unit 2. The S&L report also 

examined potential measures to 

improve the performance of the current 

SCR design for Unit 2, including 

installation of a ‘‘low load temperature 

control system.’’ We explained the 

purpose of this control system in the 

preamble to our final rule: 

As described in the S&L report, periods of 

low load operation generally consist of 

operation between loads of 138 MW to 270 

MW (operation above 270 MW can be 

considered ‘‘high’’ load). Broadly speaking, 

the temperature in the SCR system will fall 

below 599 degrees F during these periods of 

low load operation, which is the minimum 

temperature required for effective NOX

control. A low load temperature control 

system increases the temperature at the SCR 

inlet in order to maintain 599 degrees F, 

allowing operation of the SCR system during 

periods of low load. Without this control 

system, the Coronado Unit 2 SCR system will 

not operate during periods of low load.11

The low-load temperature-control 

system is referred to as both ‘‘pegging 

steam’’ and ‘‘steam reheat’’ in the 

various documents submitted by SRP. 

During periods of low load (138 MW to 

270 MW), a certain amount of steam is 

routed to the SCR inlet in order to raise 

the inlet temperature to above 599 

degrees F, which allows for proper 

operation of the SCR. At loads below 

138 MW, the SCR could not operate 

even with the low-load temperaturecontrol system. 

In setting the NOX emission limits for 

Coronado in the final Arizona RH FIP, 

we considered the information and 

analyses contained in the S&L report 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17013 

12 Id. at 72554–56. 

13 Id. at 72555. 

14Petition of Salt River Project Agricultural 

Improvement and Power District for Partial 

Reconsideration and Stay of EPA’s Final Rule: 

‘‘Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional 

Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans’’ 

(February 4, 2013). 

15Letters from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Norman 

W. Fichthorn and Aaron Flynn, Hunton and 

Williams (April 9, 2013). 

16Letter from Kelly Barr, SRP, to Deborah Jordan, 

EPA (November 18, 2013). 

17 Id. at 4. 

18Consent Decree in United States v. Salt River 

Project, CV 08–1479–PHX–JAT (D. Az.) (entered 

Dec. 19, 2008) (‘‘Coronado Consent Decree’’). 

19BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, 

section V (‘‘For EGUs, specify an averaging time of 

a 30-day rolling average, and contain a definition 

of ‘‘boiler operating day’’ that is consistent with the 

definition in the proposed revisions to the NSPS for 

utility boilers in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da.’’). 

20Letter from Kelly J. Barr, SRP, to Deborah 

Jordan, EPA (November 18, 2013) and attachments. 

21Attachment 1 to November 18, 2013, Letter, 

Sargent and Lundy LLC Report SL–011754, Salt 

River Project Coronado Generating Station Unit 1 

SCR NOX emissions Modeling (November 14, 2013). 

22Attachment 2 to November 18, 2013 Letter, 

Technical Memorandum from RMB Consulting & 

Research, Inc. to Salt River Project NOX limits 

Compliance monitoring Consideration on Coronado 

Unit 1 (October 28, 2013) at 1. 

and the RMB report.12 We concluded 

that: 

In recognition of the work already performed 

by SRP to meet the consent decree emission 

limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2, and to 

avoid interfering with SRP’s ability to meet 

that requirement by the deadline of June 1, 

2014, we have decided not to require a BART 

emission limit for Coronado 2 more stringent 

than 0.080 lb/MMBtu. Instead, we are 

finalizing a plant-wide NOX emission limit 

for Coronado of 0.065 lb/MMBtu on a rolling 

30-day average, which will provide a 

sufficient compliance margin for startup and 

shutdown events. We are also structuring the 

compliance determination method so that, 

when one of the two units is not operating, 

its emissions from the preceding thirty 

boiler-operating-days will continue to be 

included in the two-unit average. We expect 

that SRP can meet this limit by installing a 

low load temperature control system on Unit 

2 and an SCR system including a low load 

temperature control system on Unit 1.13

Please see our final rule published on 

December 5, 2012, for further 

information on the BART 

determinations and compliance 

methodology. 

C. Petition for Reconsideration and Stay 

We received a petition from SRP on 

February 4, 2013, requesting partial 

reconsideration and administrative stay 

of our final rule under section 

307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and section 705 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act.14 EPA Region 9 sent a 

letter on April 9, 2013, to 

representatives of SRP informing the 

company that we were granting partial 

reconsideration of the final rule for the 

Arizona RH FIP.15 In particular, we 

stated that we were granting 

reconsideration of the compliance 

methodology for NOX emissions from 

Units 1 and 2 at Coronado and that we 

would issue a notice of proposed 

rulemaking seeking comment on an 

alternative compliance methodology. 

We also noted that, because we initially 

proposed different NOX emission limits 

for the two units, we would seek 

comment on the appropriate emission 

limit for each of the units. Today’s 

notice of proposed rulemaking includes 

each of these elements, and constitutes 

EPA’s proposed action for the 

reconsideration. 

III. Proposed FIP Revision 

EPA is proposing a unit-specific 

compliance method and separate 

emission limits for NOX on Units 1 and 

2 at the Coronado Generating Station. 

We also are proposing to revise the work 

practice requirement that applies to 

Coronado and to remove the affirmative 

defense for malfunctions that is 

currently included in the FIP for 

Coronado and Cholla. 

A. Proposed Compliance Method for 

Unit-Specific Emission Limits 

In a letter sent to EPA on November 

18, 2013, SRP outlined its views 

concerning the compliance method and 

emission limit at Coronado.16 Regarding 

the compliance method, SRP requested 

that EPA use the same approach 

specified in the Consent Decree, noting 

that this would ensure ‘‘consistency 

across applicable requirements.’’ 17 EPA 

notes that the Consent Decree contains 

two different types of NOX emission 

limits: Unit-specific 30-day rolling lb/

MMBtu limits and a 365-day plant-wide 

rolling NOX tonnage limit.18 For 

purposes of BART, we consider a 30– 

BOD rolling lb/MMBtu limit to be 

appropriate.19 Therefore, we propose to 

set a separate 30–BOD rolling lb/MMBtu 

limit for each of the two Coronado 

Units, based on the following 

compliance method: 

The 30-day rolling average NOX emission 

rate for each unit shall be calculated in 

accordance with the following procedure: 

First, sum the total pounds of NOX emitted 

from the unit during the current boiler 

operating day and the previous twenty-nine 

(29) boiler-operating days; second, sum the 

total heat input to the unit in MMBtu during 

the current boiler operating day and the 

previous twenty-nine (29) boiler-operating 

days; and third, divide the total number of 

pounds of NOX emitted during the thirty (30) 

boiler-operating days by the total heat input 

during the thirty (30) boiler-operating days. 

A new 30-day rolling average NOX emission 

rate shall be calculated for each new boiler 

operating day. Each 30-day rolling average 

NOX emission rate shall include all 

emissions that occur during all periods 

within any boiler operating day, including 

emissions from startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 

This method is identical to that 

employed for the unit-specific 30-day 

rolling lb/MMBtu limit in the Consent 

Decree, except that it uses the term 

‘‘boiler operating day’’ instead of ‘‘Unit 

Operating Day.’’ This method would 

replace the plant-wide method 

promulgated in the final rule at 40 CFR 

52.145(f)(5)(B)(ii). All other compliancerelated requirements, including the 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, would remain 

as promulgated. 

B. Proposed Emission Limits for 

Coronado Units 1 and 2 

Because we are proposing to replace 

the plant-wide average emission rate 

limit for NOX with unit-specific limits, 

we also must propose separate emission 

limits for each of the two units at 

Coronado. However, we are not 

reconsidering our determination that 

BART for Coronado Units 1 and 2 is an 

emission limit consistent with the use of 

SCR, low-NOX burners (LNB) with over 

fire air (OFA), and low-load temperature 

control. Nor are we conducting a new 

five-factor analysis for these units. 

Rather, we are reconsidering only the 

emission limits achievable with SCR 

and LNB with OFA at Coronado Units 

1 and 2. Due to the different regulatory 

requirements that currently apply to 

these units, we have analyzed them 

separately. 

1. Proposed Emission Limit for 

Coronado Unit 1 

a. SRP’s Analysis of Unit 1 

After EPA granted reconsideration, 

SRP submitted additional information to 

EPA, including two reports prepared by 

S&L and RMB concerning the 

achievability of various NOX emission 

limits at Coronado Unit 1.20 The 2013 

S&L analysis presented modeling results 

intended to predict NOX emissions from 

Unit 1 under various operating 

scenarios.21 The 2013 RMB report 

further analyzed the achievable NOX

emission limit at Coronado Unit 1, 

‘‘based on the results of S&L’s modeling 

and application of an appropriate 

compliance margin.’’ 22 In particular, 

RMB applied an ‘‘upper prediction 

limit’’ (UPL) technique in order to 

account for ‘‘the impact of measurement 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17014 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

23 Id. 

24The term ‘‘cold startup’’ is not specifically 

defined by SRP or S&L in its analysis. Typically, a 

‘‘cold startup’’ refers to a startup event that occurs 

after the boiler has been offline for approximately 

24 to 48 hours or longer. Compared to hot or warm 

startups, a cold startup event produces greater 

emissions because it is longer in duration and 

consumes more fuel. 

25The term ‘‘hot’’ or ‘‘warm’’ startup is not 

defined by SRP or S&L in its analysis. However, a 

‘‘hot’’ or ‘‘warm’’ typically refers to a startup event 

that occurs when the boiler has been offline for less 

than 24 hours. Because certain elements of the 

boiler may still be hot or warm following shutdown, 

less time is required to reach normal operating 

temperatures and conditions. As a result, hot and 

warm startup events produce fewer emissions than 

cold startup events because they are shorter in 

duration and consume less fuel. 

26 ‘‘SRP Coronado Generating Station, Unit 1 SCR 

NOX Emissions Modeling’’, Prepared by Sargent 

and Lundy, Report SL–011754, November 14, 2013. 

uncertainty and other process 

variation.’’ 23

The 2013 S&L report consisted of an 

emission analysis of the SCR for Unit 1. 

Similar to the 2012 S&L report, which 

concerned Unit 2, the 2013 analysis 

examined the effect of startup/shutdown 

events, low-load cycling, and steam 

reheat on emissions over a 30-day 

average. In summary, the 2013 S&L 

analysis examined load profile data for 

Unit 1 for the period from January 1, 

2011, through July 31, 2013, and 

estimated NOX emission rates with the 

hypothetical use of SCR for the various 

load profiles that occurred during this 

period. S&L’s estimates of SCR 

performance and emission rate under 

various load profiles are summarized in 

Table 1. For greater detail, consult the 

2013 S&L report, which is included in 

the docket for this proposed rule. 

TABLE 1—UNIT 1 LOAD PROFILE OF NOX EMISSIONS

Load profile 

Unit 1 emission 

rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Description 

SCR Design Target Emission Rate ....... 0 .030 Full load performance guarantee per vendor. 

SCR emission rate at full load steady 

state conditions.

0 .040 Actual controlled NOX emissions are expected to average 0.01 above the design target rate. 

SCR emission rate when load increasing by more than 10 MW/hour.0 .050 Emission expected to change as control systems adjust to changes in boiler 

load, gas flow rates, and NOX loading. 

SCR emission rate when load decreasing by more than 10 MW/hour.0 .035 Emission expected to change as control systems adjust to changes in boiler 

load, gas flow rates, and NOX loading. 

Emission rate during cold start, oil-firing 24.0 .10 Low NOX burners (LNB) only, no SCR during startup. Unit 1 initially uses fuel oil 

for startup, and transitions to coal to complete startup. 

Emission rate during cold start, coal-firing.0 .25 LNB only, no SCR during startup. 

Emission rate during warm start, oil-firing 25.0 .19 LNB only, no SCR during startup. Unit 1 initially uses fuel oil for startup, and 

transitions to coal to complete startup. 

Emission rate during warm start, coalfiring.0 .28 LNB only, no SCR during startup. 

Emission rate during low load periods ... 0 .29 For low-load periods with no steam reheat (LNB-only, no SCR control). 

SCR emission rate during initial shutdown.0 .10 Emission rate during shutdown with SCR inlet >599 degrees F, allowing for 

SCR operation. 

Emission rate after SCR shutdown ........ 0 .45 LNB only. Corresponds to shutdown period after SCR inlet <599 degrees F. 

Based on the emission rates 

summarized in Table 1 above, the S&L 

analysis examined the 30-day emission 

rate for Unit 1 assuming several 

combinations of startup events and 

loading profiles. The highest controlled 

30-day average emission rate for several 

selected scenarios is presented in Table 

2. The full analysis, including selected 

spreadsheets that contain the emission 

rate modeling for certain operating 

scenarios, is available in the docket for 

this proposed rule.26

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF UNIT 1 EMISSION MODELING RESULTS

[Per S&L analysis] 

Scenario Description 

Controlled NOX emission 

rates based on 30-day 

average 

(lb/MMBtu) 

0 .................. Full Load high-cycle loading ................................................................................................................ 0.041 

1b ................ Low-load cycling for 30 days (with steam reheat) ............................................................................... 0.048 

5a ................ One cold startup with low-load cycling (with steam reheat) ................................................................ 0.055 

5b ................ Two cold startups with low-load cycling (with steam reheat) .............................................................. 0.061 

5c ................ Three cold startups with low-load cycling (with steam reheat) ........................................................... 0.065 

The supplemental information 

submitted by SRP on November 13, 

2013, also included a report from RMB. 

In this report, RMB stated that it used 

equations for calculating the UPL, 

which is a statistical technique that 

examines an existing set of data points 

and predicts the chances (i.e., the 

probability) of future data points (in this 

case, emission rates). In general terms, 

the UPL is a value that is calculated 

from a data set that identifies the 

emission rate that a source or group of 

sources is meeting and would be 

expected to meet a specified percent of 

the time that the source is operating. For 

example, the 99 percent UPL value is 

the emission level that the source(s) 

would be predicted to be below during 

99 out of 100 performance tests. The 

UPL value is calculated using an 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17015 

27The CEMS data examined for Unit 1 

corresponded to operation with low NOX burners, 

as Unit 1 does not presently operate with SCR. For 

the three other units, CEMS data corresponding to 

SCR operation was examined. 

28Letter from Kelly J. Barr, SRP, to Deborah 

Jordan, EPA (April 28, 2014) and attachments. 

29As noted in SRP’s April 28, 2014 information 

response, we requested detailed emission 

spreadsheets for several scenarios, including highload cycling, low-load cycling, and low-load 

cycling including multiple startups. 

30See spreadsheet ‘‘Coronado 2008–11 NOX

Emission Data (daily).xls’’. 

31See SRP’s April 28, 2014 letter, Attachment A 

(Multiple Start Summary). 

32See April 28, 2014 letter. Expanded periods of 

load following service will result in greater periods 

of low-load cycling, as well as increase the need for 

startup/shutdown events. 

equation based on the average and 

variance of a data set (in this instance, 

the aforementioned emission rates), the 

distribution of the data, quantity of data 

points, confidence level, and common 

statistical values such as t-scores and zscores. The underlying regulatory 

concept behind the use of UPL values is 

that a source should have only a very 

small risk of being determined to be in 

noncompliance when the emission 

control system is actually performing as 

expected under each type of normal 

operation that takes place. UPL values 

are used in a wide variety of industries 

for predictive purposes, including 

finance, manufacturing, and healthcare. 

RMB stated that it applied the 

equations for calculating UPL values to 

CEMS data for Unit 1, as well as to the 

CEMS data from three SCR-equipped 

coal-fired boilers that it considered 

comparable to Unit 1.27 To summarize, 

RMB calculated the 99th percentile 

emission rate for each of the four units, 

and compared the 99th percentile 

emission rate to the average emission 

rate of each respective unit. RMB 

indicated that for Unit 1, the 99th 

percentile emission rate was three to 

seven percent greater than average 

emission rates. For the three SCRequipped units examined, RMB reports 

that the 99th percentile emission rate 

was approximately 15 percent higher 

than average emission rates. RMB then 

adjusted the average 30-day emission 

rates from the S&L emission modeling 

analysis for each operating scenario 

upwards by 15 percent in order to 

account for the variability indicated by 

the UPL values. The results of RMB’s 

analysis are summarized in Table 3. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF UNIT 1 EMISSION MODELING RESULTS

[Per RMB report] 

Scenario Description 

Controlled NOX emission 

rate 

(30-day average in 

lb/MMBtu) 

1b ................ Low-load cycling for 30 days (with steam reheat) ............................................................................... 0.055 

5a ................ One cold startup with low-load cycling (with steam reheat) ................................................................ 0.062 

5b ................ Two cold startups with low-load cycling (with steam reheat) .............................................................. 0.069 

5c ................ Three cold startups with low-load cycling (with steam reheat) ........................................................... 0.073 

RMB then indicated that if the 

emission limit were considered a ‘‘never 

to be exceeded value,’’ an additional 

compliance margin should be 

incorporated given that the 99th 

percentile value does not account for 

the entire potential range of operating 

conditions that may occur. RMB 

indicated that rounding upwards to the 

next highest reasonable interval, 0.080 

lb/MMBtu, would provide an 

approximate 10 percent compliance 

margin, and proposed that this value 

represents the lowest achievable NOX

emission limit for Unit 1. The full RMB 

analysis is included in the docket for 

this proposed rule. 

SRP provided additional information 

to EPA on April 28, 2014, that included 

documentation on SCR design 

parameters for Unit 2, the number of 

historical startup events occurring 

within single 30-day periods for Units 1 

and 2, and expected future operation of 

Units 1 and 2.28

b. EPA’s Evaluation of Unit 1 

In proposing a unit-specific limit for 

Unit 1, we have reviewed each of the 

analyses provided by SRP including the 

emission spreadsheets developed by 

S&L for several load profile scenarios. In 

addition, we have compared SRP’s 

emission estimates for certain load 

profiles with actual Unit 1 emission 

data as reported to the Air Markets 

Program Data (AMPD).29 We consider 

the emission rates used by S&L for the 

various load profiles to be reasonable 

and generally consistent with emission 

data reported to AMPD. We also 

consider the scenarios examined by S&L 

to be realistic depictions of load profile 

scenarios that were historically 

experienced by the Coronado units. 

AMPD and Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) records indicate 

periods of both high-load and low-load 

cycling, as well as 30-day periods with 

multiple shutdown periods.30 The 

greatest number of cold startups 

occurring in a single 30-day period 

examined by the the S&L load profile 

scenarios was three. Although we have 

not identified an actual historical 30- 

day period exhibiting three cold 

startups, we consider this a reasonable 

assumption given both the number of 

startup events that have historically 

occurred,31 as well as SRP’s expectation 

that the Coronado units will experience 

greater periods of operation in loadfollowing service or non-operation given 

the expanded role of renewable energy 

sources.32 As a result, we consider the 

emission rate of 0.065 lb/MMBtu, which 

corresponds to a scenario consisting of 

low-load cycling operations (with steam 

reheat) and 3 cold startups within a 30- 

day period, to be a reasonable estimate 

of average SCR performance for Unit 1. 

With regard to the RMB analysis, we 

are unable to assess fully this analysis, 

as it lacked documentation regarding 

many of its components. In particular, 

RMB did not identify the UPL 

equation(s) it used or the emission rate 

characteristics, data distribution, 

number of emission rates, or t- or zscores. RMB did not present specific 

evidence that the two SCR-equipped 

units are representative of how 

Coronado will perform when carefully 

operated after installation of SCR. In 

particular, RMB did not address the 

possibility that the SCR systems on 

these two units malfunctioned or were 

incorrectly operated during the data 

period. Accordingly, we are unable to 

evaluate RMB’s assertions regarding its 

UPL calculations. 

More fundamentally, we do not 

consider a UPL analysis to be necessary 

or appropriate for use in establishing an 

emission limit for Coronado Unit 1. 

Because the UPL method is a statistical 

technique, it is essentially an analytical 

tool that can be applied to any data set 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17016 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

33 In particular, EPA has used the UPL method in 

the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS), also 

known as the Boiler MACT, the Wool Fiberglass 

MACT, the Phosphoric Acid and Phosphate 

Fertilizer MACT, and the Nitric Acid Plant NSPS. 

34Memorandum from Susan Fairchild to Docket 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041, ‘‘Use of the 

Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT 

Floors’’ (July 14, 2014); see also Memo from Susan 

Fairchild to Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041, 

‘‘Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction Limit 

to Limited Datasets’’ (October 6, 2014). 

35 In addition, we note that we consider RMB’s 

application of its UPL-estimated variability to the 

results of the S&L modeling inappropriate. The S&L 

modeling results already account for substantial 

degree of operational variability by assuming a 

conservative operating scenario of low-load cycling 

and 3 cold startups in a single 30-day period. 

Applying the UPL-estimated variability on top of 

the S&L modeling could be described, to a degree, 

as ‘‘double counting’’ operational variability. 

and produce a UPL value for a specified 

percentile (i.e., 95th, 98th, 99th 

percentile, etc). While UPL has been 

used by EPA to establish emission 

standards in other rulemakings, the 

context for those rulemakings differs 

significantly from the context for this 

action. In general, EPA has employed 

the UPL method in instances where it 

was necessary to establish an emission 

standard based on a limited number of 

emission measurements, such as when 

establishing maximum available control 

technology (MACT) standards or new 

source performance standards (NSPS).33

The emission data available for 

establishing MACT standards are 

generally in the form of short-term, 

three-run stack tests, with each test-run 

lasting between one and four hours. 

These short-term tests represent three 

‘‘snapshots’’ of a source’s operation and 

generally will not represent a source’s 

full range of operations or emission 

levels. Accordingly, when establishing 

an emission standard that applies 

continuously across an entire source 

category, EPA considers it necessary to 

account for the emissions and 

operations over a fuller range using data 

sets that encompass longer time periods 

(i.e., collected over several months to a 

year or more of operation). In such 

situations, EPA applies the UPL method 

to predict the emission levels the source 

is achieving at times other than when 

the stack testing is conducted. For 

example, it is common for EPA to 

establish an emission standard for a 

particular source category for which 

only three to six test results may be 

available. Because these three to six data 

points do not represent the full range of 

unit operations, the UPL method is 

employed to ‘‘fill in the blanks’’ when 

developing an emission standard that is 

appropriate for a broader range of 

operations. As described in a memo 

regarding the use of UPL in establishing 

MACT standards, ‘‘EPA did not have 

emissions information from sources at 

all times each source was operating, and 

therefore determined it was necessary to 

apply a methodology that addressed the 

fact that the data were not complete.’’ 34

Furthermore, while EPA has used the 

UPL method in other instances besides 

MACT standards, such as in developing 

NSPS, the emission data sets for those 

rulemakings were also very limited, 

numbering at most in the dozens of test 

results for specific source subcategories. 

By contrast, the data set available here 

is much more extensive, represents 

continuous data collected over a long 

period of time, and covers a wider range 

of unit operations. In particular, the 

UPL analyses performed by RMB for 

Coronado Unit 1 and the three SCRequipped coal-fired boilers examined 

actual emission data from CEMS (or in 

the case of Coronado Unit 1, modeled 

emission data based on actual load 

operation) that consisted of thousands 

of data points collected continuously 

over periods of time ranging from eight 

months to over a year. As noted above, 

this is a different context than 

rulemakings in which EPA has 

employed the UPL method to develop 

category-wide emission standards based 

on, at most, a few dozen data points. 

Given the size and scope of the data set 

available in this instance, we propose to 

find that the use of the UPL method is 

not appropriate.35

Finally, we do not agree with RMB’s 

suggestion that the emission limit for 

Coronado Unit 1 should be rounded up 

to provide an additional compliance 

margin. We note that the UPL 

methodology used by EPA for MACT 

standard development does not include 

rounding up to the next highest 

reasonable interval as suggested by 

RMB. Given the conservative nature of 

the assumptions in the S&L analysis, we 

do not consider additional compliance 

margin appropriate in this instance. 

Accordingly, in evaluating an 

appropriate limit for Coronado Unit 1, 

we have relied primarily upon the 

information provided in the S&L 

analysis. This analysis found that an 

emission rate of 0.065 lb/MMBtu would 

be appropriate for a scenario consisting 

of low-load cycling operations (with 

steam reheat) and three cold startups 

within a 30-day period. As described 

above, we consider this to be a 

reasonable estimate of SCR performance 

for Coronado Unit 1. We are are 

therefore proposing a limit of 0.065 lb/ 

MMBtu on a rolling 30–BOD basis. 

2. Proposed Emission Limit for 

Coronado Unit 2 

a. SRP’s Analysis of Unit 2 

SRP also provided documentation in 

its April 28, 2014 letter of Unit 2 design 

parameters and indicated that it is 

proceeding with the installation of a 

low-load temperature-control system 

(i.e., steam reheat) for Unit 2. In 

addition, SRP stated that the design 

parameters demonstrate that Unit 2 was 

properly designed to meet the 0.080 lb/ 

MMBtu NOX limit required by the 

Coronado Consent Decree. Based on 

these design parameters and emission 

modeling performed by S&L, SRP 

reiterated that the design of Unit 2 could 

not accommodate a NOX emission limit 

lower than that required by the Consent 

Decree. SRP has met certain terms of the 

Consent Decree by operating Unit 2 with 

SCR since June 1, 2014. Finally, in 

response to an inquiry from EPA 

regarding the possibility of a work 

practice standard for the SCR system on 

Unit 2, SRP indicated that certain 

language from the Coronado Consent 

Decree and the Title V operating permit 

requiring proper operation of NOX

controls are sufficient to ensure that 

NOX emissions are minimized. 

b. EPA’s Evaluation of Unit 2 

In our final rule published on 

December 5, 2012, establishing the NOX

emission limit for Coronado Units 1 and 

2, we stated the following regarding 

Unit 2: 

In recognition of the work already performed 

by SRP to meet the consent decree emission 

limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2, and to 

avoid interfering with SRP’s ability to meet 

that requirement by the deadline of June 1, 

2014, we have decided not to require a BART 

emission limit for Coronado 2 more stringent 

than 0.080 lb/MMBtu. 

The information subsequently 

provided by SRP supports the assertion 

that the emission limit in the Consent 

Decree of 0.080 lb/MMBtu represents 

BART for this unit. In particular, the 

fact that SRP has already installed a 

low-load temperature-control system at 

this unit in order to meet the 0.080 lb/ 

MMBtu limit suggests that a lower limit 

would not be achievable on a 30–BOD 

basis. As a result, we propose to set a 

unit-specific NOX limit for Unit 2 of 

0.080 lb/MMBtu, based on a rolling 30– 

BOD basis. 

In addition, we propose to revise the 

work practice standard at 40 CFR 

52.145(f)(10) to require the operation of 

the SCR at all times that Unit 2 is in 

operation, consistent with technological 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17017 

36See CAA Section 302(k) (defining ‘‘emission 

limit’’ to include ‘‘any requirement relating to the 

operation or maintenance of a source to assure 

continuous emission reduction, and any design, 

equipment, work practice or operational standard 

promulgated under this chapter’’). 

37Specific Conditions II.E.2.b and c, Title V 

Operating Permit No. 52693, issued December 6, 

2011. 

38See 40 CFR 52.145(f)(11) (incorporating by 

reference R–18–2–101, paragraph 65; R18–2–310, 

sections (A), (B), (D) and (E); and R18–2–310.01). 

39See NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 

2014). 

40 79 FR 55920, 55947 (September 17, 2014). 

41CAA Section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). In this 

instance EPA is proposing to promulgate a revision 

to a FIP, rather than to approve a revision to a SIP. 

Although 110(l) on its face applies only to EPA 

approvals of plan revisions, we have nonetheless 

considered whether this proposed action would 

interfere with the requirements of the CAA. 

42BART Guidelines 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, 

section IV.D.5. 

43See CAA section 302(k). 

limitations.36 As noted in SRP’s letter 

dated April 28, 2014, the Consent 

Decree contains a work practice 

standard for Unit 2. This language is 

included in the facility’s current Title V 

operating permit.37 We are proposing to 

include this same language in the BART 

FIP in order to ensure that the SCR is 

operated at all times during which it is 

technologically feasible to do so. In 

particular, we note that, based on the 

information provided by SRP, periods of 

low-load operation are a significant 

element of the Coronado units’ 

operations. Given the installation of a 

low-load temperature-control system on 

Unit 2, the SCR system is now capable 

of operating at lower loads (i.e., between 

about 138 MW and 270 MW) on Unit 2. 

Accordingly, we are proposing to revise 

the work practice standard in the FIP to 

ensure that the SCR system operates 

during these periods of low-load 

operation. 

C. Proposed Removal of Affirmative 

Defense for Malfunctions 

The Arizona RH FIP incorporates by 

reference certain provisions of the 

Arizona Administrative Code that 

establish an affirmative defense for 

excess emissions due to malfunctions.38

In the interim since EPA’s promulgation 

of that FIP, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that 

CAA sections 113 and 304 preclude 

EPA from creating affirmative defense 

provisions in the Agency’s own 

regulations imposing emission limits on 

sources.39 The court found that such 

affirmative defense provisions purport 

to alter the jurisdiction of federal courts 

to assess liability and impose penalties 

for violations of those limits in private 

civil enforcement cases. The court’s 

holding makes it clear that the CAA 

does not authorize promulgation of such 

a provision by EPA. In particular, the 

court’s decision turned on an analysis of 

CAA sections 113 (‘‘Federal 

enforcement’’) and 304 (‘‘Citizen suits’’). 

These provisions apply with equal force 

to a civil action brought to enforce the 

provisions of a FIP. The logic of the 

court’s decision thus applies to the 

promulgation of a FIP, and precludes 

EPA from including an affirmative 

defense provision in a FIP. Furthermore, 

in light of the DC Circuit’s decision, 

EPA has proposed to find R18–2–310(B) 

and R18–2–310(C) substantially 

inadequate to meet CAA requirements 

and to issue a SIP call with respect to 

these provisions.40 Consistent with the 

reasoning of the DC Circuit and EPA’s 

proposed SIP call, we are proposing to 

remove the affirmative defense 

provision in the Arizona Regional Haze 

FIP. In addition to Coronado, this 

revision would also affect Cholla. 

D. Non-Interference With Applicable 

Requirements 

The CAA requires that any revision to 

an implementation plan shall not be 

approved by the Administrator if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment, reasonable further progress, 

or any other applicable requirement of 

the CAA.41

EPA has promulgated health-based 

standards, known as the national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), 

for seven pollutants, including NO2, a 

component of NOX, and pollutants such 

as ozone and particulate matter with a 

diameter less than or equal to 2.5 

micrometers (PM2.5), that are formed in 

the atmosphere from reactions between 

NOX and other pollutants. Using a 

process that considers air quality data 

and other factors, EPA designates areas 

as ‘‘nonattainment’’ if those areas 

violate a NAAQS or cause or contribute 

to violations of a NAAQS in a nearby 

area. Reasonable further progress, as 

defined in section 171 of the CAA, is 

related to attainment and means ‘‘such 

annual incremental reductions in 

emissions of the relevant air pollutant 

. . . for the purpose of ensuring 

attainment of the applicable [NAAQS].’’ 

Coronado is located in Apache County, 

Arizona, which is designated as 

Unclassifiable/Attainment for all of the 

NAAQS. Therefore, we propose to find 

that a revision to the BART emission 

limits for NOX will not interfere with 

attainment or reasonable further 

progress for any air quality standard. 

The other requirements of the CAA 

that are applicable to Coronado are: 

• Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources, 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart D; 

• National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR part 

63, subpart UUUUU; 

• Compliance Assurance Monitoring, 

40 CFR part 64; 

• BART and other visibility 

protection requirements under CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(J) and 169A and 40 

CFR part 51, subpart P; and 

• Interstate transport visibility 

requirements under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Today’s proposed revisions would not 

affect the applicable requirements of the 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary 

Sources, or Compliance Assurance 

Monitoring requirements. Therefore, we 

propose to find that these revisions 

would not interfere with these 

requirements. 

The proposed revisions would alter 

the specific emission limits that 

constitute BART for NOX at Coronado 

under CAA section 169A and 40 CFR 

51.308(e). However, we expect the effect 

of the proposed changes on visibility 

will be very small. In particular, we note 

that, under the BART Guidelines, the 

‘‘degree of visibility improvement’’ 

expected to result from BART is 

evaluated through modeling of the 

highest emission rate observed on a 24- 

hour average.42 Although today’s rule 

would raise the emission rate allowed 

on a 30-day rolling average, we do not 

expect that it would alter the rate on a 

24-hour basis. First, the 24-hour 

maximum emission rate used in 

visibility modeling corresponds to 

operation of the SCR during periods of 

full load, steady state operation. As 

noted previously, the BART limits 

proposed in today’s rule are still 

consistent with the application of SCR. 

In addition, the underlying assumptions 

regarding SCR emission rate and 

performance remain unchanged from 

the December 5, 2012, final rule. 

Second, the adjustments to the rolling 

30-day emission limit were made to 

accommodate periods of startup and 

shutdown. Specifically, BART limits for 

EGUs are established based on a 30-day 

rolling average and must be met on a 

continuous basis, including during 

periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction.43 As described previously, 

the SCR system requires a certain 

minimum temperature in order to 

operate properly. As a result, there will 

necessarily be certain periods of time 

during startup and shutdown in which 

the SCR system is not technologically 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17018 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

44 Id. section III.A.3 (recommending that 

‘‘emissions reflecting periods of start-up, shutdown, 

and malfunction’’ not be used for modeling.). 

45 79 FR 52420, 52468–52469. 

46This value assumes that the units will fully 

operate at the allowed emission rates in Table 4 and 

5 for every month of the year. Given that the 30– 

BOD limits are based on conditions that occur 

infrequently (i.e., low-load cycling, 3 cold startup/ 

shutdowns), during many periods the units can be 

expected to operate at a lower emission rate. As a 

result, this value represents a conservative (i.e., 

tending to overestimate rather than underestimate 

in this context) estimate of the difference in NOX

emissions. 

47 79 FR 52426. 

capable of operating. This does not alter 

any of the assumptions regarding the 

SCR system when it is in operation, 

such as the maximum 24-hour emission 

rate, which is the basis of the visibility 

modeling. Moreover, the BART 

Guidelines recommend that periods of 

startup and shutdown be excluded from 

the visibility modeling.44 Therefore, the 

degree of visibility improvement would 

not be significantly diminished. 

With respect to the CAA’s reasonable 

progress requirements under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) and 169A, we note 

that in a September 3, 2014, final rule, 

we set reasonable progress goals (RPGs) 

for Arizona that accounted for the 

emission reductions projected to result 

from implementation of BART at 

Coronado (among other sources).45 The 

revised emission limits we are 

proposing today will allow for greater 

total annual NOX emissions than the 

FIP. We have therefore considered the 

impact of additional emissions on the 

RPGs. As summarized in Tables 4 and 

5, the difference in NOX emissions 

between the Arizona RH FIP and today’s 

proposed rule is approximately 233 tons 

per year (tpy).46 This amount represents 

less than one percent of the projected 

total NOX emission reductions in the 

FIP. Therefore, we consider its potential 

impact on the RPGs to be de minimis. 

Finally, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

requires that all SIPs contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit emissions that 

will interfere with other states’ required 

measures to protect visibility. In our 

final rule of September 3, 2014, we 

determined that control measures in the 

Arizona RH SIP and FIP were sufficient 

to fulfill this requirement for the 1997 

8-hour ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS.47 As noted above, while 

today’s proposal would allow for an 

increase in emissions of 233 tpy 

compared to the FIP, this represents less 

than one percent of the projected total 

NOX emission reductions in the FIP. 

Accordingly, we propose to determine 

that this change would not alter our 

determination that the control measures 

in the Arizona RH SIP and FIP are 

adequate to prevent Arizona’s emissions 

from interfering with other states’ 

required measures to protect visibility. 

Thus, we propose to find that today’s 

proposed revisions would not interfere 

with any applicable requirement of the 

CAA. 

TABLE 4—CORONADO SCR EMISSION RATE ALLOWED UNDER 2012 EPA FIP 

Unit No. 

Heat duty 1 NOX emission limit 2

Capacity factor 1

NOX

(MMBtu/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (tpy) 

Coronado 1 ........................ 4316 0.065 0.84 280.54 2,042 

Coronado 2 ........................ 3984 .................................. 0.89 258.96 ..................................

1Supplemental Cost Analysis 2012–11–15. 

2Emission limit per FIP final rule, 77 FR 72578. 

TABLE 5—CORONADO SCR EMISSION RATE ALLOWED UNDER PROPOSED 2015 EPA FIP REVISION

Unit No. 

Heat duty 1 NOX emission limit 

Capacity factor 1

NOX

(MMBtu/yr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (tpy) 

Coronado 1 ........................ 4316 0.065 0.84 280.54 2,275 

Coronado 2 ........................ 3984 0.080 0.89 318.72 ..................................

1Supplemental Cost Analysis 2012–11–15. 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to revise the 

Arizona RH FIP to replace a plant-wide 

BART compliance method and emission 

limit for NOX on Units 1 and 2 at 

Coronado with a single-unit compliance 

method and emission limit on each of 

the units. As described in today’s 

action, we are proposing an emission 

limit of 0.065 lb/MMBtu for Unit 1 and 

0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2 with 

compliance based on a rolling 30–BOD 

basis. This revision would constitute 

our action on SRP’s petition for 

reconsideration of the FIP. We also are 

proposing to remove the affirmative 

defense for malfunctions in the FIP and 

revise the work practice requirement 

that applies to Coronado. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. This rule 

applies to only two facilities and is 

therefore not a rule of general 

applicability. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This rule 

applies to only two facilities. Therefore, 

its recordkeeping and reporting 

provisions do not constitute a 

‘‘collection of information’’ as defined 

under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 

1320.3(c). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this proposed action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. This action will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. Firms 

primarily engaged in the generation, 

transmission, and/or distribution of 

electric energy for sale are small if, 

including affiliates, the total electric 

output for the preceding fiscal year did 

not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. 

Each of the owners of facilities affected 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17019 

48Coronado Consent Decree, paragraph 44. 

by this rule, SRP, Arizona Public 

Service and PacifiCorp, exceeds this 

threshold. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on any Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying 

only to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks that EPA 

has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. EPA is not 

proposing to revise any technical 

standards or impose any new technical 

standards in this action. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. We expect that Coronado 

will install the same control technology 

in order to meet the revised emission 

limits as would have been necessary to 

meet the previously finalized limits. As 

shown in Tables 4 and 5 above, the 

difference in NOX emissions between 

the final EPA FIP and today’s proposed 

rule is approximately 233 tons per year 

(tpy). Although this is a not a trivial 

amount of emissions, it is relatively 

small compared to the facility’s total 

emissions. In particular, 233 tpy is 

equivalent to about 3 percent of the 

7,300 tpy of NOX that the facility is 

presently allowed to emit under the 

Coronado Consent Decree.48

Furthermore, as shown in Table 5, if 

today’s proposal is finalized, total NOX

emissions from the facility would be 

roughly 2,275 tpy, a decrease of over 

5,000 tpy compared to the plant-wide 

cap under the Consent Decree. Thus, 

although today’s proposed revision will 

allow for a marginal increase in 

emissions compared to the FIP, it will 

still ensure a significant reduction in 

emissions compared to present levels. 

K. Determination Under Section 307(d) 

Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), 

EPA proposes to determine that this 

action is subject to the requirements of 

CAA section 307(d), as it revises a FIP 

under CAA section 110(c). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Visibility. 

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

Dated: March 13, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. In § 52.145, revise paragraphs 

(f)(3)(i), (f)(5)(ii)(A) and (B), and (f)(10) 

and remove paragraph (f)(11) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.145 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) NOX emission limitations. The 

owner/operator of each coal-fired unit 

subject to this paragraph (f) shall not 

emit or cause to be emitted NOX in 

excess of the following limitations, in 

pounds per million British thermal 

units (lb/MMBtu) from any coal fired 

unit or group of coal-fired units. Each 

emission limit shall be based on a 

rolling 30-boiler-operating-day average, 

unless otherwise indicated in specific 

paragraphs. 

Coal fired unit or group of 

coal-fired units 

Federal 

emission 

limitation 

Cholla Power Plant Units 2, 3, 

and 4 ..................................... 0.055 

Coronado Generating Station 

Unit 1 ..................................... 0.065 

Coronado Generating Station 

Unit 2 ..................................... 0.080 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) Cholla Power Plant. The 30-day 

rolling average NOX emission rate for 

the group of coal-fired units identified 

as Cholla Power Plant, Units 2, 3, and 

4 shall be calculated for each calendar 

day, even if a unit is not in operation 

on that calendar day, in accordance 

with the following procedure: Step one, 

for each unit, sum the hourly pounds of 

NOX emitted during the current boileroperating day (or most recent boileroperating day if the unit is not in 

operation), and the preceding twentynine (29) boiler-operating days, to 

calculate the total pounds of NOX

emitted over the most recent thirty (30) 

boiler-operating day period for each 

coal-fired unit; step two, for each unit, 

sum the hourly heat input, in MMBtu, 

during the current boiler-operating day 

(or most recent boiler-operating day if 

the unit is not in operation), and the 

preceding twenty-nine (29) boileroperating days, to calculate the total 

heat input, in MMBtu, over the most 

recent thirty (30) boiler-operating day 

period for each coal-fired unit; step 3, 

sum together the total pounds of NOX

emitted from the group of coal-fired 

units over each unit’s most recent thirty 

(30) boiler-operating day period (the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17020 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

most recent 30 boiler-operating day 

periods for different units may be 

different); step four, sum together the 

total heat input from the group of coalfired units over each unit’s most recent 

thirty (30) boiler-operating day period; 

and step five, divide the total pounds of 

NOX emitted from step three by the total 

heat input from step four for each group 

of coal-fired units, to calculate the 30- 

day rolling average NOX emission rate 

for each group of coal-fired units, in 

pounds of NOX per MMBtu, for each 

calendar day. Each 30-day rolling 

average NOX emission rate shall include 

all emissions and all heat input that 

occur during all periods within any 

boiler-operating day, including 

emissions from startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 

(B) Coronado Generating Station. 

Compliance with the NOX emission 

limits for Coronado Unit 1 and 

Coronado Unit 2 in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of 

this section shall be determined on a 

rolling 30 boiler-operating-day basis. 

The 30-boiler-operating-day rolling NOX

emission rate for each unit shall be 

calculated in accordance with the 

following procedure: Step one, sum the 

total pounds of NOX emitted from the 

unit during the current boiler operating 

day and the previous twenty-nine (29) 

boiler operating days; Step two, sum the 

total heat input to the unit in MMBtu 

during the current boiler operating day 

and the previous twenty-nine (29) boiler 

operating days; Step three, divide the 

total number of pounds of NOX emitted 

from that unit during the thirty (30) 

boiler operating days by the total heat 

input to the unit during the thirty (30) 

boiler operating days. A new 30-boileroperating-day rolling average NOX

emission rate shall be calculated for 

each new boiler operating day. Each 30- 

boiler-operating-day average NOX

emission rate shall include all emissions 

that occur during all periods within any 

boiler operating day, including 

emissions from startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 

* * * * * 

(10) Equipment operations.—(i) 

Cholla Power Plant. At all times, 

including periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction, the owner or operator 

of Cholla Power Plant Units 2, 3 and 4 

shall, to the extent practicable, maintain 

and operate each unit including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment in a manner consistent with 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Pollution control 

equipment shall be designed and 

capable of operating properly to 

minimize emissions during all expected 

operating conditions. Determination of 

whether acceptable operating and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Regional Administrator which 

may include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operating 

and maintenance procedures, and 

inspection of each unit. 

(ii) Coronado Generating Station. At 

all times, including periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction, the owner 

or operator of Coronado Generating 

Station Unit 1 and Unit 2 shall, to the 

extent practicable, maintain and operate 

each unit in a manner consistent with 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The owner or 

operator shall continuously operate 

pollution control equipment at all times 

the unit it serves is in operation, and 

operate pollution control equipment in 

a manner consistent with technological 

limitations, manufacturer’s 

specifications, and good engineering 

and good air pollution control practices 

for minimizing emissions. 

Determination of whether acceptable 

operating and maintenance procedures 

are being used will be based on 

information available to the Regional 

Administrator which may include, but 

is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operating and maintenance 

procedures, and inspection of each unit. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–07233 Filed 3–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 141 

[FRL–9925–49–OW] 

Notice of a Public Meeting: 

Regulations Implementing Section 

1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act: 

Prohibition on Use of Lead Pipes, 

Solder and Flux 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) announces a 

public meeting and webinar to obtain 

input on potential revisions to 

regulations for the Prohibition on Use of 

Lead Pipes, Solder and Flux. The Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) prohibits 

the use or introduction into commerce 

of pipes, pipe or plumbing fittings or 

fixtures, solder and flux that are not 

lead free. These revisions are necessary 

due to SDWA amendments enacted by 

Congress in the Reduction of Lead in 

Drinking Water Act of 2011 and the 

Community Fire Safety Act of 2013. 

DATES: The public meeting will be held 

on April 14, 2015 (1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

eastern time). This meeting will also be 

simultaneously broadcast as a webinar, 

available on the Internet. Persons 

wishing to participate in the meeting or 

webinar must pre-register by April 7, 

2015, as described in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

More information is available at the 

following EPA Web site: http://

water.epa.gov/drink/info/lead/

index.cfm. For questions about this 

meeting, contact Brian D’Amico, Office 

of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

telephone (202) 566–1069 or email at 

damico.brian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To 

participate in the webinar, you must 

pre-register by April 7, 2015, at 

https://

leadprohibitionreg.eventbrite.com. If 

you would like to attend in person, 

please contact Brian D’Amico at (202) 

566–1069 or damico.brian@epa.gov 

before or by April 7, 2015. The seating 

for the public meeting and the number 

of connections available for the webinar 

are limited and will be available on a 

first-come, first-served basis. During the 

meeting and webinar, there will be a 

time period available for public 

comments. EPA encourages public input 

and will allocate time to receive verbal 

statements on a first-come, first-served 

basis. Participants will be provided with 

a set time frame for their statements. It 

is preferred that only one person present 

a statement on behalf of a group or 

organization. To ensure adequate time 

for public involvement, individuals or 

organizations interested in presenting 

an oral statement should notify Brian 

D’Amico no later than April 7, 2015. 

How can I get a copy of the meeting/ 

webinar materials? The meeting 

materials will provided for those 

attending the meeting/webinar. EPA 

will post the materials on the Agency’s 

Web site for persons who are unable to 

attend the meeting. Please note, the 

posting of these materials could occur 

after the meeting. 

Special Accommodations: To request 

special accommodations for individuals 

with disabilities, please contact Brian 

D’Amico at (202) 566–1069, or by email 

to damico.brian@epa.gov, at least five 

business days prior to the meeting to 

allow time to process your request. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS