Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20465 

means of preventing accidental 

activation. * * * 

* * * * * 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect 

these changes if our proposal is 

adopted. 

Neva R. Watson, 

Attorney, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. E7–7817 Filed 4–24–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51, 60, 62, 63, 72, 78, 96, 

and 97 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0012; FRL–8302–4] 

RIN 2060–A033 

Revisions to Definition of 

Cogeneration Unit in Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plan, Clean Air 

Mercury Rule (CAMR), and CAMR 

Proposed Federal Plan; Revision to 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 

and Process Heaters; and Technical 

Corrections to CAIR and Acid Rain 

Program Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In 2005, EPA finalized the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to 

address emissions of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) and the 

Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) to 

establish standards of performance for 

mercury (Hg) for coal-fired electric 

utility steam generating units. Both 

CAIR and CAMR include model capand-trade rules that states may adopt to 

meet the applicable requirements. In 

2006, EPA finalized the Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for CAIR and 

also proposed a Federal Plan for CAMR. 

All four rules include an exemption for 

certain cogeneration units. To qualify 

for this exemption, a unit must, among 

other things, meet an efficiency 

standard included in the cogeneration 

unit definition. Today, in light of 

information concerning existing 

biomass-fired cogeneration units that 

may not qualify for the exemption, EPA 

is proposing a change in the 

cogeneration unit definition in CAIR, 

the CAIR model cap-and-trade rules, the 

CAIR FIP, CAMR, and the CAMR model 

cap-and-trade rule, and the proposed 

CAMR Federal Plan. Specifically, EPA 

is proposing to revise the efficiency 

standard in the cogeneration unit 

definition so that the standard would 

apply, with regard to certain units, only 

to the fossil fuel portion of a unit’s 

energy input. This change to the CAIR 

model cap-and-trade rules, CAIR FIP, 

CAMR, and proposed CAMR Federal 

Plan would likely make it possible for 

some additional units to qualify for the 

cogeneration unit exemption in these 

rules. Because it would only affect a 

small number of relatively low emitting 

units, this would have little effect on the 

projected emissions reductions and the 

environmental benefits of these rules. 

EPA is also considering revisions to the 

definition of ‘‘total energy input,’’ a 

term used in the efficiency standard. 

This action also proposes minor 

technical corrections to CAIR and the 

Acid Rain Program rules. Finally, this 

action proposes minor revisions to 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 

and Process Heaters (‘‘boiler MACT’’). 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before June 11, 2007. If 

requested by May 7, 2007, a public 

hearing will be held on May 10, 2007 in 

Washington, DC. For additional 

information on a public hearing, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this preamble. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA–

HQ–OAR–2007–0012, by one of the 

following methods: 

A. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

B. E-mail: A-AND-R-Docket@epa.gov 

C. Mail: Air Docket, ATTN: Docket 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0012, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

D. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 

3334, Washington, DC. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–

0012. 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 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov website 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, and any form of 

encryption, and should 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, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning the proposed 

changes, contact Elyse Steiner, Program 

Development Branch, Clean Air Markets 

Division (MC 6204J), EPA, Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number (202) 343–

9141; fax number (202) 343–2359; 

electronic mail address: 

Steiner.elyse@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

Entities. Categories and entities 

potentially regulated by this action 

include the following: 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
20466 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1All applicability provisions and definitions can 

be found in the CFR or FR in the following 

locations: for CAIR and the CAIR model cap-andtrade rules, 40 CFR 51.123, 51.124, 96.102, 96.104, 

96.202, 96.204, 96.302, and 96.304; for the CAIR 

FIP, 40 CFR 97.102, 97.104, 97.202, 97.204, 97.302, 

and 97.304; for CAMR and the CAMR model capand-trade rule, 40 CFR 60.24(h)(8), 60.4102, and 

60.4104; and for the proposed CAMR Federal Plan, 

Proposed § 62.15902 and § 62.15904. 

Category NAICS 

code 1 Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry ...................................... 221112 Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units. 

Federal government ................... 2 221122 Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units owned by the Federal government. 

State/local/Tribal government .... 2 221122 Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units owned by municipalities. 

921150 Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units in Indian country. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 2 Federal, State, or local government-owned and operated establishments are classified according to the activity in which they are engaged. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

examples of the types of entities EPA is 

now aware could potentially be 

regulated by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed could also be affected. 

To determine whether a facility is 

regulated, carefully examine the 

applicability provisions and definitions 

in CAIR, the CAIR FIP, CAMR, and the 

proposed CAMR Federal Plan.1 All 

references related to applicability and 

definitions for these rules have been 

provided in a single list only once and 

will not be referenced again in this 

proposal to avoid unnecessary 

repetition. 

As discussed below, the pulp and 

paper industry raised concerns 

regarding whether biomass-fired 

cogeneration units could meet the 

definition of ‘‘cogeneration unit’’. The 

following table identifies NAICS codes 

for entities in the pulp and paper 

industry. This table is not intended to 

be exhaustive, but rather the table may 

help identify entities potentially 

affected by today’s action, although 

today’s action may affect entities in 

other industries in addition to pulp and 

paper. 

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry ..................................... 22 Utilities. 

322 Paper Manufacturing Facilities. 

32213 Paperboard Mills. 

322122 Newsprint Mills. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

If you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult your EPA 

Regional Office or EPA’s Clean Air 

Markets Division. 

Worldwide Web. In addition to being 

available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of this action will also be available 

on the Worldwide Web through EPA’s 

Office of Air and Radiation. Following 

signature by the Administrator, a copy 

of this action will be posted on the CAIR 

and CAMR pages at http://www.epa.gov/ 

cair or http://www.epa.gov/camr. 

Public Hearing. If requested, EPA will 

hold a public hearing on today’s 

proposed rule. EPA will hold a hearing 

only if a party notifies EPA by May 7, 

2007, expressing its interest in 

presenting oral testimony on issues 

addressed in today’s proposed rule. Any 

person may request a hearing by calling 

Elyse Steiner at (202) 343–9141 before 5 

p.m. on May 7, 2007. If a public hearing 

is held on today’s notice, it will be held 

on May 10, 2007. Any person who plans 

to attend the hearing should visit the 

EPA’s Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

cair or http://www.epa.gov/camr or 

contact Elyse Steiner at (202) 343–9141 

to learn if a hearing will be held, the 

location, and time that the hearing is 

scheduled to take place. Because the 

hearing will be held at a U.S. 

Government facility, everyone planning 

to attend should be prepared to show 

valid picture identification to the 

security staff in order to gain access to 

the meeting room. 

The hearing, if held, will be limited 

to the subject matter of this document. 

Each commenter’s oral testimony will 

be limited to 5 minutes. EPA encourages 

commenters to provide written versions 

of their oral testimonies either 

electronically (on computer disk or CD 

ROM) or in paper copy. The public 

hearing schedule, including the list of 

speakers, will be posted on EPA’s Web 

site at http://www.epa.gov/cair or 

http://www.epa.gov/camr. Verbatim 

transcripts and written statements will 

be included in the rulemaking docket. 

A public hearing would provide 

interested parties the opportunity to 

present data, views, or arguments 

concerning issues addressed in today’s 

notice. EPA may ask clarifying 

questions during the oral presentations, 

but would not respond to the 

presentations or comments at that time. 

Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as any oral 

comments and supporting information 

presented at a public hearing. 

Outline. The information presented in 

this preamble is organized as follows: 

I. Background 

A. Summary of This Proposed Action 

B. Background on CAIR, the CAIR FIP, 

CAMR, and the Proposed CAMR Federal 

Plan 

C. Applicability to Cogeneration Units 

D. Reason for Proposing a Change for 

Cogeneration Units 

II. EPA’s Proposed Action and Its Impacts 

A. Proposed Change for Cogeneration Units 

B. Emissions Impact of Proposed Action 

C. State Emissions Budgets 

D. Impact of Proposed Action on CAIR and 

CAMR Implementation 

III. Minor Corrections to CAIR and the Acid 

Rain Program Regulations and Minor 

Revisions to the Boiler MACT 

A. CAIR and the Acid Rain Program 

Regulations 

B. Boiler MACT 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20467 

2CAIR provides States flexibility in choosing a 

mechanism for achieving the required NOX and SO2

emission reductions, including flexibility to choose 

which sources to control. CAIR includes model 

trading rules for regionwide, EPA-administered 

NOX and SO2 emissions cap-and-trade programs, 

covering certain fossil-fuel-fired electric generating 

units, which States may choose to adopt in order 

to achieve the required reductions. If a State 

chooses to adopt the EPA-administered trading 

programs then it must control electric generating 

units, as defined in CAIR, and use the same 

applicability criteria as provided in the model capand-trade rules. The applicability criteria in the 

CAIR FIP are the same as in the model cap-andtrade rules. 

3CAMR provides States flexibility in choosing a 

mechanism for ensuring that mercury emissions do 

not exceed the State’s allocated mercury emissions 

budget. All necessary reductions must, however, be 

from coal-fired electric generating units as defined 

in CAMR. CAMR includes a nationwide, EPAadministered Hg emissions cap-and-trade program, 

covering coal-fired electric generating units, which 

States may choose to adopt in order to achieve the 

required reductions. States may also choose an 

alternative approach so long as it ensures that the 

State mercury emissions budget is not exceeded. 

EPA proposes the same applicability requirements 

for the CAMR Federal Plan as set forth in CAMR. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

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 

A. Summary of This Proposed Action 

In this rule, EPA is proposing to 

revise the definition of the term 

‘‘cogeneration unit’’ in CAIR, the CAIR 

model cap-and-trade rules, the CAIR 

FIP, CAMR and CAMR Hg model capand-trade rule, and the proposed CAMR 

Federal Plan. The CAIR model cap-andtrade rules and the CAIR FIP apply to 

large fossil-fuel fired electric generating 

units with certain exceptions.2 The 

CAMR, CAMR Hg model cap-and-trade 

rule, and proposed CAMR Federal Plan 

address large coal-fired electric 

generating units with certain 

exceptions.3 The CAIR model cap-andtrade rules, CAIR FIP, CAMR and CAMR 

Hg model cap-and-trade rule, and 

proposed CAMR Federal Plan all 

provide an exemption for cogeneration 

units meeting certain requirements 

concerning their level of electricity 

sales. All four rules provide that in 

order to qualify for this exemption, a 

unit must, among other things, meet the 

definition of cogeneration unit in the 

rule. In all four rules, a unit cannot meet 

the definition unless it meets a specified 

efficiency standard, i.e., the useful 

power plus one-half of useful thermal 

energy output of the unit must equal no 

less than a certain percentage of the 

total energy input or, in some cases, 

useful power must be no less than a 

certain percentage of total energy input. 

If a unit meets the definition of 

cogeneration unit including the 

efficiency standard, then the unit may 

qualify for the exemption in these rules 

depending on whether it meets 

additional criteria concerning the 

amount of electricity sales from the unit. 

The efficiency standard is applied to all 

energy input to the unit regardless of 

fuel type. The criteria for qualifying as 

a cogeneration unit are discussed in 

more detail below. 

On August 4, 2006 EPA published a 

Notice of Data Availability for EGU NOX

Annual and NOX Ozone Season 

Allocations for the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule Federal Implementation Plan 

Trading Programs (CAIR FIP NODA) (71 

FR 44283). During the period for 

submitting objections concerning the 

CAIR FIP NODA, EPA received 

information concerning the application 

of the efficiency standard in the 

cogeneration unit definition (as defined 

in the CAIR FIP) to biomass-fired 

cogeneration units and a request to 

extend the period for objections. 

Subsequently, EPA extended the period 

for objections—only for objections 

related to biomass cogeneration units—

to February 20, 2007 (72 FR 965). The 

period had previously been extended to 

October 5, 2006 for all objections and 

further extended to January 3, 2007 for 

objections concerning biomass 

cogeneration units. Certain biomass 

cogeneration unit owners and operators 

requested additional time to submit 

objections because of difficulties 

collecting information relating to the 

application of efficiency standards for 

cogeneration units (as defined in the 

CAIR FIP) to biomass cogeneration 

units. 

EPA is treating the information that 

the Agency received concerning the 

application of the efficiency standard in 

the cogeneration unit definition to 

biomass-fired cogeneration units as a 

request for rulemaking to change the 

efficiency standard in the cogeneration 

unit definition and, in light of that 

information, is proposing today to revise 

the efficiency standard in the 

cogeneration unit definition in the CAIR 

model cap-and-trade rules, the CAIR 

FIP, CAMR, and the CAMR model capand-trade rule, and the proposed CAMR 

Federal Plan, so that, in some cases, 

energy input from only fossil fuel would 

be included in the efficiency 

calculation. The proposed revised 

cogeneration unit definition is 

discussed in more detail in section II of 

today’s preamble, below. 

The category of units addressed by 

today’s proposal (existing biomass 

cogeneration units, as discussed further 

below) was brought to our attention by 

the pulp and paper industry. EPA 

requests comment on whether existing 

biomass cogeneration units in other 

identifiable industries, or cogeneration 

units burning other identifiable types of 

non-fossil fuels besides biomass, may 

have characteristics similar to those of 

existing biomass cogeneration units in 

the pulp and paper industry and would 

also be impacted by the proposed rule 

change. 

As discussed below, in today’s action, 

EPA is requesting comment only on the 

efficiency standard in the cogeneration 

unit definition as applied to biomass 

cogeneration units and related 

definitions, on the definition of ‘‘total 

energy input’’ related to the efficiency 

standard as applied to all cogeneration 

units, on the minor technical 

corrections to CAIR and the Acid Rain 

Program Regulations, and on the minor 

revisions to the boiler MACT. We are 

not requesting or accepting comments 

on other parts of CAIR, the CAIR model 

trading rules, the CAIR FIP, CAMR, the 

CAMR model trading rule, or the CAMR 

Federal Plan proposal or reopening any 

issues decided in those actions for 

reconsideration or comment. 

As discussed further in section II of 

today’s preamble, EPA estimated the 

total amount of NOX, SO2, and Hg 

emitted from units that might be 

affected by the proposed change to the 

cogeneration unit definition (i.e., units 

that may not be able to meet the 

efficiency standard as written and that 

are likely to be able to meet the standard 

if changed as proposed) and found the 

estimated emissions for this group of 

units to be very small compared to the 

size of the overall emission caps in 

CAIR and CAMR. 

This action also proposes minor 

technical corrections to CAIR and the 

Acid Rain Program rules. Finally, this 

action proposes minor revisions to 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 

and Process Heaters (‘‘boiler MACT’’). 

B. Background on CAIR, the CAIR FIP, 

CAMR, and the Proposed CAMR Federal 

Plan 

CAIR and the CAIR FIP 

On May 12, 2005, EPA published 

CAIR as a final rule entitled, ‘‘Rule to 

Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 

Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
20468 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Program; Revisions to NOX SIP Call’’ (70 

FR 25162). CAIR requires reductions of 

NOX and/or SO2 emissions that 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment and maintenance 

problems in downwind States with 

respect to the national ambient air 

quality standards for fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) and 8-hour ozone to be 

made across 28 eastern States and the 

District of Columbia. The reductions are 

required in two phases. The first phase 

of NOX reductions starts in 2009 

(covering 2009–2014) and the first phase 

of SO2 reductions starts in 2010 

(covering 2010–2014); the second phase 

of reductions for both NOX and SO2

starts in 2015 (covering 2015 and 

thereafter). 

States must develop State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) to achieve 

the emission reductions required by 

CAIR and have flexibility to determine 

what measures to adopt to achieve the 

necessary reductions and which sources 

to control. One option is to control 

certain electric generating units. In 

CAIR, EPA provided model SO2 and 

NOX cap-and-trade programs, covering 

fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units 

that States can choose to adopt to meet 

the emission reduction requirements in 

a flexible and highly cost-effective 

manner. 

On April 28, 2006, EPA published the 

FIP for CAIR as part of a final rule 

entitled, ‘‘Rulemaking on Section 126 

Petition From North Carolina to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone; Federal 

Implementation Plans To Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone; Revisions to the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule; Revisions to 

the Acid Rain Program’’ (71 FR 25328). 

The CAIR FIP was promulgated for all 

28 States and the District of Columbia 

covered by CAIR and will ensure that 

the required emission reductions are 

achieved on schedule. As the control 

strategy for the FIP, EPA adopted the 

model SO2 and NOX cap-and-trade 

programs for electric generating units 

that EPA provided in CAIR as a control 

option for States, with minor changes to 

account for Federal, rather than State, 

implementation. EPA intends to 

withdraw the FIP for any State in 

coordination with approval of that 

State’s SIP that meets the CAIR 

requirements. 

CAMR and the Proposed CAMR Federal 

Plan 

On May 18, 2005, EPA published the 

CAMR as a final rule entitled 

‘‘Standards of Performance for New and 

Existing Stationary Sources: Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units; Final 

Rule’’ (70 FR 28606). CAMR established 

standards of performance for mercury 

for new and existing coal-fired electric 

generating units and requires mercury 

reductions nationwide. The reductions 

are required in two phases. The first 

phase starts in 2010 (covering 2010–

2017); the second phase starts in 2018 

(covering 2018 and thereafter). 

States must develop State Plans to 

achieve the mercury emission 

reductions required by CAMR and have 

flexibility to determine what measures 

to adopt to achieve the necessary 

reductions. Unlike CAIR, under which 

States may choose which sources to 

control, CAMR requires that States 

control mercury emissions from coalfired electric generating units. In CAMR, 

EPA provided a model Hg cap-and-trade 

program covering coal-fired electric 

generating units that States can choose 

to adopt to meet the emission reduction 

requirements. 

On December 22, 2006, EPA 

published a proposed Federal Plan for 

CAMR in a proposed rule entitled, 

‘‘Revisions of Standards of Performance 

for New and Existing Stationary 

Sources; Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units; Federal Plan 

Requirements for Clean Air Mercury 

Rule; and Revisions of Acid Rain 

Program Rules’’ (71 FR 77100). The 

CAMR Federal Plan was proposed to 

implement the standards of performance 

for coal-fired electric generating units 

located in all States, the District of 

Columbia, and Indian Country covered 

by CAMR (see 40 CFR 60.24(h)(1) listing 

the jurisdictions covered by CAMR) to 

ensure that the required emission 

reductions are achieved on schedule. As 

the control strategy for the Federal Plan, 

EPA proposed to adopt the model Hg 

cap-and-trade program for coal-fired 

electric generating units that EPA 

provided in CAMR as a control option 

for States, with minor changes to 

account for Federal, rather than State, 

implementation. EPA will not adopt the 

Federal Plan for any State with a timely 

submitted and approved State Plan that 

meets the CAMR requirements. EPA 

will withdraw the Federal Plan for any 

State after the Agency approves a State 

Plan that meets the CAMR requirements 

for that State. EPA will similarly 

withdraw the Federal Plan upon its 

approval of a Tribal Plan. 

C. Applicability to Cogeneration Units 

Applicability determinations under 

the CAIR model cap-and-trade rules, the 

CAIR FIP, CAMR and the proposed 

CAMR Federal Plan all turn, in part, on 

whether a unit meets the definition of 

‘‘electric generating unit’’ in the rule. 

The CAIR model cap-and-trade rules 

and the CAIR FIP use a definition of 

‘‘electric generating unit’’ that covers 

certain fossil-fuel-fired units while 

CAMR and the proposed CAMR Federal 

Plan use a similar definition that covers 

certain coal-fired units. 

The CAIR model cap-and-trade rules 

and the CAIR FIP apply to large fossilfuel fired electric generating units with 

certain exceptions. The CAMR and the 

proposed CAMR Federal Plan apply to 

large coal-fired electric generating units 

with certain exceptions. The CAIR 

model cap-and-trade rules, CAIR FIP, 

CAMR and proposed CAMR Federal 

Plan all provide that certain units 

meeting the definition of a 

‘‘cogeneration unit’’ may be excluded 

from the definition of ‘‘electric 

generating unit’’ and therefore exempt 

from the requirements of the rule (These 

rule provisions are commonly referred 

to as the cogeneration unit exemption). 

The cogeneration unit exemption is 

effectively the same under all of these 

rules. In order to fall within the 

definition of cogeneration unit under 

these rules, a unit must meet a specified 

efficiency standard, i.e., the useful 

power plus one-half of useful thermal 

energy output of the unit must equal no 

less than a certain percentage of the 

total energy input or, in some cases, 

useful power must be no less than a 

certain percentage of total energy input. 

If a unit meets the definition of 

cogeneration unit including the 

efficiency standard, then it may qualify 

for the cogeneration unit exemption in 

these rules depending on whether it 

meets additional criteria concerning the 

amount of electricity sales from the unit. 

The efficiency standard in the 

cogeneration unit definition is applied 

to all energy input to the unit regardless 

of fuel type. 

In order to qualify for the 

cogeneration unit exemption in these 

rules, the cogeneration unit must meet 

the following electricity sales criteria: A 

cogeneration unit qualifies for the 

exemption if the unit supplies in any 

calendar year no more than 1⁄3 of its 

potential electric output capacity or 

219,000 MWh, whichever is greater, to 

any utility power distribution system for 

sale. 

CAIR and the CAIR FIP 

With certain exceptions, the CAIR 

model cap-and-trade rules and the CAIR 

FIP cover any stationary, fossil-fuelfired boiler or stationary, fossil-fuelfired combustion turbine serving at any 

time, since the later of November 15, 

1990 or the start-up of the unit’s 

combustion chamber, a generator with 

nameplate capacity of more than 25 

MWe producing electricity for sale. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20469 

4Topping-cycle cogeneration unit means a 

cogeneration unit in which the energy input to the 

unit is first used to produce useful power, including 

electricity, and at least some of the reject heat from 

the electricity production is then used to provide 

useful thermal energy. 

5Bottoming-cycle cogeneration unit means a 

cogeneration unit in which the energy input to the 

unit is first used to produce useful thermal energy 

and at least some of the reject heat from the useful 

thermal energy application or process is then used 

for electricity production. 

6The pulp and paper industry raised concerns 

regarding biomass cogeneration units during the 

period for objections to the CAIR FIP NODA. 

7Black liquor is spent pulping liquor, a 

byproduct of a pulping process used to separate the 

wood fibers used in papermaking from lignin and 

other wood solids. 

Similarly, CAIR refers to such units as 

electric generating units. 

CAIR, the CAIR model cap-and-trade 

rules, and the CAIR FIP define 

‘‘cogeneration unit’’ as a stationary, 

fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, 

fossil-fuel-fired combustion turbine: 

(1) Having equipment used to produce 

electricity and useful thermal energy for 

industrial, commercial, heating, or 

cooling purposes through the sequential 

use of energy; and 

(2) Producing during the 12-month 

period starting on the date the unit first 

produces electricity and during any 

calendar year after the calendar year in 

which the unit first produces 

electricity—

(i) For a topping-cycle cogeneration 

unit,4

(A) Useful thermal energy not less 

than 5 percent of total energy output; 

and 

(B) Useful power that, when added to 

one-half of useful thermal energy 

produced, is not less then 42.5 percent 

of total energy input, if useful thermal 

energy produced is 15 percent or more 

of total energy output, or not less than 

45 percent of total energy input, if 

useful thermal energy produced is less 

than 15 percent of total energy output. 

(ii) For a bottoming-cycle 

cogeneration unit,5 useful power not 

less than 45 percent of total energy 

input. 

CAMR and the Proposed CAMR Federal 

Plan 

With certain exceptions, CAMR 

defines electric generating unit (EGU) as 

a stationary, coal-fired boiler or 

stationary, coal-fired combustion 

turbine in the State serving at any time, 

since the later of November 15, 1990 or 

the start-up of a unit’s combustion 

chamber, a generator with nameplate 

capacity of more than 25 MWe 

producing electricity for sale. An Hg 

Budget unit is an EGU that is subject to 

the requirements of the CAMR Hg 

Budget Trading Program under a State 

Plan approved by the Administrator as 

consistent with EPA’s model Hg trading 

rule or under the proposed CAMR 

Federal Plan. 

The definition of ‘‘cogeneration unit’’

in CAMR, the CAMR model cap-andtrade rule, and the proposed CAMR 

Federal Plan is identical to the 

cogeneration unit definition in CAIR, 

the CAIR model cap-and-trade rules, 

and the CAIR FIP, except that the 

definition in the CAMR and related 

rules refers to stationary, coal-fired 

boilers or stationary, coal-fired 

combustion turbines where the 

definition in the CAIR-related rules 

refers to stationary, fossil-fuel-fired 

boilers or stationary, fossil-fuel-fired 

combustion turbines. 

If a unit meets the criteria concerning 

service of a generator (and so would 

otherwise be an electric generating unit) 

but qualifies as a cogeneration unit, then 

the unit may be excluded from the 

definition of electric generating unit in 

CAIR, or excluded from that definition 

and the regulatory requirements of the 

CAIR model cap-and-trade rules, the 

CAIR FIP, CAMR and the CAMR model 

cap-and-trade rule, and the proposed 

CAMR Federal Plan. In order to qualify 

for this exemption under these rules, the 

cogeneration unit must meet certain 

criteria concerning electricity sales from 

the unit. Specifically, as discussed 

above, a cogeneration unit qualifies for 

the exemption if the unit supplies in 

any calendar year no more than 1⁄3 of its 

potential electric output capacity or 

219,000 MWh, whichever is greater, to 

any utility power distribution system for 

sale. 

D. Reason for Proposing a Change for 

Cogeneration Units 

The purpose of the efficiency 

standard in the cogeneration unit 

definition is to prevent a potential 

loophole where a unit might send only 

a nominal or insignificant amount of 

thermal energy to a process and not 

achieve significant efficiency gains 

through cogeneration, but still qualify as 

a cogeneration unit and potentially be 

excluded from the EGU definition, or 

from the applicability provisions, under 

the CAIR and CAMR and related rules. 

During the period for submitting 

objections concerning the CAIR FIP 

NODA, EPA received information that 

suggested to EPA that the efficiency 

standard in the definition of 

cogeneration unit should be revised. 

The information concerns the 

application of the efficiency standard to 

biomass-fired cogeneration units and 

says that the existing rule ‘‘unfairly 

penalizes co-generation units that burn 

significant amounts of biomass.’’ The 

information indicates that many 

biomass cogeneration units may be 

unable to meet the efficiency standard 

because ‘‘biomass, when burned as a 

fuel, has a lower thermal efficiency for 

conversion to steam than fossil fuels, 

such as coal, oil and natural gas.’’

Previously, in developing CAIR, EPA 

indicated that it expected ‘‘most back 

pressure units burning * * * biomass to 

meet the efficiency standard’’ (see 

Technical Support Document (TSD) for 

CAIR on Cogeneration Unit Efficiency 

Calculations). The Agency believed at 

the time that most existing biomass 

cogeneration units would meet the 

efficiency standard, and thus would be 

potentially exempt cogeneration units. 

EPA now is re-examining whether the 

efficiency standard is appropriate for all 

biomass-fired cogeneration units. 

EPA believes that the vast majority of 

existing biomass cogeneration units are 

operated by the pulp and paper 

industry.6 The biomass fuels typically 

fired by pulp and paper units are woodbased biomass and black liquor.7 Both 

biomass fuels have relatively high 

moisture content that prevents them 

from burning as efficiently as coal and 

other fossil fuels. The moisture content 

of these biomass fuels can range from 

approximately 40 to over 60 percent. In 

comparison, the moisture content of 

bituminous coal is relatively low, less 

than 10 percent. Higher moisture 

content requires that more of the heating 

value of the fuel goes into evaporating 

that moisture during combustion. The 

evaporated moisture (and the heat used 

to evaporate it) escapes up the stack—

subtracting from the efficiency of the 

unit. Therefore, the higher the moisture 

content in the biomass and the higher 

the proportion of biomass fuel used, the 

more difficult it will be for a unit to 

meet the efficiency standard in the 

cogeneration unit definition. 

Conversely, the greater the amount of 

heat input from fossil fuels, the easier it 

is for a unit to meet the efficiency 

standard because of the reduced need 

for energy to heat and vaporize the 

moisture in the fuel. 

Certain additional factors may also 

contribute to lower efficiencies for 

existing biomass cogeneration units in 

the pulp and paper industry. EPA 

believes that, as compared to large 

electric power plants that are optimized 

for power generation, many of the 

existing process-optimized units in the 

pulp and paper industry use 

significantly lower design steam 

pressure and temperature conditions at 

the steam turbine inlet. For example, a 

large power plant turbine might be 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
20470 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

designed to use steam at 2,400 psig and 

1,000 °F, whereas a turbine-generator in 

a pulp and paper plant might be using 

steam at conditions below 900 psig and 

800 °F. These lower steam conditions 

reduce the efficiency of the overall 

cogeneration cycle, which was 

optimized for process needs, not for 

electric power generation. Moreover, 

many steam-turbine generators in the 

pulp and paper industry may have been 

installed by retrofit—a circumstance 

that may have exacerbated the problem 

because the boiler was designed before 

cogeneration by the unit was 

contemplated and thus before the 

impact of the design on thermal 

efficiency became a consideration. 

In addition, existing biomass 

cogeneration units (boilers and steam 

turbines) in the pulp and paper industry 

generally are relatively small, and 

smaller units are typically less efficient 

than larger units. The existing smaller 

units generally do not incorporate highefficiency design practices and their 

energy losses (such as radiation loss for 

a boiler and mechanical loss for a 

turbine-generator set) per unit of energy 

input are inherently higher. The 

combination of relatively high fuel 

moisture content and small boiler size 

results in efficiencies as low as 60 

percent for the biomass boiler itself, 

compared to typical large fossil fuelfired boiler efficiencies ranging to above 

85 percent. 

In summary, EPA believes that 

existing biomass cogeneration units as a 

group have a particular set of 

characteristics that together may make it 

difficult for many units to meet the 

efficiency standard in the cogeneration 

unit definition unless the units co-fire 

significant amounts of fossil fuel, such 

as coal. These characteristics are: Fuels 

with relatively high moisture content, 

units designed for relatively low 

pressure and temperature conditions for 

industrial processes, and relatively 

small boilers and steam turbines that are 

inherently less efficient due to their 

size. EPA recognizes that there are some 

existing biomass cogeneration units 

(e.g., those that co-fire coal, natural gas, 

or oil for a large portion of their heat 

input) that might be able to meet the 

efficiency standard, as discussed in the 

following section. 

The cogeneration unit definition 

finalized in the CAIR model cap-andtrade rules, the CAIR FIP, CAMR, and in 

the proposed CAMR Federal Plan, 

includes all energy input in the 

efficiency calculation. EPA believes that 

the inclusion of energy input from all 

fuels—rather than from fossil fuels 

only—has the unanticipated and 

unintended consequence of making it 

very difficult for existing biomass 

cogeneration units to qualify as 

cogeneration units unless they co-fire 

significant amounts of fossil fuel, such 

as coal. Preventing these existing units 

from qualifying as cogeneration units is 

not consistent with the purposes of the 

efficiency standard. These units were 

originally designed to and still do 

produce significant amounts of useful 

thermal energy (relative to their total 

energy output) and achieve efficiency 

gains over non-cogeneration units. 

Under these circumstances, application 

of the currently written efficiency 

standard to existing biomass 

cogeneration units does not seem to 

promote the purposes of the standard. In 

addition, application of this standard as 

written has the paradoxical result that 

existing biomass cogeneration units 

burning greater amounts of coal 

(therefore likely having greater 

emissions) are much more likely to meet 

the efficiency requirement and thus 

qualify as cogeneration units exempt 

from emission limits under the CAIR 

model cap-and-trade programs and 

CAMR model cap-and-trade rule, while 

existing biomass cogeneration units 

burning less coal (therefore likely 

having lower emissions) are less likely 

to meet the requirement and qualify for 

the exemption. 

For these reasons, EPA is proposing to 

revise the efficiency standard in the 

cogeneration unit definition such that 

energy input from only the fossil fuel 

portion of the input would be included 

in the efficiency calculation for existing 

units. The proposed change is discussed 

in more detail below. 

II. EPA’s Proposed Action and Its 

Impacts 

A. Proposed Change for Cogeneration 

Units 

EPA is proposing today to revise the 

efficiency standard in the cogeneration 

unit definition in CAIR, the CAIR model 

cap-and-trade rules, the CAIR FIP, 

CAMR and the CAMR model cap-andtrade rule, and the proposed CAMR 

Federal Plan, to permit existing boilers 

to include only energy input from fossil 

fuel in the efficiency calculation rather 

than energy input from all fuels. This 

change would make it more likely that 

existing units burning biomass and 

cogenerating electricity and useful 

thermal energy could meet the 

efficiency standard and qualify as 

exempt cogeneration units under these 

rules. EPA proposes to change the 

cogeneration unit efficiency standard for 

boilers but not for combustion turbines 

because combustion turbines generally 

do not fire biomass. The proposed 

methodology for determining thermal 

efficiency of a cogeneration unit under 

a revised efficiency standard is set forth 

in detail in the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) that accompanies this 

notice. 

Further, EPA requests comment on 

whether the efficiency standard in the 

cogeneration unit definition should be 

revised to include language explaining 

how to calculate a unit’s ‘‘total energy 

input’’ or alternatively, whether the 

definition of ‘‘total energy input’’ itself 

should be revised. As discussed in the 

TSD, EPA recognizes that there may be 

alternative formulas for calculating a 

unit’s total energy input, which is a 

critical value in determining its 

efficiency under either the existing or 

any revised efficiency standard. EPA 

requests comment on the TSD, 

including the methodology for 

determining efficiency and the formula 

for calculating total energy input. EPA 

also asks for comments on whether to 

revise the efficiency standard or revise 

the definition of ‘‘total energy input’’

currently in CAIR, the CAIR model capand-trade rules, the CAIR FIP, CAMR 

and CAMR Hg model cap-and-trade 

rule, and the proposed CAMR Federal 

Plan in order to specify the formula that 

should be used to calculate a unit’s total 

energy input. 

EPA proposes to change the efficiency 

standard only for existing units because 

the Agency believes that units built in 

the future to cogenerate electricity and 

useful thermal energy (regardless of the 

percentage of heat input from biomass) 

can be designed to meet the efficiency 

standard as currently written. EPA 

proposes to change the efficiency 

standard only for units whose 

construction commenced on or before 

April 25, 2007 and units with 

equipment used in cogenerating where 

construction of such equipment 

commenced on or before April 25, 2007. 

If a unit that commenced construction 

on or before April 25, 2007 was not 

designed for cogeneration but is 

retrofitted for and commences 

cogeneration after that date, EPA 

proposes that such a unit be treated the 

same as a new cogeneration unit and so 

would be covered by the existing 

efficiency standard. EPA believes that 

with the proper planning and design 

decisions, these units are capable of 

operating more efficiently than those 

built before the efficiency standard 

became a consideration (i.e., on or 

before April 25, 2007). Retrofits can 

make use of available technology such 

as back pressure turbines that allow the 

unit to operate at higher efficiency, 

install equipment upgrades, and select 

adequate steam and temperature 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20471 

conditions. Further, these units are 

likely to have higher utilization after 

they commence cogeneration because 

they will get higher returns on 

investments by running the units more 

to make electricity for use on site, 

purchasing less electricity and/or selling 

some electricity to the grid. The 

increased utilization likely will result in 

greater emissions. Therefore, they 

should either be covered by the 

requirements of the cap-and-trade 

programs or operate efficiently enough 

to qualify for the cogeneration unit 

exemption. 

The Agency proposes a new 

definition for the term ‘‘construction 

commenced’’ (see proposed regulatory 

text at end of preamble). The proposed 

definition is based on, and essentially 

combines, the definitions of 

‘‘commenced’’ and ‘‘construction’’ in 40 

CFR 60.2 (Standards of Performance for 

New Stationary Sources). As an 

alternative, EPA requests comment on 

using, as a basis for the new definition, 

the definition of ‘‘commence’’ in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(9) (Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality) and the 

definition of ‘‘construction’’ in 40 CFR 

60.2. While the definition of 

‘‘commenced’’ in 40 CFR 60.2 requires 

that the owner or operator start or be 

contractually obligated to start and 

complete within a reasonable time a 

continuous program of construction, the 

definition of ‘‘commence’’ in 40 CFR 

52.21 is narrower and, for example, 

requires either the start of on-site (e.g., 

not just off-site construction of 

equipment) or a contractual obligation 

that cannot be cancelled or modified 

without substantial loss to the owner or 

operator. 

The proposed revision to the 

cogeneration unit definition would 

apply only to boilers where construction 

of the unit and of its cogeneration 

equipment commenced on or before the 

above-referenced cut-off date and would 

have the effect of applying the following 

definition to such boilers (see also 

proposed regulatory text): 

Cogeneration unit means a stationary, 

fossil-fuel-fired boiler (for the CAIR 

model rules and the CAIR FIP) or 

stationary, coal-fired boiler (for CAMR 

and the proposed CAMR Federal Plan): 

(1) Having equipment used to produce 

electricity and useful thermal energy for 

industrial, commercial, heating, or 

cooling purposes through the sequential 

use of energy; and 

(2) Producing during the 12-month 

period starting on the date the unit first 

produces electricity and during any 

calendar year after the calendar year in 

which the unit first produces 

electricity—

(i) For a topping-cycle cogeneration 

unit, 

(A) Useful thermal energy not less 

than 5 percent of total energy output; 

and 

(B) Useful power that, when added to 

one-half of useful thermal energy 

produced, is not less then 42.5 percent 

of total energy input from fossil fuel, if 

useful thermal energy produced is 15 

percent or more of total energy output, 

or not less than 45 percent of total 

energy input from fossil fuel, if useful 

thermal energy produced is less than 15 

percent of total energy output. 

(ii) For a bottoming-cycle 

cogeneration unit, useful power not less 

than 45 percent of total energy input 

from fossil fuel. 

This revised definition would not 

apply to boilers failing to meet the 

commence construction requirements. 

For such units the cogeneration unit 

definition—and the efficiency standard 

in particular—would remain as 

finalized in the CAIR model rules, the 

CAIR FIP and CAMR, and in the 

proposed CAMR Federal Plan. 

Nor would the revised definition 

apply to combustion turbines. For 

combustion turbines (regardless of their 

commence construction dates) the 

cogeneration unit definition—and the 

efficiency standard in particular—

would remain as finalized in the CAIR 

model rules, the CAIR FIP and CAMR, 

and in the proposed CAMR Federal 

Plan. 

However, as discussed above, EPA is 

also requesting comment on revising the 

efficiency standard, or the definition of 

‘‘total energy input,’’ to specify the 

formula for calculating a unit’s total 

energy input. Any such revision would 

be applicable in determining the 

efficiency of all units under the 

cogeneration unit definition whether or 

not the units are biomass cogeneration 

units that would be covered by a 

limitation on the categories of fuel 

included in determining energy input. 

Although EPA proposes to revise the 

cogeneration unit definition only for 

boilers where construction of the units 

and their cogeneration equipment 

commenced on or before April 25, 2007, 

the Agency requests comment on the 

choice of the cut-off date for the revised 

cogeneration unit definition, whether 

any specific, different cut-off date 

should be used, and whether the 

cogeneration unit definition should be 

revised for all units regardless of their 

commence construction dates. 

Additionally, EPA requests comment on 

not changing the cogeneration unit 

definition at all. 

EPA also requests comment on an 

alternative proposal that would revise 

the efficiency standard in the 

cogeneration unit definition to 

specifically exclude heat input from 

biomass fuel, rather than revising the 

standard to include heat input from 

fossil fuel only. This alternative 

proposal would narrowly limit the 

exclusion of heat input to the non-fossil 

fuel (i.e., biomass) whose high moisture 

content, combined with the other factors 

discussed above (e.g., relatively low 

pressure and temperature unit design 

conditions and relatively small boilers 

and steam turbines), would be the basis 

for EPA’s proposed exemption. The heat 

input from other non-fossil fuels (e.g., 

non-fossil-fuel process gases) that lack 

the same level of moisture and that may 

not be predominantly used in these 

types of units would not be excluded 

from the efficiency calculation. This 

would avoid expanding the 

cogeneration unit exemption to units 

that cogenerate but lack the unique 

combination of characteristics on which 

EPA proposes to base the exemption. 

The efficiency calculation would be 

based on total energy input excluding 

input from biomass fuel. EPA requests 

comment on using the following 

definition of the term ‘‘biomass’’ in 26 

U.S.C. 48B(c)(4), which was added to 

the Internal Revenue Code by Section 

1307 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(Pub. L. 109–58), for purposes of the 

alternative proposed revision to the 

efficiency standard: 

Biomass means: 

(1) Any agricultural or plant waste; 

(2) Any byproduct of wood or paper 

mill operations, including lignin in 

spent pulping liquors; and 

(3) Any other products of forestry 

maintenance; 

(4) Provided that the term ‘Biomass’

does not include paper that is 

commonly recycled. 

The Agency also requests comment on 

whether a different definition of 

biomass should be used for this 

alternative proposal. 

B. Emissions Impact of Proposed Action 

EPA analyzed the emissions impact of 

this proposed action using the 

methodology explained below. For this 

analysis, EPA used Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) data because 

detailed EPA data was not available. 

Most units potentially affected by 

today’s proposed rule change have not 

been required to report to EPA in the 

past under existing programs such as 

the Acid Rain Program or the NOX SIP 

Call. While EPA has data about many of 

these sources as part of the National 

Emission Inventory (NEI), the NEI does 

not provide information at the unit level 

necessary to determine if units are 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
20472 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

8Analysis of electricity sales data was based on 

two years of data, 1999 and 2000. 

9Arkansas is included in CAIR for the ozoneseason NOX program only, not for the annual NOX

and SO2 programs. Because these NOX emission 

estimates include annual NOX emissions for units 

in Arkansas, the estimates slightly overstate the 

potential impact of the proposed rule change for 

units in Arkansas. 

cogenerating or selling electricity to the 

grid. Therefore, NEI data is not 

sufficient to make estimates regarding 

which units might be affected by today’s 

proposed rule change. We used EIA data 

to determine which units would 

potentially be affected and to estimate 

the potential impacts of the proposed 

change. 

For the CAIR model rules and the 

CAIR FIP, we generated a list of biomass 

cogeneration units that serve generators 

with nameplate capacity greater than 25 

MW in CAIR states. We assumed that all 

of these units could potentially be 

included in the CAIR and CAIR FIP 

trading programs because any biomass 

unit might use fossil fuel for start-up, 

combustion stabilization, or 

enhancement of electricity and steam 

production. From this list we removed 

units that reported to EIA that they do 

not have the ability to sell power to the 

grid; we assumed that these units would 

not be affected by the proposed revision 

to the cogeneration unit definition 

because they are not producing 

electricity for sale and would not be 

potentially included in the CAIR and 

CAIR FIP trading programs. We also 

removed from the list some units that 

reported having the ability to sell power 

to the grid; because their historical 

electricity sales data reported to EIA 

indicated sales above the threshold in 

the cogeneration unit definition 8 (i.e., 

more than 1⁄3 potential electric output 

capacity or 219,000 MWh supplied to a 

utility power generation system for 

sale), we assumed these units would not 

qualify for the cogeneration unit 

exemption even with the proposed 

revision of the cogeneration unit 

definition. For the remaining units on 

the list, based on fuel use data from EIA 

and assumed performance of the units 

with various fuels, we analyzed whether 

these units are likely to meet the 

efficiency standard in the cogeneration 

unit definition as currently written. We 

removed from the list any units that our 

analysis indicated are likely to meet the 

efficiency standard as written because 

their status under the CAIR model capand-trade rules or the CAIR FIP would 

not be affected by the proposed change. 

After taking the above steps, the 

remaining units on the list are ones that 

may be affected by the proposed rule 

change, i.e., units that we assumed 

would not be exempt from state rules 

incorporating the CAIR model trading 

rules or the CAIR FIP trading programs 

as written, but that could become 

exempt if the proposed rule change is 

finalized as proposed. We estimated 

annual NOX and SO2 emissions from 

this remaining group of units. See Table 

II–1. 

For CAMR and the proposed CAMR 

Federal Plan, using EIA data we 

generated a list of cogeneration units 

burning both coal and biomass that 

serve a generator with nameplate 

capacity greater than 25 MW in CAMR 

states, i.e., nationwide. Then we took 

the same steps as described above for 

the CAIR analysis, with the remaining 

units being ones that may be affected by 

the proposed rule change, i.e., units that 

we assumed would not be exempt from 

CAMR or the CAMR Federal Plan as 

written but may become exempt with 

the proposed rule change. We estimated 

annual Hg emissions from this 

remaining group of units. See Table II–

1. 

As shown in the table, emissions from 

units whose status under the CAIR 

model rules or the CAIR FIP may be 

affected by the proposed rule change are 

estimated to be on the order of 25,000 

tons per year for both NOX and SO2. 

These emissions are quite small 

compared to the size of the regionwide 

emission caps under CAIR, which are 

1.5 and 1.3 million tons of NOX for the 

first and second phases of the annual 

NOX program, respectively, and 3.7 and 

2.6 million tons of SO2 for the first and 

second phases of the SO2, program, 

respectively (i.e., for NOX, about 1.6 

percent of the phase I cap and 1.9 

percent of the phase II cap, and for SO2

about 0.6 percent of the phase I cap and 

0.9 percent of the phase II cap).9

Emissions from units whose status 

under CAMR or the proposed CAMR 

Federal Plan may be affected by the 

proposed rule change are estimated to 

be on the order of 0.02 tons of Hg per 

year. These emissions are very small 

compared to the size of the nationwide 

emission caps under CAMR which are 

38 and 15 tons of Hg for the first and 

second phases, respectively (i.e., less 

than 0.1 percent of the phase I cap and 

about 0.1 percent of the phase II cap). 

Another way to look at the magnitude 

of emissions represented by units that 

may be affected by the proposed rule 

change is to compare emissions from 

this group of units to emissions from 

biomass cogeneration units that we 

assumed are already exempt because 

they can meet the efficiency standard as 

currently written. Table II–2 shows 

estimated annual NOX, SO2, and Hg 

emissions for this group of units. (Note 

that this group excludes units that 

reported to EIA that they do not have 

the ability to sell power to the grid and 

units that reported the ability to sell 

power and whose historic sales exceed 

the electricity sales threshold for the 

exemption.) As shown in the table, the 

emissions from the group of units whose 

regulatory status we assumed would 

change under this proposed rule change 

are less than emissions from the group 

of biomass cogeneration units who we 

assumed are already exempt from these 

rules because they can meet the 

efficiency standard as currently written. 

EPA’s analysis also suggests that, on 

average, the estimated emissions per 

unit are lower from the group whose 

regulatory status we assumed would 

change compared to the group we 

assumed are already exempt from these 

rules because they can meet the 

efficiency standard. It is expected that 

emission rates at units burning 

proportionally more biomass—which is 

the group whose regulatory status we 

assumed would change—will generally 

be lower than emission rates at units 

burning less biomass. 

It is important to note that EPA 

emissions estimates in Tables II–1 and 

II–2 are based on a rough estimate of the 

universe of units that might be affected 

by the proposed rule change. More 

detailed information for each unit is 

necessary in order to make a definitive 

determination as to whether the 

particular unit would be able to meet 

the efficiency standard as written or as 

proposed to be modified. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20473 

TABLE II–1.—ESTIMATE OF BIOMASS COGENERATION UNITS POTENTIALLY EXCLUDED FROM CAIR AND CAMR BY

PROPOSED RULE CHANGE AND ESTIMATE OF THEIR EMISSIONS

CAIR 

NOX

CAIR 

SO2 CAMR Hg 

Estimated number of units potentially affected by proposed rule change ............................................ 55 46 6 

Estimated annual emissions from units potentially affected by proposed rule change (tons) ............. 24,200 23,800 0.02 (40 lbs) 

TABLE II–2.—ESTIMATE OF BIOMASS COGENERATION UNITS ASSUMED EXCLUDED FROM CAIR AND CAMR AND ESTIMATE

OF THEIR EMISSIONS

CAIR 

NOX

CAIR 

SO2 CAMR Hg 

Estimated number of units assumed to meet efficiency standard as written ....................................... 31 28 30 

Estimated annual emissions from units assumed to meet the efficiency standard as written (tons) ... 22,000 59,200 0.24 (480 lbs) 

Finally, units that might become 

exempt cogeneration units if today’s 

proposed rule changes are finalized may 

be required to make emission reductions 

under programs other than CAIR or 

CAMR. Federal requirements exist to 

protect areas of most concern, including 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) requirements for sources in 

proximity to specially protected Class 1 

areas. A review of available information 

indicates that the majority (about twothirds) of the cogeneration units that 

may be affected by the proposed rule 

change may be required to install NOX

and SO2 controls in response to BART 

requirements. It is also likely that 

biomass cogeneration units that co-fire 

coal that may become exempt units 

under today’s proposed rule change will 

be required to comply with the boiler 

MACT requirements, which include 

mercury emission limits. 

C. State Emissions Budgets 

EPA does not propose to change the 

NOX, SO2, or Hg State emission budgets 

under CAIR and CAMR. As discussed 

above, the estimated amount of 

emissions from units potentially 

affected by today’s proposed action is 

minimal compared to the size of the 

applicable regionwide (CAIR) and 

nationwide (CAMR) caps. 

In addition, States have made 

significant progress toward the 

implementation of CAIR and CAMR 

based on the emission budgets that were 

established in those rules. Proposing 

and finalizing revised State emission 

budgets would take substantial effort by 

many States and EPA and considerably 

delay CAIR and CAMR implementation 

in order to make slight reductions in 

emissions caps. The CAIR emission 

budgets are in 40 CFR 51.123(e)(2) and 

(q)(2) and 51.124(e)(2) and CAMR 

emission budgets are in 40 CFR 

60.24(h)(3). Discussion of development 

of the CAIR and CAMR State emission 

budgets are in 70 FR 25162 and 70 FR 

28606, respectively. 

The Agency also seeks comment on 

changing the budgets to reflect this 

change in the definition of cogeneration 

unit. 

D. Impact of Proposed Action on CAIR 

and CAMR Implementation 

The Agency recognizes that States 

have made significant progress toward 

the implementation of CAIR and CAMR 

and that finalizing this proposed change 

in the cogeneration unit definition and 

in the applicability provisions of the 

CAIR model rules and CAMR would 

require States to change CAIR SIPs and 

CAMR State Plans. If EPA finalizes 

today’s proposed rule change, we will 

carefully consider the timing of the 

regulatory action in relation to the 

implementation timeline. The Agency 

understands that there may be 

implementation concerns regarding 

today’s proposal and seeks comments 

on what those implementation concerns 

are. The Agency is particularly 

interested in comments regarding timing 

of this action in relation to 

implementation activities. 

EPA realizes that some States may 

allocate allowances to cogeneration 

units that might be affected by today’s 

proposal before the proposal is 

finalized. If the proposal is finalized, 

some such units may no longer be 

required to hold allowances. The 

Agency believes that this could be 

addressed by the State’s SIP revision or 

State Plan. For example, the SIP 

revision or State Plan adopting revisions 

making some units exempt from the 

allowance-holding requirement could 

require the affected units to surrender 

their allocations for inclusion in the 

State’s new unit set-aside. If the State 

would require the unit to surrender 

their allocations, the SIP revision or 

State Plan should indicate how 

allowances would be handled. Note that 

a State could also choose not to require 

the units to surrender allowances even 

though the units were no longer covered 

by the rule. A State has flexibility to 

choose how it allocates allowances, 

although the allocations must be 

consistent with the State’s approved 

allocation methodology. EPA seeks 

comment on the potential impact of the 

revision of the cogeneration unit 

definition and the applicability 

provisions on the allowance allocation 

process. 

EPA is also seeking comment on an 

alternative proposal whereby the 

Agency would modify the CAIR to allow 

States intending to join the EPAadministered CAIR trading programs to 

choose which cogeneration unit 

definition to use. The CAIR currently 

allows States to join the EPAadministered trading programs only if 

they adopt the model rules with limited 

modifications. Under this alternative 

proposal, EPA would change the 

cogeneration unit definition in the 

model trading rules, but allow States to 

join the EPA-administered trading 

programs even if they continued to use 

the existing cogeneration unit definition 

in the model trading rules. Thus, States 

could participate in the EPAadministered trading programs 

regardless of whether they choose to use 

the definition as currently written or 

any revised definition that may be 

finalized in this rulemaking. In the 

CAIR FIP, EPA would change the 

cogeneration unit definition as proposed 

today. 

Under this alternative, a State that 

chose to use the cogeneration unit 

definition as currently written would 

not need to revise the definition in the 

State’s CAIR SIP. This could lead to 

slightly different applicability 

provisions among the States. EPA 

recognizes that some States may have 

laws that prohibit the State from having 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
20474 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

more stringent requirements than the 

requirements mandated by EPA (as 

discussed above, EPA believes that the 

proposed change would have only a 

slight impact on emissions). EPA seeks 

comment on whether this alternative 

would ease any implementation 

concerns. Although this alternative 

would provide an additional area of 

flexibility for States in the CAIR model 

cap-and-trade rules, EPA does not 

contemplate adding this flexibility to 

the abbreviated SIP revision option that 

was finalized in the CAIR FIP. If EPA 

changes the cogeneration unit definition 

in the CAIR FIP as proposed, States that 

chose to use an abbreviated SIP revision 

to allocate allowances under a FIP could 

modify their allocation method to 

accommodate the revised FIP 

cogeneration unit definition if they 

chose to do so. 

EPA does not propose under this 

alternative that States could decide 

which definition of cogeneration unit to 

use for State Plans under CAMR, 

however, because CAMR specifies the 

category of units from which States 

must obtain emission reductions (coalfired electric generating units as defined 

in the rule) in contrast to CAIR where 

States have flexibility in the choice of 

sources to control. The Agency seeks 

comment on whether this flexibility 

could or should be an alternative for 

CAMR State Plans. (In any case, EPA 

does not contemplate this alternative as 

an added flexibility for States to 

implement under the proposed CAMR 

Federal Plan.) Similar to States under 

the CAIR FIP, States may choose their 

allocation method for allowances under 

the CAMR proposed Federal Plan using 

a State allocation methodology. 

III. Minor Corrections to CAIR and the 

Acid Rain Program Regulations and 

Minor Revisions to the Boiler MACT 

A. CAIR and the Acid Rain Program 

Regulations 

In addition to the above-described 

rule revisions, EPA is proposing certain 

minor corrections to CAIR, the CAIR 

model cap-and-trade rules, and the Acid 

Rain Program regulations. On April 28, 

2006, EPA promulgated a final rule 

revising several definitions used in both 

the CAIR and in the CAIR model capand-trade rules. While the rule text in 

the April 28, 2006 final rule 

incorporated the revisions to the 

definitions in the CAIR model cap-andtrade rules, the final rule mistakenly did 

not also include rule text reflecting 

conforming changes to the definitions of 

the same terms in the CAIR, i.e., to the 

definitions for ‘‘Allocation or 

allocation’’, ‘‘Combustion turbine’’, 

‘‘Nameplate capacity’’, and ‘‘Maximum 

design heat input’’. EPA proposes in 

today’s action to implement these 

conforming changes in the definitions 

for these terms in § 51.123(cc) and (q) 

and § 51.124(q) for the reasons 

explained in that final action. 

With regard to the CAIR model capand-trade rules, EPA is proposing a 

minor correction of the definition of 

‘‘Permitting authority’’. For all States 

subject to CAIR, this term is intended to 

include the agencies authorized to issue 

CAIR permits under the regulations 

approved by the Administrator for the 

EPA-administered CAIR cap-and-trade 

programs. Some States have 

incorporated by reference, or intend to 

incorporate by reference, the permitting 

provisions of the CAIR model cap-andtrade rules. However, many other States 

have promulgated, or intend to 

promulgate, their own permitting 

provisions concerning the processing 

and issuing of CAIR permits under the 

EPA-administered cap-and-trade 

programs. The existing definition refers 

only to permitting authorities issuing 

CAIR permits under the permitting 

provisions of the CAIR model cap-andtrade rules and not to permitting 

authorities governed by States’ own 

permitting provisions that may be 

approved into SIPs by the Administrator 

under CAIR. Today’s proposed 

correction—i.e., the elimination of the 

references, in the current ‘‘Permitting 

authority’’ definition, to subparts CC, 

CCC, and CCCC of the CAIR model capand-trade rules—would correct this 

technical problem. 

With regard to the Acid Rain Program 

regulations, EPA is today proposing 

minor corrections to two parts of the 

regulations. In Part 72, EPA is proposing 

a non-substantive correction in wording 

in the Certificate of Representation 

requirements so that the provision 

would have the same wording as 

comparable provisions in the CAIR 

model cap-and-trade rules. This would 

facilitate using a single Certificate of 

Representation form for all of these 

trading programs. In Part 78, EPA is 

proposing corrections that would make 

it clear that the administrative appeals 

procedures apply to all final actions of 

the Administrator under the EPAadministered cap-and-trade programs 

whether the programs are governed by 

the CAIR model cap-and-trade rule 

provisions that many States are 

incorporating by reference or whether 

the programs are governed by the State’s 

own cap-and-trade rules approved by 

the Administrator. 

B. Boiler MACT 

EPA is also proposing in today’s 

action a change to clarify the provision 

in the boiler MACT that explicitly 

excludes from that rule ‘‘mercury 

budget units covered by 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart HHHH’’ (40 CFR 63.7491(c)). 

EPA intended to exclude from the boiler 

MACT all units subject to CAMR (i.e., 

all electric generating units (EGU’s) as 

defined in CAMR) and not just those 

units (i.e., Hg Budget units) that become 

subject to the EPA-administered Hg 

Budget Trading Program under 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart HHHH (see 71 FR 77109 

explaining that EPA had amended the 

boiler MACT to exclude ‘‘units subject 

to CAMR’’). All EGUs under CAMR, 

whether covered by a State Plan that 

adopts the Hg Budget Trading Program 

or that adopts other controls that meet 

CAMR requirements, are subject to the 

State EGU Hg budgets established by 

CAMR. In excluding EGUs from the 

boiler MACT, EPA did not intend to 

distinguish among EGUs based on 

whether the State in which an EGU is 

located is participating in the Hg Budget 

Trading Program. 

Under today’s proposal, EGUs (i.e., Hg 

Budget units) in States participating in 

that program would continue to be 

excluded from the boiler MACT, and the 

regulatory language would be revised to 

include, in the exclusion, all EGUs 

covered by CAMR. In order to properly 

characterize all of the units that EPA 

originally intended to exclude, EPA 

proposes essentially to replace, in 40 

CFR 63.7491(c), the term ‘‘Mercury 

Budget Unit’’ by the broader term 

‘‘Electric Generating Unit’’. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and is therefore not subject to 

review under the EO. 

This action proposes relatively minor 

revisions to the definition of 

‘‘cogeneration unit’’ in the CAIR model 

cap-and-trade rules, CAIR FIP, CAMR, 

including the CAMR model cap-andtrade rule, and the proposed CAMR 

Federal Plan. It also proposes some 

other minor, technical rule revisions to 

the CAIR, the Acid Rain Program, and 

the boiler MACT. For today’s action, 

EPA is relying on the economic analysis 

conducted for CAIR, CAMR, and the 

boiler MACT that are presented in the 

Regulatory Impact Analyses for those 

actions. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20475 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. This 

action proposes relatively minor 

revisions to the definition of 

‘‘cogeneration unit’’ in the CAIR model 

cap-and-trade rules, CAIR FIP, CAMR, 

including the model cap-and-trade rule, 

and the proposed CAMR Federal Plan. 

It also proposes some other minor, 

technical rule revisions to the CAIR, the 

Acid Rain Program, and the boiler 

MACT. The paperwork reduction 

requirements for this action are satisfied 

through the Information Collection 

Requests (ICRs) submitted to OMB for 

review and approval as part of CAIR, 

CAMR and the boiler MACT. 

The OMB has previously approved 

the information collection requirements 

contained in the existing CAIR, CAMR, 

and boiler MACT regulations (70 FR 

25313, May 12, 2005, 70 FR 28643, May 

18, 2005, and 70 FR 55248 September 

13, 2004, respectively) under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. For the CAIR 

and CAMR ICRs, OMB has assigned 

control numbers 2060–0570 and 2060–

0567, respectively (EPA No. 2152.02 

and 2137.02). OMB also has previously 

approved the information collection 

requirements contained in the existing 

boiler MACT regulations and has 

assigned OMB control number 2060–

0551 (EPA No. 2028.02). A copy of the 

OMB approved ICRs may be obtained 

from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by 

calling (202) 566–1672. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, 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 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 today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, EPA has determined that 

this action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. In determining 

whether a rule has a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, the impact of 

concern is any significant adverse 

economic impact on small entities, 

since the primary purpose of the 

regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if, among other possibilities, the 

rule relieves regulatory burden, or 

otherwise has a positive economic effect 

on all of the small entities subject to the 

rule. 

EPA is proposing to revise the thermal 

efficiency standard in the cogeneration 

unit definition, which exists in the 

CAIR model trading rules, CAIR FIP, 

CAMR, including the CAMR model 

trading rule, and proposed CAMR 

Federal Plan. As a result, some 

additional cogeneration units will likely 

be exempt from the CAIR FIP, CAMR 

and the proposed CAMR Federal Plan. 

We have therefore concluded that the 

changes to the CAIR FIP, CAMR, 

including the CAMR model trading rule, 

and the proposed CAMR Federal Plan in 

today’s proposed rule will not have any 

significant adverse impact on small 

entities and may relieve regulatory 

burden on some small entities that 

would have been subject to these 

programs in the absence of today’s 

proposed rule change. 

CAIR and the CAIR model trading 

rules do not establish requirements 

applicable to small entities and thus a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required for the revisions to the CAIR 

model trading rules. CAIR requires 

States to submit SIP revisions to achieve 

the necessary emission reductions and 

provides model trading rules that the 

States may adopt to achieve these 

reductions. However, because States 

have the discretion under CAIR to 

choose the sources to regulate and the 

emissions reductions to be achieved by 

the regulated sources, EPA cannot 

predict the effect of the change to the 

definition in the CAIR model rules on 

small entities. In States that choose to 

adopt the model rules with the modified 

definition of cogeneration unit, the 

likely result would be the exemption of 

some additional cogeneration units from 

the EPA-administered CAIR cap-andtrade programs. 

With regard to CAMR, the change to 

the cogeneration definition is likely to 

result in some additional cogeneration 

units becoming exempt from CAMR, as 

well as from the EPA-administered 

CAMR cap-and-trade program, 

including potentially some small 

entities. Because the change is likely to 

relieve regulatory burden, the change 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The proposed technical changes to the 

boiler MACT clarify that any EGU 

subject to CAMR (whether or not the 

EGU is in a State that is participating in 

the EPA-administered Hg cap-and-trade 

program) is excluded from the boiler 

MACT. This change will not have any 

significant adverse impact on small 

entities and may relieve regulatory 

burden on some small entities that 

would have been subject to the boiler 

MACT in the absence of today’s 

proposed rule change. 

The other proposed rule revisions 

would not make any substantive 

changes in the requirements of the 

existing rules and, therefore, would not 

have any potential impacts on small 

entities. We continue to be interested in 

the potential impacts of the proposed 

rule on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
20476 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

(UMRA), establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under UMRA section 202, 2 

U.S.C. 1532, EPA generally must 

prepare a written statement, including a 

cost-benefit analysis, for any proposed 

or final rule that ‘‘includes any Federal 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 

* * * in any one year.’’ A ‘‘Federal 

mandate’’ is defined under UMRA 

section 421(6), 2 U.S.C. 658(6), to 

include a ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ and a ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate.’’ A ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ in turn, is 

defined to include a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments,’’ except for, among other 

things, a duty that is ‘‘a condition of 

Federal assistance’’ (UMRA section 

421(5)(A)(i)(I), 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i)). A 

‘‘Federal private sector mandate’’

includes a regulation that ‘‘would 

impose an enforceable duty upon the 

private sector,’’ with certain exceptions 

(UMRA section 421(7)(A), 2 U.S.C. 

658(7)(A)). 

Before promulgating an EPA rule for 

which a written statement is needed 

under UMRA section 202, UMRA 

section 205, 2 U.S.C. 1535, generally 

requires EPA to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. 

EPA prepared a written statement 

meeting the requirements of section 202 

of UMRA for the final CAIR and CAMR 

and boiler MACT rulemaking processes. 

Most of the changes proposed in today’s 

action relate to the definition of 

cogeneration unit, which results in a 

minor change in the applicability 

criteria for the CAIR model trading 

rules, CAIR FIP, CAMR, including the 

CAMR model trading rule, and the 

proposed CAMR Federal Plan that will 

not significantly alter the impacts of 

these rules. The technical change 

proposed for the boiler MACT in today’s 

action relates to the exclusion of EGUs 

and makes that exclusion consistent 

with the intended scope of the boiler 

MACT. The other proposed rule changes 

would make no substantive changes in 

the requirements of the existing rules. 

Thus, the analyses already prepared for 

CAIR, CAMR, and the boiler MACT are 

applicable to today’s action. 

In summary, today’s rule contains no 

Federal mandates for State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

because this action is likely to actually 

relieve regulatory burden by making 

more units eligible for the cogeneration 

unit exemption. Furthermore, as EPA 

stated in the final CAIR and CAMR, EPA 

is not directly establishing any 

regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including Tribal 

governments. Thus, EPA is not obligated 

to develop under UMRA section 203 a 

small government agency plan. 

Furthermore, in a manner consistent 

with the intergovernmental consultation 

provisions of UMRA section 204, EPA 

carried out consultations with the 

governmental entities affected by this 

rule. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

the EO to include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’

This proposed rule 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Thus, EO 13132 

does not apply to this proposed rule. In 

the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed rule 

from State and local officials. 

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, November 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.’’ This proposal does not 

have ‘‘Tribal implications’’ as specified 

in EO 13175. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks’’

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies 

to any rule that (1) is determined to be 

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined 

under EO 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, 

Section 5–501 of the EO directs the 

Agency to 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 proposed rule is not subject to 

the Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

proposed rule would result in little 

change in emissions levels and the 

environmental benefits projected in the 

final CAIR and CAMR because the likely 

effect of the proposed rule would be to 

exempt a small number of units with a 

very small amount of emissions 

compared to the overall emissions caps. 

Similarly, the proposed change to the 

boiler MACT would result in little 

change in emissions levels and 

projected environmental benefits. The 

health and safety risks are essentially 

unchanged from those analyzed in 

CAIR, the CAIR FIP, CAMR, the 

proposed CAMR Federal Plan, and the 

boiler MACT. 

The public is invited to submit or 

identify peer-reviewed studies and data, 

of which EPA may not be aware, that 

assessed results of early life exposure to 

SO2, NOX or Hg. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20477 

10U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. 

Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice 

Concerns in EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analyses. 

Office of Federal Activities, Washington, DC, April, 

1998. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113; 

15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory and procurement activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impracticable. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

material specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, business 

practices) developed or adopted by one 

or more voluntary consensus bodies. 

The NTTAA requires EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, with 

explanations when EPA decides not to 

use available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed action does not 

propose the use of any additional 

technical standards beyond those cited 

in the final CAIR, CAMR and boiler 

MACT. Therefore, EPA is not 

considering the use of any additional 

voluntary consensus standards for this 

action. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations,’’ requires Federal agencies 

to consider the impact of programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations. According to EPA 

guidance,10 agencies are to assess 

whether minority or low-income 

populations face risks or a rate of 

exposure to hazards that are significant 

and that ‘‘appreciably exceed or is likely 

to appreciably exceed the risk or rate to 

the general population or to the 

appropriate comparison group.’’ (EPA, 

1998) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12898, EPA expects this proposal to 

have no disproportionate negative 

impacts on minority or low income 

populations because the emissions 

reduced by CAIR and CAMR remain 

essentially the same. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 51 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Coal, Electric 

power plants, Intergovernmental 

relations, Metals, Natural gas, Nitrogen 

oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide. 

40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

Substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 63 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 72 

Acid rain, Air pollution control, 

Carbon dioxide, Electric utilities, 

Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen 

oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

40 CFR Part 78 

Environmental protection, Acid rain, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Electric utilities, 

Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide. 

40 CFR Part 96 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Intergovernmental relations, Air 

pollution, control, Nitrogen oxides, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

40 CFR Part 97 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur 

dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 16, 2007. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, parts 51, 60, 62, 63, 72, 78, 

96, and 97 of chapter 1 of title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations are 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 51—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401–

7671q. 

2. Section 51.123(cc) is amended as 

follows: 

a. In the definition of ‘‘Allocate or 

allocation’’, by revising the word 

‘‘source’’ to read ‘‘source or other 

entity’’; 

b. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

unit’’, by revising, in paragraph (2), the 

words ‘‘calendar year after which’’ to 

read ‘‘calendar year after the calendar 

year in which’’ and by adding a new 

paragraph (3); 

c. In paragraph (2) of the definition of 

‘‘Combustion turbine’’, by revising the 

words ‘‘any associated heat recovery 

steam generator’’ to read ‘‘any 

associated duct burner, heat recovery 

steam generator,’’; 

d. By revising the definition of 

‘‘Maximum design heat input’’; 

e. In the definition of ‘‘Nameplate 

capacity’’, by revising the words ‘‘other 

deratings) as specified’’ to read ‘‘other 

deratings as of such installation as 

specified’’ and by revising the words 

‘‘maximum amount as specified’’ to read 

‘‘maximum amount as of such 

completion as specified’’; and 

f. By adding in alphabetical order a 

new definition of ‘‘Construction 

commenced’’ to read as follows: 

§ 51.123 Findings and requirements for 

submission of State implementation plan 

revisions relating to emissions of oxides of 

nitrogen pursuant to the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule. 

* * * * * 

(cc) * * * 

Cogeneration unit means * * * 

(3) Provided that the total energy 

input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and 

(2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the 

unit’s total energy input only from fossil 

fuel if the unit is a boiler—

(i) For which construction 

commenced on or before April 25, 2007; 

and 

(ii) Having equipment used to 

produce electricity and useful thermal 

energy through sequential use of energy, 

for which construction commenced on 

or before April 25, 2007. 

* * * * * 

Construction commenced means, with 

regard to a boiler or equipment under 

paragraph (3) of the definition of 

Cogeneration unit in this paragraph, that 

the owner or operator has undertaken, 

or entered into a contractual obligation 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
20478 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

to undertake and complete within a 

reasonable time, a continuous program 

of fabrication, erection, or installation of 

the boiler or equipment. 

* * * * * 

Maximum design heat input means 

the maximum amount of fuel per hour 

(in Btu/hr) that a unit is capable of 

combusting on a steady state basis as of 

the initial installation of the unit as 

specified by the manufacturer of the 

unit. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 51.124(q) is amended as 

follows: 

a. In the definition of ‘‘Allocate or 

allocation’’, by revising the word 

‘‘source’’ to read ‘‘source or other 

entity’’; 

b. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

unit’’, by revising, in paragraph (2), the 

words ‘‘calendar year after which’’ to 

read ‘‘calendar year after the calendar 

year in which’’ and by adding a new 

paragraph (3); 

c. In paragraph (2) of the definition of 

‘‘Combustion turbine’’, by revising the 

words ‘‘any associated heat recovery 

steam generator’’ to read ‘‘any 

associated duct burner, heat recovery 

steam generator,’’; 

d. By revising the definition of 

‘‘Maximum design heat input’’; 

e. In the definition of ‘‘Nameplate 

capacity’’, by revising the words ‘‘other 

deratings) as specified’’ to read ‘‘other 

deratings as of such installation as 

specified’’ and by revising the words 

‘‘maximum amount as specified’’ to read 

‘‘maximum amount as of such 

completion as specified’’; and 

f. By adding in alphabetical order a 

new definition of ‘‘Construction 

commenced’’ to read as follows: 

§ 51.124 Findings and requirements for 

submission of State implementation plan 

revisions relating to emissions of sulfur 

dioxide pursuant to the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule. 

* * * * * 

(q) * * * 

Cogeneration unit means * * * 

(3) Provided that the total energy 

input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and 

(2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the 

unit’s total energy input only from fossil 

fuel if the unit is a boiler—

(i) For which construction 

commenced on or before April 25, 2007; 

and 

(ii) Having equipment used to 

produce electricity and useful thermal 

energy through sequential use of energy, 

for which construction commenced on 

or before April 25, 2007. 

* * * * * 

Construction commenced means, with 

regard to a boiler or equipment under 

paragraph (3) of the definition of 

Cogeneration unit in this paragraph, that 

the owner or operator has undertaken, 

or entered into a contractual obligation 

to undertake and complete within a 

reasonable time, a continuous program 

of fabrication, erection, or installation of 

the boiler or equipment. 

* * * * * 

Maximum design heat input means 

the maximum amount of fuel per hour 

(in Btu/hr) that a unit is capable of 

combusting on a steady state basis as of 

the initial installation of the unit as 

specified by the manufacturer of the 

unit. 

* * * * * 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

4. The authority citation for part 60 is 

revised to read as follows: 

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

5. Section 60.24(h)(8) is amended as 

follows: 

a. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

unit’’, by adding a new paragraph (3); 

and 

b. By adding in alphabetical order a 

new definition of ‘‘Construction 

commenced’’ to read as follows: 

§ 60.24 Emission standards and 

compliance schedules. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(8) * * * 

Cogeneration unit means * * * 

(3) Provided that the total energy 

input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and 

(2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the 

unit’s total energy input only from fossil 

fuel if the unit is a boiler—

(i) For which construction 

commenced on or before April 25, 2007; 

and 

(ii) Having equipment used to 

produce electricity and useful thermal 

energy through sequential use of energy, 

for which construction commenced on 

or before April 25, 2007. 

* * * * * 

Construction commenced means, with 

regard to a boiler or equipment under 

paragraph (3) of the definition of 

Cogeneration unit in this paragraph, that 

the owner or operator has undertaken, 

or entered into a contractual obligation 

to undertake and complete within a 

reasonable time, a continuous program 

of fabrication, erection, or installation of 

the boiler or equipment. 

* * * * * 

6. Section 60.4102 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

unit’’, by adding a new paragraph (3); 

and 

b. By adding in alphabetical order a 

new definition of ‘‘Construction 

commenced’’ to read as follows: 

§ 60.4102 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Cogeneration unit means * * * 

(3) Provided that the total energy 

input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and 

(2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the 

unit’s total energy input only from fossil 

fuel if the unit is a boiler—

(i) For which construction 

commenced on or before April 25, 2007; 

and 

(ii) Having equipment used to 

produce electricity and useful thermal 

energy through sequential use of energy, 

for which construction commenced on 

or before April 25, 2007. 

* * * * * 

Construction commenced means, with 

regard to a boiler or equipment under 

paragraph (3) of the definition of 

Cogeneration unit in this section, that 

the owner or operator has undertaken, 

or entered into a contractual obligation 

to undertake and complete within a 

reasonable time, a continuous program 

of fabrication, erection, or installation of 

the boiler or equipment. 

* * * * * 

PART 62—[AMENDED] 

7. The authority citation for Part 62 

continues to read as follows: 

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

8. Section 62.15902 as proposed on 

December 22, 2006 (71 FR 77110) is 

amended as follows: 

a. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

unit’’, by adding a new paragraph (3); 

and 

b. By adding in alphabetical order a 

new definition of ‘‘Construction 

commenced’’ to read as follows: 

§ 62.15902 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Cogeneration unit means * * * 

(3) Provided that the total energy 

input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and 

(2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the 

unit’s total energy input only from fossil 

fuel if the unit is a boiler—

(i) For which construction 

commenced on or before April 25, 2007; 

and 

(ii) Having equipment used to 

produce electricity and useful thermal 

energy through sequential use of energy, 

for which construction commenced on 

or before April 25, 2007. 

* * * * * 

Construction commenced means, with 

regard to a boiler or equipment under 

paragraph (3) of the definition of 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20479 

Cogeneration unit in this section, that 

the owner or operator has undertaken, 

or entered into a contractual obligation 

to undertake and complete within a 

reasonable time, a continuous program 

of fabrication, erection, or installation of 

the boiler or equipment. 

* * * * * 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

9. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

10. Section 63.7491 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7491 Are any boilers or process 

heaters not subject to this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(c) An electric utility steam generating 

unit (including a unit covered by 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Da) or an electric 

generating unit as defined in 40 CFR 

60.24(h)(8) (including a Hg Budget unit 

covered by the provisions of a State Plan 

approved under 40 CFR 60.24(h)(6)). 

* * * * * 

PART 72—PERMITS REGULATION 

11. The authority citation for part 72 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601 and 7651 et seq. 

12. Section 72.24 is amended, in 

paragraph (a)(9) introductory text, by 

revising the words ‘‘life-of-the-unit, firm 

power contractual arrangements’’ to 

read ‘‘a life-of-the-unit, firm power 

contractual arrangement’’. 

PART 78—APPEAL PROCEDURES 

13. The authority citation for part 78 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 

7411, 7426, 7601, and 7651, et seq. 

14. Section 78.1 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 78.1 Purpose and scope. 

(a)(1) This part shall govern appeals of 

any final decision of the Administrator 

under subpart HHHH of part 60 of this 

chapter or State regulations approved 

under § 60.24(h)(6)(i) or (ii) of this 

chapter, subpart LLL of part 62 of this 

chapter, part 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, or 77 of 

this chapter, subparts AA through II of 

part 96 of this chapter or State 

regulations approved under 

§ 51.123(o)(1) or (2) of this chapter, 

subparts AAA through III of part 96 of 

this chapter or State regulations 

approved under § 51.124(o)(1) or (2) of 

this chapter, subparts AAAA through 

IIII of part 96 of this chapter or State 

regulations approved under 

§ 51.123(aa)(1) or (2) of this chapter, or 

part 97 of this chapter; provided that 

matters listed in § 78.3(d) and 

preliminary, procedural, or intermediate 

decisions, such as draft Acid Rain 

permits, may not be appealed. All 

references in paragraph (b) of this 

section and in § 78.3 subpart HHHH of 

part 60 of this chapter, to subparts AA 

through II of part 96 of this chapter, 

subparts AAA through III of part 96 of 

this chapter, and subparts AAAA 

through IIII of part 96 of this chapter 

shall be read to include the comparable 

provisions in State regulations approved 

under § 60.24(h)(6)(i) or (ii) of this 

chapter, § 51.123(o)(1) or (2) of this 

chapter, § 51.124(o)(1) or (2) of this 

chapter, and § 51.123(aa)(1) or (2) of this 

chapter, respectively. 

* * * * * 

PART 96—[AMENDED] 

15. The authority citation for part 96 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 

7601, and 7651, et seq. 

16. Section 96.102 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

unit’’, by adding a new paragraph (3); 

b. In the definition of ‘‘Permitting 

authority’’, by removing the words ‘‘in 

accordance with subpart CC of this 

part’’; and 

c. By adding in alphabetical order a 

new definition of ‘‘Construction 

commenced’’ to read as follows: 

§ 96.102 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Cogeneration unit means * * * 

(3) Provided that the total energy 

input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and 

(2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the 

unit’s total energy input only from fossil 

fuel if the unit is a boiler—

(i) For which construction 

commenced on or before April 25, 2007; 

and 

(ii) Having equipment used to 

produce electricity and useful thermal 

energy through sequential use of energy, 

for which construction commenced on 

or before April 25, 2007. 

* * * * * 

Construction commenced means, with 

regard to a boiler or equipment under 

paragraph (3) of the definition of 

Cogeneration unit in this section, that 

the owner or operator has undertaken, 

or entered into a contractual obligation 

to undertake and complete within a 

reasonable time, a continuous program 

of fabrication, erection, or installation of 

the boiler or equipment. 

* * * * * 

17. Section 96.202 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

unit’’, by adding a new paragraph (3); 

b. In the definition of ‘‘Permitting 

authority’’, by removing the words ‘‘in 

accordance with subpart CCC of this 

part’’; and 

c. By adding in alphabetical order a 

new definition of ‘‘Construction 

commenced’’ to read as follows: 

§ 96.202 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Cogeneration unit means * * * 

(3) Provided that the total energy 

input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and 

(2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the 

unit’s total energy input only from fossil 

fuel if the unit is a boiler—

(i) For which construction 

commenced on or before April 25, 2007 

and 

(ii) Having equipment used to 

produce electricity and useful thermal 

energy through sequential use of energy, 

for which construction commenced on 

or before April 25, 2007. 

* * * * * 

Construction commenced means, with 

regard to a boiler or equipment under 

paragraph (3) of the definition of 

Cogeneration unit in this section, that 

the owner or operator has undertaken, 

or entered into a contractual obligation 

to undertake and complete within a 

reasonable time, a continuous program 

of fabrication, erection, or installation of 

the boiler or equipment. 

* * * * * 

18. Section 96.302 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

unit’’, a new paragraph (3); 

b. In the definition of ‘‘Permitting 

authority’’, by removing the words ‘‘in 

accordance with subpart CCCC of this 

part’’; and 

c. By adding in alphabetical order a 

new definition of ‘‘Construction 

commenced’’ to read as follows: 

§ 96.302 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Cogeneration unit means * * * 

(3) Provided that the total energy 

input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and 

(2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the 

unit’s total energy input only from fossil 

fuel if the unit is a boiler—

(i) For which construction 

commenced on or before April 25, 2007; 

and 

(ii) Having equipment used to 

produce electricity and useful thermal 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
20480 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

energy through sequential use of energy, 

for which construction commenced on 

or before April 25, 2007. 

* * * * * 

Construction commenced means, with 

regard to a boiler or equipment under 

paragraph (3) of the definition of 

Cogeneration unit in this section, that 

the owner or operator has undertaken, 

or entered into a contractual obligation 

to undertake and complete within a 

reasonable time, a continuous program 

of fabrication, erection, or installation of 

the boiler or equipment. 

* * * * * 

19. The authority citation for part 97 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 

7426, 7601, and 7651, et seq. 

20. Section 97.102 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

unit’’, by adding a new paragraph (3); 

b. In the definition of ‘‘Permitting 

authority’’, by removing the words ‘‘in 

accordance with subpart CC of this 

part’’; and 

c. By adding in alphabetical order a 

new definition of ‘‘Construction 

commenced’’ to read as follows: 

§ 97.102 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Cogeneration unit means * * * 

(3) Provided that the total energy 

input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and 

(2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the 

unit’s total energy input only from fossil 

fuel if the unit is a boiler—

(i) For which construction 

commenced on or before April 25, 2007; 

and 

(ii) Having equipment used to 

produce electricity and useful thermal 

energy through sequential use of energy, 

for which construction commenced on 

or before April 25, 2007. 

* * * * * 

Commencing construction means, 

with regard to a boiler or equipment 

under paragraph (3) of the definition of 

Cogeneration unit in this section, that 

the owner or operator has undertaken, 

or entered into a contractual obligation 

to undertake and complete within a 

reasonable time, a continuous program 

of fabrication, erection, or installation of 

the boiler or equipment. 

* * * * * 

21. Section 97.202 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

unit’’, by adding a new paragraph (3); 

b. In the definition of ‘‘Permitting 

authority’’, by removing the words ‘‘in 

accordance with subpart CCC of this 

part’’; and 

c. By adding in alphabetical order a 

new definition of ‘‘Construction 

commenced’’ to read as follows: 

§ 97.202 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Cogeneration unit means * * * 

(3) Provided that the total energy 

input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and 

(2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the 

unit’s total energy input only from fossil 

fuel if the unit is a boiler—

(i) For which construction 

commenced on or before April 25, 2007; 

and 

(ii) Having equipment used to 

produce electricity and useful thermal 

energy through sequential use of energy, 

for which construction commenced on 

or before April 25, 2007. 

* * * * * 

Construction commenced means, with 

regard to a boiler or equipment under 

paragraph (3) of the definition of 

Cogeneration unit in this section, that 

the owner or operator has undertaken, 

or entered into a contractual obligation 

to undertake and complete within a 

reasonable time, a continuous program 

of fabrication, erection, or installation of 

the boiler or equipment. 

* * * * * 

22. Section 97.302 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

unit’’, by adding a new paragraph (3); 

b. In the definition of ‘‘Permitting 

authority’’, by removing the words ‘‘in 

accordance with subpart CCCC of this 

part’’; and 

c. By adding in alphabetical order a 

new definition of ‘‘Construction 

commenced’’ to read as follows: 

§ 97.302 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Cogeneration unit means * * * 

(3) Provided that the total energy 

input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and 

(2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the 

unit’s total energy input only from fossil 

fuel if the unit is a boiler—

(i) For which construction 

commenced on or before April 25, 2007; 

and 

(ii) Having equipment used to 

produce electricity and useful thermal 

energy through sequential use of energy, 

for which construction commenced on 

or before April 25, 2007. 

* * * * * 

Construction commenced means, with 

regard to a boiler or equipment under 

paragraph (3) of the definition of 

Cogeneration unit in this section, that 

the owner or operator has undertaken, 

or entered into a contractual obligation 

to undertake and complete within a 

reasonable time, a continuous program 

of fabrication, erection, or installation of 

the boiler or equipment. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–7536 Filed 4–24–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2006–0163; FRL–8305–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Montana; Missoula Carbon Monoxide 

Redesignation to Attainment, 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes, and Approval of 

Related Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Montana. On May 27, 2005, the 

Governor of Montana submitted a 

request to redesignate the Missoula 

‘‘moderate’’ carbon monoxide (CO) 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

CO National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). The Governor also 

submitted a CO maintenance plan 

which includes transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emission 

budgets (MVEB) for 2000, 2010, and 

2020. In addition, EPA is proposing to 

approve CO periodic emission 

inventories for 1993 and 1996 for the 

Missoula nonattainment area that the 

State had previously submitted. This 

action is being taken under section 110 

of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 25, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–

OAR–2006–0163, by one of the 

following methods: 

—http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

—E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov and 

fiedler.kerri@epa.gov. 

—Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

—Mail: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air 

and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS