62264 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. Under figure 2–1, 

paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, an 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’

and a ‘‘Categorical Exclusion 

Determination’’ are not required for this 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 165.1711 to read as follows: 

§ 165.1711 Security Zones; Waters of the 

Seventeenth Coast Guard District. 

(a) Definitions. As used in this 

section—

Alaska Marine Highway System vessel 

(‘‘AMHS vessel’’) means the M/V 

AURORA, M/V CHENEGA, M/V 

COLUMBIA, M/V FAIRWEATHER, M/V 

KENNICOTT, M/V LECONTE, M/V 

LITUYA, M/V MALASPINA, M/V 

MATANUSKA, M/V TAKU, and the 

M/V TUSTUMENA. 

Designated on Scene Representative 

means any U.S. Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

who has been authorized by the District 

Commander or local Captain of the Port 

(COTP), as defined in 33 CFR part 3, 

subpart 3.85, to act on his or her behalf, 

or other Federal, State or local law 

enforcement agency personnel 

designated by the COTP. 

Escorted HCPV or AMHS vessel 

means a HCPV or AMHS vessel that is 

accompanied by one or more Coast 

Guard assets or Federal, State or local 

law enforcement agency assets as listed 

below: 

(1) Coast Guard surface or air asset 

displaying the Coast Guard insignia. 

(2) State, Federal or local law 

enforcement assets displaying the 

applicable agency markings and or 

equipment associated with the agency. 

Federal Law Enforcement Officer 

means any federal government law 

enforcement officer who has authority 

to enforce federal criminal laws. 

High Capacity Passenger Vessel 

(‘‘HCPV’’) means a passenger vessel 

greater than 100 feet in length that is 

authorized to carry more than 500 

passengers for hire. 

State law enforcement Officer means 

any State or local government law 

enforcement officer who has authority 

to enforce State or local criminal laws. 

(b) Location. The following areas are 

security zones: All waters within 100 

yards around escorted High Capacity 

Passenger Vessels or escorted Alaska 

Marine Highway System vessels in the 

navigable waters of the Seventeenth 

Coast Guard District as defined in 33 

CFR 3.85–1, from surface to bottom. 

(c) Regulations. (1) No vessel may 

approach within 100 yards of an 

escorted HCPV or escorted AMHS vessel 

during their transits within the 

navigable waters of the Seventeenth 

Coast Guard District. 

(2) Moored or anchored vessels that 

are overtaken by this moving zone must 

remain stationary at their location until 

the escorted vessel maneuvers at least 

100 yards away. 

(3) The local Captain of the Port may 

notify the maritime and general public 

by marine information broadcast of the 

periods during which individual 

security zones have been activated by 

providing notice in accordance with 33 

CFR 165.7. 

(4) Persons desiring to transit within 

100 yards of a moving, escorted HCPV 

or AMHS vessel in the Seventeenth 

Coast Guard District must contact the 

designated on scene representative on 

VHF channel 16 (156.800 MHz), VHF 

channel 13 (156.650 MHz) to receive 

permission. 

(5) If permission is granted to transit 

within 100 yards of an escorted HCPV 

or AMHS vessel, all persons and vessels 

must comply with the instructions of 

the designated on scene representative. 

Dated: October 18, 2005. 

James C. Olson, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Seventeenth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 05–21576 Filed 10–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[OAR–2002–0056; FRL–7990–2] 

RIN 2060–AN32 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 

and Process Heaters 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

reconsideration of final rule; proposed 

amendments. 

SUMMARY: On September 13, 2004, EPA 

promulgated national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for industrial, commercial, 

and institutional boilers and process 

heaters. In this action, EPA is proposing 

a limited number of amendments to the 

NESHAP. In response to a petition for 

reconsideration, EPA is proposing and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 62265 

requesting comment on an amendment 

allowing for consolidated testing of 

commonly vented boilers under the 

emission averaging provision. In 

addition, EPA is proposing amendments 

and technical corrections to the final 

rule to clarify some applicability and 

implementation issues raised by 

stakeholders subject to the final rule. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before December 15, 

2005. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by November 10, 2005, a public 

hearing will be held on November 15, 

2005. For further information on the 

public hearing and requests to speak, 

see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

OAR–2002–0058 (Legacy Docket ID No. 

A–96–47) by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/docket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-rdocket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information. Center, U.S. EPA, 

Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, U.S. 

EPA, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., 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. OAR–2022–0058 (Legacy 

Docket ID No. A–96–47). The 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/epa.gov/ 

edocket, 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 EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA 

EDOCKET and the Federal 

regulations.gov websites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means that 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 EDOCKET or regulations.gov, 

your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will be held on November 15, 

2005 at the EPA facility, Research 

Triangle Park, NC, or an alternative site 

nearby. Persons interested in attending 

the hearing or wishing to present oral 

testimony should notify Ms. Pamela 

Garrett at least 2 days in advance of the 

public hearing (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble). The public hearing will 

provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views, or 

arguments concerning this notice. 

Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for today’s notice, 

including both Docket ID No. OAR–

2002–0058 and Legacy Docket ID No. 

A–96–47. The official public docket 

consists of the documents specifically 

referenced in today’s notice, any public 

comments received, and other 

information related to the notice. All 

items may not be listed under both 

docket numbers, so interested parties 

should inspect both docket numbers to 

ensure that they have received all 

materials relevant to today’s notice. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., 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 

EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Air 

and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, U.S. EPA, Room B102, 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 

Pubic Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general and technical information, 

contact Mr. James Eddinger, 

Combustion Group, Emission Standards 

Division, Mailcode: C439–01, U.S. EPA, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number (919) 541–5426; fax 

number: (919) 541–5450; e-mail address: 

eddinger.jim@epa.gov. For questions 

about the public hearing, contact Ms. 

Pamela Garrett, Combustion Group, 

Emission Standards Division, Mailcode: 

C439–01, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541–7966; e-mail address: 

garrett.pamela@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Outline: The information presented in 

this preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this notice apply to me? 

B. How do I submit CBI? 

C. How do I obtain a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background 

III. Today’s Action 

IV. Reconsideration of Emissions Averaging 

Provision 

V. Proposed Clarifying Amendments and 

Technical Corrections 

A. What clarifications are proposed to the 

definitions? 

B. What are the proposed corrections? 

C. What are the impacts associated with 

the amendments? 

VI. 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: Consultations 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

I. General Information 

A. Does this notice apply to me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

affected by today’s notice include: 

62266 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

1 In addition to the petitions for reconsideration, 

two petitions for judicial review of the final rule 

were filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia by NRDC, Sierra Club, and EIP 

(No. 04–1385, D.C. Cir.) and American Municipal 

Power—Ohio and the Ohio cities of Dover, 

Hamilton, Orrville, Painesville, Shelby, and St. 

Marys (No. 04–1386, D.C. Cir.). The two cases have 

been consolidated. Eleven additional parties have 

filed petitions to intervene: American Home 

Furnishings Alliance, Council of Industrial Boiler 

Owners, American Forest and Paper Association, 

American Chemistry Council, National 

Petrochemical and Refiners Association, American 

Category SIC 

code a

NAICS 

code b Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Any industry using a boiler or process heater as defined in the final rule.24 321 Manufacturers of lumber and wood products. 

26 322 Pulp and paper mills. 

28 325 Chemical manufacturers. 

29 324 Petroleum refineries, and manufacturers of coal 

products. 

30 316, 326, 339 Manufacturers of rubber and miscellaneous plastic 

products. 

33 331 Steel works. 

34 332 Electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and 

coloring. 

37 336 Manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and accessories. 

49 221 Electric, gas, and sanitary services. 

80 622 Health services. 

82 611 Educational services. 

aStandard Industrial Classification. 

b North American Industrial Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by today’s notice. To determine 

whether your facility is affected by 

today’s notice, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.7485 

of the final rule. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of today’s 

notice to a particular entity, consult Mr. 

Jim Eddinger listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. How do I submit CBI? 

Do not submit this information to EPA 

through EDOCKET, regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI in a disk or CD ROM that you 

mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to the one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

C. How do I obtain a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of today’s 

notice also will be available on the 

World Wide Web (WWW) through 

EPA’s Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following the Administrator’s 

signature, a copy of this notice will be 

posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed rules 

at http://www/epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The 

TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. 

II. Background 

On September 13, 2004 (69 FR 55218), 

we promulgated the NESHAP for 

industrial, commercial, and institutional 

boilers and process heaters as subpart 

DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63. In 

accordance with section 112(d) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), the NESHAP 

contains technology-based emissions 

standards reflecting the maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

and health-based compliance alternative 

for certain threshold pollutants. We 

proposed these standards for industrial, 

commercial, and institutional boilers 

and process heaters on January 13, 2003 

(68 FR 1660). 

In the preamble for the proposed rule, 

we discussed our consideration of a 

bubbling compliance alternative and 

requested comment on incorporating a 

bubbling compliance alternative (i.e., 

emission averaging) into the final rule as 

part of EPA’s general policy of 

encouraging the use of flexible 

compliance approaches where they can 

be properly monitored and enforced. 

(See 68 FR 1686.) Industry trade 

associations, owners/operators of boilers 

and process heaters, State regulatory 

agencies, local government agencies, 

and environmental groups submitted 

comments on the emissions averaging 

approach. We received a total of 40 

public comment letters regarding the 

emissions averaging approach in the 

proposed rule during the comment 

period. We summarized major public 

comments on the proposed emissions 

averaging approach, along with our 

responses to those comments, in the 

preamble to the final rule (69 FR 55238) 

and in the comment response 

memorandum ‘‘Response to Public 

Comments on Proposed Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 

and Process Heaters NESHAP (Revised) 

(RTC Memorandum) that was placed in 

the docket for the final rule. 

In the final rule, we adopted an 

emissions averaging provision for 

existing large solid fuel boilers. The 

procedures that affected sources must 

use to demonstrate compliance through 

emissions averaging were promulgated 

in 40 CFR 63.7522. (See 69 FR 55257.) 

For each existing large solid fuel boiler 

in the averaging group, the emissions 

are capped at the emission level being 

achieved on the effective date of the 

final rule (November 12, 2004). Under 

emissions averaging, compliance must 

be demonstrated on a 12-month rolling 

average basis, determined at the end of 

every calendar month. If a facility uses 

this option, it must also develop and 

submit an implementation plan to the 

applicable regulatory authority for 

review and approval no later than 180 

days before the date that the facility 

intends to demonstrate compliance. 

Following promulgation of the final 

rule, the Administrator received 

petitions for reconsideration pursuant to 

section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA from 

General Electric (GE), the Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and 

Environmental Integrity Project (EIP).1

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 62267 

Petroleum Institute, National Oilseed Processors 

Association, Coke Oven Environmental Task Force, 

Utility Air Regulatory Group, and Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers are intervening with 

regard to the health-based compliance alternatives. 

Under this section, the Administrator is 

to initiate reconsideration proceedings if 

the petitioner can show that it was 

impracticable to raise an objection to a 

rule within the public comment period 

or that the grounds for the objection 

arose after the public comment period. 

GE requested that EPA reconsider 

portions of the emissions averaging 

provision that it believes could not have 

been practicably addressed during the 

public comment period. In the 

alternative, GE requested clarification 

that the final rule already allows for 

consolidated testing of commonly 

vented boilers. 

By a letter dated April 27, 2005, we 

informed GE that we intended to grant 

their petition for reconsideration. We 

indicated in that letter that we would 

respond to the petition by publishing 

this notice of proposed rulemaking. 

III. Today’s Action 

Today, we are granting 

reconsideration of the issue raised in the 

GE petition for reconsideration. We 

agree that it was impracticable for GE to 

raise its concern about implementation 

of the emissions averaging provision 

until after the public comment period 

when the final regulatory text was 

promulgated. Although we believe we 

provided adequate notice and 

opportunity to comment on the 

emissions averaging alternative, the 

specific regulatory text in 40 CFR 

63.7522 was not included in the notice 

of proposed rulemaking. Thus, we 

believe it is appropriate to grant 

reconsideration to provide the public 

with the opportunity to comment on 

how the emissions averaging alternative 

can be applied to sources where boilers 

and process heaters are vented to 

common stacks. As a result, we are 

requesting comment on this issue and a 

proposed amendment to 40 CFR 63.7522 

that would clarify the emissions 

averaging provision and allow 

consolidated testing of commonly 

vented boilers. 

In a separate notice, we have granted 

reconsideration of several of the issues 

raised in the NRDC and EIP petition for 

reconsideration. (See 70 FR 36907, June 

27, 2005.) In that notice, we requested 

comment on provisions in appendix A 

of subpart DDDDD and the health-based 

compliance alternative for total selected 

metals reflected in 40 CFR 63.7507(b). 

Also, today we are proposing 

amendments to the final rule to address 

several issues that were raised related to 

applicability and implementation of the 

requirements in subpart DDDDD of 40 

CFR part 63. The proposed amendments 

to the final rule address these issues, 

correct other inconsistencies that were 

discovered following promulgation, and 

clarify some common applicability 

questions. 

IV. Reconsideration of Emissions 

Averaging Provision 

Through today’s notice, we request 

comments on how the emissions 

averaging compliance alternative should 

be implemented when boilers are 

vented to common stack and on the 

proposed amendment to 40 CFR 63.7522 

addressing consolidated testing of 

commonly vented existing solid fuel 

boilers. Stakeholders who would like for 

us to reconsider comments relevant to 

this issue that they submitted to us 

previously should identify the relevant 

docket entry numbers and page numbers 

of their comments to facilitate 

expeditious review during the 

reconsideration process. 

1. Background 

In the notice of proposed rulemaking, 

we described approaches that we might 

use to implement an emissions 

averaging compliance alternative. (See 

68 FR 1686.) We discussed an emissions 

averaging option that would allow 

owners and operators to set emissions 

limits for each existing boiler in the 

same subcategory such that if these 

limits are met, the total emissions from 

all existing boilers in the subcategory 

would be less than or equal to the 

proposed emissions limit for the 

subcategory. In addition, we also 

discussed that the emissions averaging 

option would not be applicable to new 

sources and could only be used between 

boilers in the same subcategory. We 

solicited comments on the emissions 

averaging option and whether EPA 

should include the emissions averaging 

option in the final rule. 

In the final rule, we included an 

emissions averaging provision because 

we agreed with commenters that 

emissions averaging represents an 

equivalent, more flexible, and less 

costly alternative to controlling certain 

emission points to MACT levels. We 

also recognized that we must ensure 

that any emissions averaging option can 

be implemented and enforced, will be 

clear to sources, and most importantly, 

will achieve no less emissions 

reductions than unit by unit 

implementation of the MACT 

requirements. 

The emissions averaging provision in 

the final rule requires each facility that 

intends to utilize emissions averaging to 

submit an implementation plan for 

emissions averaging to the applicable 

regulatory authority for review and 

approval. In this implementation plan, 

the facility must include the 

identification of: (1) All units in the 

averaging group; (2) the control 

technology installed; (3) the process 

parameter that will be monitored; (4) the 

specific control technology or pollution 

prevention measure to be used; (5) the 

test plan for the measurement of 

particulate matter (or selected total 

metals), hydrogen chloride, or mercury 

emissions; and (6) the operating 

parameters to be monitored for each 

control device. The regulatory authority 

will not approve emission averaging 

plans containing averaging between 

emissions of different types of 

pollutants, averaging between sources in 

different subcategories, or averaging that 

includes new sources or unaffected 

sources. 

In the final rule, we established 

procedures for demonstrating 

compliance by emissions averaging and 

codified them in 40 CFR 63.7522. The 

preamble to the final rule also contained 

a summary of our response to significant 

comments. (See 69 FR 55238.) 

GE’s concerns regarding the emissions 

averaging provision relate to the manner 

in which testing must be conducted to 

demonstrate compliance. They believe 

the final rule could be read to impose 

unreasonable limitations on the use of 

emissions averaging because the 

equations used to demonstrate 

compliance employ a variable defined 

as the emission rate for each boiler. GE 

is requesting that we reconsider that the 

final rule be amended to allow the 

source to conduct one test on a group 

of boilers that vents through a common 

stack rather than to require individual 

tests on each boiler. In the alternative, 

GE also requested clarification that the 

rule already allows for consolidated 

testing of commonly vented boilers. 

2. Proposed Action and Request for 

Comment 

We agree that the current language in 

the emissions averaging options requires 

testing of each individual boiler in the 

averaging group. However, our intent 

with regard to the emissions averaging 

option in the final rule was to provide 

an equivalent, more flexible, and less 

costly compliance alternative. Since 

testing emissions from a common stack 

for a group of boilers would be 

equivalent to the average emissions 

calculated from emissions tests on each 

individual boiler, we are proposing to 

allow testing of emissions at the 

common stack under specified 

situations. Specifically, we are 

62268 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

proposing to allow testing of a common 

stack only for the situations where each 

of the units vented to the common stack 

are in the existing solid fuel 

subcategory. This is because the 

emissions averaging provision in 40 

CFR 63.7522 is only applicable to 

existing large solid fuel boilers. 

Therefore, testing of a common stack in 

these situations will result in 

demonstrating the average emissions 

from this particular averaging group of 

boilers, just as if each boiler was tested 

individually and their emissions 

averaged. 

Allowing the testing of a common 

stack for only these specific situations 

also satisfies the criteria discussed in 

the preamble to the final rule (69 FR 

55239) that EPA has generally imposed 

on the scope and nature of emissions 

averaging programs. These criteria 

include: (1) No averaging between 

different types of pollutants, (2) no 

averaging between sources that are not 

part of the same major source, (3) no 

averaging between sources within the 

same major source that are not subject 

to the same NESHAP, and (4) no 

averaging between existing sources and 

new sources. The proposed amendment 

fully satisfies each of these criteria. 

GE is seeking clarification on two 

different common stack situations. In 

one situation, the exhaust from three 

existing large solid fuel boilers are 

combined and vented through a 

common emissions control system to a 

common stack. In the other situation, 

the exhaust from two existing large solid 

fuel boilers are each individually 

controlled prior to being vented to a 

common stack. 

In the proposed regulatory provisions 

set forth below, we propose to treat a 

group of boilers that vents through a 

common emissions control system to a 

common stack as a single existing solid 

fuel boiler for purposes of subpart 

DDDDD. The common control situation 

is more of an applicability issue. This 

common control issue has been 

addressed in past rulemakings (e.g., 

Standard of Performance for Primary 

Aluminum Reduction Plants, 40 CFR 

60.190) where the affected source was 

defined as an uncontrolled unit, unit 

which is controlled individually, or a 

group of units ducted to a common 

control system. A group of similar units 

ducted through a common control 

system would be determined to be a 

single controlled source for the purpose 

of demonstrating compliance. Thus, we 

are proposing this amendment to 

address and clarify applicability and 

implementation issues. 

However, we propose a slightly 

different approach for averaging groups 

that vent to a common stack through 

more than one emissions control 

system. These distinct approaches are 

necessary to ensure that a source with 

more than one emissions control system 

can demonstrate continuous compliance 

at each emissions control system. 

Where a group of boilers vents to a 

common stack through more than one 

emission control system, continuous 

compliance will be demonstrated 

according to the methods specified in 

table 8 to subpart DDDDD. If each of the 

boilers venting to the common stack 

have an applicable opacity operating 

limit, then a single continuous opacity 

monitoring system (COMS) may be 

located in the common stack instead of 

each duct to the common stack. If any 

of the boilers venting to the common 

stack do not have an applicable opacity 

operating limit, then the appropriate 

operating limit in tables 2 through 4 to 

subpart DDDDD that applies to each 

boiler must be met. 

Testing of the common stack must be 

conducted when each boiler is operated 

under representative testing conditions 

as specified in the National Stack 

Testing Guidance issued by EPA on 

February 2, 2004. 

In addition, we are proposing that the 

common stack situations described 

above may be treated as a separate 

single emission point for purpose of 

including in a larger emissions 

averaging group with other existing 

large solid fuel boilers located at the 

facility. 

We are not requesting comment on 

other aspects of the emissions averaging 

provision. 

V. Proposed Clarifying Amendments 

and Technical Corrections 

We identified minor drafting errors 

and inadvertent omissions after 

promulgation of the industrial boiler 

and process heater NESHAP. Thus, in 

addition to reconsidering the issue 

discussed above, we are proposing to 

make the following definition 

clarifications and corrections to 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart DDDDD. 

A. What clarifications are proposed to 

the definitions? 

We are proposing to insert the word 

‘‘other’’ in the definitions in 40 CFR 

63.7575 for ‘‘small gaseous fuel 

subcategory’’ and ‘‘small liquid fuel 

subcategory,’’ in order to make these 

definitions consistent with the 

definition for ‘‘small solid fuel 

subcategory.’’ This omission has caused 

confusion in determining the 

applicability of firetube boilers with 

heat input capacities greater than 10 

million British thermal units (Btu) per 

hour. 

In addition, we are proposing to 

amend the definitions in 40 CFR 

63.7575 for ‘‘large gaseous fuel 

subcategory,’’ ‘‘large liquid fuel 

subcategory,’’ and ‘‘large solid fuel 

subcategory’’ to make them consistent 

with the definitions in 40 CFR 63.7575 

for the various ‘‘limited use’’

subcategories. We are proposing to 

replace the phrase ‘‘has an annual 

capacity factor of greater than 10 

percent’’ with the phrase ‘‘does not have 

a federally enforceable annual average 

capacity factor of equal to or less than 

10 percent’’ to clarify that only large 

units having a permit limitation on their 

annual average capacity factor of 10 

percent or less are considered in the 

limited use subcategories. 

We are also proposing to amend the 

definitions of ‘‘firetube boiler’’ and 

‘‘watertube boiler’’ in 40 CFR 63.7575 to 

address boilers designed with both 

firetubes and watertubes, commonly 

referred to as ‘‘hybrid boilers.’’ EPA is 

aware of three ‘‘hybrid boiler’’ designs: 

(1) Watertube boilers that incorporate a 

secondary firetube section to extract 

additional heat from the combustion 

gases; (2) firetube boilers designed with 

watertubes that function to improve the 

operation and efficiency of the firetube 

boiler, not to increase steam generating 

capacity; and (3) boilers designed with 

both firetubes and watertubes, in which 

both the firetubes and watertubes 

function for the purpose of steam 

generation. 

We are proposing to classify 

watertube boilers that incorporate 

firetubes for additional heat recovery as 

watertube boilers for the purpose of the 

final rule since the unit combustion 

zone incorporates a watertube design. 

As discussed in the proposal (68 FR 

1671), it is the design of the boiler’s 

combustion zone that will influence the 

formation of organic hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) emissions and was one 

of the bases for creating the 

subcategories. 

We are proposing to treat firetube 

boilers that are designed with 

watertubes that function for purposes 

other than for steam generation, for 

example to reduce maintenance, 

enhance efficiency, reduce emissions, or 

increase fuel flexibility as firetube 

boilers for the purpose of the final rule 

since the unit combustion zone 

incorporates a firetube design. Again, it 

is the design of the boiler’s combustion 

zone that will influence the formation of 

organic HAP emissions and was one of 

the bases for creating the subcategories. 

EPA is aware that there may be other 

hybrid designs that are not specifically 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 62269 

addressed by the amended definitions 

we are proposing today. Applicability 

determinations for designs other than 

those described above should be 

addressed on a case-by-case basis. 

We are also proposing to add in 40 

CFR 63.7575 a definition for the term 

‘‘equivalent,’’ as this term is used in 

table 6 to subpart DDDDD, to address 

questions concerning what types of test 

methods are considered equivalent. In 

addition, there is some confusion 

regarding how the term ‘‘equivalent,’’ as 

used in table 6 to subpart DDDDD, is 

different from the terms ‘‘alternative 

analytical method’’ used in 40 CFR 

63.7521 and ‘‘alternative test method,’’

as defined in 40 CFR 63.2 of the MACT 

General Provisions. This has raised the 

question of whether the definitions of 

intermediate, major, and minor changes 

to a test method in 40 CFR 63.90, apply 

in determining delegable authorities. 

The answer is that EPA intended for the 

determination of ‘‘equivalent’’ for table 

6 to subpart DDDDD purposes, to be a 

category I authority, potentially 

delegable to the State. However, EPA 

neglected to clearly convey that message 

or provide a clear definition of 

‘‘equivalent’’ for table 6 to subpart 

DDDDD purposes to assure national 

consistency. Because there are a large 

number of fuel types it is not practical 

to identify and list all acceptable 

(equivalent) combinations of methods 

and fuels in table 6 to subpart DDDDD. 

We do believe, however, that if we make 

mandatory the use of a voluntary 

consensus standard (VCS) or EPA 

method that states it is intended to at 

least match the fuel matrix (solid, 

liquid, or gas) central to the definition 

of equivalent (for table 6 to subpart 

DDDDD), then this can be a category I 

delegable authority. A negative finding 

of equivalent would then invoke the 

definitions of minor, intermediate, or 

major changes to a test method. 

Following this logic, we have developed 

a definition of ‘‘equivalent’’ to 

determine if an alternate fuel analysis 

procedure is equivalent for table 6 to 

subpart DDDDD purposes. An 

alternative is any deviation or 

modification from the published VCS or 

EPA method as written. These must be 

specifically noted and the need or 

reason for the alternative explained. In 

general, alternatives that are necessary 

or improve the data quality will be 

given priority review while those of 

convenience only will be reviewed as 

time permits. Because of the potential 

for a large number of sample analysis 

plans containing equivalent and 

alternative methods and procedures, we 

encourage the applicant to clearly 

denote alternative requests from 

equivalent requests and to provide a 

complete rationale in order to expedite 

review. 

B. What are the proposed corrections? 

A list of boilers and process heaters 

that are not subject to subpart DDDDD 

of 40 CFR part 63 are contained in 40 

CFR 63.791. As stated in the proposal 

preamble, our intention was to exempt 

from the final rule any units that are 

already or will be subject to regulation 

for HAP under another standard. (See 69 

FR 1663.) In terms of electric utility 

steam generating units, regulations for 

HAP were only under development at 

proposal and promulgation of subpart 

DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 and, 

therefore, we were unable to cite the 

exemption for electric utility steam 

generating units to a specific regulation. 

The exemption cited in 40 CFR 

63.7491(c) for electric utility steam 

generating units is the definition of 

electric utility steam generating units 

contained in section 112(a)(8) of the 

CAA. On March 29, 2005 (70 FR 15995), 

EPA revised the regulatory finding that 

it issued in December 2000, removing 

electric utility steam generating units 

from the CAA section 112 source 

category list. EPA instead established 

standards of performance for mercury 

from new and existing electric utility 

steam generating units under the 

authority of section 111 of the CAA. 

These standards of performance 

(subparts Da and HHHH of 40 CFR part 

60) regulating mercury from electric 

utility steam generating units were 

promulgated on May 18, 2005 in the 

Clean Air Mercury Rule. (See 70 FR 

28606.) After we promulgated that rule, 

it was brought to our attention that the 

scope of the exemption in subpart 

DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 for electric 

utility steam generating units was 

unclear. Confusion has resulted because 

subparts Da and HHHH employ 

different definitions to determine 

applicability, consistent with the 

historical applicability and definition 

determinations under CAA section 111 

and Acid Raid Programs. (See 70 FR at 

28609.) Thus, to clarify applicability of 

the final rule, we are proposing to 

modify 40 CFR 63.7491(c) to exclude 

‘‘an electric utility steam generating unit 

(including a unit covered by 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Da) and a Mercury (Hg) 

Budget unit covered by 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart HHHH.’’ The term ‘‘electric 

utility steam generating unit’’ is defined 

in 40 CFR 63.7575 of subpart DDDDD in 

accordance with the statutory definition 

in section 1121(a)(8) of the CAA. 

In 40 CFR 63.7522, we inadvertently 

omitted the equation for determining 

continuous compliance with the 

emission limits when using emissions 

averaging. Under the emissions 

averaging provision, continuous 

compliance is based on a 12-month 

rolling average. We corrected this 

omission by adding equation 4A to 40 

CFR 63.7522(f). 

In 40 CFR 63.7525, we inadvertently 

omitted the requirement for installing 

and operation of an oxygen monitor. 

According to the work practice standard 

for carbon monoxide (CO) in table 1 to 

subpart DDDDD, a new affected source 

must correct the CO data to a certain 

percent oxygen. However, 40 CFR 

7525(a) never explicitly states that an 

oxygen monitor is required. We received 

inquiries on whether an oxygen monitor 

is required to be installed if no oxygen 

monitor is currently in place. Since the 

CO standard is only applicable to new 

units, we assumed that all new units 

above 100 million Btu per hour heat 

input would also be subject to the new 

source performance standard (subpart 

Db of 40 CFR part 60) for industrial 

boilers which requires an oxygen 

monitor as part of its monitoring 

requirement. Thus, we amended 40 CFR 

63.7525 to clarify that a corresponding 

oxygen monitor is required when a CO 

monitor is required. 

As suggested by the American Society 

for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 

several of the listed ASTM test methods 

in table 6 to subpart DDDDD are being 

amended with updated ASTM test 

methods. 

C. What are the Impacts Associated 

With the Amendments? 

The proposed amendments contained 

in this action are corrections that are 

intended to clarify, but not change, the 

coverage of the final rule. The 

amendments will not affect the 

estimated emissions reductions or the 

control costs for the final rule. The 

clarifications and corrections should 

make it easier for owners and operators 

and for local and State authorities to 

understand and implement the 

requirements. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must 

determine whether the regulatory action 

is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of 

the Executive Order. The Executive 

Order defines a ‘‘significant regulatory 

62270 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

action’’ as one that is likely to result in 

a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, it has been determined 

that today’s proposed amendments do 

not constitute a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ because they do not meet any of 

the above criteria. Consequently, this 

action was not submitted to OMB for 

review under Executive Order 12866. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in the final rule were 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

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

(Information Collection Request No. 

2028.01 and OMB Control Number 

2060–0551). The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. 

Today’s notice of reconsideration 

imposes no new information collection 

requirements on the industry. Because 

there is no additional burden on the 

industry as a result of the notice, the 

ICR has not been revised. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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 not-forprofit enterprises, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impact 

of today’s notice of reconsideration on 

small entities, a small entity is defined 

as: (1) A small business having no more 

than 500 to 750 employees, depending 

on the business’ NAICS code; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, country, town, 

school district or special district with a 

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

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

owned and operated and that is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s notice of 

reconsideration on small entities, we 

certify that the notice will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

EPA has determined that none of the 

small entities will experience a 

significant impact because the notice 

imposes no additional regulatory 

requirements on owners or operators of 

affected sources. 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. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private section, of $100 

million or more in any 1 year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least-burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the leastcostly, most cost-effective, or leastburdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed, 

under section 203 of the UMRA, a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA’s regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

EPA has determined that today’s 

notice of reconsideration does not 

contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or 

more for State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any one year. Although 

the final rule had annualized costs 

estimated to range from $690 to $860 

million (depending on the number of 

facilities eventually demonstrating 

eligibility for the health-based 

compliance alternatives), today’s notice 

does not add new requirements that 

would increase this cost. Thus, today’s 

notice of reconsideration is not subject 

to the requirements of sections 202 and 

205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has 

determined that today’s notice does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments because it contains no 

requirements that apply to such 

governments or impose obligations 

upon them. Therefore, today’s notice of 

reconsideration is not subject to section 

203 of the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (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 Executive Order to 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 62271 

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.’’

Today’s notice of reconsideration 

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. The 

requirements discussed in today’s 

notice will not supersede State 

regulations that are more stringent. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to today’s notice of 

reconsideration. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 6, 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.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ are defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’

Today’s notice of reconsideration 

does not have tribal implications. It will 

not have substantial direct effects on 

tribal governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

No affected facilities are owned or 

operated by Indian tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to today’s notice of 

reconsideration. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant,’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect of children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

EPA must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by EPA. 

Today’s notice of reconsideration is 

not subject to the Executive Order 

because EPA does not have reasons to 

feel that the environmental health or 

safety risks associated with the 

emissions addressed by this notice 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This demonstration is based 

on the fact that the noncancer human 

health values we used in our analysis at 

promulgation (e.g., reference 

concentrations) are determined to be 

protective of sensitive subpopulations, 

including children. Also, while the 

cancer human health values do not 

always expressly account for cancer 

effects in children, the cancer risks 

posed by facilities that meet the 

eligibility criteria for the health-based 

compliance alternatives will be 

sufficiently low so as not be a concern 

for anyone in the population, including 

children. The public is invited to submit 

or identify peer-reviewed studies and 

data, of which the agency may not be 

aware, that assessed results of early life 

exposure to [the product, substance or 

other vector proposed for regulation.] 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 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. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

As noted in the final rule, section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 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 the OMB, with 

explanations when EPA decides not to 

use available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Today’s amendments involve 

technical standards. EPA cites the 

following standards in the proposed 

rulemaking: (1) American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) D2013–

04, ‘‘Standard Practice for Preparing 

Coal Samples for Analysis,’’ (2) ASTM 

D2234–D2234M–03E01, ‘‘Standard 

Practice for Collection of a Gross 

Sample of Coal,’’ (3) ASTM D6721–01, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Chlorine in Coal by 

Oxidative Hydroylsis 

Microcoulometry,’’ (4) ASTM D3173–

03, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Moisture 

in the Analysis Sample of Coal and 

Coke,’’ (5) ASTM D4606–03, ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Determination of 

Arsenic and Selenium in Coal by the 

Hydride Generation/Atomic Absorption 

Method,’’ (6) ASTM D6357–04, 

‘‘Standard Test Methods for 

Determination of Trace Elements in 

Coal, Coke, and Combustion Residues 

from Coal Utilization Processes by 

Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic 

Emission Spectrometry, Inductively 

Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry, 

and Graphite Furnace Atomic 

Absorption Spectrometry,’’ (7) ASTM 

D6722–01, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Total Mercury in Coal and Coal 

Combustion Residues by the Direct 

Combustion Analysis,’’ and (8) ASTM 

D5865–04, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Gross Clorific Value of Coal and Coke.’’

During the development of the final 

rule, EPA searched for voluntary 

consensus standards that might be 

applicable. The search identified three 

voluntary consensus standards that 

were considered practical alternatives to 

the specified EPA test methods. As 

assessment of these and other voluntary 

consensus standards is presented in the 

preamble to the final rule. (See 69 FR 

55251, September 13, 2004.) 

Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR 

part 63 list the fuel analysis methods 

included in the final rule. Under 40 CFR 

63.7(f) in subpart A of the General 

Provisions, a source may apply to EPA 

for permission to use alternative test 

methods or alternative monitoring 

requirements in place of any required 

testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures. 

List of Subject in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

62272 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: October 21, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter 1, of the code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—[Amended] 

2. Section 63.14 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (b)(55) through (62) 

to read as follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporation by reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(55) ASTM D2013–04, Standard 

Practice for Preparing Coal Samples for 

Analysis, IBR approved for Table 6 to 

subpart DDDDD of this part. 

(56) ASTM D2234–D2234M–03E01, 

Standard Practice for Collection of a 

Gross Sample of Coal, IBR approved for 

Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this part. 

(57) ASTM D6721–01, Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Chlorine in 

Coal by Oxidative Hydrolysis 

Microcoulometry, IBR approved for 

Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this part. 

(58) ASTM D3173–03, Standard Test 

Method for Moisture in the Analysis 

Sample of Coal and Coke, IBR approved 

for Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this 

part. 

(59) ASTM D4606–03, Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Arsenic 

and Selenium in Coal by the Hydride 

Generation/Atomic Absorption Method, 

IBR approved for Table 6 to subpart 

DDDDD of this part. 

(60) ASTM D6357–04, Standard Test 

Methods for Determination of Trace 

Elements in Coal, Coke, and 

Combustion Residues from Coal 

Utilization Processes by Inductively 

Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission 

Spectrometry, Inductively Coupled 

Plasma Mass Spectrometry, and 

Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption 

Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 6 

to subpart DDDDD of this part. 

(61) ASTM D6722–01, Standard Test 

Method for Total Mercury in Coal and 

Coal Combustion Residues by the Direct 

Combustion Analysis, IBR approved for 

Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this part. 

(62) ASTM D5865–04, Standard Test 

Method for Gross Calorific Value of Coal 

and Coke, IBR approved for Table 6 to 

subpart DDDDD of this part. 

* * * * * 

Subpart DDDDD—[Amended] 

3. 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) and a Hg 

Budget unit covered by 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart HHHH. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 63.7522 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (c) and by 

adding paragraphs (f)(3) and (h) through 

(k) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7522 Can I use emission averaging to 

comply with this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(b) Separate stack requirements. For a 

group of two or more existing large solid 

fuel boilers that each vent to a separate 

stack, you may average particulate 

matter or TSM, HCl and mercury 

emissions to demonstrate compliance 

with the limits in Table 1 of this subpart 

if you satisfy the requirements in 

paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of this 

section. 

(c) For each existing large solid fuel 

boiler in the averaging group, the 

emission rate achieved during the initial 

compliance test for the HAP being 

averaged must not exceed the emission 

level that was being achieved on 

November 12, 2004 or the control 

technology employed during the initial 

compliance test must not be less 

effective for the HAP being averaged 

than the control technology employed 

on November 12, 2004. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) Until 12 monthly emission rates 

have been accumulated, calculate and 

report only the monthly averages. Then, 

for each subsequent calendar month, 

use Equation 4A of this section to 

calculate the 12-month rolling average 

as a weighted average of the emission 

rate for the current month and the 

emission rates for the previous 11 

months. 

E

ER

Eq avg

i

i = =

∑1

12

12 ( . 4A)

Where: 

Eavg = 12-month rolling average 

emission rate, (pounds per million 

Btu heat input) 

ERi = Monthly emission rate, for month 

‘‘i’’, (pounds per million Btu heat 

input) 

* * * * * 

(h) Common stack requirements. For a 

group of two or more existing large solid 

fuel boilers, each of which vents 

through a single common stack that 

does not receive emissions from units in 

other subcategories or nonaffected units, 

you may average particulate matter or 

TSM, HCl and mercury to demonstrate 

compliance with the limits in Table 1 of 

this subpart if you satisfy the 

requirements in paragraphs (i) or (j) of 

this section. 

(i) For a group of two or more existing 

large solid fuel boilers, each of which 

vents through a common emissions 

control system to a common stack you 

may treat such averaging group as a 

single existing solid fuel boiler for 

purposes of subpart DDDDD and comply 

with the requirements of this subpart as 

if the group were a single boiler. 

(j) For all other groups of boilers 

subject to paragraph (h) of this section, 

the owner or operator shall: 

(1) Conduct performance tests 

according to procedures specified in 

§ 63.7520 in the common stack; and 

(2) Conduct monitoring, as 

appropriate, according to requirements 

specified in § 63.7525 in the common 

stack; and 

(3) Meet the applicable operating limit 

specified in § 63.7540 and table 8 for 

each emissions control system. 

(k) Combination requirements. The 

common stack of a group of two or more 

boilers subject to paragraph (h) may be 

treated as a separate stack for purposes 

of paragraph (b) of this section and 

included in an emissions averaging 

group subject to paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

5. Section 63.7525 of subpart DDDDD 

is amended by revising paragraphs (a) 

introductory text and (a)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7525 What are my monitoring, 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements? 

(a) If you have an applicable work 

practice standard for carbon monoxide, 

and your boiler or process heater is in 

any of the large subcategories and has a 

heat input capacity of 100 MMBtu per 

hour or greater, you must install, 

operate, and maintain a continuous 

emission monitoring system (CEMS) for 

carbon monoxide and oxygen according 

to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (6) of this section by the 

compliance date specified in § 63.7495. 

The carbon monoxide and oxygen shall 

be monitored at the same location at the 

outlet of the boiler or process heater. 

(1) Each CEMS must be installed, 

operated, and maintained according to 

the applicable procedures under 

Performance Specification (PS) 3 or 4A 


EP31OC05.000</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 62273 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and 

according to the site-specific monitoring 

plan developed according to 

§ 63.7505(d). 

* * * * * 

6. Section 63.7575 of subpart DDDDD 

is amended as follows: 

a. By adding a new definition in 

alphabetical order for ‘‘Equivalent’’. 

b. By revising the definitions for 

‘‘Firetube boiler’’, ‘‘Large gaseous fuel 

subcategory’’, ‘‘Large liquid fuel 

subcategory’’, ‘‘Large solid fuel 

subcategory’’, ‘‘Small gaseous fuel 

subcategory’’, ‘‘Small liquid fuel 

subcategory’’ and ‘‘Watertube boiler’’. 

§ 63.7575 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

Equivalent means the following only 

when this term is used in Table 6 to 

subpart DDDDD: 

(1) An equivalent sample collection 

procedure means a published voluntary 

consensus standard or practice (VCS) or 

EPA method that includes collection of 

a minimum of three composite fuel 

samples, with each composite 

consisting of a minimum of three 

increments collected at approximately 

equal intervals over the test period. 

(2) An equivalent sample compositing 

procedure means a published VCS or 

EPA method to systematically mix and 

obtain a representative subsample (part) 

of the composite sample. 

(3) An equivalent sample preparation 

procedure means a published VCS or 

EPA method that: Clearly states that the 

standard, practice or method is 

appropriate for the pollutant and the 

fuel matrix or; is cited as an appropriate 

sample preparation standard, practice or 

method for the pollutant in the chosen 

VCS or EPA determinative or analytical 

method. 

(4) An equivalent procedure for 

determining heat content means a 

published VCS or EPA method to obtain 

gross calorific (or higher heating) value. 

(5) An equivalent procedure for 

determining fuel moisture content 

means a published VCS or EPA method 

to obtain moisture content. If the sample 

analysis plan calls for determining 

metals (especially the mercury, 

selenium, or arsenic) using an aliquot of 

the dried sample, then the drying 

temperature must be modified to 

prevent vaporizing these metals. On the 

other hand, if metals analysis is done on 

an ‘‘as received’’ basis, a separate 

aliquot can be dried to determine 

moisture content and the metals 

concentration mathematically adjusted 

to a dry basis. 

(6) An equivalent pollutant (mercury, 

TSM, or total chlorine) determinative or 

analytical procedure means a published 

VCS or EPA method that clearly states 

that the standard, practice or method is 

appropriate for the pollutant and the 

fuel matrix and has a published 

detection limit equal or lower than the 

methods listed in Table 6 to subpart 

DDDDD for the same purpose. 

* * * * * 

Firetube boiler means a boiler in 

which hot gases of combustion pass 

through the tubes and water contacts the 

outside surfaces of the tubes. Firetube 

boilers that incorporate watertubes into 

their design for purposes other than for 

steam generation, for example, to reduce 

maintenance, enhance efficiency, 

reduce emissions, or increase fuel 

flexibility are considered to be firetube 

boilers. 

* * * * * 

Large gaseous fuel subcategory 

includes any watertube boiler or process 

heater that burns gaseous fuels not 

combined with any solid fuels, burns 

liquid fuel only during periods of gas 

curtailment or gas supply emergencies, 

has a rated capacity of greater than 10 

MMBtu per hour heat input, and does 

not have a federally enforceable annual 

average capacity factor of equal to or 

less than 10 percent. 

Large liquid fuel subcategory includes 

any watertube boiler or process heater 

that does not burn any solid fuel and 

burns any liquid fuel either alone or in 

combination with gaseous fuels, has a 

rated capacity of greater than 10 MMBtu 

per hour heat input, and does not have 

a federally enforceable annual average 

capacity factor of equal to or less than 

10 percent. Large gaseous fuel boilers 

and process heaters that burn liquid fuel 

during periods of gas curtailment or gas 

supply emergencies are not included in 

this definition. 

Large solid fuel subcategory includes 

any watertube boiler or process heater 

that burns any amount of solid fuel 

either alone or in combination with 

liquid or gaseous fuels, has a rated 

capacity of greater than 10 MMBtu per 

hour heat input, and does not have a 

federally enforceable annual average 

capacity factor of equal to or less than 

10 percent. 

* * * * * 

Small gaseous fuel subcategory 

includes any firetube boiler that burns 

gaseous fuels not combined with any 

solid fuels and burns liquid fuel only 

during periods of gas curtailment or gas 

supply emergencies, and any other 

boiler or process heater that burns 

gaseous fuels not combined with any 

solid fuels, burns liquid fuel only 

during periods of gas curtailment or gas 

supply emergencies, and has a rated 

capacity of less than or equal to 10 

MMBtu per hour heat input. 

Small liquid fuel subcategory includes 

any firetube boiler that does not burn 

any solid fuel and burns any liquid fuel 

either alone or in combination with 

gaseous fuels, and any other boiler or 

process heater that does not burn any 

solid fuel and burns any liquid fuel 

either alone or in combination with 

gaseous fuels, and has a rated capacity 

of less than or equal to 10 MMBtu per 

hour heat input. Small gaseous fuel 

boilers and process heaters that burn 

liquid fuel during periods of gas 

curtailment or gas supply emergencies 

are not included in this definition. 

* * * * * 

Watertube boiler means a boiler in 

which water passes through the tubes 

and hot gases of combustion pass over 

the outside surface of the tubes. 

Watertube boilers that incorporate a 

secondary firetube section to extract 

additional heat from the combustion 

gases are considered to be watertube 

boilers. Boilers that incorporate both 

firetubes and watertubes into their 

design, such that primary function of 

both the firetubes and watertubes is 

steam generation, are considered 

watertube boilers for the purpose of this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

7. Table 6 to subpart DDDDD is 

revised to read as follows: 

62274 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART DDDDD OF PART 63.—FUEL ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS

[As stated in § 63.7521, you must comply with the following requirements for fuel analysis testing for existing, new or reconstructed affected 

sources:] 

To conduct a fuel analysis for the following pollutant... You must... Using... 

1. Mercury .......................................................... a. Collect fuel samples .................................... Procedure in § 63.7521(c) or ASTM D2234– 

D2234M–03E01 (for coal) (IBR, see 

§ 63.14(b)) or ASTM D6323–98 (2003) (for 

biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. 

b. Composite fuel samples .............................. Procedure in § 63.7521(d) or equivalent. 

c. Prepare composited fuel samples ............... SW–846–3050B (for solid samples) or SW– 

846–3020A (for liquid samples) or ASTM 

D2013–04 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) 

or ASTM D5198–92 (2003) (for biomass) 

(IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. 

d. Determine heat content of the fuel type ...... ASTM D5865–04 (for coal) (IBR, see 

§ 63.14(b)) or ASTM E711–87 (1996) (for 

biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. 

e. Determine moisture content of the fuel type ASTM D3173–03 (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or 

ASTM E871–82 (1998) (IBR, see 

§ 63.14(b)) or equivalent. 

f. Measure mercury concentration in fuel sample.ASTM D6722–01 (for coal) (IBR, see 

§ 63.14(b)) or SW–846–7471A (for solid 

samples) or SW–846–7470A (for liquid 

samples) or equivalent. 

g. Convert concentrations into units of pounds 

of pollutant per MMBtu of heat content.

2. Total Selected metals .................................... a. Collect fuel samples .................................... Procedure in § 63.7521(c) or ASTM D2234– 

D2234M–03E01 (for coal) (IBR, see 

§ 63.14(b)) or ASTM D6323–98 (2003) (for 

biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. 

b. Composite fuel samples .............................. Procedure in § 63.7521(d) or equivalent. 

c. Prepare composited fuel samples ............... SW–846–3050B (for solid samples) or SW– 

846–3020A (for liquid samples) or ASTM 

D2013–04 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) 

or ASTM D5198–92 (2003) (for biomass) 

(IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. 

d. Determine heat content of the fuel type ...... ASTM D5865–04 (for coal) (IBR, see 

§ 63.14(b)) or ASTM E711–87 (for biomass) 

(IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. 

e. Determine moisture content of the fuel type ASTM D3173–03 (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or 

ASTM E871 (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. 

f. Measure total selected metals concentration 

in fuel sample.

SW–846–6010B or ASTM D6357–04 (for arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, 

manganese, and nickel in coal) and ASTM 

D4606–03 (for selenium in coal) (IBR, see 

§ 63.14(b)) or ASTM E885–88 (1996) (for 

biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. 

g. Convert concentrations into units of pounds 

of pollutant per MMBtu of heat content.

3. Hydrogen chloride .......................................... a. Collect fuel samples .................................... Procedure in § 63.7521(c) or ASTM D2234– 

D2234M–03E01 (for coal) (IBR, see 

§ 63.14(b)) or ASTM D6323–98 (2003) (for 

biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. 

b. Composite fuel samples .............................. Procedure in § 63.7521(d) or equivalent. 

c. Prepare composited fuel samples ............... SW–846–3050B (for solid samples) or SW– 

846–3020A (for liquid samples) or ASTM 

D2013–04 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) 

or ASTM D5198–92 (2003) (for biomass) 

(IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. 

d. Determine heat content of the fuel type ...... ASTM D5865–04 (for coal) (IBR, see 

§ 63.14(b)) or ASTM E711–87 (1996) (for 

biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. 

e. Determine moisture content of the fuel type ASTM D3173–03 (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or 

ASTM E871–82 (1998) (IBR, see 

§ 63.14(b)) or equivalent. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 62275 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART DDDDD OF PART 63.—FUEL ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

[As stated in § 63.7521, you must comply with the following requirements for fuel analysis testing for existing, new or reconstructed affected 

sources:] 

To conduct a fuel analysis for the following pollutant... You must... Using... 

f. Measure chlorine concentration in fuel sample.SW–846–9250 or ASTM D6721–01 (for coal) 

or ASTM E776–87 (1996) (for biomass) 

(IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. 

g. Convert concentrations into units of pounds 

of pollutant per MMBtu of heat content.

[FR Doc. 05–21531 Filed 10–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 122 and 412 

[OW–2005–0036; FRL–OW–2005–0000; 

FRL–7990–5] 

Notice of Availability of 

Correspondence Regarding Revisions 

to the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permit Regulation 

and Effluent Limitation Guidelines for 

Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of data availability. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

availability of correspondence and the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA’s) response to inquiries regarding 

the Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operations (CAFOs) regulations. EPA 

received inquiries on the permit 

application date in the CAFOs 

regulation and whether, in response to 

the February 28, 2005, decision by the 

Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued 

in Waterkeeper v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 

(2nd Cir. 2005), the permit application 

date may be extended. The 2003 CAFO 

rule (68 FR 7176) (‘‘National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System Permit 

Regulation and Effluent Limitation 

Guidelines for Concentrated Animal 

Feeding Operations’’), hereafter known 

as the ‘‘2003 CAFO rule,’’ contains the 

requirement that by February 13, 2006, 

all newly defined CAFOs must apply for 

a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 

The 2003 CAFO rule also requires that 

all CAFOs develop and implement a 

Nutrient Management Plan by December 

31, 2006. 

EPA is in the process of developing 

options for revising the 2003 CAFO rule 

to comply with the Second Circuit Court 

of Appeals’ decision. The schedule for 

final action provides for a full and 

ample opportunity for public notice and 

comment, but it is not consistent with 

completion by February 13, 2006. As a 

result, EPA will propose to extend the 

permit application date of February 13, 

2006, and the Nutrient Management 

Plan due date of December 31, 2006, in 

a separate NPRM. This second action 

will be proposed and finalized by 

February 13, 2006. The correspondence 

and the EPA’s response have been 

added to the rulemaking docket and are 

available to the public. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the 

correspondence may be obtained from 

EPA’s Office of Water docket identified 

by Docket ID No. OW–2005–0036, by 

one of the following methods: 

(1) Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket. 

(2) E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID No. OW–2005–

0036. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Interested Entities 

Categories and entities interested in 

today’s notice include: 

Category Examples of interested 

entities 

State/Local/ 

Tribal Government 

Industry ....... Operators of animal production operations that meet 

the definition of a CAFO. 

Beef cattle feedlots (including veal). 

Beef cattle ranching and 

farming. 

Hogs. 

Sheep. 

General livestock except 

dairy and poultry. 

Dairy farms. 

Broilers, fryers, and roaster 

chickens. 

Chicken eggs. 

Turkey and turkey eggs. 

Poultry hatcheries. 

Poultry and eggs. 

Ducks. 

Category Examples of interested 

entities 

Horses and other equines. 

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 

the types of entities that may be 

interested in this notice. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for the Revisions 

to the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permit Regulation 

and Effluent Limitation Guidelines for 

Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operations under Docket ID No. OW–

2005–0036. The official public docket 

consists of the correspondence received 

on the CAFO 2003 rule and the 

February 28, 2005, decision by the 

Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued 

in Waterkeeper v. EPA, and EPA’s 

response to this correspondence. 

Although a part of the official docket, 

the public docket does not include 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. The official public 

docket is the collection of materials that 

is available for public viewing at Water 

Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/ 

DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Water Docket is (202) 

566–2426. To view these documents 

materials, please call ahead to schedule 

an appointment. Every user is entitled 

to copy 266 pages per day before 

incurring a charge. The Docket may 

charge 15 cents a page for each page 

over the 266-page limit plus an 

administrative fee of $25.00.