Source: https://www.regulations.gov/?_escaped_fragment_=documentDetail;D=EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0185-0038
Timestamp: 2016-09-30 11:51:56
Document Index: 167026951

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 49', 'art 75', 'art 75', 'art 49', '§\u200949', 'art 60', 'art 75', 'art 49']

Skip Navigation HomeHelpResourcesContact Us Advanced Search Start of Main Content Source-Specific Federal Implementation Plan: Navajo Generating Station; Navajo Nation This Rule document was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) For related information, Open Docket Folder Show agency attachment(s) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0185; FRL-9122-3]
RIN 2009-AA00
SummaryThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating a source-specific Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to regulate emissions from the Navajo Generating Station (NGS), a coal-fired power plant located on the Navajo Indian Reservation near Page, Arizona. EPA proposed the NGS FIP on September 12, 2006, to establish federally enforceable limitations for TSP, SO 2, and opacity, and control measures for dust. The limits had previously been established in the Arizona SIP. EPA promulgated the Tribal Authority Rule in 1998, clarifying that state air quality regulations generally did not apply to facilities on Indian reservations and that EPA should fill the regulatory gap as necessary or appropriate. This action fills the regulatory gap for the NGS facility.
Dates Effective Date: This rule is effective on April 5, 2010.
AddressesEPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. R09-OAR-2006-0185. All documents in the docket are listed in the Federal eRulemaking portal index at and are available either electronically at or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. A reasonable fee may be charged for copies.
For Further Information ContactSarvy Mahdavi, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3173, . Supplementary InformationThroughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.Table of ContentsI. Background of the Final Rule
L. Petitions for Judicial ReviewI. Background of the Final RuleNGS is a 2,250 megawatt coal-fired power plant located on the Navajo Indian Reservation near Page, Arizona. Salt River Project (“SRP”) is the operating agent for NGS, which is jointly owned by SRP, the United States Bureau of Reclamation, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the Arizona Public Service, the Nevada Power Company, and the Tucson Electric Power Company. Since 1974, NGS has been operating on real property held in trust by the federal government for the Navajo Nation. The facility consists of three 750 MW coal-fired electric utility steam generating units.
In 1999, EPA initially proposed to promulgate a FIP to regulate emissions from NGS. See 64 FR 48725 (September 8, 1999) (1999 proposed FIP). At that time, NGS was meeting certain emissions limits in the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). However, because the Arizona SIP is not approved to apply on the Navajo Indian Reservation, and because the Navajo Nation did not have a federally applicable tribal implementation plan (TIP), EPA proposed to promulgate a FIP to remedy the existing regulatory gap. The 1999 proposed FIP, therefore, would have, in essence, federalized the requirements contained in the Arizona SIP which NGS had historically followed. In explaining the basis for its proposed action, EPA stated that given the magnitude of emissions from the plant, the Agency believed the proposed FIP provisions were necessary and appropriate to ensure the protection of air quality on the Reservation. See 64 FR at 48726.
When EPA proposed the 1999 FIP, NGS was also subject to emissions limits for sulfur dioxide (SO 2) that EPA had promulgated in 1991 when we revised a visibility FIP for Arizona to include requirements for NGS. See 56 FR 50172 (Oct. 3, 1991), codified at 40 CFR 52.145(d). The requirements of EPA's 1991 revised visibility FIP are not being amended or changed by today's action, but 40 CFR 52.145(d) is being recodified to 40 CFR part 49.
In the 2006 proposed FIP, EPA again explained that to remedy the regulatory gap that exists with regard to NGS because the Arizona SIP does not apply to sources located on the Navajo Indian Reservation, the Agency was proposing to issue a source-specific FIP establishing federally enforceable emission limits for SO 2, particulate matter (PM), and opacity, and control measures for dust. The proposed limits were similar to those in the Arizona SIP which NGS has historically followed, but EPA proposed to include some additional requirements for reducing opacity and fugitive dust emissions from coal handling operations. Specifically, the 2006 proposed FIP lowered the opacity limit from 40% to 20% and included requirements to control emissions associated with coal and ash handling and storage.
As explained in our proposal in this action, the SO 2 emissions limit in today's final rule is a short-term emissions limit, which will be enforceable in addition to the rolling 365 day average emission limit in the 1991 visibility FIP. For PM emissions, EPA is finalizing its proposal to federalize the emissions limits which NGS historically followed from the Arizona SIP. The Arizona SIP did not contain any nitrogen oxides (NO X) emissions limits for NGS, and today's final rule does not impose any limits on NO X. However, we note that NGS is subject to the Federal Acid Rain requirements under title IV of the Clean Air Act. NGS elected to comply early as a Phase I NO X facility which means NGS currently has a NO X limit of 0.40 lbs/MMbtu, per unit, on an annual basis. EPA will also address the emissions of NOx and PM separately through EPA's Regional Haze rule (codified at 40 CFR 51.308) to require best available retrofit technology for these pollutants, as discussed in more detail in our response to comments.A. Summary of Final FIP Provisions1. EPA is finalizing its proposal to limit particulate matter to 0.060 pounds per million british thermal units (lbs/MMbtu), and specifying at least three 60 minute sampling runs for each stack. Additionally, this final rule changes the averaging time for the particulate matter limit from the proposed 6 hour average to a three hour average based on three runs, each lasting approximately one hour. The particulate standard will be measured on a plant-wide basis and is also the way in which the State of Arizona has historically determined compliance at NGS.
2. EPA is finalizing its proposal that opacity from each unit is limited to 20% averaged over any normal 6 minute period, excluding condensed water vapour, and 40% opacity, averaged over 6 minutes, during absorber upset transition periods. The final opacity standard excludes uncombined water droplets. NGS has opacity monitors on each of its stacks; water droplets, which will be present in all stacks because of the SO 2 scrubbers, cause inaccurate excess emission readings on the opacity monitors. Therefore, in the final rule excess opacity due to uncombined water droplets in the stack does not constitute an exceedance, but it will be reported on the quarterly excess emissions reports.
3. EPA is finalizing its proposal that SO 2 emissions are limited to 1 lb/MMbtu averaged over a three-hour period, on a plant-wide basis. The emissions limit for SO 2 was previously established in the Arizona SIP. The method of compliance determination has been changed from the proposal which based compliance on the sulfur content of coal. In the final rule, compliance is based on continuous emission monitoring (CEM). This change is being made because the Federal acid rain regulations require CEM monitoring, which is generally recognized as being more accurate and precise than monitoring the sulfur content of coal. NGS previously complied with the limit of 1 lb/MMbtu on a per-unit basis by using very low sulfur coal. Because NGS has now installed scrubbers to comply with the 1991 visibility FIP, however, NGS will be able to comply with its short-term limits by removing sulfur from the exhaust stream. This will allow NGS to purchase slightly higher sulfur coal; additionally, the plant-wide average allows one scrubber to be down for periodic maintenance (lasting usually 30 to 40 days) without requiring the purchase of specific low sulfur coal for use during the maintenance. In the final rule, as in the proposal, the actual SO 2 emissions from NGS will remain 90% lower on an annual basis than they were before the scrubbers were installed to comply with the 1991 visibility FIP. To ensure that NGS continues to meet this limit, this rule will finalize the proposal to limit SO 2 emissions to 1 lb/MMbtu on a 3 hour average limit. With the scrubbers in place, the plant-wide hourly emissions (tons per hour) will always be less than under the prior state limit, since at least one unit with its scrubber operating and removing SO 2 will be needed to meet the plant-wide SO 2 three hour limit.
4. EPA is finalizing its proposal that opacity is limited to 20 percent averaged over a six minute period for both the boiler stacks and for dust from emission associated with coal transfer and storage and other dust-generating activities. NGS is required to submit a description of the dust control measures.II. Analysis of Major Issues Raised by CommentersEPA held a public informational workshop and hearing on the proposed FIP for NGS at the same time as the workshop and hearing on a proposed FIP for the Four Corners Power Plant. The joint public hearing was held in Farmington, New Mexico, on October 5, 2006. Although EPA received only one comment letter directed specifically at the proposed FIP for NGS, we received 43 comments on the proposed FIP for the Four Corners Power Plant (“FCPP FIP”), many of which either explicitly or implicitly addressed both actions. For example, several comments objected in general terms to allowing operation of coal fired power plants. We responded to comments on the FCPP FIP in a Federal Register Notice on May 7, 2007 (72 FR 25698). Some of our responses to comments in this action are identical or very similar to the response to comments for the FCPP FIP because the comments were identical or similar. Commenters raised concerns which focused on general issues about air quality and health in the area, and more specific concerns about the emission limits and control requirements in the proposed FIP. The one comment letter received relating exclusively to NGS was from SRP and raised specific technical issues. Significant comments, including SRP's comments, are summarized below.
Our complete Response to Comments is contained in a separate document in the docket for this rulemaking. A summary of the significant comments and responses is provided below. A. Concerns About the Scope of the FIP Comment: The majority of commenters objecting to both the FCPP and NGS FIPs indicated that EPA should go beyond merely federalizing the emission limits which NGS has historically followed. Other commenters urged EPA to take regulatory action to regulate or to further reduce emissions of SO 2, NO X, PM, mercury, and “toxic emissions.” Commenters raised a variety of general concerns regarding impacts associated with coal fired power plants such as NGS, including public health and/or environmental impacts of fugitive dust from coal mining, mercury (Hg) and carbon dioxide (CO 2, greenhouse gases). Another commenter argued that in issuing a FIP for NGS, EPA must comply not only with all of the requirements of section 301 of the CAA but also ensure through the FIP process that NGS is in compliance with all applicable federal and state ambient standards by complying with the requirements of section 110 of the CAA addressing State implementation plans.
Today's action is an important step in protecting air quality on the Reservation. As noted in the proposal, this action will contribute towards ensuring continued maintenance of the NAAQS and towards protecting visibility. EPA acknowledges that additional regulatory actions by EPA may be necessary or appropriate in the future to further protect air quality on the Navajo Reservation, depending on, among other things, conditions on the Reservation and the decisions of the Navajo Nation to implement air quality programs. Our detailed response to comments on mercury, CO 2 and other emissions is discussed further below and in our Response to Comments document.B. Comments on Emissions Limits Comment: Several commenters urged EPA to take regulatory action in addition to the proposed FIP to require reductions of NO X and PM emissions from NGS. In particular, several commenters urged EPA to undertake a determination of best available retrofit technology (BART) for NGS's NO X emissions. See 40 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A). One commenter noted that NGS is the 8th largest NO X emitter in the U.S. and that the FIP was not addressing NO X or the environmental impact from the NO X emissions. The commenter also requested an explanation of when and at what levels BART limits would be applied to PM, mercury, VOC and other pollutants. Response: EPA agrees that it may be necessary or appropriate in a future rulemaking to require NGS to reduce its NO X or PM emissions below those levels which were historically contained in the Arizona SIP (and are now contained in this FIP) or which are necessary to comply with the Acid Rain program. In the 1991 revision of the visibility FIP that created SO 2 emission limits for NGS, EPA concluded that those limits achieved greater reasonable progress than would BART, but did not address emissions of NO X or PM from NGS. Today's rule does not address the requirements of EPA's nationally applicable Regional Haze rule, codified at 40 CFR 51.308, which contains specific implementation plan requirements regarding BART determinations. (1)
EPA recognizes, however, the importance of addressing emissions of NO X and PM from NGS for purposes of addressing NGS's contribution to visibility impairment. EPA has requested and SRP has submitted an analysis of the NO X and PM control options to address BART. This document and supplemental submittals are available on the docket EPA has prepared for the BART rulemaking available at: . EPA is reviewing the information provided, and consulting with the Federal Land Manager(s), States with Class I areas impacted by NGS, and tribes to determine the appropriate BART limits for NGS. On August 28, 2009, EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) concerning the anticipated visibility improvements and the cost effectiveness for different levels of air pollution controls as BART for NGS and for another coal-fired power plant located on the Navajo Nation, Four Corners Power Plant (“FCPP”). EPA issued the ANPR for the specific purpose of collecting additional information that EPA may consider in modeling the degree of anticipated visibility improvements in the Class I areas surrounding the two power plants and for determining whether BART controls are cost effective at this time. EPA also requested any additional information that commenters believe the agency should consider in promulgating a FIP establishing BART for the two power plants.
Comment: SRP requested that NGS be exempt from opacity monitoring requirements, consistent with 40 CFR 75.14(b) which exempts units equipped with a wet flue pollution control system for SO 2 or particulates from the monitoring requirements of part 75, if the source “can demonstrate that condensed water is present in the exhaust flue gas stream and would impede the accuracy of opacity measurements.”
Response: EPA agrees with SRP's comments that when the stack is saturated and has uncombined water droplets, the Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems (COMs) cannot correctly read the opacity due to particulate matter and has updated the final rule to reflect this change; however, NGS will continue to have a requirement to operate COMs on each stack since the COMs do operate properly during start-up and at other times when the SO 2 scrubbers are bypassed for maintenance purposes. SRP has operated the monitors for a number of years and EPA does not find that an exemption allowed in part 75 is appropriate in this rule.III. Administrative RequirementsA. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and ReviewThis action is not “significant regulatory action” under the terms of “Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. This action will finalize a source-specific FIP for the Navajo Generating Station on the Navajo Nation.B. Paperwork Reduction ActThis action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a “collection of information” is defined as a requirement for “answers to * * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons * * *.” 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the FIP applies to a single facility, NGS, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
After considering the economic impacts of this final action on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FIP for NGS being finalized today does not impose any new requirements on small entities. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985)D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action will make emissions limits from a single source federally enforceable.E. Under section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an action that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed action. In addition, under section 6(c) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an action that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed action.
Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless consulted with representatives of State and local governments (2)
early in the process of developing the proposed action to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development.F. Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop “an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” Under Executive Order 13175, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement. In addition, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications and pre-empts tribal law unless EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and prepares a tribal summary impact statement.
EPA has also consulted extensively with officials of the Navajo Nation in the process of developing this regulation. EPA had discussions with Tribal representatives during proposal of the FIP in 1999. We also consulted prior to the 2006 FIP proposal and Tribal officials attended the public information workshop and public hearing on the proposed FIP in 2006. Therefore, EPA has allowed the Navajo Nation to provide meaningful and timely input into the development of this rule.G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it only makes previously applicable emissions standards federally enforceable. Because this action federalizes existing requirements, it is not economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and does not have a disproportionate effect on children.H. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement ActSection 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
SO 2—EPA Method 6C and Performance Specification 2 for Continuous SO 2 Monitoring.J. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. This final rule requires emissions reductions and makes emissions limitations federally enforceable for a major stationary source.K. Congressional Review ActThe Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective April 5, 2010.L. Petitions for Judicial ReviewUnder section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 4, 2010. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b) (2).)
List of Subjects InEnvironmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Part 49 Amended
§ 49.24 Federal Implementation Plan Provisions for Navajo Generating Station, Navajo Nation.
(1) Absorber upset transition period means the 24-hour period following an upset of an SO 2 absorber module which resulted in the absorber being taken out of service.
(e) Testing and Monitoring. (1) On and after the effective date of this regulation, the owner or operator shall maintain and operate Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for NOx and SO 2 and Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems (COMS) on Units 1, 2, and 3 in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13(e), (f), and (h), and Appendix B of Part 60. The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance procedures for CEMS and COMS found in 40 CFR part 75.
(f) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. Unless otherwise stated all requests, reports, submittals, notifications and other communications to the Regional Administrator required by this section shall be submitted to the Director, Navajo Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 339, Window Rock, Arizona 86515, (928) 871 -7692, (928) 871-7996 (facsimile), and to the Director, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, to the attention of Mail Code: AIR-5, at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, (415) 972-3990, (415) 947-3579 (facsimile). For each unit subject to the emissions limitations in this section the owner or operator shall:
(2) For excess emissions, notify the Navajo Environmental Protection Agency Director and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator by telephone or in writing within one business day. This notification should be sent to the Director, Navajo Environmental Protection Agency, by mail to: P.O. Box 339, Window Rock, Arizona 86515, or by facsimile to: (928) 871-7996 (facsimile), and to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, by mail to the attention of Mail Code: AIR-5, at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, by facsimile to: (415) 947-3579 (facsimile), or by e-mail to: . A complete written report of the incident shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator within ten (10) working days after the event. This notification shall include the following information:
(vii) The owner or operator's actions in response to the excess emissions were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence.[FR Doc. 2010-4542 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560-50-PFootnotes
Such implementation plans were not required from the States until December 17, 2007. Tribes are not subject to any mandatory deadlines to submit regional haze implementation plans. See 40 CFR 49.4; 64 FR at 35758 (“For example, unlike States, tribes are not required by the TAR to adopt and implement CAA plans or programs, thus tribes are not subject to mandatory deadlines for submittal of implementation plans.”); see also Arizona Public Service Company v. USEPA, 562 F.3d at 1119).
Attachments View All (0) View document: No documents available. Attachments View All (0) Comment Now! Comment Period Closed ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0185-0038 Tracking Number: View original printed format: Document Information Date Posted: Mar 5, 2010RIN: Not AssignedCFR: 40 CFR Part 49Federal Register Number: 2010-04542 Show More Details Submitter Information Comments0 Comments Received* Docket Information This document is contained in EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0185 Related Dockets: NoneRelated RINs: NoneRelated Documents: Source-Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Navajo... Related Comments: View all * This count refers to the total comment/submissions received on this document, as of 11:59 PM yesterday. Note: Agencies review all submissions, however some agencies may choose to redact, or withhold, certain submissions (or portions thereof) such as those containing private or proprietary information, inappropriate language, or duplicate/near duplicate examples of a mass-mail campaign. This can result in discrepancies between this count and those displayed when conducting searches on the Public Submission document type. For specific information about an agency’s public submission policy, refer to its website or the Federal Register document. Document text and images courtesy of the Federal Register Home Search Advanced Search Browse By Category Learn About Us eRulemaking Program Media Toolkit Agencies Awards & Recognition Enhancements & Fixes Resources Site Data Regulatory Agenda Agency Reports Required by Statute API Overview Developers Help How to use Regulations.gov FAQs Glossary Connect With Contact Us Privacy and Security Notice User Notice Accessibility Statement Partner Sites We the People Federal Register Reginfo Congress.gov USA.gov E-Gov Opengov Participate Today!