[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 141 (Monday, July 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 44136]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15879]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4654-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Kansas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4654-DR), dated May 25, 2022,
and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued May 25, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 25, 2022, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Kansas resulting from severe winter storms and straight-line
winds during the period of March 17 to March 22, 2022, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Kansas.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, DuWayne Tewes, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Kansas have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Barton, Clark, Comanche, Edwards, Ellis, Ford, Graham, Gray,
Hodgeman, Kiowa, Lane, Meade, Ness, Pawnee, Phillips, Rooks, Rush,
Stafford, Trego, and Wallace Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Kansas are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-15879 Filed 7-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


determined using emission factors, material balances, continuous monitor
data, or manual emission tests.

Alternative 6 is also based on the NSPS “maximum achievable” test,
but is modified to an energy output (lb/MWh) basis.  Under Alternative
6, §51.167(f) (1) would read as follows:

Emissions increase test.  For each regulated NSR pollutant, compare the
maximum achievable emissions rate in pounds per megawatt-hour (lb/MWh)
before the physical or operational change to the maximum achievable
emissions rate in lb/MWh after the change.  Determine these maximum
achievable emissions rates according to §60.14(b) of this chapter,
using emissions rates in lb/MWh achievable over 1 hour of continuous
operation in place of mass emissions rates.  For EGUs that are
cogeneration units, determine emissions rates based on gross energy
output.  For other EGUs, determine emissions rates based on gross
electrical output.  No physical change, or change in the method of
operation, at an existing EGU shall be treated as a modification for the
purposes of this section provided that such change does not increase the
maximum emissions rate of any regulated NSR pollutant above the maximum
emissions rate achievable at that unit during the 5 years prior to the
change.

To maintain an hourly basis for the emissions rate, the proposed
language specifies that the maximum achievable emissions rate in lb/MWh
is to be determined based on what is achievable over 1 hour of
continuous operation (that is, a 1-hour averaging period rather than an
instantaneous spike).  In addition, as noted above in the discussion of
the output-based alternatives under the maximum achieved hourly
emissions test (Alternatives 2 and 4), we propose to cite the definition
in the CAIR rule at §51.124(q) for the definitions of “cogeneration
unit” and related terms.  We propose to include definitions in
§51.167(h) (2) of this rule for “gross electrical output,” “gross
energy output,” “gross power output,” and “useful thermal energy
output.”

2.  Data Limitations in Determining Emissions Rates

We are proposing three limitations on the data used to calculate the
pre-change and post-change emissions rates under the maximum achievable
hourly emissions test (see proposed §51.167(f) (2) (ii)).  The proposed
limitations are identical for Alternatives 5 and 6.  For purposes of
determining maximum emissions rates under the maximum achievable test,
we propose that you must not use the following types of data in your
calculations:

Emissions rate data associated with startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions
of your EGU, as defined by applicable regulation(s) or permit term(s),
or malfunctions of an associated air pollution control device.  A
malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable
failure of the EGU or the air pollution control equipment to operate in
a normal or usual manner.

Continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) or predictive emissions
monitoring system (PEMS) data recorded during monitoring system
out-of-control periods.  Out-of-control periods include those during
which the monitoring system fails to meet quality assurance criteria
(for example, periods of system breakdown, repair, calibration checks,
or zero and span adjustments) established by regulation, by permit, or
in an approved quality assurance plan.

Data from any period for which there is inadequate information for
determining emissions rates, including information related to the
limitations listed above.

These proposed data limitations are the same as three of the four data
limitations that we are proposing for the maximum achieved tests
(Alternatives 1 through 4).  See Section IV.A.3. above for the
discussion of these three data limitations.

3.  Recordkeeping and Reporting requirements

We are proposing nearly the same recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for the maximum achievable test (Alternatives 5 and 6) that
we propose for the maximum achieved hourly emissions test (Alternatives
1 through 4).  The only difference is in the amount of advance
notification required.  See Section IV.A.4 of this preamble for the
discussion of the common requirements.  The proposed rule language is
found at §51.167(g) (1) (ii) and (2).

The notification requirements are based on the requirements found in
§60.7(a) (4).  These NSPS provisions require a notification 60 days, or
as soon as practicable, before the change is commenced.  Although we
propose to require a 6-month advance notification under the maximum
achieved test for the reasons discussed above in Section IV.A.4 of this
preamble, we propose to retain the shorter notification requirement of
§60.7(a)(4) for the maximum achievable test.  Because determinations of
pre-change and post-change maximum hourly emissions rates typically are
made using emission factors under the maximum achievable test, we
believe that a notification 60 days, or as soon as practicable, in
advance of commencing the change is adequate to allow the reviewing
authority to review and evaluate the notification.

V.  Proposed Regulations for Option 2:  Hourly Emissions Increase Test

This section contains details on the proposed regulatory language for
Option 2, the hourly emissions increase test.   We are proposing that
Option 2 would apply to all existing EGUs.  As we noted at 70 FR 61093,
however, we are also requesting comment on whether Option 2 should be
limited to the geographic area covered by CAIR, or to the geographic
area covered by both CAIR and BART.  We are also proposing that the
Option 2 would apply to all regulated NSR pollutants.  However, we also
request comment on whether Option 2 should be limited to increases of
SO2 and NOx emissions.

In today’s SNPR, for Option 2 we are proposing to exempt EGUs from the
procedures in the current regulations for determining a significant
emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase.
Specifically, we are proposing to exempt EGUs from the applicability
procedures based on a significant emissions increase and significant net
emissions increase in the current regulations at 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166,
52.21, and 52.24 and in appendix S to 40 CFR part 51.   That is, we are
proposing to amend each of these sections to exempt EGUs from all
provisions for significant emissions increases and significant net
emission increases.  For example, under Option 2 the provisions for
determining a significant emissions increase and a significant net
emissions increase in §51.166(a) (7) (iv)(a) would be amended to exempt
EGUs as follows.

Except for EGUs as defined in §51.167(h)(1) of this Subpart, and except
as otherwise provided in paragraphs (a)(7)(v) and (vi) of this section,
and consistent with the definition of major modification contained in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, a project is a major modification for
a regulated NSR pollutant if it causes two types of emissions increases-
a significant emissions increase (as defined in paragraph (b)(39) of
this section), and a significant net emissions increase (as d efined in
paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)23) of this section).  The project is not a
major modification if it dos not cause a significant emissions increase.
 If the project causes a significant emissions increase, then the
project is a major modification only if it also results in a significant
net emissions increase.

We are proposing to amend all other provisions for significant emissions
increase and significant net emissions increase in the current
regulations at 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, and 52.24 and in appendix S
to 40 CFR part 51 in an analogous manner to exempt EGUs.

In place of the applicability procedures in the current regulations
concerning significant emissions increase and significant net emissions
increase, Option 2 applies an hourly emissions increase test to EGUs.
We describe these as Steps 1 and 2, which comprise the two-step
modification test and are the same as under Option 1, in Section IV of
this preamble.  As with Option 1, under Option 2, we are proposing to
develop two new sections (40 CFR 51.167 and 52.37) to the major NSR
program rules that would include the two-step provisions for
modifications at EGUs.  Thus, the amendatory language in this action
applies to Option 2 as it relates to Steps 1 and 2.  That is, under
Option 2, EGUs would be subject to the new two-step requirements for
modifications.  They would not be subject to the requirements in the
existing regulations for major modifications.

Alternatives 1-6, comprising Step 2 of Option 2, are the same as under
Option 1.  We describe these alternatives in detail above in Section IV
of this preamble.  Table 13 shows Option 2, including Alternatives 1-6.

Table 13.  Major NSR Applicability for Existing EGUs Under Option 2

Option 2	Step 1:  Physical Change or Change in the Method of Operation

Step 2:  Hourly Emissions Increase Test

Alternative 1 – Maximum achieved hourly emissions; statistical
approach; input basis

Alternative 2 – Maximum achieved hourly emissions; statistical
approach; output basis

Alternative 3 – Maximum achieved hourly emissions; one-in-5-year
baseline; input basis

Alternative 4 – Maximum achieved hourly emissions; one-in-5-year
baseline; output basis

Alternative 5 – NSPS test – maximum achievable hourly emissions;
input basis

Alternative 6 – NSPS test – maximum achievable hourly emissions;
output basis

Under Option 2, if a physical or operational change at an existing EGU
is found to be a modification according to this hourly emissions test,
the EGU would then be subject to all the substantive major NSR
requirements of the existing regulations.  Accordingly, we are also
proposing to revise the substantive provisions in all the current major
NSR regulations that apply to major modifications to apply also to
modifications at EGUs.  The amendatory language in today’s proposed
rule does not include specific provisions for these changes.  The
substantive provisions to be amended would include, but not be limited
to, the provisions in §51.166(a)(7)(i) though (iii), (b)(9), (b)(12),
(b)(14)(ii), (b)(15), (b)(18), (i)(1) through (9), (j)(1) through (4),
(m)(1) through (3), (p)(1) through (7), (r)(1) though (7), and (s)(1)
through (4).  For example, we are proposing to amend §51.166(a)(7)(iii)
as follows.

No new major stationary source, major modification, or modification at
an EGU to which the requirements of paragraphs (j) through (r)(5) of
this section apply shall begin actual construction without a permit that
states that the major stationary source, major modification, or
modification at an EGU will meet those requirements.

We are proposing to amend all other provisions for in the current
regulations at 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, and 52.24 and in appendix S
to 40 CFR part 51 in an analogous manner to require that the substantive
provisions in all the current major NSR regulations  apply to
modifications at EGUs.

VII.   Legal Basis and Policy Rationale

This section supplements the legal arguments in our October 2005
proposal.     (70 FR 70565.)  In that action, we provided our legal
basis and rationale for the proposed maximum achievable hourly emissions
test and our alternative proposal, the maximum achieved hourly emissions
test.  We noted that the key statutory provisions provide, in relevant
part, that a “modification” that triggers NSR occurs when a physical
change or change in the method of operation “increases the amount of
any air pollutant emitted” by the source.  Although the Court in New
York v. EPA held that the quoted provision refers to increases in actual
emissions, the Court further indicated that the statute was silent as to
the method for determining whether increases occur.

When a statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to specific issues,
the relevant inquiry for a reviewing court is whether the Agency(s
interpretation of the statutory provision is permissible.  Chevron
U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc. 467 U.S. 837, 865 (1984).  Accordingly, we
have broad discretion to propose a reasonable method by which to
calculate emissions increases for purposes of NSR applicability.

This action continues to propose both the maximum achievable hourly
emissions increase test and the maximum achieved hourly emissions
increase test.  We set forth legal basis and rationale in the NPR for
these two tests.  In today’s SNPR, however, we provide additional
legal and policy basis for the hourly emissions increase tests, on both
an input and output basis.

We believe that a test based on maximum actual hourly emissions is a
reasonable measure of actual emissions.  It measures actual emissions at
peak, or close to peak, physical and operational capacity.  For reasons
described elsewhere, and summarized below, we believe this approach
implements sound policy objectives.

As we noted at 70 FR 61091, we believe that a test based on maximum
achievable hourly emissions remains a test based on actual emissions.
The reason is that, as noted in the October 2005 proposal, as a
practical matter, for most, if not all EGUs, the hourly rate at which
the unit is actually able to emit is substantively equivalent to that
unit’s historical maximum hourly emissions.  That is, most, if not all
EGUs will operate at their maximum actual physical and operational
capacity at some point in a 5-year period.  In general, highest
emissions occur during the period of highest utilization.  As a result,
both the maximum achievable and maximum achieved hourly emissions
increase tests allow an EGU to utilize all of its existing capacity, and
in this aspect the hourly rate at which the unit is actually able to
emit is substantively equivalent under both tests.

Some commenters took issue with this statement, arguing that maximum
achievable emissions could differ from maximum achieved emissions for a
given EGU for any given period as a result of factors independent of the
physical or operational change, including variability of the sulfur
content in the coal being burned.

We have long recognized that the highest hourly emissions do not always
occur at the point of highest capacity utilization, due to fluctuations
in process and control equipment operation, as well as in fuel content
and firing method.  In fact, we justified an emission factor approach as
our preferred approach when we proposed the NSPS regulations at §60.14
in 1974.  (See 39 FR 36947.)  As we also noted in developing these NSPS
provisions for modifications, “measurement techniques such as emission
tests or continuous monitors are sensitive to routine fluctuations in
emissions, and thus a method is needed to distinguish between
significant increases in emissions and routine fluctuations in
emissions.”  (39 FR 36947.)  At that time, we proposed a statistical
method for use with stack tests and continuous monitors to measure
actual emissions to address this issue.

In light of these concerns, we developed a statistical approach for the
maximum achieved hourly emissions increase test to assure that it
identifies the maximum hourly pollutant emissions value (for example
maximum lb/hr NOx during a specific one-year period).  The statistical
procedure would provide an estimate of the highest value (99.9
percentage level) in the period represented by the data set.  We believe
that this approach mitigates some of the uncertainty associated with
trying to identify the highest hourly emissions rate at the highest
capacity utilization.  We thus believe that, over a period that is
representative of normal operation, in general the maximum achievable
and maximum achieved hourly emissions test would lead to substantially
equivalent results.

Each of today’s proposed options would promote the safety,
reliability, and efficiency of EGUs.  Each of the options would balance
the economic need of sources to use existing operating capacity with the
environmental benefit of regulating those emission increases related to
a change, considering the substantial national emissions reductions
other programs have achieved or will achieve from EGUs.  The proposed
regulations are consistent with the primary purpose of the major NSR
program, which is not to reduce emissions, but to balance the need for
environmental protection and economic growth.  As the analyses included
in today’s SNPR demonstrate, the proposed regulations would not have
an undue adverse impact on local air quality.  Furthermore, as our
analyses demonstrate, increases in hours of operation at EGUs, to the
extent they may change under a maximum hourly rate test, do not increase
national SO2, NOx, PM2.5, VOC, or CO emissions.  Consistent with earlier
analyses, our analyses demonstrate that in a system where national
emissions are capped, the more hours an EGU operates, the more likely it
is to install controls.

Moreover, each of the proposed options also offers additional benefits
consistent with our overall policy goals.  We propose Option 1, our
preferred Option, for the purpose of maintaining the current significant
net emissions increase component of the emissions increase test.  In
light of the additional complexity that netting adds, we solicit comment
on whether netting and significance levels would retain, in combination
with an hourly test, the usefulness they have under an annual test.

The proposed maximum hourly tests would streamline major NSR by reducing
applicability determinations complexity.  The proposed maximum hourly
achievable test provides more streamlining by conforming them to NSPS
applicability determinations.  We also note that Option 2 (both
achievable and achieved alternatives) eliminates the burden of
projecting future emissions and distinguishing between emissions
increases caused by the change from those due solely to demand growth,
because any increase in the emissions under the maximum hourly
achievable emissions test would logically be attributed to the change.
In addition, Option 2 reduces recordkeeping and reporting burdens on
sources because compliance will no longer rely on synthesizing emissions
data into rolling average emissions.  Option 2 would also reduce the
reviewing authorities’ compliance and enforcement burden. We recognize
that Option 1, which retain an annual emissions increase test, would not
streamline the major NSR program as Option 2 would.

We acknowledge that an output-based format may not be as effective a
measure of existing capacity utilization in some instances as our
input-based options.  However, consistent with our policy goal of
encouraging efficient use of existing energy capacity, we are continuing
to propose an output-based format for the hourly emissions increase
tests.  An output-based standard establishes emission limits in a format
that incorporates the effects of unit efficiency by relating emissions
to the amount of useful energy generated, not the amount of fuel burned.
 By relating emission limitations to the productive output of the
process, output-based emission limits encourage energy efficiency
because any increase in overall energy efficiency results in a lower
emission rate.  Allowing energy efficiency as a pollution control
measure provides regulated sources with an additional compliance option
that can lead to reduced compliance costs as well as lower emissions.
The use of more efficient technologies reduces fossil fuel use and leads
to multi-media reductions in environmental impacts both on-site and
off-site.

Option 2 does not include steps for determining whether significant net
emissions increases have occurred.  We recognize that the D.C. Circuit,
in the seminal case, Alabama Power v. EPA, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir.
1980), which was handed down before Chevron, held that failure to
interpret “increases” to allow netting  would be “unreasonable and
contrary to the expressed purposes of the PSD provisions....”  Id. at
401.  As we noted at 70 FR 61093, it is important to place this ruling
in the context of the rules before the Court at that time.  Our 1978
regulations required a source-wide accumulation of emissions increases
without providing for an ability to offset these accumulated increases
with any source-wide decreases.  In finding that we must apply a bubble
approach, the Court held that we could not require sources to accumulate
increases without also accumulating decreases.  It is unclear whether
the Court would have reached the same conclusion if the emissions test
before the Court only considered the increases from the project under
review and not source-wide increases from multiple projects.

Moreover, the Court's rationale focused on the ability to “net” as
it relates to the addition of new units, rather than to changes existing
units, which is the concern of our proposed action.   Specifically, the
court stated:

         To [construe “increases” not to allow netting], however,
would require PSD review for many such routine alterations of a plant; a
new unit would contribute additional pollutants, these increases could
not be set off against the decrease resulting from abandonment of the
old unit, and thus the change would be come a ‘modification’ subject
to PSD review.  Not only would this result be extremely burdensome, it
was never intended by Congress in enacting the Clean Air Act
Amendments...

Because today's action does not change the emissions test that applies
when a major stationary sources adds a new emissions unit, the existing
regulations continue to satisfy the Alabama Power Court's interpretation
of Congressional intent, irrespective of today's proposed changes.   We
request comment on our observations related to the Alabama Power
Court’s decision related to netting and whether a major NSR program
without netting can be supported under the Act.

With respect to the significance levels, which, like netting, are not
included under Option 2, we recognize that Alabama Power also upheld
significance levels as a “permissible ... exercise of agency power,
inherent in most statutory schemes, to overlook circumstances that in
context may fairly be considered de minimis.”  Id. At 360.  It is
clear, however, that the Court considered the establishment of
significance levels as discretionary.  We believe that significance
levels are not important to include in the rules proposed in Option 2
because under those rules, relatively minor changes for which the
significance levels might come into play would not increase the maximum
hourly rate.  By comparison, the changes that do increase the maximum
hourly rate are likely to be capacity increases that should not, by
their nature, be considered de minimis.

We request comment on all aspects of our legal and policy basis.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews tc \l1 "VI.  Statutory and
Executive Order Reviews

A.  Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review tc \l2 "A.
Executive Order 12866Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a "significant regulatory action."  The action was identified
as a "significant regulatory action" because it raises novel legal or
policy issues.  Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket for this action.

B.  Paperwork Reduction Act tc \l2 "B.  Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.  The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1230.19.

Certain records and reports are necessary for the State or local agency
(or the EPA Administrator in non-delegated areas), for example, to: (1)
confirm the compliance status of stationary sources, identify any
stationary sources not subject to the standards, and identify stationary
sources subject to the rules; and (2) ensure that the stationary source
control requirements are being achieved.  The information would be used
by the EPA or State enforcement personnel to (1) identify stationary
sources subject to the rules, (2) ensure that appropriate control
technology is being properly applied, and (3) ensure that the emission
control devices are being properly operated and maintained on a
continuous basis.  Based on the reported information, the State, local
or tribal agency can decide which plants, records, or processes should
be inspected.

The proposed rule would reduce burden for owners and operators of major
stationary sources.  We expect the proposed rule would simplify
applicability determinations, eliminate the burden of projecting future
emissions and distinguishing between emissions increases caused by the
change from those due solely to demand growth, and reduce recordkeeping
and reporting burdens.  Over the 3-year period covered by the ICR, we
estimate an average annual reduction in burden for all industry entities
that would be affected by the proposed rule.  For the same reasons, we
also expect the proposed rule to reduce burden for State and local
authorities reviewing permits when fully implemented.  However, there
would be a one-time, additional burden for State and local agencies to
revise their SIPs to incorporate the proposed changes.

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 purpose of responding to the information
collection; adjust existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to
a collection of information; search existing 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 parts 9.

To comment on the Agency(s need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including use of automated collection techniques, EPA
has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR,
under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-1063.  Submit any comments
related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB.  See
(Addresses( section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA.  Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
Northwest, Washington, DC 20503, Attention:  Desk Officer for EPA.
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].  The final rule will respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection requirements contained in this
proposal.

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) tc \l2 "C.  Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA)

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute
unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  Small
entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's notice on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business that is a
small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards.  (See 13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a population of less than
50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today(s notice on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary
purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and
address regulatory alternatives (which minimize any significant economic
impact of the proposed rule on small entities.(  5 U.S.C. sections 603
and 604.  Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if
the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect, on all of the small entities subject to the rule.

We believe that today(s proposed rule changes will relieve the
regulatory burden associated with the major NSR program for all EGUs,
including any EGUs that are small businesses.  This is because the
proposed rule would simplify applicability determinations, eliminate the
burden of projecting future emissions and distinguishing between
emissions increases caused by the change from those due solely to demand
growth, and by reducing recordkeeping and reporting burdens.  As a
result, the program changes provided in the proposed rule are not
expected to result in any increases in expenditure by any small entity.

We have therefore concluded that today(s proposed rule would relieve
regulatory burden for all small entities.  We continue to be interested
in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act tc \l2 "D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 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 to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one 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 cost-effective 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 least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 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 regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.

We have determined that this rule would not contain a Federal mandate
that would result in expenditures of $100 million or more by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector
in any 1 year.  Although initially these changes are expected to result
in a small increase in the burden imposed upon reviewing authorities in
order for them to be included in the State(s SIP, these revisions would
ultimately simplify applicability determinations, eliminate the burden
of reviewing projected future emissions and distinguishing between
emissions increases caused by the change from those due solely to demand
growth, and reduce the burden associated with making compliance
determinations.  Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

For the same reasons stated above, we have determined that today(s
notice contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.  Thus, this action is not subject to
the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E.  Executive Order 13132:  Federalism tc \l2 "E.  Executive Order
13132Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled (Federalism( (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
(meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.(
(Policies that have federalism implications( is defined in the Executive
Order to include regulations that have (substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.(

This proposed rule does not have federalism implications.  It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.  We estimate a one-time burden of
approximately 2,240 hours and $83,000 for State agencies to revise their
SIPs to include the proposed regulations.  However, these revisions
would ultimately simplify applicability determinations, eliminate the
burden of reviewing projected future emissions and distinguishing
between emissions increases caused by the change from those due solely
to demand growth, and reduce the burden associated with making
compliance determinations.  This will in turn reduce the overall burden
of the program.  Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy
to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments,
EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and
local officials.

F.  Executive Order 13175:  Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments tc \l2 "F.  Executive Order 13175Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled (Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments( (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure (meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications.(  This proposed rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.  There are no
Tribal authorities currently issuing major NSR permits.  To the extent
that today(s proposed rule may apply in the future to any EGU that may
locate on tribal lands, tribal officials are afforded the opportunity to
comment on tribal implications in today(s notice.  Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.

Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.  We will also consult with tribal officials, including
officials of the Navaho Nation lands on which Navajo Power Plant and
Four Corners Generating Plant are located, before promulgating the final
regulations.  In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent
with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and
local government, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed
rule from State and local governments.

G.  Executive Order 13045:  Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks tc \l2 "G.  Executive Order
13045Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks

Executive Order 13045: (Protection of Children from Environmental health
Risks and Safety Risks( (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be (economically significant( as defined
under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children.  If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential
to influence the regulation.  This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045, because we do not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.  We believe that, based on our
analysis of electric utilities, this rule as a whole will result in
equal environmental protection to that currently provided by the
existing regulations, and do so in a more streamlined and effective
manner.

H.  Executive Order 13211:  Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use tc \l2 "H.
Executive Order 13211Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This rule is not a (significant energy action( as defined in Executive
Order 13211, (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use( [66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)]
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.  In fact, this rule improves
owner/operator flexibility concerning the supply, distribution, and use
of energy.  Specifically, the proposed rule would increase
owner/operators( ability to utilize existing capacity at EGUs.

I.  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995

 ((NTTAA(), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.  Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for
example, materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures,
and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies.  The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

Today(s proposed rule does not involve technical standards.  Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

IX.  Statutory Authority

	The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 307(d)
(7) (B), 101, 111, 114, 116, and 301 of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C.
7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, and 7601).  This notice is also subject to
section 307(d) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

	Environmental protection, Administrative practice and

procedure, Air pollution control, Electric Generating Unit, Nitrogen
oxides, Sulfur dioxide

40 CFR Part 52

	Environmental protection, Administrative practice and

procedure, Air pollution control, Electric Generating Unit, Nitrogen
oxides, Sulfur dioxide.

____________________

Dated:

_____________________

Stephen L. Johnson,

 Administrator.  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 51 - [Amended]

	1.  The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

	Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401 - 7671q.

Subpart I - [Amended]

	2.  Add §51.167 to read as follows:

§51.167  Preliminary major NSR applicability test for electric
generating units (EGUs)  TC "§51.167  Major modification procedures for
electric generating units (EGUs)" \f C \l "1"  .

(a)  What is the purpose of this section?  TC "(a)  What is the purpose
of this section?" \f C \l "2"    State Implementation Plans and Tribal
Implementation Plans must include the requirements in paragraphs (b)
through (h) of this section for determining (prior to or after
construction) whether a change to an EGU is a modification for purposes
of major NSR applicability.  Deviations from these provisions will be
approved only if the State or Tribe demonstrates that the submitted
provisions are at least as stringent in all respects as the
corresponding provisions in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section.

	(b)  Am I subject to this section?  TC "(b)  Am I subject to this
section?" \f C \l "2"    You must meet the requirements of this section
if you own or operate an EGU that is located at a major stationary
source, and you plan to make a change to the EGU.

	(c)  What happens if a change to my EGU is determined to be a
modification according to the procedures of this section?    TC "(c)
What happens if a change to my EGU is determined to be a major
modification according to the procedures of this section?" \f C \l "2"
If the change to your EGU is a modification according to the procedures
of this section, you must determine whether the change is a major
modification according to the procedures of the major NSR program that
applies in the area in which your EGU is located.  That is, you must
evaluate your modification according to the requirements set out in the
applicable regulations approved pursuant to §51.165 and/or §51.166,
depending on the regulated NSR pollutants emitted and the attainment
status of the area in which your EGU is located for those pollutants.
Section 51.165 sets out the requirements for State nonattainment major
NSR programs, while §51.166 sets out the requirements for State PSD
programs.

	(d)  What is the process for determining if a change to an EGU is a
modification?  TC "(d)  What is the process for determining if a change
to an EGU constitutes a major modification?" \f C \l "2"    The two-step
process set out in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section is used to
determine (before beginning actual construction) whether a change to an
EGU located at a major stationary source is a modification.  Regardless
of any preconstruction projections, a modification has occurred if a
change satisfies both steps in the process.

	(1)  Step 1.  Is the change a physical change in, or change in the
method of operation of, the EGU?  (See paragraph (e) of this section for
a list of actions that are not physical or operational changes.)  If so,
go on to Step 2 (paragraph (d)(2) of this section).

	(2)  Step 2.  Will the physical or operational change to the EGU
increase the amount of any regulated NSR pollutant emitted into the
atmosphere by the source (as determined according to paragraph (f) of
this section) or result in the emissions of any regulated NSR
pollutant(s) into the atmosphere that the source did not previously
emit?  If so, the change is a modification.

	(e)  What types of actions are not physical changes or changes in the
method of operation?  (Step1)  TC "(e)  What types of physical or
operational changes are exempted from consideration under this section?
(Step1)" \f C \l "2"    For purposes of this section, a physical change
or change in the method of operation shall not include:

	(1)  Routine maintenance, repair, and replacement;

	(2)  Use of an alternative fuel or raw material by reason of an order
under sections 2(a) and (b) of the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 (or any superseding legislation) or by reason
of a natural gas curtailment plan pursuant to the Federal Power Act;

	(3)  Use of an alternative fuel by reason of an order or rule under
section 125 of the Act;

	(4)  Use of an alternative fuel at a steam generating unit to the
extent that the fuel is generated from municipal solid waste;

	(5)  Use of an alternative fuel or raw material by a stationary source
which the source is approved to use under any permit issued under 40 CFR
52.21 or under regulations approved pursuant to §51.165 or §51.166, or
which:

	(i)  For purposes of evaluating attainment pollutants, the source was
capable of accommodating before January 6, 1975, unless such change
would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition
which was established after January 6, 1975 pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or
under regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR part 51 subpart I or
§51.166; or

	(ii)  For purposes of evaluating nonattainment pollutants, the source
was capable of accommodating before December 21, 1976, unless such
change would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit
condition which was established after December 21, 1976 pursuant to 40
CFR 52.21 or under regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR part 51
subpart I or §51.166;

	(6)  An increase in the hours of operation or in the production rate,
unless such change is prohibited under any federally enforceable permit
condition which was established after January 6, 1975 (for purposes of
evaluating attainment pollutants) or after December 21, 1976 (for
purposes of evaluating nonattainment pollutants) pursuant to 40 CFR
52.21 or regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR part 51 subpart I or
§51.166;

	(7)  Any change in ownership at a stationary source;

	(8)  The installation, operation, cessation, or removal of a temporary
clean coal technology demonstration project, provided that the project
complies with:

	(i)  The State Implementation Plan for the State in which the project
is located; and

	(ii)  Other requirements necessary to attain and maintain the national
ambient air quality standard during the project and after it is
terminated;

	(9)  For purposes of evaluating attainment pollutants, the installation
or operation of a permanent clean coal technology demonstration project
that constitutes repowering, provided that the project does not result
in an increase in the potential to emit of any regulated pollutant
emitted by the unit.  This exemption shall apply on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis; or

	(10)  For purposes of evaluating attainment pollutants, the
reactivation of a very clean coal-fired EGU.

	(f)  How do I determine if there is an emissions increase?  (Step 2)
TC "(f)  How do I determine if my physical or operational change will
increase the amount of a regulated NSR pollutant emitted into the
atmosphere by my source?  (Step2)" \f C \l "2"    You must determine if
the physical or operational change to your EGU increases the amount of
any regulated NSR pollutant emitted to the atmosphere using the method
in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, subject to the limitations in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section.  If the physical or operational change
to your EGU increases the amount of any regulated NSR pollutant emitted
into the atmosphere or results in the emission of any regulated NSR
pollutant(s) into the atmosphere that your EGU did not previously emit,
the change is a modification as defined in paragraph (h)(2) of this
section.

Alternative 1 for paragraph (f)(1):

	(1)  Emissions increase test.  For each regulated NSR pollutant for
which you have hourly average CEMS or PEMS emissions data with
corresponding fuel heat input data, compare the pre-change maximum
actual hourly emissions rate in pounds per hour (lb/hr) to a projection
of the post-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate in lb/hr,
subject to the provisions in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section.

	(i)  Pre-change emissions.  Determine the pre-change maximum actual
hourly emissions rate as follows:

	(A)  Select a period of 365 consecutive days within the 5-year period
immediately preceding when you begin actual construction of the physical
or operational change.  Compile a data set (for example, in a
spreadsheet) with the hourly average CEMS or PEMS (as applicable)
measured emissions rates and corresponding heat input data for all of
the hours of operation for that 365-day period for the pollutant of
interest.

	(B)  Delete any unacceptable hourly data from this 365-day period in
accordance with the data limitations in paragraph (f)(2) of this
section.

	(C)  Extract the hourly data for the 10 percent of the remaining data
set corresponding to the highest heat input rates for the selected
period.  This step may be facilitated by sorting the data set for the
remaining operating hours from the lowest to the highest heat input
rates.

	(D)  Calculate the average emissions rate from the extracted (i.e.,
highest 10 percent heat input rates) data set, using Equation 1:

 					Equation 1

Where:

 = average emissions rate, lb/hr;

	n = number of emissions rate values; and

  = ith emissions rate value, lb/hr

	(E)  Calculate the standard deviation of the data set, s, using
Equation 2:

 			Equation 2

	(F)  Calculate the Upper Tolerance Limit, UTL, of the data set using
Equation 3:

 Equation 3

Where:

	Z1-p = 3.090, Z score for the 99.9 percentage of interval; and

	Z1-q =  2.326, Z score for the 99 percent confidence level.

	(G)  Use the UTL calculated in paragraph (f)(1)(i)(F) of this section
as the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate.

	(ii)  Post-change emissions—preconstruction projections.  For each
regulated NSR pollutant, you must project the maximum emissions rate
that your EGU will actually achieve in any 1 hour in the 5 years
following the date the EGU resumes regular operation after the physical
or operational change.  An emissions increase results from the physical
or operational change if this projected maximum actual hourly emissions
rate exceeds the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate.

	(iii)  Post-change emissions—actually achieved.  Regardless of any
preconstruction projections, an emissions increase has occurred if the
hourly emissions rate actually achieved in the 5 years after the change
exceeds the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate.

Alternative 2 for paragraph (f)(1):

	(1)  Emissions increase test.  For each regulated NSR pollutant for
which you have hourly average CEMS or PEMS emissions data with
corresponding fuel heat input data, compare the pre-change maximum
actual emissions rate in pounds per megawatt-hour (lb/MWh) to a
projection of the post-change maximum actual emissions rate in lb/MWh,
subject to the provisions in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section.  For EGUs that are cogeneration units, emissions rates are
determined based on gross energy output.  For other EGUs, emissions
rates are determined based on gross electrical output.

	(i)  Pre-change emissions.  Determine the pre-change maximum actual
emissions rate as follows:

	(A)  Select a period of 365 consecutive days within the 5-year period
immediately preceding when you begin actual construction of the physical
or operational change.  Compile a data set (for example, in a
spreadsheet) with the hourly average CEMS or PEMS (as applicable)
measured emissions rates in lb/MWh and corresponding heat input data for
all of the hours of operation for that 365-day period for the pollutant
of interest.

	(B)  Delete any unacceptable hourly data from this 365-day period in
accordance with the data limitations in paragraph (f)(2) of this
section.

	(C)  Extract the hourly data for the 10 percent of the remaining data
set corresponding to the highest heat input rates for the selected
period.  This step may be facilitated by sorting the data set for the
remaining operating hours from the lowest to the highest heat input
rates.

	(D)  Calculate the average emissions rate from the extracted (i.e.,
highest 10 percent heat input rates) data set, using Equation 1:

 					Equation 1

Where:

 = average emissions rate, lb/MWh;

	n = number of emissions rate values; and

  = ith emissions rate value, lb/MWh

	(E)  Calculate the standard deviation of the data set, s, using
Equation 2:

 			Equation 2

	(F)  Calculate the Upper Tolerance Limit, UTL, of the data set using
Equation 3:

 Equation 3

Where:

	Z1-p = 3.090, Z score for the 99.9 percentage of interval; and

	Z1-q =  2.326, Z score for the 99 percent confidence level.

	(G)  Use the UTL calculated in paragraph (f)(1)(i)(F) of this section
as the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate.

	(ii)  Post-change emissions—preconstruction projections.  For each
regulated NSR pollutant, you must project the maximum emissions rate
that your EGU will actually achieve over any period of 1 hour in the 5
years following the date the EGU resumes regular operation after the
physical or operational change.  An emissions increase results from the
physical or operational change if this projected maximum actual
emissions rate exceeds the pre-change maximum actual emissions rate.

	(iii)  Post-change emissions—actually achieved.  Regardless of any
preconstruction projections, an emissions increase has occurred if the
emissions rate actually achieved over any period of 1 hour in the 5
years after the change exceeds the pre-change maximum actual emissions
rate.

Alternative 3 for paragraph (f)(1):

	(1)  Emissions increase test.  For each regulated NSR pollutant,
compare the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate in pounds
per hour (lb/hr) to a projection of the post-change maximum actual
hourly emissions rate in lb/hr, subject to the provisions in paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.

	(i)  Pre-change emissions—general procedures.  The pre-change maximum
actual hourly emissions rate is the highest rate at which the EGU
actually emitted the pollutant at any time during the 5-year period
immediately prior to the physical or operational change, determined as
follows:

	(A)  Select a period of 24 consecutive months within the 5-year period
immediately preceding when you begin actual construction of the physical
or operational change;

	(B)  Determine the highest emissions rate (lb/hr) actually achieved for
1 hour in the first 12 months and for 1 hour in the second 12 months of
the selected 24-month period, where the two 1-hour periods also fall in
different calendar years; and

	(C)  Calculate the arithmetic average of these two values.

	(ii)  Pre-change emissions—data sources.  You must determine the
highest pre-change hourly emissions rate for each regulated NSR
pollutant using the best data available to you.  Use the highest
available source of data in the following hierarchy, unless your
reviewing authority has determined that a data source lower in the
hierarchy will provide better data for your EGU:

	(A)  Continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS).

	(B)  Approved predictive emissions monitoring system (PEMS).

	(C)  Emission tests/emission factor specific to the EGU to be changed.

	(D)  Material balance calculations.

	(E)  Published emission factor.

	(iii)  Post-change emissions—preconstruction projections.  For each
regulated NSR pollutant, you must project the maximum emissions rate
that your EGU will actually achieve in any 1 hour in the 5 years
following the date the EGU resumes regular operation after the physical
or operational change.  An emissions increase results from the physical
or operational change if this projected maximum actual hourly emissions
rate exceeds the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate.

	(iv)  Post-change emissions—actually achieved.  Regardless of any
preconstruction projections, an emissions increase has occurred if the
hourly emissions rate actually achieved in the 5 years after the change
exceeds the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate.

Alternative 4 for paragraph (f)(1):

	(1)  Emissions increase test.  For each regulated NSR pollutant,
compare the pre-change maximum actual emissions rate in pounds per
megawatt-hour (lb/MWh) to a projection of the post-change maximum actual
emissions rate in lb/MWh, subject to the provisions in paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.  For EGUs that are cogeneration
units, emissions rates are determined based on gross energy output.  For
other EGUs, emissions rates are determined based on gross electrical
output.

	(i)  Pre-change emissions—general procedures.  The pre-change maximum
actual emissions rate is the highest rate at which the EGU actually
emitted the pollutant at any time during the 5-year period immediately
prior to the physical or operational change, determined as follows:

	(A)  Select a period of 24 consecutive months within the 5-year period
immediately preceding when you begin actual construction of the physical
or operational change;

	(B)  Determine the highest emissions rate (lb/MWh) actually achieved
over a period of 1 hour in the first 12 months and over a period of 1
hour in the second 12 months of the selected 24-month period, where the
two 1-hour periods also fall in different calendar years; and

	(C)  Calculate the arithmetic average of these two values.

	(ii)  Pre-change emissions—data sources.  You must determine the
highest pre-change emissions rate for each regulated NSR pollutant using
the best data available to you.  Use the highest available source of
data in the following hierarchy, unless your reviewing authority has
determined that a data source lower in the hierarchy will provide better
data for your EGU:

	(A)  Continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS).

	(B)  Approved predictive emissions monitoring system (PEMS).

	(C)  Emission tests/emission factor specific to the EGU to be changed.

	(D)  Material balance calculations.

	(E)  Published emission factor.

	(iii)  Post-change emissions—preconstruction projections.  For each
regulated NSR pollutant, you must project the maximum emissions rate
that your EGU will actually achieve over any period of 1 hour in the 5
years following the date the EGU resumes regular operation after the
physical or operational change.  An emissions increase results from the
physical or operational change if this projected maximum actual
emissions rate exceeds the pre-change maximum actual emissions rate.

	(iv)  Post-change emissions—actually achieved.  Regardless of any
preconstruction projections, an emissions increase has occurred if the
emissions rate actually achieved over any period of 1 hour in the 5
years after the change exceeds the pre-change maximum actual emissions
rate.

Alternative 5 for paragraph (f)(1):

	(1)  Emissions increase test.  For each regulated NSR pollutant,
compare the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate in pounds
per hour (lb/hr) to a projection of the post-change maximum actual
hourly emissions rate in lb/hr, subject to the provisions in paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.

	(i)  Pre-change emissions—general procedures.  The pre-change maximum
actual hourly emissions rate for the pollutant is the highest emissions
rate (lb/hr) actually achieved by the EGU for 1 hour at any time during
the 5-year period immediately preceding when you begin actual
construction of the physical or operational change.

	(ii)  Pre-change emissions—data sources.  You must determine the
highest pre-change hourly emissions rate for each regulated NSR
pollutant using the best data available to you.  Use the highest
available source of data in the following hierarchy, unless your
reviewing authority has determined that a data source lower in the
hierarchy will provide better data for your EGU:

	(A)  Continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS).

	(B)  Approved predictive emissions monitoring system (PEMS).

	(C)  Emission tests/emission factor specific to the EGU to be changed.

	(D)  Material balance calculations.

	(E)  Published emission factor.

	(iii)  Post-change emissions—preconstruction projections.  For each
regulated NSR pollutant, you must project the maximum emissions rate
that your EGU will actually achieve in any 1 hour in the 5 years
following the date the EGU resumes regular operation after the physical
or operational change.  An emissions increase results from the physical
or operational change if this projected maximum actual hourly emissions
rate exceeds the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate.

	(iv)  Post-change emissions—actually achieved.  Regardless of any
preconstruction projections, an emissions increase has occurred if the
hourly emissions rate actually achieved in the 5 years after the change
exceeds the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate.

Alternative 6 for paragraph (f)(1):

	(1)  Emissions increase test.  For each regulated NSR pollutant,
compare the pre-change maximum actual emissions rate in pounds per
megawatt-hour (lb/MWh) to a projection of the post-change maximum actual
emissions rate in lb/MWh, subject to the provisions in paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.  For EGUs that are cogeneration
units, emissions rates are determined based on gross energy output.  For
other EGUs, emissions rates are determined based on gross electrical
output.

	(i)  Pre-change emissions—general procedures.  The pre-change maximum
actual emissions rate for the pollutant is the highest emissions rate
(lb/MWh) actually achieved by the EGU over any period of 1 hour during
the 5-year period immediately preceding when you begin actual
construction of the physical or operational change.

	(ii)  Pre-change emissions—data sources.  You must determine the
highest pre-change emissions rate for each regulated NSR pollutant using
the best data available to you.  Use the highest available source of
data in the following hierarchy, unless your reviewing authority has
determined that a data source lower in the hierarchy will provide better
data for your EGU:

	(A)  Continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS).

	(B)  Approved predictive emissions monitoring system (PEMS).

	(C)  Emission tests/emission factor specific to the EGU to be changed.

	(D)  Material balance calculations.

	(E)  Published emission factor.

	(iii)  Post-change emissions—preconstruction projections.  For each
regulated NSR pollutant, you must project the maximum emissions rate
that your EGU will actually achieve over any period of 1 hour in the 5
years following the date the EGU resumes regular operation after the
physical or operational change.  An emissions increase results from the
physical or operational change if this projected maximum actual
emissions rate exceeds the pre-change maximum actual emissions rate.

	(iv)  Post-change emissions—actually achieved.  Regardless of any
preconstruction projections, an emissions increase has occurred if the
emissions rate actually achieved over any period of 1 hour in the 5
years after the change exceeds the pre-change maximum actual emissions
rate.

Alternative 7 for paragraph (f)(1):

	(1)  Emissions increase test.  For each regulated NSR pollutant,
compare the maximum achievable hourly emissions rate before the physical
or operational change to the maximum achievable hourly emissions rate
after the change.  Determine these maximum achievable hourly emissions
rates according to §60.14(b) of this chapter.  No physical change, or
change in the method of operation, at an existing EGU shall be treated
as a modification for the purposes of this section provided that such
change does not increase the maximum hourly emissions of any regulated
NSR pollutant above the maximum hourly emissions achievable at that unit
during the 5 years prior to the change.

Alternative 8 for paragraph (f)(1):

	(1)  Emissions increase test.  For each regulated NSR pollutant,
compare the maximum achievable emissions rate in pounds per
megawatt-hour (lb/MWh) before the physical or operational change to the
maximum achievable emissions rate in lb/MWh after the change.  Determine
these maximum achievable emissions rates according to §60.14(b) of this
chapter, using emissions rates in lb/MWh achievable over 1 hour of
continuous operation in place of mass emissions rates.  For EGUs that
are cogeneration units, determine emissions rates based on gross energy
output.  For other EGUs, determine emissions rates based on gross
electrical output.  No physical change, or change in the method of
operation, at an existing EGU shall be treated as a modification for the
purposes of this section provided that such change does not increase the
maximum emissions rate of any regulated NSR pollutant above the maximum
emissions rate achievable at that unit during the 5 years prior to the
change.

	(2)  Data limitations for maximum emissions rates.  For purposes of
determining pre-change and post-change maximum emissions rates under
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the following limitations apply to the
types of data that you may use:

	(i)  Data limitations for Alternatives 1 – 6 .

	(A)  You must not use emissions rate data associated with startups,
shutdowns, or malfunctions of your EGU, as defined by applicable
regulation(s) or permit term(s), or malfunctions of an associated air
pollution control device.  A malfunction means any sudden, infrequent,
and not reasonably preventable failure of the EGU or the air pollution
control equipment to operate in a normal or usual manner.

	(B)  You must not use continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) or
predictive emissions monitoring system (PEMS) data recorded during
monitoring system out-of-control periods.  Out-of-control periods
include those during which the monitoring system fails to meet quality
assurance criteria (for example, periods of system breakdown, repair,
calibration checks, or zero and span adjustments) established by
regulation, by permit, or in an approved quality assurance plan.

	(C)  You must not use emissions rate data from periods of noncompliance
when your EGU was operating above an emission limitation that was
legally enforceable at the time the data were collected.

	(D)  You must not use data from any period for which the information is
inadequate for determining emissions rates, including information
related to the limitations in paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(A) through (C) of
this section.

	(ii)  Data limitations for Alternatives 7 and 8 .

	(A)  You must not use emissions rate data associated with startups,
shutdowns, or malfunctions of your EGU, as defined by applicable
regulation(s) or permit term(s), or malfunctions of an associated air
pollution control device.  A malfunction means any sudden, infrequent,
and not reasonably preventable failure of the EGU or the air pollution
control equipment to operate in a normal or usual manner.

	(B)  You must not use continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) or
predictive emissions monitoring system (PEMS) data recorded during
monitoring system out-of-control periods.  Out-of-control periods
include those during which the monitoring system fails to meet quality
assurance criteria (for example, periods of system breakdown, repair,
calibration checks, or zero and span adjustments) established by
regulation, by permit, or in an approved quality assurance plan.

	(C)  You must not use data from any period for which the information is
inadequate for determining emissions rates, including information
related to the limitations in paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this
section.

	(g)  What are my requirements for notifications and recordkeeping?  You
must submit the notifications described in paragraph (g)(1) of this
section and keep the records described in paragraph (g)(2) of this
section.

	(1)  Notifications.  You must send a notification to your reviewing
authority for any physical or operational change to an existing EGU
which may increase the emissions rate of any regulated NSR pollutant
(that is, may trigger Step 2 as set out in paragraphs (d)(2) and (f) of
this section).  The following provisions apply to these notifications:

	(i)  Notifications requirements for Alternatives 1 – 6 for paragraph
(f)(1) of this section.

	(A)  The notification must be postmarked no later than 6 months before
the change is commenced.

	(B)  The notification must include information describing:

	(1)  The precise nature of the change;

	(2)  The present and proposed emission control systems;

	(3)  The productive capacity of the EGU before and after the change;
and

	(4)  The expected completion date of the change.

	(C)  The reviewing authority may request additional relevant
information subsequent to this notification.

	(ii)  Notification requirements for Alternatives 7 and 8 for paragraph
(f)(1) of this section.

	(A)  The notification must be postmarked 60 days or as soon as
practicable before the change is commenced.

	(B)  The notification must include information describing:

	(1)  The precise nature of the change;

	(2)  The present and proposed emission control systems;

	(3)  The productive capacity of the EGU before and after the change;
and

	(4)  The expected completion date of the change.

	(C)  The reviewing authority may request additional relevant
information subsequent to this notification.

	(2)  Recordkeeping.  You must maintain a file of all information
related to determinations that you make under this section of whether a
change to an EGU is a modification, subject to the following provisions:

	(i)  The file must include, but is not limited to, the following
information recorded in permanent form suitable for inspection:

	(A)  Continuous monitoring system, monitoring device, and performance
testing measurements;

	(B)  All continuous monitoring system performance evaluations;

	(C)  All continuous monitoring system or monitoring device calibration
checks;

	(D)  All adjustments and maintenance performed on these systems or
devices; and

	(E)  All other information relevant to any determination made under
this section of whether a change to an EGU is a modification.

	(ii)  You must retain the file until the later of:

	(A)  The date 5 years following the date the EGU resumes regular
operation after the physical or operational change; and

	(B)  The date 5 years following the date of such measurements,
maintenance, reports, and records.

	(h)  What definitions apply under this section?  TC "(j)  What
definitions apply under this section?" \f C \l "2"    The definitions in
paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section apply.  Except as specifically
provided in this paragraph (h), terms used in this section have the
meaning accorded them under §51.165(a)(1) or §51.166(b), as
appropriate to the situation (for example, the attainment status of the
area where your source is located for a particular regulated NSR
pollutant of interest).  Terms not defined here or in §51.165(a)(1) or
§51.166(b) (as appropriate) have the meaning accorded them under the
applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

	(1)  Terms related to EGUs that are defined in §51.124(q).  The
following terms are as defined in §51.124(q):

	Boiler.

	Bottoming-cycle cogeneration unit.

	Cogeneration unit.

	Combustion turbine.

	Electric generating unit or EGU.

	Fossil fuel.

	Fossil-fuel-fired.

	Generator.

	Maximum design heat input.

	Nameplate capacity.

	Potential electrical output capacity.

	Sequential use of energy.

	Topping-cycle cogeneration unit.

	Total energy input.

	Total energy output.

	Useful power.

	Useful thermal energy.

	Utility power distribution system.

	(2)  Other terms defined for the purposes of this section.

	Attainment pollutant means a regulated NSR pollutant for which your EGU
may be subject to the PSD program that is applicable in the area where
your EGU is located.  In general, attainment pollutants are the
regulated NSR pollutants listed in the PSD program for which there is no
NAAQS or for which the area in which your EGU is located is designated
as attainment or unclassifiable according to part 81 of this chapter.
However, pollutant or precursor transport considerations may cause such
regulated NSR pollutants to be treated as nonattainment pollutants as
defined in this paragraph (h)(2) (for example, if your EGU is located in
an ozone transport region).

	Gross electrical output means the electricity made available for use by
the generator associated with the EGU.

	Gross energy output means, with regard to a cogeneration unit, the sum
of the gross power output and the useful thermal energy output produced
by the cogeneration unit.

	Gross power output means, with regard to a cogeneration unit,
electricity or mechanical energy made available for use by the
cogeneration unit.

	Modification, for an EGU, means any physical change in, or change in
the method of operation of, an EGU which increases the amount of any
regulated NSR pollutant emitted into the atmosphere by that source or
which results in the emission of any regulated NSR pollutant(s) into the
atmosphere that the source did not previously emit.  An increase in the
amount of regulated NSR pollutants must be determined according to the
provisions in paragraph (f) of this section.  For purposes of this
section, a physical change or change in the method of operation shall
not include the types of actions listed in paragraph (e) of this
section.

	Nonattainment pollutant means a regulated NSR pollutant for which your
EGU may be subject to the nonattainment major NSR program that is
applicable in the area where your EGU is located.  In general,
nonattainment pollutants are the regulated NSR pollutants listed in the
nonattainment major NSR program for which the area in which your EGU is
located is designated as nonattainment according to part 81 of this
chapter.  However, pollutant or precursor transport considerations may
cause such regulated NSR pollutants to be treated as attainment
pollutants as defined in this paragraph (h)(2).

	Useful thermal energy output means, with regard to a cogeneration unit,
the thermal energy made available for use in any industrial or
commercial process, or used in any heating or cooling application, that
is, total thermal energy made available for processes and applications
other than electrical or mechanical generation.  Thermal output for this
section means the energy in recovered thermal output measured against
the energy in the thermal output at 15 degrees Celsius and 101.325
kilopascals of pressure.

 Establishments owned and operated by Federal, State, or local
government are classified according to the activity in which they are
engaged.

 For clarity, this table lists all of the steps in the applicability
determinations under the various options and alternatives.  These steps
include, as Step 1, the determination of whether a physical change or
change in the method of operation has occurred.  This Step 1 is included
in the table solely for purposes of clarity; neither the October 2005
NPR nor this action proposes any action of any type (or makes any
re-proposal) concerning the regulations defining physical change or
change in the method of operation.  Similarly, the steps also include,
as Steps 3 and 4, the current net significance test; and today’s SNPR
does not propose any action of any type (or make any re-proposal)
concerning the current net significance test.  Finally, this action does
not propose any action of any type (or make any re-proposal) concerning
the current applicability test for EGUs.

 In this context, we use the term “input” as a convenient way to
refer to the hourly emission rate test, and to distinguish it from the
output test, which is calculated on the basis of hourly emissions per
kilowatt hour of generation.

 Complete documentation for IPM, including the Base Case Scenario, is
available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm"
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm . See also Docket Item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0133.

 See the NEEDS 2004 documentation for IPM v.2.1.9 in Exhibit 4-6,
which can be found at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm/section4genres.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm/section4genres.pdf .  See also
Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0134.

 See also Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0135

 See also Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0135.

 The report is available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.nerc.com/~gads/"
http://www.nerc.com/~gads/  and in the Docket as Item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0136.

 Also available as Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0137.

 See our report, “Contributions of CAIR/CAMR/CAVR to NAAQS Attainment:
Focus on Control Technologies and Emission Reductions in the Electric
Power Sector,” on pages 39 and 43.  The report is available at
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/interstateairquality/charts.html"
http://www.epa.gov/air/interstateairquality/charts.html .  Also
available as Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0137.

 While we believe it is most likely that an EGU would increase its hours
of operation under today’s proposed regulations due to reducing the
number of hours that the EGU is unavailable due to forced outage hours,
the analysis is applicable to increases in hours of operation for other
reasons.

 Available as Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0138. (System Summary
Report for NSR Availability)

 See our report, “Contributions of CAIR/CAMR/CAVR to NAAQS Attainment:
Focus on Control Technologies and Emission Reductions in the Electric
Power Sector,” on pages 39 and 43.  The report is available at
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/interstateairquality/charts.html"
http://www.epa.gov/air/interstateairquality/charts.html .  The report is
also available as Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0137.

 CAIR/CAMR/CAVR SO2 and NOx emissions available as Docket Item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0139.  [EPA 219b_BART 13_2020_Pechan (to
EPA)07-11-05].  NSR SO2 and NOx Availability Emissions available as
Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0139.  [EPA 219b_NSR_OAQPS_
5_Pech_2020_07-05-06 (to EPA)]  National totals for CAIR/CAMR/CAVR and
NSR Availability include new units (IPM new units and planned-committed
units).

 CAIR/CAMR/CAVR SO2 and NOx emissions available as Docket Item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0139.  [EPA 219b_BART 13_2020_Pechan (to
EPA)07-11-05].  NSR SO2 and NOx Availability Emissions available as
Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0139.  [EPA 219b_NSR_OAQPS_
5_Pech_2020_07-05-06 (to EPA)]

 Emission increases of at least 0.5 tpy.  Does not include emissions
due to new EGUs (IPM new units and IPM planned-committed units).  New
units (IPM new units and planned-committed units) were not included in
CAIR/CAMR/CAVR 2020 and NSR Availability county-level emission totals
because they had not been assigned to a county.  New EGUs would not be
subject to proposed rule.  New EGUs would be subject to major NSR,
including control technology review for installation of BACT/LAER.

 Available as Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0140.  (2000 - 2004
Electric Generation)

 Available as Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0141. (2003 - 2004
Emission Changes)

 Analysis of largest county-level emission changes available as Docket
Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0141. CAIR/CAMR/CAVR SO2 and NOx emissions
available as Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0139.  [EPA 219b_BART
13_2020_Pechan (to EPA)07-11-05].  NSR Availability SO2 and NOx
Emissions available as Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0139.  [EPA
219b_NSR_OAQPS_ 5_Pech_2020_07-05-06 (to EPA)]  Does not include
emissions due to new EGUs (IPM new units and IPM planned-committed
units).

 Analysis of county-level SO2 and NOx changes available as Docket Item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0141.  Analysis of largest county-level emission
changes available as Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0141.
CAIR/CAMR/CAVR SO2 and NOx emissions available as Docket Item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0139.  [EPA 219b_BART 13_2020_Pechan (to
EPA)07-11-05].  NSR Availability SO2 and NOx Emissions available as
Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0139.  [EPA 219b_NSR_OAQPS_
5_Pech_2020_07-05-06 (to EPA)]

 The CMAQ modeling was conducted as part of EPA’s multipollutant
legislative assessment and the results are available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp"  http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp  .
Multipollutant Regulatory Analysis: The Clean Air Interstate Rule, The
Clean Air Mercury Rule, and the Clean Air Visibility Rule (EPA
promulgated rules, 2005).  The specific technical support document on
air quality modeling for CAIR/CAMR/CAVR, Technical Support Document for
Air Quality Modeling Technique, is available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp/aqsupport/"
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp/aqsupport/ .  It is also available as
Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0142.

 We used the following conversion factor:  ppm =
[(24.5)(ug/m3)]/[(1000)(molecular weight)] was used.  The conversion
factor can be found in Kenneth Wark and Cecil.F. Warner, Air Pollution:
Its Origin and Control, 1981, page 7.  The molecular weight for SO2 and
NO2 can be calculated from atomic weights found in Robert C. Weast, and
Melvin J. Astle, Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 1979, end leaf.

 The CMAQ modeling was conducted as part of EPA’s multipollutant
legislative assessment and the results are available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp"  http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp  .
Multipollutant Regulatory Analysis: The Clean Air Interstate Rule, The
Clean Air Mercury Rule, and the Clean Air Visibility Rule (EPA
promulgated rules, 2005).  The specific technical support document on
air quality modeling for CAIR/CAMR/CAVR, Technical Support Document for
Air Quality Modeling Technique, is available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp/aqsupport/"
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp/aqsupport/ .  It is also available as
Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0142.

 See Stephen D. Page, “Implementation of New Source Review
Requirements in PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas,” April 5, 2005, available
at

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/nsr/guidance.html"
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/guidance.html  and as Docket Item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0143.

 This information is available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp/index.html"
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp/index.html .  (Air quality Modeling
Results Excel File, Impact on Ozone Concentrations by County.)  It is
also available as Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0142.

 The CMAQ modeling was conducted as part of EPA’s multipollutant
legislative assessment and the results are available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp"  http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp  .
Multipollutant Regulatory Analysis: The Clean Air Interstate Rule, The
Clean Air Mercury Rule, and the Clean Air Visibility Rule (EPA
promulgated rules, 2005).  The specific technical support document on
air quality modeling for CAIR/CAMR/CAVR, Technical Support Document for
Air Quality Modeling Technique, is available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp/aqsupport/"
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp/aqsupport/ .  It is also available as
Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0142.

 See Stephen D. Page, Director, “Implementation of New Source Review
Requirements in PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas,” April 5, 2005, available
at    HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/nsr/guidance.html"
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/guidance.html  and as Docket Item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-01413.

 Analysis and supporting documentation available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp/index.html"
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp/index.html .  Also available as Docket
Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0142.

 Analysis and supporting documentation available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp/index.html"
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp/index.html .  Also available as Docket
Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0142.

 See Regulatory Impact Analysis for PM2.5 rule at pg  3-34.  Available
at   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html  and as Docket Item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0144.

 PM2.5 emissions information from PM2.5 NAAQS RIA, available at
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html .  Also available as Docket Item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0144.

 Emissions information Available as Docket Item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0146. [NSR Availability PM2.5, VOC, and CO]
National totals for CAIR/CAMR/CAVR and NSR Availability include new
units (IPM new units and planned-committed units).

 Available as Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0146.  [NSR Availability
PM2.5, VOC, and CO]

 Emission increases of at least 0.5 tpy.  Does not include emissions
due to new EGUs (IPM new units and IPM planned-committed units).  New
units (IPM new units and planned-committed units) were not included in
CAIR/CAMR/CAVR 2020 and NSR Availability county-level emission totals
because they had not been assigned to a county.  New EGUs would not be
subject to proposed rule.  New EGUs would be subject to major NSR,
including control technology review for installation of BACT/LAER.

 Analysis and emission factors used available as Docket Item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0146.  [2003-2004 PM2.5, VOC, and CO Emissions]

 Analysis available as Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0146.  [NSR
Availability PM2.5, VOC, and CO]  Emission increases of at least
0.5 tpy.  Does not include emissions due to new EGUs (IPM new units and
IPM planned-committed units).

 The CMAQ modeling was conducted as part of EPA’s multipollutant
legislative assessment and the results are available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp"  http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp  .
Multipollutant Regulatory Analysis: The Clean Air Interstate Rule, The
Clean Air Mercury Rule, and the Clean Air Visibility Rule (EPA
promulgated rules, 2005).  The specific technical support document on
air quality modeling for CAIR/CAMR/CAVR, Technical Support Document for
Air Quality Modeling Technique, is available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp/aqsupport/"
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp/aqsupport/ .  It is also available as
Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0142

 The Regulatory Impact Analysis for the PM2.5 NAAQS is available at
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html .  It is also available as Docket
Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163-0144.

 Mary Gibbons Natrella (1963).  “Experimental Statistics,” NBS
Handbook 91, U.S. Department of Commerce.  This work is available on the
internet at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/prc/section2/prc263.htm"
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/prc/section2/prc263.htm .

 In the NSPS regulations, emissions rates are compared in terms of
kilograms per hour.  We use English units in today’s proposed
rulemaking in keeping with longstanding practice in the major NSR
program, where annual emissions are generally computed using the lb/hr
rate and hours of operation.

¢

®

¯

A

ç

摧㐹

hÆ_

 hü

혈F됃ကﰎ쀒!将

혈F됃ကﰎ쀒!将

葠ː摧䑰ç

h4I

hï

摧喰çe欀

愀Ĥ摧ᕐö଀

摧䏀x欀뙤

摧䤁

hl

 hð

já

愀Ĥ摧ᕐöⴆ؀Ĥ摧敋_Ѐ)摧䤁

阂l혅መ

ዿ

愀Ĥ摧ᕐöⴆ؀Ĥ摧檙¬Ѐ)摧䤁

h)

”ÿMF

”ÿMF

”ÿMF

愀Ĥ摧櫔uЀ)摧䤁

-

u

v

Ÿ

Ë

Ì

h

i

j

u

v

|

ƒ

Ë

gd)

Ü

X

阂l혅መ

X

”ÿP	¤

”ÿP	¤

”ÿP	¤

”ÿP	¤

”ÿP	¤

”ÿP	¤

”ÿP	¤

”ÿP	¤

”ÿP	¤

”ÿP	¤

愀Ĥ摧ᕐö

☊଀ᝆഀ߆퀁ĂŨༀ梄ሁā㄀$葞Ũ摧䯩i⤆㄀$摧䯩i

 hê

☊଀ᙆഀ߆ꀁąŨༀ梄ሁā㄀$葞Ũ摧䯩i⤆㄀$摧䯩i

˜

฀킄༂킄㄂$葝ː葞ː摧䯩i⤆㄀$摧䯩i✆㄀$摧䯩i

 hê

:

D

T

U

˜

Å

s

x

Î

Ï

 hê

8˜

Å

‚

愀Ĥ摧ᕐö

摧䯩i

h

h¼s

 hI

 hI

 hI

 hI

h

j

j

 hê

C

Ž

Á

4

\

•

à

A

E

F

H

I

N

h

l

‡

ˆ

‘

•

À

Ç

Ë

ß

6

7

;

Z

^

_

a

b

g

“

—

˜

š

›

º

¾

Ù

Ú

ß

Uß

â

ã

ç

 h¸

 h¸

1

 h¸

 h¸

 h¸

 h¸

 h¸

 h¸

 h¸

 h¸

 h¸

y with due to fluctuations in equipment and control device performance
that are beyond the control of the EGU owner/operator.

 PAGE

  PAGE  1

 PAGE

 PAGE   59

  PAGE  56

  PAGE  60

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source
Review, and New Source Performance Standards:  Emission Increases for
Electric Generating Units – Page   PAGE  103  of   NUMPAGES  127