emission limit provides flexibility to Dynegy because it allows the
operators to combust the following fuels or any combination thereof:
(1) 100% fuel oil with a sulfur content of not more than 0.50% by
weight; (2) 100% natural gas; and (3) cofiring natural gas and fuel oil
with a sulfur content either higher or lower than 0.50%. It is EPA's
understanding that New York plans to propose this year a

revision to 6 NYCRR Part 225, the state's sulfur in fuel regulation
that is applicable to industrial boilers, requiring that fuel oil
containing sulfur content of more than 0.50% no longer be purchased in
a few years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPA did not have the fuel analysis used at the Roseton
Generating Station. To estimate this emission limit, EPA used an
average heating value for No. 6 fuel oil of 18,200 BTU per pound as
found in ``Useful tables for engineers and steam users,'' Fourteenth
edition 1984, by The Babcock and Wilcox Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to determine this flexibility of combusting various
fuel combinations in meeting EPA's proposed SO2 emission
limit should alleviate any concerns Dynegy has on natural gas being
susceptible to extreme price volatility and limited supply (especially
during the winter months) that might result in negative reliability
impacts on the electrical grid. As explained further below, EPA
believes that an SO2 emission limit of 0.55 lb/mm BTU,
equivalent to No. 6 fuel oil containing 0.50% sulfur, is cost effective
on a dollars per ton of SO2 reduced basis and will provide
significant improvement in visibility in the range of 1.0 dv or more at
Lye Brook, and about 4.0+ dv cumulative at the seven Class I areas,
depending upon the fuel type combusted. EPA considers a visibility
impact of 1.0 dv as causing visibility impairment and therefore EPA's
proposed emission limit will significantly reduce visibility impairment
in the Lye Brook and seven Class I areas. The following paragraph
provides further details that led to EPA's decision.
    In comparison with Dynegy's baseline (1.3% sulfur fuel oil), it is
clear from Dynegy's BART analysis that there is significant visibility
improvement at Lye Brook and seven Class I areas as the SO2
emissions are reduced as illustrated in Dynegy's BART control options
of combusting natural gas, cofiring natural gas with oil and combusting
fuel oil with sulfur contents lower than 1.3%. From Dynegy's BART
analysis, the control options for combusting 100% gas and cofiring gas/
oil are cost effective in terms of dollars per ton of SO2
($/ton) reduced from the baseline and in terms of dollars per deciview
improvement from the baseline. Dynegy's BART recommendation of 1.0%
sulfur fuel oil is actually less cost effective in terms of $/ton and
$/dv when compared to Dynegy's other low sulfur fuel oil options of
0.70% sulfur, 0.50% sulfur and 0.30% sulfur. In addition the visibility
is improved over the base case (1.3% sulfur oil) by as much as 1.42 ddv
(i.e., delta deciview) at the 98 percentile and 0.97 ddv maximum at Lye
Brook for the control option using 0.50% sulfur fuel. Even better
visibility improvements are achieved for the control option of 60% gas
cofiring with oil. The visibility improvement for the Dynegy BART
recommendation (combusting 1% sulfur fuel oil) is only 0.57 dv at the
98th percentile and 0.57 dv maximum at Lye Brook. The visibility and
cost comparisons for the various fuel control options discussed here
are for the Roseton Unit 2 boiler but the results for Unit 1 are
similar. The reader is referred to the following tables for both
boilers that summarize the previous discussion as taken directly or
derived from Dynegy's BART analysis.

                                                                Table 4--Roseton Unit 2 (600 MW)--Summary BART Evaluation for SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Dynegy  Control                                         Visibility        Visibility
                                    Technology                             Cost       Improvement Max/  Improvement Max/   Cost  (mm$/dv)    Cost  (mm$/dv)
 Baseline SO2 Emissions  (tpy)       Options         Emissions, SO2   Effectiveness    8th high from      8th high from    (max/8th high)    (max/8th high)        Current       New York's BART
                                    Evaluated            (tpy)            ($/ton)       baseline DDV    baseline DDV  (7     (Lye Brook)       (7 Class I         Controls        Determination
                                  (partial list)                                        (Lye Brook)      Class I areas)                          areas)
A                               B................  C................             D   E................  F...............  G...............  H...............  I...............  J
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6766 tpy......................  0.30% S oil......  1559 tpy.........        $3,107   Not Deter........  Not Deter.......  Not Deter.......  Not Deter.......  Low sulfur        Use 1.0% S fuel
                                0.5% S oil.......  2600 tpy.........         3,324   0.97/1.42........  8.25/3.96.......  95/65...........  11.2/23.3.......   (1.3%) fuel oil.  oil instead of
                                0.70% oil........  3642 tpy.........         3,684   Not Deter........  Not Deter.......  Not Deter.......  Not Deter.......                     current 1.3% S
                                1.0% S oil.......  5204 tpy.........         5,819   0.46/0.57........  3.04/1.50.......  131/106.........  19.9/40.4.......                     fuel oil.
                                Gas cofire (35%).  4333 tpy.........        -6,909   1.02/0.971.......  Not Deter.......  -110/-115.......  Not Deter.......
                                Gas cofire (60%).  2638 tpy.........        -8,506   1.68/1.64........  Not Deter.......  -138/-143.......  Not Deter.
                                100% gas.........  0 tpy............        -9,518   2.8/2.48.........  16.43/7.13......  -153/-173.......  -26/-60
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: In columns E and F, DDV means delta-deciview, i.e. visibility improvement.

                                                                Table 5--Roseton Unit 1 (600 MW)--Summary BART Evaluation for SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Dynegy  Control                                         Visibility        Visibility
                                    Technology                             Cost       Improvement Max/  Improvement Max/    Cost (mm$/dv)     Cost (mm$/dv)
 Baseline SO2 Emissions  (tpy)       Options         Emissions, SO2   Effectiveness    8th high from      8th high from    (max/8th high)    (max/8th high)        Current       New York's BART
                                    Evaluated            (tpy)            ($/ton)       baseline DDV    baseline DDV  (7     (Lye Brook)       (7 Class I         Controls        Determination
                                  (partial list)                                        (Lye Brook)      Class I areas)                          areas)
A                               B................  C................             D   E................  F...............  G...............  H...............  I...............  J
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1860 tpy......................  0.30% S oil......  429 tpy..........       $43,107   Not Deter........  Not Deter.......  Not Deter.......  Not Deter.......  Low sulfur        Use 1.0% S fuel
                                0.5% S oil.......  715 tpy..........         3,324   0.853/1.370......  8.45/4.01.......  111/69..........  11.3/23.7.......   (1.3%) fuel oil.  oil instead of
                                0.70% oil........  1001 tpy.........         3,684   Not Deter........  Not Deter.......  Not Deter.......  Not Deter.......                     current 1.3% S
                                1.0% S oil.......  1431 tpy.........         5,646   0.339/0.501......  3.17/1.41.......  179/121.........  19.1/42.9.......                     fuel oil.
                                Gas cofire (35%).  1179 tpy.........        -9,908   0.946/0.932......  Not Deter.......  -178/-181.......  Not Deter.......
                                Gas cofire (60%).  713 tpy..........        10,078   1.644/1.622......  Not Deter.......  -176/-178.......  Not Deter.
                                100% gas.........  0 tpy............       -10,361   2.8/2.48.........  15.3/17.3.......  -172/-194.......  -27/-58.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: In columns E and F, DDV means delta-deciview, i.e. visibility improvement.

    The aforementioned BART requirements for NOX and PM for
Boilers 1 and 2 are included in New York's final Title V permit (dated
November 2, 2011) which also includes requirements for monitoring,
record keeping and reporting, and includes a compliance date of January
1, 2014. New York expects to submit the permit

as a SIP revision for EPA approval by mid-2012. Once the SIP revision
is approved by EPA, the BART requirements for NOX and PM for
each boiler become federally enforceable. Should New York not submit
the final Title V permit for Boilers 1 and 2 in a timely manner, EPA
proposes that the aforementioned BART requirements for NOX
and PM be considered as federal requirements as part of a FIP.
    In addition, as discussed above, EPA is proposing a FIP for
controlling SO2 emissions from Boilers 1 and 2. EPA proposes
that SO2 emissions from Boilers 1 and 2 not exceed the limit
of 0.55 lb/mm BTU on a 24-hour average not later than January 1, 2014.
EPA further proposes that the same requirements for monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting as described in New York's final Title V
permit be required to comply with EPA's proposed BART emission limit
for SO2.
    In summary, EPA is proposing partial approval and partial
disapproval of New York's BART determinations for Boilers 1 and 2 at
Dynegy's Roseton Generating Station. EPA is proposing to approve New
York's BART determination for NOX and PM because it was
conducted in a manner consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines. EPA is
proposing to disapprove New York's BART determination for
SO2 because, as discussed above, a different control
strategy as proposed by EPA, will result in improved visibility that is
cost effective over what New York and Dynegy are proposing for BART.

Dynegy--Danskammer Generating Station

    Dynegy Northeast Generation Inc. owns and is permitted to operate a
235 megawatt electrical generating unit at its Danskammer Generating
Station in Orange County, in the city of Newburgh. New York has
determined that Boiler Unit 4 (Emission Unit U-D0004) is a BART
eligible unit. Boiler 4 is a tangentially coal-fired steam generating
boiler and is capable of firing coal, No. 6 fuel oil and natural gas,
with coal as the primary fuel. Boiler 4 has a heat input rating of
2,512 mmBTU/hr when burning coal, 2,004 mmBTU/hr when combusting No. 6
fuel oil and 2,397 mmBTU/hr when firing natural gas. Boiler 4 has
existing NOX emission controls of low excess air, combustion
air manipulation, separated overfire air, burners out of service, and
low NOX burners; PM emissions are controlled with an
existing cold side electrostatic precipitator; and SO2
emissions are controlled through limitations on the sulfur content
(0.7%) of coal.
    Dynegy submitted a BART determination (with 2,512 mmBTU per hour
while burning coal as the base case) to New York and the State agreed
with the owner's recommendations. On November 2, 2011, New York
proposed the Title V permit modification to incorporate Dynegy's BART
determinations into their permit and to provide for public comment. New
York has not yet issued this permit modification as final. For control
of SO2 emissions, New York is proposing that BART for Boiler
4 is the lowering of the current SO2 permit limit from 1.10
lbs/mmBTU to 0.50 lbs/mmBTU, resulting in an emission reduction of
6,602 tons per year, or 55%. Dynegy's five factor BART analysis
evaluated thirteen SO2 control options including, Flue Gas
Desulfurization options with Lime Based Spray Dryer; Circulating Dry
Scrubber and Wet Limestone; Dry Sorbent Injection of Trona options;
combustion of alternative coals; 100% combustion of natural gas; co-
firing natural gas; and a 0.5 lbs/mmBTU emission limit on a 24-hour
basis.
    Dynegy determined the annualized costs and the annualized control
costs per ton of emission reductions of SO2 (based on 100%
capacity factor) for each BART control option. All of the BART controls
were shown to be cost effective according to New York's guidance, at or
below $5,500 per ton. The annualized costs were in the range of $20 to
30 million for flue gas desulfurization options, $2 to 3 million for
dry sorbent injection options, $8 to 25 million for gas firing options,
and $7 to 46 million for alternative coal options. The annualized costs
for complying with a 0.5 lb/mmBTU emission limit, New York's proposed
BART determination emission limit, are $11 million with a cost
effectiveness of $1,683 per ton.
    According to Dynegy's analysis, the flue gas desulfurization and
dry sorbent injection control options all have energy and adverse non-
air quality environmental impacts, including solid waste disposal
issues. Wet limestone FGD creates a waste water stream that requires
additional treatment prior to release into the water system. The gas
firing options could be susceptible to price volatility and limited
supply, creating an adverse impact on electric grid reliability, which
may also have non-air quality environmental impacts.
    Visibility impacts were modeled for selected BART control options.
For FGD for example, maximum predicted visibility improvement of 4.749
deciviews and eighth highest improvement of 2.174 deciviews would occur
at the nearby seven Class I areas. For gas co-firing at 60% for
example, maximum visibility improvement of 4.364 deciviews and eighth
highest improvement of 1.522 deciviews would occur. Complying with New
York's proposed 0.50 lb/mmBTU BART emission limit was predicted to
result in a 2.759 maximum deciview improvement and a 1.015 eighth
highest deciview improvement.
    Dynegy concluded that:
     Although the FGD options are cost-effective, have high
control efficiencies, and would result in visibility improvements,
there are many non-air quality environmental concerns and these
controls would yield additional power requirements.
     While dry sorbent injection options are also cost-
effective, they have lower control efficiencies, non-air quality
environmental concerns, and result in less visibility improvement than
the 0.50 lb/mmBTU emission limit option.
     Although gas co-firing (and 100% gas firing) appears to be
feasible and cost effective, it was ruled out as a control option due
to high price volatility of natural gas and potential reliability
concerns on the state's electric system due to limited supply of
natural gas, particularly during the winter.
     Alternative coal options were also ruled out due to lower
heating content, which would require more coal to be shipped and result
in more solid waste products.
    For control of NOX emissions, New York is proposing that
BART for Boiler 4 is the lowering of the current NOX permit
limit from 0.42 lbs/mmBTU to 0.12 lbs/mmBTU, resulting in an emission
reduction of 3,300 tons per year, or 71%. Dynegy's BART analysis
considered nineteen control technologies, including Selective Catalytic
Reduction; Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction; hybrid SNCR/SCR system;
SNCR Trim; Gas Reburn; Flue gas recirculation options; combustion of
alternative coals; 100% combustion of natural gas; co-firing natural
gas; and a 0.12 lbs/mmBTU emission limit.
    Dynegy determined the annualized costs and the annualized control
costs per ton of emission reductions of NOX (based on 100%
capacity factor) for each BART control option. The annualized costs
were $12 million for SCR, $66 million for SNCR, $9 million for the
hybrid SCR/SNCR, $56 million for SNCR Trim, in the range of $7 to 46
million for alternative coal options, in the range of $8 to $25 million
for gas firing options, and $348,655 to $9 million for flue gas
recirculation options.
    The following BART controls were shown to be cost effective
according to

New York's guidance, at or below $5,500 per ton: SCR, Hybrid SCR/SNCR,
Alternative Chinese Coal, and the FGR options. Dynegy determined SCR
and the Hybrid SCR/SNCR option to be technically infeasible due to the
ammonia handling issues and other non-air quality environmental
impacts. The gas firing options could be susceptible to price
volatility and limited supply, creating an adverse impact on electric
grid reliability, which may also have non-air quality environmental
impacts. Alternative coal options were also ruled out due to lower
heating content, which would require more coal to be shipped and result
in more solid waste products. FGR options were not necessarily ruled
out, but they had minimal visibility improvement and the proposed 0.12
lbs/mmBTU BART emission limit compliance option was more effective in
reducing emissions than the other cost-effective options.
    Visibility impacts were modeled for selected BART control options.
For the Hybrid SCR/SNCR option, maximum predicted visibility
improvement of 2.244 deciviews and eighth highest improvement of 0.689
would occur at all of the Class I area. For FGR, maximum visibility
improvement of 0.215 deciviews and eighth highest improvement of 0.084
would occur. For FGR and SCR, maximum visibility improvement of 2.477
deciviews and eighth highest improvement of 0.651 deciviews would
occur. For gas firing at 100% at 0.08 lbs/mmBTU, maximum visibility
improvement of 8.577 deciviews and eighth highest improvement of 2.896
deciviews would occur. Complying with a 0.12 lb/mmBTU emission limit
was predicted to result in a 1.943 maximum deciview improvement and a
0.569 eighth highest deciview improvement.
    Dynegy concluded that:
     SCR and Hybrid SCR/SNCR while cost-effective were not
technically feasible due to several non-air quality environmental
concerns. Hybrid SCR/SNCR also had minimal visibility improvement.
     SNCR was ruled out as not cost-effective and also
presented many non-air quality environmental concerns.
     Alternative coal options were also ruled out due to lower
heating content, which would require more coal to be shipped and result
in more solid waste products.
     Other gas co-firing options and 100% gas firing appears
not to be cost-effective, and were ruled out as a control option due to
high price volatility of natural gas and potential reliability concerns
on the state's electric system due to limited supply of natural gas,
particularly during the winter.
     While FGR options were not necessarily ruled out, they had
minimal visibility improvement and the proposed 0.12 lbs/mmBTU BART
emission limit compliance option was more effective in reducing
emissions than the other cost-effective options.
    Therefore, New York proposes for the control of NOX
emissions, BART for Boiler 4 is the lowering of the current
NOX permit limit from 0.42 lbs/mmBTU to 0.12 lbs/mmBTU. This
BART control option is based on optimizing the existing low
NOX burners, co-firing with natural gas, installation of
post combustion controls, use of alternative coals, or any combination
thereof. The proposed NOX emission limit is 0.12 lbs/mmBTU
(24-hour average during ozone seasons, 30-day average during non-ozone
seasons).
    For the control of PM emissions, Danskammer Unit 4 currently has a
cold side electrostatic precipitator (ESP). This ESP achieved an
average 99.98% control efficiency in recent stack tests and is a state-
of-the-art technology for PM control for Danskammer Unit 4. Other
control technologies such as a mechanical collector, baghouse, or wet
particulate scrubbers could be considered as additional feasible PM
control options. According to Dynegy's analysis, a search of available
control technology research and industry knowledge, any other commonly
applied PM control, such as fabric filter or wet scrubber, would be
expected to achieve a maximum control efficiency of up to 99% and an
average control efficiency of 95%. Therefore, New York proposes the
existing ESP to represent the maximum control for BART for Danskammer
Unit 4, and completion of the five-step BART process, including
visibility modeling, is not required. The proposed BART PM emission
rate is 0.060 lbs/mmBTU.
    The reader is referred to the following table for Unit 4 that
summarizes this discussion as taken directly or derived from Dynegy's
BART analysis.

                                                                  Table 6--Danskammer Unit 4 (235 MW)--Summary BART Evaluation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Possible
                                                                         Control        Emission Rate         Cost           Visibility                                            New York's
                                 Source and size      Baseline        Technology of       with this     Effectiveness ($/  Improvement (7     Cost (mm$/dv)        Current        proposed BART
                                                   Emissions (tpy)      Interest        control (lb/          ton)         Class I areas)     Max/8th high        Controls        Determination
                                                                     (partial list)    mmBTU or other)                     max/8th high DV
                                A...............  B...............  C...............  D...............  E...............  F...............  G...............  H...............  I
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2...........................  Unit 4, coal-     12,103 tpy......  Lime-Based Spray  1029 tpy; 234.9   1840............  4.749 max.......  4.29 max........  None. Currently   0.50 lb/mmBtu.
                                 fired boiler                        Dryer FGD with    lb/hr.           2072............  2.174 high 8....  9.37 high 8.....   uses 0.7%
                                 235 MW. Can                         Baghouse 91.5%   0.09 lb/mmBtu...                    4.364 max.......  3.5 max.........   sulfur coal.
                                 burn coal, oil,                     control          4712 tpy........                    1.522 high 8....  10.0 high 8.....
                                 gas.                                efficiency.      1075.8 lb/hr....
                                                                    Gas Cofiring 60%  0.43 lb/mmBtu...
                                                                    59.97% control
                                                                     efficiency.
                                                                    0.50 lb/mmBtu...  5501 tpy........  1683............  2.759 max.......  4.02 max
                                                                    55% control       1256 lb/hr......  ................  1.015 high 8....  10.9 high 8.....
                                                                     efficiency.      0.50 lb/mmBtu...
NOX...........................  ................  4621 tpy........  SCR ~ 83%         786 tpy.........  3151............  Not provided....  Not provided....  low excess air,   0.12 lb/mmBTU.
                                                                     control          3004 tpy........  41345...........  Not provided....  Not provided....   OFA, BOOS, LNBs.
                                                                     efficiency.
                                                                    SNCR ~ 35%
                                                                     control
                                                                     efficiency.

                                                                    Hybrid SCR/SNCR.  1848 tpy........  3353............  2.244 max.......  4.1 max
                                                                    60% control       422 lb/hr.......                    0.689 high 8....  13.5 high 8.....
                                                                     efficiency.      0.17 lb/mmBtu...
                                                                    Alternative coal  2773 to 3656 tpy  4509 to 47753...  Not provided....  Not provided.
                                                                     options.
                                                                    Gas firing 100%.  880 tpy.........  6824............  8.577 max.......  2.98 max
                                                                    81% control       201 lb/hr.......                    2.896 high 8....  8.81 high 8.....
                                                                     efficiency.      0.08 lb/mmBtu...
                                                                    FGR.............  4251 tpy........  943.............  0.215 max.......  1.62 max
                                                                    8% control        970.6 lb/hr.....  ................  0.084 high 8....  4.15 high 8.....
                                                                     efficiency.      0.39 lb/mmBtu...
                                                                    FGR + SCR.......  4216.5 tpy......  2012............  2.477 max.......  3.42 max
                                                                    91% control       962.7 lb/hr.....  ................  0.651 high 8....  12.99 high 8....
                                                                     efficiency.      0.38 lb/mmBtu...
                                                                    0.12 lb/MMBtu...  1320 tpy........  6088............  1.943 max.......  10.3 max
                                                                    ~71% control      301.4 lb/hr.....  ................  0.569 high 8....  35.3 high 8.....
                                                                     efficiency.      0.12 lb/mmBtu...
PM............................  ................  660 tpy.........  N.A.............  N.A.............  N.A.............  N.A.............  N.A.............  ESP.............  0.06 lb/mmBtu
                                                                                99.98% efficient  Existing control
                                                                                is max control.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing partial approval and partial disapproval of New
York's proposed BART determinations for Unit 4 at Dynegy's Danskammer
Generation Station. EPA is proposing to approve New York's proposed
NOX BART emission limit of 0.12 lb/mmBTU and proposed PM
BART emission limit of 0.06 lb/mmBTU. EPA is proposing to disapprove a
portion of New York's proposed BART determination for Danskammer Unit 4
with respect to SO2 emissions because other BART control
options as presented by Dynegy are also technically feasible, cost-
effective and provide additional visibility improvement.
    In its proposed BART determination, New York and Dynegy considered
several SO2 control technology options including Flue Gas
Desulfurization, combustion of alternative coals, and combusting
different percentages of natural gas. New York and Dynegy proposed that
the SO2 emission limit of 0.5 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour average
is BART, and that this emission limit will be achieved through some
post combustion control, switching of fuels or a combination of these
or other options. The result of our own evaluation of Dynegy's analysis
is that these same control option strategies can achieve a more
stringent SO2 emission limit than the 0.5 lb/mmBTU limit, on
a more cost-effective basis, and therefore result in more visibility
improvement. Based on the information contained in Dynegy's BART
analysis, and specifically on the emission rate information (also
summarized in Table 6), EPA is proposing to establish an SO2
BART emission limit of 0.09 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour average. Our proposed
disapproval is based in large part on Dynegy's own BART analysis,
showing that FGD controls and/or combusting natural gas are cost
effective and would result in enough incremental visibility improvement
at a single Class I area to justify the incremental cost of the control
strategies.
    In addition, the results of our own analysis of the visibility
improvement differ from Dynegy's analysis in that Dynegy's proposed
BART determination appears to be based on the highest visibility
improvements that may occur at only one of the seven Class I areas that
could be impacted. In making BART determinations, EPA also recommends
the consideration of cumulative impacts and improvements that could
occur at all of the Class I areas a particular facility might impact.
EPA's analysis of the cumulative visibility improvements at all 7 Class
I areas justifies a more stringent BART emission limit. While our
analysis differs from Dynegy's analysis and New York's proposed BART
determination in this respect, we concur with the other portions of the
analysis regarding achievable emission reductions and cost-
effectiveness.
    Since New York's proposed BART determination and permit
modification has not been issued as final, there is the possibility
that additional information may be provided for New York to evaluate
which may influence New York to consider other options for BART.
Likewise, additional information may be provided to further support New
York's proposed BART determination. EPA is aware that New York has
received comments from the public on the proposed BART permit
modification. Therefore EPA is similarly providing for the possibility
that New York may consider other options for BART before issuing a
final BART permit.
    While EPA is proposing to disapprove New York's proposed
SO2 BART determination for Danskammer Unit 4, EPA is also
proposing two options for the SO2 BART FIP for Danskammer.
(Because we are proposing to disapprove this provision of the SIP, we
are concurrently proposing a FIP.) Based on the discussion in this
section, our FIP proposes promulgating two options for an
SO2 BART emissions limit for Danskammer Unit 4:
    Option 1: EPA proposes to approve New York's proposed
SO2 BART emission limit of 0.50 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour
average in the event additional information is submitted to support
this emission limit.
    Option 2: EPA proposes to establish an SO2 BART emission
limit of 0.09 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour average.
    EPA is requesting comment on these two options in order to provide
for the opportunity for submittal of additional

documentation or information that might be considered by EPA to approve
either of the two options as BART.
    In summary, we are proposing to approve New York's proposed
determination for NOX and PM BART for Danskammer Unit 4. We
are proposing to disapprove New York's proposed SO2 BART
determination for Danskammer Unit 4 to meet an emission limit of 0.5
lb/mmBTU. Because we are proposing to disapprove this provision of the
SIP, we are concurrently proposing a FIP. Our FIP proposes promulgating
two options for an SO2 BART emissions limit for Danskammer
Unit 4. For option 1 we propose to approve New York's proposed
SO2 BART emission limit of 0.50 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour
average in the event additional information is submitted to support
this emission limit. For option 2 we propose to establish an
SO2 BART emission limit of 0.09 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour
average.
    The aforementioned BART requirements proposed by New York for Unit
4 are included in New York's proposed Title V permit, which also
includes requirements for monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting and
includes a compliance date of January 1, 2014. EPA expects New York
will issue a final BART determination and submit the permit as a SIP
revision for EPA approval. If EPA is able to approve the BART
determination, then the permit requirements for the boiler become
federally enforceable. Should New York not submit the final Title V
permit for Boilers 4 in a timely manner, or adequately demonstrate that
the proposed BART determination is BART, EPA proposes that the
aforementioned BART requirements be considered as federal requirements
as part of a FIP.

GenOn (Mirant)--Bowline Generating Station

    This facility, owned and permitted to GenOn Bowline LLC, operates
two very large boilers, Boilers 1 and 2, as well as an emergency
generator at its Bowline Generating Station located in the town of
Haverstraw, Rockland County. New York has determined that Boiler 1
(Emission Unit 1-00001; Emission source 00UN1) and 2 (Emission Unit 1-
00002; Emission source 00UN2) are BART eligible units. Boilers 1 and 2
are nearly identical in size (rated maximum heat input of 5546 and 5374
mm BTU/hr, respectively) and each has a nominal electric generating
capacity of 570 MW. Boiler 1 is a tangentially-fired boiler that can
fire either natural gas or No. 6 fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content
of 0.37%. In 2009, Boiler 1 operated only 568 hours (6.5% of the year)
during which time No. 6 fuel oil was combusted for 95 hours (or 17% of
operating hours). Boiler 2 is an opposed wall-fired boiler that
combusts the same fuels as Boiler 1. In 2009, Boiler 2 operated for
only 187 hours (2.1% of the year) during which time No. 6 fuel oil was
combusted for 24 hours (or 13% of operating hours). New York indicates
that both boilers operate very infrequently and are essentially
``peaking'' units under current and expected future operations. New
York and NRG took these operational characteristics into account in
their BART analysis.
    GenOn (Mirant) submitted a BART determination to New York and the
State agreed with the owner's recommendations. For control of
SO2 emissions, New York is proposing that the current fuel
oil sulfur limit of 0.37% (maximum, not to be exceeded at any time)
represents BART for Boilers 1 and 2. This fuel oil sulfur limit is
proposed for BART in New York's draft Title V permit. GenOn's
(Mirant's) five factor BART analysis evaluated three SO2
control options, including wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD), spray
dryer absorber, and dry sorbent injection. Only wet FGD was determined
to be technically feasible however not cost effectiveness due to the
low operating hours and low sulfur fuel oil.
    For control of NOX emissions, New York reviewed GenOn's
(Mirant's) BART analysis that considered a broad spectrum of control
options including combustion controls, post-combustion controls
(including SCR and SNCR), and combinations of controls and the State
concluded that none of the technically feasible control options are
economically feasible. New York concluded that BART is the continued
use of existing NOX controls and the State's draft Title V
permit requires the NOX emissions for Boilers 1 and 2 each
be limited to 0.15 lb/mm BTU (24-hour average during the ozone season
and 30 day rolling average during the non-ozone season). The existing
NOX controls include off-stoichiometric firing for both
boilers and additional controls for Boiler 2 including overfire air
(OFA) and windbox flue gas recirculation (FGR).
    For control of PM emissions, New York reviewed GenOn's (Mirant's)
BART analysis that considered combustion controls, fabric filter, wet
electrostatic precipitator, and wet scrubbing. GenOn (Mirant) and New
York determined that additional combustion controls and fabric filters
are technically infeasible; wet scrubbing is less efficient than ESPs
and fabric filters; and wet ESP is technically feasible but not
economically feasible. GenOn (Mirant) and New York note that the
visibility impacts of PM emissions for Boilers 1 and 2 are relatively
low in that PM contributes less than 10% of the total visibility impact
on Class I areas for each case modeled. New York concluded that no
further control is required as BART for PM. New York's draft Title V
permit proposes that current PM emission limit of 0.10 lb/mm BTU for
Boilers 1 and 2 represents BART.
    The aforementioned BART requirements for Boilers 1 and 2 are
included in New York's draft Title V permit including requirements for
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting and includes a compliance date
of January 1, 2014. New York expects to finalize the draft Title V
permit and to submit it as a SIP revision for EPA approval by mid-2012.

Alcoa, Inc--Alcoa Massena Operations (West Plant)

    This aluminum production facility, owned by and permitted to Alcoa
Inc, operates an Aluminum Production Cell (Potline), two Anode Baking
Furnaces, Four Packaged Boilers and various other processing units at
its Massena Operations (West Plant) in St. Lawrence County, in the city
of Massena. New York has determined that the Potline (Emission Unit S-
00001; Emission Source SS198), Anode Baking Furnaces (Emission Unit S-
00002; Emission Source SS78) and four Package Boilers (Emission Unit B-
00001; Emission Sources B0001 through B0004) are BART eligible units.
Alcoa submitted a BART analysis to New York and the State agreed with
the owner's recommendations. The following describes the State's BART
determination for each BART eligible unit.

A. Potline

    Aluminum metal is produced by electrolytic reduction of alumina in
these shallow rectangular cells, or ``pots.'' There is no combustion of
any fuels for this unit. Carbon electrodes extending into the pots
serve as the anodes and carbon lining of the cells as the cathode. The
carbon anodes, which contain sulfur impurities, are continuously
depleted during the electrolytic reduction of the alumina and
SO2 is emitted during this process as the anodes are
depleted. The current Potline control device is a dry alumina injection
system followed by a fabric filter to control fluoride emissions; the
system has 98% capture efficiency and a PM collection efficiency of
greater than 95%.

    For control of SO2 emissions, New York is proposing that
BART for the Potline is limiting the sulfur content of the coke raw
material used to produce anodes to 2.5%, which is the limit included in
New York's Air State Facility permit that was issued final on March 20,
2012. Alcoa's BART analysis evaluated two types of wet flue gas
desulfurization systems but it was determined that both are not
economically feasible. In addition, Alcoa determined that any
visibility improvement from reduction of SO2 emissions would
be minimal. As a result of this BART analysis, Alcoa concluded, and New
York agreed, that BART for the Potlines is limiting the sulfur content
of the anodes to not more than 2.5% determined on an annual average
rolled monthly.
    For control of NOX emissions, Alcoa determined, and New
York agreed, that there are no technically feasible controls that
represent BART. Alcoa evaluated two add-on controls, including SCR and
SNCR, but these were determined to be technically infeasible due to the
low temperatures of the exhaust gas. All combustion modification
techniques were eliminated from a BART analysis because there are no
conventional burners or combustion points in the Potline operation. New
York's final Air State Facility permit includes a BART limit of 50 TPY
NOX.
    For control of PM emissions, Alcoa determined, and New York agreed,
that the existing dry alumina injection system and fabric filter
represents BART for the Potline. Alcoa points out that PM emissions
represent only about 1.5% of the total facility visibility impact which
is 0.83 dv. New York's final Air State Facility permit includes a BART
limit of 168 TPY PM-10.

B. Anode Baking Furnaces

    Anodes used in the Potline are manufactured in an on-site
production plant. Coke, containing sulfur impurities, is used in the
production of the anodes. Alcoa has two anode baking furnaces that are
commonly controlled by a single dry alumina injection system and a
pulse jet fabric filter which has a control efficiency greater than
95%. These furnaces are fueled with natural gas.
    For control of SO2 emissions, New York is proposing that
BART for these two furnaces is limiting the sulfur content of the anode
coke to 2.5%, which is the limit included in New York's final Air State
Facility permit. Alcoa's BART analysis evaluated wet flue gas
desulfurization system but it was determined that it is not
economically feasible. As a result of this BART analysis, Alcoa
concluded, and New York agreed, that BART for the Anode Baking Furnaces
is limiting the sulfur content of the anode coke to not more than 2.5%
determined on an annual average rolled monthly.
    For control of NOX emissions, Alcoa determined, and New
York agreed, that there are no technically feasible controls that
represent BART. Alcoa evaluated two add-on controls, including SCR and
SNCR, but these were determined to be technically infeasible due to the
low temperatures of the exhaust gas. Combustion modification techniques
were also determined to be not technically feasible. New York's final
Air State Facility permit includes a BART limit of 203 tpy
NOX.
    For control of PM emissions, Alco determined, and New York agreed,
that the existing dry alumina injection system with a pulse jet fabric
filter satisfies BART for the Anode Baking Furnaces. New York's final
Air State Facility permit includes a BART limit of 24 TPY PM-10.

C. Four Package Boilers

    These four units are virtually identical boilers fired by either
natural gas or oil. Each boiler has one wall-fired burner which has a
maximum rated heat capacity of 200 mm BTU/hr for natural gas and
approximately 200 mm BTU/hr for No. 6 fuel oil using atomized steam.
Current NOX controls include low NOX burners
(LNB) and flue gas recirculation (FGR).
    For control of SO2 emissions, New York is proposing that
BART is limiting the sulfur content of the fuel oil to 1.5% which is
the limit included in the State's final Air State Facility permit.
Alcoa's BART analysis evaluated the cost of fuel oil with sulfur
content from 1.5% down to 0.5% and determined that it was not
economically feasible to purchase fuel oil with sulfur content lower
than 1.5%. As indicated above for the Dynegy Roseton BART analysis, New
York plans to propose this year revisions to it sulfur in fuel
regulation, Part 225, by limiting the sulfur content of residual oil to
0.50% to be effective within a few years. New York indicated that
recent (2011) deliveries to the plant had fuel oil sulfur content in
the range of 0.60 to 0.90%. Alcoa's BART analysis indicates that sulfur
emissions from the boilers contribute a visibility impact of only about
0.18 dv. As a result of this BART analysis, Alcoa concluded, and New
York agreed, that BART for these four boilers is limiting the sulfur
content of the fuel oil to not more than 1.5% for any fuel delivery.
    For control of NOX emissions, Alcoa determined, and New
York agreed, that the current control technologies (LNB and FGR) and
current permitted emission limit represents BART. Alcoa evaluated other
control options, including SCR and SNCR, but these were determined to
be economically infeasible. New York took into consideration that
recent testing indicates that NOX emissions are reported to
be 0.08 lb/mm BTU for gas and 0.27 lb/mm BTU for oil. New York's final
State Facility permit includes a BART limit of 0.30 lb/mm BTU
NOX.
    For control of PM emissions, Alco determined, and New York agreed,
that the current permit emission limit represents BART. New York
indicates that compliance tests conducted in March 2006 show measured
total particulate emissions of 0.045 lb/mm BTU when firing No. 6 fuel
oil.
    Additionally, Alcoa's BART analysis indicated that PM emissions
from the boilers have a small impact on visibility. Consequently, New
York's final State Facility permit includes a PM-10 BART limit of 0.10
lb/mm BTU.
    The aforementioned BART requirements for the Potline, Anode Baking
Furnaces and four Package Boilers are included in New York's final (on
March 20, 2012) Air State Facility permit including requirements for
monitoring, record keeping and reporting and includes a compliance date
of January 1, 2014. New York expects to submit the permit as a SIP
revision for EPA approval by mid-2012.

Lehigh Northeast Cement Company

    This facility, owned by and permitted to Lehigh Northeast Cement
Company, operates a rotary kiln and associated clinker cooler as part
of this Portland cement manufacturing operation, and associated quarry,
located at Glens Falls, Warren County. New York has determined that the
rotary kiln (Emission Unit: 0-UKILN) and the associated clinker cooler
are BART eligible units. Lehigh submitted a BART analysis to New York
and the State agreed with the owner's recommendations. The following
describes the State's BART determination for each of the BART eligible
units.

A. Rotary Kiln

    This unit is a short, dry preheater kiln rated at 160 tons per
hour. Coal is the primary fuel used in the kiln, with natural gas used
as a startup or backup fuel. Currently, PM emissions from the kiln are
controlled by an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and a lime slurry
system is used for detached plume abatement and for SO2
control.

    For control of SO2 emissions, New York is proposing that
current operations represent BART. The rotary kiln currently reduces
SO2 emissions through an inherent dry scrubbing (IDS)
process which entails the operation of a raw mill that is part of the
kiln operation. The raw mill typically operates as part of the kiln
operation for about 80% of the time and SO2 emissions from
the kiln are reduced to about 20 ppm (typically) whenever the raw mill
is operated. New York indicates that SO2 reduction from the
kiln is approximately 85% when the raw mill is in operation. When the
raw mill is not operating, Lehigh currently employs a lime spray drying
system to reduce SO2 emissions and for purposes of abatement
of an ammonium sulfate plume (detached plume abatement). This lime
spray drying system typically achieves up to 74% SO2
reduction\19\ during periods when the raw mill is not operating.
Lehigh's BART analysis evaluated four other SO2 control
options including fuel substitution, raw material substitution, dry
lime injection and wet lime scrubbing (WLS) and Lehigh determined, and
New York agreed, that the evaluated control options are either not cost
effective (WLS), not technically feasible (upgrade the existing lime
spray dryer), have no appreciable improvement in SO2
reduction over the existing system or have no appreciable improvement
in visibility (WLS and lime spray dryer upgrade). New York's Title V
permit was issued final on February 28, 2012 and includes the following
currently effective SO2 emission limits for the rotary kiln:
(1) 5.0 lbs/mm BTU of fuel measured on a daily basis; and (2) 3.8 lb/mm
BTU of fuel measured on a monthly rolled 3 month calendar basis; and
(3) 3.4 lb/mm BTU of fuel on a monthly rolled 12 calendar month period.
The Title V permit states that the SO2 emission limits
become effective upon Lehigh's certification of a future SO2
CEMS to be located on the rotary kiln exhaust stack(s). Until the
SO2 CEMS system is certified, the sulfur limits in the coal
fired in the rotary kiln are enforceable by the State. The Title V
permit includes the following currently effective limits on the sulfur
content of the coal fired in the kiln: (1) 2.5 lb/mm BTU maximum at any
time; (2) 1.9 lb/mm BTU on a 90-day average; and (3) 1.7 lb/mm BTU
annual maximum rolled monthly. New York's Title V permit indicates that
the sulfur limits in the coal will expire once Lehigh has certified
successful operation of the SO2 CEMS. However, New York has
clarified to EPA that the installation of SO2 CEMS is
optional and not a permit requirement. It should also be noted that
SO2 emissions also result from sulfur in the raw materials
fed to the kiln. Although the permitted SO2 emissions seem
high, EPA expects that actual emissions from the kiln will be much
lower given that Lehigh states in its BART analysis that SO2
reductions with the raw mill in operation is about 85%; and is about
74% when the lime slurry system becomes operational as the raw mill
stops operating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Lehigh's BART analysis states (p3-5) that the designer of
the lime spray drying system indicates that this system is
adequately sized and sufficient to control SO2 to 125
ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the control of NOX emissions, New York is proposing
that BART for the rotary kiln is the installation of selective non-
catalytic reduction (SNCR) technology. Lehigh's BART analysis evaluated
five potential NOX control technologies, including SCR and
SNCR, and concluded that only two control technologies are technically
feasible, i.e., SNCR and low NOx burners (LNB). Lehigh concluded that
SNCR technology is cost effective ($1,145/ton NOX removed)
and results in greater reduction in NOX emissions from the
rotary kiln than LNB and therefore SNCR is considered BART. The SNCR
manufacturer provides a guarantee NOX removal of 50%. New
York's final Title V permit establishes a BART NOX emission
limit of 2.88 lb/ton clinker produced with a compliance date of January
1, 2014.
    For control of PM emissions, Lehigh determined, and New York
agreed, that the removal and replacement of the existing ESP with a
fabric filter to meet the requirements of EPA's Portland cement MACT
(40 CFR part 63, Subpart LLL) also represents BART. Lehigh's BART
analysis for PM evaluated four potential control options including ESP,
fabric filter, cyclones and a wet scrubber. The wet scrubber was deemed
technically infeasible for a cement plant for PM control. Although the
fabric filter was deemed the most effective PM control technology,
Lehigh determined it to be not cost effective for BART but committed to
replace the existing ESP with a fabric filter to comply with EPA's
Portland cement MACT. New York's final Title V permit requires that PM
emissions from the rotary kiln meet a limit of 0.30 lb/ton feed.
Additional PM reductions are expected to occur in the future as
required to meet the new Portland Cement MACT standards, since the PM
limit promulgated in the Portland Cement MACT standard for existing
cement kilns is 0.04 lb/ton clinker.

B. Clinker Cooler

    The clinker cooler is a portion of the kiln processing system. When
the clinker has been fully formed in the kiln, it is conveyed to the
clinker cooler, which consists of a series of grates over which the
clinker travels and is exposed to forced ambient air for cooling.
Hence, only PM is emitted from the clinker cooler. The current PM
control on the clinker cooler is a baghouse. Lehigh proposed, and New
York agreed, that the existing baghouse represents BART for the clinker
cooler. Because the unit is required to meet the Portland Cement MACT
standard for clinker coolers, Lehigh contends that the compliance with
the applicable PM emission limits in the Portland Cement MACT rule and
the use of the existing baghouse represents BART. Lehigh did not
evaluate other technologies since there are no other new technologies
subsequent to the MACT standard. New York's final Title V permit
requires that PM emissions from the clinker cooler meet a BART limit of
0.10 lb/ton feed. Additional PM reductions are expected to occur in the
future as required to meet the new Portland Cement MACT standards,
since the PM limit promulgated in the Portland Cement MACT standard for
an existing clinker cooler is 0.04 lb/ton clinker.
    The aforementioned BART requirements for the rotary kiln and
associated clinker cooler are included in New York's final (on February
28, 2012) Title V permit including requirements for monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting and includes a compliance date of January
1, 2014. New York expects to submit the final Title V permit as a SIP
revision for EPA approval by mid-2012. Once the SIP revision is
approved by EPA, the BART requirements for the kiln and clinker cooler
become federally enforceable. Should New York not submit the final
Title V permit for the kiln and clinker cooler in a timely manner, EPA
proposes that the aforementioned BART requirements be considered as
federal requirements as part of a FIP. Should the existing final Title
V permit be revised under New York's permitting procedures, New York
must submit any revisions to EPA as a SIP revision for the purpose of
complying with BART.

Kodak--Eastman Business Park

    This facility, owned by and permitted to Eastman Kodak Co, operates
three very large boilers, Boiler 41 (Emission Unit U-00015; Emission
Source 321AG), Boiler 42 (Emission Unit U-00015; Emission Source
321AH), Boiler 43 (Emission Unit U-00015; Emission

Source 321AI) as well as one other large boiler, four package boilers,
and miscellaneous small units at its Eastman Business Park in Monroe
County, in the city of Rochester. New York has determined that Boilers
41, 42 and 43 as well as the four package boilers and the miscellaneous
small (non-boiler) units are BART eligible units. The most significant
BART eligible units (based upon emissions of SO2,
NOX and PM) are Boilers 41, 42 and 43. The remaining BART
eligible units have smaller emissions than Boilers 41-43 and the
visibility impacts are small. Each of the three large BART eligible
boiler units are used for generating steam and electricity for the
Kodak facility. Each of the three units are cyclone type boilers that
combust bituminous coal with a maximum sulfur content of 2.5%. The
boilers are also capable of combusting Number 6 fuel oil with up to
1.5% sulfur content. Each of the three boiler units are equipped with
electrostatic precipitators (ESP) to control PM emissions and natural
gas reburn to control emissions of NOX and SO2.
Kodak submitted a BART determination to New York and the State agreed
with the owner's recommendations.

A. Boilers 41, 42, 43

    Kodak provided a five factor BART analysis dated September 29, 2010
and a supplemental five factor analysis dated October 11, 2012. Kodak
concluded that BART for these three boilers are as follows: (1) Boiler
41 is to be permanently retired; (2) Boiler 42 will either permanently
retire or repower with natural gas; and (3) Boiler 43 will meet current
permit emission limits, given the likelihood that Boiler 43 will
install emission control equipment, as required, to comply with EPA's
Boiler MACT rule. Typical controls to meet Boiler MACT requirements may
be the installation of a dry lime injection system for acid gas (e.g.,
hydrogen chloride) and a fabric filter for PM control. A lime injection
system designed for acid gas removal will also typically reduce
SO2 emissions. Since EPA is currently reconsidering the
Boiler MACT rule,\20\ it is uncertain what the MACT compliance date and
emission limits will be. Therefore New York proposes in its draft Title
V permit, issued for public comment on April 4, 2012, that the final
BART requirements and compliance dates are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers
and Process Heaters,'' published March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). Also
referred to as 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD. This rule is in effect
but under reconsideration. EPA plans to issue a revised Boiler MACT
rule in the spring of 2012. On February 7, 2012, EPA notified owners
of affected sources that the agency would not take enforcement
action for violations of notification requirements for the Major
Source Boiler rule issued in March 2011.

--(1) Boiler 41 is to permanently retire by December 31, 2013; and
--(2) Boiler 42 is to either permanently retire or repower by the
Boiler MACT compliance date but not later than August 16, 2017. New
York's draft Title V permit does not include any emission limits and
--(3) for Boiler 43, New York's draft Title V permit reiterates the
following current emission limits as BART: (a) SO2: Fuel
sulfur limits for coal at 2.5% and for oil at 1.5%; (b) NOX:
0.60 lb/mm BTU; (c) PM: 0.24 lb/mm BTU when combusting coal and 0.10
lb/mm BTU when combusting fuel oil.

    EPA has reviewed New York's draft Title V permit and in a letter
dated April 11, 2012, EPA states that the agency agrees with the
permit's BART requirements except that an emission limit for
NOX is required for Boiler 42 should Kodak decide to repower
this boiler with natural gas. EPA's comment letter to New York requires
that the NOX emission limit be set at 0.20 lb/mm BTU. This
is the required limit, starting on July 1, 2014, for a very large gas/
oil fired cyclone boiler established by New York's adopted regulation
Subpart 227-2 (Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Major
Sources on Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)). Subpart 227-2 requires
compliance with this limit on 24-hour basis during the ozone season and
on a 30-day rolling average during the non-ozone season.
    Should Boiler 42 repower with natural gas, EPA is not requiring
emission limits for SO2 and PM. New York has stated that it
does not include emission limits for SO2 and PM for gas
fired boilers since these emissions are small and limiting these
contaminants is not practically enforceable. New York estimates that if
this boiler repowers with natural gas, the emission reductions will be
about 4591 tpy SO2 (99% reduction), 220 tpy PM (90%
reduction), and 607 tpy NOX (67% reduction). EPA agrees that
New York's analysis is reasonable and therefore EPA is not requiring
emission limits for SO2 and PM if Boiler 42 repowers with
natural gas.
    Since New York's draft Title V permit does not include an emission
limits for NOX for Boiler 42, EPA proposes to disapprove New
York's BART determination for this boiler except that EPA is approving
the draft compliance date for either retiring or repowering. EPA
proposes a federal plan establishing a NOX emission limit of
0.20 lb/mm BTU if Boiler 42 is repowered with natural gas.
    Kodak's BART analysis for Boiler 43 included an evaluation of
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to reduce NOX emission
by almost 67% to reach an emission limit of approximately 0.20 lb/mm
BTU. Kodak's evaluation indicated that it is cost effective ($5,358/
ton) to install SCR to reduce NOX emissions by 67% at this
cyclone type boiler. However Kodak's visibility analysis indicates that
the visibility improvement at the Lye Brook Class I area is about 0.254
dv (8th high) and 0.273 dv (8th high) cumulative at seven Class I areas
even when full Boiler MACT controls (lime scrubber and a fabric filter)
and SCR are evaluated together. Since the visibility improvement is
small, EPA agrees with Kodak's evaluation that the current control
technology (natural gas reburn) and limits summarized above for
NOX represent BART for Boiler 43.
    Kodak's BART analysis for Boiler 43 also included an evaluation of
lime spray dryer absorber (SDA) to reduce SO2 emission by
90%. Lime SDA or an equal control technology is what may be required to
meet the future Boiler MACT requirement for removal of the acid gas
such as hydrogen chloride (HCl). Kodak's evaluation indicated that it
is cost effective ($788/ton) to install such a control to remove
SO2 emissions. However, as indicated above for the SCR
evaluation, Kodak's expected visibility analysis on a cumulative basis
is only 0.273 dv (8th high) when SDA and SCR controls are evaluated
together. Since this visibility improvement is small, EPA agrees with
Kodak's evaluation and agrees that the current control limits for
SO2 summarized above represents BART for Boiler 43.
    Kodak's BART analysis for Boiler 43 did not include an evaluation
of additional PM controls beyond the existing electrostatic
precipitators. When the future Boiler MACT is implemented, the typical
control retrofit will be the installation of a fabric filter,
especially if a dry lime scrubber is installed. EPA agrees with Kodak's
evaluation and agrees that the current control limits summarized above
for PM represent BART for Boiler 43.

B. Four Package Boilers and Miscellaneous Small Sources

    New York has determined that four package boilers and numerous
small (non-boiler) miscellaneous sources at the Kodak facility are BART
eligible. Kodak conducted visibility modeling to demonstrate that the
four BART eligible

package boilers, having low emissions, had visibility impacts below
0.10 dv in Class I areas. The largest emissions from the numerous small
non-boiler units were comparable to the emissions from the package
boilers but were emitted from much shorter stacks. New York concluded
therefore that these numerous small sources would have similar minimal
visibility impacts on downwind Class I areas.
    With respect to the other smaller emission sources, EPA's BART
Guidelines provide for exempting a BART-eligible source from being
subject to BART if the source's impact on visibility impairment from
SO2, NOX, and PM at any Class I area is de
minimis. New York's rule established de minimis in this case as less
than 0.1 deciviews. Analysis and modeling of the four packaged boilers
and small numerous miscellaneous sources demonstrated maximum impacts
of less than 0.10 dv. Therefore New York determined these units have
negligible impacts on visibility and exempted them from further BART
analysis. Since EPA's BART Guidelines for exempting a BART-eligible
source applies to the entire facility and not individual units, and EPA
did not set a specific visibility level as a cutoff for a required BART
analysis, EPA does not agree that these units are exempted from a BART
analysis. However, EPA agrees with New York that a study of possible
BART controls for these miscellaneous sources with negligible
visibility impacts would only result in the conclusion that BART
control is economically infeasible on a dollar per deciview basis.
Therefore EPA proposes to accept New York's determination that current
operations with no additional control is BART.
    The aforementioned BART requirements for Boilers 41, 42 and 43 are
included in New York's draft Title V permit including requirements for
monitoring, record keeping and reporting and includes compliance dates
as indicated above. New York expects to finalize the draft Title V
permit and to submit it as a SIP revision for EPA approval by mid-2012.
    In addition, as discussed above, EPA is proposing a FIP for
establishing a NOX emission limit of 0.20 lb/mm BTU for
Boiler 42 should Kodak decide to repower this boiler with natural gas.
The compliance date is by the Boiler MACT compliance date but not later
than August 16, 2017.
    In summary, EPA is proposing partial approval and partial
disapproval of New York's BART determinations for Boilers 41, 42 and 43
at Kodak's Eastman Business Park facility. EPA is proposing to approve
New York's BART determination for Boilers 41 and 43 and the compliance
date for Boiler 42 to either permanently retire or repower because this
BART determination was conducted in a manner consistent with EPA's
Guidelines. EPA is proposing to disapprove a portion of New York's BART
determination for Boiler 42 because it does not include an emission
limit for NOX should this boiler be repowered with natural
gas.

International Paper Ticonderoga Mill

    The International Paper Company operates the Ticonderoga Mill, a
Kraft Paper Mill, in Essex County. BART-eligible emission units at the
Ticonderoga Mill are a Power Boiler and a Recovery Boiler. New York
determined other smaller emission sources at the Mill consisting of a
smelt dissolving tank, a lime kiln, and PM emission sources (a starch
silo and two wood chip cyclones) to be exempt from further BART
analysis based on modeling results showing that these units have less
than 0.1 deciview impacts.
    The power boiler is rated at 855 mmBTU/hr heat input and designed
to combust wood residue and No. 6 fuel oil at 1.5% sulfur and typically
operates with a fuel mix of 80% oil and 20% wood/bark. The power boiler
is currently equipped with low NOX burners, a wet scrubber
and a multicyclone unit and subject to SO2, NOX
and PM emission limits as a result of BACT, RACT, MACT and New York
State regulations. The recovery boiler is a kraft recovery furnace used
to recover chemicals from spent pulping liquor and to produce steam for
the mill. The recovery boiler processes black liquor and combusts No. 6
fuel oil as an auxiliary fuel less than 10% of the time. The boiler
operates with a three-level staged combustion air supply system and an
electrostatic precipitator control.

A. Power Boiler

    The power boiler currently operates with a wet-alkaline sodium
hydroxide scrubber to control SO2 emissions at a rate of
approximately 65 percent efficiency. New York identified wet or dry
scrubbing, the use of a lower sulfur fuel oil and combustion of natural
gas as potential control technologies in the reduction of
SO2 emissions from the power boiler. The use of natural gas
was not feasible due to the 70 miles distance to the nearest gas
pipeline. Using a lower sulfur content fuel oil was shown to result in
emission rates at or above the existing 309 lb/hr emission rate. In
addition, the BART determination demonstrated insignificant visibility
improvement (from 0.02 to 0.07 deciviews) with any lowering of the
sulfur fuel oil, and any upgrades or improved operation of the existing
control devices.
    New York determined that current operation of the wet-alkaline
sodium hydroxide scrubber and the existing SO2 emission
limit of 309 lb/hr on a 24-hour rolling average (approximately 1,350
tons per year) to be BART for the power boiler. In the future, the
boiler will need to comply with the ICI Boiler MACT acid gas control
requirements. In response to EPA and FLM comments, New York also
analyzed increasing the rate of caustic to the existing wet scrubber as
a potential control technology for addressing BART. While this
alternative is technically feasible and appears to be cost-effective,
it results in an insignificant visibility improvement ranging from 0.02
to 0.11 deciviews at the Lye Brook Wilderness Area, the closest Class I
Area. In addition, any physical modifications to the scrubber would
adversely affect PM control. Therefore, New York determined that
existing controls and current emission limits represent BART for the
control of SO2 emissions from the power boiler.
    The power boiler presently operates with low NOX
burners, over fired air and flue gas recirculation. The existing
emission limit for NOX emissions is 0.25 lb/mmBTU
(approximately 936 tons per year). The boiler is also subject to 40 CFR
63 subpart DDDDD for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers
and Process Heaters which may require additional emissions monitoring
and control in the future. The BART determination considered lowering
the emission rate to 0.20 lb/mmBTU and 0.15 lb/mmBTU; however these
emission rates were shown to result in an insignificant visibility
improvement. Meeting a 0.20 lb/mmBTU emission rate resulted in maximum
and eighth-highest visibility improvements of only 0.08 to 0.09 dv and
0.03 to 0.04 dv, respectively. Meeting a 0.15 lb/mmBTU emission rate
resulted in maximum and eighth-highest visibility improvements of 0.17-
0.18 dv and 0.07 dv, respectively. New York's BART determination notes
that EPA's BART rule did not set specific presumptive NOX
limits for oil-fired boilers, but should generally consider ``current
combustion control technology.''
    New York determined that current operation of the low
NOX burners, over fired air and flue gas recirculation
controls and the existing NOX emission limit of 0.25 lb/
mmBTU to be BART for the power boiler. In addition the power boiler
will need to comply with the ICI Boiler MACT and the Department's
NOX

RACT regulation. Under EPA Guidance, states have wide discretion as to
how they assess the BART five factors. Although EPA does not generally
recommend that states rely solely on the visibility improvement
consideration in making BART determinations, EPA does not believe that
broader analysis of the costs and visibility benefits associated with
installation of other post-combustion controls, such as SNCR and SCR,
would have resulted in a different BART determination in this case. EPA
proposes to find the current controls as being sufficient for BART is
reasonable. For informational purposes, EPA notes that separate from
International Paper's BART analysis, International Paper also evaluated
possible controls to meet New York's NOX RACT requirements.
Based on International Paper's January 2, 2012 analysis, SCR was found
to not be technically feasible. SNCR would only achieve a 21% emission
reduction from the current potential emission rate of 0.25 lb/mmBTU and
therefore was not cost-effective.
    Filterable PM emissions from the power boiler are controlled by a
multicyclone and the wet scrubber. Filterable PM emissions are limited
to 0.10 lb/mmBTU. The maximum modeled visibility impact on a Class I
area due to PM is 0.03 dv. Additional PM reductions are expected in the
future to be required to meet new MACT standards. The proposed
Industrial Commercial Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters MACT
standard (40 CFR 63 subpart DDDDD) that would apply to the Power Boiler
is 0.02 lb/mmBTU. New York found that PM emissions from the power
boiler are low and have minimal impact on visibility.

B. Recovery Boiler

    Operation of the recovery boiler differs from that of conventional
steam boilers in that the primary objective is to recover and re-use
the sulfur. Proper operation of a recovery boiler itself results in
inherent control of SO2 emissions. Additionally, this unit
is a non-direct evaporation recovery furnace which inherently results
in low SO2 emissions. The available retrofit technologies
for SO2 control from kraft mill recovery boilers are staged
combustion systems and wet scrubbers. The recovery boiler is already
equipped with a three-level staged combustion air control system. New
York determined it is technically infeasible to install a wet scrubbing
device downstream of the existing ESP. There are only three recovery
boilers in the U.S. equipped with wet scrubbers in addition to ESPs.
New York determined that current operation of the three-level staged
combustion air control system with ESPs be considered as BART for
SO2 emissions for the recovery boiler. EPA proposes to find
that other control technologies were not found to have been applied to
other recovery boilers, and the current controls of the recovery boiler
could be considered the maximum control for BART with a permitted
emission limit of 4 parts per million dry volume.
    The majority of NOX formed in the recovery boiler is
believed to be primarily fuel NOX due to the low
temperatures in the boiler's combustion zone. Fuel NOX
emissions from recovery furnaces are typically low due to the low
nitrogen content of black liquor solids. The boiler's three-level
staged combustion system can also be operated to minimize
NOX formation/emissions. New York considered other potential
NOX control technologies to be staged combustion systems,
selective catalytic reduction (SCR), selective non-catalytic reduction
(SNCR), low NOX burners, and flue gas recirculation (FGR).
Based on the unique nature of recovery boiler operation, each of these
traditional boiler controls was ruled out as being technically
infeasible. New York determined compliance with BART for NOX
is the currently installed three-level staged combustion air control
system with ESPs. The current permitted NOX emission rate
for the Recovery Boiler is 100 ppm (by volume) corrected to 8%
O2. Since there have been no applications of SCR or SNCR on
recovery boilers in the United States, EPA proposes to find the current
controls as being sufficient for BART is reasonable. Particulate
emissions from the recovery boiler are currently controlled with a
three-chamber ESP. In addition to ESPs, New York considered wet
scrubbers and fabric filters as potential PM controls, however it is
technically infeasible to install a wet scrubber downstream of the
existing ESP on the recovery boiler, and fabric filters have not been
applied to any recovery boilers at kraft pulp mills. The recovery
boiler complies with the Chemical Recovery MACT standard (40 CFR 63,
subpart MM). Therefore New York determined that current PM controls and
emission limits for the recovery boiler satisfy BART. Since EPA states
in its BART rule, ``* * * you may rely upon MACT standards for purposes
of BART,'' EPA proposes to find the current controls as being
sufficient for BART is reasonable.
    With respect to the other smaller emission sources, EPA's BART
Guidelines provide for exempting a BART-eligible source from being
subject to BART if the source's impact on visibility impairment from
SO2, NOX and PM at any Class I area is de
minimis. New York's rule established de minimis in this case as less
than 0.1 deciviews. Modeling of the smelt dissolving tank, lime kiln,
and PM emission sources demonstrated maximum impacts of 0.017 dv, 0.001
dv and 0.008 dv, respectively. Therefore New York determined these
units have negligible impacts on visibility and exempted them from
further BART analysis. Since EPA's BART Guidelines for exempting a
BART-eligible source applies to the entire facility and not individual
units, and EPA did not set a specific visibility level as a cutoff for
a required BART analysis, EPA does not agree that these units are
exempted from a BART analysis. However, EPA agrees with New York that a
study of possible BART controls for these miscellaneous sources with
negligible visibility impacts would only result in the conclusion that
BART control is economically infeasible on a dollar per deciview basis.
The highest emitting of these smaller sources, the smelt dissolving
tank, is already equipped with a wet scrubber and meets the MACT
standard for PM. Therefore, EPA proposes to accept New York's
determination that current operations with no additional control is
BART.
    EPA has reviewed New York's analyses for all of the International
Paper BART-eligible sources and concluded they were conducted in a
manner consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines. EPA proposes to approve
New York's BART determinations for the International Paper facility and
specifically proposes to approve the following emission limits for the
power boiler: 309 lbs SO2/hr; 0.25 lbs NOX/mmBTU;
0.1 lbs PM/mmBTU; and for the recovery boiler: 4 ppmdv total reduced
sulfur; 100 ppmdv for NOX; and 0.03 grains per dry standard
cubic foot for PM. Though New York's Part 249 requires BART controls to
be installed and implemented by January 1, 2014, International Paper
must presently comply with these BART emission limits since they
represent existing permit conditions.
    EPA proposes approval of the International Paper BART determination
as a revision to the SIP. If New York does not submit all of the BART
determinations and associated documents and permits to EPA as source-
specific SIP revisions, then this proposal also serves as EPA's
proposed federal plan for determining BART for BART-eligible sources at
International Paper.
    In summary, all of the aforementioned BART requirements for each
unit of all

19 BART sources are included in New York's draft or final Title V
permits including requirements for monitoring, record keeping and
reporting. Compliance is due by the effective date of the Title V
permit. New York expects to finalize all draft Title V permits and to
submit all final Title V permits as a SIP revision for EPA approval by
mid-2012. Once the SIP revision is approved by EPA (EPA final action
for all 19 BART sources is scheduled for August 16, 2012) the BART
requirements for each unit become federally enforceable. Should New
York not submit the final Title V permit for each unit in a timely
manner, EPA proposes that the BART requirements be considered as
federal requirements as part of a FIP as discussed above.
c. Enforceability of BART
    New York's BART requirements must be included as operating permit
conditions in accordance with 40 CFR part 70, and the State regulations
promulgated at 6 NYCRR Part 249. All of the BART facilities submitted
permit modification applications to incorporate the BART requirements.
New York has approved the permit modifications for National Grid's EF
Barrett Power Station, National Grid's Northport Power Station, Con
Ed's 59th Street Station, NRG's Arthur Kill's Generating Station, TC
Ravenswood's Ravenswood Generating Station, Con Ed's Ravenswood Steam
Plant, Dynegy's Roseton Generating Station, Holcim US's Catskill Plant,
Lafarge Building Materials' Ravena Plant, International Paper's
Ticonderoga Mill, Lehigh Northeast Cement's Glens Falls Plant, Alcoa
Massena Operation's West Plant, Johnstown BPU's Samuel A Carlson
Generating Station, and has proposed the permit modifications for
GenOn's Bowline Generating Station, Dynegy's Danskammer Generating
Station, Owens Corning's Delmar Plant, NRG's Oswego Harbor Power, GDF
Suez's Syracuse Energy Corporation, Eastman Kodak/Duke Energy's Kodak
Park Division. When all permit modifications are completed, New York
will submit all of the BART determinations and associated documents and
permits to EPA as source-specific SIP revisions.
    EPA has reviewed New York's BART determinations for all of the BART
eligible sources, including all supporting documentation, information
and proposed permit modifications. New York has requested public
comment on the proposed permit modifications, which identify the
required BART controls, and in many cases the comment periods have
closed. New York is in the process of addressing any comments received
and issuing the permit modifications in final form. EPA proposes in the
alternative to approve New York's BART determinations and emissions
limits should New York submit final permit modifications to EPA as SIP
revisions and the revisions match the terms of our proposed FIP. EPA is
proposing approval of New York's BART determinations because they were
conducted in a manner consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines. In the
event New York does not submit a SIP revision with final permit
modifications for all BART sources, EPA will publish a final rulemaking
with a FIP for those BART sources, as proposed in this action.
    Should New York submit all of the final BART permit modifications
as a SIP revision, and the revisions match the terms of our proposed
FIP, EPA proposes to approve New York's BART requirements based on the
BART determinations discussed above and the respective BART limitations
on emissions, source operation and fuel use. New York's BART
determinations contain the appropriate regulatory requirements related
to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on
the sources. Lastly, New York's BART determinations require BART
controls be installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the
Regional Haze SIP, as required in the CAA and in the RHR.
d. New York's Part 249--Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    On August 2, 2010, New York submitted to EPA as a revision to its
SIP, rule changes to Part 249 ``Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)'' and amendments to Part 200 ``General Provisions'' of Title 6
of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the
State of New York (6 NYCRR). New York completed all the administrative
requirements for these rule changes, including a public hearing and
response to comments. The effective date for Part 249 and amendments to
Part 200 is May 6, 2010.
    Part 249 was adopted pursuant to the Clean Air Act Section 169A and
the federal Regional Haze Rule to reduce the emissions of pollutants
which contribute to regional haze in Federal Class I areas. New York
was obligated to promulgate Part 249 in order to require New York
sources which contribute to haze issues in Class I areas in downwind
states to control emissions which contribute to haze. Part 249 required
BART eligible facilities to perform an analysis of potential controls
for each visibility-impairing pollutant. The analysis of controls was
due to New York by October 1, 2010. The compliance date contained in
Part 249 is January 1, 2014--within EPA's BART Guidance for compliance
within five years of EPA's approval of the state's Regional Haze SIP.
Part 249 also provides that each BART determination established by New
York will be submitted to EPA for approval as a revision to the SIP.
    New York completed all the administrative requirements for this
rule, including a public hearing and addressed the public comments. EPA
has evaluated New York's BART rule submittal for consistency with the
Clean Air Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and the rule meets
administrative requirements. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve New
York's Part 249 as part of the SIP.

C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

    On May 10, 2006, the MANE-VU State Air Directors adopted the Inter-
RPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation Framework that documented the
consultation process within the context of regional haze planning,
intended to create greater certainty and understanding among RPOs.
MANE-VU States held ten consultation meetings and/or conference calls
from March 1, 2007 through March 21, 2008. In addition to MANE-VU
members attending these meetings and conference calls, participants
from VISTAS, Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal Land Managers also
attended. In addition to the conference calls and meeting, the FLMs
were given the opportunity to review and comment on each of the
technical documents developed by MANE-VU. No additional measures beyond
those developed as part of the MANE-VU ``ask'' were recommended by
other states or the FLMs.
    New York State provided the FLMs a copy of the draft SIP. The FLM's
comments and New York State's responses are included in Appendix B,
Summary of Federal Land Manager Comments and Responses. New York
committed to coordinate and consult with the FLMs on implementation of
emission strategies, by providing summaries of major new source
permits, upcoming rulemakings that may contribute to visibility
impairment, and any revisions to the haze plans. Based on these actions
and commitments, EPA has determined that New York has fulfilled the
requirements for consultation with the FLMs. In addition,

in New York's attempts to implement the MANE-VU emission control
agreements, New York fulfills the requirement for consultation with
states with Class I areas.
    New York State held public hearings on this proposed SIP revision,
its BART rule and implementation of New York's legislation on sulfur
content in fuels. The hearings occurred in Albany, Avon and New York
City on the first three days in December. Written comments relevant to
the proposal were accepted through December 24, 2009. The State
responded to the comments in its public comments document. Comments
came from the EPA, potential BART sources and organizations of industry
groups.

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    In Section 11.0 of its haze SIP, New York commits to revise and
submit a regional haze implementation plan by July 31, 2018 to address
the next ten years of progress toward the national goal in the Act of
eliminating manmade haze by 2064, and to submit a plan every ten years
thereafter, in accordance with the requirements listed in 40 CFR
51.308(f) of the Federal rule for regional haze. New York commits to
submitting the required Mid-Course Review report every five years after
the initial submittal of the haze SIP. New York's commitment includes
continuing to consult with the FLMs on the implementation of Section
51.308 and this SIP, including development and review of SIP revisions
and five-year progress reports, and on the implementation of other
programs affecting the impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
Finally, New York commits to meet the required periodic updates of the
emission inventory as required under 51.308(d)(4)(v).
    Since there are no Class I areas in the State, New York does not
have to address the RAVI and monitoring strategy requirements of the
RHR.

V. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the
revision to the New York SIP addressing regional haze submitted on
March 15, 2010, and supplemented on August 2, 2010. EPA proposes to
disapprove the following BART determinations:
     New York's SO2 BART determinations and
emissions limits for Roseton Units 1 and 2.
     New York's SO2 BART determinations and
emissions limits for Danskammer Unit 4.
     New York's SO2, NOX and PM emissions
limits for Kodak's Boiler 42.
    EPA proposes to disapprove the following facility BART
determinations and emission limits because while New York has proposed
permit modifications, New York has not issued final permit
modifications or submitted them to EPA as a SIP revision: Bowline Point
Generating Station; Danskammer Generating Station; Owens Corning Delmar
Plant; Oswego Harbor Power; Syracuse Energy Corporation; Kodak Park
Division.
    EPA proposes to disapprove the following facility BART
determinations and emission limits because New York has not submitted
final permit modifications to EPA as a SIP revision: EF Barrett Power
Station; Northport Power Station; 59th Street Station; Arthur Kill
Generating Station; Ravenswood Generating Station; Ravenswood Steam
Plant; Roseton Generating Station; Holcim (US) Inc--Catskill Plant;
Lafarge Building Materials; International Paper Ticonderoga Mill;
Lehigh Northeast Cement; ALCOA Massena Operations (West Plant); Samuel
A Carlson Generating Station.
    EPA is proposing a FIP to address the deficiencies identified in
our proposed partial disapproval of New York's Regional Haze SIP. In
lieu of this proposed FIP, or a portion thereof, we are proposing
approval of a SIP revision if the State submits such a revision in a
timely way, and the revision matches the terms of our proposed FIP, or
relevant portion thereof.
    EPA proposes to approve the remaining aspects of New York's
Regional Haze SIP revision as follows: New York's determination under
the reasonable progress requirements that all measures found to be
reasonable have been enacted and implemented; New York's Long Term
Strategy, will be approvable, only if New York submits all of the final
permit modifications in a timely manner, and with the level of control
in EPA's proposed FIP; New York's SIP revision consisting of New York's
6 NYCRR Part 249.
    EPA proposes in the alternative to approve all of the facility BART
determinations and emissions limits should New York submit final permit
modifications to EPA as SIP revisions, and the revisions match the
terms of our proposed FIP.
    EPA is taking this action pursuant to those provisions of the Act.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document and will consider these comments before taking final action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). As discussed in detail in section
C below, the proposed FIP applies to only nine facilities. It is
therefore not a rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of
information'' is defined as a requirement for ``answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons. * * *'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP
applies to just nine facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not
apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OMB control numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Regional Haze FIP that EPA is proposing for purposes of the
regional haze program consists of imposing federal controls to meet the
BART requirement for SO2, NOX, and PM emissions
on specific units at nine facilities in New York. The net result of
this FIP action is that EPA is proposing direct emission controls on
selected units at only nine facilities. The facilities in question are
either large electric generating plants or large industrial boilers
that are not owned by small entities, and therefore are not small
entities. The proposed partial approval of the SIP, if finalized,
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. See Mid-
Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (DC Cir. 1985)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of 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
(adjusted for inflation) in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule
for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of 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 of UMRA do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 of UMRA 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 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.
    Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this proposed rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that
exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any 1 year. In
addition, this proposed rule does not contain a significant Federal
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA nor does
it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule 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, because it
merely addresses the State not fully meeting its obligation to prohibit
emissions from interfering with other states measures to protect
visibility established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection 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 we have reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O.
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to E.O. 13045 because it implements specific standards
established by Congress in statutes. However, to the extent this
proposed rule will limit emissions of SO2, NOX,
and PM the rule will have a beneficial effect on children's health by
reducing air pollution.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    We have determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This proposed rule limits emissions of
SO2, NOX, and PM from nine facilities in New
York. The partial approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely approves
state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: April 16, 2012.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart HH--New York

    2. New Sec.  52.1686 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1686  Federal implementation plan for regional haze.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to each owner and operator
of the following electric generating units (EGUs) and large industrial
boilers in the State of New York: Danskammer Generating Station, Unit
4; Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2; Syracuse Energy
Corporation, Unit 1; Bowline Point Generating Station, Units 1 and 2;
Eastman Kodak Business Park, Units 41, 42, and 43; Delmar Plant, Units
EU2, EU3, EU12, EU13 and EU14; Oswego Harbor Power, Units 5 and 6; and
Ravenswood Generating Station, Units 10, 20 and 30; EF Barrett Power
Station, Northport Power Station, 59th Street Station, Arthur Kill
Generating Station, Ravenswood Steam Plant, Roseton Generating Station,
Holcim Catskill Plant, Lafarge Building Materials, International Paper
Ticonderoga Mill, Lehigh Northeast Cement Plant, ALCOA Massena
Operations (West Plant), Samuel A Carlson Generating Station.
    (b) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning
given them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing the
Clean Air Act. For purposes of this section:
    Boiler operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and
the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time
in the EGU, boiler or emission unit. It is not necessary for fuel to be
combusted for the entire 24-hour period.
    Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment
required by this section to sample, analyze, measure, and provide, by
means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes (using an
automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS)), a permanent
record of SO2, NOX, and PM emissions, other
pollutant emissions, diluent, or stack gas volumetric flow rate.
    SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
    NOX means nitrogen oxides.
    PM means particulate matter.
    Owner/operator means any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises an EGU or boiler identified in paragraph (a) of
this section.
    Unit means any of the EGUs or boilers identified in paragraph (a)
of this section.
    (c) Emissions limitations--(1) The owners/operators subject to this
section shall not emit or cause to be emitted SO2,
NOX, and PM in excess of the following limitations, averaged
over a rolling 30-day period unless otherwise indicated below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         BART Controls/Limits
           Facilities                  BART Unit     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                              NOX                 SO2                 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danskammer Generating Station--   4.................  0.12 lb/mm BTU, 24  Option 1: 0.50 lb/  0.06 lb/mm BTU, 1
 Dynegy.                                               hr avg ozone        mm BTU, 24 hr avg.  hr avg.
                                                       season, 30 day     Compliance 7/1/     Compliance 7/1/
                                                       avg rest of yr.     2014..              2014.
                                                      Compliance 7/1/     Option 2: 0.09 lb/
                                                       2014..              mm BTU, 24 hr
                                                                           avg..
                                                                          Compliance 7/1/
                                                                           2014..
Roseton Generating Station--      1 & 2.............  0.20 lb/mm BTU, 24  0.55 lb/mm BTU, 24  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
 Dynegy.                                               hr avg ozone        hr avg.
                                                       season, 30 day
                                                       avg rest of yr.
Syracuse Energy Corporation--GDF  1.................  Retire 1/1/2014...  Retire 1/1/2014...  Retire 1/1/2014.
 Suez.
Bowline Point Generating          1 & 2.............  0.15 lb/mm BTU, 24  0.37% sulfur fuel   0.10 lb mm BTU.
 Station--GenOn.                                       hr avg ozone        oil.
                                                       season, 30 day
                                                       avg rest of yr.
Kodak Operations at Eastman       41................  Retire 12/31/2013.  Retire 12/31/2013.  Retire 12/31/2013.
 Business Park--Kodak.
                                  42................  Retire or repower   Retire or repower   Retire or repower
                                                       with natural gas    with natural gas    with natural gas
                                                       by the Boiler       by the Boiler       by the Boiler
                                                       MACT compliance     MACT compliance     MACT compliance
                                                       date but not        date but not        date but not
                                                       later than 8/16/    later than 8/16/    later than 8/16/
                                                       2017.               2017.               2017.
                                                      0.20 lb/mm Btu, 24
                                                       hr avg ozone
                                                       season, 30 day
                                                       avg rest of yr..
                                  43................  0.60 lb/mm BTU, 24  Coal 2.5% sulfur    Coal 0.24 lb/mm
                                                       hr avg ozone        Oil 1.5% sulfur.    BTU, Oil 0.10 lb/
                                                       season, 30 day                          mm BTU.
                                                       avg rest of yr.
Owens Corning Delmar Plant--      EU2, EU3, EU12,     Emit <250 tons per  Emit <250 tons per  Emit <250 tons per
 Owens Corning.                    EU13 & EU14.        year, cumulative.   year, cumulative.   year, cumulative.
Oswego Harbor Power--NRG........  5.................  383 tpy, 12 month   0.75% sulfur fuel,  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
                                                       rolling total.      0.80 lb/mm BTU, 3
                                                                           hr rolling avg.
                                  6.................  665 tpy, 12 month   0.75% sulfur fuel,  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
                                                       rolling total.      0.80 lb/mm BTU, 3
                                                                           hr rolling avg.
Ravenswood Generating Station--   10, 20, 30........  Natural gas         0.30% sulfur fuel   0.1 lb/mm BTU.
 Trans Canada.                                         primary fuel,       oil.
                                                       0.15 lb/mm BTU.
EF Barrett Power Station--NG....  2.................  0.10 lb/mm BTU,     0.37% sulfur fuel.  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
                                                       when firing
                                                       natural gas and
                                                       0.20 lb/mm BTU
                                                       when firing low
                                                       sulfur fuel oil,
                                                       both on a 24-hour
                                                       avg.
Northport Power Station--NG.....  1-3...............  0.10 lb/mm BTU,     0.70% sulfur fuel.  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
                                                       when firing
                                                       natural gas and
                                                       0.20 lb/mm BTU
                                                       when firing fuel
                                                       oil, both on a 24
                                                       hr avg.
                                  4.................  0.10 lb/mm BTU,     0.75% sulfur fuel.  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
                                                       when firing
                                                       natural gas and
                                                       0.20 lb/mm BTU
                                                       when firing fuel
                                                       oil, both on a 24
                                                       hr avg.
59th Street Station--Con Ed.....  114 & 115.........  0.32 lb/mm BTU, 30- 0.30% sulfur fuel.  0.10 lb/mm BTU, by
                                                       day rolling                             stack tests.
                                                       average.
Arthur Kill Generating Station--  30................  Natural gas         Natural gas         359 tpy.
 NRG.                                                  combustion, 0.15    combustion 0.15
                                                       lb/mm BTU, 24 hr    lb/MM BTU.
                                                       avg ozone season,
                                                       30 day avg rest
                                                       of yr.
Ravenswood Steam Plant--Con Ed..  2.................  0.32 lb/mm BTU, 30- 0.30% sulfur fuel.  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
                                                       day rolling
                                                       average.
Catskill Plant--Holcim (US) Inc.  0KILN.............  Retire 2/13/2012..  Retire 2/13/2012.   ..................
Lafarge Building Materials......  1 & 2.............  Retire 6/30/2015..  Retire 6/30/2015..  Retire 6/30/2015.
International Paper Ticonderoga   Power.............  0.25 lb/mm BTU....  309 lb/hr on a 24-  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
 Mill--International Paper.                                                hr rolling
                                                                           average.
                                  Recovery..........  100 ppm dry         4 ppm dry volume    0.03 grains per
                                                       volume, corrected   Total reduced       dry standard
                                                       to 8% O2.           sulfur.             cubic foot.

Lehigh Northeast Cement--Lehigh   kiln..............  2.88 lb/ton         2.5 lb/mm BTU max,  0.03 lb/ton feed.
 Cement.                                               clinker produced.  1.9 lb/mm BTU on a
                                                                           90-day average,.
                                                                          1.7 lb/mm BTU max
                                                                           on a 12 month
                                                                           rolling average,.
                                                                          When CEMS
                                                                           certified:.
                                                                          5.10 lb/mm BTU
                                                                           daily, 3.8 lb/mm
                                                                           BTU on a 90-day
                                                                           average, 3.4 lb/
                                                                           mm BTU on a 12
                                                                           month rolling
                                                                           average
                                  Clinker cooler....  ..................  ..................  0.10 lb/ton feed.
ALCOA Massena Operations (West    Potlines..........  Emit <=50 tpy.....  2.5% sulfur anode   Emit <=168 tpy PM-
 Plant)--Alcoa.                                                            coke, 12 month      10.
                                                                           rolling avg.
                                  Baking furnaces...  Emit <=203 tpy....  2.5% sulfur anode   Emit <=24 tpy PM-
                                                                           coke, 12 month      10.
                                                                           rolling avg.
                                  Boilers...........  0.30 lb/mm BTU....  1.5% sulfur fuel..  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
Samuel A Carlson Generating       12................  Retire 1/1/2014...  Retire 1/1/2014...  Retire 1/1/2014.
 Station--Jamestown Board of
 Public Utilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) These emission limitations shall apply at all times, including
startups, shutdowns, emergencies, and malfunctions.
    (d) Compliance date. The owners and operators subject to this
section shall comply with the emissions limitations and other
requirements of this section by January 1, 2014 unless otherwise
indicated in paragraph (c).
    (e) Compliance determination using CEMS--(1) CEMS. At all times
after the compliance date specified in paragraph (d) of this section,
the owner/operator of each unit shall maintain, calibrate, and operate
a CEMS, in full compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR part
75, to accurately measure SO2, NOX, and PM,
diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow rate from each unit. The CEMS
shall be used to determine compliance with the emission limitations in
paragraph (c) of this section for each unit.
    (2) Method. (i) For any hour in which fuel is combusted in a unit,
the owner/operator of each unit shall calculate the hourly average
SO2, NOX, and PM concentration in lb/MMBtu at the
CEMS in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 75. At the end
of each boiler operating day, the owner/operator shall calculate and
record a new average emission rate, consistent with paragraph (c)
averaging period, in lb/MMBtu from the arithmetic average of all valid
hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current boiler operating
day.
    (ii) An hourly average SO2, NOX, or PM
emission rate in lb/MMBtu is valid only if the minimum number of data
points, as specified in 40 CFR part 75, is acquired by the
SO2, NOX, or PM pollutant concentration monitor
and the diluent monitor (O2 or CO2).
    (iii) Data reported to meet the requirements of this section shall
not include data substituted using the missing data substitution
procedures of subpart D of 40 CFR part 75, nor shall the data have been
bias adjusted according to the procedures of 40 CFR part 75.
    (f) Compliance determination using fuel certification--
    The owner or operator of each affected facility subject to a
federally enforceable requirement limiting the fuel sulfur content may
use fuel supplier certification to demonstrate compliance. Records of
fuel supplier certification, as described under paragraph (f)(1), (2),
(3), or (4) of this section, as applicable, shall be maintained and
reports submitted as required under paragraph (h). In addition to
records of fuel supplier certifications, the report shall include a
certified statement signed by the owner or operator of the affected
facility that the records of fuel supplier certifications submitted
represent all of the fuel combusted during the reporting period.
    Fuel supplier certification shall include the following
information:
    (1) For distillate oil:
    (i) The name of the oil supplier;
    (ii) A statement from the oil supplier that the oil complies with
the specifications under the definition of distillate oil in Sec.
60.41c; and
    (iii) The sulfur content or maximum sulfur content of the oil.
    (2) For residual oil:
    (i) The name of the oil supplier;
    (ii) The location of the oil when the sample was drawn for analysis
to determine the sulfur content of the oil, specifically including
whether the oil was sampled as delivered to the affected facility, or
whether the sample was drawn from oil in storage at the oil supplier's
or oil refiner's facility, or other location;
    (iii) The sulfur content of the oil from which the shipment came
(or of the shipment itself); and
    (iv) The method used to determine the sulfur content of the oil.
    (3) For coal:
    (i) The name of the coal supplier;
    (ii) The location of the coal when the sample was collected for
analysis to determine the properties of the coal, specifically
including whether the coal was sampled as delivered to the affected
facility or whether the sample was collected from coal in storage at
the mine, at a coal preparation plant, at a coal supplier's facility,
or at another location. The certification shall include the name of the
coal mine (and coal seam), coal storage facility, or coal preparation
plant (where the sample was collected);
    (iii) The results of the analysis of the coal from which the
shipment came (or of the shipment itself) including the sulfur content,
moisture content, ash content, and heat content; and
    (iv) The methods used to determine the properties of the coal.

    (4) For other fuels:
    (i) The name of the supplier of the fuel;
    (ii) The potential sulfur emissions rate or maximum potential
sulfur emissions rate of the fuel in ng/J heat input; and
    (iii) The method used to determine the potential sulfur emissions
rate of the fuel.
    (g) Compliance determination with an annual emission limit--The
owner or operator of each affected facility subject to a federally
enforceable requirement limiting the annual emissions shall calculate
the annual emissions individually for each fuel combusted, as
applicable. The annual emission limitation is determined on a 12-month
rolling average basis with a new annual emission limitation calculated
at the end of the calendar month, unless a different reporting period
is identified in paragraph (c).
    (h) Recordkeeping. Owner/operator shall maintain the following
records for at least five years:
    (1) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling
or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.
    (2) All fuel supplier certifications and information identified in
paragraph (f)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section, as applicable.
    (3) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities for
emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any records
required by 40 CFR Part 75.
    (4) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on
emission units, air pollution control equipment, and CEMS.
    (5) Any other records required by 40 CFR part 75.
    (i) Reporting. All reports under this section shall be submitted to
the Director, Division of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New
York 10007-1866.
    (1) Owner/operator shall submit quarterly excess emissions reports
no later than the 30th day following the end of each calendar quarter.
Excess emissions means emissions that exceed the emissions limits
specified in paragraph (c) of this section. The reports shall include
the magnitude, date(s), and duration of each period of excess
emissions, specific identification of each period of excess emissions
that occurs during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the unit,
the nature and cause of any malfunction (if known), and the corrective
action taken or preventative measures adopted.
    (2) Owner/operator shall submit quarterly CEMS performance reports,
to include dates and duration of each period during which the CEMS was
inoperative (except for zero and span adjustments and calibration
checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was inoperative and steps taken to
prevent recurrence, any CEMS repairs or adjustments, and results of any
CEMS performance tests required by 40 CFR part 75 (Relative Accuracy
Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder Gas Audits).
    (3) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not been
inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, such
information shall be stated in the report.
    (4) Owner/operator shall submit semi-annual fuel certification
reports no later than the 30th day following the end of each six month
period.
    (5) Owner/operator shall submit an annual emissions limitation
calculation report no later than the 30th day following the end of the
calendar year or quarter if a rolling average is required in paragraph
(c).
    (j) Notifications. (1) Owner/operator shall submit notification of
commencement of construction of any equipment which is being
constructed to comply with the NOX emission limits in
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) Owner/operator shall submit semi-annual progress reports on
construction of any such equipment.
    (3) Owner/operator shall submit notification of initial startup of
any such equipment.
    (k) Equipment operation. At all times, owner/operator shall
maintain each unit, including associated air pollution control
equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions.
    (l) Credible Evidence. Nothing in this section shall preclude the
use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or
information, relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance
with requirements of this section if the appropriate performance or
compliance test procedures or method had been performed.

[FR Doc. 2012-9839 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P