[Federal Register: December 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 249)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 77101-77113]
[DOCID:fr29de05-21]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 96

[EPA-HQ-OAR 2003-0053; FRL-8016-6]

Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter
and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule): Supplemental Notice of
Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of reconsideration; request for comment; notice of
opportunity for public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: On May 12, 2005, EPA published in the Federal Register the
final ``Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter
and Ozone'' (Clean Air Interstate Rule or CAIR). The CAIR requires
certain upwind States to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and/or sulfur dioxide (SO2) that
significantly contribute to nonattainment of, or interfere with
maintenance by, downwind States with respect to the fine particle
(PM2.5) and/or 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Subsequently, EPA received 11 petitions for
reconsideration of the final rule. Through Federal Register notices
dated August 24, 2005 and December 2, 2005, EPA previously initiated
reconsideration processes on five specific issues in the CAIR and
requested comment on those issues. In this notice, EPA is announcing
its decision to reconsider one additional specific issue in the CAIR
and is requesting comment on that issue.
    The specific issue addressed in today's notice relates to the
potential impact of a recent D.C. Circuit Court decision, New York v.
EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005), on the analysis used in developing
CAIR to identify highly cost-effective emission reductions. This court
decision vacated the pollution control project (PCP) exclusion in the
New Source Review (NSR) regulations (the exclusion allowed certain
environmentally beneficial PCPs to be excluded from certain NSR
requirements).
    The EPA is seeking comment only on the aspect of the CAIR
specifically identified in this notice. We will not respond to comments
addressing other provisions of the CAIR or any related rulemakings.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 16, 2006. If
requested, a public hearing will be held on January 17, 2006 in
Washington, DC. For additional information on a public hearing, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0053, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0053.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0053.
     Fax: The fax number of the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0053.
     Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0053, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0053, Environmental Protection Agency,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B102; Washington, DC. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0053. EPA's policy is that all comments

received will be included in the public docket without change and may
be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
 For additional instructions on submitting

comments, go to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center

(Air Docket), EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions concerning
today's action as well as questions concerning the analyses described
in section III of this notice, please contact Meg Victor, U.S. EPA,
Office of Atmospheric Programs, Clean Air Markets Division, Mail Code
6204J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone
(202) 343-9193, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions,
please contact Sonja Rodman, U.S. EPA, Office of General Counsel, Mail
Code 2344A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information concerning a public hearing, please contact Jo Ann Allman,
U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality
Strategies and Standards Division, Mail Code C539-02, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    The CAIR does not directly regulate emissions sources. Instead, it
requires States to develop, adopt, and submit State implementation plan
(SIP) revisions that would achieve the necessary SO2 and
NOX emissions reductions, and leaves to the States the task
of determining how to obtain those reductions, including which entities
to regulate.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    Note that general instructions for submitting comments are provided
above under the ADDRESSES section.
    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of

the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, U.S.
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C404-02,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0053.

    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

Public Hearing

    If requested, EPA will hold a public hearing on today's notice. The
EPA will hold a hearing only if a party notifies EPA by January 10,
2006, expressing its interest in presenting oral testimony on issues
addressed in today's notice. Any person may request a hearing by
calling Jo Ann Allman at<PHONE_NUMBER> before 5 p.m. on January 10,
2006. Any person who plans to attend the hearing should visit the EPA's
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/cair or contact Jo Ann Allman at (919)

541-1815 to learn if a hearing will be held.
    If a public hearing is held on today's notice, it will be held on
January 17, 2006 at EPA Headquarters, 1310 L Street (closest cross
street is 13th Street), 1st floor conference rooms 152 and 154,
Washington, DC. The closest Metro stop is McPherson Square (Orange and
Blue lines)--take 14th Street/Franklin Square Exit. Because the hearing
will be held at a U.S. Government facility, everyone planning to attend
should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security
staff in order to gain access to the meeting room.
    If held, the public hearing will begin at 10 a.m. and end at 2 p.m.
The hearing will be limited to the subject matter of this document.
Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes. The EPA encourages
commenters to provide

written versions of their oral testimonies either electronically (on
computer disk or CD ROM) or in paper copy. The public hearing schedule,
including the list of speakers, will be posted on EPA's Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/cair. Verbatim transcripts and written statements

will be included in the rulemaking docket.
    A public hearing would provide interested parties the opportunity
to present data, views, or arguments concerning issues addressed in
today's notice. The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral
presentations, but would not respond to the presentations or comments
at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted
during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as
any oral comments and supporting information presented at a public
hearing.
    All written comments must be received by EPA on or before February
16, 2006. Because of the need to resolve the issues in this document in
a timely manner, EPA will not grant requests for extensions of the
public comment period.

Availability of Related Information

    Documents related to the CAIR are available for inspection in
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0053 at the address and times given above.
The EPA has established a Web site for the CAIR at http://www.epa.gov/cleanairinterstaterule or more simply http://www.epa.gov/cair/.

>.

Outline

I. Background
II. Today's Action
    A. Grant of Reconsideration
    B. Schedule for Reconsideration
III. Impact on CAIR Analyses of DC Circuit Decision in New York v.
EPA
    A. Background on New York v. EPA and its Relationship to CAIR
    B. Potential Impact of Collateral Pollutant Increases and
Mitigation Measures
    1. Increases in Sulfuric Acid Emissions From SCR Retrofits
    2. Increases in Sulfuric Acid Emissions From Wet FGD Retrofits
in Combination With Switching to Higher Sulfur Coal
    3. Summary of Combinations of CAIR SCR and/or FGD Retrofits and
Coal Switches That May Increase Sulfuric Acid Emissions
    4. Technology Options Available for Mitigating Sulfuric Acid
Emission Increases
    5. Analysis of SO3/H2SO4
Mitigation Costs and Timing Impacts for CAIR SCR and/or Wet FGD
Projects
    6. Increases in Carbon Monoxide and Unburned Carbon (Solid
Particulate) Emissions From Combustion Controls
    7. Increases in Direct PM2.5 Resulting From Fugitive
Emissions From Storage or Handling of Lime, Limestone, or FGD Waste
After Installation of Dry or Wet FGD
    8. Collateral Air Pollutant Emissions From Units Switching From
High to Low Sulfur Coals
    9. Summary of Section III.B.
    C. Potential Impact of NSR Permitting
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Background

    On May 12, 2005, the EPA (Agency or we) promulgated the final
``Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone'' (Clean Air Interstate Rule or CAIR)(70 FR 25162). As explained
in the CAIR preamble and summarized in our December 2, 2005
reconsideration notice (70 FR 72268), CAIR requires 28 States and the
District of Columbia to revise their State implementation plans (SIPs)
to include control measures to reduce emissions of SO2 and/
or NOX. Sulfur dioxide is a precursor to PM2.5
formation and NOX is a precursor to PM2.5 and
ozone formation. By reducing upwind emissions of SO2 and
NOX, CAIR will assist downwind PM2.5 and 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas in achieving the NAAQS. As also described in
the December 2005 reconsideration notice, the CAIR was promulgated
through a process that involved significant public participation (70 FR
72271).
    Following publication of the final CAIR on May 12, 2005, the
Administrator received eleven petitions requesting reconsideration of
certain aspects of the final rule. The complete petitions are available
in the docket for the CAIR.\1\ The petitions were filed pursuant to
section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. Under this provision, the
Administrator is to initiate reconsideration proceedings if the
petitioner can show that an objection is of central relevance to the
rule and that it was impracticable to raise the objection to the rule
within the public comment period or that the grounds for the objection
arose after the public comment period but before the time for judicial
review had run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitions for reconsideration were filed by: State of North
Carolina (OAR-2003-0053-2192); FPL Group (OAR-2003-0053-2201);
Florida Association of Electric Utilities (OAR-2003-0053-2200);
Entergy Corporation (OAR-2003-0053-2195 and 2198 (attachment 1));
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (OAR-2003-0053-
2199); Integrated Waste Services Association (OAR-2003-0053-2193);
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (OAR-2003-0053-2212);
Northern Indiana Public Service Corporation (OAR-2003-0053-2194 and
2213 (supplemental petition)); City of Amarillo, Texas, El Paso
Electric Company, Occidental Permian Ltd, and Southwestern Public
Service Company d/b/a/ Xcel Energy (OAR-2003-0053-2196 and 2197
(attachment 1) and 2205-2207 (attachments 2-4)); Connecticut
Business and Industry Ass'n (OAR-2003-0053-2203); and Minnesota
Power, a division of ALLETE. Inc. (OAR-2003-0053-2212).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has already initiated a reconsideration process on five
specific aspects of the final CAIR. On August 24, 2005 (70 FR 49708)
and on December 2, 2005 (70 FR 72268), we published in the Federal
Register notices announcing these decisions to reconsider specific
aspects of the CAIR and requesting comment on those issues. Today's
notice announces EPA's decision to reconsider one additional issue
raised in a petition for reconsideration and requests comment on that
additional issue.
    By a letter dated December 22, 2005 we informed a petitioner of our
intent to grant reconsideration on an issue addressed in their petition
for reconsideration. We indicated in that letter that we would initiate
the reconsideration process by publishing this notice.

II. Today's Action

A. Grant of Reconsideration

    In this notice, EPA is announcing its decision to grant
reconsideration on one issue raised in the petitions for
reconsideration. This notice initiates that reconsideration process and
requests comment on the issue to be addressed. Given the intense public
interest in this rule, EPA has decided to provide this additional
opportunity for public comment. At this time, however, EPA does not
believe that any of the information submitted to date demonstrates that
EPA's final decisions were erroneous or inappropriate. Therefore, we
are not proposing any modifications to the final CAIR.
    The issue on which EPA is requesting comment relates to the
potential impact of a recent judicial opinion on the highly cost-
effective analysis prepared by EPA in developing the CAIR. This

case, New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005) was decided on June
24, 2005--after the final CAIR was published but before the time for
judicial review of the rule had run. This issue is described in greater
detail in Section III of this notice.
    The EPA is requesting comment only on the issue specifically
described in Section III. We are not taking comment on any other
provisions in the CAIR or otherwise reopening any other issues decided
in the CAIR for reconsideration or comment.

B. Schedule for Reconsideration

    For the issue addressed in this notice, EPA expects to take final
action on reconsideration by March 15, 2006. By that date, EPA will
finalize the process of reconsideration by issuing a final rule or
proposing a new approach. EPA also expects, by March 15, 2006, to issue
decisions on all remaining issues raised in the petitions for
reconsideration.

III. Impact on CAIR Analyses of DC Circuit Decision in New York v. EPA

A. Background on New York v. EPA and Its Relationship to CAIR

    One industry petitioner claims that a recent opinion of the DC
Circuit raises questions about the sufficiency of EPA's analysis
prepared for the CAIR to identify highly cost-effective emission
reductions. The petitioner argues that EPA should reconsider this
analysis to take into account the potential impact of the decision in
New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005). This judicial opinion was
issued on June 24, 2005--after the final CAIR had been promulgated, but
within the 60 days provided by CAA section 307(b) for filing of
petitions for review.\2\ Among other things, the opinion vacated a
provision of the New Source Review (NSR) regulations, commonly known as
the pollution control project (PCP) exclusion. All pending petitions
for rehearing of the case were denied by the Court on December 9, 2005.
The EPA's request that the Court clarify its holding with regard to any
retroactive effect of its ruling on the PCP issue was also denied. The
Court determined that this clarification request was premature because
no specific retroactive application of the provision was before the
Court. The time for filing Petitions for Certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court has not yet run. The analysis that follows looks
at the potential impact of the New York v. EPA decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) provides that the Administrator
shall convene a proceeding for reconsideration if the person raising
an objection can show that: it was impracticable to raise the
objection during the period for public comment or the grounds for
the objection arose after such period but within the time specified
for judicial review; and the objection is of central relevance to
the outcome of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PCP exclusion provided a mechanism for sources to exclude
certain environmentally beneficial PCPs from the definition of ``major
modification'' under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)/NSR
\3\ even though the PCP resulted in a significant net emissions
increase in a collateral pollutant (e.g., increase in NOX
from flaring VOCs). This exclusion could only apply if the owner or
operator, before beginning construction of the PCP, either provided
notice to the Administrator (for certain projects listed in the
regulations) or submitted a permit application to obtain approval to
use the exclusion. If the exclusion were found not to apply, the source
would either have to ensure that the PCP did not result in a
significant net emissions increase in a collateral NSR-regulated
pollutant (and thus avoid NSR review), or apply for and receive a NSR
permit for the project. Petitioner asks EPA to reconsider whether EPA's
highly cost effective analysis ``continues to be valid given the
court's holding in [New York v. EPA].'' More specifically, Petitioner
claims that CAIR sources will need to go through NSR permitting and
that additional time and financial costs will be required for this
permitting. Petitioner does not specify which projects it believes
might require NSR permitting or what collateral increases in NSR-
regulated pollutants it expects. Petitioner also claims that additional
time will be necessary for NSR permitting and that therefore the
compliance deadlines of January 1, 2009 and 2010 are ``in jeopardy.''
Petitioner, however, does not ask EPA to reconsider the 2009 and 2010
compliance deadlines. As noted above, this notice grants
reconsideration only on the issue of the impact of the New York v. EPA
decision on EPA's highly cost effective analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ PSD is the part of the NSR program that applies to sources
located in areas in attainment with the NAAQS. Unless otherwise
noted, in this notice, when we refer to the NSR program, NSR review,
NSR permitting or other NSR requirements, we are referring to both
the NSR and PSD programs and their respective requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the CAIR, EPA conducted extensive analyses to
identify highly cost-effective SO2 and NOX
emissions reductions based on controlling EGUs. These analyses are
explained in the preamble to the CAIR (70 FR 25202-25212). The EPA has
reviewed the petition for reconsideration and analyzed the potential
impact of New York v. EPA on the CAIR cost-effectiveness determination
and timing. This analysis indicates that some EGUs that install
SO2 and/or NOX controls for CAIR may incur
relatively minor additional costs and minor impacts on timing as a
result of New York v. EPA, but these potential impacts will neither
affect the highly cost-effective determination that the Agency made in
CAIR nor impact the timeframe for CAIR reductions. The EPA's analysis
further shows that options exist that would allow units to meet the
CAIR deadlines without changing plans to stagger PCP projects (sources
will not be forced to install all PCPs at one time) and that the
related costs would not alter the highly cost effective analysis done
for the final CAIR. The EPA invites comments on this analysis and the
potential impact of the New York v. EPA decision on EPA's highly cost-
effective determination. EPA's analysis of this issue is summarized
below and supplemental information is in the CAIR docket.
    In order to evaluate the petitioner's claim, the Agency examined
the potential for collateral increases in NSR-regulated air pollutants
from the types of NOX and SO2 controls on which
EPA based its CAIR cost-effectiveness determination.\4\ The EPA
identified which of these technologies could have the potential to
cause collateral increases in NSR-regulated air pollutants. The EPA
then analyzed whether sources could mitigate any such collateral
increases to avoid NSR review and analyzed the cost and timing impacts
associated with potential mitigation measures. The EPA determined that
projected collateral increases in NSR-regulated pollutants that might
be significant enough to trigger an NSR threshold could be mitigated by
many sources wishing to avoid the NSR permitting process. However, some
sources may not be able to ensure mitigation of all collateral
increases. Therefore, the Agency also analyzed the impacts associated
with NSR permitting for these NOX and SO2
pollution control projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All references to ``collateral increases'' in this document
refer to potential collateral increases in NSR-regulated air
pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA considered each of the NOX and SO2
control measures that were included in the CAIR cost-effectiveness
determination and found that the following technologies may have the
potential to cause collateral increases in air pollutants regulated
under NSR: combustion controls, selective catalytic reduction (SCR),
flue gas desulphurization (FGD), and fuel

switches to low sulfur coal. Many affected sources can choose to
implement measures to mitigate the potential collateral emission
increases (thereby obviating the need to undertake NSR analysis).
    The Agency determined that some cost increases will result from
actions that sources may take to mitigate collateral increases that
result from CAIR control actions; however these impacts do not alter
the final highly cost effective determination made in the final CAIR.
In addition, implementing these control actions will not affect the
feasibility of implementing the CAIR reductions in the required
timeframe.
    Further, if some sources apply for an NSR permit, the Agency
believes that the impacts of NSR permitting will not affect the CAIR
highly cost-effectiveness determination or the CAIR timeline. Note that
in today's notice the Agency is not making any determination or
prediction regarding what the specific NSR requirements might be for
such projects.
    The EPA's analysis for each of these NOX and
SO2 controls is discussed below and in a Technical Support
Document (TSD) available in the docket entitled ``Technical Support
Document: Impact on CAIR Analyses of D.C. Circuit Decision in New York
v. EPA.''

B. Potential Impact of Collateral Pollutant Increases and Mitigation
Measures

1. Increases in Sulfuric Acid Emissions From SCR Retrofits \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This SCR discussion is focused on the potential for sulfuric
acid emission increases from SCR retrofits. Note that SCR conditions
also favor a reaction between SO3 and ammonia that
produces ammonium bisulfate which condenses to form solid PM,
however the majority of this PM will be captured in the particulate
control device installed at the unit. Any such increase in PM
emissions would likely not be significant enough to trigger NSR
review, even when considered together with the small increase in PM
emissions that could occur from storage or handling lime, limestone,
or FGD waste (see discussion below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many CAIR units are projected to install selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) to reduce NOX emissions. The SCR catalyst
oxidizes a portion of the SO2 present in flue gas to
SO3. The amount of SO3 added to the flue gas
stream by SCR will be directly proportional to the fuel sulfur content.
(Note that SO2 is also oxidized to SO3 in the
boiler itself.)
    Some SO3 reacts with moisture in the flue gas to form
sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and exits the stack as
sulfuric acid vapor. The Agency's analysis for today's notice assumes
that all sulfuric acid emitted will be counted as emissions of sulfuric
acid mist--an NSR-regulated pollutant.
    Sulfuric acid mist is also regulated under NSR as PM2.5
(a criteria pollutant). Because PM2.5 is a criteria
pollutant, the NSR requirements vary depending on the location of the
unit experiencing the emission increase, i.e., whether the unit is
located in a nonattainment area. See further discussion of the Agency's
analysis regarding permitting for these projects, below.
    Although SCR retrofits can lead to increased sulfuric acid
emissions, for the following reasons EPA expects that many units
installing SCR for CAIR will not actually increase their sulfuric acid
emissions and will therefore not incur any cost increase or timing
burden associated with collateral increases of sulfuric acid:
    Installing Both SCR and FGD. Many CAIR units that are expected to
install SCR to reduce NOX emissions also are expected to
install flue gas desulphurization (FGD) to reduce SO2
emissions, and FGD is also effective at reducing SO3/
H2SO4 emissions. The two most common types of FGD
systems (on which the Agency's CAIR cost-effectiveness analysis was
based) are a lime-based spray dryer system (dry FGD) and a limestone-
based wet FGD system (wet FGD). Considering the effectiveness of FGD at
mitigating SO3/H2SO4 emissions, the
Agency expects that a CAIR unit installing SCR and FGD at the same time
would not increase sulfuric acid emissions significantly enough to
trigger NSR.
    Note that some units may switch to a higher sulfur coal when they
install FGD. The combination of installing SCR and dry FGD and
switching to high sulfur coal may not result in increased sulfuric acid
because dry FGD is very effective at mitigating SO3/
H2SO4. However, installation of SCR in
combination with wet FGD and a switch to high sulfur coal could result
in a significant net increase in sulfuric acid emissions.
    Switching to Lower Sulfur Coal with SCR Retrofit. Some CAIR units
that burn high sulfur coal may also choose to switch to lower sulfur
coal when installing SCR. For units switching from high to low sulfur
coal and installing SCR, there would likely be no net increase in
sulfuric acid emissions.
    Ceasing to Inject SO3 with SCR Retrofit. Many CAIR units have cold-
side electrostatic precipitators (ESP) in place to control particulate
matter emissions. These control devices perform better with
SO3 present in the flue gas. Some units that have previously
switched from higher-to lower-sulfur coal use injected SO3
to bring the cold-side ESP performance back up. If such a unit installs
SCR for CAIR, then the increased SO3 from the SCR would
lessen or obviate the need for SO3 injection, and without
the SO3 injection there may be no net increase in sulfuric
acid emissions.
2. Increases in Sulfuric Acid Emissions From Wet FGD Retrofits in
Combination With Switching to Higher Sulfur Coal
    Many CAIR units are projected to install FGD to reduce
SO2 emissions. As discussed above, operation of dry or wet
FGD reduces SO3/H2SO4 emissions.
However, some units installing FGD for CAIR may choose to switch to a
higher sulfur coal at the time they install FGD. Dry FGD reduces
SO3/H2SO4 sufficiently to most likely
mitigate any increase from the higher sulfur coal. Considering the
lower SO3/H2SO4 removal efficiency of
wet FGD, however, the potential exists for sulfuric acid emissions to
increase from units that install wet FGD and switch to higher sulfur
coal.
3. Summary of Combinations of CAIR SCR and/or FGD Retrofits and Coal
Switches That May Increase Sulfuric Acid Emissions
    The following table summarizes combinations of SCR and/or FGD
control retrofits and coal switches that may occur as a result of CAIR,
and identifies which of these combinations could lead to increases in
sulfuric acid emissions significant enough to trigger the NSR
threshold.

Table III-1.--Combinations of CAIR SCR and/or FGD and Coal Switches That
                  May Increase Sulfuric Acid Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Combinations of SCR and/or FGD and coal     Increase in sulfuric acid
                 switches                            emissions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Install SCR...............................  Possible.
Install SCR and switch from high to low     No.
 sulfur coal.
Install SCR with wet FGD (no coal switch).  No.
Install SCR with wet FGD and switch to      Possible.
 higher sulfur coal.
Install wet FGD (no coal switch)..........  No.
Install wet FGD and switch to higher        Possible.
 sulfur coal.
Install SCR and dry FGD...................  No.
Install dry FGD...........................  No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Technology Options Available for Mitigating Sulfuric Acid Emission
Increases
    Several technology options are available for mitigating sulfuric
acid emission increases from CAIR retrofit projects. These include:
     Injecting alkali materials into the furnace;
     Injecting alkali postfurnace;
     Injecting ammonia;
     Fuel switching (e.g., firing lower sulfur coal);
     Selecting specialized SCR catalyst with a low
SO3 conversion rate;
     Installing wet ESP; and
     Installing FGD.
    The Agency anticipates that some CAIR sources may choose to install
emerging multipollutant control technologies designed to reduce not
only SO2 and NOX but SO3 and other
pollutants as well. Generally, sources choosing to employ such
technologies would do so if they found it to be economical. Although
EPA does not endorse the purchase or sale of any specific products and
services mentioned, example multipollutant technologies include:
     Powerspan ECO Technology; and
     Mobotec USA Inc. ROTAMIX System.
5. Analysis of SO3/H2SO4 Mitigation
Costs and Timing Impacts for CAIR SCR and/or Wet FGD Projects
    Cost Modeling for SO3/H2SO4 Controls. The Agency used the
Integrated Planning Model (IPM) \6\ to provide an upper-end estimate of
the possible cost impacts for CAIR units that may install
SO3/H2SO4 controls. The EPA does not
believe this analysis provides a true estimate of the costs to CAIR
units of the NY v. EPA decision. Instead, EPA believes this analysis
significantly overstates the potential costs. However, because this
analysis shows that even when the costs are significantly overestimated
they do not impact the analyses done for the final CAIR, EPA determined
that a more refined analysis was not necessary to address petitioner's
concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The IPM is a multiregional, dynamic, deterministic linear
programming model of the U.S. electric power sector. The Agency uses
IPM to examine costs and, more broadly, analyze the projected impact
of environmental polices on the electric power sector in the 48
contiguous States and the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA believes this analysis overstates the likely true cost
impact because, as explained below, it relies on several conservative
assumptions. For example, we assumed that every unit that is projected
to install SCR and/or wet FGD will incur increased costs for
SO3/H2SO4 mitigation.
    Our cost analysis is based on the assumption that each unit that
retrofits SCR and/or wet FGD will install wet ESPs for SO3/
H2SO4 mitigation.\7\ The Agency believes that the
choice of SO3/H2SO4 mitigation method
would depend greatly on the specifics of the affected sources, thus it
is difficult to predict control choices. For this cost analysis, EPA
chose to model costs based on wet ESP because we believe the costs of
this technology are representative of the costs of technologies that
sources might choose to install.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Although the Agency based this analysis on installation of
wet ESP, the Agency is not making any determination or prediction
regarding what the specific PSD/NSR requirements might be for these
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA performed an IPM sensitivity analysis in which we added
costs for wet ESP to every unit that installs SCR and/or wet FGD. We
based this sensitivity analysis on the IPM model run that includes the
CAIR, Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) and Clean Air Visibility Rule
(CAVR) requirements. Note that the IPM modeling for the final CAIR
highly cost-effectiveness determination does not include the CAMR and
CAVR requirements. However, the Agency subsequently conducted IPM
modeling that reflects CAIR, CAMR and CAVR. The IPM analysis discussed
in today's notice (which examines the possible cost impacts of
SO3/H2SO4 mitigation) is based on the
modeling that includes CAIR, CAMR and CAVR because that modeling best
reflects current requirements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The two model runs (the final CAIR modeling or the
subsequent modeling with CAMR and CAVR) use the same underlying base
case assumptions in the same modeling platform. In other words, the
two runs are based on identical assumptions for parameters such as
(this is not an exhaustive list): EGU inventory, fuel prices,
impacts of the national title IV SO2 program,
NOX SIP program, State-specific programs, and NSR
settlements. Note that projected marginal costs for CAIR
SO2 and NOX reductions are about $100 per ton
less in the CAIR/CAMR/CAVR modeling than in the final CAIR modeling,
due to interactions between the three programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, this modeling--the SO3/
H2SO4 mitigation IPM sensitivity modeling--
overstates the possible cost impacts to CAIR units for several reasons.
As discussed above, only the following three combinations of CAIR SCR
and/or wet FGD retrofits might increase sulfuric acid emissions
significantly to trigger the NSR threshold: units installing SCR alone
(without switching to lower sulfur coal); units installing SCR with wet
FGD and switching to higher sulfur coal; and, units installing wet FGD
alone and switching to higher sulfur coal. The IPM sensitivity analysis
conservatively assumes SO3/H2SO4
mitigation costs are incurred by every unit projected to retrofit SCR
and/or wet FGD. We note, however, that based on EPA's IPM modeling, for
the first and second CAIR phases, respectively, only 16 percent and 11
percent of total CAIR-affected generating capacity (i.e., capacity of
units in CAIR States with capacity greater than 25 MW) are projected to
retrofit in any of these three combinations that might increase
sulfuric acid emissions significantly to trigger the NSR threshold.
    Also, it is possible that units that inject SO3 to
improve cold-side ESP performance would cease injecting SO3
after installing SCR which could result in the net SO3
increase being insufficient to trigger NSR (as discussed above),
however the Agency's IPM sensitivity does not take into account this
possibility.
    Additionally, the IPM sensitivity model run overstates the cost
impacts to CAIR units because that modeling added SO3/
sulfuric acid mitigation costs for all units retrofitting SCR and/or
wet FGD, including retrofits that are projected to occur prior to
commencement of CAIR retrofits (the Agency assumes that retrofits
occurring prior to 2007 do not result from CAIR, but rather from
existing programs such as the title IV SO2 program and the
NOX SIP Call, however the IPM modeling does not account for
this distinction). Further, our analysis overstates the cost impacts to
CAIR units because the modeling includes retrofits that occur in the
base case (without CAIR) and also includes the CAMR and CAVR
requirements.
    Further, in the IPM sensitivity analysis we assumed units would
incur costs for year-round operation of wet ESP in all CAIR States,
including the States that are only required to make ozone season
NOX reductions for CAIR. Finally, the IPM sensitivity run
overstates the cost impacts because we added costs for wet ESP to each
affected unit although SO3/H2SO4
mitigation options are available that are less expensive than wet ESP.
    Nonetheless, the Agency's cost analysis assumed that every unit
that is predicted to install SCR and/or wet FGD in the CAIR/CAMR/CAVR
modeling will incur additional costs for year-round operation of a wet
ESP, in order to provide an upper-end estimate of the possible cost
impacts of SO3/H2SO4 mitigation.
    Table III-2 shows the results of this analysis. It compares the
SO2 and NOX

marginal costs in the SO3/H2SO4
mitigation sensitivity analysis to the marginal costs in the final CAIR
modeling (Table III-2 also shows marginal costs from the modeling that
included CAIR, CAMR and CAVR).\9\ In the sensitivity analysis, the
costs of SO3/H2SO4 mitigation are
reflected in the marginal costs of SO2 and NOX
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As in the CAIR NFR (70 FR 25198), the Agency reports cost
effectiveness results for both of the CAIR phases although the Phase
I CAIR control levels were determined based on feasibility rather
than cost effectiveness.

            Table III-2.--SO2 and NOX Estimated Marginal Cost
                           [1999$ per ton] \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   SO2 Annual            NOX Annual
                             -------------------------------------------
                                 2010       2015       2009       2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAIR modeling used in final        $700     $1,000     $1,300     $1,600
 CAIR cost-effectiveness
 analysis...................
CAIR/CAMR/CAVR modeling.....        600        900      1,200      1,500
Sensitivity analysis with           700        900      1,600     2,000
 SO3/H2SO4 mitigation (based
 on CAIR/CAMR/CAVR modeling)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA IPM modeling is available in the docket. Projected costs are
  rounded to the nearest hundred dollars.

    As shown in Table III-2, projected SO2 marginal costs in
the SO3/H2SO4 mitigation sensitivity
modeling are lower than the SO2 marginal costs in the final
CAIR modeling for 2015 and are about the same as the costs in the final
CAIR for 2010. This does not imply that the added costs of
SO3H2SO4 mitigation are so small as to
have no effect on the marginal costs of SO2 reduction.
Rather, the added costs of SO3/H2SO4
mitigation increase the SO2 marginal cost from the level in
the CAIR/CAMR/CAVR run a small amount. As explained above, marginal
cost levels in CAIR/CAMR/CAVR modeling are lower than costs in the
modeling in the CAIR final rulemaking. In the SO3/
H2SO4 mitigation sensitivity analysis, the 2010
cost is increased to about the level in the final CAIR modeling, and
the 2015 cost increase is small enough that it is not apparent when the
costs are rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. Including the added
costs of SO3/H2SO4 mitigation, the
projected marginal costs of SO2 reduction under CAIR remain
at the lower end of the reference range of marginal costs cited in the
Agency's CAIR cost-effectiveness determination. The range of marginal
costs cited in CAIR is $600 to $2,200 per ton of SO2 removed
(70 FR 25201-25204).
    As shown in Table III-2, projected NOX marginal costs in
the SO3/H2SO4 mitigation sensitivity
are higher than the costs in the final CAIR modeling. However,
including the added costs of SO3/H2SO4
mitigation, the projected NOX marginal costs remain at the
lower end of the reference range of marginal costs cited in the
Agency's cost-effectiveness determination. The range of marginal costs
cited in CAIR is $2,000 to $19,600 per ton of annual NOX
removed (70 FR 25208-25210).
    For the reasons discussed above, the Agency's analysis likely
overstates the cost impacts of SO3/
H2SO4 mitigation. Nonetheless, even with these
projected cost impacts, the marginal costs remain at the low end of the
range of costs cited in the final CAIR highly cost-effectiveness
determination (70 FR 25201-25204, 25208-25210). Thus, that
determination is not affected by the possible costs that may be
incurred by units installing SO3/H2SO4
mitigation technologies. The Agency believes that average costs of
SO2 and NOX control also would not increase
significantly enough to impact the CAIR cost-effectiveness
determination, because the projected marginal costs do not increase
enough to impact the CAIR analysis.
    The Agency discusses below its evaluation of the feasibility of
installing SO3/H2SO4 mitigation
measures, and the impacts of NSR analysis.
    Feasibility and Timing Analysis. In its CAIR analysis, the Agency
evaluated the feasibility of installing projected SO2 and
NOX control retrofits in the CAIR timeframe. In particular,
EPA examined the availability of boilermaker labor to install retrofits
during the period when the CAIR retrofits will occur and determined
that sufficient labor will be available (70 FR 25215-25225). The
Agency's CAIR analysis was discussed in detail in a TSD entitled
``Boilermaker Labor and Installation Timing Analysis,'' OAR-2003-0053-
2092 (``final CAIR boilermaker TSD'').
    The Agency has evaluated the potential impacts on the CAIR timeline
from installation of SO3/H2SO4
mitigation technologies. Specifically, we examined the impact of
installing wet ESP on the availability of boilermaker labor during the
time when control retrofits will be installed for the two CAIR phases.
The EPA's analysis assumed that units that might experience sulfuric
acid emission increases greater than the NSR threshold while
incorporating NOX and/or SO2 controls for CAIR
would choose to install wet ESP, which is a conservative assumption
because SO3/H2SO4 mitigation measures
are available that would require less boilermaker labor than wet ESP.
For this boilermaker labor analysis, the Agency used the identical
assumptions regarding boilermaker availability factors (i.e.,
boilermaker sources, population, average annual work hours, activity
periods, and duty rates) that we used in the boilermaker analysis for
the final CAIR. These factors are defined in the final CAIR boilermaker
TSD.
    For today's notice, the Agency based its boilermaker analysis on
the generating capacity that is projected to install NOX and
SO2 controls that may increase sulfuric acid emissions (the
three combinations of SCR and/or wet FGD retrofits and coal switches
identified in Table III-1). The EPA examined the capacity of retrofits
that are projected to occur during the time period when CAIR retrofits
would occur for the two CAIR phases (i.e., during the years 2007
through 2015 inclusive). This analysis includes retrofits projected to
occur as result of the CAIR, CAMR and CAVR policies as well as
retrofits for base case policies (i.e., retrofits for existing
regulatory requirements such as the title IV SO2 program and
the NOX SIP Call) because some base case retrofits will
occur during the time period 2007 through 2015.
    In its analysis for the final CAIR, the Agency determined that
adequate boilermaker labor would be available to complete the CAIR
NOX and SO2 control retrofits in the CAIR
timeline, with sufficient contingency factors available to offset
possible additional labor needs due to unforeseen events. In the final
CAIR, EPA considered a number of scenarios that included different
assumptions for boilermaker duty rates (i.e., the amount of time
required for a boilermaker to install control equipment), electricity
demand and gas prices. In the most conservative scenario analyzed, EPA
determined that there would be a 14 percent boilermaker labor
contingency (i.e., 14 percent more labor

would be available than the amount required to install the controls).
The boilermaker duty rates used for this case were provided by a
commenter on the CAIR, were well above the levels determined to be
appropriate in a detailed study conducted by EPA, and, based on EPA's
investigations, reflected the worst-case assumptions for the
boilermaker labor requirements associated with building air pollution
controls. If the boilermaker requirements are estimated using EPA's
boilermaker duty rates, the available contingency would be higher.
    The revised boilermaker labor analysis that the Agency conducted
for today's notice, which takes into account boilermaker labor required
to install wet ESP, indicates that adequate boilermaker labor will be
available even considering the additional boilermakers that may be
needed to install the wet ESP. Considering the same assumptions that
yielded a 14 percent contingency in the final CAIR along with
additional boilermakers needed to install wet ESPs, EPA determined that
there would be a 4 percent contingency. Again, if the boilermaker
requirements are estimated using EPA's boilermaker duty rates, the
available contingency would be higher.
    This analysis is conservative in that it assumes that in all cases
where companies install equipment to mitigate SO3/
H2SO4 increases, they install wet ESPs, which use
more boilermakers than other options such as sorbent injection. The
remaining contingency factors are still adequate (although reduced).
Thus, the NOX and SO2 control retrofits projected
to be installed for CAIR can be completed in the available time, even
considering the potential additional labor needs for SO3/
H2SO4 mitigation. Note that any SO3/
H2SO4 controls for CAIR projects can be retrofit
concurrently with the SO2 and NOX retrofits, and
no additional time would be needed. See further discussion of timing in
the permitting section, below.
    Details of EPA's revised boilermaker labor analysis are in a TSD in
the docket entitled ``Impact on CAIR Analyses of D.C. Circuit Decision
in New York v. EPA.''
    The Agency believes that the impacts of mitigating the potential
emission increases, or undertaking NSR review for these units, are not
substantial enough to alter the CAIR highly cost-effective
determination or the feasibility and timing analysis. Implications of
NSR analysis for such units are discussed further below.
6. Increases in Carbon Monoxide and Unburned Carbon (Solid Particulate)
Emissions From Combustion Controls
    Combustion controls that may be installed for CAIR to reduce
NOX emissions include low NOX burners (LNB) and
overfire air (OFA). Both LNB and OFA reduce NOX generation
rates by changing the combustion process. Either one or both
technologies may be installed on a generating unit to control
NOX emissions. Depending on the boiler design, these changes
may result in an increase in emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and
unburned carbon (solid particulate), although the potential for
increases significant enough to trigger the NSR threshold exists only
with the use of OFA (because LNB does not affect the combustion process
extensively).
    These emissions increases can be minimized by using more modern
control designs and techniques.10 11 12 These increases can
also be minimized by using less-aggressive OFA flow rates.\13\ The
NOX removal efficiencies for combustion controls assumed in
EPA's CAIR analysis are not aggressive.\14\ The Agency believes that
units projected to install combustion controls can opt for moderate
levels of OFA flow rates and still achieve the NOX reduction
levels projected in our CAIR analysis, without causing significant
increases in CO and unburned carbon emissions. Therefore, given the
conservative removal efficiency assumptions in EPA's original analysis,
there would be no additional significant costs associated with
mitigating CO emissions to avoid NSR when combustion controls are
added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ T. Steitz, et al., ``Wall Fired Low NOX Burner
Evolution for Global NOX Compliance,'' Foster Wheeler Web
site, http://www.fwc.com/ publications/tech-- papers/index.cfm#

14905467952D7FCAFC 2A5B206EAE10F0, Web site accessed on September
30, 2005.
    \11\ K. McCarthy, et al., ``Improved Low NOX Firing
Systems for Pulverized Coal Combustion,'' Foster Wheeler Web site,
http://www.fwc.com/ publications/tech-- papers/index.cfm#

14905467952D7FCAFC 2A5B206EAE10F0, Web site accessed on September
30, 2005.
    \12\ ``Reducing Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides Via Low-
NOX Burner Technologies,'' Clean Coal Technology, The
Department of Energy, Topical Report No. 5, September 1996.
    \13\ A. Kokkinos, et al., ``B&W's Experience Reducing
NOX Emissions in Tangentially-Fired Boilers--2001
Update,'' Power-Gen International 2001, December 11-13, 2001, Las
Vegas, Nevada.
    \14\ The NOX removal efficiency for each type of
combustion control used in EPA's analysis for CAIR was estimated as
an average of the reported efficiencies for a large number of units
equipped with these controls. In a unit equipped with both LNB and
OFA, LNB provides a greater part of the overall NOX
removal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain affected CAIR sources are projected to install both
combustion controls and SCR. These sources have the option to use
combustion control designs ensuring minimal CO and unburned carbon
impacts, with SCR compensating for the possible reduced performance of
combustion controls. Considering the potential of SCR technology to
provide 90 percent NOX reduction with a minimum
NOX rate of 0.06 lb/MMBtu, most of these sources would be
able to use this strategy and avoid use of aggressive combustion
control designs.
    The affected CAIR sources also have the option to use an advanced
OFA system with the potential to achieve high NOX reduction
levels, with no increases in CO and unburned carbon levels. This
technology utilizes rotating opposed fire air (ROFA) and has been
installed or demonstrated at several plants worldwide.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ MOBOTECUSA Web site, http://www.mobotecusa.com/.

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

    The Agency believes that there will be no increase in cost to CAIR
units for using good combustion practices to mitigate CO and unburned
carbon increases, because industry generally uses such practices
already. Implementation of these practices would not affect the
Agency's CAIR highly cost-effectiveness determination or the
feasibility and timing analysis.
    In addition, the implications of NSR analysis for such units are
relatively minor, as discussed further below.
    The Agency believes that the impacts of either mitigating the
potential emission increases, or undertaking NSR review for these
units, are not substantial enough to affect the CAIR highly cost-
effective determination or the feasibility and timing analysis.
Implications of NSR analysis for such units are discussed further
below.
7. Increases in Direct PM2.5 Resulting From Fugitive Emissions From
Storage or Handling of Lime, Limestone, or FGD Waste After Installation
of Dry or Wet FGD
    As discussed above, dry and wet FGD are effective SO3/
H2SO4 mitigation options. A separate
consideration, however, is the potential for increased emissions of
direct PM (including PM2.5) resulting from the storage and handling of
lime or limestone for the FGD and from hauling FGD waste.
    The EPA believes that operation of FGD will not result in
significant increases of emissions of direct PM (including PM2.5).
Fugitive PM emissions resulting from the storage and handling of lime
or limestone and from waste hauling associated with FGD operation are
minimal since most lime

and limestone will be stored in covered structures with particulate
controls, lime and limestone will be transported in covered vehicles,
and particulate emissions mitigation techniques, including spraying
near storage areas, hauling roads, and waste hauling trucks, will be
employed. Fugitive emissions could result from dust recirculation due
to truck hauling, but these emissions are also not significant enough
to trigger NSR.
    The Agency believes that the impacts of either mitigating these
small potential emission increases, or undertaking NSR review for these
units, are not substantial enough to affect the CAIR highly cost-
effective determination or the feasibility and timing analysis.
8. Collateral Air Pollutant Emissions From Units Switching From High to
Low Sulfur Coals
    A switch from high-to low-sulfur coals is an option projected to be
used by certain CAIR sources for SO2 control. In some cases,
modifications to the existing equipment may become necessary to
maintain compatibility with the boiler and associated systems. One of
the more common modifications required is the need to restore the
existing ESP performance, which may be degraded due to the high-
resistivity ash generated from firing of low-sulfur coals (if ESP
performance is not restored, emissions of PM might increase). In
general, use of a flue gas conditioning system fully restores the ESP
performance to levels obtained from firing of high-sulfur coals.
    The impact of coal switching on the existing plant equipment would
vary with the amount of switch. For example, if only a portion of the
existing high-sulfur coal is replaced with the new low-sulfur coal, the
impact may be minimal. Also, use of certain types of low-sulfur coals
may even have a beneficial impact on some of the NSR-regulated
pollutants. For example, use of western sub-bituminous coals may result
in a reduction in the CO and unburned carbon levels, because of the
high volatile contents of such coals.
    In the CAIR analysis, EPA assumed that the sources opting to switch
to low-sulfur coal would either select compatible coals or provide
modifications where required to avoid any adverse impacts on their
boilers, including minimization of any increases in air emissions. The
EPA included costs for such modifications in its estimates for the CAIR
implementation, which were based on the coal switch experience for the
power industry. Therefore, no further analysis is necessary.
9. Summary of Section III.B.
    EPA's IPM modeling predicts that some CAIR units will add controls
with the potential to increase collateral emissions of NSR-regulated
pollutants. However, the Agency has determined that for each of the
NOX and SO2 controls on which EPA based its CAIR
highly cost-effectiveness determination, there are technology options
available to mitigate potential collateral increases of NSR regulated
pollutants such that many sources, looking to comply with the CAIR
requirements, would not trigger NSR review for potential collateral
increases (however, some sources may not be able to ensure mitigation
of all collateral increases). Further, although some additional cost
may be associated with mitigation measures, EPA's analysis showed that
these costs do not change the conclusions of EPA's highly cost-
effectiveness determination. In addition, implementing these mitigation
measures will not affect the feasibility of implementing the CAIR
reductions in the required timeframe. Options exist that would allow
units to meet the CAIR deadlines without changing plans to stagger PCP
projects. For example, a unit planning to install SCR first and FGD
later could choose to use sorbent injection technology to mitigate
SO3/H2SO3 during the time between
installation of the SCR and the FGD.

C. Potential Impact of NSR Permitting

    Although the above analysis shows that sources installing controls
for CAIR generally will have options to avoid triggering NSR review for
potential collateral increases, EPA also analyzed the potential impact
on its CAIR analyses of sources whose projects could result in a net
emissions increase despite mitigative measures that might be taken, and
might therefore apply for and obtain the necessary NSR permits to
address such increase. Accordingly, EPA analyzed whether sources
undergoing NSR permitting would have adequate time to obtain the
preconstruction permit and whether any controls required would impact
EPA's highly cost-effective analysis done for CAIR. The Agency intends
to work with the States to quickly resolve any questions regarding
permitting of CAIR pollution control projects, and will provide
technical assistance when requested to facilitate permitting.
    In its analysis for the final CAIR, the Agency assumed that
affected sources would have about 22 months available for
preconstruction activities (e.g., permitting, planning, conceptual
design, engineering, financing, and procurement) for the first phase of
CAIR control retrofits. The 22 months is based on the time from the
CAIR promulgation date (March 10, 2005) until about 4 months after the
SIP submission date (about mid-January 2007).\16\ The New York v. EPA
judicial decision was issued on June 24, 2005. As a result of that
decision, either CAIR sources will need to mitigate emissions through
one of the various options discussed above, or they may choose to apply
for NSR permits. Sources that elect to obtain NSR permits then would
have almost 19 months for NSR review for the first CAIR phase (from the
date of the New York v. EPQ decision until about mid-January 2007). The
Agency believes that this is adequate time to perform NSR review, as
explained further below, thus the CAIR timeline would not be impacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``Boilermaker Labor Analysis and Installation Timing,''
March 2005, discusses the Agency's projected schedules for CAIR SCR
and FGD retrofits (OAR-2003-0053-2092).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the CAIR, the Agency determined highly cost-effective amounts of
emission reductions based on modeled costs of SO2 and
NOX mitigation, using IPM. The IPM cost modeling used in
EPA's analysis reflects the capital and operations and maintenance
costs of control technologies. The modeling does not include costs
associated with permitting. Costs for permitting are insignificant
compared to costs of constructing and operating these controls
technologies.
    Prior to the D.C. Circuit decision to vacate the PCP provisions in
the NSR program, EGUs desiring to use the PCP exclusion were required
to either provide notice to the Administrator (for certain projects
listed in the regulations) or submit a permit application to obtain
approval to use the exclusion. This process had requirements very
similar to those that apply to sources subject to NSR review. The basic
steps for sources undergoing NSR review are:
    a. Preparation of the permit application and participation in any
pre-permit application meetings;
    b. Issuance of permit application completeness determination by the
regulatory agency;
    c. Development and negotiation of the draft permit;
    d. Opportunity for public notice and comment on the draft permit;
    e. Response by the regulatory agency to public comments; and
    f. Possible administrative and judicial appeals.
    Of these steps, the bulk of the effort is concentrated in the
beginning steps with the preparation of the permit

application and collection and analysis of the data necessary to
demonstrate that the project would not present problems with the NAAQS.
The PCP exclusion did not excuse a source from undergoing a similar
analysis in order to obtain the PCP determination. Specifically, under
the new source review rules of 2002 (67 FR 80186), a source seeking to
use the PCP provisions for one of the listed technologies would
automatically qualify for the exclusion if it could demonstrate that
there was no adverse air quality impact, that is, if it would not cause
or contribute to a violation of NAAQS or PSD increment, or adversely
impact an air quality related value (AQRV), such as visibility, that
had been identified for a Federal Class I area by a Federal Land
Manager (FLM). In performing the air quality analysis under the PCP
provision, the procedures established for conducting air quality
analysis in conjunction with typical NSR permitting were used. As such,
the up front burden associated with undergoing NSR review is comparable
to the burden to which a source requesting a PCP exclusion would have
been subject.
    Once the permit application is complete, whether processed as a PCP
exclusion request or as a formal PSD permit application, the processing
by the permitting authority usually does not take any longer under the
formal PSD process than under the previous PCP exclusion process.
Typically, in the formal NSR permitting process, once the application
is submitted to the permitting authority, there is a process during
which the draft permit is developed and published to give the public an
opportunity to comment on the draft permit. Depending on the comments
received, some changes to the draft permit may be made and a final
permit would then be issued to the source. Based on the permitting
authorities' experience, this process typically takes approximately six
to eight months. In the case of permits issued for the construction of
pollution control projects on CAIR units, we see no reason why the
process should require a longer time period than is normally required.
    In addition, we do not believe that the PSD requirement for
submitting pre-application monitoring data will cause a delay in
submitting the required PSD permit applications as the petitioner
alleges. The relevant provision which requires the applicant to include
12 months of continuous ambient air quality data allows applicants to
rely on ambient air quality data that has already been collected and is
representative of the air quality in the vicinity of the affected
source. Moreover, such data is only required when the source's
emissions increase is predicted to exceed the prescribed significant
monitoring value for that pollutant. See 40 CFR 52.21(i)(5). Thus,
sources generally will not have to take the time to collect such data
on their own when it is required. In the few cases, if any, where it is
the applicant's burden to collect the data, we believe they will have
adequate time to do so while the overall project to comply with CAIR is
being developed without delaying the necessary permit application.
    For sources that requested a PCP exclusion from the list of
approved projects (67 FR 80246), the timeline could have been very
similar in duration to the one described above for sources undergoing
NSR review. The projects included on the list were presumed to be
environmentally beneficial based on the premise that the source seeking
the PCP exclusion would design and operate the controls in a manner
that would be consistent with proper industry, engineering, and
reasonable practices, and that the source would minimize increases in
collateral pollutants within the physical configuration and operational
standards usually associated with the emissions control device or
strategy. The source seeking the PCP exclusion would have been required
to certify that this was true in the notification sent to the reviewing
authority. It is important to highlight that the environmentally
beneficial determination for the listed projects was a presumption, and
as such, it could be rebutted in cases in which a reviewing authority
determined that a particular proposed PCP project would not be
environmentally beneficial.
    Before a source requesting a PCP exclusion could have begun actual
construction of the PCP, it was required to submit a notice to the
reviewing authority that included the following information (and
depending on the reviewing authority's requirements, this information
could have been submitted with a part 70, part 71 or other SIP-approved
permit application such as a minor NSR permit application): (1) A
description of project; (2) an analysis of the environmentally
beneficial nature of the PCP, including a projection of emissions
increases and decreases (speciated, using an appropriate emissions test
for the emissions unit); and (3) a demonstration that the project will
not have an adverse air quality impact. Often, a screening model could
be used to estimate the ambient impacts of the increase from the
facility as a result of the PCP. Special attention would have been
given in cases where a FLM had already identified adverse impacts for
an AQRV. In such cases, the facility requesting the PCP exclusion would
have been expected to record and consider any information that the FLM
had made available concerning the adverse effects, to help determine
whether the pollutant impacts from the collateral emissions increase
had the potential to cause further adverse impacts.
    If the requested PCP was included in the list of projects presumed
to be environmentally beneficial, the source requesting the PCP
exclusion would have been allowed to begin construction on the PCP
immediately upon submitting the required notice to the reviewing
authority. However, if the reviewing authority determined that the
source did not qualify for a PCP exclusion, the source might have been
subject to a delay in the project or an order to not undertake the
project. If the reviewing authority, upon receiving the notification of
using the PCP exclusion, determined that an air quality impacts
analysis was reasonably necessary, it was entitled to request more
information from the source, including additional local or regional
modeling.
    Pollution control projects of the magnitude at issue here will
require large capital expenditures and significant engineering lead
times. We believe that in most cases, the internal procedures within
each company to request, approve, and allocate the necessary funding
and then design and construct the control equipment will be at least as
long as the average permit application and approval process.
    Additional requirements that may result from NSR review. As
discussed in previous sections, sources installing controls to comply
with CAIR that experience collateral emissions increases of some NSR
regulated pollutants likely would have requested a PCP exclusion. In
particular, sulfuric acid mist emissions and CO emissions are the two
pollutants expected to be of most interest.
    For emissions of CO, the Agency is aware of previous PSD permits
that have been processed by permitting authorities that demonstrated no
NAAQS problems, while requiring no additional add-on controls for the
CO emissions. The PSD permits given to these sources included Best
Achievable Control Technology (BACT) emissions limits for CO where in
most cases such limits did not previously exist. Most of these limits
have been set at or near the level where the utility has historically
operated or was anticipated to operate.

This is the case because there is no technically feasible add-on
control technology for controlling CO emissions from coal-fired boilers
other than good combustion practices.
    For emissions increases of sulfuric acid mist, NSR permitting
analysis treats sulfuric acid mist as a NSR-regulated pollutant and
also as a component of PM2.5 (a criteria pollutant). The
Agency conducted an analysis of the information available for EGUs that
have undergone NSR review and that included a determination of controls
(BACT or Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)) for sulfuric acid
mist. The analysis showed that pollution prevention measures (such as
low sulfur fuel) and add-on controls (such as flue gas desulfurization
or FGD) were cited in about two thirds of the determinations, while
about one third resulted in no additional control. As previously
stated, both switching to low sulfur coal and the use of FGD are common
techniques available for CAIR units to minimize collateral emissions
increases due to the installation of CAIR-related controls. As a
result, we expect that a source going through NSR for significant net
emissions increases in sulfuric acid mist due to CAIR controls would be
required to install technology similar, if not identical, to those
presented here as available mitigation techniques to avoid NSR review.
    Because sulfuric acid mist emissions are also a component of
PM2.5, EPA also looked at what, if any, additional
PM2.5 controls would be required for sources required to
undergo NSR should a significant emissions increase of PM2.5
occur. For CAIR emissions units located in non-attainment areas, we
also believe that the result of the LAER analysis for these units will
result in control technologies similar, if not identical, to those
listed as available mitigation techniques. In addition to the LAER
requirements, CAIR sources required to meet nonattainment area NSR
would be required to obtain emissions reductions to offsets their
significant emissions increase of PM2.5 emissions as part of
non-attainment NSR permit process. We believe PM fine offsets will be
widely available for any of these projects located in non-attainment
areas. In the PM Implementation Rule (70 FR 66042) we proposed to allow
units to use decreases in PM fine precursor emissions as offsets for
direct PM fine emission increases. Units installing controls to comply
with CAIR will have very large decreases in PM fine precursors
(SO2 and NOX). These decreases are so large that
we believe the decreases in PM fine precursor emissions from other CAIR
units will provide sufficient offsets for the significantly lower
potential increases in direct PM fine emissions. As such, we believe
that the impact for undergoing NSR review on these sources would be
minimal, as described above.
    For projects located in attainment areas, a situation similar to
when a source is required to install controls for acid mist is
expected. That is, when a source in an attainment area goes through NSR
review for PM2.5 as a result of a collateral increase due to
the addition of CAIR controls, we expect the required control
technology to be similar, if not identical, to those listed as
available mitigation techniques for sources wanting to avoid NSR
review. As such, we believe that the impact for undergoing NSR review
on these sources would be minimal, as described above.
    In conclusion, the Agency believes that the impacts of choosing to
undertake NSR review for these units are not substantial enough to
affect the CAIR highly cost-effective determination or the feasibility
and timing analysis.
    The EPA generally does not believe that the PCP requirements under
NSR will pose a problem. This is because either companies will make
control decisions that will not result in collateral pollution
increases or the NSR process will not delay installation of pollution
controls. Even if there were a small number of cases in which NSR
requirements delayed control installations beyond the compliance dates
for CAIR, EPA does not believe that this would change its conclusions
about the cost effectiveness of the required emission reductions. The
cost effectiveness is not significantly impacted because the trading
mechanisms within CAIR provide flexibility if small numbers of sources
are unable to install controls by the compliance deadlines.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has determined
that this is not a significant regulatory action. This notice takes
comment on an aspect of the CAIR, but does not propose any
modifications.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not propose information collection request
requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Therefore, an information collection request
document is not required.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an Agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures
Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies 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 that
is a small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards. (See 13 CFR part 121.); (2) a
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This notice
does not impose any requirements on small entities. We are only
announcing our decision to reconsider and request comment on a specific
issue in the CAIR. We continue to be interested in the potential
impacts of the rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, UMRA section 205 generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-
costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed,
under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan
must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA's regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that today's notice of reconsideration does
not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Today's notice of
reconsideration of the CAIR does not add new requirements that would
increase the cost of the CAIR. Thus, today's notice of reconsideration
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
In addition, EPA has determined that today's notice of reconsideration
does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it
contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose
obligations upon them. Therefore, today's notice of reconsideration is
not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It would not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, and this
action would not impact that relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.

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.''
    For the same reasons stated in the final CAIR, today's notice does
not have tribal implications as defined by Executive Order 13175. It
does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes,
since no tribe has implemented a federally-enforceable air quality
management program under the CAA at this time. Furthermore, this action
does not affect the relationship or distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. The
CAA and the Tribal Air Rule establish the relationship of the Federal
Government and tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and
today's notice does nothing to modify that relationship. Because this
notice does not have tribal implications, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply.
    If one assumes a tribe is implementing a tribal implementation
plan, the CAIR could have implications for that tribe, but it would not
impose substantial direct costs upon the tribe, nor would it preempt
tribal Law.
    Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the CAIR or this
notice of reconsideration of the CAIR, EPA consulted with tribal
officials in developing the CAIR.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

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

    This notice is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions on environmental health risks or safety risks
that may disproportionately affect children. The EPA believes that the
emissions reductions from the CAIR will further improve air quality and
children's health.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
of 1995, Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. The National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act of 1995 directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    Today's notice does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 does not
apply.

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

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' requires
Federal agencies to consider the impact of programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations.
According to EPA guidance,\17\ agencies are to assess whether minority
or low-income populations face risks or a rate of exposure to hazards
that are significant and that ``appreciably exceed or is likely to
appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general population or to the
appropriate comparison group.'' (EPA, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Guidance for
Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA
Compliance Analyses. Office of Federal Activities, Washington, DC,
April, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with Executive Order 12898, the Agency has considered
whether the CAIR may have disproportionate negative impacts on minority
or low income populations. The EPA expects the CAIR to lead to
reductions in air pollution and exposures generally. Therefore, EPA
concluded that negative impacts to these sub-populations that
appreciably exceed similar impacts to the general population are not
expected. For the same reasons, EPA is drawing the same conclusion for
today's notice to reconsider a certain aspect of the CAIR.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.

40 CFR Part 96

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Electric utilities, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: December 22, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-24609 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


TABLE 2: ANNUAL BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS AS A RESULT OF THE STANDARDS STATIONARY GAS TURBINES/ NSPS SUBPART GG ( A) ( B) ( C= A x B) ( D) ( E = C x D) ( F) b Person/ hrs Occurrences/ Person/ hrs Number of Total annual Industry Occurrences Plant/ yr Respondent Respondents Person/ hrs Cost/ yr ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. APPLICATIONS  Not Applicable 2. SURVEY AND STUDIES  Not Applicable 3. REPORTING REQUIREMEN 1 1 1 50a 5 1,190 A. Read Instructions B. Required Activities Initial Performance Tests 110 1 110 50 5,500 130,900 Repeat Perf. Test 110 0.2c 22 50 1,100 26,180 C. Create Information Included in 3B D. Gather Existing Info Included in 3E E. Write Report Notify of construc/ reconstruc 2 1 2 50 100 2,380 Notify of anticip. startup 2 1 2 50 100 2,380 Notify of actual startup 2 1 2 50 100 2,380 Notify of initial Performance test 2 1.2c 2.4 50 120 2,856 Notify of demo. Of CMS 2 1 2 50 100 2,380 Report of Performance test Included in 3B Excess Emission reports and Exemption reports 10 2 20 775e 15,550 368,900 SUBTOTAL: REPORTING BURDEN 22,720 540,736 4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS A. Read Instructions Included in 3A B. Plan Activities Included in 4C Implement Activities Included in 3B Develop record system N/ A C. Time to check computer 0.25 365d 91.25 775e 70,719 1,683,106 system and calibrate continuous monitors D. Train personnel N/ A E. Audits N/ A SUBTOTAL: RECORDKEEPING BURDEN 70,719 1,683,106 SUBTOTAL: REPORTING BURDEN 22,720 540,736 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN TO INDUSTRY: 93,439 3,353,526 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ a) Assume approximately 150 plants ( respondents) will become subject over a 3 year period. Assume consistent progression of NSPS coverage, so that the number of new sources per year equal 150/ 3= 50. b) Assume an hourly wage of $ 35.89. This amount was multiplied by the hour per year in column E. The Total Annual Burden includes 110% overhead. c) Assume 20% of initial performance tests must be repeated due to failure. d) Assume operation 365 days per year as specified in the NSPS review document. e) Assume 625 existing sources and 150 new sources= 775 applicable sources