the monitoring system fails to meet quality assurance criteria (for
example, periods of system breakdown, repair, calibration checks, or
zero and span adjustments) established by regulation, by permit, or in
an approved quality assurance plan.
     Data from any period for which there is inadequate
information for determining emissions rates, including information
related to the limitations listed above.
    These proposed data limitations are the same as three of the four
data limitations that we are proposing for the maximum achieved tests
(Alternatives 1 through 4). See Section IV.A.3. above for the
discussion of these three data limitations.
    3. Recordkeeping and Reporting for Hourly Emissions. We are
proposing the same recordkeeping and reporting approach for the maximum
achievable test (Alternatives 5 and 6) that we propose for the maximum
achieved hourly emissions test (Alternatives 1 through 4). We describe
our approach in Section IV.A.4 of this preamble.

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

    This section contains details on the proposed regulatory language
for Option 2, the hourly emissions increase test. We are proposing that
Option 2 would apply to all existing EGUs. As we noted at 70 FR 61093,
however, we are also requesting comment on whether Option 2 should be
limited to the geographic area covered by CAIR, or to the geographic
area covered by both CAIR and BART. We are also proposing that the
Option 2 would apply to all regulated NSR pollutants. However, we also
request comment on whether Option 2 should be limited to increases of
SO2 and NOX emissions.
    In this SNPR, for Option 2 we are proposing to exempt EGUs from the
procedures in the current regulations for determining a significant
emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase.
Specifically, we are proposing to exempt EGUs from the applicability
procedures based on a significant emissions increase and significant
net emissions increase in the current regulations at 40 CFR 51.165,
51.166, 52.21, and 52.24 and in appendix S to 40 CFR part 51. That is,
we are proposing to amend each of these sections to exempt EGUs from
all provisions for significant emissions increases and significant net
emission increases. For example, under Option 2 the provisions for
determining a significant emissions increase and a significant net
emissions increase in Sec.  51.166(a) (7) (iv)(a) would be amended to
exempt EGUs as follows.

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

    We are proposing to amend all other provisions for significant
emissions increase and significant net emissions increase in the
current regulations at 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, and 52.24 and in
appendix S to 40 CFR part 51 in an analogous manner to exempt EGUs.
    In place of the applicability procedures in the current regulations
concerning significant emissions increase and significant net emissions
increase, Option 2 applies an hourly emissions increase test to EGUs.
We describe these as Steps 1 and 2, which comprise the two-step
modification test and are the same as under Option 1, in Section IV of
this preamble. As with Option 1, under Option 2, we are proposing to
develop two new sections (40 CFR 51.167 and 52.37) to the major NSR
program rules that would include the two-step provisions for
modifications at EGUs. Thus, the amendatory language in this action
applies to Option 2 as it relates to Steps 1 and 2. That is, under
Option 2, EGUs would be subject to the new two-step requirements for
modifications. They would not be subject to the requirements in the
existing regulations for major modifications.
    Alternatives 1-6, comprising Step 2 of Option 2, are the same as
under Option 1. We describe these alternatives in detail above in
Section IV of this preamble. Table 10 shows Option 2, including
Alternatives 1-6.

                       Table 9.--Major NSR Applicability for Existing EGUs Under Option 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2...........................................................  Step 1: Physical Change or Change in the
                                                                      Method of Operation.
                                                                     Step 2: Hourly Emissions Increase Test.
                                                                      Alternative 1--Maximum achieved
                                                                      hourly emissions; statistical approach;
                                                                      input basis.
                                                                      Alternative 2--Maximum achieved
                                                                      hourly emissions; statistical approach;
                                                                      output basis.
                                                                      Alternative 3--Maximum achieved
                                                                      hourly emissions; one-in-5-year baseline;
                                                                      input basis.
                                                                      Alternative 4--Maximum achieved
                                                                      hourly emissions; one-in-5-year baseline;
                                                                      output basis.
                                                                      Alternative 5--NSPS test--maximum
                                                                      achievable hourly emissions; input basis.
                                                                      Alternative 6--NSPS test--maximum
                                                                      achievable hourly emissions; output basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

VI. Legal Basis and Policy Rationale

    This section supplements the legal arguments in our October 2005
proposal. (70 FR 70565.) In that action, we provided our legal basis
and rationale for the proposed maximum achievable hourly emissions test
and our alternative proposal, the maximum achieved hourly emissions
test. We noted that the key statutory provisions provide, in relevant
part, that a ``modification'' that triggers NSR occurs when a physical
change or change in the method of operation ``increases the amount of
any air pollutant emitted'' by the source. Although the Court in New
York v. EPA held that the quoted provision refers to increases in
actual emissions, the Court further indicated that the statute was
silent as to the method for determining whether increases occur.
    When a statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to specific
issues, the relevant inquiry for a reviewing court is whether the
Agency's interpretation of the statutory provision is permissible.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc. 467 U.S. 837, 865 (1984).
Accordingly, we have broad discretion to propose a reasonable method by
which to calculate emissions increases for purposes of NSR
applicability.
    This action continues to propose both the maximum achievable hourly
emissions increase test and the maximum achieved hourly emissions
increase test. We set forth legal basis and rationale in the NPR for
these two tests. In this SNPR, however, we provide additional legal and
policy basis for the hourly emissions increase tests, on both an input
and output basis.
    We believe that a test based on maximum actual hourly emissions is
a reasonable measure of actual emissions. It measures actual emissions
at peak, or close to peak, physical and operational capacity. For
reasons described elsewhere, and summarized below, we believe this
approach implements sound policy objectives.
    As we noted at 70 FR 61091, we believe that a test based on maximum
achievable hourly emissions remains a test based on actual emissions.
The reason is that, as noted in the October 2005 proposal, as a
practical matter, for most, if not all EGUs, the hourly rate at which
the unit is actually able to emit is substantively equivalent to that
unit's historical maximum hourly emissions. That is, most, if not all
EGUs will operate at their maximum actual physical and operational
capacity at some point in a 5-year period. In general, highest
emissions occur during the period of highest utilization. As a result,
both the maximum achievable and maximum achieved hourly emissions
increase tests allow an EGU to utilize all of its existing capacity,
and in this aspect the hourly rate at which the unit is actually able
to emit is substantively equivalent under both tests.
    Some commenters took issue with this statement, arguing that
maximum achievable emissions could differ from maximum achieved
emissions for a given EGU for any given period as a result of factors
independent of the physical or operational change, including
variability of the sulfur content in the coal being burned.

    We have long recognized that the highest hourly emissions do not
always occur at the point of highest capacity utilization, due to
fluctuations in process and control equipment operation, as well as in
fuel content and firing method. In fact, we justified an emission
factor approach as our preferred approach when we proposed the NSPS
regulations at Sec.  60.14 in 1974. (See 39 FR 36947.) As we also noted
in developing these NSPS provisions for modifications, ``measurement
techniques such as emission tests or continuous monitors are sensitive
to routine fluctuations in emissions, and thus a method is needed to
distinguish between significant increases in emissions and routine
fluctuations in emissions.'' (39 FR 36947.) At that time, we proposed a
statistical method for use with stack tests and continuous monitors to
measure actual emissions to address this issue.
    In light of these concerns, we developed a statistical approach for
the maximum achieved hourly emissions increase test to assure that it
identifies the maximum hourly pollutant emissions value (for example
maximum lb/hr NOX during a specific one-year period). The
statistical procedure would provide an estimate of the highest value
(99.9 percentage level) in the period represented by the data set. We
believe that this approach mitigates some of the uncertainty associated
with trying to identify the highest hourly emissions rate at the
highest capacity utilization.\32\ We thus believe that, over a period
that is representative of normal operations, in general the maximum
achievable and maximum achieved hourly emissions test would lead to
substantially equivalent results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Commenters stated that the maximum achieved test is
difficult to comply with due to fluctuations in equipment and
control device performance that are beyond the control of the EGU
owner/operator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of these proposed options would promote the safety,
reliability, and efficiency of EGUs. Each of the options would balance
the economic need of sources to use existing operating capacity with
the environmental benefit of regulating those emission increases
related to a change, considering the substantial national emissions
reductions other programs have achieved or will achieve from EGUs. The
proposed regulations are consistent with the primary purpose of the
major NSR program, which is to balance the need for environmental
protection and economic growth. As the analyses included in this SNPR
demonstrate, the proposed regulations would not have an undue adverse
impact on local air quality. Furthermore, as our analyses demonstrate,
increases in hours of operation at EGUs, to the extent they may change
under a maximum hourly rate test, do not increase national
SO2, NOX, PM2.5, VOC, or CO emissions.
Consistent with earlier analyses, our analyses demonstrate that in a
system where most of the national emissions are capped, the more hours
an EGU operates, the more likely it is to install controls.
    Moreover, each of the proposed options also offers additional
benefits consistent with our overall policy goals. Option 1 would
simplify major NSR for changes where there is no increase in hourly
emissions. However, many public commenters urged that we retain the
significant emissions increase component of the emissions increase
test. Therefore, we propose Option 1, our preferred Option, for the
purpose of maintaining the current significant net emissions increase
component of the emissions increase test.
    Option 2 with the proposed maximum hourly tests would simplify
major NSR by reducing applicability determinations complexity. Option 2
with the proposed maximum hourly achievable test provides more
simplicity by conforming major NSR applicability determinations to NSPS
applicability determinations. We also note that Option 2 (both
achievable and achieved alternatives) eliminates the burden of
projecting future emissions and distinguishing between emissions
increases caused by the change from those due solely to demand growth,
because any increase in the emissions under the maximum hourly
achievable emissions test would logically be attributed to the change.
In addition, Option 2 reduces recordkeeping and reporting burdens on
sources because compliance will no longer rely on synthesizing
emissions data into rolling average emissions. Option 2 would also
reduce the reviewing authorities' compliance and enforcement burden.
    Consistent with our policy goal of encouraging efficient use of
existing energy capacity, we are continuing to propose an output-based
format for the hourly emissions increase tests. An output-based
standard establishes emission limits in a format that incorporates the
effects of unit efficiency by relating emissions to the amount of
useful energy generated, not the amount of fuel burned. By relating
emission limitations to the productive output of the process, output-
based emission limits encourage energy efficiency because any increase
in overall energy efficiency results in a lower emission rate. Allowing
energy efficiency as a pollution control measure provides regulated
sources with an additional compliance option that can lead to reduced
compliance costs as well as lower emissions. The use of more efficient
technologies reduces fossil fuel use and leads to multi-media
reductions in environmental impacts both on-site and off-site.
    Option 2 does not include steps for determining whether significant
net emissions increases have occurred. We recognize that the D.C.
Circuit, in the seminal case, Alabama Power v. EPA, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C.
Cir. 1980), which was handed down before Chevron, held that failure to
interpret ``increases'' to allow netting would be ``unreasonable and
contrary to the expressed purposes of the PSD provisions. * * * '' Id.
at 401. As we noted at 70 FR 61093, it is important to place this
ruling in the context of the rules before the Court at that time. Our
1978 regulations required a source-wide accumulation of emissions
increases without providing for an ability to offset these accumulated
increases with any source-wide decreases. In finding that we must apply
a bubble approach, the Court held that we could not require sources to
accumulate increases without also accumulating decreases. It is unclear
whether the Court would have reached the same conclusion if the
emissions test before the Court only considered the increases from the
project under review and not source-wide increases from multiple
projects. We request comment on our observations related to the Alabama
Power Court's decision related to netting and whether a major NSR
program without netting can be supported under the Act.
    With respect to the significance levels, which, like netting, are
not included under Option 2, we recognize that Alabama Power also
upheld significance levels as a ``permissible * * * exercise of agency
power, inherent in most statutory schemes, to overlook circumstances
that in context may fairly be considered de minimis.'' Id. At 360. It
is clear, however, that the Court considered the establishment of
significance levels as discretionary. We believe that significance
levels are not important to include in the rules proposed in Option 2
because under those rules, relatively minor changes for which the
significance levels might come into play would not increase the maximum
hourly rate. By comparison, the changes that do increase the maximum
hourly rate are likely to be capacity increases that should not, by
their nature, be considered de minimis.

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

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' The action was
identified as a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises
novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.
    In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the
Information Collection Request (ICR) document assigned EPA ICR number
1230.19. A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this
action and the analysis is briefly summarized in the Paperwork
Reduction Act section.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1230.19.
    Certain records and reports are necessary for the State or local
agency (or the EPA Administrator in non-delegated areas), for example,
to: (1) Confirm the compliance status of stationary sources, identify
any stationary sources not subject to the standards, and identify
stationary sources subject to the rules; and (2) ensure that the
stationary source control requirements are being achieved. The
information would be used by the EPA or State enforcement personnel to
(1) identify stationary sources subject to the rules, (2) ensure that
appropriate control technology is being properly applied, and (3)
ensure that the emission control devices are being properly operated
and maintained on a continuous basis. Based on the reported
information, the State, local or tribal agency can decide which plants,
records, or processes should be inspected.
    The proposed rule would reduce burden for owners and operators of
major stationary sources. We expect the proposed rule would simplify
applicability determinations, eliminate the burden of projecting future
emissions and distinguishing between emissions increases caused by the
change from those due solely to demand growth, and reduce recordkeeping
and reporting burdens. Over the 3-year period covered by the ICR, we
estimate an average annual reduction in burden for all industry
entities that would be affected by the proposed rule. For the same
reasons, we also expect the proposed rule to reduce burden for State
and local authorities reviewing permits when fully implemented.
However, there would be a one-time, additional burden for State and
local agencies to revise their SIPs to incorporate the proposed
changes.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of responding to the information
collection; adjust existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to
a collection of information; search existing data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR parts 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including use of automated collection
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-1063. Submit
any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB.
See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, Northwest, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning
the ICR between 30 and 60 days after May 8, 2007, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by June 7,
2007. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this notice on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a
small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards. (See 13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a population of less than
50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this notice on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603
and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect, on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    We believe that these proposed rule changes will relieve the
regulatory burden associated with the major NSR program for all EGUs,
including any EGUs that are small businesses. This is because the
proposed rule would simplify applicability determinations, eliminate
the burden of projecting future emissions and distinguishing between
emissions increases caused by the change from those due solely to
demand growth, and by reducing recordkeeping and reporting burdens. As
a result, the program changes

provided in the proposed rule are not expected to result in any
increases in expenditure by any small entity.
    We have therefore concluded that this proposed rule would relieve
regulatory burden for all small entities. We continue to be interested
in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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 to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    We have determined that this rule would not contain a Federal
mandate that would result in expenditures of $100 million or more by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any 1 year. Although initially these changes are expected to
result in a small increase in the burden imposed upon reviewing
authorities in order for them to be included in the State's SIP, these
revisions would ultimately simplify applicability determinations,
eliminate the burden of reviewing projected future emissions and
distinguishing between emissions increases caused by the change from
those due solely to demand growth, and reduce the burden associated
with making compliance determinations. Thus, this action is not subject
to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    For the same reasons stated above, we have determined that this
notice contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Thus, this action is not subject to
the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. We estimate a one-time burden of
approximately 2,240 hours and $83,000 for State agencies to revise
their SIPs to include the proposed regulations. However, these
revisions would ultimately simplify applicability determinations,
eliminate the burden of reviewing projected future emissions and
distinguishing between emissions increases caused by the change from
those due solely to demand growth, and reduce the burden associated
with making compliance determinations. This will in turn reduce the
overall burden of the program. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. There
are no Tribal authorities currently issuing major NSR permits. To the
extent that this proposed rule may apply in the future to any EGU that
may locate on tribal lands, tribal officials are afforded the
opportunity to comment on tribal implications in this notice. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
    Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed
rule, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials. We will also consult with tribal officials, including
officials of the Navaho Nation lands on which Navajo Power Plant and
Four Corners Generating Plant are located, before promulgating the
final regulations. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
State and local government, EPA specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from State and local governments.

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

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe

the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children. We believe that, based on
our analysis of electric utilities, this rule as a whole will result in
equal environmental protection to that currently provided by the
existing regulations, and do so in a more streamlined and effective
manner. The public is invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data, of which the agency may not be aware, that assessed
results of early life exposure to electric utilities.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (''NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (for example, materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and,
specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should
be used in this regulation.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This proposed rule amendment, in conjunction with other
existing programs, would not relax the control measures on sources
regulated by the rule and therefore would not cause emissions increases
from these sources.

VIII. Statutory Authority

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: April 25, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 51--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart I--[Amended]

    2. Add Sec.  51.167 to read as follows:

Sec.  51.167  Preliminary major NSR applicability test for electric
generating units (EGUs).

    (a) What is the purpose of this section? State Implementation Plans
and Tribal Implementation Plans must include the requirements in
paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section for determining (prior to or
after construction) whether a change to an EGU is a modification for
purposes of major NSR applicability. Deviations from these provisions
will be approved only if the State or Tribe demonstrates that the
submitted provisions are at least as stringent in all respects as the
corresponding provisions in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section.
    (b) Am I subject to this section? You must meet the requirements of
this section if you own or operate an EGU that is located at a major
stationary source, and you plan to make a change to the EGU.
    (c) What happens if a change to my EGU is determined to be a
modification according to the procedures of this section? If the change
to your EGU is a modification according to the procedures of this
section, you must determine whether the change is a major modification
according to the procedures of the major NSR program that applies in
the area in which your EGU is located. That is, you must evaluate your
modification according to the requirements set out in the applicable
regulations approved pursuant to Sec.  51.165 and/or Sec.  51.166,
depending on the regulated NSR pollutants emitted and the attainment
status of the area in which your EGU is located for those pollutants.
Section 51.165 sets out the requirements for State nonattainment major
NSR programs, while Sec.  51.166 sets out the requirements for State
PSD programs.
    (d) What is the process for determining if a change to an EGU is a
modification? The two-step process set out in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2)
of this section is used to determine (before beginning actual
construction) whether a change to an EGU located at a major stationary
source is a modification. Regardless of any preconstruction
projections, a modification has occurred if a change satisfies both
steps in the process.
    (1) Step 1. Is the change a physical change in, or change in the
method of operation of, the EGU? (See paragraph (e) of this section for
a list of actions that are not physical or operational

changes.) If so, go on to Step 2 (paragraph (d)(2) of this section).
    (2) Step 2. Will the physical or operational change to the EGU
increase the amount of any regulated NSR pollutant emitted into the
atmosphere by the source (as determined according to paragraph (f) of
this section) or result in the emissions of any regulated NSR
pollutant(s) into the atmosphere that the source did not previously
emit? If so, the change is a modification.
    (e) What types of actions are not physical changes or changes in
the method of operation? (Step 1) For purposes of this section, a
physical change or change in the method of operation shall not include:
    (1) Routine maintenance, repair, and replacement;
    (2) Use of an alternative fuel or raw material by reason of an
order under sections 2(a) and (b) of the Energy Supply and
Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 (or any superseding legislation)
or by reason of a natural gas curtailment plan pursuant to the Federal
Power Act;
    (3) Use of an alternative fuel by reason of an order or rule under
section 125 of the Act;
    (4) Use of an alternative fuel at a steam generating unit to the
extent that the fuel is generated from municipal solid waste;
    (5) Use of an alternative fuel or raw material by a stationary
source which the source is approved to use under any permit issued
under 40 CFR 52.21 or under regulations approved pursuant to Sec.
51.165 or Sec.  51.166, or which:
    (i) For purposes of evaluating attainment pollutants, the source
was capable of accommodating before January 6, 1975, unless such change
would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition
which was established after January 6, 1975 pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or
under regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR part 51 subpart I or
Sec.  51.166; or
    (ii) For purposes of evaluating nonattainment pollutants, the
source was capable of accommodating before December 21, 1976, unless
such change would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit
condition which was established after December 21, 1976 pursuant to 40
CFR 52.21 or under regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR part 51
subpart I or Sec.  51.166;
    (6) An increase in the hours of operation or in the production
rate, unless such change is prohibited under any federally enforceable
permit condition which was established after January 6, 1975 (for
purposes of evaluating attainment pollutants) or after December 21,
1976 (for purposes of evaluating nonattainment pollutants) pursuant to
40 CFR 52.21 or regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR part 51 subpart
I or Sec.  51.166;
    (7) Any change in ownership at a stationary source;
    (8) The installation, operation, cessation, or removal of a
temporary clean coal technology demonstration project, provided that
the project complies with:
    (i) The State Implementation Plan for the State in which the
project is located; and
    (ii) Other requirements necessary to attain and maintain the
national ambient air quality standard during the project and after it
is terminated;
    (9) For purposes of evaluating attainment pollutants, the
installation or operation of a permanent clean coal technology
demonstration project that constitutes repowering, provided that the
project does not result in an increase in the potential to emit of any
regulated pollutant emitted by the unit. This exemption shall apply on
a pollutant-by-pollutant basis; or
    (10) For purposes of evaluating attainment pollutants, the
reactivation of a very clean coal-fired EGU.
    (f) How do I determine if there is an emissions increase? (Step 2)
You must determine if the physical or operational change to your EGU
increases the amount of any regulated NSR pollutant emitted to the
atmosphere using the method in paragraph (f)(1) of this section,
subject to the limitations in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. If the
physical or operational change to your EGU increases the amount of any
regulated NSR pollutant emitted into the atmosphere or results in the
emission of any regulated NSR pollutant(s) into the atmosphere that
your EGU did not previously emit, the change is a modification as
defined in paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
    Alternative 1 for paragraph (f)(1):
    (1) Emissions increase test. For each regulated NSR pollutant for
which you have hourly average CEMS or PEMS emissions data with
corresponding fuel heat input data, compare the pre-change maximum
actual hourly emissions rate in pounds per hour (lb/hr) to a projection
of the post-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate in lb/hr,
subject to the provisions in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
    (i) Pre-change emissions. Determine the pre-change maximum actual
hourly emissions rate as follows:
    (A) Select a period of 365 consecutive days within the 5-year
period immediately preceding when you begin actual construction of the
physical or operational change. Compile a data set (for example, in a
spreadsheet) with the hourly average CEMS or PEMS (as applicable)
measured emissions rates and corresponding heat input data for all of
the hours of operation for that 365-day period for the pollutant of
interest.
    (B) Delete any unacceptable hourly data from this 365-day period in
accordance with the data limitations in paragraph (f)(2) of this
section.
    (C) Extract the hourly data for the 10 percent of the remaining
data set corresponding to the highest heat input rates for the selected
period. This step may be facilitated by sorting the data set for the
remaining operating hours from the lowest to the highest heat input
rates.
    (D) Calculate the average emissions rate from the extracted (i.e.,
highest 10 percent heat input rates) data set, using Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY07.000

Where:
x = average emissions rate, lb/hr;
n = number of emissions rate values; and
xi = ith emissions rate value, lb/hr

    (E) Calculate the standard deviation of the data set, s, using
Equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY07.001

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY07.002

Where:
Z1-p = 3.090, Z score for the 99.9 percentage of
interval; and
Z1-q = 2.326, Z score for the 99 percent confidence
level.

    (G) Use the UTL calculated in paragraph (f)(1)(i)(F) of this
section as the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate.
    (ii) Post-change emissions--preconstruction projections. For each
regulated NSR pollutant, you must project the maximum emissions rate
that your EGU will actually achieve in any 1 hour in the 5 years
following the date the EGU resumes regular operation after the physical
or operational change. An emissions increase results from the physical
or operational change if this projected maximum actual hourly emissions
rate exceeds the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate.
    (iii) Post-change emissions-actually achieved. Regardless of any
preconstruction projections, an emissions increase has occurred if the
hourly emissions rate actually achieved in the 5 years after the change
exceeds the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate.
    Alternative 2 for paragraph (f)(1):
    (1) Emissions increase test. For each regulated NSR pollutant for
which you have hourly average CEMS or PEMS emissions data with
corresponding fuel heat input data, compare the pre-change maximum
actual emissions rate in pounds per megawatt-hour (lb/MWh) to a
projection of the post-change maximum actual emissions rate in lb/MWh,
subject to the provisions in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section. For EGUs that are cogeneration units, emissions rates are
determined based on gross energy output. For other EGUs, emissions
rates are determined based on gross electrical output.
    (i) Pre-change emissions. Determine the pre-change maximum actual
emissions rate as follows:
    (A) Select a period of 365 consecutive days within the 5-year
period immediately preceding when you begin actual construction of the
physical or operational change. Compile a data set (for example, in a
spreadsheet) with the hourly average CEMS or PEMS (as applicable)
measured emissions rates in lb/MWh and corresponding heat input data
for all of the hours of operation for that 365-day period for the
pollutant of interest.
    (B) Delete any unacceptable hourly data from this 365-day period in
accordance with the data limitations in paragraph (f)(2) of this
section.
    (C) Extract the hourly data for the 10 percent of the remaining
data set corresponding to the highest heat input rates for the selected
period. This step may be facilitated by sorting the data set for the
remaining operating hours from the lowest to the highest heat input
rates.
    (D) Calculate the average emissions rate from the extracted (i.e.,
highest 10 percent heat input rates) data set, using Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY07.003

Where:
x = average emissions rate, lb/MWh;
n = number of emissions rate values; and
xi = ith emissions rate value, lb/MWh

    (E) Calculate the standard deviation of the data set, s, using
Equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY07.004

    (F) Calculate the Upper Tolerance Limit, UTL, of the data set using
Equation 3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY07.005

Where:
Z1-p = 3.090, Z score for the 99.9 percentage of
interval; and
Z1-q = 2.326, Z score for the 99 percent confidence
level.

    (G) Use the UTL calculated in paragraph (f)(1)(i)(F) of this
section as the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate.
    (ii) Post-change emissions--preconstruction projections. For each
regulated NSR pollutant, you must project the maximum emissions rate
that your EGU will actually achieve over any period of 1 hour in the 5
years following the date the EGU resumes regular operation after the
physical or operational change. An emissions increase results from the
physical or operational change if this projected maximum actual
emissions rate exceeds the pre-change maximum actual emissions rate.
    (iii) Post-change emissions--actually achieved. Regardless of any
preconstruction projections, an emissions increase has occurred if the
emissions rate actually achieved over any period of 1 hour in the 5
years after the change exceeds the pre-change maximum actual emissions
rate.
    Alternative 3 for paragraph (f)(1):
    (1) Emissions increase test. For each regulated NSR pollutant,
compare the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate in pounds
per hour (lb/hr) to a projection of the post-change maximum actual
hourly emissions rate in lb/hr, subject to the provisions in paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Pre-change emissions--general procedures. The pre-change
maximum actual hourly emissions rate for the

pollutant is the highest emissions rate (lb/hr) actually achieved by
the EGU for 1 hour at any time during the 5-year period immediately
preceding when you begin actual construction of the physical or
operational change.
    (ii) Pre-change emissions--data sources. You must determine the
highest pre-change hourly emissions rate for each regulated NSR
pollutant using the best data available to you. Use the highest
available source of data in the following hierarchy, unless your
reviewing authority has determined that a data source lower in the
hierarchy will provide better data for your EGU:
    (A) Continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS).
    (B) Approved predictive emissions monitoring system (PEMS).
    (C) Emission tests/emission factor specific to the EGU to be
changed.
    (D) Material balance calculations.
    (E) Published emission factor.
    (iii) Post-change emissions--preconstruction projections. For each
regulated NSR pollutant, you must project the maximum emissions rate
that your EGU will actually achieve in any 1 hour in the 5 years
following the date the EGU resumes regular operation after the physical
or operational change. An emissions increase results from the physical
or operational change if this projected maximum actual hourly emissions
rate exceeds the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate.
    (iv) Post-change emissions--actually achieved. Regardless of any
preconstruction projections, an emissions increase has occurred if the
hourly emissions rate actually achieved in the 5 years after the change
exceeds the pre-change maximum actual hourly emissions rate.
    Alternative 4 for paragraph (f)(1):
    (1) Emissions increase test. For each regulated NSR pollutant,
compare the pre-change maximum actual emissions rate in pounds per
megawatt-hour (lb/MWh) to a projection of the post-change maximum
actual emissions rate in lb/MWh, subject to the provisions in
paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. For EGUs that are
cogeneration units, emissions rates are determined based on gross
energy output. For other EGUs, emissions rates are determined based on
gross electrical output.
    (i) Pre-change emissions--general procedures. The pre-change
maximum actual emissions rate for the pollutant is the highest
emissions rate (lb/MWh) actually achieved by the EGU over any period of
1 hour during the 5-year period immediately preceding when you begin
actual construction of the physical or operational change.
    (ii) Pre-change emissions--data sources. You must determine the
highest pre-change emissions rate for each regulated NSR pollutant
using the best data available to you. Use the highest available source
of data in the following hierarchy, unless your reviewing authority has
determined that a data source lower in the hierarchy will provide
better data for your EGU:
    (A) Continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS).
    (B) Approved predictive emissions monitoring system (PEMS).
    (C) Emission tests/emission factor specific to the EGU to be
changed.
    (D) Material balance calculations.
    (E) Published emission factor.
    (iii) Post-change emissions--preconstruction projections. For each
regulated NSR pollutant, you must project the maximum emissions rate
that your EGU will actually achieve over any period of 1 hour in the 5
years following the date the EGU resumes regular operation after the
physical or operational change. An emissions increase results from the
physical or operational change if this projected maximum actual
emissions rate exceeds the pre-change maximum actual emissions rate.
    (iv) Post-change emissions--actually achieved. Regardless of any
preconstruction projections, an emissions increase has occurred if the
emissions rate actually achieved over any period of 1 hour in the 5
years after the change exceeds the pre-change maximum actual emissions
rate.
    Alternative 5 for paragraph (f)(1):
    (1) Emissions increase test. For each regulated NSR pollutant,
compare the maximum achievable hourly emissions rate before the
physical or operational change to the maximum achievable hourly
emissions rate after the change. Determine these maximum achievable
hourly emissions rates according to Sec.  60.14(b) of this chapter. No
physical change, or change in the method of operation, at an existing
EGU shall be treated as a modification for the purposes of this section
provided that such change does not increase the maximum hourly
emissions of any regulated NSR pollutant above the maximum hourly
emissions achievable at that unit during the 5 years prior to the
change.
    Alternative 6 for paragraph (f)(1):
    (1) Emissions increase test. For each regulated NSR pollutant,
compare the maximum achievable emissions rate in pounds per megawatt-
hour (lb/MWh) before the physical or operational change to the maximum
achievable emissions rate in lb/MWh after the change. Determine these
maximum achievable emissions rates according to Sec.  60.14(b) of this
chapter, using emissions rates in lb/MWh achievable over 1 hour of
continuous operation in place of mass emissions rates. For EGUs that
are cogeneration units, determine emissions rates based on gross energy
output. For other EGUs, determine emissions rates based on gross
electrical output. No physical change, or change in the method of
operation, at an existing EGU shall be treated as a modification for
the purposes of this section provided that such change does not
increase the maximum emissions rate of any regulated NSR pollutant
above the maximum emissions rate achievable at that unit during the 5
years prior to the change.
    (2) Data limitations for maximum emissions rates. For purposes of
determining pre-change and post-change maximum emissions rates under
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the following limitations apply to
the types of data that you may use:
    (i) Data limitations for Alternatives 1-4.
    (A) You must not use emissions rate data associated with startups,
shutdowns, or malfunctions of your EGU, as defined by applicable
regulation(s) or permit term(s), or malfunctions of an associated air
pollution control device. A malfunction means any sudden, infrequent,
and not reasonably preventable failure of the EGU or the air pollution
control equipment to operate in a normal or usual manner.
    (B) You must not use continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS)
or predictive emissions monitoring system (PEMS) data recorded during
monitoring system out-of-control periods. Out-of-control periods
include those during which the monitoring system fails to meet quality
assurance criteria (for example, periods of system breakdown, repair,
calibration checks, or zero and span adjustments) established by
regulation, by permit, or in an approved quality assurance plan.
    (C) You must not use emissions rate data from periods of
noncompliance when your EGU was operating above an emission limitation
that was legally enforceable at the time the data were collected.
    (D) You must not use data from any period for which the information
is inadequate for determining emissions rates, including information
related to the limitations in paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(A) through (C) of
this section.
    (ii) Data limitations for Alternatives 5 and 6.
    (A) You must not use emissions rate data associated with startups,

shutdowns, or malfunctions of your EGU, as defined by applicable
regulation(s) or permit term(s), or malfunctions of an associated air
pollution control device. A malfunction means any sudden, infrequent,
and not reasonably preventable failure of the EGU or the air pollution
control equipment to operate in a normal or usual manner.
    (B) You must not use continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS)
or predictive emissions monitoring system (PEMS) data recorded during
monitoring system out-of-control periods. Out-of-control periods
include those during which the monitoring system fails to meet quality
assurance criteria (for example, periods of system breakdown, repair,
calibration checks, or zero and span adjustments) established by
regulation, by permit, or in an approved quality assurance plan.
    (C) You must not use data from any period for which the information
is inadequate for determining emissions rates, including information
related to the limitations in paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this
section.
    (g) What are my requirements for recordkeeping? You must maintain a
file of all information related to determinations that you make under
this section of whether a change to an EGU is a modification, subject
to the following provisions:
    (1) The file must include, but is not limited to, the following
information recorded in permanent form suitable for inspection:
    (i) Continuous monitoring system, monitoring device, and
performance testing measurements;
    (ii) All continuous monitoring system performance evaluations;
    (iii) All continuous monitoring system or monitoring device
calibration checks;
    (iv) All adjustments and maintenance performed on these systems or
devices; and
    (v) All other information relevant to any determination made under
this section of whether a change to an EGU is a modification.
    (2) You must retain the file until the later of:
    (i) The date 5 years following the date the EGU resumes regular
operation after the physical or operational change; and
    (ii) The date 5 years following the date of such measurements,
maintenance, reports, and records.
    (h) What definitions apply under this section? The definitions in
paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section apply. Except as specifically
provided in this paragraph (h), terms used in this section have the
meaning accorded them under Sec.  51.165(a)(1) or Sec.  51.166(b), as
appropriate to the situation (for example, the attainment status of the
area where your source is located for a particular regulated NSR
pollutant of interest). Terms not defined here or in Sec.  51.165(a)(1)
or Sec.  51.166(b) (as appropriate) have the meaning accorded them
under the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401,
et seq.
    (1) Terms related to EGUs that are defined in Sec.  51.124(q). The
following terms are as defined in Sec.  51.124(q):

Boiler.
Bottoming-cycle cogeneration unit.
Cogeneration unit.
Combustion turbine.
Electric generating unit or EGU.
Fossil fuel.
Fossil-fuel-fired.
Generator.
Maximum design heat input.
Nameplate capacity.
Potential electrical output capacity.
Sequential use of energy.
Topping-cycle cogeneration unit.
Total energy input.
Total energy output.
Useful power.
Useful thermal energy.
Utility power distribution system.

    (2) Other terms defined for the purposes of this section.
    Attainment pollutant means a regulated NSR pollutant for which your
EGU may be subject to the PSD program that is applicable in the area
where your EGU is located. In general, attainment pollutants are the
regulated NSR pollutants listed in the PSD program for which there is
no NAAQS or for which the area in which your EGU is located is
designated as attainment or unclassifiable according to part 81 of this
chapter. However, pollutant or precursor transport considerations may
cause such regulated NSR pollutants to be treated as nonattainment
pollutants as defined in this paragraph (h)(2) (for example, if your
EGU is located in an ozone transport region).
    Gross electrical output means the electricity made available for
use by the generator associated with the EGU.
    Gross energy output means, with regard to a cogeneration unit, the
sum of the gross power output and the useful thermal energy output
produced by the cogeneration unit.
    Gross power output means, with regard to a cogeneration unit,
electricity or mechanical energy made available for use by the
cogeneration unit.
    Modification, for an EGU, means any physical change in, or change
in the method of operation of, an EGU which increases the amount of any
regulated NSR pollutant emitted into the atmosphere by that source or
which results in the emission of any regulated NSR pollutant(s) into
the atmosphere that the source did not previously emit. An increase in
the amount of regulated NSR pollutants must be determined according to
the provisions in paragraph (f) of this section. For purposes of this
section, a physical change or change in the method of operation shall
not include the types of actions listed in paragraph (e) of this
section.
    Nonattainment pollutant means a regulated NSR pollutant for which
your EGU may be subject to the nonattainment major NSR program that is
applicable in the area where your EGU is located. In general,
nonattainment pollutants are the regulated NSR pollutants listed in the
nonattainment major NSR program for which the area in which your EGU is
located is designated as nonattainment according to part 81 of this
chapter. However, pollutant or precursor transport considerations may
cause such regulated NSR pollutants to be treated as attainment
pollutants as defined in this paragraph (h)(2).
    Useful thermal energy output means, with regard to a cogeneration
unit, the thermal energy made available for use in any industrial or
commercial process, or used in any heating or cooling application, that
is, total thermal energy made available for processes and applications
other than electrical or mechanical generation. Thermal output for this
section means the energy in recovered thermal output measured against
the energy in the thermal output at 15 degrees Celsius and 101.325
kilopascals of pressure.

 [FR Doc. E7-8263 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 55304]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22529]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-59-000]

Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; AZ Solar 1, LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
AZ Solar 1, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 29, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 9, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22529 Filed 10-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 27535]
[DOCID:fr13my08-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR08-21-000]

Regency Intrastate Gas LLC; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

May 6, 2008.
    Take notice that on April 29, 2008, Regency Intrastate Gas LLC
filed a petition for rate approval for NGPA section 311 maximum
interruptible transportation rate equal to $0.2000 per MMBtu, a monthly
firm demand charge of $4.5625 per MMBtu ($0.1500 per MMBtu daily), and
a firm usage rate of $0.0500 per MMBtu pursuant to section
284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's regulations, with a proposed
effective date of May 1, 2008.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Tuesday, May 20, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-10607 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 68 (Monday, April 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18996-18997]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0278]

Port Access Route Study: Northern New York Bight

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of study, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is seeking additional information related to
the notice of study that was published on June 29, 2020, regarding the
Northern New York Bight Port Access Route Study (NNYBPARS). Following a
review of the comments and materials received, we identified several
areas of additional inquiry related to the study. We invite your
comments and responses to the proposed questions and information
requests.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received on or before May
12, 2021. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket
Management System will not accept comments after midnight Eastern
Daylight Time on the last day of the comment period.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0278 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
supplemental notice of study, call or email Mr. Craig Lapiejko, First
Coast Guard District (dpw), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

ACPARS Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study
ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
AIS Automatic Identification System
COMDTINST Commandant Instruction
DHS Department of Homeland Security
NNYBPARS Northern New York Bight Port Access Route Study
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
PARS Port Access Route Study
TSS Traffic Separation Scheme
U.S.C. United States Code
USCG United States Coast Guard
VMS Vessel Monitoring System
VTR Vessel Trip Report

II. Background and Purpose

    On June 29, 2020, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Study and
public meetings; request for comments entitled ``Port Access Route
Study (PARS): Northern New York Bight'' in the Federal Register (85 FR
38907) to evaluate the adequacy of existing vessel routing measures and
determine whether additional vessel routing measures are necessary for
port approaches to New York and New Jersey and international and
domestic transit areas in the First Coast Guard District area of
responsibility. This undertaking is required by 46 U.S.C. 70003, which
calls for the Coast Guard to conduct a PARS prior to establishing
fairways or traffic separation schemes (TSSs).
    The public was afforded a 60-day comment period, and two public
meetings were held via teleconference and webinar to receive public
input. The Coast Guard received 24 comments in response to our Federal
Register Notice, public meetings and other outreach efforts. A
preliminary review of the comments and related materials

received identified additional opportunities for inquiry. For instance,
obtaining additional vessel traffic and activities data would help
inform several aspects of the study. In this notice, we also seek
responses supplying quantitative data or suggesting other authoritative
sources that specifically address the items listed in section III.
    All comments and supporting documents are available in a public
docket and can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov, In the
``Search'' box insert ``USCG-2020-0278'' and click ``Search.'' Click
the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.

III. Information Requested

    Where possible and pertinent, please provide sources, citations and
references to back up or justify your responses. Also, for all
pertinent responses, please provide a detailed explanation of how you
arrived at your conclusion and the underlying assessment that supports
your conclusion. Finally, for all numerical responses please provide us
with sufficient information to recreate your calculations. We seek
public feedback on the following items:
    a. The Coast Guard is conducting the NNYBPARS in accordance with
COMDTINST 16003.2B, Marine Planning to Operate and Maintain the Marine
Transportation System (MTS) and Implement National Policy. The
instruction is available at https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jul/10/2002155400/-1/-1/0/CI_16003_2B.PDF. The Coast Guard requests
information applicable to 1) PARS objectives and 2) data and other
information to assist the Coast Guard conduct the NNYBPARS.
    1. PARS Objectives;
    i. Determine present traffic density; `
    ii. Determine potential traffic density;
    iii. Determine if existing vessel routing measures are adequate;
    iv. Determine if existing vessel routing measures require
modifications;
    v. Determine the type of modifications;
    vi. Define and justify the needs for new vessel routing measures;
    vii. Determine the type of new vessel routing measures; and
    viii. Determine if the usage of the vessel routing measures must be
mandatory for specific classes of vessels.
    2. Data and other information;
    i. Vessel traffic characteristics and trends (both existing and
potential), including traffic volume, size and types of vessels,
potential interference with the flow of commercial traffic, presence of
any unusual cargoes, and other similar information;
    ii. Fishing activity;
    iii. Recreational boating traffic;
    iv. Commercial ferry traffic;
    v. Military activities;
    vi. Existing and potential outer continental shelf (OCS) resource
development activities;
    vii. Environmental information and factors which may be impacted by
potential or amended vessel routing measures;
    viii. Underway and projected dredging projects;
    ix. Port development activities;
    x. Native American Tribal activities and impacts of potential or
amended vessel routing measures;
    xi. Economic (costs and benefits) effects and impacts; and
    xii. Any additional information that arises as a result of public
comments.
    b. The Coast Guard is utilizing automatic information system (AIS)
data, vessel monitoring system (VMS) data, vessel trip report (VTR)
data, and fisheries observer data to conduct the NNYBPARS. The Coast
Guard requests maritime community representatives provide any
additional info that may assist the Coast Guard conduct the NNYBPARS.
    c. Do maritime community representatives anticipate impacts to
navigation as a result of planned or potential future developments,
whether in port, inshore or offshore in the areas within or directly
adjacent to the Northern New York Bight (please explain and be specific
as possible)?
    1. How will vessel navigation routes change as a result of planned
or potential future developments?
    2. Do maritime community representatives request additional routing
measures other than those that currently exist or are being proposed
via the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal
Register (85 FR 37034, June 19, 2020) related to planned or potential
future developments (please explain and be as specific as possible)?
    d. The Coast Guard received numerous comments in response to our
Federal Register Notice, public meetings and other outreach efforts
requesting various fairway widths (i.e. 4 NM, 5 NM, 9 NM), to extend
current traffic separation schemes, or to identify historical anchorage
locations.
    1. The Coast Guard requests maritime community representatives
provide evidence of why routing measures need to be of the requested
width.
    2. The Coast Guard requests maritime community representatives
provide evidence for the need to extend traffic separation schemes in
the Northern New York Bight area out to the OCS.
    3. The Coast Guard requests maritime community representatives
specifically identify historical anchorages that are requested to be
federally recognized. Please provide coordinates.

IV. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this study by submitting
comments and related materials through the Federal portal at https://www.regulations.gov. In your submission, please include the docket
number for this notice of inquiry and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If your material cannot be submitted
using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this notice of inquiry as being available in
the docket, and public comments, will be in our online docket at
https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that
website's instructions. We review all comments received, but we may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that
we receive. If you visit the online docket and sign up for email
alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or if a final
rule is published.
    This notice is published under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: April 2, 2021.
T.G. Allan Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2021-07469 Filed 4-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Hodayah Finman/ DC/ USEPA/ US 11/ 10/ 2005 11: 25 AM To cc bcc Subject Fw: State comments  Forwarded by Hodayah Finman/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 11/ 10/ 2005 11: 22 AM  " Lee, Amanda I." < Amanda_ I._ Lee@ omb. eop. gov> 11/ 02/ 2005 11: 24 AM To Ross Brennan/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Hodayah Finman/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc Subject State comments 1. First sentence on page 3 should read, " .... ( Protocol) is an international agreement aimed at reducing and eliminating the production and consumption of stratospheric ozone depleting substances."

2. Page 14 last para  should we mention here we did the same thing for CFCs and halons to strengthen the argument?

3. A few typos: Page 8, second sentence: " does" to " do." Page 9, first sentence of last paragraph: add " not" after " should." Last line on Page 9: " 2055" to " 2005." Page 10, first full sentence: a pair of quotation marks are missing.