[Federal Register: June 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 27327-27328]
[DOCID:fr09jn09-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on July 15, 2009, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, The Ballrooms,
620 Perry Pkwy, Gaithersburg, MD. The hotel telephone number is 301-
977-8900.
    Contact Person: Nicole Vesely, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
(for express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093) Rockville, MD
20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line,
1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), code
3014512542. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information
on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about last minute
modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee
meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely
notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site and
call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn
about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss: (1) new drug application (NDA)
022-447, proposed trade name YONDELIS (trabectedin) powder, for
concentrate for solution for intravenous infusion, Centocor Ortho
Biotech Products, L.P., proposed indication in combination with DOXIL
(doxorubicin HCl liposome injection), for the treatment of patients
with relapsed ovarian cancer; and (2) supplemental new drug application
(sNDA) 050-718/S-039, DOXIL (doxorubicin HCl liposome injection), for
intravenous infusion, Centocor Ortho Biotech Products, L.P., proposed
indication in combination with docetaxel for the treatment of patients
with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who have received
prior anthracycline treatment.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will

be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee
meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site
after the meeting. Background material is available at http://
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm, click on the year 2009 and
scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before June
30, 2009. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 10:30 a.m. to 11 a.m., and 3:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. Those
desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify the contact
person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the
evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of
proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before June 22, 2009. Time
allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by June 23, 2009.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Nicole Vesely at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/
default.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee
meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: May 29, 2009.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-13372 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


DRAFT Summary of Comments and Responses on the 2004 and 2001 Proposed Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology ( BART) Determinations Under the Regional Haze Regulations 4.2.3 Presumptive Emission Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 <IP_ADDRESS> SO 2 Limits for Utility Boilers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 <IP_ADDRESS> NO x Limits for Utility Boilers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 <IP_ADDRESS> General Comments Regarding Presumptive Limits . . . . . 15 EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 1 4.2.3 Presumptive Emission Limits <IP_ADDRESS> SO 2 Limits for Utility Boilers Comment: Thirty four commenters said the proposed SO 2 levels are reasonable ( 0167, 0171, 0227, 0231, 0232, 0234, 0255, 0256, 0267, 0271, 0314, 0323, 28 239, 28 345, 28 247, 28 248, 28 249, 28 250, 28 258, 28 260, 28 262, 28 286, 28 289, 28 302, 28 334, 28 338, 28 350, 28 352, 28 362, 28 399, 28 433, 28 7002, 28 7016, 28 7048) citing examples and references in support of these levels ( 0171, 0255, 0256, 28 302). Commenter 0323 also agreed with EPA's approach of either a specific emission rate limit or level of control for sulfur dioxide that helps to provide equity among sources which use higher sulfur coal and those using coal with inherently lower sulfur content.

Response: The EPA appreciates these comments.

Comment: Commenters ( 28 248, 28 399, 28 7016) said EPA should expand this presumption by applying it to electric generating facilities that are under controlled for purposes of SO x. Commenter 28 258 said the presumptive BART level of SO 2 controls should be required at all utility boilers, not just those with no SO 2 controls.

Response: The final BART presumption for coal fired EGUs with a pre existing SO2 controls are to be determined by States based on an analysis of cost effective FGD upgrades designed to improve the average SO2 removal efficiency of the existing system. The EPA is strongly encouraging States to the implement the BART presumptive limits on coal fired EGUs greater than 200 MW and on all oil fired EGUs regardless of capacity. See TSD " Setting BART Presumptive SO2 Limits for Electric Generating Units" for a more detailed discussion on how EPA determined its final recommendations.

Comment: Nine commenters said the proposed levels are too stringent ( 0176, 0181, 0217, 0246, 0253, 28 264, 28 341, 28 357, 28 7007). Commenter 28 264 said the level is too high for western utilities that are burning low sulfur coal where a level of 85 90% would be more appropriate. One commenter ( 0176) cited his experience with eastern bituminous waste and did not believe the proposed emissions reductions were possible. Commenter 0253 said any default SO 2 control level mandating greater than 90% control are inappropriate for units utilizing wet scrubbers and high sulfur coals. Commenter 28 7007 suggested a range of 70 to 90% would be appropriate. EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 2 Response: The EPA is finalizing the SO2 BART presumptive limits based on current FGD capabilities given the various combinations of coal types and sulfur contents inherent in the BART eligible population of units. The EPA is maintaining both an emission limit and percent removal in the final BART presumptive limits to provide equity among various unit specific characteristics and the removal capabilities of different FGD retrofit systems. We also believe that units burning higher sulfur coals can utilize wet scrubbers systems to achieve removal efficiencies of at least 95 percent and units burning lower sulfur coals can utilize semi dry FGD systems to achieve an emission rate limit of 0.15 lb SO2/ mmBtu or less.

Comment: Commenters ( 0217, 0246, 28 357) said if presumptive levels are included, consideration should be given to the levels reflected in the WRAP agreement ( 85% control efficiency at 85% capacity factor.) EPA's presumption of 90 to 95% control efficiency contradicts the consensus based level of SO 2 reduction determined by the WRAP found to be necessary for visibility improvement in western states. Moreover, given that the WRAP stakeholder agreement was determined to be better than BART, the proposed guidelines should not be interpreted to require changes in Section 309 SIPs already submitted under the regional haze rules.

Response: Kathy to respond to comment. In assessing whether the WRAP agreement was better than BART, EPA noted that for utility boilers that are currently uncontrolled, emissions reductions of 90 percent or better are readily achievable. EPA's conclusion that the WRAP agreement ( which assumed 85% control at sources that are currently uncontrolled) would achieve greater reasonable progress than would installation of BART was based on the consideration of a number of factors as explained in that rulemaking.

Comment: Commenter 0181 asked EPA to remove the presumptive SO 2 control level from the final BART guidelines. Instead, there should be a BART determination process that promotes costeffective emission reductions based on specific boiler design features and site specific constraints. The proposed presumptive BART approach, as proposed, does not provide affected states and sources with the flexibility needed to design and install SO 2 emission control systems in a costeffective manner to meet the BART requirements. Furthermore, the presumptive SO 2 emissions control approach inappropriately ignores the need for a visibility impact evaluation which is required in step 5 of the proposed case by case BART engineering analysis.

Response: The EPA believes the final BART presumptive limits promote highly cost effective SO2 emission reductions. The EPA is maintaining both an emission limit and percent removal in the final SO2 BART presumptive limits to provide equity among unit specific characteristics ( i. e. EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 3 boiler design, coal types, sulfur content, unit size, etc.) and potential FGD retrofit systems. We believe our SO2 presumptive limits provide States enough flexibility to take into account unit specific circumstances. States have the ability to establish alternate BART presumptive limits based on a five step BART analysis given the presence of persuasive evidence. See Section 7 part a, Visibility Analysis for SO2 and NOx emissions from EGUs, in BART Preamble.

Comment: Commenter 28 341 said through switching to Powder River Basin ( PRB) coal, many of Ameren's facilities have met and exceeded the SO 2 reduction requirements of the Acid Rain program. Should BART guidelines be adopted, however, they will be forced to install scrubbers. at each one of their facilities that employs the use of low sulfur coal to meet the proposed 90 95% control levels.

Response: The EPA anticipates States to adopt the BART presumptions on all coal fired BARTeligible EGUs greater than 200 MW. Analysis conducted by EPA suggest that units burning lower sulfur coals and PRB coal can cost effectively retrofit with FGD systems to meet the presumptive limits.

Comment: Four commenters said the proposed presumptive control range is not achievable for existing boilers, and is even more stringent than NSPS limits for new sources ( 28 403, 28 404, 28 405, 28 7013). Commenter 28 403 said EPA's data do not support such a limit nor does EPA explain why the presumption is needed and why the states' discretion should be preempted. Commenter 28 404 said this presumption will result in excessive costs for older equipment. Commenter 28 405 said if presumptive control levels were to be established, they should start at the minimum level of emission controls, with additional controls justified on the basis of the source specific balancing process Congress set forth in 169A. Commenter 28 7013 added that the presumptive limits are more consistent with BACT, which is contrary is contrary to the Act's clear distinction between BART and BACT.

Response: The EPA has recently proposed to revise the NSPS to represent the SO2 control capabilities which are available today. In the proposed NSPS amendments EPA proposed a single limit without a compliance alternative, such as a percent removal as allowed in BART. In setting the NSPS EPA set a higher emission limit than proposed in BART to account for account for the need of future fuel diversity, in particular higher sulfur coals. Conversely, the BART presumptions were established based on the defined population of eligible units and were determined to be achievable by all eligible units. The EPA would also like to point out the BART SO2 limits are more stringent than the NSPS for about 90 percent of coals. EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 4 Kathy to Answer.

Comment: Eleven commenters said that the proposed presumptive limits clearly exceed the statutory authority ( 28 270, 28 342, 28 353, 28 354, 28 356, 28 360, 28 386, 28 390, 28 392, 28 778, 28 7004). Commenters ( 28 270, 28 386, 28 392, 28 778) said that the evaluation must be conducted according to the statutory process and BART must be determined on a case by case basis. Commenters ( 28 342, 28 354, 28 356, 28 360, 28 390) objected to EPA's proposed presumptive limits for SO 2 controls as a flagrant example of EPA usurping State authority and/ or as being arbitrary and economically counterproductive. Commenter 28 7004 added that the Act consciously addresses the need for SO 2 scrubbing in Title IV. The Act does not envision or authorize a much more onerous and expensive nationwide SO 2 scrubbing program as part of Section 169A. The " guidance" which presumes 90 to 95% SO 2 removal as BART for uncontrolled utility boilers is not supported by the law.

Response: Kathy to answer. The CAA requires BART limits for certain power plants to be determined pursuant to guidelines issued by EPA. States have the ability to take into account the specific characteristics of individual sources in making final BART determinations.

Comment: Three commenters said the proposed levels are too lenient ( 0221, 28 263, 28 7008). Commenters ( 0221, 28 263) said because of the extended SIP timeline, BART retrofits will not be applied until 2013 and therefore, it is expected that the " best" available sulfur removal technologies will routinely be able to achieve in excess of 95% removal efficiencies and emission rates of lower than 0.10 lb/ MMBTU by that time. Therefore, the presumptive level of 95% reduction or 0.10 0.15 lb/ MMBTU SO2 emission rate that is stipulated in the proposal should be strengthened to an SO 2 removal efficiency of 95% or better or an emission rate of 0.10 lb/ MMBTU or better. Commenter 28 7008 was concerned with the effect that setting presumptive minimums would have in a true top down control technology evaluation. Using an artificially low presumptive minimum could eliminate consideration of more effective control options that are still achievable by a given source.

Response: The EPA believes the final BART SO2 presumptive limits represent the removal efficiencies of current FGD systems given the identified universe of BART eligible sources. The final BART presumptive limits require a removal efficiency of at least 95 percent or control to an emission rate of 0.15 lb SO2/ mmBtu or less. States have discretion to set more stringent presumptive limits based on the findings of the five step BART analysis process.

Comment: EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 5 Thirteen commenters specified that proposed control level must account for fuel type and/ or coal sulfur content ( 0171, 0187, 0206, 0213, 0224, 0236, 0241, 0255, 0303, 0314, 28 335, 28 347, 28 770). Commenter 0213 presented historical data showing that the proposed emissions limit could not be attained in certain cases depending upon the sulfur content of the fuel being burned. A statistical approach should be utilized analyzing the performance of existing FGD installations to ensure that the worst case performers can reasonably be expected to comply with the limit. Commenters ( 28 335, 28 347, 28 770) said the presumption should not apply to oil or gas fired utility boilers.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters and reiterates that in establishing the BART presumptive limits EPA accounted for variations in fuel type, fuel sulfur content, existing SO2 control systems, anticipated unit cost effectiveness values and the removal capabilities of current FGD systems. The EPA is finalizing BART presumptive limits which include an emission rate limit and a percent removal requirement which it feels to be reasonably achievable by all coal fired BART eligible units absent extreme circumstance. The EPA is finalizing SO2 BART presumptive limits for oil fired EGUs but not gas fired EGUs.

Comment: Commenters ( 0187, 0226, 0224, 0236, 0241, 0303) said the rationale used to justify the default and presumptive BART SO 2 emission limitations for coal fired units can be applied to oilfired EGUs. In contrast to coal fired electric generating units, flue gas de sulfurization has not historically been used at oil fired facilities to comply with SO 2 emission limitations. To the commenter's knowledge, there are no existing oil fired steam electric generating units in the U. S. equipped with flue gas de sulfurization for control of SO 2 emissions. The primary reason for this is that the vast majority, if not all, of the states limit the sulfur content of the oil that may be burned at EGUs as part of their SIP strategy for complying with the SO 2 NAAQS.

Response: Analyses conducted by the EPA in determining the presumptive BART limitations for coal and oil fired EGUs were based on emissions data, anticipated unit cost effectiveness values and current capabilities of SO2 control technologies or methods and their industry applicability. The EPA agrees with the commenters suggestion pertaining oil fired units and notes the final BART presumptions for oil fired units is a limitation on fuel oil sulfur content.

Comment: Commenter 0314 suggested setting the presumptive BART as a range ( 0.1 to 0.15 lb/ MMBTU) allowing the State to establish a specific level for each plant.

Response: The final BART presumptive limits are to be established on a unit by unit basis by the EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 6 States. States have the ability to establish a SO2 removal efficiency of at least 95 percent or an emission rate limit of 0.15 lb SO2/ mmBtu or less.

Comment: Three commenters said that presumptive controls may need to differ depending on the location of the source ( 0244, 0252, 0306). Two commenters ( 0244, 0252) said the presumptive control level of 90% for western units is or may be unrealistic. In contrast to the presumptive level proposed by EPA of 90% SO 2 reduction, WRAP has conducted analysis that the presumptive level of control for a scrubber in the west should be set at 85%. Commenter 0306 said EPA needs to consider the cold climate of certain northern states when determining presumptive BART for SO 2. Cold weather can cause icing of very wet stacks which can lead to safety hazards and functional problems. Reheat of the stack may be necessary, to reduce or eliminate icing problems. Reheating the flue gas by bypassing some of the gas around the scrubber will reduce overall SO 2 removal. The proposed presumptive BART may not be achievable in cold climates without overly burdensome costs.

Response:

Investigations conducted by EPA show that a large number of power plants in the US are equipped with flue gas desulfurization ( FGD) systems without any flue gas reheat. A 1996 EIA database shows over 100 FGD system installations that have been operating for many years with no flue gas reheat. ( EIA 767 Database Annual Steam Electric Plant Operation and Design Data for 1996, http:// www. eia. doe. gov/ cneaf/ electricity/ page/ eia767hist. html.) Several of these installations are located in states with a cold climate, such as in Utah, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Also, many of these installations are removing SO 2 at rates exceeding 90 percent. It should also be noted that flue gas bypass is not the only means available to provide flue gas reheat at the outlet of a scrubber. Steam or electric heaters can also be used for this purpose, without a need to bypass a portion of the flue gas at the inlet of a scrubber. Therefore, EPA cannot agree with the commenters that the FGD installations in the west would have to be designed with a gas bypass to provide flue gas reheat. .

Comment: Nine commenters said that the proposed control levels must account for the type of scrubber in place ( 0171, 0210, 0228, 0229, 0241, 0250, 0253, 0254, 0256). Commenter described the need for site specific analyses to address scrubbers in place ( 0210, 250). Commenters ( 0241, 0254) added that EGUs that currently have SO 2 controls should not be forced to meet the presumptive level unless a full BART analysis is undertaken which shows that incremental visibility and cost effectiveness justify forcing controlled EGUs to meet the more stringent limit. Others ( 0229) said that the recent addition of controls, even if reductions fall below the presumptive levels, should be cause for allowing states to screen such a BART eligible EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 7 source out early in the evaluation process. Commenter 0254 said the ability to upgrade existing scrubber units will be limited and for many, particularly dry scrubbers, the presumptive 95% reduction level will not be achievable. In addition, many of these units have been installed recently, e. g., since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, and requiring these facilities to re visit large investments in controls, after such a short interval, imparts an excessive burden on those businesses.

Response: The BART presumptions for EGUs with pre existing SO2 controls are to be determined by the States, as either an emission rate limit or a percent removal, based on a unit specific analysis of potential system upgrades designed to increase the average SO2 removal capability of the pre existing system. As the CAA identifies " any existing pollution control technology in use" at a source as one of the factors to consider in a BART determination, States are likely to account for existing controls in establishing limits. In addition, the guidelines suggest that States may be able to adopt more streamlined approaches to making BART determinations where consideration of one of the factors clearly outweighs the others. The EPA recognizes that semi dry FGD systems are not typically designed to achieve removal efficiencies of at least 95 percent. For this reason, the EPA anticipates smaller units burning low sulfur coals could utilize the semi dry FGD technologies to achieve an emission rate of 0.15 lb SO2/ mmBtu. The EPA also suggests there are cost effective upgrade options for EGUs with pre existing semi dry scrubber systems.

Comment: Commenter 0253 said that in largely focusing on the capabilities of state of the art scrubbers installed on new generating units and ignoring the feasibility or, in many cases, infeasibility of retrofitting such technology on existing units, EPA's analysis is substantially flawed. EPA overlooks the fact that, in many instances, it is technically infeasible to upgrade early generation scrubbers to meet the 95% control level that may be achievable with current state of the art scrubbers.

Response: The EPA established the BART presumptive limits for coal fired EGUs without existing SO2 controls based on the control levels achievable with current state of the are new and retrofit scrubber installations. The BART presumption for EGUs with pre existing SO2 controls are to be established by the States ( not necessarily 95 percent control) based on an evaluation of technically feasible upgrade options available for early generation scrubbers in order to improve the average SO2 removal of existing controls.

Comment: Commenters ( 0228, 0256) said the SO 2 presumption should not apply to sources that have already installed and are operating scrubbers, or to sources that have committed to specific levels EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 8 of scrubbing through consent orders or agreements with EPA or a state regulatory agency. If a source can demonstrate a reduction in visibility impairment below the specified threshold ( whether that threshold is EPA's currently proposed 0.5 deciview or an alternative level) with less stringent controls, EPA and the states should not impose by default more stringent reduction requirements.

Response: The presumptions in the guidelines do not apply to sources that have existing scrubbers. Nonetheless, EPA's analysis suggest cost effective FGD system upgrades designed to improve average SO2 removal efficiencies are available for some BART eligible units with currently operational scrubber systems.

Comment: In contrast, one commenter ( 0221) said that under controlled sources ( i. e., those previously retrofitted to meet the 1979 NSP of 70 percent) can meet removal efficiencies of 95% or more. The performance of boilers already using the wet limestone process can be improved through the application of " once through wet FGD technology," such as increasing sorbent, reactivity and other upgrades.

Response: EPA analyses suggest cost effective FGD system upgrades designed to improve average SO2 removal efficiencies are available for BART eligible units with currently operational scrubber systems. See TSD " Setting BART Presumptive SO2 Limits for Electric Generating Units" for a more detailed discussion on EPA's list of recommended upgrade options for wet FGD systems.

Comment: Eight commenters discussed the role that plant size and/ or capacity should play in applying a default SO 2 control level ( 0206, 0227, 0241, 0253, 0256, 0267, 0271, 0303). Some commenters said that the presumptive limits should not apply to units between 250 and 750 MW ( 0206, 0241, 0303). Commenter 0253 said EPA should clarify that only BART eligible sources would be counted toward the 750 MW cut off. Commenters ( 0206, 0303) added that Congress did not specify similar requirements for smaller plants ( i. e. facilities below 750 MWs). The installation of controls necessary to reduce SO 2 emissions by 90 to 95 percent is more likely to be uneconomical at smaller facilities ( 0206, 0253, 0303). The BART process must be followed for such a determination to be made ( 0241).

Response: The BART presumptions are binding for units greater than 750 MW. EPA strongly encourages States to apply the BART presumptive limits to units greater than 200 MW regardless of plant size. The EPA's unit specific economic analysis for BART eligible coal fired units suggests on EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 9 average it is less economical for units less than 200 MW to retrofit with FGD systems than those units greater than 200 MW. However, the analysis did demonstrate that some BART eligible units less than 200 MW were modeled to have cost effectiveness values comparable to those unit greater than 200 MW and that States are encouraged to apply the BART presumptions to such sources.

Comment: Commenter 0256 said EPA's proposed distinction between the SO 2 " default requirement" and the " rebuttable presumption" based on total power plant capacity is unsupportable. Because BART applies on a unit basis, the fact that the total capacity of the plant is higher or lower than 750 MW has no obvious bearing on whether an individual unit can meet the default/ presumption. Indeed, if anything, units at a larger plant would perhaps have more problems meeting the presumption than would units at a smaller plant, because a larger plant would tend to have more units and thus more potential for space constraints in retrofitting add on controls. If EPA retains the SO 2 presumption, it should be a rebuttable presumption for all units greater than 250 MW, regardless of total power plant capacity.

In contrast, commenters ( 0227, 0271) said EPA should require presumptive controls for all units at 750 MW plants, including those between 250 and 750 MW. Commenter 0271 said this conforms to the specific wording of the Act ( Sec. 169A( b)( 2)( A)) for controls on these smaller than 750 MW units. Commenter 0267 supported applying the proposed presumptive level to all EGUs greater than 250 MW.

Response: The BART guidelines establish a presumption for uncontrolled units 200 MW or greater at power plants in excess of 750 MW. The rationale for addressing these units is set forth in the relevant TSD.

Comment: Commenter 0268 noted that Arizona has chosen to address visibility impairment through Section 309 of the 1999 RHR. In order to pursue the 309 pathway, Arizona has made a demonstration to EPA that the state will realize overall SO 2 reductions greater than the reductions that would be achieved solely through imposition of BART controls at the state's BART eligible sources. EPA should clearly and definitively recognize that presumptive BART limits for SO 2 do not apply to BART eligible sources located in states that have already committed to " better than BART" SO 2 reductions through Section 309 SIP submittals.

Response: The regional haze rule allows States to adopt alternative measures in lieu of BART.

Comment: EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 10 Twelve commenters suggested alternatives to presumptive control levels ( 0213, 0215, 0256, 0302, 28 255, 28 256, 28 264, 28 266, 28 278, 28 312, 28 355, 28 404). Commenter 0213 supports an emissions trading program to implement BART controls as proposed in the June 10, 2004 Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR). However if an individual unit program is prescribed, the commenter supports a percent removal limit as opposed to an emission limit.

Response: EPA appreciates these comments and supports BART eligible units option to opt into the CAIR in applicable states.

Comment: Commenter 0215 said EPA should retain the option of complying with the SO 2 default/ presumption for EGUs, either by adhering to the straight percentage reduction or a set emission rate. Due to the variability in coal and equipment types ( including vintages), EPA must retain flexibility for those EGUs that must comply with these BART requirements.

Response: The EPA appreciates this comment.

Comment: Commenter 0256 agrees with EPA that, for units burning lower sulfur coal, achieving 95% reduction could be problematic and that an emission limitation should be used. Other commenters ( 28 256, 28 264, 28 266, 28 278, 28 312, 28 355, 28 404) agreed if a presumptive approach is used, then the presumptive norms should be explicitly stated in the rulemaking and should be no higher than 3.0 lb/ MWh for SO 2 ( 28 256), based on a weight rate limit or other fuelneutral basis to account for facilities burning higher sulfur coal ( 28 264, 28 335), on an emissions standard to allow sources to take credit for improvements they have already made ( 28 266, 28 278, 28 312, 28 404).

Response: The EPA conducted a unit specific analysis in determining the BART presumptive limits and is finalizing presumptions which it feels to be achievable by the BART eligible population, absent extreme circumstances. The final BART presumptive limits for coal fired EGUs without existing SO2 controls includes both an emission rate limit and percent reduction requirement to provide equity among the units and their various characteristics Comment: Commenter 0302 prefers the flexibility of a percentage control level comparable to a performance level of 0.1 to 0.15 lbs/ MMBTU SO 2. A percentage control level would offer the non EGU BART subject sources the best controls that are achievable, for all types of sources, EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 11 under reasonable cost effectiveness. Without the proper guidance for BART subject sources that are EGUs, the commenter needs flexibility in determining the actual emission rates at which these sources will be required to demonstrate compliance.

Response: States will make BART determinations based on a consideration of the five factors set forth in the CAA. The presumptions in the guidelines apply only to EGUs.

Comment: Two commenters ( 28 255, 28 264) said the presumptive levels should not be established as absolute values. Commenter 28 255 said the values should be presented as a range. Commenter 28 264 said the presumption should not interfere with the states' discretion and statutory process. If EPA intends to apply this " presumptive level" as a mandate, then EPA should establish it as a national rule rather than continuing the pretense that states are making a case by case determination.

Response: Congress stated that BART emission limits should be determined pursuant to guidelines issued by EPA. As such, the guidelines do not interfere with the discretion given to States by Congress. The guidelines are being promulgated through rulemaking Comment: Three commenters discussed the role that the averaging period plays in determining performance ( 0213, 0256, 0314). Commenter 0213 noted the difference in performance over longer averaging times between state of the art technology and existing FGD installations. EPA should review existing installations to determine an appropriate level of performance for determining an SO 2 removal efficiency limit. Commenter 0256 said the choice of 0.15 lb/ MMBtu is predicated on the use of at least an averaging time of 30 day rolling or longer. The 0.15 lb/ MMBtu limit could not be achieved with the use of a shorter averaging time. Commenter 0314 asked that an averaging period, i. e., a 30 day rolling average, for the control levels be established in the rule. A longer averaging period will allow for lower annual emissions.

Response: The EPA recognizes the correlation between sustainable FGD performance and length of averaging times. For this reason it is establishing as part of the BART rulemaking a 30 day rolling averaging period for the SO2 presumptive limits.

Comment: Four commenters said that EPA has underestimated the cost per ton of emissions removed ( 0187, 0206, 0236, 0303). Commenters ( 0187, 0236) provided an example of the costeffectiveness range for reducing SO 2 emissions to 0.1 to 0.15 lbs/ MMBTU estimated to be EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 12 between $ 1800 and $ 3400 per ton of SO 2 removed when burning Powder River Basin coals. This is much higher than the $ 200$ 1000 per ton cost effectiveness range cited by EPA in support of the proposed presumptive BART SO 2 limit. Commenter 0187 gave an example of an oil fired unit exceeding $ 3,000 per ton of SO 2 removed, which supports a separate presumptive SO 2 emission limit for oil based units based on the maximum fuel sulfur content in oil. Commenters ( 0206, 0303) were concerned about additional costs faced by smaller plants ( upgrading fans, piping, etc.) that can drive the cost into the $ 3,000 range. The commenters said EPA should treat smaller plants like other major sources and allow states greater flexibility in determining BART for such facilities.

Response: EPA's unit specific economic analysis suggests an average cost effectiveness, for all BART units greater than 200 MW, of $ 919 per ton SO2 removed, with a majority of the units anticipated to have cost effectiveness values ranging from $ 400 to $ 2000 per ton SO2 removed, see TSD " Setting BART Presumptive SO2 Limits for Electric Generating Units" for a more detailed discussion on how EPA determined its final recommendations. EPA's economic analysis also suggested that some unit greater than 200 MW could experience expensive cost effectiveness values, however States have the flexibility to determine alternate BART presumptive limits based on the results of the 5 part BART analysis. The EPA strongly encourages States to apply the BART presumption at units greater than 200 MW because our economic analysis suggested higher average cost effectiveness values for units less than 200 MW. However, EPA also recognizes that some units less than 200 MW were modeled to have reasonable cost effectiveness values. The EPA determined the final BART presumption for oil fired units to be a limitation of fuel oil sulfur content.

Comment: In contrast, commenters ( 0221, 0267) said achieving the control levels are cost effective.

Response: The EPA appreciates these comments.

Comment: Six commenters provided other comments regarding SO 2 limits for utility boilers ( 0215, 0224, 0241, 0250, 0255, 0319). Commenter 0215 said if EPA retains the SO 2 default/ presumption, it should make it clear that if any source is willing to achieve 95% control or somewhere along the scale of 0.10 to 0.15 lb/ MMBtu, it should automatically be exempt from the requirement to perform a BART analysis for SO 2. Commenter 0224 said EPA might specify flue gas desulfurization as a presumptive technology. Commenter 0255 described several options that are available to further reduce SO 2 emissions and improve the reliability of existing FGD systems to above 95 % removal efficiencies. EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 13 Response: We agree that under some circumstances, a State may reasonably find that if a source is willing to meet the presumptive limit, it need not undertake a BART analysis for SO 2. Our presumptive limits for controlling SO 2 from coal fired power plants was based on flue gas desulfurization, but States may determine that other technologies are appropriate.

Comment: Commenters ( 0241, 0250) opposed establishing any SO 2 control level for EGUs as presumptive BART because this usurps state authority and completely ignores the BART evaluation process required by the Act. Commenter 0250 said this is especially inappropriate for units already equipped with scrubbers.

Response: The guidelines do not establish presumptions for units already equipped with scrubbers.

Comment: Commenter 0319 was concerned that setting an emission rate goal incorporating cap and trade mechanisms rather than a percent control goal would encourage fuel switching to SPRB coal. Even plants that meet the BART standards would be encouraged to switch to SPRB coal to avoid capital investment or to profit from the sale of surplus allowances. Tribal coal and lignite production could be put at risk. The commenter provided a proposal to address the impacts on tribal coal as Attachment A.

Response: The final BART presumptions do not include a cap and trade program for EGUs. EPA believes the BART presumptive limits for EGUs are stringent enough that fuel switching alone will not bring a unit into compliance with the 0.15 lb SO2/ mmBtu emission rate limit. The final BART presumptions for coal fired EGUs without pre existing SO2 controls were finalized based on what EPA believes are the current capabilities of wet and semi dry FGD systems.

<IP_ADDRESS> NO x Limits for Utility Boilers Comment: Eighteen commenters on the 2001 notice supported presumptive limits for NO x set at 90 to 95% ( 28 245, 28 247, 28 248, 28 255, 28 260, 28 262, 28 302, 28 325, 28 334, 28 338, 28 350, 28 352, 28 358, 28 362, 28 390, 28 399, 28 433, 28 7016). Commenter 28 302 said the combination of low NOx burner ( LNB) technology and SCR controls can routinely reduce NO x emissions by over 90% and other commenters cited research documenting the performance of controls ( 28 325, 28 390) and EPA's own experience and data ( 28 28 352, 28 362, 28 7016). EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 14 Commenter 28 256 said if a presumptive norm approach is used, then the presumptive norms should be explicitly stated in the rulemaking and should be no higher than 1.5 lb/ MWh for NO x..

Comment: Nine commenters addressed whether the NO x levels proposed in 2004 are too stringent ( 0167, 0171, 0207, 0227, 0231, 0232, 0255, 0271, 0302).

Two commenters supported the proposed NO x limit of 0.2 as a reasonable level of control ( 0231, 0302). Commenter 0232 supported the setting the presumptive control levels of NO x at 90%.

Three commenters said the proposed levels are too stringent ( 0171, 0207, 0227). Commenter 0171 described recent plant retrofits using low NO x burners and low NO x concentric firing systems that could not practically achieve the 0.2 lb/ MMBTU limit. Commenter 0207 said the presumptive limit is counter to available evidence and unreasonable, especially for T fired units equipped with low NO x burners. EPA's experience in the Acid Rain program is consistent with a higher emission rate and should be reflected in setting the BART levels. The commenter concluded that the experience of some of its members with low NO x burners, the background information for development of Group 1, Phase II NO x limits, and, most likely, the voluminous NO x x emission data reported to EPA from all Phase I and Phase II units, all demonstrate that a presumptive 0.2 lb/ MMBTU NO x emission limit for utility boilers is a very unreasonable, representation of BART for such units. Commenter 0227 was concerned that the NO x presumptive control level EPA proposed is higher than the level current technology can provide. EPA should review currently proposed NO x retrofits and consider lowering it presumptive level of 0.2 lbs/ MMBTU.

Three commenters said the proposed NO x levels are too lenient ( 0167, 0255, 0271). Commenter 0167 urged EPA to require electric generating units in the West to meet rigorous NO x pollution control standards. Commenter 0255 said the current suite of best available NO x technologies, post combustion as well as combustion controls, can achieve significantly lower emission rates than the proposed 0.2 lb/ MMBtu. In 2002 ozone season, the air pollution control industry had 100 units achieving a NO x emission rate of less than 0.2 lb/ MMBtu. Additionally, cost effective emission reductions from the industrial sector are feasible but have not been adequately considered in the BART rule considering the quantity of visibility impairing emissions. For industrial sources, setting an appropriate level of reduction with some flexibility such as providing the option of meeting an emission rate limit or percent reduction is one way to assure significant emission reductions. Commenter 0271 recommended the presumptive control level of 0.15 lbs. of NO x per MMBTU. This level of control has been demonstrated in the NO x budget program in the eastern United States. EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 15 Comment: Six commenters said that the presumption is overly broad ( 0189, 0206, 0217, 0246, 0303, 0323). Commenters ( 0189) said that EPA should make clear ( a) that add on NO x controls should not be part of BART for non EGUs because of the costs of the these controls and ( b) that its presumptive control level of .2 lbs/ MMBTU does not apply to non EGUs because they are unable to meet these levels without the use of add on controls.

Other commenters ( 0206, 0303) said EPA should not establish a prescribed method of level of control because variations between small and large facilities, e. g., between coal, oil, and gas fired units, and the age of the units make application of such a presumption overbroad. Commenters ( 0217, 0246) also said disagreed with the presumptive NO x limit at 0.27 lb/ MMBTU because of the many differences in coal fired boilers. BART determinations should be made by individual states on a case by case basis, consistent with state discretion. Commenter 0323 said EPA should consider a range of emission rates that reflect recent advances in technology, particularly with respect to tangentially fired boilers at EGUs.

Three commenters said EPA's characterization of the capabilities of control technology is inaccurate. Commenters ( 0217, 0268) provided results of a survey showing the effect of adding advance combustion controls to existing units that currently do not have the most advanced controls. Expected NO x emissions rates ranged from 0.17 to 0.49 lbs/ MMBTU. The average emissions rate achievable, weighted by heat input, was 0.27 lbs/ MMBtu, well in excess of the presumed limit of 0.2 lbs/ MMBTU. In contrast, commenter 0255 described the effectiveness of SNCR as a candidate to meet or better the proposed emission rates.

Comment: Thirteen commenters said it is important to consider the type of coal or other fuel in setting a presumptive control level ( 0186, 0188, 0213, 0214, 0217, 0224, 0238, 0254, 0255, 0275, 0306, 0319, 0321).

Commenters ( 0186, 0275) said the 0.2 lb/ MMBTU presumptive level of NO x control should not apply to gas fired power plant boilers because combustion controls on gas fired units can achieve a much better ( i. e., lower) level of performance.

Other commenters ( 0188, 0214, 0238, 0319, 0321) said that the 0.2lb/ MMBTU level of control has not been demonstrated using SCR technology on lignite fired EGUs and cited current research supporting this claim ( 0188, 0321). Commenter 0238 added that over fired air will not reduce NO x emissions from cyclones to that level. Commenter 0321 said the proposed emission limit is not appropriate for lignite fired cyclone units either. Commenters ( 0214, 0238) added that EPA should give the states maximum flexibility to use the five statutory factors in their BART NO x determinations. Commenter 0306 said EPA should reexamine the presumptive BART for cyclone boilers firing North Dakota lignite. Commenters ( 0319, 0321) supported a EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 16 recommendation for a NO x limit of approximately 0.4 lb/ MMBTU, or evaluated on a case by case basis. Commenter 0321 added that NO x emissions from lignite unite appear to have less impact on visibility in that region of the country.

Commenter 0217 said coal rank also accounts for differences in NO x levels. For example, subbituminous coal from the Powder River Basin has been shown to yield lower NO x in some units than other coals. However, this is not always true. In addition, unit operators must balance oxygen levels to attain proper NO x levels while still maintaining appropriate carbon monoxide ( CO) levels. A unit with a stringent CO emission limit may not allow a plant operator to achieve the lowest NO x level possible with existing controls.

Commenter 0213 said that cyclone boilers that burn bituminous coal may require a higher presumptive emission rate even after OFA retrofits. Commenter 0254 said pre NSPS boilers firing bituminous coal cannot meet the presumptive limit with the prescribed control systems ( combustion controls or low NO x burners). Commenter 0224 described different levels of performance between Western plants ( which could meet the limit) and Eastern plants ( which could not meet the limit). The commenter said any presumptive performance limits must reflect different types of coal and boiler configurations.

Commenter 0255 said the emission rate achieved from a particular unit depends on several factors, including coal type and boiler configuration. The commenter described several examples of high performing units.

Comment: One commenter ( 0270) cited studies showing the nitrates contribute only a few percent to total light extinction except in Class I areas downwind of Southern California. Accordingly, NO x emissions from stationary sources are unlikely to lead to any perceptible changes in visibility. Therefore, it is unlikely that NO x emission sources in the West will be good candidates of application of BART. The proposed presumptive NO x emission level is not consistent with the Bush Administration's publicly announced policy of " no SCR in the West" under the CSA. EPA should conclude that application of combustion based controls would constitute BART for NO x emissions in the West, irrespective of the resulting emission level.

Comment: Seven commenters said that the boiler configuration should be considered ( 0195, 0210, 0217, 0224, 0241, 0256, 0270). Commenters ( 0210) said, if retained, the NO x presumption should be modified to address the appropriate control levels for all boiler types. EPA's identified presumptive level, 0.2 lbs/ MMBTU, is not reasonable for most boiler types because it cannot be achieved without using combustion controls ( 0241, 0256, 0270). EPA could establish more reasonable levels by reviewing the emissions data readily available from the Acid Rain program ( 0210). Commenter 0241 said states should undertake a full BART analysis, as required by the EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 17 Act, to determine the appropriate NO x control level that should be established as BART for EGUs. If a presumption is retained, EPA should change the presumption from a lb/ MMBtu emission limitation to a statement indicating that combustion controls installed after enactment of Title IV of the Act should be presumed to satisfy the BART requirement for NO x. States could then evaluate on a boiler specific basis the emission limitation that could be met using combustion controls. Any other approach is simply not justified by the data and would be arbitrary and capricious.

Commenter 0195 said NO x control on cyclone type boilers represent unique circumstances that make it virtually improbable to control on a long term basis below 0.4 lb/ MMBTU.

Commenter 0224 described different levels of performance between Western plants ( which could meet the limit) and Eastern plants ( which could not meet the limit). The commenter said any presumptive performance limits must reflect different types of coal and boiler configurations.

Commenter 0270 said it is well known that wall fired boilers can't achieve the same level of NO x controls as tangentially fired boilers with these types of control technologies. The commenter does not believe that a limit of 0.2 lbs/ MMBTU can be achieved on wall fired units via retrofit installation of advance combustion controls.

Comment: Three commenters ( 0195, 0252, 0271) provided other comments regarding applicability. Commenter 0195 supported the definitions for Combustion controls as defined in 40 CFR 76.2 Acid Rain Nitrogen Oxides Emission Reduction Program in order to provide consistency across EPA programs. Commenter 0252 analyzed data for eastern units and western units with different configurations and for units burning different types of coal. The commenter concluded that EPA should not set a presumptive level of control, since it should be determined on a case by case basis. Commenter 0271 said the presumptive level of control must be applied to all units at a " powerplant having a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts" even those units less than 750 megawatts. This conforms to the specific wording of the Clean Air Act ( Sec. 169A( b)( 2)( A)) for controls on these smaller than 750 megawatt units.

Comment: Nineteen commenters discussed the use of post combustion controls ( 0171, 0179, 0199, 0206, 0217, 0221, 0224, 0232, 0234, 0244, 0246, 0252, 0253, 0255, 0256, 0267, 0271, 0280, 0303). Commenters supported the presumption that BART can be achieved without the use of post combustion controls ( 0199). However some types of units or units burning some types of fuel cannot meet the presumptive limits without installing controls ( 0199, 0217, 0244, 0252, 0253). Commenters described several examples. EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 18 Some commenters were concerned that the proposed rule would require some plants to install SCR to meet the NO x control level proposed ( 0171, 0206, 0217). Commenter 0171 said the implementation of the regional haze rule, including any potential retrofit of SCR technology, must consider the site specific data of the Class I area, the use of current emission controls on potential sources, and the degree of visibility improvements. Commenters ( 0217, 0246) added that individual EGU differences need to be accounted for by states in making their BART determination. Also, the guidelines indicate that if a state finds that a source's visibility contribution warrants the installation of SCR, it may be allowed. However, the guidelines need to also provide for instances where the visibility condition warrant a lesser control level than what would be achieved by advanced combustion control. There is reference to this concept in the preamble that is not reflected in the guidelines. Commenters ( 0206, 0303) said the costs associated with SCR operations at coal fired power plants are not insignificant. Annual operation, rather than only during ozone season, would significantly reduce catalyst life, requiring more frequent replacement.

Commenters agreed that low NO x burners should be the presumptive technology because they are cost effective and the incremental cost of adding SCR or SNCR would be substantially less cost effective ( 0224).

Commenter 0255 said post combustion controls ( e. g. SCR and SNCR) as well as advanced ( or second generation) low NO x burners are significantly more efficient and are currently the best available control technologies for NO x. The majority of the low NOx burners currently on coal fired units were installed to meet the compliance deadline for the start of Phase I and II of the Acid Rain Program in 1995 and 2000, respectively. Units that installed their low NO x burners for Phase I of the Acid Rain Program will have had their air pollution control equipment in place for almost 20 years by the time the BART rule is implemented in 2013. Even the units that installed low NO x burners by 2000 will have had their equipment in place for over 10 years by 2013. Exemptions for existing low NO x burner equipment that is not meeting the 0.2 lb/ MMBtu emission rate should not be given as technology performance has significantly improved since 1995 and will continue to improve out to 2013. For these reasons, EPA should remove the provision that permits sources with first generation low NO x burners presumptive NO x emission rate and mandate that BART eligible sources meet the 0.2 lb/ MMBTU or lower emission rate. Commenter 0255 also provided information showing that good performance of SCR on lignite burning units.

Some commenters approved of including year round SCR operation for removal of NO x ( 0179, 0221, 0232, 0234, 0271). Commenters ( 0232, 0234) would limit this application to sources already operating SCR. Commenter 0221 described how the technology has advanced, is cost effective, and will meet levels of 0.15 lb/ MMBTU ( NO x SIP call) to 0.125 ( IAQR/ CAIR) at costs estimated by EPA to be less than $ 2,000/ ton. The commenter said that SCR represents the best available technology for removal of NO x. Commenter 0232 said a greater control efficiency EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 19 is possible for these sources.

Commenter 0267 said the NO x level should be lowered to require application of postcombustion controls. At a minimum, application of post combustion controls for NO x should not be ruled out as BART. Commenter 0280 agreed and said the presumptive NO x level of 0.2 lbs/ MMBTU should be considered as the maximum, not minimum, allowable emission. States should require the lowest emission rate that can be achieved using all available and applicable control technologies as in BACT. The economic feasibility should be the limiting criteria.

Comment: Six commenters provided other comments on controls ( 0221, 0241, 0244, 0252, 0255, 0256).

Commenter 0241 said if EPA intends to retain a presumption regarding NOx controls in the final Guidelines, EPA should specify only that EGUs should be equipped with combustion controls to limit NO x emissions without identifying a presumed NO x emission rate. Commenters ( 0244, 0252) agreed that EPA should not set a presumptive level of control, since it should be determined on a case by case basis. However, if a limit must be set as guidance for the states it should be higher than 0.20 lb/ MMBTU, in order to avoid forcing the use of post combustion controls ( e. g. SCR and SNCR.).

Commenter 0256 said if EPA does retain the presumptions, at a minimum, the presumptions should not apply to units that already are controlled with, for SO 2, scrubbers, and, for NO x, combustion controls that were added after enactment of Title IV of the Act. Units with combustion controls that were added after enactment of Title IV should be deemed to already have the best combustion controls available, and thus should not be subject to the presumption. Again, the state should be allowed to analyze BART for those units applying the statutory factors in light of the relatively recent NO x controls that were retrofit at the unit Commenter 0221 said that because power plants account for about one quarter of the nitrogen oxide emissions nationally, and because the Agency also has and will have considerable " experience in evaluating NO x control options for utility boilers," a presumptive control level for NO x should be presumed as " best available" at the outset of the required top down BART analysis for both controlled and uncontrolled power plants. In order to provide support for such a presumption, EPA should undertake a similar analysis of NO x removal technologies as was done by ORD for sulfur dioxide.

Commenter 0255 provided data on 100 coal fired units and the majority are very high performing. The incentive to control emissions under the NO x SIP Call will become stronger over time, assuming electric demand continues to grow, as sources utilize their banked emissions. As the bank of emission credits is reduced, additional NO x reductions will be required. Some sources EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 20 will be required to install control technologies while those with controls will have an incentive to operate their control technologies at their highest efficiency so they can sell the emission credits that they offset.

Comment: Four commenters discussed the averaging period for the emission limits ( 0207, 0214, 0238, 0314). Commenters said the averaging period is unclear and should be annual vs. a shortterm limit ( 0207, 0214, 0238). Commenter 0314 suggested a 30 day rolling average.

Comment: Eight commenters made general comments on the proposed NO x levels ( 0181, 0186, 0215, 0225, 0241, 0268, 0275, 0314). Commenter 0181 said EPA should remove the presumptive NO x control levels from the final BART guidelines and instead replace it with a sitespecific cost analysis. Once again, the presumptive NO x emission control approach inappropriately ignores the need for a visibility impact evaluation which is required in Step 5 of the proposed case by case BART engineering analysis. Commenter 0268 such a presumptive limit infringes on a state's authority to establish BART on a case by case basis considering not only visibility improvement, but other factors as well.

Commenter 0186 said EPA's proposal for no post combustion NO x controls on power plants should apply equally across all source categories; otherwise, there should be no presumptive control technology prohibition for any source category.

Commenter 0215 said if an EGU is achieving the default/ presumption for NO x, it should not be required to do a BART determination for that pollutant. Such presumptions would streamline the BART process for those sources willing to reach these control levels.

Commenter 0225 said for sources located within 50 km of a Class I area, the source could be required to perform an evaluation of control technologies that compare their cost effectiveness. A number of the large power companies have completed these types of evaluations and have a good understanding of the cost of the various control scenarios for their units. States may want to request cost effectiveness evaluations from sources to determine if a source can cost effectively reduce their emissions. Because a larger number of sources outside of the NO x SIP Call region have not been required to install many advanced NO x controls, cost effective reductions can be achieved.

Commenter 0241 said, for the same reasons identified above with respect to the presumptive SO 2 control level for EGUs, the commenter objects to EPA' s proposal to establish a presumptive NO x control level for EGUs.

Commenter 0275 supported EPA's proposed finding that add on NO x controls would be EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 21 too costly to be considered BART for EGUs, in most cases. Even more so, this would hold true for non EGU boilers, " smaller boilers are generally less cost effective to control." However, this finding cannot be made unless a demonstration is made that visibility impairments do not remain. That is, NO x add on controls for EGUs and non EGUs may be appropriate if modeling indicates that 2018 visibility goals will otherwise not be met.

Commenter 0314 expects continuing technological improvement in the future and that a specific presumptive BART level set by rule, will make it difficult for a state to establish a lower level. As proposed for SO 2, the commenter suggested a range for NO x that will account for the variability in the boilers as well as technology improvements in the future. A range of 0.13 to 0.17 lb/ MMBTU was suggested.

<IP_ADDRESS> General Comments Regarding Presumptive Limits Comment: Seven commenters supported the use of presumptive emission limits in the BART program ( 0179, 0221, 0255, 0285, 0299, 0323, 28 266). Commenters said the limits are achievable ( 0179, 0255) and are one of the most essential components of the BART guidelines because they establish a starting point representing the " best available technology" in the required engineering analysis ( 0221). Some commenters requested that EPA establish more stringent limits and harmonize the presumptive BART emission limits for EGUs under the regional haze program with the BART guidelines ( 0221). Commenter 0323 approved including a specific BART determination for large, bituminous coalfired electric generating stations. These facilities constitute the largest emitters of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides among all 26 source categories subject to BART.

Commenters ( 0285, 28 266) urged EPA to develop national guidelines and presumptive BART requirements for source types common to several states to make the process more efficient and workable for the states. Commenters ( 0299, 28 266) added that the guidelines should encourage consistency between states and said EPA should establish a consistent set of protocols upon which a BART analysis for each source category should be based. Commenter 0299 added that such protocols should not eliminate the flexibility each state may need to address unusual circumstances at individual sources, but these protocols could potentially eliminate the need for case by case review for many sources. In the absence of a presumptive standard, the proposed BART guidelines must contain explicit criteria for determining BART. In addition, the BART Guidelines should include defined criteria for " engineering", " useful life", and " cost".

Comment: XX commenters said EPA should establish presumptive limits for other pollutants and/ or source categories ( 28 248, 28 255, 28 358). Commenter 28 255 would also seek to establish limits for source categories in addition to utility boilers to make the process more uniform and EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 22 consistent across the country and easier for the states. Commenter 28 358 said the SO 2 limits should be expanded for all BART eligible industrial boilers in all 26 categories and set at 95% to reflect control technology performance. Commenter 28 248 proposed setting a limit for particulate matter at 90%.

Comment: Forty nine commenters opposed establishing presumptive emission limits ( 0171, 0181, 0184, 0195, 0197, 0198, 0208, 0210, 0211, 0214, 0215, 0217, 0224, 0226, 0228, 0238, 0244, 0246, 0247, 0252, 0253, 0254, 0256, 0268, 0270, 0275, 0276, 0308, 0314, 0321, 28 243, 28 264, 28 267, 28 305, 28 333, 28 340, 28 342, 28 347, 28 354, 28 356, 28 357, 28 360, 28 385, 28 390, 28 401, 28 402, 28 748, 28 7003, 28 7009).

Commenters said this approach restricts the flexibility of the states and/ or sources to make the control technology evaluations on a case by case basis ( 0171, 1081, 0195, 0197, 0211, 0217, 0247, 0253, 0256, 0268, 0275, 0276, 0321, 28 243, 28 305, 28 333, 28 340, 28 342, 28 349, 28 354, 28 357, 28 360, 28 385, 28 390, 28 748) without resulting in a notable degree of improvement to visibility ( 0171, 0197).

The Act requires states to use the statutory factors in making case by case BART determinations ( 0195, 0197, 0210, 0211, 0217, 0228, 0238, 0244, 0246, 0247, 0252, 0253, 0256, 0268. 0308, 0314, 0321, 28 264, 28 267, 28 347, 28 355, 28 357, 28 359, 28 360, 28 385, 28 390, 28 401, 28 402, 28 747, 28 748, 28 7001, 28 7003, 28 7009). Commenters ( 0211, 0217, 0246) added that, rather than assist states by providing them with resources, tools and guidance under BART guidelines, EPA's use of rebuttable presumptions will tend to require significant levels of state resources for states to exercise discretion in their BART determination processes. Most states have limited administrative resources to address these issues and therefore, EPA's use of presumptive requirements will discourage state level discretion  opposite the intent conveyed by the Coin Growers decision.

Commenters ( 0198, 0226, 0254) said the presumptive levels are not achievable across the range of boiler types, vintage of existing controls and coal composition. Commenter 0198 preferred the use of trading under CAIR to meet BART requirements in the most efficient and cost effective manner. Commenter 0226 said if a presumptive level of control/ emission rate is retained in the final rule, the guidelines should, at a minimum, make it clear that states have the authority to select an alternative level of control/ emission rate, without an undue evidentiary burden, given appropriate consideration of all the statutory BART factors. Commenter 0253 asked that EPA either delete the provisions for mandatory default control levels or provide a source with the option of using the default control levels, rather than making them mandatory. Commenter 0276 said if EPA establishes presumptive control levels for EGUs, average annual values are more appropriate than those in the proposed regulations. In addition, BART should not be structured in a way that results in rigid technology based limits that interfere with EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 23 established NO x and SO 2 emission trading programs. Commenter 0314 said if EPA needs to define a target, it should use a range to prevent diminishing states' flexibility in case by case BART reviews.

Commenters ( 0214, 0215, 0238, 0254) said EPA fails to make clear how the proposed default values for SO 2 and NO x relate to visibility impairment. Visibility is both Class I area and source specific, which is the reason Congress gave the states the lead role and discretion in the BART program to determine which sources need to install or upgrade controls. Through the use of presumptions and default values, however, EPA's prescriptive process, as proposed, would make the installation of maximum controls more likely without regard to visibility benefits. Instead, as required by statute and rules, EPA should give the states maximum flexibility to use the five statutory factors in their BART determinations. Commenters ( 0228, 0247) said sources must be allowed to assess the visibility improvements of a variety of control options. Commenter 0308 said states should be allowed to exempt BART eligible sources from BART requirements if these sources do not impact or have very little impact on visibility in a Class I area.

Commenter 28 342 said even if a presumption were appropriate under the visibility protection program ( and it is not), EPA cannot adopt one now because the Agency has not satisfied the conditions for creating a presumption. Federal presumptions can be promulgated only when the Agency has established ( based on generic application of law to fact) that the presumption is valid.

Commenters ( 0208, 0270) said EPA's default and presumptive control levels for SO 2 and NO x are inconsistent with the BART control efficiencies proposed by the WRAP and should be removed from the proposed guidelines. In no event, however, should BART force plants in the West to reduce emissions to levels greater achievable using dry scrubbing technology for SO 2 and advanced low NO x combustion technology for NO x. As EPA has pointed out in its discussion of Clear Skies and CAIR, wet scrubbers and SCR are inappropriate for the arid West. In fact, the statute itself makes the NSPS a ceiling for BART. Commenter 0270 said the proposed presumptive BART emission limitations are inconsistent with the Regional Haze Rule for the GCVTC states ( WRAP Annex and SIPs under 40 CFR 51.309), the Administration's proposed legislation for the power generation sector, the CSA, and the proposed IAQR.

Commenters ( 0184) said limits should not be set for those pollutants for which a facility has no known control.

Commenter 0246 said EPA should clarify that greater reasonable progress need not be demonstrated by achieving emission reductions greater than those that would occur by applying the presumptive control levels proposed by EPA to all BART eligible sources. Such an approach would undermine the fundamental role of the states in determining BART or what constitutes greater reasonable progress than BART. The WRAP, states, tribes and stakeholders conducted a EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 24 thorough analysis and balancing of the BART factors to arrive at the WRAP milestones   all of this was conducted without imposing presumptive control levels during the analysis and discussion.

If EPA does utilize the presumptive emission limits, commenter 0197 said , if a source agrees to 95% control or the range of 0.1 0.15 lb/ MMBTU for SO 2, they should be automatically exempt from the BART process. The same goes for the 0.2 lb/ MMBtu for NO x.

Comment: Commenter 0268 questioned the legal authority of EPA to impose presumptive limits for sources between 250 MW and 750 MW in size because the visibility provisions of the Act only specify evaluation by the states of units with a capacity in excess of 750 MW. Commenter 0184 said the statute requires state to take a case by case approach for non EGU sources. Discussion of such emission limits should be explicitly limited to those large EGU facilities for which EPA has the statutory authority to define BART and to set such limits. Commenter 0237 said the presumptive BART level for utility boilers would impose hardship on industrial sources because there are many practical differences in the way industrial boilers and electrical generating units are operated, including short term swings in demand, that make such BART controls unreasonable. Therefore, EPA must underscore in its final guideline that these control levels are not presumptive BART for industrial boilers.

Five commenters said EPA should consider the type of emission unit ( e. g., coal type, boiler type, and/ or emission controls) when making BART determinations ( 0195, 0198, 0214, 0238). Commenters ( 0214, 0238) added that states and sources should be focusing on the incremental costs and benefits from the installation of additional controls or the upgrading of existing controls in the BART determination.

Comment: Two commenters supported the use of optional presumptive limits as a choice for source owners/ operators to avoid a BART analysis ( 0210, 0256). This approach would limit the resources expended for many determinations, but would allow states to consider all of the statutory factors where appropriate.

Comment: Six commenters said EPA needed to address the averaging period associated with the presumptive limits ( 0195, 0227, 0228, 0268, 0306, 0323). Some commenters suggested annual average limits ( 0195, 0268) while others said they should be no less than a 30 day or monthly average ( 0228). Other commenters asked EPA to specify an averaging time similar to the averaging time of visibility impact assessments, e. g., 24 hour average ( 0227, 0306).

Comment: EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 25 One commenter said EPA should establish emission limits for PM because of the magnitude of emissions and the availability of proven controls ( 0255).

Comment: Seven commenters made other general comments regarding presumptive emission limits ( 0195, 0214, 0232, 0238, 0255, 0299, 0306).

Commenters ( 0195, 0214, 0238) said exceptions should be made for startups, shutdowns and malfunctions of control equipment.

Commenters ( 0214, 0238) said EPA should make it clear that if any source is willing to achieve 95% control or somewhere along the scale of 0.1 to 0.15 lb/ MMBTU, it should automatically be exempt from the requirement to perform a BART analysis for SO 2. The same should also be true regarding a BART NO x analysis for sources willing to achieve the 0.2 lb/ MMBTU NO x x presumption for EGUs. Such presumptions would streamline the BART process for those sources willing to reach these control levels. Commenter 0255 said EPA should set a high threshold for sources to justify being exempted because the current suite of best available technologies can readily meet and go beyond the mandated limits. EPA should encourage the states to consider these factors as well.

Commenter 0232 said there should be a provision to revisit appropriate BART control levels at a date certain. While it is appropriate to provide clarity and certainty to industry for the installation of retrofit controls, it is also important to provide for application of new controls with increased control efficiency due to technology improvements in order to meet the express requirements of the Act to prevent any future and remedy any current impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

Commenter 0255 noted that EPA did not address emission of SO 3 from power plants. This has become an increase area of concern for power companies as states have set emission standards for SO 3 in the operating permits for power plants. A number of control technologies have been developed to address this pollutant and are able to achieve a high level of removal.

Commenter 0299 said the BART presumptive level of control proposed for EGUs boilers for SO 2 emissions and for NO x emissions should be made consistent with other clean air programs. Specifically, the presumptive level of controls for EGU boilers should be consistent with the requirements adopted in the CAIR, and consistent with the requirements contained in the federal NO x SIP Call.

Commenter 0306 said BART should be no more stringent than a current BACT assessment for an existing facility. EPA should define presumptive BART in a manner consistent with recent NSR enforcement actions. Presumptive BART should not be more stringent than EC/ R Incorporated BART Public Comment Summary Draft   do not quote or cite March 18, 2005 26 requirements in recent agreements ( or proposed agreements) that settled NSR violations.


From:	Suchecki, Joe<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:	Friday, December 04, 2009 9:36 AM
To:	Tanya Parise
Subject:	RE: Engine Question

Tanya,

I have confirmed with a couple of EMA members that are involved in the home
generator market that the virtually all  home generators are spark-ignited and fueled by
natural gas.  For stationary home generators, there are not likely to be many diesel or
gasoline powered units.  It was suggested that that there may be some diesel
generators used for farm or home use in remote locations where there is no access to
natural gas or propane, but they do not think there are significant numbers.

Again, unless in very remote locations, these would also be back-up or emergency
generators for home use.

We do not have any numbers regarding home generators.  However, if you would like
to get more information,  you may contact Nick Halstead with Cummins Power
Generation, and they may be able to provide some more general information on the
home generator market.

Nick's email is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Joe

Joe Suchecki
Director, Public Affairs
Engine Manufacturers Association
Two North LaSalle Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.enginemanufacturers.org

Confidentiality Notice:  This communication is confidential and may contain privileged information.  If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete it and any attachments without
copying or further transmitting the same.

All attachments are MS Office XP and are MIME encoded.  If you have any software compatibility issues, please
contact EMA at<PHONE_NUMBER> immediately.

From: Tanya Parise<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:15 PM
To: Suchecki, Joe
Subject: Engine Question
Hi Joe,

Quick question about engines.  I know you’re already working on something for Melanie on the
crankcase issue, but I wanted to know if EMA has any information on the number of engines or the
percentage of stationary emergency engines that are residential engines.  I’m not sure how this
information would be tracked or if it’s even possible, but if you have a rough estimate of how many
emergency diesel engines are in people’s homes, that would be very helpful.

Thanks,
Tanya

Tanya Parise
EC/R Incorporated
501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 250
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(919) 484-0417


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52084]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20378]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1140; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASW-11]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Harlingen, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Harlingen, TX.
Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area
Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures due to the
decommissioning of the Sebas locator outer marker/nondirectional radio
beacon (LOM/NDB) at Valley International Airport. The airport's name
and geographic coordinates are also updated. This action enhances the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the
airport.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, December 12, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On April 30, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace for the
Harlingen, TX, area, creating additional controlled airspace at Valley
International Airport (77 FR 25226) Docket No. FAA-2012-1140.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective
September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to accommodate new standard instrument approach
procedures due to the decommissioning of the Sebas LOM/NDB at Valley
International Airport (formerly Rio Grande Valley International
Airport), Harlingen, TX. Small segments would extend from the 7.8-mile
radius of the airport to 12.3 miles north and 11.5 miles south of the
airport to provide adequate controlled airspace for the safety and
management of IFR operations. Geographic coordinates are updated to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Valley International Airport,
Harlingen, TX.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Harlingen, TX [Amended]

Harlingen, Valley International Airport, TX
    (Lat. 26[deg]13'38'' N., long. 97[deg]39'19'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.8-mile radius of Valley International Airport, and within
2 miles each side of the 181[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 7.8-mile radius to 11.5 miles south of the airport, and
within 2.5 miles each side of the 000[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 7.8-mile radius to 12.3 miles north of the
airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 12, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-20378 Filed 8-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 55201-55202]
[DOCID:fr28se07-84]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0609; FRL-8474-6]

Board of Scientific Counselors, Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
(EDC) Research Program Mid-Cycle Review Meetings--Summer/Fall 2007

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development (ORD), gives notice of two meetings of the Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) EDC Mid-Cycle Subcommittee.

DATES: The first meeting (a teleconference call) will be held on
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. The second meeting
(a teleconference call) will be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2007, from
1 p.m. to 3 p.m. All times noted are eastern time. The meetings may
adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests for the draft
agenda or for making oral presentations at the meetings will be
accepted up to 1 business day before each meeting.

ADDRESSES: Participation in the conference calls will be by
teleconference only--meeting rooms will not be used. Members of the
public may obtain the call-in number and access code for the calls from
Heather Drumm, whose contact information is listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0609, by one of
the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0609.

     Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0609.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific
Counselors, Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDC) Mid-Cycle Subcommittee
Meeting--Summer/Fall 2007 Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2007-0609.
     Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver comments to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-
0609.

    Note: This is not a mailing address. 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-ORD-
2007-0609. 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

http://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    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://.

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 Board of

Scientific Counselors, Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDC) Mid-Cycle
Subcommittee Meeting--Summer/Fall 2007 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>, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is
(202) 566-1752.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via
mail at: Heather Drumm, Mail Drop 8104-R, Office of Science Policy,
Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency,
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail
at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; via fax at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via e-mail at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC
agenda or making a presentation at either meeting may contact Heather
Drumm, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In
general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to
a total of three minutes.
    Proposed agenda items for the meetings include, but are not limited
to finalizing the subcommittee's draft report and discussing the rating
component for the EDC research program. The meetings are open to the
public.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Heather Drumm at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a disability, please

contact Heather Drumm, preferably at least 10 days prior to the
meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: September 24, 2007.
Eric Weber,
Acting Director, Office of Science Policy.
[FR Doc. E7-19220 Filed 9-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 36702-36703]
[DOCID:fr05jy07-69]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0484; FRL-8335-3]

Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental
Research (NCER) Standing Subcommittee Meeting--2007

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development (ORD), gives notice of a meeting of the Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) National Center for Environmental Research (NCER)
Standing Subcommittee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m., and will continue on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 from 9 a.m. to
12 noon. All times noted are eastern time. The meeting may adjourn
early if all business is finished. Requests for the draft agenda or for
making oral presentations at the conference call will be accepted up to
1 business day before the meeting.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Park Hyatt Washington, 24th
& M Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20037. Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0484, by one of the
following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail: Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0484.

     Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0484.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific
Counselors, National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) Standing
Subcommittee--2007 Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-
0484.
     Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver comments to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-
0484.

    Note: This is not a mailing address. 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-ORD-
2007-0484. 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 http://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
.

    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 Board of

Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Research
(NCER) Standing Subcommittee--2007 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
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is (202)
566-1752.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via
mail at: Susan Peterson, Mail Code 8104-R, Office of Science Policy,
Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice
mail at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; via fax at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via e-mail at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC
agenda or making a presentation at the meeting may contact Susan
Peterson, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact
methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In
general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to
a total of three minutes.
    Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited
to: The role of NCER and its research programs within ORD, NCER's Air
Program, NCER's Human Health Program, and discussion of the charge to
the NCER Standing Subcommittee. The meeting is open to the public.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Susan Peterson at<PHONE_NUMBER>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a disability,

please contact Susan Peterson, preferably at least 10 days prior to the
meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: June 28, 2007.
Eric Weber,
Acting Director, Office of Science Policy.
[FR Doc. E7-12999 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P