[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 19220-19226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [http://www.gpo.gov/]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07987]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0647; FRL-9923-88-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans;
Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
source-specific revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP)
that establishes an alternative to best available retrofit technology
(BART) for Steam Units 2 and 3 (ST2 and ST3) at Arizona Electric Power
Cooperative's (AEPCO) Apache Generating Station (Apache). Under the
BART Alternative, ST2 will be converted from a primarily coal-fired
unit to a unit that combusts pipeline-quality natural gas, while ST3
will remain as a coal-fired unit and would be retrofitted with
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) control technology. The SIP
revision also revises the emission limit for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) applicable to Apache Steam Unit 1 (ST1), when it is
operated in combined-cycle mode with Gas Turbine 1 (GT1). EPA has
determined that the BART Alternative for ST2 and ST3 would provide
greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than
BART, in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR). Accordingly, we are approving all
elements of the SIP revision, with the exception of a provision
pertaining to affirmative defenses for malfunctions. In conjunction
with this final approval, we are withdrawing those portions of the
Arizona Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that address BART for Apache.

DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective May 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0647 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at EPA
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Please note
that while many of the documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov/, some information may not be specifically listed in
the index to the docket and may be publicly available only at the hard
copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume
reports, or otherwise voluminous materials), and some may not be
available at either locations (e.g., confidential business
information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed
directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9,
Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb may be reached at telephone number
(415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
     The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the
Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
     The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality.
     The initials AEPCO mean or refer to Arizona Electric Power
Cooperative.
     The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona.
     The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit
Technology.
     The initials CEMS mean or refer to a continuous emissions
monitoring system.
     The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I
Federal area.
     The words EPA, we, us, or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
     The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation
Plan.
     The initials GT1 mean or refer to Gas Turbine Unit 1.
     The initials IWAQM mean or refer to Interagency Workgroup
on Air Quality Modeling.
     The initials LNB mean or refer to low-NOX
burners.
     The initials MMBtu mean or refer to million British
thermal units
     The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen
oxides.
     The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.
     The initials RHR mean or refer to EPA's Regional Haze
Rule.
     The initials SNCR mean or refer to Selective Non-Catalytic
Reduction.
     The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
     The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur
dioxide.
     The initials ST1 mean or refer to Steam Unit 1.
     The initials ST2 mean or refer to Steam Unit 2.
     The initials ST3 mean or refer to Steam Unit 3.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On September 19, 2014, EPA proposed to approve a revision to the
Arizona Regional Haze SIP concerning Apache Generating Station
(``Apache SIP Revision'').\1\ As described in the proposal, the Apache
SIP Revision consists of two components: a BART alternative for ST2 and
ST3 (``Apache

BART Alternative'') and a revised NOX emission limit for ST1
and GT1 when operated in combined-cycle mode. The Apache BART
Alternative was submitted pursuant to provisions of the RHR that allow
states to adopt alternative measures in lieu of source-specific BART
controls, if they can demonstrate that the alternative measures provide
greater reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions than
BART.\2\ Under the Apache BART Alternative, ST2 would be converted from
a primarily coal-fired unit to a unit that combusts pipeline-quality
natural gas, while ST3 would remain as a coal-fired unit and would be
retrofitted with SNCR. Emission limits to implement the Apache BART
Alternative and the revised limit for ST1 and GT1, as well as
associated compliance deadlines and monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, are incorporated into an addendum to Apache's
Operating Permit, which was submitted as part of the Apache SIP
Revision.\3\ We proposed to approve each of these components because we
proposed to determine that they complied with the relevant requirements
of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations. In particular, we
proposed to find that the Apache BART Alternative would provide greater
reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions than BART.\4\
We also proposed to withdraw the provisions of the Arizona Regional
Haze FIP that apply to Apache and to find that withdrawal of the FIP
would constitute our action on AEPCO's Petition for Reconsideration of
the FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 79 FR 56322. Please refer to that notice of proposed
rulemaking for background information concerning the CAA, the RHR
and the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and FIP.
    \2\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
    \3\ Apache SIP Revision, Appendix B, Significant Revision No.
59195 to Air Quality Control Permit No. 55412 (``Apache Permit
Revision''), issued May 13, 2014.
    \4\ For purposes of our evaluation, we considered BART for ST2
and ST3 to consist of a combination of (1) ADEQ's BART
determinations for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
of less than 10 micrometers (PM10) and sulfur dioxide
(SO2), which were approved into the applicable SIP, and
(2) EPA's BART determination for NOX in the Arizona RH
FIP. See 79 FR 56326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 45-day public comment period.
During this period, we received a comment letter from Earthjustice on
behalf of National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club
(collectively, the ``Conservation Organizations''). The comments and
our responses are summarized below.
    Comment: The Conservation Organizations asserted that the Apache
BART Alternative fails the first prong of the test set forth at 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) because it would result in greater total emissions than
EPA's BART FIP. They also noted that there appeared to be confusion
over whether the ``distribution of emissions'' under the Apache BART
Alternative and EPA's BART FIP are different. In addition, they urged
EPA to clarify that ``even if a BART alternative applies to the same
facility as the underlying BART determination, the distribution of
emissions is not the same if NOX, SO2, PM, and
other visibility-impairing pollutants will be emitted in different
amounts or different proportions.''
    Response: We agree that, compared with BART, the Apache BART
Alternative is expected to result in greater total emissions than EPA's
BART FIP. In particular, the Alternative would result in greater
NOX emissions, but lower emissions of SO2 and
PM10. In this situation, where BART and the BART Alternative
result in reduced emissions of one pollutant but increased emissions of
another, it is not appropriate to use the ``greater emissions
reductions'' test under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). As explained below,
Arizona chose not to apply the ``greater emission reductions'' test,
but instead to employ a clear weight-of-evidence approach under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2) in order to demonstrate that the alternative achieves
greater reasonable progress than BART.
    Comment: The Conservation Organizations asserted that the modeling
underlying the Apache BART Alternative does not accurately reflect
emissions under the Apache BART Alternative or BART. In particular, the
commenters noted that the modeling results provided in EPA's proposal
were based on AEPCO's petition for reconsideration from May 2013, but
the emissions projections summarized in EPA's proposal differed from
those in AEPCO's petition. Therefore, the Conservation Organizations
asserted that the modeling EPA used to support its approval of the
Apache BART Alternative does not accurately reflect visibility benefits
of the alternative compared to BART.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the total annual
emission projections summarized in Table 5 of our proposal differ from
those reflected in AEPCO's May 2013 petition for reconsideration.
However we do not agree that this difference affects the visibility
modeling underlying the Apache BART Alternative because the modeling is
based on projected maximum short-term (24-hour) emission rates, whereas
the differences in annual emission projections are due to different
assumptions concerning long-term heat rates and capacity factors. In
particular, we note that the emission reduction projections included in
AEPCO's May 2013 petition for reconsideration and shown in Table 1.6 of
the SIP are based on maximum heat rates and conservative annual
capacity factors and therefore represent conservative (high-end)
emissions projections.\5\ By contrast, the emission reductions shown in
Table 5 of our proposal and Table 6 of the SIP Technical Support
Document are calculated based on 2008-2010 continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) heat rates and annual average days of
operation. Accordingly, they reflect lower annual emission projections,
both for BART and the BART Alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See AEPCO Supplemental Petition for Reconsideration at 4-5
and Apache SIP Revision, Table 1.6 at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These differing assumptions concerning annual heat rates and
capacity factors do not influence the visibility modeling, which is
based on maximum 24-hour average emission rates.\6\ In calculating the
emission rates for modeling, AEPCO followed the approach set forth in
the BART Guidelines, which provide that post-control 24-hour emission
rates should be calculated as a percentage of pre-control 24-hour
emission rates.\7\ We find ADEQ's approach to calculating modeled
emission rates is consistent with BART Guidelines and provides a sound
technical basis to compare the expected visibility improvement from the
BART Alternative to the expected improvement from BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g. BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y,
section IV.D.5. (``Use the 24-hour average actual emission rate from
the highest emitting day of the meteorological period modeled (for
the pre-control scenario). . .'').
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The Conservation Organizations commented that the modeling
underlying the Apache BART Alternative reflects an emission rate for
Unit 2 (0.225 lbs/MMBtu) that is lower than the permitted emission
limit for the unit (0.23 lbs/MMBtu) and therefore overestimates the
Apache BART Alternative's visibility benefits relative to BART.
    Response: AEPCO's petition for reconsideration included modeling
for several different control scenarios.\8\ In the Apache SIP Revision,
ADEQ focused on control scenario 9bv2 PNGt, which

included a NOX emission rate of 0.225 lb/MMBtu for ST3,
reflecting use of SNCR. As noted by the commenter, this 0.225 lb/MMBtu
emission rate is lower than the permitted NOX emission limit
for ST3 \9\ of 0.23 lb/MMBtu. However, contrary to the commenter's
assertion this difference does not result in an overestimation of the
visibility benefits of the Apache BART Alternative. Rather, the
difference reflects the fact that, under the BART Guidelines, emission
rates for BART modeling are calculated in a different manner than BART
emission limits.\10\ In particular, the BART Guidelines recommend that
modeling be performed using an average 24-hour emission rate,\11\
excluding periods of startup and shutdown.\12\ By contrast, emission
limits for EGUs are established based on 30-day rolling averages and
must be met on a continuous basis, including during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser, to
Robert Perciasepe and Jared Blumenfeld, EPA (AEPCO Supplemental
Petition for Reconsideration) (May 29, 2013); Attachment, Memorandum
from Ralph Morris and Lynsey Parker, Environ, to Michelle Freeark,
AEPCO (May 10, 2013), Tables 1 and 2.
    \9\ The comment referred to ``Unit 2.'' However, this appears to
be a typographical error, as 0.23 lb/MMBtu is the permitted emission
limit for ST3, not ST2.
    \10\ Use of the BART Guidelines is required only for BART
determinations at fossil-fuel fired generating stations with a
capacity greater than 750 MW. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B). The
Apache Generating Station has a total capacity less than 750 MW.
However, because the BART Guidelines are a useful resource for
performing BART determinations, both ADEQ and EPA have adhered to
the requirements of the BART Guidelines in evaluating this better-
than-BART alternative.
    \11\ See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.D.5 (``Use the
24-hour average actual emission rate from the highest emitting day
of the meteorological period modeled (for the pre-control scenario).
    \12\ Id. section III.A.3 (recommending that ``emissions
reflecting periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction'' not be
used for modeling).
    \13\ See CAA section 302(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, the SNCR system on ST3 will not be capable of
operating during portions of startup and shutdown periods.\14\
Therefore, the emission rate for startup and shutdown periods will be
higher than 0.225 lb/MMBtu, the value that corresponds entirely to SNCR
operation. Over a period of 30 days, the emissions from these periods
of time could cause the 30-day average emission rate to exceed 0.225
lb/MMBtu. Accordingly, ADEQ set a 30-day emission rate of 0.23 lb/MMBtu
to account for the emissions from startup and shutdown periods. The
upward revision from 0.225 lb/MMBtu to 0.23 lb/MMBtu represents a
difference of approximately two percent. We consider this degree of
upward revision reasonable to account for startup and shutdown periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The SNCR system requires the boiler exhaust gas to be above
a certain minimum temperature in order to properly function. During
portions of the startup period, the exhaust gas will be below this
temperature while the boiler heats up, precluding operation of SNCR
controls during these portions of the startup period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, as explained by ADEQ in its response to comments from
the Conservation Organizations, one of the other scenarios modeled by
AEPCO and included in its May 2013 petition, a scenario known as 9b
PNGt, used more conservative emission factors.\15\ In particular, 9b
PNGt included a NOX emission factor of 0.230 lb/MMBtu for
ST3, which is equivalent to the emission limit for this unit in the
Apache SIP Revision. In its response to comments, ADEQ compared the
results of this modeling run to the baseline results and the BART case.
ADEQ found that the Apache BART Alternative (as represented by 9b PNGt)
would result in improved visibility at all affected Class I areas
compared to the baseline and would result in improved visibility, on
average, across all affected Class I areas compared with BART.\16\
Thus, the results of 9b PNGt confirm ADEQ's determination that the
Apache BART Alternative would achieve greater reasonable progress than
BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Apache SIP Revision, Responsiveness Summary at 13.
    \16\ Id. at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The Conservation Organizations noted that the modeling
cited in EPA's proposal shows that visibility at two Class I areas--the
Gila and Mt. Baldy Wilderness Areas--will be worse under the BART
Alternative compared to BART. The commenters asserted that EPA should
update its modeling to correct the alleged flaws identified by the
commenters and confirm whether the BART Alternative will in fact result
in less visibility improvement at these two Class I areas. They argued
that ``EPA's failure to consider measures to improve visibility at
every Class I area impacted by Apache is contrary to the intent of the
regional haze regulations.''
    Response: We agree that modeling indicates that visibility at two
Class I areas--the Gila and Mt. Baldy Wilderness Areas--will be
slightly worse under the BART Alternative compared to BART. However,
this does not preclude approval of the Apache BART Alternative because,
as explained in our proposal, the BART Alternative will result in
improved visibility at all affected Class I areas compared with
baseline conditions \17\ and will result in improved visibility, on
average, across all Class I Areas, compared with BART. As EPA explained
in the preamble to the final BART Alternative Rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Here ``baseline'' refers to controls in place at Apache as
of 2013. See 79 FR 56326, footnote 30.

    . . . within a regional haze context, not every measure taken is
required to achieve a visibility improvement at every class I area.
BART is one component of long term strategies to make reasonable
progress, but it is not the only component. The requirement that the
alternative achieves greater progress based on the average
improvement at all Class I areas assures that, by definition, the
alternative will achieve greater progress overall. Though there may
be cases where BART could produce greater improvement at one or more
class I areas, the no-degradation prong assures that the alternative
will not result in worsened conditions anywhere than would otherwise
exist. . . .\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 71 FR 60612, 60621-22.

Thus, in promulgating the BART Alternative requirements, EPA clearly
contemplated that there could be instances where a BART alternative
would result in less progress at a particular Class I area, yet ensure
overall greater reasonable progress than BART. This is the case with
the Apache BART Alternative.
    Comment: The Conservation Organizations argued that EPA's modeling
is flawed because it only considered visibility impacts at Class I
areas within 300 kilometers (km) of Apache. Citing a recent evaluation
of CALPUFF by EPA,\19\ they commented that ``the model is more accurate
at farther distances than previously assumed.'' Therefore, they
asserted that EPA should have considered Apache's visibility impacts at
a radius of 500 km.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ``Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long
Range Transport Models Using Tracer Field Experiment Data'' (2012),
is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/reports/EPA-454_R-12-003.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We do not agree that we should have considered visibility
impacts at Class I areas greater than 300 km from Apache. The report
cited by the Conservation Organizations does not support the regulatory
use of CALPUFF beyond 300 km, nor does it refute the 1998 Interagency
Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 report, which states
that ``use of CALPUFF for characterizing transport beyond 200 to 300 km
should be done cautiously with an awareness of the likely problems
involved.'' \20\ Consistent with this recommendation, our BART analysis
in the Arizona Regional Haze FIP evaluated visibility impacts and
improvements at the nine Class I areas within 300 km of Apache.\21\ It
was reasonable for ADEQ and EPA to

consider these same Class I areas when assessing the Apache BART
Alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``IWAQM Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for
Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts,'' available at: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/calpuff/phase2.pdf, at 18.
    \21\ See 77 FR 42834, 42857 (``The nine Class I areas within 300
km of Apache were modeled'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Citing the preambles to EPA's proposed and final revisions
to the RHR concerning BART alternatives, the Conservation Organizations
asserted that the weight-of-evidence alternative to the two-part test
is generally appropriate only when a state cannot conduct the two-part
test, or when the state has significant confidence that a BART
alternative will have greater visibility benefits than BART. They
argued that Arizona's weight-of-evidence approach was inappropriate
here because the state had sufficient data to conduct the two-part test
and ``could not have had confidence that the alternative would result
in superior visibility benefits.''
    Response: We do not agree with this comment. Nothing in the RHR or
in the preamble language cited by the commenters indicates that the
weight-of-evidence test is appropriate only when a state cannot conduct
the two-part test, or when the state has significant confidence that a
BART alternative will have greater visibility benefits than BART. In
the preamble to the 2006 final revisions to the RHR, EPA explained that
we were adopting a weight of evidence test ``as an alternative to the
methodology set forth in section 51.308(e)(3).'' \22\ EPA described the
factors that could be considered as part of such test and suggested
specific circumstances where a weight of evidence comparison ``may be
warranted.'' \23\ However, EPA did not indicate that these were the
only circumstances in which this approach could be employed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 71 FR 60612, 60621-22.
    \23\ Id. at 60622.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this instance, ADEQ found that the two-prong test as described
in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) was not appropriate and therefore chose to apply
the clear weight of evidence test. Nonetheless, as explained in our
proposal, we applied a modified version of the two-prong test, using
the 98th percentile impacts (averaged across three years), rather than
the best twenty-percent days and worst twenty-percent days, as provided
for in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).\24\ The Apache BART Alternative meets both
prongs of this modified test, which strongly supports the conclusion
that the Apache BART Alternative would achieve greater reasonable
progress than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 79 FR 56328.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The Conservation Organizations asserted that the Apache
BART Alternative could be improved to achieve additional emissions
reductions. In particular, the commenters suggested that EPA could
require AEPCO to install SNCR at ST2 and switch ST3 to gas, rather than
switching ST2 to gas and installing SNCR at ST3. They also encouraged
EPA to consider capacity limitations or other operational limits to
improve the alternative.
    Response: We do not agree that we can amend the Apache BART
Alternative to provide greater emission reductions. Under the CAA, if
EPA determines that a SIP meets the requirements of the CAA and EPA's
implementing regulations, we are obligated to approve the SIP.\25\ For
the reasons described in our proposal and elsewhere in this document,
we have determined that the Apache SIP revision meets the applicable
requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations, and we are therefore
required to approve it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See CAA section 110(k)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    As explained in our proposal and this document, we have determined
that the Apache SIP Revision would provide for greater reasonable
progress toward natural visibility conditions than BART. We have also
determined that the Apache SIP Revision meets all other requirements of
the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations with one exception: the
Apache Permit Revision incorporates by reference certain state
regulations that establish an affirmative defense for malfunctions (R-
18-2-101, paragraph 65; R18-2-310, sections (A), (B), (D) and (E); and
R18-2-310.01).\26\ In a letter dated February 19, 2015, ADEQ requested
that EPA not act on these provisions of the Apache SIP Revision at this
time.\27\ Accordingly, we are taking final action to approve the Apache
SIP Revision except for the affirmative defense provisions contained in
the Apache Permit Revision. We are also taking final action to revise
the Arizona Regional Haze FIP to remove those portions that apply to
Apache. The withdrawal of the FIP, as it applies to Apache, also
constitutes our final action on AEPCO's petition for reconsideration of
the FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Apache Permit Revision section V.D.
    \27\ See Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA
(February 19, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the ADEQ
permit revision described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov/ and/or
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 13563

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This rule applies to only one facility
and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.

 B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. Firms primarily engaged in the
generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for
sale are small if, including affiliates, the total electric output for
the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours.
AEPCO sold under 3 million megawatt hours in 2013 and is therefore a
small entity.

    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The approval
of the SIP, if finalized, merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC,
773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The FIP withdrawal would alleviate
economic impacts on AEPCO and therefore would not have a significant
adverse impact on any small entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal
agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small
governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any
regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or
205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule does not
impose regulatory requirements on any government entity.

 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or in the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.

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

    Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA
may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by
statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA
consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
    This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
rule. The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that
a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule
does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks. This action addresses regional haze
and visibility protection.

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

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

 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies.
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to
OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. This action
does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use
of VCS.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population, at a lower cost than the FIP.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules: (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because
this is a rule of particular applicability that only applies to a
single named facility.

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 9, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).
    In addition, pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(B) and (V) of the CAA,
the Administrator determines that this action is subject to the
provisions of section 307(d). Section 307(d) establishes procedural
requirements specific to certain rulemaking actions under the CAA.
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the withdrawal of the provisions
of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to Apache is subject to the
requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it constitutes a revision to a
FIP under CAA section 110(c). Furthermore, CAA section 307(d)(1)(V)
provides that the provisions of section 307(d) apply to ``such other
actions as the Administrator may determine.'' The Administrator
determines that the SIP approval portion of this action is also subject
to 307(d). While the Administrator did not explicitly make this
determination earlier, all of the procedural requirements, e.g.,
docketing, hearing and comment periods, of section 307(d) have been
complied with during the course of this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide,
Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 27, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(165) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (165) The following plan was submitted May 13, 2014, by the
Governor's designee:
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Significant Revision No. 59195 to Air Quality Control Permit
No. 55412, excluding section V.D., issued May 13, 2014.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Arizona State Implementation Plan, Revision to the Arizona
Regional Haze Plan for Arizona Electric Power Cooperative,
Incorporated, Apache Generating Station, excluding the appendices.

0
3. Section 52.145 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) introductory
text, (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3)(i), (f)(4)(ii), and (f)(5)(i)(A) and (B)
and removing and reserving paragraph (f)(5)(ii)(B) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.145  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (f) Source-specific federal implementation plan for regional haze
at Cholla Power Plant and Coronado Generating Station--(1)
Applicability. This paragraph (f) applies to each owner/operator of the
following coal-fired electricity generating units (EGUs) in the state
of Arizona: Cholla Power Plant, Units 2, 3, and 4 and Coronado
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. The provisions of this paragraph (f)
are severable, and if any provision of this paragraph (f), or the
application of any provision of this paragraph (f) to any owner/
operator or circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such
provision to other owner/operators and other circumstances, and the
remainder of this paragraph (f), shall not be affected thereby.
    (2) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning
given to them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing
the Clean Air Act. For purposes of this paragraph (f):
    ADEQ means the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    Boiler-operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and
the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time
in the unit.
    Coal-fired unit means any of the EGUs identified in paragraph
(f)(1) of this section.
    Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment
required by 40 CFR part 75 and this paragraph (f).
    Emissions limitation or emissions limit means any of the Federal
Emission Limitations required by this paragraph (f) or any of the
applicable PM10 and SO2 emissions limits for
Cholla Power Plant and Coronado Generating Station submitted to EPA as
part of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP in a letter dated February 28,
2011, and approved into the Arizona State Implementation Plan on
December 5, 2012.
    Flue Gas Desulfurization System or FGD means a pollution control
device that employs flue gas desulfurization technology, including an
absorber utilizing lime, fly ash, or limestone slurry, for the
reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions.
    Group of coal-fired units mean Units 1 and 2 for Coronado
Generating Station and Units 2, 3, and 4 for Cholla Power Plant.
    lb means pound(s).
    NOX means nitrogen oxides expressed as nitrogen dioxide
(NO2).
    Owner(s)/operator(s) means any person(s) who own(s) or who
operate(s), control(s), or supervise(s) one or more of the units
identified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    MMBtu means million British thermal unit(s).
    Operating hour means any hour that fossil fuel is fired in the
unit.
    PM10 means filterable total particulate matter less than 10 microns
and the condensable material in the impingers as measured by Methods
201A and 202 in 40 CFR part 51, appendix M.
    Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator of EPA
Region IX or his/her authorized representative.
    SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
    SO2 removal efficiency means the quantity of SO2 removed
as calculated by the procedure in paragraph (f)(5)(iii)(B) of this
section.
    Unit means any of the EGUs identified in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section.
    Valid data means data recorded when the CEMS is not out-of-control
as defined by 40 CFR part 75.
    (3) * * *
    (i) NOX emission limitations. The owner/operator of each coal-fired
unit subject to this paragraph (f) shall not emit or cause to be
emitted NOX in excess of the following limitations, in
pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) from any group of
coal-fired units. Each emission limit shall be based on a rolling 30-
boiler-

operating-day average, unless otherwise indicated in specific
paragraphs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Federal
                Group of coal-fired units                    emission
                                                            limitation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cholla Power Plant Units 2, 3, and 4....................           0.055
Coronado Generating Station Units 1 and 2...............           0.065
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) The owners/operators of each unit subject to this paragraph
(f) shall comply with the applicable PM10 and SO2
emissions limits submitted to EPA as part of the Arizona Regional Haze
SIP in a letter dated February 28, 2011, and approved into the Arizona
State Implementation Plan on December 5, 2012, as well as the related
compliance, recordkeeping and reporting of this paragraph (f) no later
than the following dates:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Compliance date
              Unit               ---------------------------------------
                                         PM10                 SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cholla Power Plant, Unit 2......  April 1, 2016.....  April 1, 2016.
Cholla Power Plant, Unit 3......  June 3, 2013......  June 3, 2013.
Cholla Power Plant, Unit 4......  June 3, 2013......  June 3, 2013.
Coronado Generating Station,      June 3, 2013......  June 3, 2013.
 Unit 1.
Coronado Generating Station,      June 3, 2013......  June 3, 2013.
 Unit 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) At all times after the compliance date specified in paragraph
(f)(4) of this section, the owner/operator of each coal-fired unit
shall maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with
the requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to accurately measure
SO2, NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow
rate from each unit. In addition, the owner/operator of Cholla Units 2,
3, and 4 shall calibrate, maintain, and operate a CEMS, in full
compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to accurately
measure SO2 emissions and diluent at the inlet of the sulfur
dioxide control device. All valid CEMS hourly data shall be used to
determine compliance with the emission limitations for NOX
and SO2 in paragraph (f)(3) of this section for each unit.
When the CEMS is out-of-control as defined by 40 CFR part 75, that CEMs
data shall be treated as missing data, and not used to calculate the
emission average. Each required CEMS must obtain valid data for at
least 90 percent of the unit operating hours, on an annual basis.
    (B) The owner/operator of each unit shall comply with the quality
assurance procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFR part 75. In addition to
these 40 CFR part 75 requirements, relative accuracy test audits shall
be calculated for both the NOX and SO2 pounds per
hour measurement and the heat input measurement. The CEMs monitoring
data shall not be bias adjusted. The inlet SO2 and diluent
monitors required by this rule shall also meet the Quality Assurance/
Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The testing and
evaluation of the inlet monitors and the calculations of relative
accuracy for lb/hr of NOX, SO2 and heat input
shall be performed each time the 40 CFR part 75 CEMS undergo relative
accuracy testing. In addition, relative accuracy test audits shall be
performed in the units of lb/MMBtu for the inlet and outlet
SO2 monitors at Cholla Units 2, 3, and 4.
    (ii) * * *
* * * * *
    (B) [Reserved]
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2015-07987 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


A claim of confidentiality for the identity of a chemical will not be accepted unless accompanied by a separate written substantiation for each chemical substance claimed as CBI. To assert a claim of confidentiality for the identity of a reportable chemical substance, you must submit detailed written answers to the questions at 40 CFR 710.58( b)( 1), which are repeated in DRAFT: Chapter 5.0 How to Assert Confidentiality Claims 5 2 Table 5 1. In addition, an authorized official from your company must sign and date Form U. The answers must be complete and specific to the chemical substance in question. If any of the information contained in the answers to these questions is asserted to contain CBI, you must clearly identify the information that is claimed confidential by marking the specific information on each page with a label such as " confidential business information," " proprietary," or " trade secret" ( 40 CFR 720.25). If the required substantiation does not accompany your Form U, EPA may make the chemical identities reported on the form available to the public without further notice to you. See Section <IP_ADDRESS> for CBI packing instructions.

If you are manufacturing or importing a chemical substance that is currently listed in the TSCA Inventory as confidential, you are encouraged not to assert confidentiality claims if circumstances are now such that confidentiality is no longer necessary. If you report a previously confidential substance as nonconfidential, that substance will subsequently be listed in the TSCA Inventory as nonconfidential.

Table 5 1. Substantiation Questions To Be Answered When Making Chemical Identity CBI Claims ( from 40 CFR 710.58( b))

No. Question 1. What harmful effects to your competitive position, if any, do you think would result from the identity of the chemical substance being disclosed in connection with reporting under the IUR? How could a competitor use such information? Would the effects of disclosure be substantial? What is the causal relationship between the disclosure and the harmful effects?

2. How long should confidential treatment be given? Until a specific date, the occurrence of a specific event, or permanently? Why?

3. Has the chemical substance been patented? If so, have you granted licenses to others with respect to the patent as it applies to the chemical substance? If the chemical substance has been patented, and therefore disclosed through the patent, why should it be treated as confidential?

4. Has the identity of the chemical substance been kept confidential to the extent that your competitors do not know it is being manufactured or imported for a commercial purpose by anyone?

5. Is the fact that the chemical substance is being manufactured ( including imported) for a commercial purpose available to the public, for example, in technical journals, libraries, or State, local, or Federal agency public files?

6. What measures have you taken to prevent undesired disclosure of the fact that the chemical substance is being manufactured ( including imported) for a commercial purpose?

7. To what extent has the fact that this chemical substance is manufactured ( including imported) for commercial purposes been revealed to others? What precautions have been taken regarding these disclosures? Have there been public disclosures or disclosures to competitors?

8. Does this particular chemical substance leave the site of manufacture ( including import) in any form ( e. g., as product, effluent, emission)? If so, what measures have been taken to guard against the discovery of its identity? Table 5 1 ( Continued) DRAFT: Chapter 5.0 How to Assert Confidentiality Claims No. Question 5 3 9. If the chemical substance leaves the site in a product that is available to the public or your competitors, can the substance be identified by analysis of the product?

10. For what purpose do you manufacture ( including import) the substance?

11. Has EPA, another Federal agency, or any Federal court made any pertinent confidentiality determinations regarding this chemical substance? If so, please attach copies of such determinations.

5.2 Manufacturing Plant Site Identity Under the IUR, you may assert a claim of confidentiality for the identity of the manufacturing facility if release of that identity would reveal confidential business information as contemplated under Section 14 of TSCA. EPA believes claims for CBI should be limited to circumstances in which they are absolutely necessary and legally justified.

To assert a claim of confidentiality, you are required to check the CBI box at block 2.2 of Part II on the reporting form indicating a confidentiality claim for plant site identity information and you are required to substantiate that claim ( 40 CFR 710.58( c)). To do this, you must submit with Form U detailed written answers to the two questions at 40 CFR 710.58( c)( 1), which are also listed in Table 5 2. In addition, an authorized official from your company must sign and date Form U ( 40 CFR 710.58( c)( 1)). This upfront substantiation is not required for company information CBI claims ( block 2.1 on Form U). Please note that both plant site and company information claims are to be made in conjunction with a specific chemical substance on page 2 of Form U. For instance, if you report four chemical substances on one Form U ( by photocopying additional pages of Part II and III) you are able to claim CBI for plant site identity for one chemical while releasing information for the other three.

Table 5 2. Substantiation Questions To Be Answered When Making Plant Site Identity CBI Claims No. Question 1. Has site information been linked with a chemical identity in any other Federal, state, or local reporting scheme? For example, is the chemical identity linked to a facility in a filing under the EPCRA section 311, namely through a Material Safety Data Sheet ( MSDS)? If so, identify all such schemes. Was the linkage claimed as confidential in any of these instances?

2. What harmful effect, if any, to your competitive position do you think would result from disclosure of the identity of the site and the chemical substance? How could a competitor use such information? Would the effects of disclosure be substantial? What is the causal relationship between the disclosure and the harmful effects?

If you assert that any of the information contained in the answers to these questions contains CBI, you must clearly identify the information that is claimed confidential by marking the DRAFT: Chapter 5.0 How to Assert Confidentiality Claims 5 4 specific information on each page with a label such as " confidential business information," " proprietary," or " trade secret" ( 40 CFR 720.25). If no claim of confidentiality is indicated on the Form U submitted to EPA under this part, or if confidentiality claim substantiation is not submitted with Form U , EPA may make the information available to the public without further notice to you. See Section <IP_ADDRESS> for CBI packaging instructions.

5.3 Chemical Production Volume Information Under the IUR, you may check the appropriate box on Form U to assert a claim of confidentiality for chemical production volume information, if the information qualifies as confidential under Section 14 of TSCA and the substantive criteria under 40 CFR Part 2. Additionally, if you do assert a claim of confidentiality for your specific production volume, you may also choose to determine if CBI protection is warranted for production volume information in ranges. The ranges are similar to those used for the original TSCA Inventory and are listed in Table 5 3. If you determine that your production volume range also warrants CBI protection, you must check the appropriate box on Form U for claiming this information as CBI ( 40 CFR 710.58( a)).

Table 5 3. Production Volume Ranges Production Volume Ranges ( in pounds)

At least 25,000 but less than 300,000 At least 300,000 but less than 1,000,000 At least 1,000,000 but less than 10,000,000 At least 10,000,000 but less than 50,000,000 At least 50,000,000 but less than 100,000,000 At least 100,000,000 but less than 500,000,000 At least 500,000,000 but less than 1,000,000,000 1,000,000,000 or greater 5.4 Additional Data Elements You may claim the information reported under the IUR confidential. Form U contains confidential business information ( CBI) boxes for the data elements requested in Parts II and III of the Form. To assert a claim of confidentiality enter an " X" in the CBI box for that data element as discussed in Section 4.0. DRAFT: Chapter 6.0 How to Submit Your Report to EPA 6 1 6.0 How to Submit Your Form U to EPA EPA will mail a reporting package ( consisting of a copy of Form U and a copy of the Instructions for Reporting for Partial Updating of the TSCA Inventory Data Base) to those companies that reported in the IUR reporting period that occurred immediately prior to the current reporting period. If you did not receive a reporting package but are required to report, you may request a copy of the reporting package from EPA by calling the EPA TSCA Hotline at ( 202) 554 1404 or TDD ( 202) 554 0551, or you may send an e mail message to the EPA TSCA Hotline at TSCA Hotline@ epa. gov. If you wish to send a written request for this information, write to:

TSCA Hotline Mail Code 7408M ATTN: Inventory Update Rule Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20460.

6.1 Sending Forms to EPA You must use the EPA form identified as " Form U" to submit written information in response to the requirements of this rule ( 40 CFR 710.59( a)). Section 7.3 presents the procedures for obtaining copies of Form U.

You must submit your completed written and/ or electronic reporting form( s), along with the accompanying Certification Letter and CBI Substantiation Letter, to EPA at the following address ( 40 CFR 710.59( d)):

OPPT Document Control Officer Mail Code 7407M ATTN: Inventory Update Rule Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20460. DRAFT: Chapter 6.0 How to Submit Your Report to EPA 6 2 Note: The act of correcting errors in submissions to the Original Inventory does not grant the person making the correction immunity from enforcement action for any possible violations of the Original Inventory Reporting Rule. 6.2 Correcting Errors in Submissions for Original Inventory In reporting under the IUR, you may find that an error was made when you reported for the original Inventory. That error may fall into one of the following categories:

The chemical identity originally reported was incomplete or inaccurate;

An isolated intermediate produced during the manufacture of a substance was not recognized when previously reported for the Inventory; or

EPA informed your company of a reporting error and requested a correction from you, to which you did not respond.

If an error occurred, you should file an Inventory Correction, following the procedures outlined in the Federal Register notice of July 29, 1980 ( 45 FR 50544). Reference the original Inventory report form and line number ( if appropriate) when you file a correction. For copies of the Federal Register notice or further assistance with an Inventory Correction, you may contact:

TSCA Hotline U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( 7408) Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20460 Telephone: ( 202) 554 1404 Submit your Inventory Correction requests to EPA with your copies of Form U. Your Form U should report the chemical substance you are actually manufacturing or importing. Explain the correction in a cover letter that specifically references the number of the correction form, the Form U number, and the Form U report line number. Please note that the act of correcting errors in submissions to the Original Inventory does not grant the person making the correction immunity from enforcement action for any possible violations of the Original Inventory Reporting Rule.

6.3 Recordkeeping Requirements The Inventory regulations require you to retain records on IUR reports for 5 years after the effective date of the applicable reporting period ( 40 CFR 710.57). For example, if you submit an IUR report in reporting year 2006, you would be required to retain the records on which the report is based until December 23, 2011. DRAFT: Chapter 6.0 How to Submit Your Report to EPA 6 3 As long as the records are maintained in a manner consistent with normal business practice, you may determine their exact format. Required records include those that show the production volume, plant site, and site limited status of each substance reported. If a substance is not reported because its site specific annual production is less than 25,000 pounds, EPA suggests you maintain records to document your reasons for not filing Form U.

If you qualify as an exempt small manufacturer, you need to keep records only for those chemical substances that you are required to report; however, in claiming an exemption, you bear the burden of documenting that you qualify for the exemption.

6.4 Special Instructions for Importers and Foreign Suppliers This section applies to importers who do not know the specific chemical identity of a substance because the foreign supplier chooses to keep it confidential. If you are such an importer, you are still responsible for ensuring that the information is submitted to EPA ( 40 CFR 720.25). You can accomplish this by having your foreign supplier complete some of the information on Form U, as follows:

1. Include a cover letter with your Form U, stating, " The identifying numbers and specific chemical identities for the substances on this form and the technical contact will be submitted by our foreign supplier."

2. Use a separate Form U for each foreign supplier who does not inform you of the identity of the chemical substances you are importing. Do not report by diskette. Do not use the same report form for substances for which you know the specific identity.

3. Photocopy a blank Form U before entering any information on the form.

4. On the original form, sign the certification statement, enter the technical contact, and complete Parts I through IV for each chemical substance. In Part II, Section I, Block 1.1, instead of entering the identifying number, enter the trade name or other designation by which you know each chemical substance. Leave Block 1.2 blank. Check the " Chemical CBI" box only if you wish to claim the identities of the chemicals identified on the form as confidential ( you must answer the substantiation questions described in Section 5.1). Foreign suppliers are responsible for their own CBI claims. Send this original form to EPA.

5. On the photocopy of the blank form, enter only the plant site information. Send this copy to your foreign supplier to complete and forward to EPA.

6. The foreign supplier should enter technical contact company information on the copy ( the technical contact listed here should be the foreign supplier), complete Parts I through IV, and enter the appropriate specific chemical identities in Part II, Section I. Make sure that your supplier understands which chemical identities belong with each copy of the Form U. If the foreign supplier wishes to claim the DRAFT: Chapter 6.0 How to Submit Your Report to EPA 6 4 chemical identities as confidential, the supplier should check the " CBI" box and submit a substantiation as described in Section 5.1. The supplier should include with Form U a letter stating that this information is being submitted by a foreign supplier on behalf of the importer, who should be identified. Information in the letter may be claimed as confidential by circling or bracketing the text to be protected and marking the page " CONFIDENTIAL." Failure to so mark this information may result in EPA making the information available to the public without further notice to the supplier. The foreign supplier should then send the form and letter to EPA.

Note that it is your responsibility to ensure that your foreign supplier understands how to complete the copy of Form U ( including any relevant CBI claims) and that the supplier sends the information to EPA by the end of the reporting period. If the supplier fails to submit the information, your company may be subject to an enforcement action. DRAFT: Chapter 7.0 How to Obtain Copies of Documents Cited in These Instructions 7 1 7.0 How To Obtain Copies of Documents Cited in These Instructions 7.1 Obtaining Copies of TSCA Regulations To obtain copies of TSCA regulations, write to:

TSCA Hotline U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( 7408M) Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20460 Or call ( 202) 554 1404 for assistance.

7.2 Obtaining Copies of the Public Inventory 7.2.1 Printed Editions of the Public Inventory The nonconfidential Public Inventory listing can be found in the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory: 1985 Edition ( a complete version of the Public Inventory current as of July 1985) and in the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory: 1990 Supplement, a supplement to the 1985 edition current as of February 1, 1990. These printed versions contain the CAS Registry Number, CA Index/ Preferred Name, molecular formula, and, if applicable, the substance definition and appropriate EPA flags ( including the " XU" flag for substances previously exempt from reporting under the IUR) for nonconfidential substances. For chemical substances the chemical identity of which has been claimed as confidential, generic chemical names and EPA accession numbers are listed.

7.2.2 Obtaining the Public Inventory in Computer Readable Format The Public Inventory is available on computer tape, diskettes, and CD ROM. These can be obtained from the National Technical Information Service ( 703 487 4650). The computer tape version consists of two tapes. The first tape, the Inventory Preferred Name File, is sorted by CAS Registry Number. It contains the CAS Registry Number, CA Index/ Preferred Name, molecular formula, and if applicable, the substance definition and appropriate EPA flags ( including the " XU" flag for substances exempt from reporting under the Inventory Update Rule) for nonconfidential substances. The second tape, the Inventory Synonym Name file, contains the DRAFT: Chapter 7.0 How to Obtain Copies of Documents Cited in These Instructions 7 2 same data elements as the first tape but differs in two ways. First, it is sorted by chemical name, not CAS Registry Number. Second, in addition to the CA Index/ Preferred names, this file also includes valid names ( synonyms) as supplied to EPA by Inventory submitters. In contrast to the printed version of the Public Inventory, which includes CAS derived synonyms, the synonyms listed on this tape are only those reported to EPA by Inventory submitters.

The CD ROM version contains the information on both computer tapes combined, with duplicate information removed. CAS Registry Numbers are listed in numerical order.

The tapes and CD ROM only contain information on nonconfidential chemical substances. They do not refer in any way to chemicals on the TSCA Inventory claimed as confidential.

Contact the following for ordering information for these products:

National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Telephone: ( 703) 487 4650 or ( 800) 553 NTIS 7.3 Obtaining Copies of Form U Electronic and printed copies of Form U can be obtained from:

TSCA Hotline U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( 7408M) Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20460 Telephone: ( 202) 554 1404 DRAFT: Chapter 8.0 How to Request Assistance with Reporting 8 1 8.0 How To Request Assistance with Reporting Write to the address below if you need additional information on or assistance with:

Determining your reporting obligations;

Mechanics of completing Form U;

Entering data onto a computer diskette for submission; and

Determining the status of forms/ diskettes you have submitted.

TSCA Hotline U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( 7408M) Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20460 Attn: Inventory Update Rule.

You can also call ( 202) 554 1404 for assistance.


Cooling Water Intake Structure ( CWIS) Information Data Required Rig Information Rig Name SF 140 SF 135 Glomar Celtic Sea Glomar Arctic 1 Glomar Arctic 3 Glomar Arctic 4 Aleutian Key Glomar Grand Banks Jutlander Dada Gorgud Istigal Rig Type Semisubmersible F & G Enhanced Pacesetters, and Pacesetters Total Installed Power Generation Capacity 7800 HP Number of Cooling Water Intake Structures ( CWISs) 2 Brief description of each CWIS ( e. g., sea chest, simple pipe) Sea Chest Rough dimensions of each CWIS and indicate whether onboard CWIS has an existing flange 4ftx14" dia pipe reducing to 12" dia with flange and valve. Screen outboard 30" x48" c/ w 462 1" dia holes Screen type ( e. g., strainer, wedge wire) with mesh size Duplex Basket Strainers Total Design Specifications for Daily Maximum Water Intake Volume of each CWIS 3,599,400 gal ( 85700 bbls) (@ 2500gpm)

Total Daily Water Intake Volume of each CWIS ( Set up/ Drilling) 3,599,400 gal ( 85700 bbls) continuous intake and discharge Design Specs for Through Screen Velocity of each CWIS ( i. e., Q= V* A) ( Set up/ Drilling) 3.0 ft/ sec List of Purposes of Cooling Water Intakes ( e. g., cool crude oil, produced water, power generators, drill pipe brakes) Winch cooling, Brake Water Cooling, HPU ( High Pressure Unit) , Compressors, AC Units, Water Makers Power generators, Propulsion List of Purposes of Non cooling Water Intakes ( e. g., fire water, hotel loads) Fire Main, Ballast, Sea Water Service, Drill Water Total Volume of Water Intake for Ballasting, Duration of the Ballast intake, and the Through Screen Velocity of the Ballast intake 1.6   2.1 million gal ( 40 50000 bbls) of ballast, 5 7 hours to ballast depending on deck load. Pumped @ 3300 gpm. Inlet velocity = 3 ft/ sec Mitigation Measures for reducing Exotic Species Migration through Ballast water 68,000 gal ( approx 260T) depending on deck load.

Mitigation Measures for reducing Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms, as well as Bio fouling Prevention Measures Duplex strainers fitted along with cathodic protection system.

Is the Rig equipped with a Radiator Cooling System for the Main Engines? No, heat exchangers are fitted.


[Federal Register: June 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 33087-33088]
[DOCID:fr11jn08-49]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8578-2]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Consent Decree; Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a
proposed consent decree, to address a lawsuit filed by Desert Rock
Energy Company, LLC and Dine Power Authority (collectively,
``Plaintiffs'') in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas: Desert Rock Energy Company, LLC, et al. v. EPA, No.
08-872 (S.D. TX). On March 21, 2008, Plaintiffs served upon the United
States a Complaint alleging that EPA failed to perform a mandatory duty
under Clean Air Act section 165(c), 42 U.S.C. 7475(c), to take action
on Plaintiffs' application (``Permit Application'') for a Prevention of
Significant Deterioration permit to construct a coal-fired power plant
on land held by the United States government in trust for the benefit
of the Navajo Nation. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree,
by July 31, 2008, EPA shall issue a final permit decision on the Permit
Application, within the meaning of 40 CFR 124.15(a).

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by July 11, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2008-0488, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailed to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Doster, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would resolve the suit filed by the
Plaintiffs alleging that EPA has a mandatory duty under Clean Air Act
section 165(c), 42 U.S.C. 7475(c), to take action on Plaintiffs'
application (``Permit Application'') for a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (``PSD'') permit to construct a coal-fired power plant on
land held by the United States government in trust for the benefit of
the Navajo Nation. No later than July 31, 2008, EPA shall issue a final
permit decision on the Permit Application, within the meaning of 40 CFR
124.15(a). EPA Region IX is the reviewing authority for the Permit
Application. Background on the Permit Application and Region IX's
review may be obtained on the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/
region09/air/permit/desertrock/index.html.
    The consent decree becomes final and effective after EPA provides
notice in the Federal Register and provides an opportunity for public
comment pursuant to Clean Air Act section 113(g). For a period of
thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the
Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed consent
decree from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the
litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw
or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments
disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is
inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice
determines, based on any comment which may be submitted, that consent
to the consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will
be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How Can I Get a Copy of the Consent Decree?

    Direct your comments to the official public docket for this action
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2008-0488 which contains a copy of the
consent decree. The official public docket is available for public
viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 OEI Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use the http://www.regulations.gov
Web site to review the consent decree, submit or view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the
appropriate docket identification number.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute is not included in the official public docket or in the
electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material,
including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only
in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through http://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: June 5, 2008.
Richard B. Ossias,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E8-13064 Filed 6-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P