DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
1
6560­
50­
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
51
and
96
[
EPA­
HQ­
OAR
2003­
0053;
FRL
B
]

RIN
2060
­

Rule
to
Reduce
Interstate
Transport
of
Fine
Particulate
Matter
and
Ozone
(
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule):
Supplemental
Notice
of
Reconsideration
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Notice
of
reconsideration;
request
for
comment;

notice
of
opportunity
for
public
hearing.

SUMMARY:
On
May
12,
2005,
EPA
published
in
the
Federal
Register
the
final
"
Rule
to
Reduce
Interstate
Transport
of
Fine
Particulate
Matter
and
Ozone"
(
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
or
CAIR).
The
CAIR
requires
certain
upwind
States
to
reduce
emissions
of
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)
and/
or
sulfur
dioxide
(
SO2)
that
significantly
contribute
to
nonattainment
of,
or
interfere
with
maintenance
by,
downwind
States
with
respect
to
the
fine
particle
(
PM2.5)
and/
or
8­
hour
ozone
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
(
NAAQS).

Subsequently,
EPA
received
11
petitions
for
reconsideration
of
the
final
rule.
Through
Federal
Register
notices
dated
August
24,
2005
and
December
2,
2005,
EPA
previously
initiated
reconsideration
processes
on
five
specific
issues
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
2
in
the
CAIR
and
requested
comment
on
those
issues.
In
this
notice,
EPA
is
announcing
its
decision
to
reconsider
one
additional
specific
issue
in
the
CAIR
and
is
requesting
comment
on
that
issue.

The
specific
issue
addressed
in
today's
notice
relates
to
the
potential
impact
of
a
recent
D.
C.
Circuit
Court
decision,
New
York
v.
EPA,
413
F.
3d
3
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2005),
on
the
highly
cost
effective
analysis
used
in
developing
CAIR.

This
court
decision
vacated
the
pollution
control
project
(
PCP)
exclusion
in
the
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)
regulations
(
the
exclusion
allowed
certain
environmentally
beneficial
PCPs
to
be
excluded
from
certain
NSR
requirements).

The
EPA
is
seeking
comment
only
on
the
aspect
of
the
CAIR
specifically
identified
in
this
notice.
We
will
not
respond
to
comments
addressing
other
provisions
of
the
CAIR
or
any
related
rulemakings.

DATES:
Comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
February
16,

2006.
If
requested,
a
public
hearing
will
be
held
on
January
17,
2006
in
Washington,
D.
C.
For
additional
information
on
a
public
hearing,
see
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section
of
this
preamble.

ADDRESSES:
Submit
your
comments,
identified
by
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2003­
0053,
by
one
of
the
following
methods:

 
www.
regulations.
gov:
Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
3
for
submitting
comments.
Attention
Docket
ID
No.

EPAHQ
OAR­
2003­
0053.

 
Email:
A­
and­
R­
Docket@
epa.
gov.
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2003­
0053.

 
Fax:
The
fax
number
of
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­

1741.
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2003­
0053.

 
Mail:
EPA
Docket
Center,
EPA
West
(
Air
Docket),

Attention
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2003­
0053,

Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Mailcode:
6102T,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460.

 
Hand
Delivery:
EPA
Docket
Center
(
Air
Docket),

Attention
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2003­
0053,

Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Room
B102;
Washington,
D.
C.
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

HQOAR
2003­
0053.
EPA's
policy
is
that
all
comments
received
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
without
change
and
may
be
made
available
online
at
www.
regulations.
gov,
including
any
personal
information
provided,
unless
the
comment
includes
information
claimed
to
be
Confidential
Business
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
4
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
www.
regulations.
gov
or
e­
mail.
The
www.
regulations.
gov
website
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
www.
regulations.
gov
your
e­
mail
address
will
be
automatically
captured
and
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
public
docket
and
made
available
on
the
Internet.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name
and
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment
and
with
any
disk
or
CD­
ROM
you
submit.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.

Electronic
files
should
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters,
any
form
of
encryption,
and
be
free
of
any
defects
or
viruses.
For
additional
information
about
EPA's
public
docket
visit
the
EPA
Docket
Center
homepage
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epahome/
dockets.
htm.
For
additional
instructions
on
submitting
comments,
go
to
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section
of
this
document.
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
5
Docket:
All
documents
in
the
docket
are
listed
in
the
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
www.
regulations.
gov
or
in
hard
copy
at
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
Air
Docket),
EPA/
DC,
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,

excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Public
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
general
questions
concerning
today's
action
as
well
as
questions
concerning
the
analyses
described
in
section
III
of
this
notice,
please
contact
Meg
Victor,
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Atmospheric
Programs,
Clean
Air
Markets
Division,
Mail
Code
6204J,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC,
20460,
telephone
(
202)
343­
9193,
e­
mail
address
victor.
meg@
epa.
gov.
For
legal
questions,
please
contact
Sonja
Rodman,
U.
S.
EPA,

Office
of
General
Counsel,
Mail
Code
2344A,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC,
20460,
telephone
202­
564­
4079,
e­
mail
address
rodman.
sonja@
epa.
gov.
For
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
6
information
concerning
a
public
hearing,
please
contact
Jo
Ann
Allman,
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Air
Quality
Strategies
and
Standards
Division,

Mail
Code
C539­
02,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
phone
number
(
919)
54l­
1815,
e­
mail
address
allman.
joann@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
Does
this
Action
Apply
to
Me?
The
CAIR
does
not
directly
regulate
emissions
sources.
Instead,
it
requires
States
to
develop,
adopt,
and
submit
State
implementation
plan
(
SIP)
revisions
that
would
achieve
the
necessary
SO2
and
NOx
emissions
reductions,
and
leaves
to
the
States
the
task
of
determining
how
to
obtain
those
reductions,

including
which
entities
to
regulate.

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

Note
that
general
instructions
for
submitting
comments
are
provided
above
under
the
ADDRESSES
section.

1.
Submitting
CBI.
Do
not
submit
this
information
to
EPA
through
www.
regulations.
gov
or
e­
mail.
Clearly
mark
the
part
or
all
of
the
information
that
you
claim
to
be
CBI.

For
CBI
information
in
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
EPA,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
claimed
as
CBI.
In
addition
to
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
7
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket.
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
Send
or
deliver
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
following
address:
Roberto
Morales,
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Mail
Code
C404­
02,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
(
919)
541­
0880,
e­
mail
at
morales.
roberto@
epa.
gov,
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2003­
0053.

2.
Tips
for
Preparing
Your
Comments.
When
submitting
comments,
remember
to:

 
Identify
the
rulemaking
by
docket
number
and
other
identifying
information
(
subject
heading,
Federal
Register
date
and
page
number).

 
Follow
directions
­
The
agency
may
ask
you
to
respond
to
specific
questions
or
organize
comments
by
referencing
a
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR)
part
or
section
number.

 
Explain
why
you
agree
or
disagree;
suggest
alternatives
and
substitute
language
for
your
requested
changes.

 
Describe
any
assumptions
and
provide
any
technical
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
8
information
and/
or
data
that
you
used.

 
If
you
estimate
potential
costs
or
burdens,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate
in
sufficient
detail
to
allow
for
it
to
be
reproduced.

 
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns,

and
suggest
alternatives.

 
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible,
avoiding
the
use
of
profanity
or
personal
threats.

 
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
comment
period
deadline
identified.

II.
Public
Hearing.

If
requested,
EPA
will
hold
a
public
hearing
on
today's
notice.
The
EPA
will
hold
a
hearing
only
if
a
party
notifies
EPA
by
January
10,
2006,
expressing
its
interest
in
presenting
oral
testimony
on
issues
addressed
in
today's
notice.
Any
person
may
request
a
hearing
by
calling
Jo
Ann
Allman
at
(
919)
541­
1815
before
5:
00
p.
m.
on
January
10,

2006.
Any
person
who
plans
to
attend
the
hearing
should
visit
the
EPA's
website
at
www.
epa.
gov/
cair
or
contact
Jo
Ann
Allman
at
(
919)
54l­
1815
to
learn
if
a
hearing
will
be
held.

If
a
public
hearing
is
held
on
today's
notice,
it
will
be
held
on
January
17,
2006
at
EPA
Headquarters,
1310
L
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
9
Street
(
closest
cross
street
is
13th
Street),
1st
floor
conference
rooms
152
and
154,
Washington,
D.
C.
The
closest
Metro
stop
is
McPherson
Square
(
Orange
and
Blue
lines)
­­

take
14th
Street/
Franklin
Square
Exit.
Because
the
hearing
will
be
held
at
a
U.
S.
government
facility,
everyone
planning
to
attend
should
be
prepared
to
show
valid
picture
identification
to
the
security
staff
in
order
to
gain
access
to
the
meeting
room.

If
held,
the
public
hearing
will
begin
at
10
a.
m.
and
end
at
2
p.
m.
The
hearing
will
be
limited
to
the
subject
matter
of
this
document.
Oral
testimony
will
be
limited
to
5
minutes.
The
EPA
encourages
commenters
to
provide
written
versions
of
their
oral
testimonies
either
electronically
(
on
computer
disk
or
CD­
ROM)
or
in
paper
copy.
The
public
hearing
schedule,
including
the
list
of
speakers,
will
be
posted
on
EPA's
website
at
www.
epa.
gov/
cair.
Verbatim
transcripts
and
written
statements
will
be
included
in
the
rulemaking
docket.

A
public
hearing
would
provide
interested
parties
the
opportunity
to
present
data,
views,
or
arguments
concerning
issues
addressed
in
today's
notice.
The
EPA
may
ask
clarifying
questions
during
the
oral
presentations,
but
would
not
respond
to
the
presentations
or
comments
at
that
time.
Written
statements
and
supporting
information
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
10
submitted
during
the
comment
period
will
be
considered
with
the
same
weight
as
any
oral
comments
and
supporting
information
presented
at
a
public
hearing.

All
written
comments
must
be
received
by
EPA
on
or
before
February
16,
2006.
Because
of
the
need
to
resolve
the
issues
in
this
document
in
a
timely
manner,
EPA
will
not
grant
requests
for
extensions
of
the
public
comment
period.

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

Outline
I.
Background
II.
Today's
Action
A.
Grant
of
Reconsideration
B.
Schedule
for
Reconsideration
III.
Impact
on
CAIR
Analyses
of
D.
C.
Circuit
Decision
in
New
York
v.
EPA
A.
Background
on
New
York
v.
EPA
and
its
Relationship
to
CAIR
B.
Potential
Impact
of
Collateral
Pollutant
Increases
and
Mitigation
Measures
1.
Increases
in
Sulfuric
Acid
Emissions
from
SCR
Retrofits
2.
Increases
in
Sulfuric
Acid
Emissions
from
Wet
FGD
Retrofits
in
Combination
with
Switching
to
Higher
Sulfur
Coal
3.
Summary
of
Combinations
of
CAIR
SCR
and/
or
FGD
Retrofits
and
Coal
Switches
that
May
Increase
Sulfuric
Acid
Emissions
4.
Technology
Options
Available
for
Mitigating
Sulfuric
Acid
Emission
Increases
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
11
5.
Analysis
of
SO3/
H2SO4
Mitigation
Costs
and
Timing
Impacts
for
CAIR
SCR
and/
or
Wet
FGD
Projects
6.
Increases
in
Carbon
Monoxide
and
Unburned
Carbon
(
Solid
Particulate)
Emissions
from
Combustion
Controls
7.
Increases
in
Direct
PM2.5
Resulting
from
Fugitive
Emissions
from
Storage
or
Handling
of
Lime,
Limestone,
or
FGD
Waste
after
Installation
of
Dry
or
Wet
FGD
8.
Collateral
Air
Pollutant
Emissions
from
Units
Switching
from
High
to
Low
Sulfur
Coals
9.
Summary
of
Section
III.
B.
C.
Potential
Impact
of
PSD/
NSR
Permitting
IV.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks
H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution
or
Use
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
J.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
I.
Background
On
May
12,
2005,
the
EPA
(
Agency
or
we)
promulgated
the
final
"
Rule
to
Reduce
Interstate
Transport
of
Fine
Particulate
Matter
and
Ozone"
(
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
or
CAIR)(
70
FR
25162).
As
explained
in
the
CAIR
preamble
and
summarized
in
our
December
2,
2005
reconsideration
notice
(
70
FR
72268),
CAIR
requires
28
States
and
the
District
of
Columbia
to
revise
their
State
implementation
plans
(
SIPs)

to
include
control
measures
to
reduce
emissions
of
SO2
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
12
and/
or
NOx.
Sulfur
dioxide
is
a
precursor
to
PM2.5
formation
and
NOx
is
a
precursor
to
PM2.5
and
ozone
formation.
By
reducing
upwind
emissions
of
SO2
and
NOx,

CAIR
will
assist
downwind
PM2.5
and
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
in
achieving
the
NAAQS.
As
also
described
in
the
December
2005
reconsideration
notice,
the
CAIR
was
promulgated
through
a
process
that
involved
significant
public
participation
(
70
FR
72271).

Following
publication
of
the
final
CAIR
on
May
12,

2005,
the
Administrator
received
eleven
petitions
requesting
reconsideration
of
certain
aspects
of
the
final
rule.
The
complete
petitions
are
available
in
the
docket
for
the
CAIR.
1
The
petitions
were
filed
pursuant
to
section
307(
d)(
7)(
B)
of
the
CAA.
Under
this
provision,
the
Administrator
is
to
initiate
reconsideration
proceedings
if
1
Petitions
for
reconsideration
were
filed
by:
State
of
North
Carolina
(
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2192);
FPL
Group
(
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2201);
Florida
Association
of
Electric
Utilities
(
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2200);
Entergy
Corporation
(
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2195
and
2198
(
attachment
1));
Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2199);
Integrated
Waste
Services
Association
(
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2193);
Texas
Commission
on
Environmental
Quality
(
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2212);
Northern
Indiana
Public
Service
Corporation
(
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2194
and
2213
(
supplemental
petition));
City
of
Amarillo,
Texas,
El
Paso
Electric
Company,
Occidental
Permian
Ltd,
and
Southwestern
Public
Service
Company
d/
b/
a/
Xcel
Energy
(
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2196
and
2197
(
attachment
1)
and
2205­
2207
(
attachments
2­
4));
Connecticut
Business
and
Industry
Ass'n
(
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2203);
and
Minnesota
Power,
a
division
of
ALLETE.
Inc.
(
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2212).
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
13
the
petitioner
can
show
that
an
objection
is
of
central
relevance
to
the
rule
and
that
it
was
impracticable
to
raise
the
objection
to
the
rule
within
the
public
comment
period
or
that
the
grounds
for
the
objection
arose
after
the
public
comment
period
but
before
the
time
for
judicial
review
had
run.

The
EPA
has
already
initiated
a
reconsideration
process
on
five
specific
aspects
of
the
final
CAIR.
On
August
24,

2005
(
70
FR
49708)
and
on
December
2,
2005
(
70
FR
72268),
we
published
in
the
Federal
Register
notices
announcing
these
decisions
to
reconsider
specific
aspects
of
the
CAIR
and
requesting
comment
on
those
issues.
Today's
notice
announces
EPA's
decision
to
reconsider
one
additional
issue
raised
in
a
petition
for
reconsideration
and
requests
comment
on
that
additional
issue.

By
a
letter
dated
December
20,
2005
we
informed
a
petitioner
of
our
intent
to
grant
reconsideration
on
an
issue
addressed
in
their
petition
for
reconsideration.
We
indicated
in
that
letter
that
we
would
initiate
the
reconsideration
process
by
publishing
this
notice.

II.
Today's
Action
A.
Grant
of
Reconsideration
In
this
notice,
EPA
is
announcing
its
decision
to
grant
reconsideration
on
one
issue
raised
in
the
petitions
for
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
14
reconsideration.
This
notice
initiates
that
reconsideration
process
and
requests
comment
on
the
issue
to
be
addressed.

Given
the
intense
public
interest
in
this
rule,
EPA
has
decided
to
provide
this
additional
opportunity
for
public
comment.
At
this
time,
however,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
any
of
the
information
submitted
to
date
demonstrates
that
EPA's
final
decisions
were
erroneous
or
inappropriate.

Therefore,
we
are
not
proposing
any
modifications
to
the
final
CAIR.

The
issue
on
which
EPA
is
requesting
comment
relates
to
the
potential
impact
of
a
recent
judicial
opinion
on
the
highly
cost­
effective
analysis
prepared
by
EPA
in
developing
the
CAIR.
This
case,
New
York
v.
EPA,
413
F.
3d
3
(
D.
C.
Cir.

2005)
was
decided
on
June
24,
2005
­­
after
the
final
CAIR
was
published
but
before
the
time
for
judicial
review
of
the
rule
had
run.
This
issue
is
described
in
greater
detail
in
Section
III
of
this
notice.

The
EPA
is
requesting
comment
only
on
the
issue
specifically
described
in
Section
III.
We
are
not
taking
comment
on
any
other
provisions
in
the
CAIR
or
otherwise
reopening
any
other
issues
decided
in
the
CAIR
for
reconsideration
or
comment.

B.
Schedule
for
Reconsideration
For
the
issue
addressed
in
this
notice,
EPA
expects
to
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
15
take
final
action
on
reconsideration
by
March
15,
2006.
By
that
date,
EPA
will
finalize
the
process
of
reconsideration
by
issuing
a
final
rule
or
proposing
a
new
approach.
EPA
also
expects,
by
March
15,
2006,
to
issue
decisions
on
all
remaining
issues
raised
in
the
petitions
for
reconsideration.

III.
Impact
on
CAIR
Analyses
of
D.
C.
Circuit
Decision
in
New
York
v.
EPA
A.
Background
on
New
York
v.
EPA
and
its
Relationship
to
CAIR
One
industry
petitioner
claims
that
a
recent
opinion
of
the
D.
C.
Circuit
raises
questions
about
the
sufficiency
of
EPA's
highly
cost­
effective
analysis
prepared
for
the
CAIR.

The
petitioner
argues
that
EPA
should
reconsider
this
analysis
to
take
into
account
the
potential
impact
of
the
decision
in
New
York
v.
EPA,
413
F.
3d
3
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2005).

This
judicial
opinion
was
issued
on
June
24,
2005
­­
after
the
final
CAIR
had
been
promulgated,
but
within
the
60
days
provided
by
CAA
section
307(
b)
for
filing
of
petitions
for
review.
2
Among
other
things,
the
opinion
vacated
a
2
CAA
section
307(
d)(
7)(
B)
provides
that
the
Administrator
shall
convene
a
proceeding
for
reconsideration
if
the
person
raising
an
objection
can
show
that:
it
was
impracticable
to
raise
the
objection
during
the
period
for
public
comment
or
the
grounds
for
the
objection
arose
after
such
period
but
within
the
time
specified
for
judicial
review;
and
the
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
16
provision
of
the
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)
regulations,

commonly
known
as
the
pollution
control
project
(
PCP)

exclusion.
All
pending
petitions
for
rehearing
of
the
case
were
denied
by
the
Court
on
December
9,
2005.
The
EPA's
request
that
the
Court
clarify
its
holding
with
regard
to
any
retroactive
effect
of
its
ruling
on
the
PCP
issue
was
also
denied.
The
Court
determined
that
this
clarification
request
was
premature
because
no
specific
retroactive
application
of
the
provision
was
before
the
Court.
The
time
for
filing
Petitions
for
Certiorari
with
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
has
not
yet
run.
The
analysis
that
follows
looks
at
the
potential
impact
of
the
New
York
v.
EPA
decision.

The
PCP
exclusion
provided
a
mechanism
for
sources
to
exclude
certain
environmentally
beneficial
PCPs
from
the
definition
of
"
major
modification"
under
NSR
even
though
the
PCP
resulted
in
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
in
a
collateral
pollutant
(
e.
g.,
increase
in
NOx
from
flaring
VOCs).
This
exclusion
could
only
apply
if
the
owner
or
operator,
before
beginning
construction
of
the
PCP,
either
provided
notice
to
the
Administrator
(
for
certain
projects
listed
in
the
regulations)
or
submitted
a
permit
application
objection
is
of
central
relevance
to
the
outcome
of
the
rule.
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
17
to
obtain
approval
to
use
the
exclusion.
If
the
exclusion
were
found
not
to
apply,
the
source
would
either
have
to
ensure
that
the
PCP
did
not
result
in
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
in
a
collateral
NSR­
regulated
pollutant
(
and
thus
avoid
NSR
review),
or
apply
for
and
receive
a
NSR
permit
for
the
project.
Petitioner
asks
EPA
to
"
reconsider
whether
EPA's
highly
cost
effective
analyses
[
sic]
continues
to
be
valid
given
the
court's
holding
in
[
New
York
v.
EPA]."

More
specifically,
Petitioner
claims
that
CAIR
sources
will
need
to
go
through
NSR
permitting
and
that
additional
time
will
be
required
for
this
permitting.
Petitioner
does
not
specify
which
projects
it
believes
might
require
NSR
permitting
or
what
collateral
increases
in
NSR­
regulated
pollutants
it
expects.
Petitioner
also
claims
that
additional
time
will
be
necessary
for
NSR
permitting
and
that
therefore
the
compliance
deadlines
of
January
1,
2009
and
2010
are
"
in
jeopardy."
Petitioner,
however,
does
not
ask
EPA
to
reconsider
the
2009
and
2010
compliance
deadlines.
As
noted
above,
this
notice
grants
reconsideration
only
on
the
issue
of
the
impact
of
the
New
York
v.
EPA
decision
on
EPA's
highly
cost
effective
analysis.

In
developing
the
CAIR,
EPA
conducted
extensive
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
18
analyses
to
identify
highly
cost­
effective
SO2
and
NOx
emissions
reductions
based
on
controlling
EGUs.
These
analyses
are
explained
in
the
preamble
to
the
CAIR
(
70
FR
25202­
25212).
The
EPA
has
reviewed
the
petition
for
reconsideration
and
analyzed
the
potential
impact
of
New
York
v.
EPA
on
the
CAIR
cost­
effectiveness
determination
and
timing.
This
analysis
indicates
that
some
EGUs
that
install
SO2
and/
or
NOx
controls
for
CAIR
may
incur
relatively
minor
additional
costs
and
minor
impacts
on
timing
as
a
result
of
New
York
v.
EPA,
but
these
potential
impacts
will
neither
affect
the
highly
cost­
effective
determination
that
the
Agency
made
in
CAIR
nor
impact
the
timeframe
for
CAIR
reductions.
This
analysis
shows
that
sources
will
not
be
forced
to
install
all
PCPs
at
one
time.
Instead,
EPA's
analysis
shows
that
options
exist
that
would
allow
units
to
meet
the
CAIR
deadlines
without
changing
plans
to
stagger
PCP
projects
and
that
the
related
costs
would
not
alter
the
highly
cost
effective
analysis
done
for
the
final
CAIR.
The
EPA
invites
comments
on
this
analysis
and
the
potential
impact
of
the
New
York
v.
EPA
decision
on
EPA's
highly
costeffective
determination.
EPA's
analysis
of
this
issue
is
summarized
below
and
supplemental
information
is
in
the
CAIR
docket.

In
order
to
evaluate
the
petitioner's
claim,
the
Agency
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
19
examined
the
potential
for
collateral
increases
in
NSRregulated
air
pollutants
from
the
types
of
NOx
and
SO2
controls
on
which
EPA
based
its
CAIR
cost­
effectiveness
determination.
3
The
EPA
identified
which
of
these
technologies
could
have
the
potential
to
cause
collateral
increases
in
NSR­
regulated
air
pollutants.
The
EPA
then
analyzed
whether
sources
could
mitigate
any
such
collateral
increases
to
avoid
NSR
review
and
analyzed
the
cost
and
timing
impacts
associated
with
potential
mitigation
measures.
The
EPA
determined
that
projected
collateral
increases
in
NSR­
regulated
pollutants
that
might
be
significant
enough
to
trigger
an
NSR
threshold
could
be
mitigated
by
many
sources
wishing
to
avoid
the
NSR
permitting
process.
However,
some
sources
may
not
be
able
to
ensure
mitigation
of
all
collateral
increases.

Therefore,
the
Agency
also
analyzed
the
impacts
associated
with
NSR
permitting
for
these
NOx
and
SO2
pollution
control
projects.

The
EPA
considered
each
of
the
NOx
and
SO2
control
measures
that
were
included
in
the
CAIR
cost­
effectiveness
determination
and
found
that
the
following
technologies
may
have
the
potential
to
cause
collateral
increases
in
air
3
All
references
to
"
collateral
increases"
in
this
document
refer
to
potential
collateral
increases
in
NSR­
regulated
air
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
20
pollutants
regulated
under
NSR:
combustion
controls,

selective
catalytic
reduction
(
SCR),
flue
gas
desulphurization
(
FGD),
and
fuel
switches
to
low
sulfur
coal.
Many
affected
sources
can
choose
to
implement
measures
to
mitigate
the
potential
collateral
emission
increases
(
thereby
obviating
the
need
to
undertake
NSR
analysis).

The
Agency
determined
that
some
cost
increases
will
result
from
actions
that
sources
may
take
to
mitigate
collateral
increases
that
result
from
CAIR
control
actions;

however
these
impacts
do
not
alter
the
final
highly
cost
effective
determination
made
in
the
final
CAIR.
In
addition,
implementing
these
control
actions
will
not
affect
the
feasibility
of
implementing
the
CAIR
reductions
in
the
required
timeframe.

Further,
if
some
sources
apply
for
an
NSR
permit,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
impacts
of
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD)/
NSR
permitting
will
not
affect
the
CAIR
highly
cost­
effectiveness
determination
or
the
CAIR
timeline.
4
Note
that
in
today's
notice
the
Agency
pollutants.
4
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD)
is
the
part
of
the
NSR
program
that
applies
to
sources
located
in
areas
in
attainment
with
the
NAAQS.
Unless
otherwise
noted,
in
this
notice,
when
we
refer
to
the
NSR
program,
NSR
review,
NSR
permitting
or
other
NSR
requirements,
we
are
referring
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
21
is
not
making
any
determination
or
prediction
regarding
what
the
specific
PSD/
NSR
requirements
might
be
for
such
projects.

The
EPA's
analysis
for
each
of
these
NOx
and
SO2
controls
is
discussed
below
and
in
a
Technical
Support
Document
(
TSD)
available
in
the
docket
entitled
"
Technical
Support
Document:
Impact
on
CAIR
Analyses
of
D.
C.
Circuit
Decision
in
New
York
v.
EPA."

B.
Potential
Impact
of
Collateral
Pollutant
Increases
and
Mitigation
Measures
1.
Increases
in
Sulfuric
Acid
Emissions
from
SCR
Retrofits5
Many
CAIR
units
are
projected
to
install
selective
catalytic
reduction
(
SCR)
to
reduce
NOx
emissions.
The
SCR
catalyst
oxidizes
a
portion
of
the
SO2
present
in
flue
gas
to
SO3.
The
amount
of
SO3
added
to
the
flue
gas
stream
by
SCR
will
be
directly
proportional
to
the
fuel
sulfur
to
both
the
NSR
and
PSD
programs
and
their
respective
requirements.

5
This
SCR
discussion
is
focused
on
the
potential
for
sulfuric
acid
emission
increases
from
SCR
retrofits.
Note
that
SCR
conditions
also
favor
a
reaction
between
SO3
and
ammonia
that
produces
ammonium
bisulfate
which
condenses
to
form
solid
PM,
however
the
majority
of
this
PM
will
be
captured
in
the
particulate
control
device
installed
at
the
unit.
Any
such
increase
in
PM
emissions
would
likely
not
be
significant
enough
to
trigger
NSR
review,
even
when
considered
together
with
the
small
increase
in
PM
emissions
that
could
occur
from
storage
or
handling
lime,
limestone,
or
FGD
waste
(
see
discussion
below).
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
22
content.
(
Note
that
SO2
is
also
oxidized
to
SO3
in
the
boiler
itself.)

Some
SO3
reacts
with
moisture
in
the
flue
gas
to
form
sulfuric
acid
(
H2SO4)
and
exits
the
stack
as
sulfuric
acid
vapor.
The
Agency's
analysis
for
today's
notice
assumes
that
all
sulfuric
acid
emitted
will
be
counted
as
emissions
of
sulfuric
acid
mist
 
an
NSR­
regulated
pollutant.

Sulfuric
acid
mist
is
also
regulated
under
NSR
as
PM2.5
(
a
criteria
pollutant).
Because
PM2.5
is
a
criteria
pollutant,
the
NSR
requirements
vary
depending
on
the
location
of
the
unit
experiencing
the
emission
increase,

i.
e.,
whether
the
unit
is
located
in
a
nonattainment
area.

See
further
discussion
of
the
Agency's
analysis
regarding
permitting
for
these
projects,
below.

Although
SCR
retrofits
can
lead
to
increased
sulfuric
acid
emissions,
for
the
following
reasons
EPA
expects
that
many
units
installing
SCR
for
CAIR
will
not
actually
increase
their
sulfuric
acid
emissions
and
will
therefore
not
incur
any
cost
increase
or
timing
burden
associated
with
collateral
increases
of
sulfuric
acid:

Installing
Both
SCR
and
FGD
Many
CAIR
units
that
are
expected
to
install
SCR
to
reduce
NOx
emissions
also
are
expected
to
install
flue
gas
desulphurization
(
FGD)
to
reduce
SO2
emissions,
and
FGD
is
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
23
also
effective
at
reducing
SO3/
H2SO4
emissions.
The
two
most
common
types
of
FGD
systems
(
on
which
the
Agency's
CAIR
cost­
effectiveness
analysis
was
based)
are
a
lime­
based
spray
dryer
system
(
dry
FGD)
and
a
limestone­
based
wet
FGD
system
(
wet
FGD).
Considering
the
effectiveness
of
FGD
at
mitigating
SO3/
H2SO4
emissions,
the
Agency
expects
that
a
CAIR
unit
installing
SCR
and
FGD
at
the
same
time
would
not
increase
sulfuric
acid
emissions
significantly
enough
to
trigger
NSR.

Note
that
some
units
may
switch
to
a
higher
sulfur
coal
when
they
install
FGD.
The
combination
of
installing
SCR
and
dry
FGD
and
switching
to
high
sulfur
coal
may
not
result
in
increased
sulfuric
acid
because
dry
FGD
is
very
effective
at
mitigating
SO3/
H2SO4.
However,
installation
of
SCR
in
combination
with
wet
FGD
and
a
switch
to
high
sulfur
coal
could
result
in
a
significant
net
increase
in
sulfuric
acid
emissions.

Switching
to
Lower
Sulfur
Coal
with
SCR
Retrofit
Some
CAIR
units
that
burn
high
sulfur
coal
may
also
choose
to
switch
to
lower
sulfur
coal
when
installing
SCR.

For
units
switching
from
high
to
low
sulfur
coal
and
installing
SCR,
there
would
likely
be
no
net
increase
in
sulfuric
acid
emissions.

Ceasing
to
Inject
SO3
with
SCR
Retrofit
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
24
Many
CAIR
units
have
cold­
side
electrostatic
precipitators
(
ESP)
in
place
to
control
particulate
matter
emissions.
These
control
devices
perform
better
with
SO3
present
in
the
flue
gas.
Some
units
that
have
previously
switched
from
higher­
to
lower­
sulfur
coal
use
injected
SO3
to
bring
the
cold­
side
ESP
performance
back
up.
If
such
a
unit
installs
SCR
for
CAIR,
then
the
increased
SO3
from
the
SCR
would
lessen
or
obviate
the
need
for
SO3
injection,
and
without
the
SO3
injection
there
may
be
no
net
increase
in
sulfuric
acid
emissions.

2.
Increases
in
Sulfuric
Acid
Emissions
from
Wet
FGD
Retrofits
in
Combination
with
Switching
to
Higher
Sulfur
Coal
Many
CAIR
units
are
projected
to
install
FGD
to
reduce
SO2
emissions.
As
discussed
above,
operation
of
dry
or
wet
FGD
reduces
SO3/
H2SO4
emissions.
However,
some
units
installing
FGD
for
CAIR
may
choose
to
switch
to
a
higher
sulfur
coal
at
the
time
they
install
FGD.
Dry
FGD
reduces
SO3/
H2SO4
sufficiently
to
most
likely
mitigate
any
increase
from
the
higher
sulfur
coal.
Considering
the
lower
SO3/
H2SO4
removal
efficiency
of
wet
FGD,
however,
the
potential
exists
for
sulfuric
acid
emissions
to
increase
from
units
that
install
wet
FGD
and
switch
to
higher
sulfur
coal.
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
25
3.
Summary
of
Combinations
of
CAIR
SCR
and/
or
FGD
Retrofits
and
Coal
Switches
that
May
Increase
Sulfuric
Acid
Emissions
The
following
table
summarizes
combinations
of
SCR
and/
or
FGD
control
retrofits
and
coal
switches
that
may
occur
as
a
result
of
CAIR,
and
identifies
which
of
these
combinations
could
lead
to
increases
in
sulfuric
acid
emissions
significant
enough
to
trigger
the
NSR
threshold.

Table
III­
1.
Combinations
of
CAIR
SCR
and/
or
FGD
and
Coal
Switches
that
May
Increase
Sulfuric
Acid
Emissions
Combinations
of
SCR
and/
or
FGD
and
Coal
Switches
Increase
in
Sulfuric
Acid
Emissions?
Install
SCR
Possible
Install
SCR
and
switch
from
high
to
low
sulfur
coal
No
Install
SCR
with
wet
FGD
(
no
coal
switch)
No
Install
SCR
with
wet
FGD
and
switch
to
higher
sulfur
coal
Possible
Install
wet
FGD
(
no
coal
switch)
No
Install
wet
FGD
and
switch
to
higher
sulfur
coal
Possible
Install
SCR
and
dry
FGD
No
Install
dry
FGD
No
4.
Technology
Options
Available
for
Mitigating
Sulfuric
Acid
Emission
Increases
Several
technology
options
are
available
for
mitigating
sulfuric
acid
emission
increases
from
CAIR
retrofit
projects.
These
include:

 
Injecting
alkali
materials
into
the
furnace;

 
Injecting
alkali
postfurnace;

 
Injecting
ammonia;
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
26
 
Fuel
switching
(
e.
g.,
firing
lower
sulfur
coal);

 
Selecting
specialized
SCR
catalyst
with
a
low
SO3
conversion
rate;

 
Installing
wet
ESP;
and
 
Installing
FGD.

The
Agency
anticipates
that
some
CAIR
sources
may
choose
to
install
emerging
multipollutant
control
technologies
designed
to
reduce
not
only
SO2
and
NOx
but
SO3
and
other
pollutants
as
well.
Generally,
sources
choosing
to
employ
such
technologies
would
do
so
if
they
found
it
to
be
economical.
Although
EPA
does
not
endorse
the
purchase
or
sale
of
any
specific
products
and
services
mentioned,

example
multipollutant
technologies
include:

 
Powerspan
ECO
Technology;
and
 
Mobotec
USA
Inc.
ROTAMIX
System.

5.
Analysis
of
SO3/
H2SO4
Mitigation
Costs
and
Timing
Impacts
for
CAIR
SCR
and/
or
Wet
FGD
Projects
Cost
Modeling
for
SO3/
H2SO4
Controls
The
Agency
used
the
Integrated
Planning
Model
(
IPM)
6
to
6
The
IPM
is
a
multiregional,
dynamic,
deterministic
linear
programming
model
of
the
U.
S.
electric
power
sector.
The
Agency
uses
IPM
to
examine
costs
and,
more
broadly,
analyze
the
projected
impact
of
environmental
polices
on
the
electric
power
sector
in
the
48
contiguous
States
and
the
District
of
Columbia.
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
27
provide
an
upper­
end
estimate
of
the
possible
cost
impacts
for
CAIR
units
that
may
install
SO3/
H2SO4
controls.
The
EPA
does
not
believe
this
analysis
provides
a
true
estimate
of
the
costs
to
CAIR
units
of
the
NY
v.
EPA
decision.
Instead,

EPA
believes
this
analysis
significantly
overstates
the
potential
costs.
However
because,
this
analysis
shows
that
even
when
the
costs
are
significantly
overestimated
they
do
not
impact
the
analyses
done
for
the
final
CAIR,
EPA
determined
that
a
more
refined
analysis
was
not
necessary
to
address
petitioner's
concerns.

The
EPA
believes
this
analysis
overstates
the
likely
true
cost
impact
because,
as
explained
below,
it
relies
on
several
conservative
assumptions.
For
example,
we
assumed
that
every
unit
that
is
projected
to
install
SCR
and/
or
wet
FGD
will
incur
increased
costs
for
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation.

Our
cost
analysis
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
each
unit
that
retrofits
SCR
and/
or
wet
FGD
will
install
wet
ESPs
for
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation.
7
The
Agency
believes
that
the
choice
of
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation
method
would
depend
greatly
on
the
specifics
of
the
affected
sources,
thus
it
is
difficult
to
predict
control
choices.
For
this
cost
7
Although
the
Agency
based
this
analysis
on
installation
of
wet
ESP,
the
Agency
is
not
making
any
determination
or
prediction
regarding
what
the
specific
PSD/
NSR
requirements
might
be
for
these
projects.
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
28
analysis,
EPA
chose
to
model
costs
based
on
wet
ESP
because
we
believe
the
costs
of
this
technology
are
representative
of
the
costs
of
technologies
that
sources
might
choose
to
install.

The
EPA
performed
an
IPM
sensitivity
analysis
in
which
we
added
costs
for
wet
ESP
to
every
unit
that
installs
SCR
and/
or
wet
FGD.
We
based
this
sensitivity
analysis
on
the
IPM
model
run
that
includes
the
CAIR,
Clean
Air
Mercury
Rule
(
CAMR)
and
Clean
Air
Visibility
Rule
(
CAVR)
requirements.

Note
that
the
IPM
modeling
for
the
final
CAIR
highly
costeffectiveness
determination
does
not
include
the
CAMR
and
CAVR
requirements.
However,
the
Agency
subsequently
conducted
IPM
modeling
that
reflects
CAIR,
CAMR
and
CAVR.

The
IPM
analysis
discussed
in
today's
notice
(
which
examines
the
possible
cost
impacts
of
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation)
is
based
on
the
modeling
that
includes
CAIR,
CAMR
and
CAVR
because
that
modeling
best
reflects
current
requirements.
8
8
The
two
model
runs
(
the
final
CAIR
modeling
or
the
subsequent
modeling
with
CAMR
and
CAVR)
use
the
same
underlying
base
case
assumptions
in
the
same
modeling
platform.
In
other
words,
the
two
runs
are
based
on
identical
assumptions
for
parameters
such
as
(
this
is
not
an
exhaustive
list):
EGU
inventory,
fuel
prices,
impacts
of
the
national
title
IV
SO2
program,
NOx
SIP
program,
Statespecific
programs,
and
NSR
settlements.
Note
that
projected
marginal
costs
for
CAIR
SO2
and
NOx
reductions
are
about
$
100
per
ton
less
in
the
CAIR/
CAMR/
CAVR
modeling
than
in
the
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
29
As
noted
above,
this
modeling
­­
the
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation
IPM
sensitivity
modeling
­­
overstates
the
possible
cost
impacts
to
CAIR
units
for
several
reasons.

The
IPM
sensitivity
added
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation
costs
to
every
unit
projected
to
retrofit
SCR
and/
or
wet
FGD.

However,
as
discussed
above,
only
the
following
three
combinations
of
CAIR
SCR
and/
or
wet
FGD
retrofits
might
increase
sulfuric
acid
emissions
significantly
to
trigger
the
NSR
threshold:
units
installing
SCR
alone
(
without
switching
to
lower
sulfur
coal);
units
installing
SCR
with
wet
FGD
and
switching
to
higher
sulfur
coal;
and,
units
installing
wet
FGD
alone
and
switching
to
higher
sulfur
coal.
(
Based
on
EPA's
IPM
modeling,
for
the
first
and
second
CAIR
phases,
respectively,
only
16
percent
and
11
percent
of
total
CAIR­
affected
generating
capacity
(
i.
e.,

capacity
of
units
in
CAIR
States
with
capacity
greater
than
25
MW)
are
projected
to
retrofit
in
any
of
these
three
combinations
that
might
increase
sulfuric
acid
emissions
significantly
to
trigger
the
NSR
threshold.)

Also,
it
is
possible
that
units
that
inject
SO3
to
improve
cold­
side
ESP
performance
would
cease
injecting
SO3
after
installing
SCR
which
could
result
in
the
net
SO3
final
CAIR
modeling,
due
to
interactions
between
the
three
programs.
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
30
increase
being
insufficient
to
trigger
NSR
(
as
discussed
above),
however
the
Agency's
IPM
sensitivity
does
not
take
into
account
this
possibility.

Additionally,
the
IPM
sensitivity
model
run
overstates
the
cost
impacts
to
CAIR
units
because
that
modeling
added
SO3/
sulfuric
acid
mitigation
costs
for
all
units
retrofitting
SCR
and/
or
wet
FGD,
including
retrofits
that
are
projected
to
occur
prior
to
commencement
of
CAIR
retrofits
(
the
Agency
assumes
that
retrofits
occurring
prior
to
2007
do
not
result
from
CAIR,
but
rather
from
existing
programs
such
as
the
title
IV
SO2
program
and
the
NOx
SIP
Call,
however
the
IPM
modeling
does
not
account
for
this
distinction).
Further,
our
analysis
overstates
the
cost
impacts
to
CAIR
units
because
the
modeling
includes
retrofits
that
occur
in
the
base
case
(
without
CAIR)
and
also
includes
the
CAMR
and
CAVR
requirements.

Further,
in
the
IPM
sensitivity
analysis
we
assumed
units
would
incur
costs
for
year­
round
operation
of
wet
ESP
in
all
CAIR
States,
including
the
States
that
are
only
required
to
make
ozone
season
NOx
reductions
for
CAIR.

Finally,
the
IPM
sensitivity
run
overstates
the
cost
impacts
because
we
added
costs
for
wet
ESP
to
each
affected
unit
although
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation
options
are
available
that
are
less
expensive
than
wet
ESP.
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
31
Nonetheless,
the
Agency's
cost
analysis
assumed
that
every
unit
that
is
predicted
to
install
SCR
and/
or
wet
FGD
in
the
CAIR/
CAMR/
CAVR
modeling
will
incur
additional
costs
for
year­
round
operation
of
a
wet
ESP,
in
order
to
provide
an
upper­
end
estimate
of
the
possible
cost
impacts
of
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation.

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

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

9
As
in
the
CAIR
NFR
(
70
FR
25198),
the
Agency
reports
cost
effectiveness
results
for
both
of
the
CAIR
phases
although
the
Phase
I
CAIR
control
levels
were
determined
based
on
feasibility
rather
than
cost
effectiveness.
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
32
As
shown
in
Table
III­
2,
projected
SO2
marginal
costs
in
the
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation
sensitivity
modeling
are
lower
than
the
SO2
marginal
costs
in
the
final
CAIR
modeling
for
2015
and
are
about
the
same
as
the
costs
in
the
final
CAIR
for
2010.
This
does
not
imply
that
the
added
costs
of
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation
are
so
small
as
to
have
no
effect
on
the
marginal
costs
of
SO2
reduction.
Rather,
the
added
costs
of
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation
increase
the
SO2
marginal
cost
from
the
level
in
the
CAIR/
CAMR/
CAVR
run
a
small
amount.
As
explained
above,
marginal
cost
levels
in
CAIR/
CAMR/
CAVR
modeling
are
lower
than
costs
in
the
modeling
in
the
CAIR
final
rulemaking.
In
the
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation
sensitivity
analysis,
the
2010
cost
is
increased
to
about
the
level
in
the
final
CAIR
modeling,
and
the
2015
cost
increase
is
small
enough
that
it
is
not
apparent
when
the
costs
are
rounded
to
the
nearest
hundred
dollars.
Including
the
added
costs
of
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation,
the
projected
marginal
costs
of
SO2
reduction
under
CAIR
remain
at
the
lower
end
of
the
reference
range
of
marginal
costs
cited
in
the
Agency's
CAIR
cost­
effectiveness
determination.
The
range
of
marginal
costs
cited
in
CAIR
is
$
600
to
$
2,200
per
ton
of
SO2
removed
(
70
FR
25201­
25204).

As
shown
in
Table
III­
2,
projected
NOx
marginal
costs
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
33
in
the
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation
sensitivity
are
higher
than
the
costs
in
the
final
CAIR
modeling.
However,
including
the
added
costs
of
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation,
the
projected
NOx
marginal
costs
remain
at
the
lower
end
of
the
reference
range
of
marginal
costs
cited
in
the
Agency's
costeffectiveness
determination.
The
range
of
marginal
costs
cited
in
CAIR
is
$
2,000
to
$
19,600
per
ton
of
annual
NOx
removed
(
70
FR
25208­
25210).

For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
the
Agency's
analysis
likely
overstates
the
cost
impacts
of
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation.

Nonetheless,
even
with
these
projected
cost
impacts,
the
marginal
costs
remain
at
the
low
end
of
the
range
of
costs
cited
in
the
final
CAIR
highly
cost­
effectiveness
determination
(
70
FR
25201­
25204,
25208­
25210).
Thus,
that
determination
is
not
affected
by
the
possible
costs
that
may
be
incurred
by
units
installing
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation
technologies.
The
Agency
believes
that
average
costs
of
SO2
and
NOx
control
also
would
not
increase
significantly
enough
to
impact
the
CAIR
cost­
effectiveness
determination,
because
the
projected
marginal
costs
do
not
increase
enough
to
impact
the
CAIR
analysis.

The
Agency
discusses
below
its
evaluation
of
the
feasibility
of
installing
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation
measures,
and
the
impacts
of
NSR
analysis.
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
34
Feasibility
and
Timing
Analysis
In
its
CAIR
analysis,
the
Agency
evaluated
the
feasibility
of
installing
projected
SO2
and
NOx
control
retrofits
in
the
CAIR
timeframe.
In
particular,
EPA
examined
the
availability
of
boilermaker
labor
to
install
retrofits
during
the
period
when
the
CAIR
retrofits
will
occur
and
determined
that
sufficient
labor
will
be
available
(
70
FR
25215­
25225).
The
Agency's
CAIR
analysis
was
discussed
in
detail
in
a
TSD
entitled
"
Boilermaker
Labor
and
Installation
Timing
Analysis,"
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2092
("
final
CAIR
boilermaker
TSD").

The
Agency
has
evaluated
the
potential
impacts
on
the
CAIR
timeline
from
installation
of
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation
technologies.
Specifically,
we
examined
the
impact
of
installing
wet
ESP
on
the
availability
of
boilermaker
labor
during
the
time
when
control
retrofits
will
be
installed
for
the
two
CAIR
phases.
The
EPA's
analysis
assumed
that
units
that
might
experience
sulfuric
acid
emission
increases
greater
than
the
NSR
threshold
while
incorporating
NOx
and/
or
SO2
controls
for
CAIR
would
choose
to
install
wet
ESP,
which
is
a
conservative
assumption
because
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation
measures
are
available
that
would
require
less
boilermaker
labor
than
wet
ESP.
For
this
boilermaker
labor
analysis,
the
Agency
used
the
identical
assumptions
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
35
regarding
boilermaker
availability
factors
(
i.
e.,

boilermaker
sources,
population,
average
annual
work
hours,

activity
periods,
and
duty
rates)
that
we
used
in
the
boilermaker
analysis
for
the
final
CAIR.
These
factors
are
defined
in
the
final
CAIR
boilermaker
TSD.

For
today's
notice,
the
Agency
based
its
boilermaker
analysis
on
the
generating
capacity
that
is
projected
to
install
NOx
and
SO2
controls
that
may
increase
sulfuric
acid
emissions
(
the
three
combinations
of
SCR
and/
or
wet
FGD
retrofits
and
coal
switches
identified
in
Table
III­
1).
The
EPA
examined
the
capacity
of
retrofits
that
are
projected
to
occur
during
the
time
period
when
CAIR
retrofits
would
occur
for
the
two
CAIR
phases
(
i.
e.,
during
the
years
2007
through
2015
inclusive).
This
analysis
includes
retrofits
projected
to
occur
as
result
of
the
CAIR,
CAMR
and
CAVR
policies
as
well
as
retrofits
for
base
case
policies
(
i.
e.,
retrofits
for
existing
regulatory
requirements
such
as
the
title
IV
SO2
program
and
the
NOx
SIP
Call)
because
some
base
case
retrofits
will
occur
during
the
time
period
2007
through
2015.

In
its
analysis
for
the
final
CAIR,
the
Agency
determined
that
adequate
boilermaker
labor
would
be
available
to
complete
the
CAIR
NOx
and
SO2
control
retrofits
in
the
CAIR
timeline,
with
sufficient
contingency
factors
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
36
available
to
offset
possible
additional
labor
needs
due
to
unforeseen
events.
In
the
final
CAIR,
EPA
considered
a
number
of
scenarios
that
included
different
assumptions
for
boilermaker
duty
rates
(
i.
e.,
boilermakers
required
to
install
control
equipment),
electricity
demand
and
gas
prices.
In
the
most
conservative
scenario
analyzed,
EPA
determined
that
there
would
be
a
14
percent
boilermaker
labor
contingency.

The
revised
boilermaker
labor
analysis
that
the
Agency
conducted
for
today's
notice,
which
takes
into
account
boilermaker
labor
required
to
install
wet
ESP,
indicates
that
adequate
boilermaker
labor
will
be
available
even
considering
the
additional
boilermakers
that
may
be
needed
to
install
the
wet
ESP.
Considering
the
same
assumptions
that
yielded
a
14
percent
contingency
in
the
final
CAIR
along
with
additional
boilermakers
needed
to
install
wet
ESPs,
EPA
determined
that
there
would
be
a
4
percent
contingency.
10
This
analysis
is
conservative
in
that
it
assumes
that
in
all
cases
where
companies
install
equipment
10
The
boilermaker
duty
rates
used
for
this
case
were
provided
by
a
commenter,
were
well
above
the
levels
determined
to
be
appropriate
in
a
detailed
study
conducted
by
EPA,
and,
based
on
EPA's
investigations,
reflected
the
worst­
case
assumptions
for
the
boilermaker
labor
requirements
associated
with
building
air
pollution
controls.
If
the
boilermaker
requirements
are
estimated
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
37
to
mitigate
SO3/
H2SO4
increases,
they
install
wet
ESPs,

which
use
more
boiler­
makers
than
other
options
such
as
sorbent
injection.
The
remaining
contingency
factors
are
still
adequate
(
although
reduced).
Thus,
the
NOx
and
SO2
control
retrofits
projected
to
be
installed
for
CAIR
can
be
completed
in
the
available
time,
even
considering
the
potential
additional
labor
needs
for
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation.

Note
that
any
SO3/
H2SO4
controls
for
CAIR
projects
will
be
retrofit
concurrently
with
the
SO2
and
NOx
retrofits,
and
no
additional
time
would
be
needed.
See
further
discussion
of
timing
in
the
permitting
section,
below.

Details
of
EPA's
revised
boilermaker
labor
analysis
are
in
a
TSD
in
the
docket
entitled
"
Impact
on
CAIR
Analyses
of
D.
C.
Circuit
Decision
in
New
York
v.
EPA."

The
Agency
believes
that
the
impacts
of
mitigating
the
potential
emission
increases,
or
undertaking
PSD/
NSR
review
for
these
units,
are
not
substantial
enough
to
alter
the
CAIR
highly
cost­
effective
determination
or
the
feasibility
and
timing
analysis.
Implications
of
NSR
analysis
for
such
units
are
discussed
further
below.

6.
Increases
in
Carbon
Monoxide
and
Unburned
Carbon
(
Solid
Particulate)
Emissions
from
Combustion
Controls
using
EPA's
boilermaker
duty
factors,
the
available
contingency
factor
would
be
higher.
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
38
Combustion
controls
that
may
be
installed
for
CAIR
to
reduce
NOx
emissions
include
low
NOx
burners
(
LNB)
and
overfire
air
(
OFA).
Both
LNB
and
OFA
reduce
NOx
generation
rates
by
changing
the
combustion
process.
Either
one
or
both
technologies
may
be
installed
on
a
generating
unit
to
control
NOx
emissions.
Depending
on
the
boiler
design,

these
changes
may
result
in
an
increase
in
emissions
of
carbon
monoxide
(
CO)
and
unburned
carbon
(
solid
particulate),
although
the
potential
for
increases
significant
enough
to
trigger
the
NSR
threshold
exists
only
with
the
use
of
OFA
(
because
LNB
does
not
affect
the
combustion
process
extensively).

These
emissions
increases
can
be
minimized
by
using
more
modern
control
designs
and
techniques.
11,12,13
These
increases
can
also
be
minimized
by
using
less­
aggressive
OFA
11
T.
Steitz,
et
al.,"
Wall
Fired
Low
NOx
Burner
Evolution
for
Global
NOx
Compliance,"
Foster
Wheeler
Website,
http://
www.
fwc.
com/
publications/
tech_
papers/
index.
cfm#
149054
67952D7FCAFC2A5B206EAE10F0,
website
accessed
on
September
30,
2005.

12
K.
McCarthy,
et
al.,
"
Improved
Low
NOx
Firing
Systems
for
Pulverized
Coal
Combustion,"
Foster
Wheeler
Website,
http://
www.
fwc.
com/
publications/
tech_
papers/
index.
cfm#
149054
67952D7FCAFC2A5B206EAE10F0,
website
accessed
on
September
30,
2005.

13
"
Reducing
Emissions
of
Nitrogen
Oxides
Via
Low­
NOx
Burner
Technologies,"
Clean
Coal
Technology,
The
Department
of
Energy,
Topical
Report
No.
5,
September
1996.
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
39
flow
rates.
14
The
NOx
removal
efficiencies
for
combustion
controls
assumed
in
EPA's
CAIR
analysis
are
not
aggressive.
15
The
Agency
believes
that
units
projected
to
install
combustion
controls
can
opt
for
moderate
levels
of
OFA
flow
rates
and
still
achieve
the
NOx
reduction
levels
projected
in
our
CAIR
analysis,
without
causing
significant
increases
in
CO
and
unburned
carbon
emissions.
Therefore,

given
the
conservative
removal
efficiency
assumptions
in
EPA's
original
analysis,
there
would
be
no
additional
significant
costs
associated
with
mitigating
CO
emissions
to
avoid
NSR
when
combustion
controls
are
added.

Certain
affected
CAIR
sources
are
projected
to
install
both
combustion
controls
and
SCR.
These
sources
have
the
option
to
use
combustion
control
designs
ensuring
minimal
CO
and
unburned
carbon
impacts,
with
SCR
compensating
for
the
possible
reduced
performance
of
combustion
controls.

Considering
the
potential
of
SCR
technology
to
provide
90
percent
NOx
reduction
with
a
minimum
NOx
rate
of
0.06
14
A.
Kokkinos,
et
al.,
"
B&
W's
Experience
Reducing
NOx
Emissions
in
Tangentially­
Fired
Boilers
 
2001
Update,"
Power­
Gen
International
2001,
December
11­
13,
2001,
Las
Vegas,
Nevada
15
The
NOx
removal
efficiency
for
each
type
of
combustion
control
used
in
EPA's
analysis
for
CAIR
was
estimated
as
an
average
of
the
reported
efficiencies
for
a
large
number
of
units
equipped
with
these
controls.
In
a
unit
equipped
with
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
40
lb/
MMBtu,
most
of
these
sources
would
be
able
to
use
this
strategy
and
avoid
use
of
aggressive
combustion
control
designs.

The
affected
CAIR
sources
also
have
the
option
to
use
an
advanced
OFA
system
with
the
potential
to
achieve
high
NOx
reduction
levels,
with
no
increases
in
CO
and
unburned
carbon
levels.
This
technology
utilizes
rotating
opposed
fire
air
(
ROFA)
and
has
been
installed
or
demonstrated
at
several
plants
worldwide.
16
The
Agency
believes
that
there
will
be
no
increase
in
cost
to
CAIR
units
for
using
good
combustion
practices
to
mitigate
CO
and
unburned
carbon
increases,
because
industry
generally
uses
such
practices
already.
Implementation
of
these
practices
would
not
affect
the
Agency's
CAIR
highly
cost­
effectiveness
determination
or
the
feasibility
and
timing
analysis.

In
addition,
the
implications
of
NSR
analysis
for
such
units
are
relatively
minor,
as
discussed
further
below.

The
Agency
believes
that
the
impacts
of
either
mitigating
the
potential
emission
increases,
or
undertaking
PSD/
NSR
review
for
these
units,
are
not
substantial
enough
to
affect
the
CAIR
highly
cost­
effective
determination
or
both
LNB
and
OFA,
LNB
provides
a
greater
part
of
the
overall
NOx
removal.
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
41
the
feasibility
and
timing
analysis.
Implications
of
NSR
analysis
for
such
units
are
discussed
further
below.

7.
Increases
in
Direct
PM2.5
Resulting
from
Fugitive
Emissions
from
Storage
or
Handling
of
Lime,
Limestone,
or
FGD
Waste
after
Installation
of
Dry
or
Wet
FGD
As
discussed
above,
dry
and
wet
FGD
are
effective
SO3/
H2SO4
mitigation
options.
A
separate
consideration,

however,
is
the
potential
for
increased
emissions
of
direct
PM
(
including
PM2.5)
resulting
from
the
storage
and
handling
of
lime
or
limestone
for
the
FGD
and
from
hauling
FGD
waste.

The
EPA
believes
that
operation
of
FGD
will
not
result
in
significant
increases
of
emissions
of
direct
PM
(
including
PM2.5).
Fugitive
PM
emissions
resulting
from
the
storage
and
handling
of
lime
or
limestone
and
from
waste
hauling
associated
with
FGD
operation
are
minimal
since
most
lime
and
limestone
will
be
stored
in
covered
structures
with
particulate
controls,
lime
and
limestone
will
be
transported
in
covered
vehicles,
and
particulate
emissions
mitigation
techniques,
including
spraying
near
storage
areas,
hauling
roads,
and
waste
hauling
trucks,
will
be
employed.
Fugitive
emissions
could
result
from
dust
recirculation
due
to
truck
hauling,
but
these
emissions
are
also
not
significant
enough
to
trigger
NSR.

16
MOBOTECUSA
website,
http://
www.
mobotecusa.
com/
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
42
The
Agency
believes
that
the
impacts
of
either
mitigating
these
small
potential
emission
increases,
or
undertaking
PSD/
NSR
review
for
these
units,
are
not
substantial
enough
to
affect
the
CAIR
highly
cost­
effective
determination
or
the
feasibility
and
timing
analysis.

8.
Collateral
Air
Pollutant
Emissions
from
Units
Switching
from
High
to
Low
Sulfur
Coals
A
switch
from
high­
to
low­
sulfur
coals
is
an
option
projected
to
be
used
by
certain
CAIR
sources
for
SO2
control.
In
some
cases,
modifications
to
the
existing
equipment
may
become
necessary
to
maintain
compatibility
with
the
boiler
and
associated
systems.
One
of
the
more
common
modifications
required
is
the
need
to
restore
the
existing
ESP
performance,
which
may
be
degraded
due
to
the
high­
resistivity
ash
generated
from
firing
of
low­
sulfur
coals
(
if
ESP
performance
is
not
restored,
emissions
of
PM
might
increase).
In
general,
use
of
a
flue
gas
conditioning
system
fully
restores
the
ESP
performance
to
levels
obtained
from
firing
of
high­
sulfur
coals.

The
impact
of
coal
switching
on
the
existing
plant
equipment
would
vary
with
the
amount
of
switch.
For
example,
if
only
a
portion
of
the
existing
high­
sulfur
coal
is
replaced
with
the
new
low­
sulfur
coal,
the
impact
may
be
minimal.
Also,
use
of
certain
types
of
low­
sulfur
coals
may
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
43
even
have
a
beneficial
impact
on
some
of
the
PSD/

NSRregulated
pollutants.
For
example,
use
of
western
subbituminous
coals
may
result
in
a
reduction
in
the
CO
and
unburned
carbon
levels,
because
of
the
high
volatile
contents
of
such
coals.

In
the
CAIR
analysis,
EPA
assumed
that
the
sources
opting
to
switch
to
low­
sulfur
coal
would
either
select
compatible
coals
or
provide
modifications
where
required
to
avoid
any
adverse
impacts
on
their
boilers,
including
minimization
of
any
increases
in
air
emissions.
The
EPA
included
costs
for
such
modifications
in
its
estimates
for
the
CAIR
implementation,
which
were
based
on
the
coal
switch
experience
for
the
power
industry.
Therefore,
no
further
analysis
is
necessary.

9.
Summary
of
Section
III.
B.

EPA's
IPM
modeling
predicts
that
some
CAIR
units
will
add
controls
with
the
potential
to
increase
collateral
emissions
of
NSR­
regulated
pollutants.
However,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
for
each
of
the
NOx
and
SO2
controls
on
which
EPA
based
its
CAIR
highly
cost­
effectiveness
determination,
there
are
technology
options
available
to
mitigate
potential
collateral
increases
of
NSR
regulated
pollutants
such
that
many
sources,
looking
to
comply
with
the
CAIR
requirements,
would
not
trigger
NSR
review
for
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
44
potential
collateral
increases
(
however,
some
sources
may
not
be
able
to
ensure
mitigation
of
all
collateral
increases).
Further,
although
some
additional
cost
may
be
associated
with
mitigation
measures,
EPA's
analysis
showed
that
these
costs
do
not
change
the
conclusions
of
EPA's
highly
cost­
effectiveness
determination.
In
addition,

implementing
these
mitigation
measures
will
not
affect
the
feasibility
of
implementing
the
CAIR
reductions
in
the
required
timeframe.

C.
Potential
Impact
of
PSD/
NSR
Permitting
Although
the
above
analysis
shows
that
sources
installing
controls
for
CAIR
generally
will
have
options
to
avoid
triggering
NSR
review
for
potential
collateral
increases,
EPA
also
analyzed
the
potential
impact
on
its
CAIR
analyses
of
sources
whose
projects
could
result
in
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
despite
mitigative
measures
that
might
be
taken,
and
must
therefore
apply
for
and
obtain
the
necessary
NSR
permits
to
address
such
increase.
Accordingly,
EPA
analyzed
whether
sources
undergoing
NSR
permitting
would
have
adequate
time
to
obtain
the
preconstruction
permit
and
whether
any
controls
required
would
impact
EPA's
highly
cost­
effective
analysis
done
for
CAIR.
The
Agency
intends
to
work
with
the
States
to
quickly
resolve
any
questions
regarding
permitting
of
CAIR
pollution
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
45
control
projects,
and
will
provide
technical
assistance
when
requested
to
facilitate
permitting.

In
its
analysis
for
the
final
CAIR,
the
Agency
assumed
that
affected
sources
would
have
about
22
months
available
for
preconstruction
activities
(
e.
g.,
permitting,
planning,

conceptual
design,
engineering,
financing,
and
procurement)

for
the
first
phase
of
CAIR
control
retrofits.
The
22
months
is
based
on
the
time
from
the
CAIR
promulgation
date
(
March
10,
2005)
until
about
4
months
after
the
SIP
submission
date
(
about
mid­
January
2007)
17.
The
New
York
v.

EPA
judicial
decision
was
issued
on
June
24,
2005.
As
a
result
of
that
decision,
either
CAIR
sources
will
need
to
mitigate
emissions
through
one
of
the
various
options
discussed
above,
or
they
may
choose
to
apply
for
NSR
permits.
Sources
that
elect
to
obtain
NSR
permits
then
would
have
almost
19
months
for
PSD/
NSR
review
for
the
first
CAIR
phase
(
from
the
date
of
the
New
York
v.
EPA
decision
until
about
mid­
January
2007).
The
Agency
believes
that
this
is
adequate
time
to
perform
PSD/
NSR
review,
as
explained
further
below,
thus
the
CAIR
timeline
would
not
be
impacted.

In
the
CAIR,
the
Agency
determined
highly
cost
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
46
effective
amounts
of
emission
reductions
based
on
modeled
costs
of
SO2
and
NOx
mitigation,
using
IPM.
The
IPM
cost
modeling
used
in
EPA's
analysis
reflects
the
capital
and
operations
and
maintenance
costs
of
control
technologies.

The
modeling
does
not
include
costs
associated
with
permitting.
Because
EPA's
highly
cost
effectiveness
determination
is
based
on
cost
modeling
that
does
not
reflect
permitting
costs,
it
would
not
be
appropriate
to
reevaluate
the
cost
effectiveness
determination
to
reflect
permitting
costs
that
may
be
incurred
as
a
result
of
the
New
York
v.
EPA
decision.
Such
permitting
costs
are
not
relevant
to
the
CAIR
highly
cost
effective
determination.

In
any
case,
permitting
costs
associated
with
complying
with
the
NSR
program
are
accounted
for
in
analyses
for
that
program.
Although
permitting
costs
associated
with
NSR
are
not
relevant
to
the
EPA
highly
cost
effectiveness
determination,
the
Agency
has
examined
possible
differences
in
the
permitting
burden
that
may
result
from
New
York
v.

EPA
and
believes
that
the
burden
associated
with
undergoing
PSD/
NSR
review
is
comparable
to
the
burden
to
which
a
source
requesting
a
PCP
exclusion
would
have
been
subject,
as
discussed
below.

17
"
Boilermaker
Labor
Analysis
and
Installation
Timing,"
March
2005,
discusses
the
Agency's
projected
schedules
for
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
47
Prior
to
the
D.
C.
Circuit
decision
to
vacate
the
PCP
provisions
in
the
NSR/
PSD
programs,
EGUs
desiring
to
use
the
PCP
exclusion
were
required
to
either
provide
notice
to
the
Administrator
(
for
certain
projects
listed
in
the
regulations)
or
submit
a
permit
application
to
obtain
approval
to
use
the
exclusion.
This
process
had
requirements
very
similar
to
those
that
apply
to
sources
subject
to
PSD/
NSR
review.
The
basic
steps
for
sources
undergoing
PSD/
NSR
review
are:

a.
Preparation
of
the
permit
application
and
participation
in
any
pre­
permit
application
meetings;

b.
Issuance
of
permit
application
completeness
determination
by
the
regulatory
agency;

c.
Development
and
negotiation
of
the
draft
permit;

d.
Opportunity
for
public
notice
and
comment
on
the
draft
permit;

e.
Response
by
the
regulatory
agency
to
public
comments;

and
f.
Possible
administrative
and
judicial
appeals.

Of
these
steps,
the
bulk
of
the
effort
is
concentrated
in
the
beginning
steps
with
the
preparation
of
the
permit
application
and
collection
and
analysis
of
the
data
necessary
to
demonstrate
that
the
project
would
not
present
CAIR
SCR
and
FGD
retrofits
(
OAR­
2003­
0053­
2092).
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
48
problems
with
the
NAAQS.
The
PCP
exclusion
did
not
excuse
a
source
from
undergoing
a
similar
analysis
in
order
to
obtain
the
PCP
determination.
Specifically,
under
the
new
source
review
rules
of
2002
(
67
FR
80186),
a
source
seeking
to
use
the
PCP
provisions
for
one
of
the
listed
technologies
would
automatically
qualify
for
the
exclusion
if
it
could
demonstrate
that
there
was
no
adverse
air
quality
impact,

that
is,
if
it
would
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
violation
of
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment,
or
adversely
impact
an
air
quality
related
value
(
AQRV),
such
as
visibility,
that
had
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
a
Federal
Land
Manager
(
FLM).
In
performing
the
air
quality
analysis
under
the
PCP
provision,
the
procedures
established
for
conducting
air
quality
analysis
in
conjunction
with
typical
NSR
permitting
were
used.
As
such,
the
up
front
burden
associated
with
undergoing
PSD/
NSR
review
is
comparable
to
the
burden
to
which
a
source
requesting
a
PCP
exclusion
would
have
been
subject.

Once
the
permit
application
is
complete,
whether
processed
as
a
PCP
exclusion
request
or
as
a
formal
PSD
permit
application,
the
processing
by
the
permitting
authority
usually
does
not
take
any
longer
under
the
formal
PSD
process
than
under
the
previous
PCP
exclusion
process.

Typically,
in
the
formal
NSR
permitting
process,
once
the
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
49
application
is
submitted
to
the
permitting
authority,
there
is
a
process
during
which
the
draft
permit
is
developed
and
published
to
give
the
public
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
draft
permit.
Depending
on
the
comments
received,
some
changes
to
the
draft
permit
may
be
made
and
a
final
permit
would
then
be
issued
to
the
source.
Based
on
the
permitting
authorities'
experience,
this
process
typically
takes
approximately
six
to
eight
months.
In
the
case
of
permits
issued
pursuant
to
compliance
with
CAIR,
we
see
no
reason
why
the
process
should
require
a
longer
time
period
than
is
normally
required.

In
addition,
we
do
not
believe
that
the
PSD
requirement
for
submitting
pre­
application
monitoring
data
will
cause
a
delay
in
submitting
the
required
PSD
permit
applications
as
the
petitioner
alleges.
The
relevant
provisions
which
requires
the
applicant
to
include
12
months
of
continuous
ambient
air
quality
data
allows
applicants
to
rely
on
ambient
air
quality
data
that
has
already
been
collected
and
is
representative
of
the
air
quality
in
the
vicinity
of
the
affected
source.
Moreover,
such
data
is
only
required
when
the
source's
emissions
increase
is
predicted
to
exceed
the
prescribed
significant
monitoring
value
for
that
pollutant.

See
40
CFR
52.21(
i)(
5).
Thus,
sources
generally
will
not
have
to
take
the
time
to
collect
such
data
on
their
own
when
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
50
it
is
required.
In
the
few
cases,
if
any,
where
it
is
the
applicant's
burden
to
collect
the
data,
we
believe
they
will
have
adequate
time
to
do
so
while
the
overall
project
to
comply
with
CAIR
is
being
developed
without
delaying
the
necessary
permit
application.

For
sources
that
requested
a
PCP
exclusion
from
the
list
of
approved
projects
(
67
FR
80246),
the
timeline
could
have
been
very
similar
in
duration
to
the
one
described
above
for
sources
undergoing
NSR
review.
The
projects
included
on
the
list
were
presumed
to
be
environmentally
beneficial
based
on
the
premise
that
the
source
seeking
the
PCP
exclusion
would
design
and
operate
the
controls
in
a
manner
that
would
be
consistent
with
proper
industry,

engineering,
and
reasonable
practices,
and
that
the
source
would
minimize
increases
in
collateral
pollutants
within
the
physical
configuration
and
operational
standards
usually
associated
with
the
emissions
control
device
or
strategy.

The
source
seeking
the
PCP
exclusion
would
have
been
required
to
certify
that
this
was
true
in
the
notification
sent
to
the
reviewing
authority.
It
is
important
to
highlight
that
the
environmentally
beneficial
determination
for
the
listed
projects
was
a
presumption,
and
as
such,
it
could
be
rebutted
in
cases
in
which
a
reviewing
authority
determined
that
a
particular
proposed
PCP
project
would
not
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
51
be
environmentally
beneficial.

Before
a
source
requesting
a
PCP
exclusion
could
have
begun
actual
construction
of
the
PCP,
it
was
required
to
submit
a
notice
to
the
reviewing
authority
that
included
the
following
information
(
and
depending
on
the
reviewing
authority's
requirements,
this
information
could
have
been
submitted
with
a
part
70,
part
71
or
other
SIP­
approved
permit
application
such
as
a
minor
NSR
permit
application):

(
1)
A
description
of
project;
(
2)
an
analysis
of
the
environmentally
beneficial
nature
of
the
PCP,
including
a
projection
of
emissions
increases
and
decreases
(
speciated,

using
an
appropriate
emissions
test
for
the
emissions
unit);

and
(
3)
a
demonstration
that
the
project
will
not
have
an
adverse
air
quality
impact.
Often,
a
screening
model
could
be
used
to
estimate
the
ambient
impacts
of
the
increase
from
the
facility
as
a
result
of
the
PCP.
Special
attention
would
have
been
given
in
cases
where
a
FLM
had
already
identified
adverse
impacts
for
an
AQRV.
In
such
cases,
the
facility
requesting
the
PCP
exclusion
would
have
been
expected
to
record
and
consider
any
information
that
the
FLM
had
made
available
concerning
the
adverse
effects,
to
help
determine
whether
the
pollutant
impacts
from
the
collateral
emissions
increase
had
the
potential
to
cause
further
adverse
impacts.
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
52
If
the
requested
PCP
was
included
in
the
list
of
projects
presumed
to
be
environmentally
beneficial,
the
source
requesting
the
PCP
exclusion
would
have
been
allowed
to
begin
construction
on
the
PCP
immediately
upon
submitting
the
required
notice
to
the
reviewing
authority.
However,
if
the
reviewing
authority
determined
that
the
source
did
not
qualify
for
a
PCP
exclusion,
the
source
might
have
been
subject
to
a
delay
in
the
project
or
an
order
to
not
undertake
the
project.
If
the
reviewing
authority,
upon
receiving
the
notification
of
using
the
PCP
exclusion,

determined
that
an
air
quality
impacts
analysis
was
reasonably
necessary,
it
was
entitled
to
request
more
information
from
the
source,
including
additional
local
or
regional
modeling.

Pollution
control
projects
of
the
magnitude
at
issue
here
will
require
large
capital
expenditures
and
significant
engineering
lead
times.
We
believe
that
in
most
cases,
the
internal
procedures
within
each
company
to
request,
approve,

and
allocate
the
necessary
funding
and
then
design
and
construct
the
control
equipment
will
be
at
least
as
long
as
the
average
permit
application
and
approval
process.

Additional
requirements
that
may
result
from
PSD/
NSR
review
As
discussed
in
previous
sections,
sources
installing
controls
to
comply
with
CAIR
that
experience
collateral
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
53
emissions
increases
of
some
NSR
regulated
pollutants
likely
would
have
requested
a
PCP
exclusion.
In
particular,

sulfuric
acid
mist
emissions
and
CO
emissions
are
the
two
pollutants
expected
to
be
of
most
interest.

For
emissions
of
CO,
the
Agency
is
aware
of
previous
PSD
permits
that
have
been
processed
by
permitting
authorities
that
demonstrated
no
NAAQS
problems,
while
requiring
no
additional
add­
on
controls
for
the
CO
emissions.
The
PSD
permits
given
to
these
sources
included
BACT
emissions
limits
for
CO
where
in
most
cases
such
limits
did
not
previously
exist.
Most
of
these
limits
have
been
set
at
or
near
the
level
where
the
utility
has
historically
operated
or
was
anticipated
to
operate.
This
is
the
case
because
there
is
no
technically
feasible
add­
on
control
technology
for
controlling
CO
emissions
from
coal­
fired
boilers
other
than
good
combustion
practices.

For
emissions
increases
of
sulfuric
acid
mist,
NSR/
PSD
permitting
analysis
treats
sulfuric
acid
mist
as
a
NSRregulated
pollutant
and
also
as
a
component
of
PM2.5
(
a
criteria
pollutant).
The
Agency
conducted
an
analysis
of
the
information
available
for
EGUs
that
have
undergone
PSD/
NSR
review
and
that
included
a
determination
of
controls
(
BACT
or
LAER)
for
sulfuric
acid
mist.
The
analysis
showed
that
pollution
prevention
measures
(
such
as
low
sulfur
fuel)
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
54
and
add­
on
control
(
such
as
flue
gas
desulfurization
or
FGD)

were
cited
in
about
two
thirds
of
the
determinations,
while
about
one
third
resulted
in
no
additional
control.
As
previously
stated,
both
switching
to
low
sulfur
coal
and
the
use
of
FGD
are
common
techniques
available
for
CAIR
units
to
minimize
collateral
emissions
increases
due
to
the
installation
of
CAIR­
related
controls.
As
a
result,
we
expect
that
a
source
going
through
NSR
for
significant
net
emissions
increases
in
sulfuric
acid
mist
due
to
CAIR
controls
would
be
required
to
install
technology
similar,
if
not
identical,
to
those
presented
here
as
available
mitigation
techniques
to
avoid
NSR
review.

Because
sulfuric
acid
mist
emissions
are
also
a
component
of
PM2.5,
EPA
also
looked
at
what,
if
any,

additional
PM2.5
controls
would
be
required
for
sources
required
to
undergo
NSR
should
a
significant
emissions
increase
of
PM2.5
occur.
For
CAIR
emissions
units
located
in
non­
attainment
areas,
we
also
believe
that
the
result
of
the
LAER
analysis
for
these
units
will
result
in
control
technologies
similar,
if
not
identical,
to
those
listed
as
available
mitigation
techniques.
In
addition
to
the
LAER
requirements,
CAIR
sources
required
to
meet
nonattainment
area
NSR,
would
be
required
to
obtain
emissions
reductions
to
offsets
their
significant
emissions
increase
of
PM2.5
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
55
emissions
as
part
of
non­
attainment
NSR
permit
process.
We
believe
PM
fine
offsets
will
be
widely
available
for
any
of
these
projects
located
in
non­
attainment
areas.
In
the
PM
Implementation
Rule
(
70
FR
66042)
we
proposed
to
allow
units
to
use
decreases
in
PM
fine
precursor
emissions
as
offsets
for
direct
PM
fine
emission
increases.
Units
installing
controls
to
comply
with
CAIR
will
have
very
large
decreases
in
PM
fine
precursors
(
SO2
and
NOx).
These
decreases
are
so
large
that
we
believe
the
decreases
in
PM
fine
precursor
emissions
from
other
CAIR
units
will
provide
sufficient
offsets
for
the
significantly
lower
potential
increases
in
direct
PM
fine
emissions.
As
such,
we
believe
that
the
impact
for
undergoing
NSR
review
on
these
sources
would
be
minimal,
as
described
above.

For
projects
located
in
attainment
areas,
a
situation
similar
to
when
a
source
is
required
to
install
controls
for
acid
mist
is
expected.
That
is,
when
a
source
in
an
attainment
area
goes
through
NSR
review
for
PM2.5
as
a
result
of
a
collateral
increase
due
to
the
addition
of
CAIR
controls,
we
expect
the
required
control
technology
to
be
similar,
if
not
identical,
to
those
listed
as
available
mitigation
techniques
for
sources
wanting
to
avoid
NSR
review.
As
such,
we
believe
that
the
impact
for
undergoing
NSR
review
on
these
sources
would
be
minimal,
as
described
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
56
above.

In
conclusion,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
impacts
of
choosing
to
undertake
PSD/
NSR
review
for
these
units
are
not
substantial
enough
to
affect
the
CAIR
highly
cost­
effective
determination
or
the
feasibility
and
timing
analysis.

While
EPA
generally
does
not
believe
that
the
PCP
requirements
under
NSR
will
pose
a
problem,
either
because
companies
will
make
control
decisions
that
will
not
result
in
collateral
pollution
increases
or
because
the
NSR
process
will
not
delay
installation
of
pollution
controls,
even
if
there
were
a
small
number
of
cases
in
which
NSR
requirements
delayed
control
installations
beyond
the
compliance
dates
for
CAIR,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
this
would
change
its
conclusions
about
the
cost
effectiveness
of
the
required
emission
reductions.
This
is
because
the
trading
mechanisms
within
CAIR
provide
flexibility
if
small
numbers
of
sources
are
unable
to
install
controls
by
the
compliance
deadlines.

For
NOx
the
CAIR
includes
a
compliance
supplement
pool
(
CSP).
This
CSP
is
an
additional
pool
of
allowances
that
States
can
distribute
either
because
sources
make
early
reductions
or
because
they
demonstrate
need.
States
could
consider
delays
in
issuing
permits
that
led
to
delays
in
the
construction
of
a
NOx
control
device
as
part
of
a
demonstration
of
need.
For
SO2,
sources
are
allowed
to
use
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
57
SO2
allowances
that
have
already
been
banked.
Because
there
is
already
a
substantial
bank
built
up
and
because
we
expect
the
bank
to
increase
more
as
sources
install
and
operate
new
SO2
devices
prior
to
the
CAIR
deadline,
there
will
be
banked
SO2
allowances
available
for
sources
if
they
are
not
able
to
complete
a
control
project
by
the
deadline.

IV.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,

1993),
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
A
significant
@

and,
therefore,
subject
to
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Order
defines
A
significant
regulatory
action
@

as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:

(
1)
have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,

jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,

local,
or
Tribal
governments
or
communities;

(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;

(
3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
58
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President
=

s
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.

Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
OMB
has
determined
that
this
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action.

This
notice
takes
comment
on
an
aspect
of
the
CAIR,
but
does
not
propose
any
modifications.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
This
action
does
not
propose
information
collection
request
requirements
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
Therefore,
an
information
collection
request
document
is
not
required.

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,

or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,

validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
59
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.

An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.

The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
in
40
CFR
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
generally
requires
an
Agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedures
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
Agency
certifies
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.

For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today
=

s
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:

(
1)
a
small
business
that
is
a
small
industrial
entity
as
defined
in
the
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
size
standards.
(
See
13
CFR
part
121.);
(
2)
a
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,

school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
60
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.

After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today
=

s
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
This
notice
does
not
impose
any
requirements
on
small
entities.
We
are
only
announcing
our
decision
to
reconsider
and
request
comment
on
a
specific
issue
in
the
CAIR.
We
continue
to
be
interested
in
the
potential
impacts
of
the
rule
on
small
entities
and
welcome
comments
on
issues
related
to
such
impacts.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104­
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
"
Federal
mandates"
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
State,

local,
and
Tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.

Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
61
statement
is
needed,
UMRA
section
205
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least­
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.

Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least­
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
leastburdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,

including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed,
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA,
a
small
government
agency
plan.

The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA's
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,

educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.

The
EPA
has
determined
that
today's
notice
of
reconsideration
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
62
local,
and
Tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.
Today's
notice
of
reconsideration
of
the
CAIR
does
not
add
new
requirements
that
would
increase
the
cost
of
the
CAIR.
Thus,
today's
notice
of
reconsideration
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.
In
addition,
EPA
has
determined
that
today's
notice
of
reconsideration
does
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments
because
it
contains
no
requirements
that
apply
to
such
governments
or
impose
obligations
upon
them.
Therefore,
today's
notice
of
reconsideration
is
not
subject
to
section
203
of
the
UMRA.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
A
Federalism
@

(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
A
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.@

A
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications
@

is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
A
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,

or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.@
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
63
This
action
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
would
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
The
CAA
establishes
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
Government
and
the
States,
and
this
action
would
not
impact
that
relationship.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
action.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
A
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
@

(
65
FR
67249,

November
9,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
A
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
Tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
Tribal
implications.@

For
the
same
reasons
stated
in
the
final
CAIR,
today's
notice
does
not
have
Tribal
implications
as
defined
by
Executive
Order
13175.
It
does
not
have
a
substantial
direct
effect
on
one
or
more
Indian
Tribes,
since
no
Tribe
has
implemented
a
federally­
enforceable
air
quality
management
program
under
the
CAA
at
this
time.
Furthermore,

this
action
does
not
affect
the
relationship
or
distribution
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
64
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
Tribes.
The
CAA
and
the
Tribal
Air
Rule
establish
the
relationship
of
the
Federal
government
and
Tribes
in
developing
plans
to
attain
the
NAAQS,
and
today's
notice
does
nothing
to
modify
that
relationship.
Because
this
notice
does
not
have
Tribal
implications,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply.

If
one
assumes
a
Tribe
is
implementing
a
Tribal
implementation
plan,
the
CAIR
could
have
implications
for
that
Tribe,
but
it
would
not
impose
substantial
direct
costs
upon
the
Tribe,
nor
would
it
preempt
Tribal
Law.

Although
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
the
CAIR
or
this
notice
of
reconsideration
of
the
CAIR,
EPA
consulted
with
Tribal
officials
in
developing
the
CAIR.

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

(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that
(
1)
is
determined
to
be
A
economically
significant
@

as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
65
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.

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

H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,

"
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use"
(
66
FR
28355
(
May
22,

2001))
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
of
1995,
Public
Law
No.
104­
113,
section
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
66
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,

sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
of
1995
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,

explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.

Today's
notice
does
not
involve
technical
standards.

Therefore,
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
does
not
apply.

J.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
Executive
Order
12898,
"
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations,"
requires
Federal
agencies
to
consider
the
impact
of
programs,
policies,
and
activities
on
minority
populations
and
low­
income
populations.
According
to
EPA
guidance,
18
agencies
are
to
assess
whether
minority
or
lowincome
populations
face
risks
or
a
rate
of
exposure
to
hazards
that
are
significant
and
that
"
appreciably
exceed
or
18
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1998.
Guidance
for
Incorporating
Environmental
Justice
Concerns
in
EPA's
NEPA
Compliance
Analyses.
Office
of
Federal
Activities,
Washington,
D.
C.,
April,
1998.
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
67
is
likely
to
appreciably
exceed
the
risk
or
rate
to
the
general
population
or
to
the
appropriate
comparison
group."

(
EPA,
1998).

In
accordance
with
Executive
Order
12898,
the
Agency
has
considered
whether
the
CAIR
may
have
disproportionate
negative
impacts
on
minority
or
low
income
populations.
The
EPA
expects
the
CAIR
to
lead
to
reductions
in
air
pollution
and
exposures
generally.
Therefore,
EPA
concluded
that
negative
impacts
to
these
sub­
populations
that
appreciably
exceed
similar
impacts
to
the
general
population
are
not
expected.
For
the
same
reasons,
EPA
is
drawing
the
same
conclusion
for
today's
notice
to
reconsider
a
certain
aspect
of
the
CAIR.
DRAFT
12­
20­
05
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
68
Rule
to
Reduce
Interstate
Transport
of
Fine
Particulate
Matter
and
Ozone
(
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule):
Supplemental
Notice
of
Reconsideration
page
__
of
__

List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
51
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Nitrogen
oxides,

Ozone,
Particulate
matter,
Regional
haze,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Sulfur
dioxide.

40
CFR
Part
96
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Electric
utilities,
Nitrogen
oxides,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Sulfur
dioxide.

_______________________________

Dated
________________________________

Stephen
L.
Johnson
Administrator
