[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 62 (Monday, April 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16183-16184]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06417]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-38-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed WB Xpress Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the WB
XPress Project, proposed by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia)
in the above-referenced docket. Columbia requests authorization to
perform the following: (i) Installation, construction, and operation of
about 29.3 miles of various diameter pipeline; (ii) modifications to
seven existing compressor stations; (iii) construction and operation of
two new compressor stations; (iv) uprates and restoration of the
maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) on various segments of the
existing WB and VB natural gas transmission pipeline systems; and (v)
installation of various appurtenant and auxiliary facilities, all
located in either Braxton, Clay, Grant, Hardy, Kanawha, Pendleton,
Randolph, and Upshur Counties, West Virginia, or Clark, Fairfax,
Fauquier, Loudoun, Shenandoah, or Warren Counties, Virginia.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the WB XPress Project in accordance with
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The
FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with
appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, and West Virginia Division of Natural Resources
participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA.
Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with
respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and
participate in the NEPA analysis. The USFS and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers will adopt the EA to fulfill their agency's NEPA obligations.
The USFS will use the EA, as well as other supporting documentation, to
consider the issuance of right-of-way authorization for the portion of
the project on National Forest System lands. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers will use the EA and supporting documentation to consider the
issuance of Clean Water Act Section 404 and Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 10 permits.
    The proposed WB XPress Project includes the following facilities:

West Virginia

    Aboveground Facilities:
     One new West Virginia Compressor Station: A new, natural
gas-fired compressor station at approximately MP 0.3 of the Line WB-5
Extension in Kanawha County, West Virginia.
     Installation of new valve sites and launcher/receiver
facilities along Line WB-5 in Kanawha, Grant and Clay Counties, West
Virginia.
     Modifications to increase horsepower at four (4) existing
Compressor Stations including Cleveland, Files Creek, Seneca, and Lost
River Compressor Stations in Upshur, Randolph, Pendleton, and Hardy
Counties, West Virginia, respectively.
     Modifications to existing natural gas pipeline
appurtenances at the Frametown Compressor Station in Braxton County,
West Virginia.
     Modifications to four existing Valve Sites including Glady
Valve Site in Randolph County, West Virginia; Dink Valve Site in Clay
County, West Virginia; Whitmer and Smokehole in Pendleton County, West
Virginia; and one regulator station, Panther Mountain Regulator
Station, in Kanawha County, West Virginia.
    Pipeline Facilities:
     Line WB-5 Extension: Installation of approximately 0.3
mile of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline from the
planned new Compressor Station to the Panther Mountain Regulator
Station in Kanawha County, West Virginia.
     Line WB-22: Installation of approximately 0.6 mile of new
36-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline from the proposed
new West Virginia Compressor Stations to the Panther Regulator Station,
ending at the proposed WB-22 Receiver Site in Kanawha County, West
Virginia.
     Line WB: Generally lift and lay replacement of
approximately 25.5 miles of 26-inch-diameter natural gas transmission
pipeline loop and associated appurtenances in Randolph and Pendleton
Counties, West Virginia.
     Line WB: Replacement of 5 sections, totaling approximately
0.3 mile of 26-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline between
Mileposts (MP) 134.6 and 146.4 in Pendleton, Grant, and Hardy Counties,
West Virginia.

     Line WB-5: Replacement of approximately 1,185 feet (0.2
mile) of 36-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline between MP
4.5 and MP 4.7 in Grant County, West Virginia.
    MAOP Restoration:
     Line WB-5: Incremental pressure increase of approximately
72.4 miles of the Line WB-5 Segment to restore this segment to its
originally certificated MAOP of 1,000 square inch gauge (psig) in
Upshur, Randolph, Pendleton, Grant and Hardy Counties, West Virginia.
    Uprate Segments:
     Line WB-6: Incremental pressure increase of approximately
2.4 miles of the Line WB-6 to 1,000 psig MAOP in Randolph County, West
Virginia.
     Line WB-5: Incremental pressure increase of approximately
22.1 miles of the Line WB-5 Segment to 1,000 psig in Pendleton, Grant,
and Hardy Counties, West Virginia.

Virginia

    Aboveground Facilities:
     One new, electric-driven compressor station at
approximately MP 0.0 of the proposed new Line VA-1 in Fairfax County,
Virginia.
     Installation of a receiver facility at the end of the
proposed Line VA-1, in Fairfax County, Virginia.
     Modifications to increase horsepower at the existing
Strasburg Compressor Station located in Shenandoah County Virginia, in
order to increase capacity for the transportation of additional volume
along Columbia's Line VB natural gas pipeline system.
     Modifications to existing natural gas pipeline
appurtenances at the Loudoun Compressor Station in Loudoun County,
Virginia.
     Modifications to the existing Dysart Valve Site, in
Shenandoah County, Virginia and one metering station, Nineveh Meter
Station, in Warren County, Virginia.
    Pipeline Facilities:
     Line VA-1: Installation of approximately 2.2 miles of new
12-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline and associated
appurtenances in Fairfax County, Virginia.
    MAOP Restoration:
     Line VB-5: Incremental pressure increase of approximately
70.4 miles of the Line VB-5 Segment to restore this segment to its
originally certificated MAOP of 1,000 psig in Shenandoah, Warren,
Clark, Fauquier, and Loudoun Counties, Virginia.
    The USFS's purpose and need for the proposed action is to respond
to a special use application, submitted by Columbia on August 19, 2016,
to allow the construction and operation of the WB XPress project on
national forest system lands managed by the Monongahela National
Forest.
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
potentially affected landowners; interested individuals and groups; and
newspapers and libraries in the project area. Everyone on our
environmental mailing list will receive a CD version of the EA. In
addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site
(www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of
the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission Public Reference Room 888 First Street
NE., Room 2A Washington, DC 20426<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your
comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important
that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before April 24,
2017.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (CP16-38-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors have the
right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission
grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns
intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a
clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can
adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not
give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to
have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the previous discussion on the methods for filing
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP16-
38). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: March 24, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-06417 Filed 3-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 54076]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19334]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-2370-000]

Freepoint Energy Solutions LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Freepoint Energy Solutions LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 29, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 8, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19334 Filed 8-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30467-30473]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12504]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0078, FRL-9675-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Washington; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) determination for the TransAlta Centralia Generation
LLC coal-fired power plant in Centralia, Washington (TransAlta). The
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) submitted its Regional
Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) on December 22, 2010 to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 50.308. On December 29, 2011 Ecology submitted
an update to the SIP submittal containing a revised and updated BART
determination for TransAlta. EPA plans to act on the remaining Regional
Haze SIP elements for Washington in the near future.

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or
before June 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2012-0078 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Steve Body, EPA Region 10, Suite 900, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite
900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Steve Body,

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2012-0078. 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 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 email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
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.
    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 form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of
Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA
98101. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual
listed below to view a hard copy of the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Body at telephone number (206)
553-0782<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized
as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action
    A. Definition of Regional Haze
    B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations
II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
    B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
III. BART Determination for TransAlta
    A. Washington's BART Determination for TransAlta
    1. TransAlta is Subject to BART
    2. BART Evaluation and Determination
    B. EPA's Assessment of the State's BART Determination
IV. What action is EPA proposing?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action

    In the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, Congress established
a program to protect and improve visibility in the national parks and
wilderness areas. See CAA section 169A. Congress amended the visibility
provisions in the CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the problem of
regional haze. See CAA section 169B. EPA promulgated regulations in
1999 to implement sections 169A and 169B of the Act. These regulations
require states to develop and implement plans to ensure reasonable
progress toward improving visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas
\1\ (Class I areas). 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 39104
(July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today EPA is proposing action on the portion of the Regional Haze
SIP submission relating to the TransAlta facility by proposing to
approve the BART determination for oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
emissions from TransAlta. Ecology submitted its Regional Haze SIP on
December 22, 2010, to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 50.308. (Regional
Haze SIP Submittal) On December 29, 2011, Ecology submitted an update
to the SIP submittal containing a revised BART determination for
TransAlta. (SIP Supplement) Because the BART determination includes a
requirement to begin injection of ammonia or urea by January 1, 2013
and a date of January 31, 2013 for TransAlta to comply with emission
limits based on installation and operation of selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR), EPA has determined that early action on this separate
portion of the SIP submittal is appropriate at this time. EPA is still
reviewing the remaining portions of the SIP submittal and will take
action on the remaining elements in the near future.

A. Definition of Regional Haze

    Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused
by emission of air pollution produced by numerous sources and
activities, located across a broad regional area. The sources include,
but are not limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile
sources, and area sources including non-anthropogenic sources.
Visibility impairment is primarily caused by fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) or secondary aerosol formed in the atmosphere from
precursor gasses (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia and volatile
organic compounds). Atmospheric fine particulate reduces clarity,
color, and visual range of visual scenes. Visibility reducing fine
particulate is primarily composed of sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon
compounds, elemental carbon, and soil dust, and impairs visibility by
scattering and absorbing light. Fine particulate can also cause serious
health effects and mortality in humans, and contributes to
environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 64 FR at 35715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks and
wilderness areas. Average visual range in many Class I areas in the
Western United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-
thirds the visual range that would exist without manmade air
pollution.\3\ Visibility impairment also varies day-to-day and season-
to-season depending on

variation in meteorology and emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations

    In section 169A of the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a
program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from
manmade air pollution.'' CAA section 169A(a)(1). On December 2, 1980,
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment''. 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35713) (the Regional Haze Rule or RHR). The RHR revised the
existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation
provisions addressing regional haze impairment and to establish a
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are
included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-
309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze requirements are
summarized in section III of this rulemaking. The requirement to submit
a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia
and the Virgin Islands.\4\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit
the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility
impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment.

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires States
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \5\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state.
States are directed to conduct BART determinations for such sources
that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility
impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific
BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions
trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative
provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than
BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 CFR
Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. 70 FR 39104. In making a BART applicability
determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a
total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, a state must use
the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A State is encouraged,
but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of sources. Regardless of source size or
type however, a state must meet the CAA and regulatory requirements for
selection of BART, and the state's BART and analysis and determination
must be reasonable in light of the overarching purpose of the regional
haze program.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility-impairing pollutants are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
and fine particulate matter. EPA has indicated that states should use
their best judgment in determining whether volatile organic compounds
or ammonia compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, States may select and document an
exemption threshold value to determine those BART-eligible sources not
subject to BART. A BART-eligible source with an impact below the
threshold would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in any Class I area. Any source with emissions that model
above the threshold value would be subject to a BART determination
review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting
different Class I areas. States should consider the number of emission
sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the
individual sources' impacts. Generally, an exemption threshold set by
the State should not be higher than 0.5 deciview (dv).
    In their SIPs, States must identify BART-eligible sources that have
a visibility impact in any Class I area above the `BART subject'
exemption threshold established by the State and thus, subject to BART.
States must document their BART control analysis and determination for
all sources subject to BART.
    The term ``BART-eligible source'' used in the BART Guidelines means
the collection of individual emission units at a facility that together
comprises the BART-eligible source. In making a BART determination,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that States consider the
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology. See also 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).
    The regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each

source subject to BART. Once a State has made its BART determination,
the BART controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously
as practicable, but no later than five years after the date EPA
approves the regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4) and 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR, general
SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for
the BART controls on the source. States have the flexibility to choose
the type of control measures they will use to meet the requirements of
BART.

III. BART Determination for TransAlta

A. Washington's BART Determination for TransAlta

1. TransAlta is Subject to BART
    The TransAlta Centralia Generation LLC power plant, located in
Centralia, Washington, is a two unit coal-fired power plant rated at
702.5 MW each, when burning coal from the Centralia coalfield as
originally designed. The units now burn coal from the Wyoming Powder
River Basin and are rated at 670 MW each. The units were commissioned
in 1971 and 1972, are one of the 26 BART source categories specified in
40 CFR 51.301 and emit over 250 tons per year (t/y) of an air
pollutant. Modeling to determine whether TransAlta would be subject to
BART under the RHR demonstrated TransAlta had a maximum impact of 5.5
dv at Mt. Rainier National Park from both SO2 and
NOX emissions. This impact is above the threshold used by
Washington for determining those BART eligible sources subject to BART.
These units are BART-eligible and subject to BART as described in the
SIP submittal, Supplement Appendix L.
    On June 11, 2003, EPA approved a revision to the Washington SIP for
visibility (Visibility SIP) which included controls for NOX,
SO2, and particulate matter for TransAlta. 68 FR 34821. In
the action approving these provisions, EPA determined the required
controls to be BART for SO2 and PM. Alstrom concentric low
NOX burners with overfire air was required to control
NOX emissions with emission limits of 0.302 lb/mmBtu for
Unit 1 and 0.306 lb/mmBtu for Unit 2. EPA found these
controls did not represent BART for NOX in 2003 and the
Federal Register notice accompanying that action stated that a BART
determination for NOX was not being made at that time.
Specifically we explained ``* * * while the NOX emission
limitation may have represented BART when the emission limits in the
[reasonably available control technology] RACT Order were negotiated,
recent technology advancements have been made. EPA cannot now say that
the emission limitations in the SWAPCA RACT Order for NOX
represent BART. However EPA is approving the emission limits for
NOX as a strengthening of the SIP for visibility purposes.''
Thus, to date there is not a SIP approved BART determination for
NOX emissions at TransAlta. 68 FR 34824.
2. BART Evaluation and Determination
    The TransAlta NOX BART determination to comply with 40
CFR 51.308(e) was submitted to EPA in two separate submittals. The
first submittal was included in the December 22, 2010 Regional Haze SIP
submittal. Washington subsequently reevaluated its determination for
TransAlta and on December 29, 2011, submitted an update to the Regional
Haze SIP (referred to in this notice as the SIP Supplement). This
update included a revised NOX BART determination, the First
Revision Order No. 6426 (hereafter referred to as the Revised BART
Compliance Order) and technical analysis document for the TransAlta
power plant and the related parts of the Regional Haze SIP. The revised
BART determination and Revised BART Compliance Order establish a
NOX emission limit of 0.21 lb/mmbtu, and among other things,
requires selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) to be installed by
January 1, 2013. The Revised BART compliance order also provides that
one coal unit must cease burning coal by December 31, 2020, and the
other coal unit cease burning coal by December 31, 2025, unless Ecology
determines that State or Federal law requires SCR to be installed on
either unit.
    Additionally, by way of background, on May 21, 2009, the Governor
issued Executive Order 09-05 which contained provisions for TransAlta
regarding compliance with Washington State's greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission performance standards. Subsequently, the Executive Order was
superseded by Washington State Senate Bill 5769 (also known as E2SSB
5769), which was signed by the Governor on April 29, 2011 and became
effective August 22, 2011, and provided that the plant owners must
bring the two coal-fired units into compliance with the GHG performance
standards by specified dates. See SIP Supplement L-45-46 and Revised
Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 80-80. The law requires that one of
the TransAlta units comply with the GHG performance standards by
December 31, 2020 and the other by December 31, 2025. See RCW
80.80.040. As documented in public testimony by the plant owners, State
Legislature, environmental organizations and the Governor's Office, the
coal-fired units at the TransAlta plant must be decommissioned in order
to comply with these new GHG standards. Accordingly, one unit will be
decommissioned no later than December 31, 2020 and the second unit will
be decommissioned by December 31, 2025. TransAlta is also required to
install SNCR by January 1, 2013, to control NOX emissions.
RCW 80.80.100. Additionally, the law states that the requirement to
meet the GHG performance standard does not apply if Ecology determines
that State or Federal law requires selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
to be installed on either coal-fired unit. See Section 106 of Chapter
180, Laws of 2011 and SIP Supplement L-46, see also RCW 80.80.040.
    In conducting its BART evaluation for TransAlta, Ecology followed
the steps outlined in EPA BART Guidelines at 40 CFR 51, Appendix Y.
Briefly this evaluation included the: (1) Identification of all
available retrofit technology, (2) elimination of technically
infeasible technology, (3) identification of control efficiencies of
feasible technology, (4) evaluation of impacts and document results,
and (5) evaluation of visibility impacts.
    The Visibility SIP submittal for our June 11, 2003 approval
identified a long list of available NOX control technologies
which were evaluated for technical feasibility at the TransAlta plant.
That list was narrowed to the technically feasible controls which
Ecology used as a starting point for the current BART determination.
See SIP Supplement L-79 (Table B-1 Nitrogen Oxide Controls evaluated in
the 1997 Reasonable Achievable Control Technology Process). Ecology
evaluated, or reevaluated, a number of the NOX control
technologies for TransAlta including: low NOX burners with
close coupled and over-fired air (LNC3); Flex Fuel \6\; SCR; SNCR;
Rotating over-fire air (ROFA)/Rota mix; neutral net technology; and
natural gas re-burning. The State found ROFA is infeasible because it
has never been tested nor demonstrated in a large tangentially

fired boiler of this size. The State also determined that ``Neutral
Net'' technology likewise has not been guaranteed to perform and reduce
emissions and there are other comparable proven technologies available.
The State also found that natural gas re-burning is not listed in the
EPA RBLC for use in any coal fired boilers and that it would be less
efficient at controlling NOX emissions than the Flex-Fuel
plus SNCR as required by Washington's Legislature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Flex Fuel refers to the switch from Centralia, Washington
coal to coal from the Power River Basin in Wyoming. Powder River
Basin coal has a higher heat content requiring less fuel for the
same heat extraction, as well as a lower nitrogen and sulfur content
than coal from Centralia. Flex Fuel also required changes to boiler
design to accommodate Powder River Basin coal.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Washington evaluated the cost effectiveness of the technically
feasible control options for TransAlta. It found that Flex Fuel alone
will reduce NOX emissions by 3,139 t/y and will also reduce
SO2 emissions by 1,287 t/y. See SIP Supplement L-67. Based
on evaluation of installations at other large tangentially fired power
plants, the State determined that SNCR plus Flex Fuel is expected to
achieve a 20 to 25% reduction in NOX emissions. The State
estimated capital costs for SNCR plus Flex Fuel at TransAlta to be $135
million and annual operating costs of $17.3 million based on an
emission limit of 0.21 lb/mmbtu. The retrofit costs for TransAlta will
be higher than other similarly sized power plants due to boiler design.
The State also calculated the SNCR plus Flex Fuel cost effectiveness to
be $2,162/t based on a 25% control efficiency and a 8,022 t/y reduction
in NOX emissions. See SIP Supplement L-71.
    Among the other technologies considered, Washington also evaluated
SCR which would provide a 95% NOX control efficiency. The
State considered two scenarios; one including SCR on only one unit and
another scenario with SCR on both units. Using a presumptive BART
emission limit of 0.15 lb NOX/mmbtu, they estimated the
emission reductions for SCR on one unit to be 4,364 t/y and 7,855 t/y
for SCR on both units. The capital cost for one unit was estimated at
$290.12 million and about double that for SCR on both units. Washington
estimated it would take 4 years to design and install SCR with a
compliance date of late 2016. The cost effectiveness for SCR on only
one unit was calculated at $ 8,205/t. See SIP Supplement L-58. If SCR
was to be installed on both units, the State calculated cost
effectiveness for SCR on Unit 1 to be $14,800/t and Unit
2 to be $8,400/t. See SIP Supplement L-69. Washington
determined SCR is not cost effective under either scenario and that it
is not reasonable to require SCR for this facility.
    Washington considered the modeled visibility impairment in the
baseline years and the visibility improvement potentially achievable
from the various control technologies and control scenarios. The
modeling indicated that TransAlta has the greatest impact at Mt.
Rainier National Park with a current 5.5 dv impact (3 year 98th
percentile value). See Table below and SIP Supplement Appendix L Table
3-1. This impact is reduced to 3.5 dv with emission limits based on
Flex Fuel plus SNCR, for a 2.0 dv improvement. Significant improvement
in visibility is also expected in 11 other Class I areas. With the
expected decommissioning of both emission units by December 31, 2025,
there will be a 5.5 dv improvement in visibility at Mt. Rainier
National Park and significant improvement in the 11 other Class I
areas. The estimated visibility impact from baseline emissions and the
improvement associated with each control technology is shown below. See
SIP Supplement Table 3-1.

                                    Three-Year Delta Deciview Ranking Summary
         [The 8th day in any year or the 22nd day over the 3-year period, are the 98th percentile days]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Control      Control      Control      Control
         Class I area             Visibility       Baseline     scenario     scenario     scenario     scenario
                                   criterion      emissions      1SNCR      2Flex fuel   3Flex fuel      4SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpine Lakes Wilderness......  Max 98% value           4.871        4.393        3.564        2.949        3.057
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          4.346        3.844        2.994        3.057        2.531
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Glacier Peak Wilderness......  Max 98% value           3.615        3.209        2.403        2.049        2.036
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          2.622        2.294        1.905        1.532        1.562
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Goat Rocks Wilderness........  Max 98% value           4.993        4.398        3.676        3.069        3.137
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          4.286        3.708        3.108        2.637        2.385
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Mt. Adams Wilderness.........  Max 98% value           3.628        3.118        2.646        2.194        1.984
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          3.628        3.152        2.591        2.147        1.934
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Mt. Hood Wilderness..........  Max 98% value           3.471        3.051        2.345        1.978        2.082
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          2.830        2.388        1.997        1.665        1.543
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Mt. Jefferson Wilderness.....  Max 98% value           2.079        1.784        1.399        1.150        1.159
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          1.888        1.596        1.267        1.053        1.061
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Mt. Rainier National Park....  Max 98% value           5.447        4.774        4.318        3.606        3.359
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          5.489        4.743        4.225        3.501        3.275
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Mt. Washington Wilderness....  Max 98% value           2.027        1.756        1.323        1.106        1.170
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          1.414        1.248        1.323        0.737        0.855
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).

North Cascades National Park.  Max 98% value           2.821        2.496        1.852        1.570        1.658
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          2.212        1.887        1.486        1.570        1.183
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Olympic National Park........  Max 98% value           4.645        4.040        3.192        2.695        2.506
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          4.024        3.456        2.991        2.486        2.339
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Pasayten Wilderness..........  Max 98% value           1.954        1.701        1.287        1.075        1.160
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          1.482        1.318        0.999        0.822        0.864
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Three Sisters Wilderness.....  Max 98% value           2.172        1.910        1.333        1.139        1.172
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          1.538        1.328        0.993        0.819        0.902
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ecology also evaluated the energy and non-air environmental impacts
associated with the technically feasible control options. Upon review,
Ecology found there would be insignificant energy and non-air
environmental impacts from installation of the technically feasible
control options. The State did recognize that ammonia slip from SNCR
could cause an increase in secondary aerosol due to the increase in
ammonia in the atmosphere, but found that this will be limited by an
optimization study during the first year of operation of SNCR.
    Based on its full consideration of the BART factors as described
above, Washington determined BART for NOX for the TransAlta
plant is 0.21 lb/mmbtu based on installation and operation of SNCR plus
Flex Fuel. The State's BART determination also requires the use of sub-
bituminous coal from the Powder River Basin, or other coal that will
achieve similar emission rates, and a requirement to optimize SNCR for
the lowest NOX emissions while minimizing ammonia slip. The
BART determination allows for the NOX limit to be revised
reflecting the optimization to a level no higher than 0.21 lb/mmbtu.
See SIP Supplement, Table 4-1 at L-75 and Revised BART Compliance Order
Section 5.5.3. The Revised BART Compliance Order also requires one coal
fired unit to permanently cease burning coal no later than December 31,
2020 and the second coal fired unit to permanently cease burning coal
no later than December 31, 2025 unless Ecology determines that state or
federal law requires that SCR must be installed on either unit. Revised
BART Compliance Order Section 4. The BART determination results in
approximately a 30% NOX reduction from the existing
NOX emission limit of 0.302 and 0.306 lb/mmBtu.

B. EPA's Assessment of the State's BART Determination

    EPA reviewed Washington's SIP submittal, including the December 22,
2010 Regional Haze Submittal and the December 29, 2011 SIP Supplement.
Washington followed 40 CFR 308(e) and EPA BART Guidelines of Appendix Y
in determining BART for TransAlta. Washington evaluated NOX
controls taking into consideration the 5 factors for making a BART
determination.
    Ecology evaluated 37 different NOX control technologies
during its RACT review process for TransAlta in 1997. That analysis was
supplemented and updated as part of their 2011 BART determination for
the facility. EPA believes that Washington appropriately determined the
costs of compliance, including the cost effectiveness of alternative
controls. The initial cost estimates were determined by TransAlta's
contractor CH2MHill and reviewed by Washington. Where Washington
determined that the CH2MHill analysis was lacking detail, Washington
requested and received additional information. The costs were generally
based on EPA's Cost Control Manual, but deviations were used where
appropriate based on the physical constraints at the TransAlta
facility. For example, the plant currently employs wet limestone forced
oxidation to control SO2 emissions, electrostatic
precipitators followed by wet scrubbing systems to control particulate
matter, and low NOX burners with close coupled overfire air
to control NOX emissions. These existing controls occupy
space in the exhaust ducting minimizing space for additional controls
for NOX. Therefore, additional control equipment would
require the redesign and installation of additional support structures,
as well as the potential relocation of existing control equipment, thus
increasing the cost of additional NOX control. For example,
SNCR would need to be located in an area where the exhaust temperature
is around 2100 [deg]F, and existing SCR requires cooler temperatures,
both of which would require a redesign of support structures.
    As previously explained, Washington determined that there are
insignificant energy and non-air environmental impacts from either SNCR
plus flex fuel or SCR. We acknowledge that either SNCR or SCR will
require an insignificant amount of additional energy. As the State
recognized, ammonia slip, or excess ammonia in the exhaust gasses from
SNCR, can cause fouling of the air heater requiring excessive
maintenance as well as increased particulate formation in the
atmosphere through secondary aerosol formation to ammonium sulfate and
ammonium nitrate. However, this potential impact is minimized by the
ammonia limit of 0.5 parts per million and the required optimization
protocol. As discussed above, Ecology recognized that the facility
previously installed BART for SO2 and particulate matter and
improved NOX control and EPA believes that these controls
were appropriately considered in evaluating the emission reductions and
NOX control costs in making the BART determination.
    As described above, Ecology evaluated the degree of visibility

improvement anticipated from the use of possible NOX control
technologies. Washington appropriately determined that the
NOX BART determination will result in visibility improvement
in Mt Rainier National Park by 2.0 dv on the 20% most impaired days and
improve visibility in 11 other Class I areas.
    The specific BART emission limits and compliance dates, along with
the requirements for the optimization study, monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements, are included in the Revised BART Compliance
Order. Upon EPA approval of this portion of the Regional Haze SIP
Submittal, the Order becomes federally enforceable for purposes of the
Washington Regional Haze SIP. Finally, pursuant to Washington's
visibility protection program, WAC 173-400-151, the controls required
by the State's BART determination must be installed as expeditiously as
possible but in no event later than five years from when the State's
Regional Haze SIP amendment is approved by EPA. More specifically, the
Revised BART Compliance Order, which was included in the update to the
Regional Haze SIP submission, provides that ``[b]eginning on the 31st
operating day after December 31, 2012 the NOX emissions
limitation for the two coal fired utility steam generating units is
0.21 lb/mmbtu, 30 operating day average, both units averaged together
including all emissions during start-up and shut-down.'' SIP Supplement
L-30 (Revised BART Compliance Order section 1.1) Therefore, this
satisfies the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv) that ``each source
subject to BART install and operate BART as expeditiously as possible,
but in no event later than 5 years after approval of the implementation
plan approval.''
    For the above reasons, EPA agrees with Ecology's analysis and its
the selection of BART for NOX at the TransAlta plant because
the analyses were conducted in a manner that is consistent with EPA's
BART Guidelines. Additionally, the conclusions reflect a reasonable
application of EPA's guidance to this particular source. Therefore, EPA
proposes to approve the NOX BART determination for TransAlta
as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e).

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

    For the reasons explained above, and in recognition of the State
legislation and the Revised BART Compliance Order which result in the
decommissioning of the coal-fired units by 2020 and 2025, EPA is
proposing to approve the BART determination for TransAlta, including
the Revised BART Compliance Order. The BART determination requires SNCR
plus Flex Fuel as BART for the TransAlta coal-fired power plant with an
emission limit of 0.21 lb/mmBtu with a 30 day rolling average beginning
January 31, 2013, including fuel quality requirements and the allowance
for a revised NOX emission limit not to exceed 0.21 lb/
mmbtu.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the rule neither imposes substantial direct compliance costs on
tribal governments, nor preempts tribal law. Therefore, the
requirements of section 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do not
apply to this rule. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless
provided a consultation opportunity to Tribes in Idaho, Oregon and
Washington in letters dated January 14, 2011. EPA received one request
for consultation, and we have followed-up with that Tribe.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 14, 2012.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2012-12504 Filed 5-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36611-36612]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14467]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69751; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Deleting NYSE Rule 476(a)(8), Which
Addresses Wash Sales, in Order To Harmonize the Exchange's Rules With
the Rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

June 13, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On April 10, 2013, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to delete NYSE Rule 476(a)(8) to harmonize the
Exchange's rules with the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''). The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on April 30, 2013.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69441 (April 24,
2013), 78 FR 25327 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    On July 30, 2007, FINRA's predecessor, the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''), and NYSE Regulation, Inc.
(``NYSER'') consolidated their member firm regulation operations into a
combined organization, FINRA. Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act,
NYSE, NYSER and FINRA entered into an agreement (the ``Agreement'') to
reduce regulatory duplication for their members by allocating to FINRA
certain regulatory responsibilities for certain NYSE rules and rule
interpretations (``FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules''). NYSE MKT LLC
(``NYSE MKT'') became a party to the Agreement effective December 15,
2008.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56148 (July 26,
2007), 72 FR 42146 (August 1, 2007) (order approving the Agreement);
56147 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42166 (August 1, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-
054) (order approving the incorporation of certain NYSE Rules as
``Common Rules''); and 60409 (July 30, 2009), 74 FR 39353 (August 6,
2009) (order approving the amended and restated Agreement, adding
NYSE MKT LLC as a party). Paragraph 2(b) of the Agreement sets forth
procedures regarding proposed changes by FINRA, NYSE or NYSE MKT to
the substance of any of the Common Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its effort to reduce regulatory duplication and relieve
firms that are members of FINRA, NYSE, and NYSE MKT of conflicting or
unnecessary regulatory burdens, FINRA is now engaged in the process of
reviewing and amending the NASD and FINRA Incorporated NYSE rules in
order to create a consolidated FINRA rulebook.\5\ In this proposal, the
Exchange has proposed to delete NYSE Rule 476(a)(8) in order to
harmonize the NYSE's rules with the rules of FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FINRA's rulebook currently has three sets of rules: (1) NASD
Rules, (2) FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules, and (3) consolidated FINRA
Rules. The FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to those members
of FINRA that are also members of the NYSE (``Dual Members''), while
the consolidated FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA members. For more
information about the FINRA rulebook consolidation process, see
FINRA Information Notice, March 12, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    NYSE Rule 476(a)(8) prohibits a member, member organization,
principal executive, approved person, registered or non-registered
employee of a member or member organization, or person otherwise
subject to the jurisdiction of the Exchange from making a fictitious
bid, offer, or transaction; or giving an order for the purchase or sale
of securities the execution of which would involve no change of
beneficial ownership; or executing such an order with knowledge of its
character.
    In 2009, the Exchange adopted NYSE Rule 6140(a)-(b),\6\ which is
substantially the same as FINRA Rule 6140(a)-(b) and which also
addresses wash sale activity. NYSE Rule 6140(a) provides that no member
or member organization shall execute or cause to be executed or
participate in an account for which there are executed purchases of any
NMS stock as defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS \7\
(``designated security'') at successively higher prices, or sales of
any such security at successively lower prices, for the purpose of
creating or inducing a false, misleading or artificial appearance of
activity in such security or for the purpose of unduly or improperly
influencing the market price for such security or for the purpose of
establishing a price that does not reflect the true state of the market
in such security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59965 (May 21,
2009), 74 FR 25783 (May 29, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-25).
    \7\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Rule 6140(b) prohibits a member or member organization, for
the purpose of creating or inducing a false or misleading appearance of
activity in a designated security or creating or inducing a false or
misleading appearance with respect to the market in such security, from
(1) executing any transaction in such security which involves no change
in the beneficial ownership thereof; (2) entering any order or orders
for the purchase of such security with the knowledge that an order or
orders of substantially the same size, and at substantially the same
price, for the sale of any such security, has been or will be entered
by or for the same or different parties; or (3) entering any order or
orders for the sale of any such security with the knowledge that an
order or orders of substantially the same size, and at substantially
the same price, for the purchase of such security, has been or will be
entered by or for the same or different parties.
    In the filing, the Exchange represented that NYSE Rule 476(a)(8),
which was adopted at a time when the Exchange was operating in a
manual, on-floor trading environment, differs from NYSE Rule 6140 and
FINRA Rule 6140 in that the second prong of NYSE Rule 476(a)(8), which
prohibits giving an order for the purchase or sale of securities the
execution of which would involve no change of beneficial ownership, can
be read as having no scienter standard. On the other hand, NYSE Rule
6140 and FINRA Rule 6140 provide that a market participant is
prohibited from engaging in wash sales that have the purpose of
creating or inducing a false or misleading appearance of activity in a
designated security.
    The Exchange stated that it believes that the scienter requirement
in NYSE Rule 6140 and FINRA Rule 6140 recognizes that in today's
markets there can be certain instances of trading

activity that may inadvertently and unknowingly result in executions
with no change in beneficial ownership, and that such conduct should
not always be treated as a wash sale violation if the market
participant did not act with purpose. The Exchange noted that activity
involving an off-floor market participant's algorithmic orders that
inadvertently execute against themselves due to latency issues could be
deemed a violation of the second prong of NYSE Rule 476(a)(8), thus the
Exchange has proposed to eliminate NYSE Rule 476(a)(8) because it
believes that such conduct should not be treated as a wash sale
violation in all instances, and stated that it will instead utilize
NYSE Rule 6140 for disciplinary actions involving wash sales.
    The Exchange also proposes to make a conforming amendment to NYSE
Rule 6140(a) and (b) to expand its coverage to include principal
executives, approved persons, registered or non-registered employees of
a member or member organization or persons otherwise subject to the
jurisdiction of the Exchange. The change to NYSE Rule 6140 will cover
the persons originally covered by NYSE Rule 476(a)(8) who would be
subject to disciplinary action for wash sales.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the
Act \8\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.\9\ In particular, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\
which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is deleting NYSE Rule 476(a)(8), a rule which the
Exchange explained was adopted to address manual, floor-based trading
activity. The Exchange stated that NYSE Rule 6140, which has a scienter
standard that the second prong of NYSE Rule 476(a)(8) lacks,
substantively covers the same conduct as NYSE Rule 476(a)(8). The
Exchange has explained that in today's markets, algorithmic trading can
result in unintended executions with no change in beneficial ownership.
The Exchange believes that such executions should not be treated as
wash sale violations because they lack the intent to create or induce a
false or misleading appearance of activity in a security. In addition,
the Exchange is amending NYSE Rule 6140 to cover the same persons that
NYSE Rule 476(a)(8) covered.
    The Commission understands that algorithmic trading can result in
inadvertent executions with no change in beneficial ownership.\11\ The
Exchange has represented that the proposed rule change would not result
in any material change in the surveillance of potentially violative
activity nor any material diminution of the Exchange's enforcement
authority as it may still bring a disciplinary action in cases where a
market participant engages in a significant number of trades without a
change of beneficial ownership, even if such activity does not per se
violate Rule 6140(b) because the participant did not act with
``purpose.'' The Exchange further represented that such unintended
activity could also give rise to other violations, such as a failure to
supervise under NYSE Rule 342, or a violation of just and equitable
principles of trade or could otherwise constitute unethical activity
under NYSE Rule 2010. Accordingly, the Commission expects the Exchange
to continue to surveil for potential wash sale activity and to take
necessary action as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Commission notes that algorithmic trading resulting in
executions with no change in beneficial ownership, even if
unintended, raises concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed deletion of NYSE Rule
476(a)(8) promotes harmonization, consistency and clarity with respect
to the Exchange's rules \12\ by resolving the inconsistent scienter
standards of NYSE Rule 476(a)(8) and NYSE Rule 6140 and FINRA Rule
6140, as well as extending the breadth of persons covered by NYSE Rule
6140 to those persons covered by NYSE Rule 476(a)(8). The Commission
further believes that the proposed rule change would result in less
burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for firms that are
members of FINRA and the NYSE. As such, the Exchange's rules would
continue to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange stated that it can bring disciplinary actions
under NYSE Rule 476(a)(8) for conduct that occurred prior to the
time the rule is deleted. Thus, the proposed rule change would have
no impact on ongoing disciplinary actions involving violations of
NYSE Rule 476(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\14\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2013-29) be,
and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14467 Filed 6-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 23818]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09070]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10008-98-OA]

Meeting of the Local Government Advisory Committee and the Small
Communities Advisory Subcommittee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) will conduct a
virtual meeting on Friday, May 15, 2020, 11:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. (EDT).
The focus of the Committee meeting will be to: Deliberate and vote on
the Risk Communication Report drafted by the Revitalizing Communities
Workgroup of the LGAC and reviewed by other LGAC workgroups and the
Small Communities Advisory Subcommittee (SCAS); discuss workgroup
charges and issues; and determine the Committee's agenda and priorities
for the remainder of the year. These are open meetings, and all
interested persons are invited to participate. The LGAC and SCAS will
hear comments from the public between 1:10-1:25 p.m. (EDT).
    Individuals or organizations wishing to address the Subcommittee,
or the Committee will be allowed a maximum of five minutes to present
their point of view. Also, written comments should be submitted
electronically to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for the LGAC and SCAS. Please
contact the Designated Federal Officers (DFO) at the numbers listed
below to schedule a time on the agenda. Time will be allotted on a
first-come first-serve basis, and the total period for comments may be
extended if the number of requests for appearances requires it.
    Meeting Logistics: The LGAC and SCAS meetings will be held
virtually by conference call. Members of the public who wish to
participate should register by contacting the DFO at the number below
to receive the call-in number.
    The agenda and other meeting materials, including the meeting
summaries, will be available online at www.epa.gov/ocir/scas_lgac/lgac_index.htm and can be obtained by written request to the DFO. In
the event of cancellation for unforeseen circumstances, please contact
the designated federal officer or check the website above for
reschedule information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Local Government Advisory
Committee (LGAC) and Small Communities Advisory Subcommittee contact is
Joseph Daniels, Acting Designated Federal Officer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Information on Services for Those With Disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Joseph Daniels at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a disability,
please request it 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much
time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: April 24, 2020.
Julian E. Bowles,
Director, State and Local Government Relations, Office of Congressional
and Intergovernmental Relations.
[FR Doc. 2020-09070 Filed 4-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

TO:	Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

FROM:	Ryan Novak, ERG

DATE:	September 30, 2015

SUBJECT:	Index for Supporting Documentation for the Lake Sinclair, GA Case Study Model (DCN SE05594)

This document serves as the index for the supporting documentation for the Lake Sinclair, GA Case Study Model, developed as part of the Environmental Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (EA Report), Document No. EPA-821-R-15-006 (DCN SE04527). The supporting documentation for this case study includes the files listed in Table 1.
 Table 1. Supporting Documentation for the Lake Sinclair, GA Case Study Model
                                 Attachment ID
                                 Document Name
                               Brief Description
                                      A1
Attachment 1: Pollutant Loadings and Design Workbook - SE05595A1
Documentation of the modeling scope, design, steam electric power plant loadings, STORET monitoring data, and DMR/TRI point source loadings evaluated for the Lake Sinclair, GA case study model. Refer to the `ReadMe' tab of the workbook for additional information about the contents of each tab.
                                      A2
Attachment 2: WASP Model Input and Output Files - SE05595A2
These files represent the WASP model input and output files for the Lake Sinclair, GA case study model. The WASP input file (.wif) for each pollutant and scenario represents the settings and inputs used to execute case study modeling. The EFDC hydrodynamic data represents the flow data used for the Lake Sinclair, GA WASP model. The output data represent the daily water column concentrations in each segment of the WASP model, for each pollutant, for baseline and each regulatory option.
                                      A3
Attachment 3: Water Quality Benchmark Exceedance Analysis - SE05595A3
The water quality analysis for the Lake Sinclair, GA case study model. These results were generated by running a script on the raw WASP model output (see Attachment 2). The output from this script indicates the percent of daily average concentrations that each segment exceeded the water quality benchmarks evaluated in the EA.
                                      A4
Attachment 4: Wildlife and Human Health Impacts Analysis - SE05595A4
The wildlife and human health analysis for the Lake Sinclair, GA case study model. This workbook includes the all-segment average water column concentration output, generated by the WASP model, that were evaluated against the threshold concentrations determined to trigger wildlife or human health benchmark exceedances.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88671-88672]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29418]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-423-000]

Rubicon NYP Corp; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Rubicon

NYP Corp`s application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is December 20, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 30, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-29418 Filed 12-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 2 (Thursday, January 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 277-278]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31091]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 63, 80, 85, 122, 123, and 412

[EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0813, FRL-9764-8]

Section 610 Review of NPDES Permit Regulation and Effluent
Limitations Guidelines Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs); Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On October 31, 2012 the EPA published a request for comments
on a Regulatory Flexibility Act section 610 review titled, Section 610
Review of NPDES Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines
Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). As
initially published in the Federal Register, written comments were to
be submitted to the EPA on or before December 31, 2012 (a 60-day public
comment period). Since publication, the EPA has received a request for
additional time to submit comments. Therefore, the EPA is extending the
public comment period for 60 days until March 1, 2013.

DATES: The public comment period for the review published October 31,
2012 (77 FR 65840) is being extended for 60 days to March 1, 2013 in
order to provide the public additional time to submit comments and
supporting information.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2012-0813, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2012-0813.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 28221T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0813, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334,
1301

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OW-2012-0813. Such deliveries are accepted only during the Docket
Center's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-
0813. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and could be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means that the EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your email 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, the 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 the
EPA cannot read your comment because of technical difficulties and
cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA might 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 the EPA's public docket visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
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 Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding federal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Water
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information contact,
Hema Subramanian, Office of Wastewater Management (4203M), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-6384; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that an
agency review, within 10 years of promulgation, each rule that has or
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities (SISNOSE). The EPA undertakes section 610 reviews to
decide whether the agency should continue a rule unchanged, amend it,
or withdraw it. We encourage small entities to provide comments on the
need to change these rules, and in particular, how the rules could be
made clearer, more effective, or if there is need to remove conflicting
or overlapping requirements with other Federal or State regulations.
    The EPA promulgated revised regulations for CAFOs on February 12,
2003 (68 FR 7175). The ``2003 CAFO Rule'' expanded the number of
operations covered by the CAFO regulations and included requirements to
address the land application of manure from CAFOs. The 2003 CAFO Rule
required all CAFOs to seek NPDES permit coverage. The EPA developed a
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for the 2003 CAFO Rule. In
the 2003 CAFO Rule, the EPA took several steps to minimize its impacts
on small businesses, including regulatory revisions designed to focus
on the largest producers, eliminating the ``mixed'' animal calculation
for operations with more than a single animal type for determining
which AFOs are CAFOs, raising the duck threshold for dry manure
handling duck operations, and adopting a dry-litter chicken threshold
higher than proposed.
    Subsequently, a series of court decisions based on legal challenges
to the rulemaking have limited the requirement for NPDES permit
coverage specifically to CAFOs that discharge. In response to these
court decisions, the EPA made revisions to the CAFO regulations in 2008
(73 FR 70418) and 2012 (77 FR 44494). In promulgating the 2008
regulatory revision, the EPA certified that the 2008 rule would not
have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. In promulgating the 2012 regulatory revision, the 2012
rule was not subject to the RFA because the RFA applies only to rules
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute, and the 2012
rule was not subject to notice and comment requirements. Both rules
reduced the potential impact of the EPA's CAFO regulations on small
entities by reducing the universe of CAFOs that must apply for NPDES
permits. Although the EPA has made these subsequent revisions to the
CAFO regulations, the scope of this 610 review is limited to the
impacts on small entities of the 2003 CAFO Rule as amended.

II. Extension of Comment Period for the Section 610 Review of the 2003
CAFO Rule

    The EPA is extending the deadline for submitting comments on the
section 610 review of the CAFO Rule to March 1, 2013. The original
deadline for comments, based on a 60-day comment period, was December
31, 2012. The EPA's decision responds to a request to extend the
comment deadline. The EPA believes that this 60-day extension will
assist in providing an adequate amount of additional time for the
public to review the action and to provide written comments.

    Dated: December 19, 2012.
Alexander Cristofaro,
Director, Office of Regulatory Policy and Management.
[FR Doc. 2012-31091 Filed 1-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P