MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: May 31, 2016, conference call with Portland Cement Association (PCA) to discuss the status of industry performance test data entered into EPA's electronic reporting tool (ERT)
FROM: Mike Laney, RTI
TO: Sharon Nizich, US EPA
DATE: June 6, 2016
ATTENDEES:
                                      PCA
                                      EPA
                                      RTI
Michael Schon
Elizabeth Horner
Keith Barnett
Sharon Nizich
Mike Laney
Gabrielle Raymond

SUMMARY:
EPA described to PCA the current status of emissions data that has been entered into ERT and that the amount of entered data was less than expected. EPA requested that the PCA inform their members that they should be entering all of their performance test data into ERT and determine if the industry is encountering any issues related to submitting data into ERT. EPA will provide PCA with a list of portland cement plants and the emission sources for which emissions data have been entered into ERT and the emission sources for which data have not been entered.


The third alternative examined was the option of installing a wet FGD system on Unit 2 with an ammonia system added to Unit 1 as described in the section on ammonia system option previously. The costs assumed for this option were based on the costs used for the ammonia option and the wet FGD option for Unit 2 combined. These individual options have been discussed at greater length previously. Table 10 shows the CALPUFF inputs used to model the visibility impacts for this option.
The results of this portion of the analysis shown in Table 11 indicate that 295 days with
dV impacts greater than the 0.5 dV goal are eliminated over the three year period by this alternative and the peak impact is reduced from 2.13 dV to 1.13 dV. Over the days that had dV impacts greater than the goal of 0.5 dV, there is a reduction of 260.41 dV with this strategy. When taken with the total annual estimated cost for this strategy of
$99,465,904, we obtain a $/dV of improvement value of $381,959.

OTHER ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
In performing the analyses discussed in the previous sections, the cost of disposal of any additional particulate material was not considered. For the case of injecting ammonia it was assumed that the existing wet fly ash system would be utilized along with disposal in the existing Horseford Hollow fly ash impoundment. While the addition of more material to the existing waste stream would reduce the time until a new ash disposal facility would be needed to some extent, this was not considered in this analysis for the primary particulate case or any of the secondary pollutant cases. The addition of a wet FGD system would result in the immediate need to develop a new much larger waste disposal site prior to the start of operation of the FGD system at a cost of several million dollars along with the additional cost to convert one or both units ESP(s) to a dry fly ash handling system. Depending on the exact site and size of the landfill, it may be necessary to develop an additional site or sites prior to the ultimate retirement of Unit 2.  It should be noted that there may be a possibility of generating wall board grade gypsum with a wet FGD system and then selling the synthetic gypsum to a wall board manufacturer. However, there are several issues that suggest that this option may not be a viable option for Big Sandy. First and foremost, AEP is currently unable to market all of the gypsum being generated thus far by its current FGD retrofit program, which will cover five units by early 2008. All of the units selling their gypsum are also located on the Ohio or Kanawha Rivers, making barge shipment a reasonable alternative to reach the wall board manufacturers. Big Sandy, on the other hand is not located on a navigable waterway, so any gypsum would need to be shipped either by truck or rail to reach either a wall board factory or a navigable waterway. This additional shipping would increase the shipping cost to a point that Big Sandy would not likely be a competitive supplier due solely to the shipping cost.  From this perspective, any of the options that add FGD to the plant would have a high cost to develop a new FGD waste landfill and large waste disposal foot print that is not present or currently anticipated with the other options.

BART CONCLUSION
Based on the data examined, the costs, and the other environmental impacts considered, it is concluded that BART for Big Sandy Plant should focus on the reduction of the secondary inorganic pollutants. The most cost effective and environmentally benign means to achieve this solution is the injection of ammonia on both units along with the required overhaul to the Unit 1 electrostatic precipitator to reduce up to 10 ppm of the inorganic condensable portion of the flue gas.

KY SIP Appendix L11, Pages 118- 155:

EON.US Mill Creek Station
In Step 1 of the BART analysis, all available retrofit control technologies that have a practical potential for application at Mill Creek Station were identified. These technologies are considered as available technologies. The technology considered could be a change in plant operation method, addition/modification of emissions control system, or a combination of these options for control of a pollutant. Control technologies for the two major pollutants, SO3 and PM, and a description of the technology are presented in this section. Information on the working principle, retrofit considerations, advantages, and disadvantages of the technology are provided in the descriptions contained in Sections 3.1 through 3.2.
3.1 SO3 Control Technologies
SO3 control technologies that were identified as available for retrofit at Mill Creek Station are listed below. A short description of each technology is included in the following subsections:
:: Lime-based semi-dry FGD.
:: Wet FGD.
:: Sorbent injection.
:: WESP.
:: Low SO2 to SO3 oxidation SCR catalyst.
:: Coal additives.
....
3.2 Particulate Matter Control Technologies
PM control technologies that were identified as available for retrofit at Mill Creek station are listed below. Only post combustion control is available for PM control. A short summary of each technology is included in the following subsections:
:: Dry ESP enhancements.
:: PJFF.
:: Compact hybrid particulate collector.
:: Max-9 electrostatic fabric filter.
....
4.1 Technically Infeasible SO3 Control Technology
4.1.1 Lime-Based Semi-Dry FGD
All four units at Mill Creek Station are already equipped with wet FGD systems for SO2 removal. It should be noted that the wet FGD system has a higher SO2 removal capability than the semi-dry FGD, since Mill Creek Station combusts high-sulfur bituminous coal. It has been established in Step 1 that the SO3 removal achieved in a semi-dry FGD system is a co-benefit of the SO2 removal technology installed. Based on these two points, the lime-based semi-dry FGD is not a technically feasible control technology for SO3, since it will result in a lower controlled level of SO2 at Mill Creek Station.
4.1.2 Wet FGD
Section 1.1 provided details of the current unit configuration for all four units at Mill Creek Station, which includes limestone-based wet FGD systems. Therefore, the wet FGD is technically feasible as a SO3 control technology and is already in place. SO3 reduction in the flue gas is approximately 25 percent through the wet FGD (based on information in the Sargent & Lundy [S&L] SO3 Mitigation Report, 3/29/2006). Also, in recent testing, it was determined that in Units 3 and 4; the SO3 reduction achieved through the wet FGD is approximately 50 percent. While this technology is technically feasible, it will not be subjected to further BART analysis steps since it is an existing system.
4.1.3 Low SO2 to SO3 Conversion SCR Catalyst
This technology is only available to Units 3 and 4 at Mill Creek Station, since both units are equipped with SCR systems for NOx reduction. Referencing the basis established in the S&L SO3 Mitigation Report issued on 3/29/2006, the SO2 to SO3 conversion rate for the catalyst currently installed in Mill Creek Units 3 and 4 is 1.40 percent and 1.20 percent, respectively. This performance characteristic indicates that the SCR catalyst currently installed is of the standard formula/composition. However, it is noted that the long-term catalyst management plan that is in place for Units 3 and 4 includes the replacement of existing catalyst layers in the SCR with new low SO2 to SO3 conversion catalyst compositions. The latest layer that was recently installed was of the low SO2 to SO3 conversion type. With the use of this new catalyst composition, it is anticipated that catalyst life will be reduced. The use of a low SO2 to SO3 conversion catalyst will not reduce the quantity of SO3 already in the flue gas from the combustion process; it will only reduce the addition of SO3 into the flue gas after passing through the SCR catalysts. Based on this reasoning, this option is not technically feasible for consideration in this BART analysis.
4.1.4 Coal Additives
The addition of alkaline material as a coal additive in the precombustion stage is not technically feasible for SO3 reduction at the Mill Creek Station because of potential impacts to boiler operations such as the slagging and fouling tendencies of ash, increase in LOI content in the ash, and changes in the economizer outlet flue gas temperature.

4.2 Technically Infeasible PM Control Technology
4.2.1 Dry ESP Enhancements
The existing cold-side ESPs at all four units are already demonstrating high removal efficiencies of 99 percent. The enhancements listed in Subsection 3.2.1 will not improve the removal efficiency of PM in the flue gas more than what is currently being achieved. Therefore, the dry ESP enhancements available are not technically feasible.
4.2.2 Compact Hybrid Particulate Collector
The COHPAC system is technically feasible but will be evaluated as a design variant of the PJFF, since both systems are identical in design and operational characteristics; the key difference is in the design A/C ratio, which determines the total amount of filtration area available. Therefore, the subsequent BART analysis steps performed for the PJFF will apply to this high A/C ratio fabric filter.
4.2.3 Max-9 Electrostatic Fabric Filter
The Max-9 electrostatic fabric filter has been recently installed commercially in a smaller-sized utility boiler (up to 80 MW). However, there are no current commercial installations in similarly sized units as the units at Mill Creek Station. Therefore, the
Max-9 electrostatic fabric filter will not be considered as technically feasible for further BART analysis steps.
4.3 Technical Feasibility Summary
After the completion of the screening process (Step 2 of the BART determination), the following technologies were identified as feasible control technologies in addition to those currently achieved for SO3 reduction:
:: Sorbent injection.
:: WESP.
The PM control technology identified that would have better emissions reduction than the existing cold-side ESPs available at Mill Creek Station is a PJFF.
....

....
Cost-Effectiveness Comparison
This section presents a brief summary of the evaluated cost-effectiveness for the control of SO3 and PM at all four Mill Creek Station units. For the two SO3 control technologies evaluated, sorbent injection cost-effectiveness ranges from 4,293 to 5,017 $ per ton for sorbent injection and 20,385 to 44,766 $ per ton for WESP. The large range in the WESP cost-effectiveness is due to the costs of operating the new induced draft (ID) fans and higher powered ID fans if WESP is implemented on Units 1 and 2. Another observation is the incremental cost-effectiveness when comparing the sorbent injection to the WESP, which ranges from 60,586 to 105,316 $ per additional ton of SO3 removed. For the lone PM control technology evaluated, the cost-effectiveness to install PJFF ranges from $20,950 to $52,190 per ton. Again, the large range in the PJFF cost effectiveness is due to the same reasons as that for WESP discussed above.

....

....
After completing all five steps of the BART analysis, a BART control scenario for all four units at Mill Creek Station was selected and evaluated for the visibility improvement at affected Federal Class I areas. The visibility improvement modeling is summarized in Section 7.0 of this report.

The recommended BART control scenario was based on the evaluated control technologies to meet the prescribed emission limits performed as detailed in Sections 3.0 to 6.0 of this report. The recommended BART control scenario for the units at Mill Creek Station consists of sorbent injection for the reduction of SO3 emission in the flue gas for Units 3 and 4 only. The control scenario also includes utilizing the existing ESP to control PM emissions.
The recommended control scenario is the most cost-effective solution that will allow Mill Creek Station to have a visibility improvement that is greater than a 0.5 dv change.
The visibility improvement modeled for the BART control scenario, as described in Section 7.0, indicates a maximum visibility improvement of 1.180 dv when the sorbent injection technology is applied to each unit (Scenario SO3 - 1) at Mill Creek Station and
0.825 dv in the recommended scenario when sorbent injection is applied to only Units 3 and 4. The difference in the maximum visibility improvement is 0.355 dv.
Based on the visibility improvement modeled and the total annual cost evaluated in the impact analysis stage (Step 4), the cost-effectiveness for visibility improvement (which was defined as annual cost per improvement in visibility [$/dv]) was determined.
The total annual cost for the implementation of the recommended control technologies is approximately 4.2 million $/yr, as shown in Table 7-8. Based on the maximum modeled visibility improvements at the affected Federal Class I of 0.825 dv, the visibility improvement cost-effectiveness by using sorbent injection at Units 3 and 4 is 5.1 million
$/dv. This value is approximately the same if sorbent injection was applied to all four units at Mill Creek Station (Scenario SO3 - 1), as detailed in Table 7-8. However, sorbent injection at all four units would mean an additional total capital investment of $8.8 million. Additionally, the incremental cost between the recommended scenario of sorbent injection at Units 3 and 4 versus sorbent injection at all four units is 5,000 $/additional ton of SO3 removed, and 5.0 million $/additional dv improvement.

Based on the relatively similar visibility cost-effectiveness and the incremental cost effectiveness, sorbent injection at Units 3 and 4 is the recommended BART technology applicable at Mill Creek Station to obtain visibility improvement.

Updated May 28, 2010 submittal:
Louisville Gas and Electric (LG&E) and the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet entered into an Agreed Order on October 20, 2008 (File No. DAQ-29458-039). As specified in paragraph I of the order, LG&E is herein providing the Kentucky Division for Air Quality with information identifying emission rates utilized for the modeling conducted in conjunction with LG&E's September 24,2007 submittal of Mill Creek Station's Best Available Retrofit Technology analysis. Additionally, this correspondence provides written explanation of the infeasibility of incorporating a sulfur trioxide (SO3) emission limitation of 0.015 lb/mmBtu into the Mill Creek Station Title V permit.

As described in the submitted analysis, for the purpose of SO3 emission determination, all H2SO4 particles determined from the CALPUFF modeling were assumed to be SO3 emissions. As shown in "Table7-l CALPUFF Modeling Parameters" of the report, the baseline 2zSO4 primary particle information are in units of grams per second (g/s), 25.39 g/s and 27 .67 g/s for Mill Creek Units 3 and 4, respectively. When input into the CALPUFF model, they were converted to pounds per hour (lb/hr) values of 20L5 lb/hr and 2l9.6lb/hr for Mill Creek Units 3 and 4, respectively. In determining the effectiveness of sorbent injection technology, a stack exit concentration of five (5) parts per million (ppm) SO3 was used to evaluate the technology's effect on visibility impacts. For input into the CALPUFF model, five (5) ppm SO3equates to H2SO4 emission rates of 64.3lb/hr and 76.5lb/hr for Mill Creek Units 3 and 4, respectively.  These values are displayed in Appendix D on pages D-4 and D-5 of the previously submitted analysis. The lb/hr values were the primary model input values utilized in our CALPUFF modeling. As such, these are the values that are appropriate for incorporation into Mill Creek Station's Title V permit.

For illustrative purposes only, the lb/hr values were converted to lb/mmBtu values in Table 7-4 of the September 24, 2007 submittal. While we apologize for the confusion which resulted from including the value in our submittal, we wish to clarify that we never intended to suggest that it is appropriate for inclusion as an emission limit in our permit.

The 0.015 lb/mmBtu value provided in Table 7-4 is based on the design heat input (i.e. maximum) value for the two units. However, in the course of normal utility operations, the units operate at a wide range of heat inputs, some of which are substantially lower than the design heat input value. Although the SO: mitigation system proposed by LG&E can meet the specified lb/hr emissions values necessary to achieve BART, it is not capable of controlling H2SO4 emission to 0.015 lb/mmBtu at all heat input levels. Indeed, the measurement accuracy of H2SO4 emissions is questionable when operating at the level of lower heat inputs that would be encountered in the course of normal operations.

Consequently, adding a 0.015 lb/mmBtu limit to the permit would place severe constraints on our operational flexibility which could effectively preclude us from operating the unit at certain heat inputs. This would have major financial implications for us. In conclusion, it is not technically feasible for our proposed SO3 mitigation system to meet the 0.015 lb/mmBtu H2SO4 target at all operating loads and we do not believe that the value reflects BART for our units.

Therefore, if the Division desires to incorporate specific BART emission limits into the Title V permit for Mill Creek, the appropriate values would be 64.3 and 7 6.5 lb/hr H2SO4 for Units 3 and 4 respectively.

EPA Findings:  Kentucky has adequately addressed this provision. The Commonwealth adequately documented the technical analysis to assess the need and implementation of BART controls as applicable for those non-CAIR EGU emission units of PM, SO2 and NOx precursor emissions.  This involved identification of existing controls on applicable emission units, potential control options for applicable emission precursors, and the successful application of the five statutory factors to determine the feasibility of controls that constituted BART.

EPA finds these assessments and conclusions for BART acceptable for these facilities because the analyses were conducted consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines and EPA's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, and the conclusions reflect a reasonable application of EPA's guidance to these sources.

III. Evaluation of Regional Haze Submittal
      D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Requirements
D.5. Enforceability of BART: For each BART-eligible source in the State subject to BART, the SIP should include emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART.  For each BART-eligible source in the State subject to BART, the SIP must include a requirement that each source subject to BART be required to install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than five years after approval of the implementation plan revision and a requirement that each source subject to BART maintains the control equipment required by this subpart and establishes procedures to ensure such equipment is properly operated and maintained.

State Regional Haze Submittal
Appendix N, Page N-8 to N-9:

Appendix N - Public Hearing Notice and Summary of Comments Received and Cabinet Responses
1. Comment: In the prehearing package, the proposed BART controls for five facilities are summarized in Table 7.5.3-1 in Section 7.5.3, p.62-64 of the SIP narrative, and in Table 9.1 of SIP Appendix L on pages 24-26. The BART limits and associated compliance schedules are required to be in the SIP per 40 CFR 51.308(e): "The State must submit an implementation plan containing emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART . . .". Therefore, the SIP must include the specific emission limits (and supporting information for those limits) and compliance schedules for BART for the two facilities not currently subject to federal consent decrees (CDs). These limits must be in a form that can be enforced by both the Commonwealth and EPA.
For the three facilities installing controls for BART to meet federally enforceable emission limits contained in CDs, the Commonwealth may rely on the federal CDs to establish emission limits that are federally enforceable. The BART limits established pursuant to federal CDs, and the conditions necessary to support those limits, do not need to be incorporated into the SIP, unless any changes are made to the limits. Emission limits from the CDs must be placed in each facility's title V permit prior to the expiration date of its CD.
Richard A. Schutt, USEPA
Response: The Cabinet concurs and the applicable BART emission limitations and compliance schedules have been more clearly identified in the SIP and BART emission limitations will be added to the source Title V permit as appropriate or on renewal. Also, in reviewing the applicable consent decrees in response to the USEPA's comments, it was discovered that the East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC) consent decree summarized in the SIP on page 42 was improper and as a result the Cabinet has provided the proper EKPC consent decree summary for the EKPC 7/2/2007 consent decree.

3. Comment: Legal Authority: In the final SIP submittal, please include evidence as required per Appendix V of 40 CFR part 51 that the Commonwealth has the necessary legal authority under Kentucky law to adopt and implement the Regional Haze implementation plan, including the BART limits.
Richard A. Schutt, USEPA
Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment and has provided language in the preface on page ii of the SIP narrative to indicate that the Cabinet, per KRS 224.10-
100(5), has the statutory legal authority to adopt and implement the Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan (SIP), including the BART emission limits.

Pages 65-66 as modified by May 28, 2010 submittal:

KY SIP, Page ii:

Preface: This document contains summaries of the technical analyses that will be used by the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KYDAQ) to support the regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) pursuant to §§107(d)(3)(D) and (E) of the Clean Air Act, as amended. KRS 224.10-100(5) provides the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet (formerly the Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet) with the statutory authority to adopt and implement its regional haze SIP. A link to KRS 224.10-100 is as follows:
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/224-10/100.PDF.

EPA Findings: Kentucky has adequately addressed this provision. Rather than adopt a rule, Kentucky has chosen to directly adopt BART emission limits in its SIP for those sources not addressed by a federally enforceable consent decree.  These limits will become effective upon the EPA's final approval of the submittal.  These limits will subsequently be added to the appropriate Part 70 permits..

III. Evaluation of Regional Haze Submittal
      E. Coordination of Regional Haze and RAVI Requirements
The State must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a coordinated long-term strategy for addressing reasonably attributable and regional haze visibility impairment.

State Regional Haze Submittal
Kentucky did not explicitly address this requirement regarding a coordinated RAVI and regional haze long-term strategy.  However, KYDAQ has included provisions that updated the elements subject to the RAVI long-term strategy requirements (including monitoring and new source review (NSR)):

KY SIP Narrative, Pages 86-88:

Monitoring Strategy

In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, some ongoing long-term limited monitoring supported by Federal Land Managers provides additional insight into progress toward regional haze goals. Kentucky benefits from the data from these measurements, but is not responsible for the funding decisions to maintain these measurements into the future. Such measurements include web cameras operated by the National Park Service in Mammoth Cave National Park.

KYDAQ and the local air agencies in the State operate a comprehensive PM2.5 network of the filter based Federal reference method monitors, continuous mass monitors (TEOMs), and filter based speciated monitors. A map of the various locations around the State is included in Figure 9.0-1. These PM2.5 measurements help the KYDAQ characterize air pollution levels in areas across the state, and therefore aid in the analysis of visibility improvement in and near the Class I areas.

The IMPROVE measurements are central to Kentucky's regional haze monitoring strategy, and it is difficult to visualize how the objectives listed above could be met without the monitoring provided by IMPROVE. Any reduction in the scope of the IMPROVE network in Kentucky would jeopardize the State's ability to demonstrate reasonable progress toward visibility improvement in some of its Class I areas. In particular, Kentucky's regional haze strategy relies on emission reductions that will result from the CAIR, which occur on different time scales and will most likely not be spatially uniform. Monitoring at every Class I area is important to document the different air quality responses to the emissions reductions.
Because each of the current IMPROVE monitor in Mammoth Cave represents a different airshed, reduction of the IMPROVE network by shutting down one of these monitoring sites impedes tracking progress at reducing haze at the affected Class I area. In the event this occurs, Kentucky, in consultation with the USEPA and relevant Federal Land Managers, will develop an alternative approach for meeting the tracking goal, perhaps by seeking contingency funding to carry out limited monitoring or by relying on data from nearby urban monitoring sites to demonstrate trends in speciated PM2.5 mass.
Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly continuously for preparing the 5-year progress reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding five years of data. Consequently, the monitoring data from the IMPROVE sites needs to be readily accessible and to be kept up to date. Presumably, IMPROVE will continue to process information from its own measurements at about the same pace and with the same attention to quality as it has shown in the recent past. The VIEWS web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other Regional Planning Organizations to provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. KYDAQ is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain VIEWS or a similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE data.

KY SIP Narrative, Page 90:

Ten Year Plan and 5 Year Plan Update
The requirements listed in 51.308(g) include the following:
   1. Description of the status of implementation;
   2. Summary of emission reductions achieved thus far, including especially the status of implementation of the CAIR compliance plans for EGUs compared to the control assumed in the modeling;
   3. Assessment of changes in visibility conditions at each Class I area (current vs. baseline), expressed as 5-year averages of annual values for 20 percent best and worst days;
   4. Analysis of emission changes over the 5-year period, identified by source or activity;
   5. Analysis of any significant changes in or out of the State which have impeded progress;
   6. Assessment of the sufficiency of the implementation plan to meet Reasonable progress goals (RPGs); and
   7. Review and any modifications to our visibility monitoring plan.

All requirements listed in 51.308(g) shall be addressed in the SIP revision for reasonable progress. In particular, the KYDAQ recognizes that the 2018 projections of EGU controls from the IPM runs represent one solution to how the CAIR requirements will be met. By the time of the first periodic report, the KYDAQ anticipates that the actual compliance strategy for the various utility companies will be much more defined. An assessment of those actual compliance plans will be done for the first periodic report.

NSR/PSD
The KYDAQ believes that its New Source Review (NSR) regulation for nonattainment areas as well as its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulation for attainment areas will address emissions from new sources that may locate near a Class I area or increased emissions from major modifications to existing sources. In addition to the KYDAQ regulations that would govern these sources, consultation with the FLMs is also required for sources that are subject to KYDAQ's NSR/PSD regulations.

Consultation
KYDAQ also plans for continued consultation with the FLMs throughout the implementation process, including discussion of the implementation process and the most recent IMPROVE monitoring and VIEWS data. Consultation between KYDAQ and the FLMs will include early involvement of FLMs in the periodic review process and FLMs will receive copies of the revised regional haze SIP for comment prior to finalization.

EPA Findings: Under the RAVI regulations, a State's RAVI SIP must address any integral vistas identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304.  An integral vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a view perceived from within the mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area.  Visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area includes any integral vista associated with that area.  Kentucky does not have any integral vistas identified by the FLMs, none of its Class I areas are experiencing RAVI, nor are any of its sources affected by the RAVI provisions.  Thus, the June 28, 2008, Kentucky regional haze SIP submittal does not explicitly address the two provisions regarding coordination of regional haze and RAVI long-term strategies and monitoring requirements.  However, the Commonwealth's previous commitment to address RAVI should the FLM certify visibility impairment from an individual source remains unchanged as do the previously approved PSD/NSR visibility provisions (July 12, 1988, at 53 FR 26256; September 1, 1989, at 54 FR 36308; and July 11, 2006, at 71 FR 38990).  EPA finds that this regional haze submittal adequately supplements and augments Kentucky's RAVI visibility provisions to address regional haze, updating the monitoring and LTS provisions as summarized below in this section.

	In the June 25, 2008, submittal, KYDAQ updated its monitoring program commitments and developed a LTS to address regional haze.  KYDAQ also commits to review and revise its regional haze implementation plan and submit a plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter, as required by the RHR.  In accordance with the requirements listed in 51.308(g) of the federal rule for regional haze, KYDAQ commits to submitting a report on reasonable progress to EPA every five years following the initial submittal of the SIP, as required by the RHR.  The report will be in the form of a SIP revision.  The reasonable progress report will evaluate the progress made towards the reasonable progress goal for each mandatory Class I area located within Kentucky and in each mandatory Class I area located outside Kentucky which may be affected by emissions from within Kentucky.  In addition, consistent with the monitoring provisions for RAVI and regional haze under 40 CFR 51.305 and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4), Kentucky will rely on the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze monitoring requirement in the RHR.  Finally, the Kentucky NSR rules continue to provide a framework for review and coordination with the FLM on new sources which may have an adverse impact on visibility in either form (i.e., RAVI and/or regional haze) in any Federal Class I area.

Although Kentucky submitted and EPA approved visibility rules addressing nonattainment NSR (July 11, 2006, at 71 FR 38990), the EPA approvals of these rules neglected to remove the federally promulgated provisions in 40 CFR 52.936.  EPA will correct this omission in a separate, subsequent rulemaking.

III. Evaluation of Regional Haze Submittal
      F. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Requirements

Monitoring Strategy:
The plan must include a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the State and/or summarize monitoring strategy of States with affected mandatory Class I Federal areas. Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network.

Other Requirements:
The implementation plan must also provide for the following:
   A. The establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess whether reasonable progress goals to address regional haze for all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the State are being achieved.
   B. Procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the State.
   C. The reporting of all visibility monitoring data at least annually for each mandatory Class I Federal area in the State. To the extent possible, the State should report monitoring data for visibility electronically and use of the Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) is encouraged.
   D. Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures, necessary to assess and report on visibility.

State Regional Haze Submittal
KY SIP Narrative, Pages 85-87:

The primary monitoring network for regional haze, both nationwide and in Kentucky, is the IMPROVE network. Given that IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serve as the baseline for the regional haze program, the future regional haze monitoring strategy must necessarily be based on, or directly comparable to, IMPROVE. The IMPROVE measurements provide the only long-term record available for tracking visibility improvement or degradation and therefore Kentucky intends to rely on the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze monitoring requirement in the Regional Haze Rule.
There is currently one IMPROVE site in Kentucky's Mammoth Cave National Park as provided in Table 9.0-1.
Class I Area
                           IMPROVE Site Designation
Mammoth Cave National Park
                                  MACA1 (KY)
Table 9.0-1. Kentucky Class I Area and Representative IMPROVE Monitor.

   In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, some ongoing long-term limited monitoring supported by Federal Land Managers provides additional insight into progress toward regional haze goals. Kentucky benefits from the data from these measurements, but is not responsible for the funding decisions to maintain these measurements into the future. Such measurements include web cameras operated by the National Park Service in Mammoth Cave National Park.

KYDAQ and the local air agencies in the State operate a comprehensive PM2.5 network of the filter based Federal reference method monitors, continuous mass monitors (TEOMs), and filter based speciated monitors. A map of the various locations around the State is included in Figure 9.0-1. These PM2.5 measurements help the KYDAQ characterize air pollution levels in areas across the state, and therefore aid in the analysis of visibility improvement in and near the Class I areas.

Figure 9.0-1 PM2.5 Monitoring Network in Kentucky.

The IMPROVE measurements are central to Kentucky's regional haze monitoring strategy, and it is difficult to visualize how the objectives listed above could be met without the monitoring provided by IMPROVE. Any reduction in the scope of the IMPROVE network in Kentucky would jeopardize the State's ability to demonstrate reasonable progress toward visibility improvement in some of its Class I areas. In particular, Kentucky's regional haze strategy relies on emission reductions that will result from the CAIR, which occur on different time scales and will most likely not be spatially uniform. Monitoring at every Class I area is important to document the different air quality responses to the emissions reductions.
Because each of the current IMPROVE monitor in Mammoth Cave represents a different airshed, reduction of the IMPROVE network by shutting down one of these monitoring sites impedes tracking progress at reducing haze at the affected Class I area. In the event this occurs, Kentucky, in consultation with the USEPA and relevant Federal Land Managers, will develop an alternative approach for meeting the tracking goal, perhaps by seeking contingency funding to carry out limited monitoring or by relying on data from nearby urban monitoring sites to demonstrate trends in speciated PM2.5 mass.
Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly continuously for preparing the 5-year progress reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of which relies on
analysis of the preceding five years of data. Consequently, the monitoring data from the IMPROVE sites needs to be readily accessible and to be kept up to date. Presumably, IMPROVE will continue to process information from its own measurements at about the same pace and with the same attention to quality as it has shown in the recent past. The VIEWS web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other Regional Planning Organizations to provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. KYDAQ is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain VIEWS or a similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE data.

EPA Findings: Kentucky has adequately addressed this provision.

III. Evaluation of Regional Haze Submittal
      G. Emission Inventory (40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) (See also TSD Section III.C.))

The SIP must include a statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area within the State. The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions, and a commitment to update the inventory periodically.

State Regional Haze Submittal
KY SIP Narrative, Page 16:

The Regional Haze Rule at 51.308(d) (4) (v) requires a statewide emissions inventory of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I area. An inventory was developed for the baseline year 2002 and projected to 2009 and 2018. The pollutants inventoried include volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, fine particulate (PM2.5), coarse particulate (PM10), ammonia and sulfur dioxide. The baseline emissions inventory for 2002 was developed for Kentucky following the methods described in Appendix D.
There are five different emission inventory source classifications: stationary point and area sources, off-road and on-road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. Stationary point sources are those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage per year, with data provided at the facility level. Electric generating utilities and industrial sources are the major categories for stationary point sources. Stationary area sources are those sources whose individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the large number of these sources, the collective emissions from the source category could be significant (i.e., dry cleaners, service stations, agricultural sources, fire emissions, etc.). These types of emissions are estimated on a countywide level. Non-road (or off-road) mobile sources are equipment that can move but do not use the roadways, i.e., lawn mowers, construction equipment, railroad locomotives, aircraft, etc. The emissions from these sources, like stationary area sources, are estimated on a countywide level. On-road mobile sources are automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway system. The emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type and road type and are summed to the countywide level. Biogenic sources are the natural sources like trees, crops, grasses and natural decay of plants. The emissions from these sources are estimated on a countywide level.
In addition to the various source classifications, there are also various types of emission inventories. The first is the actual base year inventory. This inventory is the base year emissions that correspond to the meteorological data used, which for this modeling effort is data from 2002. These emissions are used for evaluating the air quality model performance.
The second type of inventory is the typical base year inventory. This inventory is similar to the actual base year inventory, except that for sources whose emissions change significantly from year to year, a more typical emission value is used. In this modeling effort, typical emissions were developed for the electric generating units (EGUs) and the wildland fire emissions. The air quality modeling runs using the typical base year inventory provide results which are then used to calculate relative reduction factors for future years. These relative reduction factors for future years are then used to demonstrate reasonable progress toward visibility goals.

KY SIP Narrative, Page 20:

Table 4.1.6-1 is a summary of the 2002 baseline emission inventory for Kentucky. The complete inventory and discussion of the methodology is contained in Appendix D. The emissions summaries for other VISTAS states can also be found in Appendix D.

Table 4.1.6-1 2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for Kentucky (tons per year).

KY SIP Narrative, Page 43:

The inventories for 2009 and 2018 account for post-2002 emission reductions from promulgated and proposed federal, state, local, and site-specific control programs as of July 1, 2004. In general, emissions inventories were developed for 2009 and 2018 using current control information in Kentucky.
For EGUs, IPM results were adjusted based on state and local air agencies knowledge of planned emission controls at specific EGUs. These updates are documented in the MACTEC emissions inventory report "Documentation of the 2002 Base Year and 2009 and 2018 Projection Year Emission Inventories for VISTAS" dated February 2007 (Appendix D).
For non-EGUs, VISTAS used recently updated growth and control data consistent with the data used in the USEPA's CAIR analyses (Clean Air Interstate Rule Emissions Inventory Technical Support Document, March 2005) supplemented by state and local air agencies data and updated forecasts from the Department of Energy (DOE).
Area source controls were estimated using known state level Stage I controls on gasoline dispensing facilities and open burning estimates, as well as controls used to project emissions for the USEPA's Heavy Duty Diesel rulemaking and for the CAIR rulemaking.
Mobile source controls included local controls underlying the 2002 baseline inventory (vehicle emission inspection, Stage II vapor recovery, anti-tampering, etc.) with changes based on specific State input. The future year inventories were developed by running the MOBILE6.2 model for each year modeled. The future year emissions for the off-road mobile sources included in the USEPA NONROAD model were estimated by running the model for each future year. For the other off-road mobile source categories control data and projections for 1996, 2010, 2015, and 2020 were obtained from the USEPA's CAIR Technical Support Document, and straight-line projections were used to estimate 2009 and 2018 levels.
KY SIP Narrative, Page 45:

KY SIP Narrative, Page 90:

The requirements listed in 51.308(g) include the following:
   1. Description of the status of implementation;
   2. Summary of emission reductions achieved thus far, including especially the status of implementation of the CAIR compliance plans for EGUs compared to the control assumed in the modeling;
   3. Assessment of changes in visibility conditions at each Class I area (current vs. baseline), expressed as 5-year averages of annual values for 20 percent best and worst days;
   4. Analysis of emission changes over the 5-year period, identified by source or activity;
   5. Analysis of any significant changes in or out of the State which have impeded progress;
   6. Assessment of the sufficiency of the implementation plan to meet Reasonable progress goals (RPGs); and
   7. Review and any modifications to our visibility monitoring plan.

All requirements listed in 51.308(g) shall be addressed in the SIP revision for reasonable progress. In particular, the KYDAQ recognizes that the 2018 projections of EGU controls from the IPM runs represent one solution to how the CAIR requirements will be met. By the time of the first periodic report, the KYDAQ anticipates that the actual compliance strategy for the various utility companies will be much more defined. An assessment of those actual compliance plans will be done for the first periodic report.

EPA Findings: Kentucky has adequately addressed this provision.
IV. Conclusion

Except for those aspects of the regional haze submittal that rely on CAIR, Kentucky's regional haze SIP, submitted on June 25, 2008, and as amended on May 28, 2010, meets all of the requirements of section 110 of the CAA and meets the regional haze requirements, as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the Act and in 40 CFR 51.300-308.  The SIP meets these requirements by, among other things, requiring the establishment of reasonable progress goals for each of its Class I areas, determining BART, and submitting a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for its Class I areas and for those Class I areas in other states that may be impacted by emissions from within Kentucky.  Thus, EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of the Kentucky regional haze SIP in the associated Federal Register action.
.


[Federal Register: April 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 76)]
[Notices]
[Page 18376-18377]
[DOCID:fr22ap09-45]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0513; FRL-8410-5]

Triclosan; Notice of Receipt of Requests for Amendments To Delete
Uses in Certain Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a
notice of receipt of request for amendments by registrants to delete
uses in certain pesticide registrations. Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA
provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time
request that any of its pesticide registrations be amended to delete
one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the
request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any request in the
Federal Register.

DATES: The deletions are effective October 19, 2009, unless the Agency
receives a written withdrawal request on or before October 19, 2009.
The Agency will consider a withdrawal request postmarked no later than
October 19, 2009.
    Users of these products who desire continued use on sites being
deleted should contact the applicable registrant on or before October
19, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your withdrawal request, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0513, by one of the
following methods:
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Garvie, Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to persons who produce or use
pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0513. Publicly available docket
materials are available either in the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office
of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This notice announces receipt by the Agency of applications from
registrants to delete uses in certain pesticide registrations. These
registrations are listed in Table 1 of this unit by registration
number, product name, active ingredient, and specific uses deleted:

               Table 1.--Requests for Amendments to Delete Uses in Certain Pesticide Registrations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         EPA Registration No.                Product Name          Active Ingredient        Delete from Label
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
73951-1                                VIV-20                   Triclosan                Materials preservative
                                                                                used in paint
                                                                                formulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Users of these products who desire continued use on sites being
deleted should contact the applicable registrant before October 19,
2009 to discuss withdrawal of the application for amendment. This 180-
day period will also permit interested members of the public to
intercede with registrants prior to the Agency's approval of the
deletion.
    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for
all registrants of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit, in
sequence by EPA company number.

  Table 2.--Registrants Requesting Amendments to Delete Uses in Certain
                         Pesticide Registrations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            EPA Company Number                Company Name and Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
73951                                      Har-Met International, Inc.
                                           60 Houk Road
                                           Doylestown, PA 18901
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be amended to delete one or more uses. The FIFRA further provides that,
before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of
any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter, the Administrator
may approve such a request.

IV. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for use deletion must
submit the withdrawal in writing to Heather Garvie using the methods in
ADDRESSES. The Agency will consider written withdrawal requests
postmarked no later than October 19, 2009.

V. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    The Agency has authorized the registrants to sell or distribute
product under the previously approved labeling for a period of 18
months after approval of the revision, unless other restrictions have
been imposed, as in special review actions.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Antimicrobials,
Triclosan.

    Dated: April 7, 2009.
 Betty Shackleford,
Acting Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs
[FR Doc. E9-8993 Filed 4-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


PUBLIC HEARING PRESS REGISTRATION Proposed Rulemaking on Section 126, Federal Implementation Plans,

Revisions to the CAIR, and Revisions to the Acid Rain Program U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 1117 A Washington, DC 20460 September 15, 2005   9: 00 a. m. to 5: 00 p. m.

NAME/ E MAIL ADDRESS AFFILIATION/ ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER Steven Cook scook@ bna. com Bureau of Environmental News BNA, Inc.

1231 25th Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 202 452 4331 John Millett millet. john@ epa. gov U. S. EPA Office of Media Relations 2502 N. Ariel Rios Bldg ( 1703A)

Washington, DC 20460 202 564 7842 Darren Samuelsohn dsamuelsohn@ eenews. net E & E Publishing, LLC Greenwire 122 C Street, NW Suite 722 Washington, DC 20001 202 737 4340, x224


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38618-38619]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16847]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2600-087]

Bangor-Pacific Hydro Associates; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (PAD), Commencement of
Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments on the PAD and
Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study
Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.
    b. Project No.: 2600-087.
    c. Dated Filed: May 31, 2019.
    d. Submitted By: Bangor-Pacific Hydro Associates (BPHA).
    e. Name of Project: West Enfield Project.
    f. Location: On the Penobscot River in Penobscot County, Maine. The
project does not occupy any federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Randy Dorman, Brookfield Renewable,
150 Main Street, Lewiston, ME 04240; phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Erin Kimsey at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC 61,076
(2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and (b) the Maine State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Penobscot Nation Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), as required by section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act and the implementing regulations of
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Bangor-Pacific Hydro
Associates as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying
out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and
section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
    m. Bangor-Pacific Hydro Associates filed with the Commission a Pre-
Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and
schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). Copies are also available by request from Mr. Randy Dorman
of Brookfield Renewable at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission staff's Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to
the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD
and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and
all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits
of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>In lieu of electronic filing, please send a
paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-2600-087.
    All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading:
Comments on Pre-Application Document, Study Requests, Comments on
Scoping Document 1, Request for Cooperating Agency Status, or
Communications to and from Commission Staff. Any individual or entity
interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1,
and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
    p. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental
assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be required. The scoping process will satisfy the
NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or EIS is
issued by the Commission.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of
the project at the time and place noted below. The daytime meeting will
focus on resource agency, Indian tribe, and non-governmental
organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for
receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and
to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the
scope of environmental issues to be

addressed in the environmental document. The times and locations of
these meetings are as follows:

Daytime Scoping Meeting

    Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019.
    Time: 10:00 a.m.
    Location: Enfield Town Office, 789 Hammett Road, Enfield, ME 04493.
    Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Evening Scoping Meeting

    Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019.
    Time: 6:00 p.m.
    Location: Enfield Town Office, 789 Hammett Road, Enfield, ME 04493.
    Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SD1, which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the
environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on
the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the
scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov,
using the eLibrary link. Follow the directions for accessing
information in paragraph n. Based on all oral and written comments, a
Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may include a revised
process plan and schedule, as well as a list of issues, identified
through the scoping process.

Environmental Site Review

    The licensee and Commission staff will conduct an environmental
site review of the project on Tuesday, August 27, 2019, starting at
1:00 p.m. All participants should meet at the project, located at 94
Dam Road, West Enfield, ME 04493.
    If you plan to attend the environmental site review, please contact
Randy Dorman of Brookfield Renewable at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email at
[email protected] on or before August 19, 2019, and
indicate how many participants will be attending with you.

Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the
issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource
management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and
identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and
discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that
incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's
regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of
federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and
(5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or
Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an
environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are
included in item n of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed
in the public records of the project.

    Dated: July 30, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-16847 Filed 8-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37659-37660]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13716]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77996; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 5, To Adopt Initial
and Continued Listing Standards for the Listing of Equity Investment
Tracking Stocks and Adopt Listing Fees Specific to Equity Investment
Tracking Stocks

June 6, 2016.
    On April 7, 2016, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt initial and continued listing standards
for the listing of Equity Investment Tracking Stocks and to adopt fees
for Equity Investment Tracking Stocks. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on April 27, 2016.\3\ On
April 20, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change, which superseded the original filing in its entirety.\4\ On May
17, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 5 to the proposal, which
superseded the filing, as amended by Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 5
was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 23, 2016.\5\
No comments have been received on the proposed rule change in response
to both the original publication

of the proposal in the Federal Register \6\ and, to date, in response
to the subsequent publication of the proposal as modified by Amendment
No. 5.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77674 (April 21,
2016), 81 FR 24919 (April 27, 2016).
    \4\ On May 13, 2016, the Exchange submitted and withdrew
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. On May 13, 2016, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change, and on
May 16, 2016 the Exchange withdrew Amendment No. 3 to the proposed
rule change. On May 16, 2016 the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 4
to the proposal, and on May 17, 2016, the Exchange withdrew
Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77850 (May 17,
2016), 81 FR 32360 (May 23, 2016).
    \6\ See note 3 supra.
    \7\ See note 5 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \8\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is June 11, 2016. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period
for Commission action on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 5.\9\ Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\10\ and for the reason noted above, designates
July 26, 2016 as the date by which the Commission should either approve
or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSE-2016-22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See note 4 supra, and accompanying text.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13716 Filed 6-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P