[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11148-11151]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03346]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0050]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sturgeon Bay, Sturgeon Bay, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the operating regulation that
governs the Bayview (State Route 42/57) Bridge, Mile 3.0, Maple-Oregon
Bridge, Mile 4.17, and Michigan Street Bridge, Mile 4.3, all over
Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal in Sturgeon Bay, WI, to allow testing of the
remote operation equipment for all three drawbridges. The operating
schedules are not changing. The three drawbridges will be remotely
operated by a single tender throughout the 2017 navigation season with
request for comments from all stakeholders on the safety and
effectiveness of the remote operation arrangement.

DATES: This interim rule is effective from March 23, 2017 to midnight
on March 15, 2018. Comments and related material must reach the Coast
Guard on or before December 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments or view documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type [USCG-2017-0050] in the ``SEARCH'' box and
click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated
with this rulemaking.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section

below for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this interim
rule, call or email Mr. Lee Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth
Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
WI-DOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the operating schedules and methods
to signal for openings of the three drawbridges across Sturgeon Bay
Ship Canal under this regulation are not changing, and WI-DOT has been
testing the remote operation equipment the past two navigation seasons
without any reported negative impact to safety or navigation. Also,
stakeholders and the general public will have the opportunity, and are
encouraged, to submit comments throughout most of the interim rule
period.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule under the authority of
33 U.S.C. 499. The operating schedules for the three drawbridges that
cross Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal in Sturgeon Bay, WI are found under the
existing regulation, 33 CFR 117.1101; Surgeon Bay. All three
drawbridges are bascule-type bridges with unlimited vertical clearance
in the open position. In the closed position, the three drawbridges
provide the following clearances: Bayview Bridge 42-feet, Maple-Oregon
Bridge 25-feet, and Michigan Street Bridge 14-feet. Under the current
regulations, from March 15 thru November 30, the Bayview Bridge opens
on signal for vessels 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Between
December 1 and March 14 the Bayview Bridge will open for vessels if at
least 12-hours advance notice is provided. Between March 15 and
December 31, the Maple-Oregon Bridge will open for recreational vessels
on the quarter-hour and three-quarter hour, 24 hours per day, 7 days
per week. Between March 15 and December 31 the Michigan Street Bridge
will open for vessels on the hour and half-hour, 24 hours per day, 7
days per week. Between January 1 and March 14 both the Maple-Oregon and
the Michigan Street Bridges will open for vessels if at least 12-hours
advance notice is provided. All three drawbridges open at any time for
commercial vessels. Due to the close proximity of the Maple-Oregon and
the Michigan Street Bridges, both are required to open simultaneously
if requested by a commercial vessel and both shall open on signal at
any time if at least 10 vessels have accumulated at either bridge
waiting for an opening or vessels are seeking shelter from severe
weather.
    WI-DOT, owner of all three drawbridges, has requested the Coast
Guard authorize permanent remote operation of Bayview Bridge and
Michigan Street Bridge, with operation from a single tender stationed
at the middle bridge, Maple-Oregon Bridge, under the provisions of 33
CFR 117.42. This interim rule is intended to allow remote operation
arrangement throughout the 2017 navigation season under testing
conditions to fully evaluate any impacts at the conclusion of the test
period. Authorizing temporary remote operation of the Sturgeon Bay
drawbridges provides a good opportunity to evaluate the use of current
technology to monitor and operate remote drawbridges. This is
particularly true given the conditions on this waterway and the
demonstrated record over time by the bridge owner, WI-DOT, to
efficiently manage and operate their drawbridges within the Ninth Coast
Guard District.
    The Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal carries large (freighter) and smaller
(tug/barge) commercial vessels, recreational vessels (including sailing
vessels), vessels seeking emergency yard services, transient vessels,
and vessels seeking shelter from severe weather. There are numerous
commercial, recreational, and transient facilities along Sturgeon Bay
Ship Canal, including a shipyard capable of servicing freighter size
commercial vessels. Vessels may enter or exit the Ship Canal through
east or west entrances, with some traffic passing through the entire
waterway and requiring openings of all three drawbridges, and some
traffic reaching facilities without requiring any drawbridge openings
by entering the waterway from either the Lake Michigan or Green Bay
sides.
    Based on data provided by WI-DOT for the 2014 and 2015 navigation
seasons, the following charts show the number of commercial and
recreational vessel traffic openings for each bridge:
    Bayview Bridge:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Commercial     Recreational
                              Year                                    vessels         vessels     Total openings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014............................................................             179             466             579
2015............................................................             171             476             570
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maple-Oregon Bridge:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Commercial     Recreational
                              Year                                    vessels         vessels     Total openings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014............................................................             470            1335            1351
2015............................................................             463            1449            1442
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Michigan Street Bridge:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Commercial     Recreational
                              Year                                    vessels         vessels     Total openings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014............................................................            1766            2897            2764
2015............................................................            2057            3922            3239
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WI-DOT will gather additional throughout the 2017 navigation season
and during this interim rule. WI-DOT will also collect additional data
to evaluate the remote operation arrangement, including vehicular and
pedestrian traffic totals. The operating schedules for all three
drawbridges will not be changed.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    WI-DOT completed installation of remote operation equipment on all
three drawbridges in 2014 and operated all three drawbridges via remote
operation equipment from the middle bridge, Maple-Oregon, during the
2015 and 2016 navigation seasons. During this period WI-DOT identified
improvements to equipment, best practices and protocols.
    WI-DOT has proposed permanently operating the Bayview and Michigan
Street Bridges with a single bridge tender operating remote equipment
from the Maple-Oregon Bridge, which is located between the Bayview and
Michigan Street Bridges. In order to fulfill the required methods to
receive and respond to bridge opening requests from vessels, as
outlined in Subpart A of 33 CFR 117, WI-DOT will employ the following
equipment and protocols; separate programmable logic controllers (PLC)
designed for each bridge on fiber optic connections, digital camera
coverage (with ability to pan and provide overlap video coverage) of
all approaches from land and water, thermal imaging during severe
weather or restricted visibility, two-way audio capability, VHF-FM
marine radiotelephone, landline telephone, horn, signal lights, back-up
and redundant systems, exclusive duties of bridge tenders, and signage
at the bridges advising mariners of communication and signaling
methods. WI-DOT has developed protocols to suspend the remote operation
arrangement and provide tenders at each drawbridge during emergencies
or equipment failures and during busy holidays or weekends (Memorial
Day, July Fourth, Labor Day). At the conclusion of the comment period
of this interim rule period WI-DOT will provide a report documenting
various data and observations, including; frequency of bridge openings,
vehicular traffic counts, vessel traffic counts (and type), pedestrian
counts, frequency of equipment failure and temporary suspension of
remote operation, frequency of restricted visibility, best practices,
lessons learned, and any other information useful for evaluating the
remote operation arrangement. The Coast Guard and WI-DOT will evaluate
the data and all comments provided by stakeholders and the general
public and determine whether to extend the test period, modify the
arrangement, or make the remote operation arrangement permanent in
Sturgeon Bay.
    The existing operating schedules of the drawbridges will not be
changed during the interim rule period, and are not expected to be
changed following the period.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the fact no
changes to operating schedules are implemented with this action. The
remote drawbridge operation is expected and designed to be transparent
to vessels with no additional requirements or actions necessary to pass
any of the three drawbridges.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This Interim Rule imposes no changes or additional
requirements for any vessel operator or small entity to pass a
drawbridge compared to current conditions.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct

effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have
analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is
consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from
further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Commandant
Instruction.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the For Further
Information Contact section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in
our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by
following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the
online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when
comments are posted or a final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.1101, add introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  117.1101   Sturgeon Bay.

    The draws of the Bayview (State Route 42/57) and Michigan Street
bridges, miles 3.0 and 4.3, respectively, at Sturgeon Bay, are remotely
operated by the tender at Maple-Oregon bridge, mile 4.17, and shall
open as follows:
* * * * *

    Dated: February 3, 2017.
J.E. Ryan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-03346 Filed 2-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1481-1482]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00080]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0163; FRL-9921-18-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State
of Iowa. The purpose of these revisions is to update the Polk County
Board of Health Rules and Regulations, Chapter V, Air Pollution. These
proposed revisions reflect updates to the Iowa statewide rules
previously approved by EPA and will ensure consistency between the
applicable local agency rules and Federally-approved rules. On April
15, 2014, the state amended their request and notified EPA that it is
withdrawing their requests to approve to adopt greenhouse gases
definition and sections relating to greenhouse gas emissions. This
withdrawal request is in recognition of the July 12, 2013, U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision which vacated the
regulation known as the ``biogenic deferral rule''. On October 31,
2014, the state requested that EPA withdraw their request to approve
the definition of anaerobic lagoon.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
February 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2014-0163 by mail to: Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or
through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in
the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse
comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant
adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of the rule
and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may
adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule
which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 19, 2014.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart Q--Iowa

0
2. In Sec.  52.820, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for ``CHAPTER V'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                          EPA-Approved Iowa Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    State
     Iowa citation              Title          effective date    EPA approval date            Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Iowa Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission [567]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Polk County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER V.............  Polk County Board of         08/05/13  January 12, 2015       Article I, Section 5-2,
                         Health Rules and                       [Insert Federal        definition of
                         Regulations Air                        Register citation].    ``variance,'' ``anaerobic
                         Pollution Chapter V.                                          lagoon,'' and
                                                                                ``greenhouse gases'';
                                                                                Article III, Incineration
                                                                                and Open Burning, Section
                                                                                5-7(d) Variance
                                                                                Application; Article VI,
                                                                                Sections 5-16(n), (o) and
                                                                                (p); Article VIII;
                                                                                Article IX, Sections 5-
                                                                                27(3) and (4); Article X,
                                                                                Section 5-28, subsections
                                                                                (a) through (c), and
                                                                                Article X, Section 5-
                                                                                35(b)(5); Article XIII;
                                                                                and Article XVI, Section
                                                                                5-75 are not part of the
                                                                                SIP. Article VI, Section
                                                                                5-17, adopted by Polk
                                                                                County on 7/26/2011, is
                                                                                not part of the SIP, and
                                                                                the previously approved
                                                                                version of Article VI,
                                                                                Section 5-17 remains part
                                                                                of the SIP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-00080 Filed 1-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 230 (Monday, November 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76655-76657]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26354]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0442; FMCSA-2014-0216; FMCSA-2015-0322; FMCSA-
2015-0323; FMCSA-2016-0007; FMCSA-2016-0008; FMCSA-2018-0056]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 11
individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers have ``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions
enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are
taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before December
30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0442, Docket No. FMCSA-
2014-0216, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0322, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0323,
Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0007, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0008, or Docket No.
FMCSA-2018-0056 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0442, FMCSA-2014-0216, FMCSA-2015-0322,
FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2016-0007, FMCSA-2016-0008, or FMCSA-2018-0056),
indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or
hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends
that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or
a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact
you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2013-0442, FMCSA-2014-0216, FMCSA-2015-
0322, FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2016-0007, FMCSA-2016-0008, or FMCSA-2018-
0056, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' When the new screen
appears, click on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type your comment
into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are
submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party
and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.

    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2013-0442, FMCSA-2014-0216, FMCSA-2015-
0322, FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2016-0007, FMCSA-2016-0008, or FMCSA-2018-
0056, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open
Docket Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not
have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting
Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To
be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners (MEs) in determining whether
drivers with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV
in interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These criteria may be found in APPENDIX A TO PART 391--
MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8),
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, which is available on the internet at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 11 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in
Sec.  391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly,
FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and
decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.

III. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 11
applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The 11
drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have
maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical
issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV
during the previous 2-year exemption period. In addition, for
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's
License Information System and the Motor Carrier Management Information
System are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders,
the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's
Licensing Agency. These factors provide an adequate basis for
predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the
exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of 2 years is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of December
and are discussed below.
    As of December 3, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following seven individuals have satisfied the
renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and
seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Nicolas Donez, Jr. (CO)
Michael C. Grant (SC)
Larry G. Hediger (IL)
Thomas K. Mitchell (MS)
Isaac E. Rogers (IL)
Donald J. Smith (NY)
Joseph A. Thomas (MD)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0442, FMCSA-
2014-0216, FMCSA-2015-0322, FMCSA-2016-0007, and FMCSA-2018-0056. Their
exemptions are applicable as of December 3, 2020, and will expire on
December 3, 2022.
    As of December 21, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Douglas Cantwell (TN)
Kenneth B. Elder (KY)
Ronnie D. Moody (NC)
Tara VanHorne (PA)
    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0323 and
FMCSA-2016-0008. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 21,
2020, and will expire on December 21, 2022.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable
treatment during the 2-year exemption period; (2) each driver must
submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the
stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free;
(3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a
certified ME, as defined by Sec.  390.5; and (4) each driver must
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her
driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must
also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a
duly authorized

Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based on its evaluation of the 11 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy
and seizure disorders prohibition in Sec.  391.41(b)(8). In accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for
2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-26354 Filed 11-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18243-18248]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08622]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0015; FRL-9976-45--Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Colorado; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Colorado on May 26, 2017, addressing regional haze. The EPA is
proposing to approve source-specific revisions to the nitrogen oxides
(NOX) best available retrofit technology (BART)
determination for Craig Station Unit 1. This unit is owned in part and
operated by Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-
State). We are also proposing to approve revisions to the
NOX reasonable progress determination for Tri-State's Nucla
Station. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments: Written comments must be received on or before May 29,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2018-0015, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    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 Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the
hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-
1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. What action is the EPA taking?
II. Background
    A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze
Rule
    B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    C. Reasonable Progress Requirements
    D. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
    E. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2012 Colorado SIP
III. Craig Unit 1--NOX BART
    A. Background
    B. May 26, 2017 Submittal
    C. The EPA's Evaluation of Craig Unit 1 Amendments
IV. Nucla--NOX Reasonable Progress
    A. Background
    B. May 26, 2017 Submittal
    C. The EPA's Evaluation of Nucla Amendments
V. Coordination With FLMs
VI. The EPA's Proposed Action
    VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is the EPA taking?

    On December 31, 2012, the EPA approved a regional haze SIP revision
submitted by the State of Colorado on May 25, 2011. The 2011 SIP
revision included NOX BART emission limits for Craig Station
Units 1 and 2 near Craig, Colorado, and a NOX reasonable
progress emission limit for the Nucla Station located in Montrose
County.\1\ The State of Colorado submitted proposed revisions to the
2011 SIP submittal on May 26, 2017, that modify the NOX BART
determination for Craig Unit 1 and the NOX reasonable
progress determination for Nucla. The EPA is now proposing to approve
those revisions. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve the
State's revisions to the Craig Unit 1 NOX BART determination
that would require Craig Unit 1 to meet an annual NOX
emission limit of 4,065 tons per year (tpy) by December 31, 2019. The
SIP revision would also require the unit to either (1) convert to
natural gas by August 31, 2023, and if converting to natural gas,

comply with a NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average) beginning August 31, 2021, or (2) shut down by
December 31, 2025. The EPA is also proposing to approve the State's
revisions to the Nucla NOX reasonable progress determination
that would require the source to meet an annual NOX emission
limit of 952 tpy by January 1, 2020, and shut down on or before
December 31, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 77 FR 76871 (December 31, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule

    In section 169A of the CAA, added by the 1977 Amendments to the
Act, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the
nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section establishes
``as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of
any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal
areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' \2\ On
December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility
impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a
single source or small group of sources.\3\ These regulations
represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. The
EPA deferred action on regional haze, which emanates from a variety of
sources, until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the
relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were
improved.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as mandatory Class I
Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres,
wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 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 section, we
mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
    \3\ 45 FR 80084, 80084 (December 2, 1980).
    \4\ Regional haze means visibility impairment that is caused by
the emission of air pollutants from numerous anthropogenic sources
located over a wide geographic area. Such sources include, but are
not limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources,
and area sources. 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on
July 1, 1999.\5\ The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revised the existing
visibility regulations to integrate provisions addressing regional haze
and established 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 the EPA's visibility protection regulations at
40 CFR 51.300-51.309. The EPA revised the RHR on January 10, 2017.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 CFR part
51, subpart P).
    \6\ 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA requires each state to develop a SIP to meet various air
quality requirements, including protection of visibility.\7\ Regional
haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. A state must
submit its SIP and SIP revisions to the EPA for approval. Once
approved, a SIP is enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the CAA;
that is, the SIP is federally enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ CAA sections 110(a), 169A, and 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a),
7491, and 7492(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs the EPA to require 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)
requires states to include in their SIPs such measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and
operate the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the
states. Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART
determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may reasonably
be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a
Class I area.
    On July 6, 2005, the EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (the ``BART Guidelines'')
to assist states in determining which sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in setting appropriate emission limits for each
covered source.\8\ The process of establishing BART emission
limitations follows three steps: first, identify the sources that meet
the definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth in 40 CFR 51.301;
\9\ second, determine which of these sources ``emits any air pollutant
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility in any such area'' (a source which fits this
description is ``subject to BART''); and third, for each source subject
to BART, identify the best available type and level of control for
reducing emissions. Section 169A(g)(7) of the CAA requires that states
consider five factors in making BART determinations: (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. 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 (SO2), NOX, and
particulate matter (PM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 70 FR 39104; 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y.
    \9\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, were not in operation before August 7, 1962, but were in
existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one or
more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A SIP addressing regional haze must include source-specific BART
emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to
BART. In lieu of requiring source-specific BART controls, states have
the flexibility to adopt alternative measures, as long as the
alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards natural
visibility conditions than BART (i.e., the alternative must be ``better
than BART'').\10\ Once a state has made a BART determination, the BART
controls must be installed and operated as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 5 years after the date of the EPA's
approval of the final SIP.\11\ In addition to what is required by the
RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP include all
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting for the BART emission limitations.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3).
    \11\ CAA section 169A(g)(4), 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(4); 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv).
    \12\ CAA section 110(a), 42 U.S.C. 7410(a); 40 CFR part 51,
subpart K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Reasonable Progress Requirements

    In addition to BART requirements, each regional haze SIP must
contain measures as necessary to make reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal. As part of determining what measures are
necessary to make reasonable progress,

the SIP must first identify anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment that are to be considered in developing the long-term
strategy for addressing visibility impairment.\13\ States must then
consider the four statutory reasonable progress factors in selecting
control measures for inclusion in the long-term strategy--the costs of
compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful
life of potentially affected sources.\14\ Finally, the SIP must
establish reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for each Class I area within
the State for the plan implementation period (or ``planning period''),
based on the measures included in the long-term strategy.\15\ If an RPG
provides for a slower rate of improvement in visibility than the rate
needed to attain the national goal by 2064, the SIP must demonstrate,
based on the four reasonable progress factors, why the rate to attain
the national goal by 2064 is not reasonable and the RPG is
reasonable.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv).
    \14\ CAA section 169A(g)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1); 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
    \15\ 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
    \16\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that a state consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting a required SIP or SIP revision.\17\ States must provide FLMs
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days before
holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment
of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the
development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must
include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the
state's visibility protection program, including development and review
of SIP revisions and 5-year progress reports, and on the implementation
of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2012 Colorado SIP

    On December 31, 2012, the EPA approved a regional haze SIP revision
submitted by the State of Colorado on May 25, 2011. On February 25,
2013, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and Wild Earth
Guardians (Guardians) filed petitions for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit of the EPA's final approval of the
Colorado regional haze SIP.\18\ Among other things, Guardians and NPCA
challenged the NOX BART limit for Craig Unit 1. Tri-State
and the State of Colorado joined the litigation as intervenors. After
the court consolidated the cases for review, and after several months
of court-supervised mediation, the parties reached a settlement under
which Craig Unit 1 would be subject to a 0.07 lb/MMBtu NOX
limit, consistent with the installation of selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) controls, by August 31, 2021.\19\ The settlement
further required that the EPA ask the Tenth Circuit to vacate the
previous approval of the Colorado SIP revision relating to Craig Unit 1
and remand the rule to the agency for further action. The court granted
the EPA's request on December 22, 2014, and signed an order ending the
litigation on August 15, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, No. 13-9520 (10th Cir.) and
National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, No. 13-9525 (10th
Cir.).
    \19\ 79 FR 47636 (August 14, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the terms of the 2014 settlement, Colorado
submitted a SIP revision to the EPA in 2015 to revise the Craig Unit 1
NOX BART determination, emission limit, and associated
compliance deadline. Specifically, Colorado determined that
NOX BART for Craig Unit 1 was an emission limit of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu, which was based on the capabilities of SCR, and established an
associated compliance date of August 31, 2021.
    In 2017, Colorado submitted a regional haze SIP revision to the EPA
reassessing the NOX limit for the Craig Unit 1. The
revisions were developed after discussions in 2016 between Tri-State,
Guardians, NPCA, the State of Colorado, and the EPA, and require one of
two possible NOX BART compliance paths for Craig Unit 1 to
either (1) shut down by December 31, 2025, or (2) convert to natural-
gas firing by August 31, 2023. If Craig Unit 1 is converted to natural-
gas firing, the NOX emission limit will be 0.07 lb/MMBtu
after August 31, 2021 (30-day rolling average). If Craig Unit 1 is shut
down, the NOX emission limit will be 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average) until December 31, 2025. Colorado withdrew the 2015
SIP revision when it submitted the 2017 SIP revision that is the
subject of this proposed action.

III. Craig Unit 1--NOX BART

A. Background

    The 2011 regional haze SIP for Colorado established a
NOX BART emission limit for Craig Units 1 and 2. The Craig
Station is located in Moffat County, approximately 2.5 miles southwest
of the town of Craig. This facility is a coal-fired power plant with a
total net electric generating capacity of 1264 megawatts (MW),
consisting of three units. Units 1 and 2, which are subject to BART,
are dry-bottom pulverized coal-fired boilers, each rated at a net
capacity of 428 MW.
    In the 2011 submittal, Colorado determined that selective non-
catalytic reduction (SNCR) was BART for both Unit 1 and Unit 2, based
on the cost-effectiveness and visibility improvement associated with
this level of control. Colorado determined that SCR, a more stringent
control technology, was not BART because its costs were too high.
Colorado also determined that SNCR could achieve an emission limit of
0.27 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) at both Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Nevertheless, as a BART alternative, Colorado ultimately adopted a more
stringent emission limit for Unit 2 (0.08 lb/MMBtu, 30-day rolling
average, based on SCR) and a slightly less stringent limit for Unit 1
(0.28 lb/MMBtu, 30-day rolling average, based on SNCR). The EPA
approved Colorado's BART alternative and NOX BART emission
limits into the SIP on December 31, 2012.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 77 FR 76871 (December 31, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. May 26, 2017 Submittal

    On May 26, 2017, Colorado submitted a SIP revision containing
amendments to the Colorado Code of Regulations, Regulation Number 3,
Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission Notice
Requirements, Part F, Regional Haze Limits--Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) and Reasonable Progress (RP), Section VI, Regional
Haze Determinations. In assessing BART for Craig Unit 1, Colorado
determined that, under either a 20- or 30-year remaining useful life,
NOX BART would be an emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu based
on the installation of SCR.\21\ Colorado

then reassessed NOX BART for Craig Unit 1 under the two
compliance paths associated with the 2016 settlement discussions: A
shutdown in 2025 or a conversion to natural gas in 2023.\22\ After
completing this reassessment, Colorado established the following
amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This limit, consistent with the 2014 settlement, was
contained in the 2015 SIP submission. As noted previously, the State
withdrew that submission when it submitted the 2017 SIP revision,
but the State's justification for the 0.07 lb/MMBtu NOX
BART limit is retained in the 2017 SIP.
    \22\ Colorado used the term ``reassessment,'' and we interpret
the term to mean that the state reassessed its previous BART
determination under the differing future factual scenarios to see
whether those facts were outcome determinative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Craig Unit 1 will either (1) close on or before December
31, 2025; or (2) cease burning coal no later than August 31, 2021, with
the option to convert Unit 1 to natural-gas firing by August 31, 2023;
     In the case of a conversion to natural-gas firing, a 30-
day rolling average NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-
day rolling average) will be effective after August 31, 2021;
     The owner/operator of Craig Unit 1 will notify the State
in writing on or before February 28, 2021, whether Unit 1 will cease
operation or convert to natural gas;
     For both scenarios, Craig Unit 1 will be subject to an
interim NOX emission limit of 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average), effective January 1, 2017 (first compliance date January 31,
2017), until December 31, 2025 if closing or August 31, 2021 if
converting to natural gas; and
     Craig Unit 1 will be subject to an annual NOX
emission limit of 4,065 tpy effective December 31, 2019, which will be
calculated on a calendar year basis beginning in 2020.
    The amendments also excepted Craig Unit 1 from complying with the
original SIP effective date of January 30, 2013, and associated
compliance date 5 years later. The Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission adopted the revisions on December 15, 2016 (effective
February 14, 2017).
1. Shutdown
    For the shutdown compliance path, the State considered two
amortization periods to reflect the remaining useful life based on two
possible projected compliance dates and the shutdown date of December
31, 2025. The first scenario used an amortization period of 4 years and
4 months, calculated as the difference between a projected compliance
date of August 31, 2021, (which would have been required under the
State's BART determination made in conjunction with the 2014
settlement) and the December 31, 2025 shutdown date. The associated
emissions reductions, annualized cost, and cost-effectiveness values
for SNCR and SCR using the amortization period is shown in Table 1.

                                Table 1--Craig Station Unit 1 NOX Cost Comparison
                                        [4 years, 4 months of operation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Emissions                         Cost
                       Control technology                            reduction      Annualized     effectiveness
                                                                       (tpy)         cost ($)         ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNCR............................................................             779       6,172,522           7,928
SCR.............................................................           4,048      64,106,699          15,835
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second scenario used an amortization period of 8 years, to
reflect the difference between the December 31, 2025 shutdown date and
the December 31, 2017 compliance date that the 2012 SIP revision
approval established.\23\ The associated emissions reductions,
annualized costs, and cost-effectiveness values for SNCR and SCR using
the amortization period of 8 years is shown in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The operation period begins in calendar year 2018 (December
31, 2017). The effective date of the EPA's approval of Colorado's
regional haze SIP was January 30, 2013. As noted previously, the
Tenth Circuit vacated the EPA's approval of the Craig portions of
this SIP on December 22, 2014.

                                Table 2--Craig Station Unit 1 NOX Cost Comparison
                                             [8 years of operation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Emissions                         Cost
                       Control technology                            reduction      Annualized     effectiveness
                                                                       (tpy)         cost ($)         ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNCR............................................................             779       4,755,842           6,109
SCR.............................................................           4,048      41,476,535          10,245
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under both amortization scenarios, the remaining useful life of
Craig Unit 1 is shorter than the 20-year amortization period used in
the 2012 BART determination, which increases the annualized costs and
cost-effectiveness values of the control technologies.\24\ Based on
this assessment, the State determined that neither SNCR or SCR is cost-
effective when the remaining useful life is shortened to either 4 years
and 4 months or 8 years, depending on the scenario selected, as a
result of the shutdown of Craig Unit 1 on December 31, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The EPA finalized revisions to the Air Pollution Control
Cost Manual (Chapters 1 and 2), https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution, in May 2016; these revisions change the amortization
period for SCR from 20 years to 30 years. The amortization period
for SNCR remains at 20 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Natural Gas Conversion
    For the natural gas conversion compliance path, Craig Unit 1 will
cease to burn coal by August 31, 2021, with the option to convert to
natural-gas firing by August 31, 2023. A 30-day rolling average
NOX emission limit of no more than 0.07 lb/MMBtu will apply
after August 31, 2021.

C. The EPA's Evaluation of Craig Unit 1 Amendments

    We are proposing to approve Colorado's BART reassessment for two
possible compliance scenarios for Craig

Unit 1: (1) Shutdown or (2) conversion to natural gas.
    As a threshold matter, we agree with the State's assessment that an
emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu would be NOX BART for Craig
Unit 1 under either a 20- or 30-year remaining useful life. But we also
agree with the State that it is appropriate to reassess the
NOX BART limit under the shutdown and natural gas conversion
scenarios, either of which would considerably shorten the remaining
useful life of the existing coal-fired boiler.
    While the RHR does not require states to consider source
retirements or fuel switching (e.g., from coal to gas) as BART options,
states are free to do so.\25\ In other states, we have approved state-
adopted requirements for the shutdown of a source or for switching
fuels, which have usually been negotiated between the source operator
and the state. We also have approved BART determinations that took into
account the resulting shorter remaining useful life of the affected
source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree with Colorado's BART reassessment for both the shutdown
and natural gas conversion scenarios. Specifically, we acknowledge and
agree with the assumptions used to calculate the two different
amortization periods for the shutdown scenario. In past SIP actions,
the EPA has measured amortization periods from the projected compliance
date to the date of retirement. In this instance, the compliance date
for SCR is August 31, 2021, which would have been required under the
State's BART determination made in conjunction with the 2014
settlement, resulting in an amortization period of four years and four
months as reflected in Colorado's first amortization period scenario
(Table 1). For SNCR, the projected compliance date would be earlier,
thus resulting in a longer amortization period, albeit one shorter than
8 years; the 8-year amortization period is therefore a conservative
approach that understates the annualized costs of both SCR and SNCR.
    When considering the shortened remaining useful life under either
amortization scenario associated with Craig Unit 1 shutting down by
December 31, 2025, the EPA finds Colorado's determination reasonable
that neither SNCR or SCR is cost effective. Therefore, we are proposing
to approve Colorado's NOX BART reassessment that if Craig
Unit 1 shuts down by December 31, 2025, neither SNCR or SCR would be
BART due to the high cost-effectiveness values associated with a
shortened remaining useful life. We are also proposing to approve the
alternative compliance path that allows Craig Unit 1 to convert to
natural-gas firing by August 31, 2023, and cease burning coal by August
31, 2021, with an associated NOX BART emission limit of 0.07
lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) on that date, because this emission
limit is equivalent to the one that the State found would be BART under
a 20- or 30-year remaining useful life scenario. Accordingly, natural-
gas firing is another means by which NOX BART can be met for
Craig Unit 1. Finally, we are proposing to approve Colorado's
requirement that an annual NOX limit of 4,065 tpy will be
effective on December 31, 2019, for Craig Unit 1 because this
additional measure would strengthen the SIP as there currently is no
regional haze annual NOX limit for Unit 1.

IV. Nucla--NOX Reasonable Progress

A. Background

    The Tri-State Nucla Station is located in Montrose County
approximately 3 miles southeast of the town of Nucla, Colorado. The
Nucla facility consists of one coal-fired steam-driven electric
generating unit, Unit 4, with a rated electric generating capacity of
110 MW (gross).
    In 2006, Tri-State installed a small-scale SNCR system on Unit 4
that injects anhydrous ammonia to achieve NOX reductions.
The SNCR system is used when NOX emissions approach 0.4 lb/
MMBtu; rates above this result in mass emissions that approach the
annual permitted NOX limit of 1,987.9 tpy (12-month rolling
average). Although Colorado, in its 2011 submittal, determined that
full-scale SNCR and SCR were technically feasible for reducing
NOX emissions at Nucla Unit 4, the State determined that
neither control technology was necessary for reasonable progress based
on the uncertainty of the control efficiency for SNCR and what Colorado
determined would likely be excessive costs associated with SCR.
Instead, Colorado determined that Nucla Unit 4 should meet an emission
limit of 0.5 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than December 31, 2017, based on
consideration of the four reasonable progress factors. The EPA approved
this emission limit into the SIP on December 31, 2012, as meeting the
relevant regional haze requirements.

B. May 26, 2017 Submittal

    The May 26, 2017 submittal includes the following amendments to the
Colorado Code of Regulations, Regulation Number 3, Stationary Source
Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements, Part F,
Regional Haze Limits--Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and
Reasonable Progress (RP), Section VI, Regional Haze Determinations,
related to Nucla:
     Nucla will close on or before December 31, 2022; and
     Nucla will be subject to an annual NOX emission
limit of 952 tpy effective January 1, 2020, on a calendar year basis
beginning in 2020.
    The amendments also removed Nucla's original compliance date of
December 31, 2017, and the requirement for a proposed compliance
schedule from Nucla due within 60 days after the EPA's approval of the
reasonable progress portion of Colorado's regional haze SIP. The
current NOX emission limit of 0.5 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average) is not amended.

C. The EPA's Evaluation of Nucla Amendments

    Because the amendments, requiring Nucla to shut down on or before
December 31, 2022, and meet an annual NOX limit of 952 tpy
by January 1, 2020, do not alter the previously approved 0.5 lb/MMBtu
(30-day rolling average) emission limit requirement, the closure of
Nucla achieves greater NOX emission reductions than the
relevant portions of the 2012 SIP, (which did not previously include
any shutdown date). We therefore propose to approve Colorado's revision
related to Nucla.

V. Coordination With FLMs

    Class I areas in Colorado are managed by either the U.S. Forest
Service (FS) or the U.S. National Park Service (NPS). As described in
section II.D of this proposed rule, the Regional Haze Rule grants the
FLMs a special role in the review of regional haze SIPs. Under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2), Colorado was obligated to provide the FS and the NPS with
an opportunity for consultation in development of the State's proposed
SIP revisions. Colorado provided the FS and the NPS with access to the
proposed revisions to Regulation Number 3, Part F on January 12,
2017.\26\ The FLMs did not provide any comments on the proposed
revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Email between Colorado and NPS, January 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. The EPA's Proposed Action

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve SIP amendments to
Regulation Number 3, Part F, Section VI, shown in Table 3, submitted by
the State of Colorado on May 26, 2017, addressing the NOX
BART and reasonable progress

requirements for Craig Unit 1 and Nucla, respectively.

  Table 3--List of Colorado Amendments That EPA Is Proposing To Approve
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amended Sections in May 26, 2017 Submittal Proposed for Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation Number 3, Part F: VI.A.2 (table); VI.A.3; VI.A.4; VI.B.2
 (table); VI.B.3; VI.B.4; VI.D; VI.E.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the amendments described in section VI. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 the 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, the SIP is not proposed to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: April 16, 2018.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2018-08622 Filed 4-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


P-20-0024 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 P-20-0024 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 P-20-0024 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-20-0024 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-20-0024 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-20-0024 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-20-0024 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-20-0024 Sanitized HLTH Report_POST-FOCUS FINAL (attached)