[Federal Register: October 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 65006]
[DOCID:fr31oc08-131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Map Notice; Providence-T.F. Green Airport,
Warwick, RI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
determination that the noise exposure map for Providence-T.F. Green
Airport, as submitted by the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC)
under the provisions of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-193) and 14 CFR Part 150, are in
compliance with applicable requirements.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's determination on
the noise exposure map is October 8, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John C. Silva, Federal Aviation
Administration, New England Region, Airports Division, ANE-600, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA finds
that the noise exposure map submitted for Providence-T.F. Green Airport
is in compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150, effective
October 8, 2008.
    Under Section 103 of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act''), an
airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps that meet
applicable regulations and that depict non-compatible land uses as of
the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected
aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect
such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation
with interested and affected parties in the local community, government
agencies, and persons using the airport.
    An airport operator who has submitted such noise exposure maps that
are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal
Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to Title I of
the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval that
sets forth the measures the operator has taken, or proposes, for the
introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
    The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure map and
related descriptions submitted by RIAC on September 5, 2008. The
specific map under consideration is ``Figure 0.0-0, Airport Improvement
Program EIS, 2020, No-Action Day-Night Noise Level (DNL) Contours.''
The FAA has determined that this map for Providence-T.F. Green Airport
is in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is
effective on October 8, 2008.
    FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is
limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with
the procedures contained in Appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such
determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data,
information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility
program or to fund the implementation of that program.
    If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific
properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map
submitted under Section 103 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA
is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of
specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in
interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning,
for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of
Section 107 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the
ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local
government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way
under Part 150 or through FAA's review of a noise exposure map.
Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise
exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface
rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted the map or
with those public agencies and planning agencies with which
consultation is required under Section 103 of the Act. The FAA has
relied on the certification by the airport operator, under Section
150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has
been accomplished.
    Copies of the noise exposure maps and of the FAA's evaluation of
the maps are available for examination at the following locations:
Providence-T.F. Green Airport, 2000 Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886-1533;
Federal Aviation Administration, New England Region, Airports Division,
ANE-600, 16 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts
01803.
    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on October 8, 2008.
LaVerne F. Reid,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. E8-25705 Filed 10-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 52043]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24424]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9036-1]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa/ nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed 10/30/2017 Through 11/03/2017
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20170220, Draft, NSF, WV, Green Bank Observatory, Comment
Period Ends: 01/08/2018, Contact: Elizabeth Pentecost<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20170221, Draft, USFS, CA, San Gabriel River Confluence with
Cattle Canyon Improvements Project, Comment Period Ends: 12/26/2017,
Contact: Chinling Chen<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 6, 2017.
Kelly Knight,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2017-24424 Filed 11-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 156)]
[Notices]
[Page 46955-46956]
[DOCID:fr12au08-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58321; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-78]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Market-Maker Transaction Fees

August 6, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
\1\, notice is hereby given that on July 25, 2008, the Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have
been prepared by CBOE. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    CBOE proposes to amend its Fees Schedule relating to market-maker
transaction fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary and at the Commission.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Under the Exchange's ``Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale'' program,
the Exchange reduces Liquidity Provider (CBOE Market-Maker, DPM, e-DPM
and LMM) per contract transaction fees based on the number of contracts
a Liquidity Provider trades in a month. The sliding scale applies to
Liquidity Provider transaction fees in all products.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Contract volume resulting from dividend, merger and short
stock interest strategies as defined in Footnote 13 of the Fees
Schedule does not apply towards reaching the sliding scale volume
thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Liquidity Provider's standard $.20 per contract transaction fee
is reduced if the Liquidity Provider reaches the volume thresholds set
forth in the sliding scale in a month. As a Liquidity Provider's
monthly volume increases, its per contract transaction fee decreases.
The first 75,000 contracts traded in a month (first tier) are assessed
at $.20 per contract. The next 1,125,000 contracts traded (up to 1.2
million total contracts traded--second tier) are assessed at $.18 per
contract. The next 1.8 million contracts traded (up to 3 million total
contracts traded--third tier) are assessed at $.15 per contract

and the next 1.8 million contracts traded (up to 4.8 million total
contracts traded--fourth tier) are assessed at $.10 per contract. All
contracts above 4.8 million contracts traded in a month (fifth tier)
are assessed at $.03 per contract.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange aggregates the trading activity of separate
Liquidity Provider firms for purposes of the sliding scale if there
is at least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on
each firm's Form BD, Schedule A. A Liquidity Provider's monthly
contract volume is determined at the firm affiliation level, e.g.,
if five Liquidity Provider individuals are affiliated with the same
member firm as reflected by Exchange records for the entire month,
all of the volume from those five individual Liquidity Providers
count towards that firm's sliding scale transaction fees for that
month. See CBOE Fees Schedule, Footnote 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add a sixth tier in order to provide an
additional fee reduction at higher volume levels. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to assess $.01 per contract for all contracts above
10 million contracts traded by a Liquidity Provider in a month.
Accordingly, the fifth tier would be revised to reflect that all
contracts above 4.8 million up to 10 million contracts traded in a
month would be assessed $.03 per contract.
    No other changes to the program are proposed. The Exchange plans to
implement the proposed fee change on August 1, 2008.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \4\, in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \5\ of the Act
in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among CBOE
members. The proposed fee change would provide an additional fee
reduction to Liquidity Providers at higher monthly volume levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\7\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2008-78 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-78. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of CBOE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-78, and should be
submitted on or before September 2, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18602 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 88 (Monday, May 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29801-29802]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09668]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1114]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Noise
Certification Standards for Subsonic Jet Airplanes and Subsonic
Transport Category Large Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection involves the noise certification regulations
for aircraft. This includes information collection requirements for the
noise certification of subsonic aircraft--jet airplanes and subsonic
transport category large airplanes, small propeller driven airplanes
and rotorcraft. The information collected are the results of noise
certification tests that demonstrate compliance. The original
information collection was implemented to show compliance in accordance
with the Aircraft Noise Abatement Act of 1968; that statute is now part
of the overall codification of the FAA's regulatory authority over
aircraft noise. The noise compliance report is used by the FAA in
making a finding that the airplane is in noise compliance with the
regulations. These compliance reports are required only once when an
applicant wants to certificate an aircraft type. Without this data
collection, the FAA would be unable to make the required noise
certification compliance finding.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 7, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By mail: Sandy Liu, Attn: AEE-100, 800 Independence Ave. SW,
Washington, DC 20591.
    By fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the

estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden
could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected
information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in
the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandy Liu by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0659.
    Title: Noise Certification Standards for Subsonic Jet Airplanes and
Subsonic Transport Category Large Airplanes.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The aircraft noise information collected are the
results of noise certification tests that demonstrate compliance with
14 CFR part 36. The original information collection was implemented to
show compliance in accordance with the Aircraft Noise Abatement Act of
1968; that statute is now part of the overall codification of the FAA's
regulatory authority over aircraft noise in 49 U.S.C. 44715. For this
renewal, the FAA proposes to maintain this PRA collection at 14 total
noise certification projects per year. Each applicant's collected
information is incorporated into a noise compliance report that is
provided to and approved by the FAA. The noise compliance report is
used by the FAA in making a finding that the airplane is in noise
compliance with the regulations. These compliance reports are required
only once when an applicant wants to certificate an aircraft type.
Without this data collection, the FAA would be unable to make the
required noise certification compliance finding.
    Respondents: Aircraft manufacturer/applicant seeking type
certification.
    Frequency: Estimated 15 total applicants per year.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Estimated 200 hours per
applicant for the compliance report.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: $20,160 per applicant or cumulative
total $302,400 per year for 15 applicants.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 2, 2023.
Sandy Liu,
Engineer, Office of Environment and Energy, Noise Division (AEE-100).
[FR Doc. 2023-09668 Filed 5-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


<< EPA Questions 2002 discharge. doc>>

Jim Ketchum Kimberly Clark Worldwide Everett, WA 98201 425 259 7308 jketchum@ kcc. com  This e mail is intended for the use of the addressee( s) only and may contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt from disclosure under law. If you have received this message in error, please inform us promptly by reply e mail, then delete the e mail and destroy any printed copy. Thank you.

Your company reported releasing 8.19 grams of dioxin and dioxin like compounds to surface water ( Everett Harbor) in TRI in 2002. Your company reported that the basis of estimate for this discharge was mass balance calculations.

Could you please explain how the mass balance was calculated?

The Pulp Mill Bleach Plant and No. 14 Wood Waste Boiler are the site's dioxins sources. Using mill specific data collected over a 5 year period, emission factors were determined for each source. Again using mill specific data, it was determined where the dioxins were dispersed. Using this data, stream partition factors were calculated. These factors are used to determine the path dioxins exiting the two sources will follow.

In 2002, did your company ever analyze any wastewater, either an in plant stream, such as bleach plant effluent, or the final discharge to Everett Harbor?

Yes, 24 hour composites were analyzed.

If they did, were any of the dioxins ever detected?

Full congener spectrum: Primary Treatment Outfall 001 = 68.3 pg/ L Primary Treatment Outfall 003 = 36.9 pg/ L Secondary Treatment Outfall 008 = 15.95 pg/ L 2,3,7,8 TCDD, TCDF only: Bleach Plant Effluent TCDD = ND TCDF = 35.3 pg/ L How did your company determine the wastewater flow associated with the dioxin discharges?

In 2002, the flow exiting Outfalls 001 and 008 were continuously monitored. The Primary Treatment Outfall 003 flow was the difference between the continuously monitored raw water flow into the facility and the sum of the flows exiting the site ( 001 and 008). Did the mass balance account for the transfer of dioxins generated in any combustion device to wastewater?

The wood waste boiler ash is the facility's primary source of dioxins. The mass balance accounts for this source.

If you need any additional information I can be reached by e mail or at ( 703) 633 1698.

Thank you,

TJ Finseth


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 246 (Friday, December 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 78951]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27963]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR23-18-000.
    Applicants: Worsham-Steed Gas Storage, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  284.123 Rate Filing: Updated Market Power
Study--Compliance Filing to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20221216-5201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/6/23

    Docket Numbers: PR23-19-000.
    Applicants: Hill-Lake Gas Storage, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  284.123 Rate Filing: Updated Market Power
Study--Compliance Filing to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20221216-5204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/6/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-290-000.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Penalty Revenue Crediting Report
2022 to be effective N/A..
    Filed Date: 12/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20221216-5093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-292-000.
    Applicants: Crossroads Pipeline Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Penalty Revenue Crediting Report
2022 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20221216-5151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-293-000.
    Applicants: Golden Triangle Storage, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Name Change to be effective
December 16, 2022 to be effective 12/16/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20221216-5203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-294-000.
    Applicants: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate and Non-
Conforming Agreement Clean Up to be effective 1/16/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20221216-5235.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-295-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: CP20-484--AXP Compliance Filing to
be effective 1/6/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20221216-5252.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 19, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27963 Filed 12-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29953-29959]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12491]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0770; FRL-9928-16-Region 8]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reissuing its
final approval of the Colorado regional haze State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted on May 25, 2011 with respect to the State's
best available retrofit technology (BART) determination for the
Comanche Generating Station (Comanche) near Pueblo, Colorado. EPA
originally finalized its approval of the Colorado regional haze SIP on
December 31, 2012. In response to a petition for review of that final
action in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, EPA
successfully moved for a voluntary remand, without vacatur, to more
adequately respond to public comments concerning Comanche. EPA is
providing new responses to those comments in this rulemaking notice.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 25, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08- OAR-2011-0770. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov index.

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact
the person 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: Gail Fallon, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Background

    On March 26, 2012, EPA proposed to approve the Colorado regional
haze SIP as meeting the applicable requirements of Sections 169A and
169B of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's implementing regulations at
40 CFR 51.308-309 (Regional Haze Rule) and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y
(Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Guidelines).\1\ Among the
components of the SIP was a nitrogen oxides (NOX) BART
determination for Units 1 and 2 at Comanche. As with several other
facilities, the State submitted a BART analysis for Comanche that took
into account the five factors required by section 169A(g)(2) of the
CAA. The State determined that the existing emission controls at
Comanche Units 1 and 2, low-NOX burners with over-fire air
(LNB/OFA), are BART. EPA proposed to approve the State's NOX
BART determination for Comanche.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 77 FR 18052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received several adverse comments on its proposed approval,
including comments from WildEarth Guardians (Guardians) and the
National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). On December 31, 2012,
EPA published a notice of its final approval of the Colorado regional
haze SIP.\2\ That final action included an approval of the Comanche
NOX BART determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 77 FR 76871.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 25, 2013, NPCA and Guardians filed petitions seeking
the Tenth Circuit's review of EPA's final approval of the Colorado
regional haze SIP.\3\ Guardians challenged EPA's approval of Colorado's
BART determinations for Units 1 and 2 of the Craig Station; Units 1 and
2 of the Comanche Station; and Boilers 4 and 5 of the Colorado Energy
Nations Company (CENC), LLP facility at the Coors Brewery. Guardians
also challenged EPA's approval of Colorado's reasonable progress
determination for Craig Unit 3, and the deadlines for compliance with
emission limits for the units at all three facilities. NPCA challenged
only EPA's approval of Colorado's BART and reasonable progress
determinations for Craig Units 1, 2, and 3. After the court
consolidated the cases for review, EPA reached a settlement with NPCA
and Guardians concerning their claims related to the Craig Station,\4\
and Guardians elected not to pursue its claims regarding CENC/Coors.
Guardians' claims concerning the Comanche Station are still active. In
response to these claims, EPA moved the court for a partial voluntary
remand of its 2012 final approval without vacatur so as to provide a
more detailed and complete response to some of the adverse comments on
the proposed approval.\5\ The court granted EPA's motion.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, No. 13-9520 (10th Cir.) and
National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, No. 13-9525 (10th
Cir.).
    \4\ See Proposed Settlement Agreement, 79 FR 47636 (Aug. 14,
2014).
    \5\ See Respondents' Motion for Partial Voluntary Remand Without
Vacatur and to Stay Briefing Schedule Pending Resolution of This
Motion, filed Sep. 19, 2014 in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, No. 13-
9520 (10th Cir.).
    \6\ See Order filed Oct. 6, 2014 in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA,
No. 13-9520 (10th Cir.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments and Revised EPA Responses

    We received adverse comments on our proposed approval of the
Colorado regional haze SIP, including comments from Guardians related
to our proposed approval of Colorado's BART determinations for Units 1
and 2 at the Comanche Station. We are reissuing our final approval of
the Colorado regional haze SIP with respect to Comanche to provide more
detailed and clearer responses to the Comanche-related adverse
comments. The responses below contain our complete, updated, and
clarified responses to comments related to the Comanche NOX
BART determination.
    Comment: The commenter argues that Comanche Units 1 and 2 are
currently meeting lower NOX emission rates than the State's
BART emission limits that EPA proposed to approve. The commenter cited
the State's BART analysis, noting that currently Unit 1 is emitting at
an average annual rate of 0.124 lb/MMBtu and Unit 2 is emitting at an
average annual rate of 0.165 lb/MMBtu, and compares those rates to the
Colorado BART limits: a 30-day emission rate of 0.20 lb/mmBtu, and a
combined annual average emission rate of 0.15 lb/mmBtu. According to
the commenter, allowing these units to emit more pollution than they
currently emit does not represent BART and would not lead to visibility
improvements, and nothing in the CAA or EPA's regulations suggests that
it is appropriate for BART limits to include any such cushion. Further,
the commenter alleges that that under the annual BART limits,
NOX emissions will be allowed to increase by at least 14
tons per year (tpy), and that the 30-day rolling average limits would
allow Unit 1 to emit at least 40% more NOX than the baseline
30-day rolling average peak and Unit 2 to emit 12% more NOX.
The commenter claims that the data demonstrates that Unit 1 could meet
a 30-day rolling average NOX emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu
and Unit 2 could meet a limit of 0.18 lb/MMBtu without any trouble, and
that the BART limits should reflect what is achievable. Accordingly,
the commenter asserts that EPA must disapprove Colorado's
NOX BART determinations for Comanche Unit 1 and Unit 2 and
adopt a FIP that establishes BART limits that represent actual emission
reductions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Comments submitted by WildEarth Guardians (hereinafter
referred to as ``Guardians' Comments'') at 5-6, EPA-R08-OAR-2011-
0770-0040 Attachment 2 (May 25, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We disagree with this comment. The State set
NOX BART emission limits for Comanche Units 1 and 2
individually at a 30-day rolling average emission rate of 0.20 lb/MMBtu
and a combined annual average emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. As EPA
requested in our October 26, 2010 comment letter during the state
public comment process, the State considered tightening the 30-day
limits, but ultimately chose not to do so. In EPA's judgment, the State
could have better explained the basis for the margin for compliance,
but a more robust analysis

would not have led it to reach a different conclusion as to the
Comanche NOX BART limits. Further, if we were to disapprove
the SIP and promulgate a FIP with lower emission limits, the actual
emissions from Comanche would unlikely be significantly lower. We
therefore decline to disapprove the NOX BART determination
for Comanche.
    In our October 26, 2010 comment letter to the State, we asked
Colorado to evaluate tightening Comanche's NOX limits. The
State conducted that evaluation.\8\ Based on its experience, and after
reviewing other state BART proposals, Colorado found that 30-day
rolling average NOX emission rates could be expected to be
up to approximately 15% higher than annual average emission rates. With
this in mind, and also considering uncertainty regarding load
fluctuations, cold-weather operating, startup, and increased cycling to
back up renewable energy generation, the State concluded that a 0.20
lb/MMBtu 30-day rolling average emission limit was appropriate for both
units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical
Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control
Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2,
at 17-19 (EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF pages 312-14); see also
Appendix C--Technical Support Documents for BART Determination (EPA-
R08-OAR-2011-0770-0017), Attachment 5: Public Service Company--
Comanche Station Units 1 and 2 Technical Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a general matter, EPA finds it appropriate and reasonable to
allow a margin for compliance in setting 30-day rolling average BART
limits, and we have approved other state BART determinations that
included such margins. The shorter 30-day averaging period results in
higher variability in emissions because of load variation, startup,
shutdown, and other factors. Accordingly, we have not generally
required that 30-day rolling average emission limits be equal to the
annual emission rates used for calculating cost-effectiveness. We find
the State's application of a margin for compliance here consistent with
that approach.
    The compliance margin included for the Comanche units is larger
than we would generally expect. But we find that with respect to
Comanche, the compliance margin is unlikely to lead to significant
actual NOX emissions increases. After all, the lower
Comanche emissions cited by the commenter occurred under permit limits
identical to those the State selected as BART, and the commenter has
provided no evidence that the facility will change its operations just
because the State has adopted the permit limits as BART limits.
Instead, emission rates are likely to remain near the baseline figures
cited by the commenter, which as the commenter notes are below the BART
limits. An occasional rise is possible in light of the uncertainties
referred to above, which is the purpose of allowing a margin for
compliance above the actual 30-day rolling average emissions levels.
The commenter appeared to at least partly acknowledge this reality,
stating that ``[w]e do not suggest that the State was required to set
the emission limits exactly at the levels emitted.'' \9\ But none of
these uncertainties suggests that there will be a consistent increase
in emissions over the long term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Guardians' Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for annual average emission rates, Colorado found that in 2009,
the annual average rate for both units combined was about 0.15 lb/
MMBtu. Colorado did not propose applying a margin of compliance to the
2009 annual average rate, and set a limit at 0.15 lb/MMBtu. Because
short-term emissions increases and decreases should average out over
the course of any single year, we believe that setting the BART annual
emission limit at about the annual emission rate from 2009 is
reasonable, unless there is evidence that the source was not properly
operated in 2009 or that annual average source operating conditions in
2009 were unrepresentative of future operations. The commenter has not
alleged that there is any such evidence. The commenter does assert that
the 0.15 lb/MMBtu annual limit would allow an increase in actual
emissions if both units operate at the BART limit. The potential
emissions increase calculated by the commenter, however, would only be
14 tons of NOX per year. A 14-ton increase is not
significant when compared to the annual NOX emissions of
approximately 3,860 tons from Comanche Units 1 and 2; it does not
warrant disapproval and a subsequent FIP.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Discussing state flexibility to exempt de minimis emission
levels from a BART analysis, the BART Guidelines make a similar
point: ``If a State were to undertake a BART analysis for emissions
of less than 40 tons of SO2 or NOX . . . from
a source, it is unlikely to result in anything but a trivial
improvement in visibility. This is because reducing emissions at
these levels would have little effect on regional emissions loadings
or visibility impairment.'' 70 FR at 39117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter alleges, but does not support or quantify, a
``likely'' further increase (beyond the claimed 14-ton increase) based
on the potential for one unit to exceed 0.15 lb/MMBtu while the
combined rate remains below that limit. This comment appears to be
referring to a scenario in which the unit operating above 0.15 lb/MMBtu
would have a higher heat input than the unit operating below 0.15 lb/
MMBtu, so that together they would still comply with the SIP's 0.15 lb/
MMBtu average emission rate limit while having higher emissions than if
each unit were held to a limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. With the existing LNB/
OFA controls, though, neither unit can be operated at an emission rate
much below its current emission rate, and so there is unlikely to be
``room'' for the other unit to operate much higher while still meeting
the combined emission limit. Also, the two units are subject to very
similar physical limits on heat input.\11\ We therefore find that any
additional emissions consistent with a 0.15 lb/MMBtu combined limit
would be insignificant from a visibility standpoint. Further, we note
that the annual NOX BART limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu is below the
average actual emissions of 0.16 lb/MMBtu for Units 1 and 2 between
January and October 2010.\12\ Therefore, Colorado imposed an annual
emission limit that was lower than the then most recent partial-year
figures for Units 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical
Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control
Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2,
at 2, Table 1: Comanche Units 1 and 2 Technical Information (EPA-
R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF page 297 (citing boiler ratings of 3,531
MMBtu/hr for Unit 1 and 3,482 MMBtu/hr for Unit 2).
    \12\ January-October 2010 is the most recent annual average
emission rate period discussed by Colorado in the regional haze SIP.
See id. at 18 (PDF page 313).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also argues that the 30-day rolling average limits of
0.20 lb/MMBtu would allow emission increases because the actual 30-day
rolling average rates have consistently been below this number. Annual
emissions are controlled by the SIP's limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu for the
average of the two unit's annual average emission rates, and would be
so controlled even if there were no 30-day limits at all. The issue of
whether the State and EPA correctly assessed how well the annual limit
will control annual emissions was addressed above. Therefore, EPA
understands that this comment regarding the 30-day limits of 0.20 lb/
MMBtu is meant to address the possibility that the emission rate of one
or both units in 30-day periods may be higher than 0.15 lb/MMBtu, while
the source could still comply with respect to the annual average limit
by having lower emissions in other 30-day periods. EPA agrees that this
is possible, but the State modeled the baseline visibility impact of
the source assuming a constant emission rate of 0.20 lb/MMBtu, so the
possibility has been fully considered.

    For these reasons, we have determined that while the State could
have better explained the basis for the margin for compliance it
allowed, a more robust analysis would not have led it to reach a
different conclusion as to the NOX emission limits for
Comanche Units 1 and 2. In its next regional haze SIP, the State can
review the longer history of emissions from Comanche that will be
available then, and consider whether a downward adjustment in the
emission limit is appropriate to ensure the best possible operation of
the emission controls.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that the State failed to
appropriately assess the cost of SCR, by assuming that SCR would
achieve an emission rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu on an annual average basis.
But, according to the commenter, EPA has noted that SCR can achieve
emission rates as low as 0.04 lb/MMBtu on an annual basis, and a 0.05
lb/MMBtu emission rate on an annual average basis is a more appropriate
benchmark from which to assess the cost-effectiveness of SCR. The
commenter claims that because the State did not assess the cost-
effectiveness of SCR based on a rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, the State did
not reasonably take into account the cost of compliance with SCR in
accordance with the CAA. The commenter adds that although EPA and the
State may claim that SCR would not be cost-effective in any case, there
is no support for such an assertion, and without an adequate case-
specific cost analysis, there is no support for concluding that SCR is
unreasonable, particularly for Unit 2.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Guardians' Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We disagree with this comment. We have reviewed the
information in the administrative record for this action again, and we
find that our previous conclusion is still correct. We agree that SCR
can achieve annual NOX emission rates of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, and
that ideally Colorado would have used this value when assessing the SCR
control option.\14\ But if the State had done so, the marginally lower
emissions would not have caused the State to reach a different
conclusion as to what technology is BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Throughout this notice, our references to the use of SCR at
Comanche incorporate the effects of LNB/OFA. Thus, when we discuss
comparing the effects of SCR against the baseline, we are comparing
SCR operating with LNB/OFA against the post-2009 baseline of LNB/OFA
alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, we note that the comment misstates the rate that Colorado
actually used for the purpose of calculating cost-effectiveness. In the
Comanche NOX BART analysis, the State assumed an annual
emissions rate for SCR of 0.061 lb/MMBtu--not 0.07 lb/MMBtu.\15\ (The
latter figure was the 30-day rolling average rate, not the annual
average as the commenter contends.\16\) Therefore, the relevant
comparison for the commenter's purpose would be between the 0.061 lb/
MMBtu annual average rate that the State used and the 0.05 lb/MMBtu
annual average emission rate that the commenter prefers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical
Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control
Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2,
Tables 10 and 11, at 20-21 (R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF pages 315-
16; see also Technical Support Documents for BART Determination
(EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0770-0017), Attachment: Public Service Company--
Cmanche Station, Units 1 and 2 Technical Analysis (.xls format
spreadsheet file, tabs ``Comanche 1 NOX'' and ``Comanche
2 NOX''). There is an inconsequential (approx. 0.33%)
difference between the Unit 1 baseline numbers in these two parts of
the record; the discussion in this rule uses the 1506 tpy figure
from the State's technical analysis spreadsheet.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the 0.061 lb/MMBtu annual average emission rate, Colorado
estimated emissions of 740 tpy for Unit 1 and 869 tpy for Unit 2 with
SCR.\17\ Based on those estimated emissions, the State calculated
emission reductions of 770.4 tpy for Unit 1 and 1,480 tpy for Unit 2,
compared to a baseline level of emissions measured in 2009 that
reflected the installation of LNB/OFA controls.\18\ Based on these
reductions, the State derived cost-effectiveness values for SCR of
$15,920 per ton and $9,900 per ton for Units 1 and 2, respectively.\19\
It is a simple exercise to insert the annual average emission rate of
0.05 lb/MMBtu into the State's technical analysis spreadsheet.\20\
Doing so, we can see that using the figure the commenter recommends
would have produced estimated emission levels of about 609 tpy for Unit
1 and 713 tpy for Unit 2 with SCR, which in turn give emission
reductions of 897 tpy (Unit 1) and 1,636 tpy (Unit 2) compared to a
2009 baseline level and cost-effectiveness values of $13,670 and $8,956
per ton for Units 1 and 2, respectively.\21\ Considering that these
adjusted cost-effectiveness values remain high and (as discussed below)
the extent of the benefits associated with SCR remains low, we do not
believe that the impact on the BART analysis would have led to a
different conclusion if Colorado had used the more stringent emission
rate. Therefore, we conclude that the State's use of 0.061 lb/MMBtu to
evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SCR at Comanche is not grounds for
disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
    \18\ ``[T]he Division used years 2009 (annual averages and 30-
day rolling) for baseline emissions for reduction and cost
calculations.'' Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C
(Technical Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis
of Control Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station,
Units 1 and 2, at 3 (R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF page 298); see also
id., Table 2 (``PSCo Comanche Units 1 & 2 Baseline Emissions'').
    \19\ See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical
Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control
Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2,
Tables 10-13, at 20-21 (R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF pages 315-16).
    \20\ See Technical Support Documents for BART Determination
(EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0770-0017), Attachment: Public Service Company--
Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2 Technical Analysis (Excel
spreadsheet file, tabs ``Comanche 1 NOX''and ``Comanche 2
NOX'').
    \21\ For Unit 1, the State also calculated an incremental value
to assess the cost-effectiveness of SCR over SNCR. Even after making
the correction to an assumed annual average rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu as
described above, this value remains very high: $23,497 per ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commenter states that Colorado appears to have
overestimated the capital cost of SCR, in that the State's reliance on
the CUECost model led to artificially inflated capital costs. According
to the commenter, both EPA and the National Park Service (NPS)
previously commented to the State that the State should have used EPA's
Control Cost Manual, and both noted that the CUECost model relied upon
by the State is not appropriate. The commenter argues that the State
does not explain in the record why its use of CUECost was reasonable,
particularly in light of the concerns expressed by EPA and the NPS.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Guardians' Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We agree that there were flaws in Colorado's approach to
estimating the costs of SCR for the Comanche BART units, and that the
CUECost model likely yielded an inflated cost estimate. In the
referenced correspondence, EPA stated that ``the CUECost model yields
high capital costs for the Comanche facility,'' and suggested that the
capital costs calculated would have been approximately 50% lower if the
CCM had been followed.\23\ But even if we reduce the capital cost
estimates by that percentage, and also adjust the emission rate as
discussed in the previous comment, we believe that the cost of SCR at
Comanche would still be high compared to the visibility benefits, and

that Colorado's decision not to require SCR would still be reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Letter from Callie Videtich, EPA, to Paul Tourangeau, CDPHE
(Oct. 26, 2010), at 8-9 (EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0770-0043, Attachment 19).
EPA stated that using the CCM to assess SCR capital costs for the
Comanche BART units yielded an estimate of approximately $120/kW, as
opposed to the $247/kW (Unit 1) and $248/kW (Unit 2) derived from
the CUECost model. Id. This ratio of dollars per kW results in a
51.6% lower estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, cutting the capital cost estimate by 51.6%, and using
the more stringent 0.05 lb/MMBtu emission rate discussed in the
previous comment, produces cost-effectiveness values of $9,319 and
$6,481 per ton for employing SCR at Units 1 and 2, respectively.\24\
Thus, even after addressing both of the cost issues raised by the
commenter, the cost-effectiveness values remain high. Also, as
discussed below in response to another comment, we have concluded that
the visibility benefits that would result from SCR are insufficient to
justify these high costs. Accordingly, we do not believe that Colorado
would have reached a different NOX BART conclusion if it had
used the CCM in its analysis (as well as the more stringent emission
rate discussed previously).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The 51.6% adjustment to capital cost can be made by
multiplying the ``total capital costs'' figures on the State's
technical analysis spreadsheet by 0.484. See Technical Support
Documents for BART Determination (EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0770-0017),
Attachment: Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2
Technical Analysis (.xls format spreadsheet file, tabs ``Comanche 1
NOX'' and ``Comanche 2 NOX''). In addition to
capital costs, the cost-effectiveness calculations incorporate
operating and maintenance costs, which the commenter did not
challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its SIP, the State explained that, in its view, SCR for
NOX control would generally be reasonable if costs did not
exceed $5,000 per ton of pollutant reduced, and if the controls
provided a modeled visibility benefit of 0.50 deciviews (dv) or greater
at the primary Class I Area affected.\25\ Considering the State's
guidance, it is clear that making the adjustments that the commenter
requests would not lead to a different outcome. Therefore, considering
all the BART factors, we do not see a basis to conclude that using a
lower capital cost estimate, combined with a 0.05 lb/MMBtu emission
rate for SCR, would have led the State to reach a different conclusion
or should lead us to disapprove the State's BART determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal at 52 (R08-OAR-2011-
0770-0013, PDF page 53).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commenter states that Colorado and EPA may claim that,
even if the costs were accurately assessed, the visibility benefits of
SCR would not be significant, but that there is no support for this
assertion. According to the commenter, it appears that Colorado's
assessment of visibility improvements is based on an assumption that
the proposed BART limits, which the commenter refers to as the ``do
nothing'' BART limits, would actually improve visibility. But, the
commenter claims, the proposed BART limits would allow increased
emissions, and therefore would not improve visibility. On the other
hand, states the commenter, SCR would appear to provide significant
visibility improvements. The commenter argues that for Unit 2 this is
especially significant because SCR was the only available technology
analyzed for BART.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Guardians' Comments at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We disagree with this comment. In relation to the high
costs, the visibility benefits of SCR at Comanche are not sufficiently
large to warrant disapproval of the State's BART determination. We
would come to this conclusion regardless of whether the cost component
of the BART analysis involved the State's original figures or the
adjusted figures discussed above in response to previous comments. The
State estimated that SCR would produce visibility improvements of 0.14
dv (Unit 1) and 0.17 dv (Unit 2) as compared to the 2009 post-LNB/OFA
baseline.\27\ This level of expected visibility improvement from SCR is
insufficient to cause us to conclude that the State's BART
determination is unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical
Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control
Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2,
Table 15, at 24 (R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF page 319). As discussed
below, the table also includes information on improvements over the
pre-control baseline; this information is illustrative and was not
the basis for the BART determination or for our approval of the
State's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above in response to a previous comment, we recognize
that the State did not use the 0.05 lb/MMBtu emission rate that
accurately represents the performance capabilities of SCR. Accordingly,
it is reasonable to expect that the State would have estimated slightly
greater visibility benefits from SCR if it had used the 0.05 lb/MMBtu
rate. In EPA's judgment, however, the visibility benefits compared to
the 2009 baseline would have remained modest. We note, for instance,
that in the State's analysis of Comanche Unit 1, the difference in
visibility benefit between selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)
(with a NOX emission rate of 0.10 lb/MMBtu) and SCR (with a
NOX emission rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu) is only 0.03 dv.\28\ We
conclude that the impact of a further reduction in emission rate to
0.05 lb/MMBtu would be similarly small.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ What are labeled by the State as ``NOX emission
rates'' (e.g., Table 15 of their analysis) are actually the 30-day
emission limits. See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C
(Technical Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis
of Control Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station,
Units 1 and 2, Table 15, at 24 (R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF page
319). Actual 30-day emission rates have been lower. See id. at 18
(PDF page 313).
    \29\ Thus, comparing the SNCR and SCR numbers, we see that a
NOX emissions rate reduction from 0.10 to 0.07 lb/MMBtu
is reflected in a visibility improvement from 0.11 to 0.14 dv. If we
assume, for the purpose of conservatively estimating visibility
improvements, that there is a linear relationship between emission
reductions and visibility improvement, then further reducing the
NOX emission rate from 0.07 to 0.05 lb/MMBtu might cause
visibility improvements at Units 1 and 2 to increase from 0.14 and
0.178 dv to approximately 0.16 and 0.198 dv. See Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Florida;
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 78 FR 53250, 53267 (Aug.
29, 2013) (``[A]n assumption of a linear response to changes in
emissions is a reasonable estimation and the simplified methodology
used for these BART determinations likely provides conservative
overestimates of visibility impact reductions.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned previously, the State explained that, in its view, SCR
for NOX control will generally be reasonable when costs do
not exceed $5,000 per ton of pollutant reduced, and when the controls
provide a modeled visibility benefit of 0.50 dv or greater at the
primary Class I Area affected.\30\ While we agree with the State that
these guidance criteria should not be used as absolute determinants of
BART outcomes, they are in general consistent with the decisions that
other states and EPA have made when considering whether to require SCR
as NOX BART, and generally reflect a reasonable balancing of
the BART factors. In this case, we expect that even using the SCR
emission rate requested by the commenter, the visibility improvement
from SCR would fall well below the State's criteria. Judging these
visibility improvements against the fairly high cost of SCR (again,
even after adjustment to reflect the comments), we find that the
State's decision not to impose SCR was reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal at 52 (R08-OAR-2011-
0770-0013, PDF page 53).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter incorrectly asserted that the State's BART
determination was based on the assumption that existing controls would
improve visibility compared to current levels. Colorado did not claim
that its BART emission limits would result in visibility benefits
compared to current levels (that is, compared to the 2009 post-LNB/OFA
emissions baseline). The State did note that the existing level of
control provided benefits when compared to the 2004 baseline, which is
true. But while Colorado referred to both a pre-LNB/OFA baseline and a
2009 baseline when discussing visibility benefits, the State actually
used only the 2009 baseline in calculating cost-effectiveness, and
likewise relied on visibility benefits based on the 2009 baseline in
making the BART determination for

Comanche.\31\ We have reviewed the visibility estimates and cost
calculations that the State relied on when making its BART
determination for Comanche and have confirmed that they were based on
comparisons to the 2009 baseline.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Colorado stated in the SIP that ``the Division used year[ ]
2009 (annual averages and 30-day rolling) for baseline emissions for
reduction and cost calculations.'' See Colorado Regional Haze
Submittal, Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for BART
Determination), BART Analysis of Control Options For Public Service
Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2, at 20-21, 24 (R08-OAR-
2011-0770-0013, PDF pages 315-16, 319); see also Appendix C--
Technical Support Documents for BART Determination (EPA-R08-OAR-
2011-0770-0017), Attachment 5: Public Service Company--Comanche
Station Units 1 and 2 Technical Analysis. Likewise, the State's BART
determination cites only the 0.14 dv and 0.17dv visibility
improvement numbers derived from comparison to the 2009 baseline.
See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal at 66 (R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013,
PDF page 67).
    \32\ In replying to this comment and one other comment in the
December 2012 final approval, we inadvertently made a confusing
statement concerning the applicable baselines. In that notice, we
stated that Colorado had ``assessed the benefit of control options
relative to both the subject-to-BART baseline and to the
installation of new low- NOX burners (LNB) [with over-
fire air] in 2007 and 2008.'' Further, we noted that ``relative to
the subject-to-BART baseline, Colorado's BART selection (combustion
controls), does in fact show visibility improvement.'' These
statements appeared to suggest that it was appropriate for Colorado
to use a 2009 baseline when evaluating the benefits of SNCR and SCR,
but a 2004 (pre-LNB/OFA) baseline to evaluate the State's proposed
BART option. That was not our intention. Our reference to the 2004
subject-to-BART baseline--that is, to the emissions level before the
installation of the LNB/OFA, which were required to comply with non-
BART CAA requirements--was merely an observation, by which we
intended to show that the installation of those controls had
produced real air quality improvements over previous levels. That
illustration was not, however, intended to be part of our evaluation
of the State's cost or visibility analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It was correct for the State to use the 2009 baseline for
NOX emissions from Units 1 and 2 in the BART determination.
The CAA requires that, in making BART determinations, states and EPA
take into consideration ``any existing pollution control technology in
use at the source.'' \33\ As we explained in detail in our final action
on the Wyoming regional haze SIP, this consideration should generally
incorporate controls into baseline emissions if the controls were
installed to comply with CAA requirements other than the BART
requirement.\34\ That is exactly what happened with respect to Comanche
Units 1 and 2. The controls in question had been placed on these units
to ``net out'' of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review
requirements for NOX and SO2 emissions from the
new Unit 3.\35\ Therefore, it was appropriate for the State to use the
2009 emissions baseline, which reflected the reductions achieved by
LNB/OFA, in its BART analysis for Comanche.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(2).
    \34\ 79 FR 5032, 5104-05 (Jan. 30, 2014).
    \35\ See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical
Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control
Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2,
at 1 (R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF page 1) (``As part of that [2004
construction] project, PSCo proposed to install control devices on
the existing units.''); see also Colorado Operating Permit #
96OPPB133 (Comanche Station) (``. . . PSCo proposed to install
NOX controls (low NOX burners with over-fire
air) on both Units 1 and 2 . . . to `net-out' of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) review requirements for
NOX and SO2''), posted at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/operating-permits-company-index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we addressed the assertion that the State's BART limits
would lead to increased emissions in our response to a previous
comment. The commenter has failed to offer any support for this claim,
and we do not find any basis to conclude that increased emissions will
result from the State's BART limits.
    For the above reasons, while we agree that SCR at Comanche Units 1
and 2 would result in visibility improvements, we find that the State
reasonably concluded that those visibility improvements would not be
sufficient to justify the cost involved.
    Comment: The commenter states that it is unclear why Colorado
rejected SNCR for Comanche Unit 1, particularly because the proposed
BART limit for Unit 1 is less stringent than Unit 1's current actual
emissions. Citing EPA figures, the commenter asserts that Unit 1 would
meet a 30-day rolling average emission rate of 0.10 lb/MMBtu under an
SNCR scenario. The commenter notes that the State found that the cost
of $3,644 per ton of NOX reduced and the perceived ``low
visibility improvement'' warranted a determination that SNCR was not
reasonable for Unit 1. The commenter asserts, however, that this cost
is squarely within the range of what Colorado considers to be cost-
effective.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Guardians' Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We find that the State's rejection of SNCR was reasonable
based on its weighing of the BART factors. The State concluded that the
cost of SNCR was not warranted given the relatively modest 0.11 dv
visibility improvement that would result. Even if a control technology
is cost-effective on a dollar per ton basis, a state may conclude that
the control technology is not warranted based on a reasonable
consideration of all five BART factors.
    Comment: The commenter states that Colorado's analysis indicates
that SNCR would achieve greater emission reductions than an emission
rate of 0.20 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average. According to the
commenter, although the State asserts that the visibility improvement
from SNCR would amount to 0.11 dv, it is unclear why such improvements
are not reasonable or are insignificant, particularly given that the
purpose of BART is to reduce or eliminate visibility impairment. The
commenter argues that there is no explanation in the record supporting
the State's assertion. Further, the commenter argues that it appears as
if the State's assessment of visibility improvements is based on an
incorrect assumption that the proposed BART limit would actually
improve visibility. The commenter states that when compared to the real
impacts of the State's proposed BART limit for Comanche Unit 1, SNCR
appears to provide significant visibility improvements, because, as
opposed to the proposed BART limit, SNCR would actually achieve
improvements. Therefore, the commenter concludes, EPA must promulgate a
FIP that establishes an appropriate NOX BART limit for
Comanche Unit 1.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Guardians' Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The commenter is correct that the State predicted that
SNCR would result in additional improvement in visibility over the
control technology that the State selected as BART. However, this does
not mean that the CAA or our regulations required the State to select
SNCR as BART. For the reasons stated above, we find that it was
reasonable for the State to reject SNCR based on consideration of all
five BART factors. We agree that SNCR would result in visibility
improvements, but as with SCR, we agree with the State's assessment
that the visibility improvements were insufficient to justify the cost
involved.
    Regarding the commenter's claim that the State's selected limits
will lead to an increase in emissions, as discussed above in detail,
the commenter has presented no evidence that any emissions increase
will occur.

III. Final Action

    With respect to the Comanche Station, EPA is re-finalizing its
approval of the Colorado regional haze SIP submitted on May 25, 2011.
Because this re-finalization merely gives additional explanation in
response to comments and does not alter any previous determinations, it
does not affect any applicable SIP compliance deadlines. Our action is
based on an evaluation of Colorado's regional haze SIP submittal for
Comanche against the regional haze

requirements at 40 CFR 51.300-51.309 and CAA sections 169A and 169B.
All general SIP requirements contained in CAA section 110, other
provisions of the CAA, and our regulations applicable to this action
were also evaluated. The purpose of this action is to ensure compliance
with these requirements and to provide additional rationale to support
our conclusions.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Colorado
revisions to its SIP to address the requirements of EPA's regional haze
rule discussed in section III, Final Action, of this preamble. The EPA
has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve the use of measurement or
other standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
     The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 27, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 8, 2015.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.320 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(124)
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  52.320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (124) On May 25, 2011 the State of Colorado submitted revisions to
its State Implementation Plan to address the requirements of EPA's
regional haze rule. On December 31, 2012, EPA issued a final rule
approving this submittal and responding to public comments. On May 26,
2015 EPA reissued the final rule with respect to the nitrogen oxides
(NOX) best available retrofit technology (BART)
determination for the Comanche Generating Station to provide additional
responses to public comments.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-12491 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48834-48835]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22853]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0105]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0002

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for
reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of
information: 1625-0002, Application for Vessel Inspection, Waiver, and
Continuous Synopsis Record. Our ICR describes the information we seek
to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
November 20, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2017-0105] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703

Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7710, Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2017-0105], and must be received by November 20,
2017.

Submitting Comments

    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. 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.
    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).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0002.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 35979, August 2, 2017)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Applications for Vessel Inspection, Waiver, and Continuous
Synopsis Record.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0002.
    Summary: The collection of information requires the owner,
operator, agent, or master of a vessel to apply in writing to the Coast
Guard before the commencement of an inspection for certification, when
a waiver is desired from the requirements of navigation and vessel
inspection, or to request a Continuous Synopsis Record.
    Need: Title 46 U.S. Code 3306 authorizes the Coast Guard to
establish regulations to protect life, property, and the environment.
The reporting requirements are part of the Coast Guard's Marine Safety
Program.
    Forms: CG-2633, Application for Waiver and Waiver Order; CG-3752,
Application for Inspection of U.S. Vessel; CG-3752A, Application for
Inspection of U.S. Vessel (New Construction); CG-6039, Application for
Continuous Synopsis Record.
    Respondents: Vessel owner, operator, agent, master or interested
U.S. Government agency.
    Frequency: On occasion, annually, or on a 5-year cycle.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 1,172
hours to 741 hours per year due to a decrease in the estimated annual
number of respondents.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: October 12, 2017.
James D. Roppel,
U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2017-22853 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P