[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26781-26782]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09559]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2020-0034]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on April 20, 2020, Ohio River
Scenic Railway (ORSR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 240,
Qualifications and Certification of Locomotive Engineers. FRA assigned
the petition Docket Number FRA-2020-0034.
    Specifically, ORSR requests a waiver from the requirements of 49
CFR 240.201(d), Implementation, which states that a railroad can only
permit qualified locomotive engineers to operate locomotives. ORSR
seeks to operate an ``Engineer-for-an-Hour'' charter program and offer
non-certified individuals the opportunity to operate a diesel-electric
locomotive under the direct supervision of a certified and qualified
locomotive engineer. ORSR states the waiver would affect only persons
who participate in the program and restrictions would be placed on this
operation.
    The waiver would cover operations on a 2.6-mile segment of main
track between milepost (MP) 3.4 and MP 6.0. There are no public grade
crossings or otherwise hazardous or unusual conditions on this segment
of track.
    Through a series of license agreements, ORSR will utilize the
majority of a 22-mile railroad line in Southern Indiana, owned and
operated by the Perry County Port Authority (PCPA) d/b/a Hoosier
Southern Railroad (HOS), to provide passenger excursion railroad
service across Perry and Spencer Counties in Indiana. ORSR's normal
excursion operations would occur between MP 2.3 and MP 22.2 on
weekends, operating under yard limits not exceeding 10 miles per hour.
HOS freight shipments only occur on the line on weekdays, except for
special circumstances on the weekends. ORSR schedules must always be
coordinated with and approved by the PCPA and HOS to ensure that there
are no conflicting train movements.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the

comment period and specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by June 19, 2020 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic form of any
written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by
the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. 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 https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-09559 Filed 5-4-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: January 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 3)]
[Notices]
[Page 483-485]
[DOCID:fr06ja09-79]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59168; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-139]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by New York Stock Exchange LLC
Amending Rule 48.10 To Extend the Temporary Provisions of the Rule
Relating to the Ability of the Exchange to Declare an Extreme Market
Volatility Condition and Suspend Certain NYSE Requirements Relating to
the Closing of Securities at the Exchange

December 29, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 23, 2008, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') Rule 48.10 to extend the temporary provisions of the
rule relating to the ability of the Exchange to declare an extreme
market volatility condition and suspend certain NYSE requirements
relating to the closing of securities at the Exchange.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://
www.nyse.com, NYSE, and the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below,

of the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 48.10 to temporarily extend the
provisions of the rule relating to declaring an extreme market
volatility condition at the close.
    On October 2, 2008, the Exchange filed for immediate effectiveness
to amend NYSE Rule 48 to provide the Exchange with the ability to
suspend certain rules at the close when extremely high market
volatility could negatively affect the ability to ensure a fair and
orderly close.\4\ The Exchange amended Rule 48 on an immediate
effectiveness basis in order to respond swiftly to market conditions at
that time. Those amendments were adopted on a temporary basis with the
understanding that if the NYSE would like to adopt the closing
provisions on a permanent basis, such proposal must be filed under
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SEC Release No. 34-58743 (Oct. 7, 2008), 73 FR 60742
(Oct. 14, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-102).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange intends soon to file a rule proposal to amend Rules 48
and 123C to delete from Rule 48 the provisions relating to declaring an
extreme market volatility condition at the close and add them in
modified form to Rule 123C (the ``Rule 48/123C filing''). That rule
proposal would be filed under Section 19(b)(2) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'').\6\ The Exchange now proposes to
temporarily extend the NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 48 at-the-close
provisions pending the outcome of the Rule 48/123C filing. Accordingly,
the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 48.10 to provide that the
provisions of that rule relating to declaring an extreme market
volatility condition at the close will end on March 27, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \7\ that an Exchange have rules that
are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange 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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.\10\ However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange requested that the Commission waive
the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\
which would make the rule change effective and operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-regulatory organization to give the
Commission notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow the Exchange to extend without interruption the
provisions of Rule 48 regarding the Exchange's ability to declare an
extreme market volatility condition at the close and suspend certain
rules relating to closing of securities on the Exchange. These
provisions are currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2008. The
Commission notes the Exchange's representation that it soon intends to
file a proposal to establish permanent rules regarding closing of
securities subject to an extreme order imbalance at the close. In light
of the foregoing, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSE-2008-139 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-NYSE-2008-139. 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 the Exchange. 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-NYSE-2008-139 and should be
submitted on or before January 27, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-31348 Filed 1-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65520-65521]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26389]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0608; FRL-9745-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Amendments to West Virginia's Ambient Air Quality
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of West Virginia for the purpose of
establishing amendments to Legislative Rule, 45 CSR 8--Ambient Air
Quality Standards. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register,
EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for
the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse
comments are received in response to this action, no further activity
is contemplated. If EPA receives 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 rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by November 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0608 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0608, Donna Mastro, Acting Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0608. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston, West Virginia
25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Asrah Khadr,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, with the same title,
that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

    Dated: October 10, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-26389 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53650-53651]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20995]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-527-000]

Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed East Lateral
Xpress Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the East Lateral XPress Project (Project), proposed by Columbia
Gulf Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf) in the above-referenced docket.
Columbia Gulf requests authorization to construct and operate natural
gas transmission facilities in Louisiana. The Project is designed to
provide a total of 725 million standard cubic feet per day of firm
transportation capacity, through a combination of incremental and
existing capacity on Columbia Gulf's interstate natural gas pipeline
system, to an interconnect with Venture Global Gator Express, LLC, for
ultimate delivery as feed gas for Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC's
facility in Plaquemines Parish.
    The final EIS responds to comments that were received on the
Commission's March 16, 2021 Environmental Assessment (EA) and June 25,
2021 draft EIS \1\ and discloses downstream greenhouse gas emissions
for the Project. With the exception of climate change impacts, the FERC
staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with the
mitigation measures recommended in this EIS, would not result in
significant environmental impacts. FERC staff continues to be unable to
determine significance with regards to climate change impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Project's EA is available on eLibrary under accession
no. 20210316-3010 and the draft EIS is available under accession no.
20210625-3010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final EIS incorporates the above referenced EA, which addressed
the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation
of the following Project facilities:
     8.1 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline lateral within
Barataria Bay in Jefferson and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana;
     Centerville Compressor Station--a new 23,470-horsepower
(hp) compressor station at an abandoned Columbia Gulf compressor
station site in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana;
     Golden Meadow Compressor Station--a new 23,470-hp
compressor station adjacent to an existing tie-in facility in Lafourche
Parish, Louisiana;
     a point of delivery meter station in Plaquemines Parish,
Louisiana; and
     a tie-in facility with two mainline valves and other
appurtenances on a new platform in Barataria Bay, Jefferson Parish,
Louisiana.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed East Lateral
Xpress Project to federal, state, and local government representatives
and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest
groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and
other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries
in the Project area. The final EIS is only available in electronic
format. It may be viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website
(www.ferc.gov), on the natural gas environmental documents page
(https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/

environmental-documents). In addition, the final EIS may be accessed by
using the eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary
link (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search), select ``General
Search'', and enter the docket number in the ``Docket Number'' field
(i.e., CP20-527). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to
register for eSubscription.

    Dated: September 21, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-20995 Filed 9-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Chapter 8
Modified Natural Gas-fired Stationary Combustion Turbines

Contents
8.1	General	2
8.2	Identification of BSER	2
8.2.1 Actions to Trigger Modification	3
Modifications to an Older (e.g. Pre-2000) Combined Cycle Unit	7
Upgrading a Simple Cycle Turbine to a Combined Cycle Unit	8
8.3	Determination of the Level of the Standard	11

General
Commenter 190 stated it is important that EPA not apply the modification provisions of Section 111(b) to existing NGCC units in a manner that results in unintended consequences. According to the commenter, some existing NGCC units may be constrained by current configurations or operating permit parameters that could be addressed by relatively minor modifications that have the potential to increase emissions on an hourly or annual basis. The commenter stated if the re-dispatch of these units is intended to displace higher emitting resources or to backstop renewable generation under a Section 111(d) program, these potential NGCC emission increases would be offset from the resources they replace. According to the commenter, the possibility that existing NGCC units could become subject to the 111(b) standards by increasing utilization in order to meet the 111(d) requirements could force these units to forego the opportunity to increase output or retire, rather than be subject to the modification provisions (a scenario contemplated by EPA, "[T]hese standards serve another important purpose that may affect a larger number of sources: Providing an incentive, and the information needed, for existing sources to structure their actions to achieve their operating and business goals without triggering the modification or reconstruction standards."). The commenter concluded that the inability to effectuate modifications to these existing NGCC units has the potential to result in stranded investments or require that additional fossil-fueled generation be constructed, resulting in both a significant cost to customers and an increase in overall emissions.
 The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Identification of BSER
Commenter 187 suggested EPA that indicate the heat input standard is based on the on the LHV of the fuel, or adjust the heat input standard to a higher value to account for the HHV of the fuel. The commenter is concerned with the Agency's determination of BSER for modified stationary combustion turbines for several reasons. According to the commenter, it is not technically or economically feasible to upgrade older stationary combustion turbines to meet the carbon rates of new combustion turbines, and there is no information in the rule-making docket to support the achievability of the proposed standards for modified and reconstructed units. According to the commenter, this lack of an EPA technical support document to justify how all older stationary combustion turbines can be technically and economically upgraded during a modification to meet the emission rates of new units indicates the Agency itself is not sure they can be achieved. The commenter stated that because a standard of performance must be achievable, EPA should withdraw the Proposed Rule or, at a minimum, expressly exempt any modified combustion turbine that is technologically or economically incapable of meeting the performance standard.
The commenter also identified a further defect in the proposed definition of BSER as "NGCC technology." According to the commenter, this definition fails to provide the level of detail required under Section 111(a) of the Act, and without a clear definition of NGCC technology, sources cannot know what equipment would need to be upgraded if a unit is modified. Moreover, the commenter stated, requiring a simple-cycle combustion turbine to convert to an NGCC is forcing a change in the basic equipment, which is strictly not allowed under Section 111(b): "[N]othing in this section shall be construed to require, or to authorize [EPA] to require, any new or modified source to install and operate any particular technological system of continuous emission reduction to comply with any new source standard of performance." The commenter stated that simple-cycle combustion turbines serve a different purpose from combined-cycle units (i.e., fast response and ramp up and limited use), and if a simple-cycle must be converted to an NGCC, then the unit is not suitable for its intended purpose. The commenter stated that simple cycle turbines are primarily employed for their fast-start capability, and requiring a conversion to a unit that requires more time to start defeats the purpose of using such units and is unlawful.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
With respect to "modified" simple cycle combustion turbines, commenter 0206 suggested that EPA drop the standard entirely, as the proposed standard unlawfully redefines the source and should be deleted.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 0215 stated that EPA failed to distinguish among turbines that were designed and constructed over a period of decades, and thus objects to the Agency's determination of BSER. The commenter stated that the definition of "NGCC technology" has implications for evaluating the cost of technology and standard-setting and without further definition of this term, it is impossible to understand or comment on the proposal. [39476]
 The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
8.2.1 Actions to Trigger Modification
Commenter 0227 stated they are unaware of any unit subject to Subpart KKKK that has been alleged to have been "modified" and that subsequently triggered the applicability of an NSPS, but some NGCC facilities have been retrofit with selective catalytic reactors (SCR) to control NOx emissions, which could have similar impacts as the control device installations that have occurred at Subpart Da units. The commenter stated that according to EPA's data in the companion proposal for existing sources, state-wide average CO2 emissions in 2012 for all existing NGCC units in Subpart KKKK exceeded 1,000 lbs/MWh-net in several states. The commenter stated EPA has not exempted simple-cycle combustion turbines from the proposed standard, and not all simple-cycle facilities could accommodate a conversion to combined cycle operation, which would be necessary to achieve the proposed standards.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 222 stated EPA must explicitly find that installation of control technology or changes to comply with EPA's environmental regulations do not trigger modification or reconstruction requirements under this Rule Proposal or Other Rule Proposals. The commenter supported EPA's finding that changes to install "add-on control equipment required to meet CAA requirements for criteria and hazardous air pollutants ... would be exempted from the definition of modification under the current NSPS regulations." The commenter noted that, however, EPA goes on to add that there are some actions that "could potentially trigger the modification provisions of CAA section 111(b);" for example, this would include changes in the particulate control equipment that removes limitations on the amount of coal that can be combusted. According to the commenter, EGU operators should not be penalized for installing newer, larger, and more efficient technologies that allow increased combustion of coal, as that would likely increase efficiency and lower the emissions rate. The commenter stated that any changes that lower the emission rate of CO2 and any type of heat rate improvement should be explicitly excluded from triggering modification requirements.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 142 stated EPA failed to correctly estimate the number of modifications and therefore dramatically underestimates the cost of the rule. The commenter agreed with EPA's estimate that few units would be reconstructed; however, disagreed with EPA's estimate that few units would be modified. According to the commenter, EPA's basis for the estimate is flawed. The commenter stated EPA has not previously regulated CO2 in any NSPS, so any physical changes made to units in the past that resulted in increased CO2 emissions would not have been considered modifications, as the changes would not have resulted in an increase in emission of a pollutant to which a standard applied. According to the commenter, if the EPA is relying upon other pollutants as a surrogate to estimate the number of modifications, this approach is also flawed. The commenter stated that unlike CO2, other pollutants currently regulated under the NSPS typically rely upon add-on control devices to control those emissions. The commenter also stated that the NSPS defines an increase in emissions as an increase that occurs on an hourly basis. The commenter continued that if a unit has an add-on control device, the hourly emission rate of the pollutant subject to regulation can be mitigated by enhanced utilization of the control device, yet since no add-on control devices are currently used to control CO2 emissions, all changes that would result in an hourly increase in CO2 would be modifications. The commenter estimated that most existing combustion turbines will be modified over the course of their useful life, and upgrades to existing turbines based upon advances in turbine technology that are designed to increase power output or improve the heat rate are common. Additionally, the commenter stated, Block 1 heat rate improvements required in section 111(d) could actually trigger a modification under section 111(b), because the hourly emission rate of CO2 could increase depending upon the heat rate improvements implemented. The commenter also stated heat rate improvement can be achieved when there is a greater increase in output (MW produced) relative to the increase in input (BTU, fuel).
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenters 0238 and 260 stated EPA should clarify that turbine projects do not constitute modifications within the NSPS context. The commenter cited EPA that it "expects few units would trigger either the modification or the reconstruction provisions."  However, the commenter continued, the Agency explains that upgrades to a steam turbine that allow more coal to be combusted in the boiler "could potentially trigger the modification provisions of CAA section 111(b)."  The commenter stated that EPA's statement is contradictory to NSPS applicability determinations issued by EPA for electric utility steam generating units. The commenter provided the following discussion:
"According to NSPS applicability determinations, projects that solely involve the steam turbine do not constitute modifications as defined in 40 CFR section 60.14. For example, in an applicability determination issued to NRG Energy, EPA stated that '[t]he analysis of whether a modification occurs under the NSPS is dependent on physical and operational changes at the existing facility' and, 'a turbine is not part of the existing facility (i.e., the electric utility steam generating unit).' The Agency further explained that turbine changes would fall under the exemption from the modification definition for '[a]n increase in production rate of an existing facility, if that increase can be accomplished without a capital expenditure.' According to the Agency, an increase in turbine capacity that removes a bottleneck at the boiler 'would not trigger a capital expenditure at the boilers since the turbine is not part of the electric utility steam generating unit.'"
The commenters provided a diagram attached to an applicability determination for the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group which clearly shows that the turbine is not part of the electric utility steam generating unit. The commenter concluded that given EPA's past applicability determinations on this issue, EPA should clarify in the preamble to the final rule that turbine upgrades at an electric utility steam generating unit would not be considered a modification under the NSPS provisions.
Commenter 0255 stated that turbine upgrades should not be considered a modification. The commenter stated that EPA expresses that few turbine projects would qualify as a modification or reconstruction under the proposed rule but acknowledges that some turbine projects may qualify. The commenter stated these statements are not consistent with EPA's historic applicability determinations where EPA states that the turbine is not part of the electric steam generating unit. The commenter stated EPA should clarify in this rule that turbine upgrades do not constitute a modification under NSPS.
Commenter 0171 stated EPA indicates that upgrades to a steam turbine that allow more coal to be combusted in the boiler "could potentially trigger the modification provisions of CAA section 111(b)". The commenter stated EPA's statement is contradictory to NSPS applicability determinations issued by EPA for electric utility steam generating units. The commenter stated according to NSPS applicability determinations, projects that solely involve the steam turbine do not constitute modifications as defined in 40 C.F.R. Section 60.14. The commenter stated EPA should clarify in final rule that turbine upgrades at an electric utility steam generating unit would not be considered a modification under the NSPS provisions.
Commenter 0238 also stated that as a practical matter, a determination that turbine projects constitute NSR modifications could have negative implications for EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan. The commenter stated that Building Block I of EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan assumes heat rate improvements from existing sources, which will include steam turbine upgrades that also might allow more coal to be combusted in the boiler. According to the commenter, any company contemplating efficiency improvements may be dissuaded from enacting such improvements, which would counteract the Agency's intended goal of lower GHG emissions. The commenter quoted EPA statements that its approach to pollution control and prevention which easily extends to efficiency gains to lower GHG emissions.
 The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 0190 stated that while it believes that only extremely unusual circumstances would cause the conversion of an existing coal-fueled boiler to natural gas to trigger the modification or reconstruction provisions under Section 111(b), EPA should provide additional clarification on this scenario. The commenter stated that as defined by Section 111, a modification only occurs if there is an associated emissions increase, noting that under a gas conversion, CO2 emissions are reduced by approximately 50% on a rate basis, and that frequently, capacity factor limitations are also imposed, effectively ensuring there is no emissions increase. The commenter stated that under the reconstruction provisions under Section 111, the costs of the fixed capital components being replaced must exceed 50% of the costs of the fixed capital components of an entirely new comparable facility, and as a result, it is highly unlikely that the cost of a coal to natural gas conversion will trigger the reconstruction provisions.
The commenter provided additional information on operating units that have plans to utilize natural gas rather than coal at existing utility boilers, noting one will cease burning coal as a lower cost option to comply with EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and another that will convert to natural gas as a lower cost option to achieve compliance with EPA's Regional Haze Rules. The commenter provided cost information and analysis in comparison to the proposed rule. The commenter noted that the planned coal-to-gas conversions will achieve significant reductions of CO2 and other emissions and it is critical that these and similar projects at existing units are not disincentivized by EPA's treatment of CO2 emissions under a modification scenario. The commenter suggested that EPA should not subject these converted units to the NSPS under 111(b). The commenter stated that while the new source standards have yet to be finalized, these converted units cannot achieve the proposed emission rate for natural gas fueled units of 1,000 lb/MWh but they do provide significant CO2 benefits. For purposes of Section 111(d), the commenter suggested that converted units should be treated as "other gas" units in EPA's compliance calculation.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 0291 stated that certain replacements or upgrades to steam turbines or particulate control devices should not trigger the NSPS modification rule, yet the Proposed Rule will nonetheless become the minimum emission limit that must be achieved by an EGU if it is to comply with the PSD New Source Review modification rules specifying BACT application. The commenter stated that EPA must consider the implications of its utility enforcement initiative in its discussion of the NSPS modification rule. The commenter stated that EPA's proposed BSER includes precisely the kinds of projects that are the subjects of its NSR suits -"equipment upgrades [to] replace existing components with upgraded ones or a more extensive overhaul of major equipment (turbine or boiler)." The commenter stated that EPA must exclude from the NSPS for modified sources any unit that would likely to trigger NSR upon undertaking an HRI improvement.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Modifications to an Older (e.g. Pre-2000) Combined Cycle Unit
Commenter 0131 expressed reservations about the ability of new NGCCs to meet the 1,000 lbs./MWh limit given the inclusion of all start-ups and shut downs and cycling to back up renewables. The commenter stated that EPA now proposes the same standard for modified and reconstructed NGCCs, and as EPA notes in its discussion, the vast majority of NGCCs have been built after 2000. According to the commenter, likely the only NGCCs that would be considered for modification or reconstruction would be those built before 2000. The commenter stated that bringing these machines to this standard would be cost prohibitive and they would likely be destined for replacement on an economic evaluation. According to the commenter, different standards would be appropriate for different technologies. The commenter stated that they again would support the application of the alternative standard of matching recent history as opposed to applying 111(b) standards.
 The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 0215 stated that due to changes over time in the design efficiency of NGCC units, it is not possible to bring older combustion turbines up to the efficiency levels of modern units. The commenter stated that EPA acknowledges that there is no available method for reducing CO2 emissions from these units other than applying NGCC technology, and an NGCC unit that triggers reconstruction analysis but cannot meet the proposed NSPS with its current turbine does not have an option of installing add-on technology and would have to either entirely replace its existing facility with a new modern turbine (and likely a new heat recovery steam generator) or retire it altogether in order to comply. The commenter stated that because it would not be "technologically and economically feasible" for those units to comply with the Proposed Standards, they would not be considered "reconstructed" and would not be subject to the standard.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 0215 disagreed with EPA's assumption that it is technically feasible to upgrade "older" (e.g., especially pre-2000) or even more recent NGCCs to meet the same CO2 emission rate as modern technology. The commenter stated that EPA's assumption that such an upgrade "is likely to be cost effective" is unsupported. The commenter disagreed that older units are capable of replacing sufficient equipment to match the emissions performance of a brand-new NGCC unit on a cost-effective basis, and stated that EPA has failed to provide any technical support for basing its Proposed Standards on such an assumption. The commenter stated that without a definition of "NGCC technology," neither an owner or operator nor a regulatory agency would know precisely what equipment would need to be upgraded if a unit has been determined to have been modified.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Upgrading a Simple Cycle Turbine to a Combined Cycle Unit
Commenter 199 stated that if required to convert simple cycle units using NGCC technology, many units would be forced to shut down. The commenter stated it is not technologically feasible to use NGCC technology on a simple cycle unit because doing so requires the addition of a steam generator and steam turbine, which increases the size and characteristics of the plant. The commenter also stated it is not economically feasible because when the characteristics of the plant change, the original purpose for constructing the unit (emergency and peak loading) is destroyed. The commenter continued that since NGCC is a cycling or base load energy resource, simple cycle units could possibly run into trouble if they had to replace multiple rows of turbine and compressor blades and/or have the generator overhauled. The commenter stated that simple cycle units would not be able to achieve the standard as proposed. The commenter stated that a simple cycle unit's efficiency is approximately 50 to 60 percent lower than a NGCC unit and emits about 1,600 lb CO2/MWh, and the only way to reduce emissions to the levels EPA proposes would be to install NGCC technology. However, according to the commenter, requiring that technology as the BSER for these units is arbitrary and capricious.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 214 stated EPA's BSER determination for modified and reconstructed simple-cycle units are flawed. According to the commenter, EPA has provided no supporting documentation identifying the technical feasibility of altering existing simple-cycle CTs to "modern high efficiency NGCC technology." The commenter stated that EPA must provide this documentation for all potentially affected sizes of simple-cycle combustion turbines. The commenter stated that EPA also did not provide the incremental costs incurred at modified or reconstructed simple-cycle CTs due to the installation of a HRSG, however, EPA acknowledges potential technical and cost concerns with simple-cycle CTs installing a HRSG. The commenter referenced the Agency concerns in stating: "if the owner/operator of a simple[-]cycle turbine wishes to make a modification they could do so - without having to comply with the requirements of this proposal - by maintaining an average annual capacity factor of less than one-third." According to the commenter, EPA, however, cannot substitute an operational limit for an appropriate BSER analysis.
Commenter 0215 disagreed that NGCC is BSER for a simple cycle turbine and that it would be "technologically and economically feasible" to apply, except in very rare situations. The commenter stated that such a requirement would violate the statutory prohibition on requiring "any new or modified source to install and operate any particular technological system of continuous emission reduction to comply with any new source standard of performance."
 The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 0165 stated EPA's BSER conclusion that BSER for a simple cycle combustion turbine is to upgrade the system to a combined cycle combustion turbine redefines the existing source. According to the commenter, the performance standards under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act are linked to the Best Available Control Technology requirements under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The commenter stated that Congress specifically linked the two programs together by stating the Best Available Control Technology could not be less stringent than the performance standards established under Section 111. Additionally, the commenter stated that the US Supreme Court discussed limitations on EPA's authority on applying "Best Available Control Technology" and noted the "control technology" could not require a "fundamental redesign" of the facility. According to the commenter, requiring the simple cycle combustion turbine to be upgraded to a combined cycle combustion turbine is a "fundamental redesign" of the existing source.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 0242 stated concerns regarding the ability for all types of units under all circumstances to be able to achieve NGCC cost-effectively. The commenter stated that issues may arise for modified sources that may make it cost-prohibitive as BSER to apply NGCC depending on the modification that occurs. The commenter provided the example that under this rule a simple cycle may trigger a modification based on the need for a simple upgrade, and in turn this rule would necessitate conversion to an NGCC which could make the project very cost prohibitive. The commenter stated they are particularly concerned in the context of an energy market that is drastically altered through the proposed rule for existing units. The commenter stated that simple cycle units will be utilized more frequently due to greater reliance on intermittent renewable resources and the lack of coal-fired capacity. According to the commenter, the conversion of a simple cycle is a complicated and expensive process that will not occur frequently, thus possibly leading to electricity shortages, and the U.S. EPA must afford states the ability in those circumstances to determine emission rates on a case-by-case basis.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 0215 stated that although many simple cycle units have historically operated less than 10 percent of the year, there are cases where individual units may need to run much longer to maintain system reliability, either for short or prolonged periods. The commenter stated that converting to a combined cycle facility would not be cost-effective for most, if not all, simple cycle turbine owners, meaning that a simple cycle turbine that becomes subject to the NSPS for modified sources would be unable to operate, and system reliability would be jeopardized.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 0176 stated that EPA acknowledges that it is obligated to consider environmental impacts that would flow from the implementation of a proposed NSPS, including impacts to scarce water resources, According to the commenter, NGSC units that are affected by this rule cannot meet the standard and must convert to a NGCC to meet the standard. The commenter stated that to the extent that the use of NGCC results in depletion of water resources, especially in water scarce areas, it must be considered by EPA when finalizing the rule, and the fact that NGCC are water intensive provides additional support that a mandate to convert NGSC units to NGCC is not BSER.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 0215 stated that EPA should create a separate category or subcategory for modified high capacity factor simple cycle turbines, determine an appropriate BSER that does not require conversion to NGCC, analyze emissions from units in the subcategory, consider all of the requirements of section 111, and propose a limit that is achievable.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 0149 had concerns regarding the ability of all types of units under all circumstances to be able to achieve NGCC cost-effectively. The commenter believes issues may arise for modified sources that may make it cost-prohibitive as BSER to apply NGCC depending on the modification that occurs. The commenter stated that under the proposed rule a simple cycle may trigger a modification based on the need for a simple upgrade, and this would necessitate conversion to an NGCC, which could make the project cost prohibitive. This was particularly concerning to the commenter in the context of an energy market that is drastically altered through the proposed rule for existing units.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Determination of the Level of the Standard
Commenter 0150 stated EPA also proposes to establish standards identical to those for new units: 1,000 lb CO2/MWh-gross for large (more than 850 MMBtu/h) units and 1,100 lb CO2/MWh-gross for small (850 MMBtu/h or less) units. According to the commenter, EPA has not provided any record evidence supporting the achievability of these standards, and as such, they are per se arbitrary and capricious.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenters 0171 and 0254 stated that for modified NGCC, the proposed rule subjects them to the same standard as a new NGCC, without any data or explanation that this is appropriate. According to the commenters, EPA's unsupported conclusion is wrong -- the design of many units precludes their ability to meet the new-unit limit, if modified.
Commenter 0215 stated that existing sources generally cannot meet the same emission standard as a new, greenfield source and an analysis of existing units demonstrates that a substantial number of units cannot achieve the standards EPA has proposed.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenters 0195, 0211, 0259 and 0261 stated that EPA should not set identical standards for modified, reconstructed and new units given the technical limitations of modified and reconstructed units.
Commenter 0195 also stated that considering that modified units do not experience the same degree of alteration as reconstructed units, the commenter recommends that EPA apply the highest limits included in the proposal, i.e., 1,100 lb CO2/MWh for large sources and 1,200 lb CO2/MWh for smaller sources.
Commenter 0259 also stated that given that modified units do not experience the same level of physical change as reconstructed units, EPA should finalize a higher range than that included in the proposal - 1,200 lb CO2/MWh gross for large modified CTs and 1,300 lb CO2/MWh gross for smaller modified CTs.
Commenter 0211 stated the Proposed Rule improperly imposes identical standards for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines. The commenter stated existing sources generally cannot meet the same emission standard as a newly constructed source. The commenter stated modified or reconstructed NGCC units should be subject to an emission standard that is higher than newly constructed units. The commenter also supported the Proposed Rule's rejection of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as BSER.
Commenter 0261 stated modified combustion turbines should not be forced to comply with the same standards as those for new units given that existing units were not designed with the technical standards and technology that apply to new units today. The commenter stated units that are modified cannot take advantage of the same design standards and technology that would allow new units to meet such stringent limits. The commenter stated that due to these technical restrictions, the limits for natural gas-fired stationary CTs should differentiate between, new, modified, and reconstructed units. The commenter also stated the overly stringent emission standards, could possibly preclude utilities from making modifications that would improve efficiency, which would reduce the heat rate (Btu/MWh) and the CO2 emissions rate (lbs/MWh).
 The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 0257 stated that EPA should exempt certain operational modes from Subpart KKKK compliance. The commenter stated that EPA's regulations for modified and reconstructed NGCC units should expressly exclude two modes of operation that are not typical for NGCC combustion turbines. According to the commenter, many combustion turbines are permitted to fire oil as a back-up fuel for up to 30 days per year, especially during periods of curtailment of natural gas when supplies are short, and it is vital that this mode of operation be kept available to ail such units to mitigate risks to reliability. The commenter stated The Agency has provided no emissions data to justify any NSPS for combined cycle combustion turbines when they are firing oil. The commenter suggested that EPA should expressly exclude periods of operation when units permitted to do so fire oil as a back-up fuel. Alternatively, the commenter recommended EPA should further analyze CO2 emissions during oil-fired operations and propose an NSPS that adequately accounts for such periods or re-evaluate, develop and propose a separate standard for dual-fuel units. The commenter stated that modifying the standard in these ways would help accommodate partial load operations, specific unit design and operational site characteristics, as well as the use of backup fuel.
Commenter 0257 also stated that some NGCC units that would be subject to the modified or reconstructed source NSPS have designs that allow the operators to bypass the steam cycle and operate in simple cycle mode when necessary. The commenter urged EPA to exempt simple cycle mode operations from compliance when an NGCC unit falls below the 33 percent capacity factor in that mode.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 203 stated many of the same concerns expressed for reconstructed units apply to the Proposal for modified Subpart KKKK units. The commenter provided the following points:
- No technical support document in the rulemaking docket that specifically discusses modified Subpart KKKK EGUs or that contains any analyses of emissions data was found. In particular, analyses that would justify the setting of any emissions limit for modifications are absent. So as to comply with CAA 307(d)(3), EPA should withdraw its proposal until it has developed and included within the rulemaking docket the necessary supporting information;
- It is even more important for EPA to set a reasonable performance standard for modified Subpart KKKK units, as compared to reconstructed units, given the much higher likelihood that future projects could trigger the modification threshold. As there is no explicit requirement in the modification regulations that mirrors the requirement that reconstructions must be technologically and economically feasible to apply to a given project, a rate limit for modifications equal to the same number for reconstructions arguably results in a more stringent limit for the more likely to occur modification. Given the scope and magnitude of a triggering project- much lower than a project costing 50% of a comparable new facility, and instead an increase in hourly emissions - if anything, it would seem that modification performance standards for the same source types should perhaps be somewhat less stringent that reconstruction standards. Both should be less stringent that performance standards for new KKKK units.
- Because it may be infeasible for EPA to properly set performance standards, it could set design, equipment, work practice or operational standards under 111 (h). Alternatively, here EPA is justified in declining to promulgate performance standards for modified or reconstructed Da or KKKK units, since EPA concludes in its RIA that the Proposal will produce no significant costs or benefits;
- EPA does not have the authority to set source-specific performance standards for Subpart KKKK units, and instead must hew to the governing parameters of 111 (b). Standards must be set for properly categorized (or subcategorized source types), and energy efficiency audits have no place in lieu of the required approach in 111 (b);
- Once EPA develops the required emissions analyses, it should set the standards at a level that provides for 99% compliance;
- Simple cycle units should be exempt from the rule in all cases. Simple cycle units cannot meet the same standards as NGCC units (see further discussion below);
- When setting the performance standards for modified Subpart KKKK units, EPA must account for the fact that no add-on equipment is currently available for CO2 control, within the parameters of the determined BSER. As previously discussed, unlike many criteria pollutants (NOx, SO2 or particulates), there is no add-on equipment currently available to reduce CO2 emissions. Coupled with the fact that all equipment degrades over time, becoming less efficient (thus emitting more CO2), if EPA sets CO2 performance standards for modified units too stringently, sources will have no margin for compliance. If a project must be undertaken for continued operations, but the project triggers a NSPS modification, the only choice may be a permanent shut down of the units. EPA should not establish a NSPS that results in this outcome for modified Subpart KKKK units and, in fact lacks the authority to set such a rigorous standard.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).
Commenter 0215 stated that about 10 percent of NGCC units that were designed and built with truly modern high temperature materials cannot meet a 1,000 lb CO2/MWh-gross limit and that only 96 percent of large (more than 850 MMBtu/h) units can meet a 1,100 lb CO2/MWh-gross limit [See: Smith Turbine Report at 2 & 7, Fig. 1; and Attachment A at 3]. The commenter stated that EPA has failed to provide any information to justify that modified units that were constructed in the 1990s can match the emissions performance of new turbines with more efficient designs that were built up to 25 years later. The commenter stated that turbine overhauls may allow some older units to approach their original design efficiency but cannot bring these units up to the level of modern turbines. The commenter stated that an NSPS "establishes what every source can achieve, not the best that a source could do."  The commenter stated that EPA should set a limit whereby at least 99 percent of modified units should be expected to comply.
The EPA is withdrawing the proposed emission standard for modified stationary combustion turbines, as explained in Section IX.D.3.e of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, combustion turbines that conduct modifications will remain "existing sources" subject to 111(d).


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 57866]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22688]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93304; File No. SR-MIAX-2021-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its
Fee Schedule To Adjust the Options Regulatory Fee

October 13, 2021.
    On August 12, 2021, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's fee schedule to revise the
Options Regulatory Fee charged starting August 12, 2021. The proposed
rule change was immediately effective upon filing with the Commission
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 27,
2021.\4\ The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal
from the Exchange noting that it planned to withdraw File No. MIAX-
2021-38.\5\ On October 7, 2021, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule
change (SR-MIAX-2021-38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92725 (August 23,
2021), 86 FR 48260.
    \5\ See Letter to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission,
from Michael Slade, AVP and Associate Counsel, Exchange, dated
September 30, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-22688 Filed 10-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 84)]
[Notices]
[Page 25837-25838]
[DOCID:fr02my06-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF06-16-000]

Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of Site Visit
and Public Meetings To Receive Environmental Comments on the Proposed
Kinder Morgan Pipeline Project

April 26, 2006.
    On March 24, 2006, the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for the Proposed Kinder Morgan Pipeline Project and Request
for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). As part of our review
process we will visit the proposed project route and hold three public
scoping meetings to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the
proposed project.
    Public scoping meetings are designed to provide an opportunity for
landowners and concerned citizens to offer comments on the
environmental issues they believe should be addressed in our analysis.
To ensure that every comment is accurately recorded, a court reporter
will be present to prepare an official transcript of each meeting.
Concerned citizens are invited to attend

any of the following public comment meetings:

Monday, May 8, 2006

6:30-8:30 p.m. (CDT), Ville Platte High School Auditorium, 210 West
Cotton Street, Ville Platte, LA.

Tuesday, May 9, 2006

6:30-8:30 p.m. (CDT), Sulphur City Hall, 500 N. Huntington Street,
Sulphur, LA.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

6:30-8:30 p.m. (CDT), Iowa Community Center, 207 West Highway 90,
Iowa, LA.

    Additionally, on May 9 through May 11, 2006, staff accompanied by
representatives from Kinder Morgan will conduct a series of site visits
of the proposed Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline route. All interested
parties are welcome to attend the car-based site visit. Those planning
to attend must provide their own transportation.
    Individuals with questions regarding this notice as well as those
interested in attending either the public meetings or the car-based
site visit should contact the Commission's Office of External Affairs
at 866-208-FERC (3372).

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6577 Filed 5-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P