Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances From New Unit Set-Asides for the 2017 Compliance Year, 43537-43539 [2017-19822]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Notices
43537
1035TH MEETING—REGULAR MEETING—Continued
[September 20, 2017 10:00 a.m.]
Item No.
E–18
E–19
E–20
E–21
Docket No.
........................
........................
........................
........................
E–22 ........................
E–23 ........................
Company
OMITTED
ER17–1333–000 ....................................
ER17–520–000 ......................................
ER17–772–000,
ER17–772–001,
ER17–772–002.
EL17–34–000 ........................................
ER16–2320–001 ....................................
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Alcoa Corporation.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
GAS
G–1
G–2
G–3
G–4
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
OMITTED.
RP17–349–000 ......................................
RP17–519–000 ......................................
OR13–14–002 .......................................
Black Marlin Pipeline Company.
Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
Western Refining Pipeline, LLC.
HYDRO
H–1
H–2
H–3
H–4
H–5
H–6
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
P–12569–014 ........................................
P–12628–013 ........................................
P–2114–289 ..........................................
P–2197–112, P–2197–113 ....................
P–2197–110 ..........................................
P–2114–286, P–2114–287 ....................
Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County, Washington.
City of Nashua, Iowa.
Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Washington.
Alcoa Power Generating Inc., Cube Yadkin Generation LLC.
Alcoa Power Generating Inc., Cube Yadkin Generation LLC.
Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Washington.
sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with NOTICES
Issued: September 13, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
A free webcast of this event is
available through www.ferc.gov. Anyone
with Internet access who desires to view
this event can do so by navigating to
www.ferc.gov’s Calendar of Events and
locating this event in the Calendar.
The event will contain a link to its
webcast. The Capitol Connection
provides technical support for the free
webcasts. It also offers access to this
event via television in the DC area and
via phone bridge for a fee. If you have
any questions, visit
www.CapitolConnection.org or contact
Danelle Springer or David Reininger at
703–993–3100.
Immediately following the conclusion
of the Commission Meeting, a press
briefing will be held in the Commission
Meeting Room. Members of the public
may view this briefing in the designated
overflow room. This statement is
intended to notify the public that the
press briefings that follow Commission
meetings may now be viewed remotely
at Commission headquarters, but will
not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.
Allocations of Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Allowances From New
Unit Set-Asides for the 2017
Compliance Year
[FRL–9966–42–OAR]
[FR Doc. 2017–19870 Filed 9–14–17; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:57 Sep 15, 2017
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability
(NODA).
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the
availability of data on emission
allowance allocations to certain units
under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR). EPA has completed final
calculations for the first round of
allocations of allowances from the
CSAPR new unit set-asides (NUSAs) for
the 2017 control periods and has posted
spreadsheets containing the calculations
on EPA’s Web site. The only change
from the preliminary calculations is the
elimination of allocations of CSAPR SO2
Group 2 allowances to four units in
Georgia that for purposes of the
preliminary calculations were
incorrectly identified as new units
instead of existing units.
DATES: September 18, 2017.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions concerning this action should
be addressed to Robert Miller at (202)
343–9077 or miller.robertl@epa.gov or to
Kenon Smith at (202) 343–9164 or
smith.kenon@epa.gov.
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Under
each CSAPR trading program where
EPA is responsible for determining
emission allowance allocations, a
portion of each state’s emissions budget
for the program for each control period
is reserved in a NUSA (and in an
additional Indian country NUSA in the
case of states with Indian country
within their borders) for allocation to
certain units that would not otherwise
receive allowance allocations. Each
NUSA allowance allocation process
involves up to two rounds of allocations
to eligible units, termed ‘‘new’’ units,
followed by the allocation to ‘‘existing’’
units of any allowances not allocated to
new units.1 In a NODA published in the
Federal Register on June 21, 2017 (82
FR 28243), we provided notice of
preliminary calculations for the firstround 2017 NUSA allowance
allocations. We also described the
process for submitting any objections to
the preliminary calculations. This
NODA concerns the final calculations
for this round of 2017 NUSA
allocations.
EPA received written objections from
four parties in response to the June 21
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 The procedures for annually allocating
allowances from each NUSA to eligible units are set
forth in the CSAPR regulations at 40 CFR 97.411(b)
and 97.412 (CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program),
97.511(b) and 97.512 (CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 1 Trading Program), 97.611(b) and 97.612
(CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program), 97.711(b)
and 97.712 (CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program),
and 97.811(b) and 97.812 (CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 2 Trading Program).
E:\FR\FM\18SEN1.SGM
18SEN1
43538
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with NOTICES
NODA.2 For the reasons discussed
below, we have concluded that none of
the written objections provides a valid
basis for altering the preliminary
calculations of NUSA allowance
allocations.
The first written objection was
submitted by a representative for a
combustion turbine that commenced
commercial operation in 2007 in simple
cycle configuration and that in 2016 was
modified to combined cycle
configuration through the installation of
additional equipment including a heat
recovery steam generator, duct burners,
and a steam turbine. According to the
objection, the additional equipment
should be treated for CSAPR purposes
as a separate, new affected unit that is
eligible for allocations of CSAPR NUSA
allowances.3
EPA disagrees with this objection
based primarily on our interpretation of
the CSAPR definitions of ‘‘combustion
turbine’’ and ‘‘unit.’’ The CSAPR
definition of ‘‘combustion turbine’’
covers two possible equipment
configurations—the equipment required
for simple cycle operation, consisting of
a compressor, combustor, and turbine,
and the equipment required for
combined cycle operation, consisting of
the preceding equipment plus a heat
recovery steam generator, duct burners
(if any), and a steam turbine.4 The
facility in question meets the CSAPR
definition of ‘‘combustion turbine’’ both
before and after the addition of the new
equipment described above; the effect of
adding the new equipment is simply to
cause the facility to meet a different
provision of the definition. Nothing in
the definition suggests that the addition
of equipment to a given facility that
causes a different provision of the
definition to apply should be
interpreted as splitting that facility into
two separate combustion turbines, as
the objection claims. Moreover, our
2 A fifth written objection was withdrawn prior to
EPA’s drafting of this notice.
3 The objection seeks NUSA allocations of CSAPR
NOX Annual, CSAPR SO2 Group 2, and CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 allowances. However,
the facility is located in Kansas, and allocations of
2017 CSAPR NOX Annual allowances to units in
Kansas are governed by a SIP revision rather than
by the allocation procedures in the federal CSAPR
regulations. 81 FR 42256 (June 29, 2016). EPA
therefore addresses the objection only as it relates
to allowances for the remaining two programs.
4 The full definition states: ‘‘Combustion turbine
means an enclosed device comprising: (1) If the
device is simple cycle, a compressor, a combustor,
and a turbine and in which the flue gas resulting
from the combustion of fuel in the combustor
passes through the turbine, rotating the turbine; and
(2) If the device is combined cycle, the equipment
described in paragraph (1) of this definition and any
associated duct burner, heat recovery steam
generator, and steam turbine.’’ 40 CFR 97.702,
97.802.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Sep 15, 2017
Jkt 241001
interpretation that the facility in
question remains a single combustion
turbine is strongly supported by the
CSAPR definition of ‘‘unit,’’ which
encompasses a ‘‘combustion turbine’’
and further states in relevant part that
‘‘[a] unit that undergoes a physical
change . . . shall continue to be treated
as the same unit.’’ 5 The objection
asserts that this definition means that
only the original equipment is ‘‘the
same unit,’’ while the additional
equipment comprising the ‘‘physical
change’’ is a separate unit, but we
disagree. To the contrary, we believe a
plain reading of the definition indicates
that a unit to which a physical change
has been made remains ‘‘the same unit’’
but with a physical change.
In summary, we interpret the CSAPR
regulations as providing that the facility
in question remains the same, single
‘‘combustion turbine’’ for CSAPR
purposes after the addition of the new
equipment as it was before the addition
of the new equipment.6 Because we do
not agree that the additional equipment
should be treated as a separate, new
affected unit for CSAPR purposes, it is
unnecessary to address the portions of
the objection concerning the quantities
of NUSA allowances for which such a
new unit theoretically would be eligible.
The second and third written
objections were submitted by
representatives of two facilities whose
units are treated as new units for
purposes of the original CSAPR trading
programs but are treated as existing
units for purposes of the more recent
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
trading program. The units in question
commenced commercial operation in
2011 and 2012 and their owners have
identified them as affected by CSAPR.
In the CSAPR rulemaking finalized in
5 The full definition states: ‘‘Unit means a
stationary, fossil-fuel-fired boiler, stationary, fossilfuel-fired combustion turbine, or other stationary,
fossil-fuel-fired combustion device. A unit that
undergoes a physical change or is moved to a
different location or source shall continue to be
treated as the same unit. A unit (the replaced unit)
that is replaced by another unit (the replacement
unit) at the same or a different source shall continue
to be treated as the same unit, and the replacement
unit shall be treated as a separate unit.’’ 40 CFR
97.702, 97.802.
6 EPA further notes that the facility’s
representatives have not complied with multiple
CSAPR requirements that would apply if the
additional equipment in fact did constitute a
separate, new affected unit for CSAPR purposes.
For example, they have not submitted a certificate
of representation identifying the additional
equipment as a new affected unit, see 40 CFR
97.415(d), 97.715(d), 97.815(d), have not submitted
a monitoring plan identifying such a new unit (or
identifying the new stack as a common stack
serving multiple units), see §§ 97.434(b), 97.734(b),
97.834(b), and have not reported any separate
hourly emissions or heat input data for such a new
unit, see §§ 97.434(d), 97.734(d), 97.834(d).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2011 that established the original four
CSAPR trading programs, EPA
determined that all likely affected units
that commenced commercial operation
prior to January 1, 2010 should be
treated as existing units for purposes of
these four trading programs.7 In the
CSAPR Update rulemaking finalized in
2016 that established the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 Trading
Program, we determined that all likely
affected units that commenced
commercial operation prior to January 1,
2015 should be treated as existing units
for purposes of this trading program.8
Under these criteria, the units in
question are new units for purposes of
the original four CSAPR trading
programs and existing units for
purposes of the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 2 Trading Program. The
facilities’ representatives object to the
units’ classification as existing units
under this last trading program and
request that the units be classified
instead as new units eligible for
allocations of NUSA allowances under
this program.
As noted above, allocations of NUSA
allowances under the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program
are governed by 40 CFR 97.811(b) and
97.812. The regulations provide a
detailed set of procedures that EPA
must follow when allocating NUSA
allowances, including procedures for
identifying the units eligible for each
round of NUSA allocations for each
control period. Under
§ 97.811(b)(1)(ii)(B), objections to our
preliminary calculations of first-round
allocations ‘‘shall be limited to
addressing whether the calculations
(including the identification of the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
units) are in accordance with
§ 97.812(a)(2) through (7) and (12) and
§§ 97.830 through 97.835’’—in other
words, whether the calculations
(including identification of eligible
units) have been performed in
accordance with the detailed procedures
set forth in the regulations. The
objections to the June 21 NODA fall
outside this narrow scope. The January
1, 2015 cutoff date used to determine
whether a particular unit is an existing
unit for purposes of this trading
program was established as part of the
CSAPR Update rulemaking and can be
revised only through another
rulemaking. The process of allocating
NUSA allowances is strictly an
administrative process that implements
regulations already in effect, not a
7 76
8 81
E:\FR\FM\18SEN1.SGM
FR 48208, 48288–91 (August 8, 2011).
FR 74504, 74563–66 (October 26, 2016).
18SEN1
sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Notices
rulemaking process in which
regulations may be revised.
EPA has confirmed that the units in
question are not eligible to receive
allocations of NUSA allowances under
the regulations for the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 Trading
Program. Under § 97.812(a)(3), firstround allocations are determined for
‘‘each CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group
2 unit described in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section’’—i.e., § 97.812(a)(1). This
paragraph of the regulations identifies
three categories of units eligible for firstround allocations: First, units that have
not been allocated allowances as
existing units pursuant to § 97.811(a)(1);
second, units that have been allocated
allowances as existing units from a
given state’s budget for a given control
period but have lost those allocations
under the trading program’s correction
provisions (because the units either are
not located in that state or are not
subject to the program at the start of that
control period); and third, units that
have ceased operation for a sufficient
length of time to lose their allocations
as existing units and have subsequently
resumed operation.9 As discussed
above, the units in question meet the
criteria established in the CSAPR
Update rulemaking to be considered
existing units for purposes of the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program, and the units
accordingly have been allocated
allowances as existing units pursuant to
§ 97.811(a)(1). The units do not fall
within one of the categories of units
eligible for NUSA allocations as set
forth in § 97.812(a)(1), and the
regulations do not provide us with the
authority either to grant exceptions for
individual units or to identify
additional categories of eligible units
beyond those set forth in § 97.812(a)(1).
As an alternative to having the
facility’s units reclassified as new units
for purposes of the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 2 Trading Program, the
third written objection also seeks
modifications to the data used to
compute the units’ allocations of
allowances as existing units under that
program. However, like the January 1,
2015 cutoff date, EPA’s determinations
of which data should be used to
determine allowance allocations to
existing units were made in the CSAPR
Update rulemaking 10 and can be revised
only through another rulemaking, not
through the administrative process of
allocating NUSA allowances. The
9 See
§ 97.812(a)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), respectively.
81 FR at 74564–65.
10 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Sep 15, 2017
Jkt 241001
objection is therefore outside the scope
of the June 21 NODA.
Finally, the fourth written objection
seeks modifications to the total amount
of the NUSA for Oklahoma under the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program. Again, EPA’s
determinations regarding the NUSA
total amounts were made in the CSAPR
Update rulemaking; further, the actual
amounts are codified in the CSAPR
regulations.11 The total amount of the
NUSA for Oklahoma can be revised only
through another rulemaking, not
through the administrative process of
allocating NUSA allowances, so the
objection is outside the scope of the
June 21 NODA.
In addition to the written objections
discussed above, EPA also received a
telephone inquiry that led to the
discovery of an error in the preliminary
calculations for NUSA allocations of
CSAPR SO2 Group 2 allowances.
Specifically, because of incorrect
processing of a change in the plant code
used to identify certain existing units at
the Wansley power plant in Georgia,
Wansley CC units 6A, 6B, 7A, and 7B
were incorrectly identified as new units
eligible to receive NUSA allocations. We
have corrected the error and these units
are not allocated allowances as new
units in the final calculations.
The final unit-by-unit data and
allowance allocation calculations are set
forth in Excel spreadsheets titled
‘‘CSAPR_NUSA_2017_NOx_Annual_
1st_Round_Final_Data’’, ‘‘CSAPR_
NUSA_2017_NOx_OS_1st_Round_
Final_Data’’, and ‘‘CSAPR_NUSA_2017_
SO2_1st_Round_Final_Data’’, available
on EPA’s Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-complianceyear-2017-nusa-nodas. The three
spreadsheets show our final
determinations of first-round 2017
NUSA allocations under the CSAPR
NOX annual, CSAPR NOX ozone season
(Group 1 and Group 2), and CSAPR SO2
(Group 1 and Group 2) trading
programs, respectively.
EPA notes that an allocation or lack
of allocation of allowances to a given
unit does not constitute a determination
that CSAPR does or does not apply to
the unit. We also note that allocations
are subject to potential correction.
(Authority: 40 CFR 97.411(b), 97.511(b),
97.611(b), 97.711(b), and 97.811(b).)
11 See
PO 00000
81 FR at 74565; 40 CFR 97.810(a)(17)(ii).
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43539
Dated: July 27, 2017.
Karen L. Orehowsky,
Acting Director, Clean Air Markets Division,
Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of
Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2017–19822 Filed 9–15–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–9967–48–ORD; Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–ORD–2017–0496, ORD–2017–0497,
ORD–2014–0526]
Availability of the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) Assessment
Plans for Nitrate/Nitrite, Chloroform,
and Ethylbenzene
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of public comment
period.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is announcing a 30-day
public comment period associated with
the draft IRIS Assessment Plans for
Nitrate/Nitrite, Chloroform, and
Ethylbenzene. These documents
communicate information on the
scoping needs identified by EPA
program and regional offices and the
IRIS Program’s initial problem
formulation activities. Specifically, the
assessment plans outline the objectives
for each assessment and the type of
evidence considered most pertinent to
address the scoping needs.
EPA is releasing these draft IRIS
Assessment Plans for public comment.
These assessment plans will also be
discussed during the September 27–28
Science Advisory Board (SAB) Chemical
Assessment Advisory Committee
(CAAC) peer consultation meeting.
These documents were prepared by the
National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA) within EPA’s Office
of Research and Development (ORD).
DATES: The 30-day public comment
period begins September 18, 2017, and
ends October 18, 2017. Comments must
be received on or before October 18,
2017.
SUMMARY:
The IRIS Assessment Plan
for Nitrate/Nitrite, will be available via
the Internet on IRIS’ Recent Additions at
https://www.epa.gov/iris/iris-recentadditions and in the public docket at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID:
EPA–HQ–ORD–2017–0496.
The IRIS Assessment Plan for
Chloroform will be available via the
Internet on IRIS’ Recent Additions at
https://www.epa.gov/iris/iris-recentadditions and in the public docket at
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\18SEN1.SGM
18SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43537-43539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19822]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-9966-42-OAR]
Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances From New
Unit Set-Asides for the 2017 Compliance Year
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability (NODA).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice
of the availability of data on emission allowance allocations to
certain units under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). EPA has
completed final calculations for the first round of allocations of
allowances from the CSAPR new unit set-asides (NUSAs) for the 2017
control periods and has posted spreadsheets containing the calculations
on EPA's Web site. The only change from the preliminary calculations is
the elimination of allocations of CSAPR SO2 Group 2
allowances to four units in Georgia that for purposes of the
preliminary calculations were incorrectly identified as new units
instead of existing units.
DATES: September 18, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this action
should be addressed to Robert Miller at (202) 343-9077 or
miller.robertl@epa.gov or to Kenon Smith at (202) 343-9164 or
smith.kenon@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under each CSAPR trading program where EPA
is responsible for determining emission allowance allocations, a
portion of each state's emissions budget for the program for each
control period is reserved in a NUSA (and in an additional Indian
country NUSA in the case of states with Indian country within their
borders) for allocation to certain units that would not otherwise
receive allowance allocations. Each NUSA allowance allocation process
involves up to two rounds of allocations to eligible units, termed
``new'' units, followed by the allocation to ``existing'' units of any
allowances not allocated to new units.\1\ In a NODA published in the
Federal Register on June 21, 2017 (82 FR 28243), we provided notice of
preliminary calculations for the first-round 2017 NUSA allowance
allocations. We also described the process for submitting any
objections to the preliminary calculations. This NODA concerns the
final calculations for this round of 2017 NUSA allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The procedures for annually allocating allowances from each
NUSA to eligible units are set forth in the CSAPR regulations at 40
CFR 97.411(b) and 97.412 (CSAPR NOX Annual Trading
Program), 97.511(b) and 97.512 (CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 1 Trading Program), 97.611(b) and 97.612 (CSAPR SO2
Group 1 Trading Program), 97.711(b) and 97.712 (CSAPR SO2
Group 2 Trading Program), and 97.811(b) and 97.812 (CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received written objections from four parties in response to
the June 21
[[Page 43538]]
NODA.\2\ For the reasons discussed below, we have concluded that none
of the written objections provides a valid basis for altering the
preliminary calculations of NUSA allowance allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A fifth written objection was withdrawn prior to EPA's
drafting of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first written objection was submitted by a representative for a
combustion turbine that commenced commercial operation in 2007 in
simple cycle configuration and that in 2016 was modified to combined
cycle configuration through the installation of additional equipment
including a heat recovery steam generator, duct burners, and a steam
turbine. According to the objection, the additional equipment should be
treated for CSAPR purposes as a separate, new affected unit that is
eligible for allocations of CSAPR NUSA allowances.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The objection seeks NUSA allocations of CSAPR NOX
Annual, CSAPR SO2 Group 2, and CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 2 allowances. However, the facility is located in
Kansas, and allocations of 2017 CSAPR NOX Annual
allowances to units in Kansas are governed by a SIP revision rather
than by the allocation procedures in the federal CSAPR regulations.
81 FR 42256 (June 29, 2016). EPA therefore addresses the objection
only as it relates to allowances for the remaining two programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA disagrees with this objection based primarily on our
interpretation of the CSAPR definitions of ``combustion turbine'' and
``unit.'' The CSAPR definition of ``combustion turbine'' covers two
possible equipment configurations--the equipment required for simple
cycle operation, consisting of a compressor, combustor, and turbine,
and the equipment required for combined cycle operation, consisting of
the preceding equipment plus a heat recovery steam generator, duct
burners (if any), and a steam turbine.\4\ The facility in question
meets the CSAPR definition of ``combustion turbine'' both before and
after the addition of the new equipment described above; the effect of
adding the new equipment is simply to cause the facility to meet a
different provision of the definition. Nothing in the definition
suggests that the addition of equipment to a given facility that causes
a different provision of the definition to apply should be interpreted
as splitting that facility into two separate combustion turbines, as
the objection claims. Moreover, our interpretation that the facility in
question remains a single combustion turbine is strongly supported by
the CSAPR definition of ``unit,'' which encompasses a ``combustion
turbine'' and further states in relevant part that ``[a] unit that
undergoes a physical change . . . shall continue to be treated as the
same unit.'' \5\ The objection asserts that this definition means that
only the original equipment is ``the same unit,'' while the additional
equipment comprising the ``physical change'' is a separate unit, but we
disagree. To the contrary, we believe a plain reading of the definition
indicates that a unit to which a physical change has been made remains
``the same unit'' but with a physical change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The full definition states: ``Combustion turbine means an
enclosed device comprising: (1) If the device is simple cycle, a
compressor, a combustor, and a turbine and in which the flue gas
resulting from the combustion of fuel in the combustor passes
through the turbine, rotating the turbine; and (2) If the device is
combined cycle, the equipment described in paragraph (1) of this
definition and any associated duct burner, heat recovery steam
generator, and steam turbine.'' 40 CFR 97.702, 97.802.
\5\ The full definition states: ``Unit means a stationary,
fossil-fuel-fired boiler, stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion
turbine, or other stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion device. A
unit that undergoes a physical change or is moved to a different
location or source shall continue to be treated as the same unit. A
unit (the replaced unit) that is replaced by another unit (the
replacement unit) at the same or a different source shall continue
to be treated as the same unit, and the replacement unit shall be
treated as a separate unit.'' 40 CFR 97.702, 97.802.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, we interpret the CSAPR regulations as providing that
the facility in question remains the same, single ``combustion
turbine'' for CSAPR purposes after the addition of the new equipment as
it was before the addition of the new equipment.\6\ Because we do not
agree that the additional equipment should be treated as a separate,
new affected unit for CSAPR purposes, it is unnecessary to address the
portions of the objection concerning the quantities of NUSA allowances
for which such a new unit theoretically would be eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA further notes that the facility's representatives have
not complied with multiple CSAPR requirements that would apply if
the additional equipment in fact did constitute a separate, new
affected unit for CSAPR purposes. For example, they have not
submitted a certificate of representation identifying the additional
equipment as a new affected unit, see 40 CFR 97.415(d), 97.715(d),
97.815(d), have not submitted a monitoring plan identifying such a
new unit (or identifying the new stack as a common stack serving
multiple units), see Sec. Sec. 97.434(b), 97.734(b), 97.834(b), and
have not reported any separate hourly emissions or heat input data
for such a new unit, see Sec. Sec. 97.434(d), 97.734(d), 97.834(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second and third written objections were submitted by
representatives of two facilities whose units are treated as new units
for purposes of the original CSAPR trading programs but are treated as
existing units for purposes of the more recent CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 trading program. The units in question commenced
commercial operation in 2011 and 2012 and their owners have identified
them as affected by CSAPR. In the CSAPR rulemaking finalized in 2011
that established the original four CSAPR trading programs, EPA
determined that all likely affected units that commenced commercial
operation prior to January 1, 2010 should be treated as existing units
for purposes of these four trading programs.\7\ In the CSAPR Update
rulemaking finalized in 2016 that established the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program, we determined that all likely
affected units that commenced commercial operation prior to January 1,
2015 should be treated as existing units for purposes of this trading
program.\8\ Under these criteria, the units in question are new units
for purposes of the original four CSAPR trading programs and existing
units for purposes of the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program. The facilities' representatives object to the units'
classification as existing units under this last trading program and
request that the units be classified instead as new units eligible for
allocations of NUSA allowances under this program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 76 FR 48208, 48288-91 (August 8, 2011).
\8\ 81 FR 74504, 74563-66 (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, allocations of NUSA allowances under the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program are governed by 40
CFR 97.811(b) and 97.812. The regulations provide a detailed set of
procedures that EPA must follow when allocating NUSA allowances,
including procedures for identifying the units eligible for each round
of NUSA allocations for each control period. Under Sec.
97.811(b)(1)(ii)(B), objections to our preliminary calculations of
first-round allocations ``shall be limited to addressing whether the
calculations (including the identification of the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 units) are in accordance with Sec. 97.812(a)(2)
through (7) and (12) and Sec. Sec. 97.830 through 97.835''--in other
words, whether the calculations (including identification of eligible
units) have been performed in accordance with the detailed procedures
set forth in the regulations. The objections to the June 21 NODA fall
outside this narrow scope. The January 1, 2015 cutoff date used to
determine whether a particular unit is an existing unit for purposes of
this trading program was established as part of the CSAPR Update
rulemaking and can be revised only through another rulemaking. The
process of allocating NUSA allowances is strictly an administrative
process that implements regulations already in effect, not a
[[Page 43539]]
rulemaking process in which regulations may be revised.
EPA has confirmed that the units in question are not eligible to
receive allocations of NUSA allowances under the regulations for the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program. Under Sec.
97.812(a)(3), first-round allocations are determined for ``each CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 unit described in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section''--i.e., Sec. 97.812(a)(1). This paragraph of the
regulations identifies three categories of units eligible for first-
round allocations: First, units that have not been allocated allowances
as existing units pursuant to Sec. 97.811(a)(1); second, units that
have been allocated allowances as existing units from a given state's
budget for a given control period but have lost those allocations under
the trading program's correction provisions (because the units either
are not located in that state or are not subject to the program at the
start of that control period); and third, units that have ceased
operation for a sufficient length of time to lose their allocations as
existing units and have subsequently resumed operation.\9\ As discussed
above, the units in question meet the criteria established in the CSAPR
Update rulemaking to be considered existing units for purposes of the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program, and the
units accordingly have been allocated allowances as existing units
pursuant to Sec. 97.811(a)(1). The units do not fall within one of the
categories of units eligible for NUSA allocations as set forth in Sec.
97.812(a)(1), and the regulations do not provide us with the authority
either to grant exceptions for individual units or to identify
additional categories of eligible units beyond those set forth in Sec.
97.812(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Sec. 97.812(a)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an alternative to having the facility's units reclassified as
new units for purposes of the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program, the third written objection also seeks modifications
to the data used to compute the units' allocations of allowances as
existing units under that program. However, like the January 1, 2015
cutoff date, EPA's determinations of which data should be used to
determine allowance allocations to existing units were made in the
CSAPR Update rulemaking \10\ and can be revised only through another
rulemaking, not through the administrative process of allocating NUSA
allowances. The objection is therefore outside the scope of the June 21
NODA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 81 FR at 74564-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the fourth written objection seeks modifications to the
total amount of the NUSA for Oklahoma under the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program. Again, EPA's determinations
regarding the NUSA total amounts were made in the CSAPR Update
rulemaking; further, the actual amounts are codified in the CSAPR
regulations.\11\ The total amount of the NUSA for Oklahoma can be
revised only through another rulemaking, not through the administrative
process of allocating NUSA allowances, so the objection is outside the
scope of the June 21 NODA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 81 FR at 74565; 40 CFR 97.810(a)(17)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the written objections discussed above, EPA also
received a telephone inquiry that led to the discovery of an error in
the preliminary calculations for NUSA allocations of CSAPR
SO2 Group 2 allowances. Specifically, because of incorrect
processing of a change in the plant code used to identify certain
existing units at the Wansley power plant in Georgia, Wansley CC units
6A, 6B, 7A, and 7B were incorrectly identified as new units eligible to
receive NUSA allocations. We have corrected the error and these units
are not allocated allowances as new units in the final calculations.
The final unit-by-unit data and allowance allocation calculations
are set forth in Excel spreadsheets titled
``CSAPR_NUSA_2017_NOx_Annual_1st_Round_Final_Data'',
``CSAPR_NUSA_2017_NOx_OS_1st_Round_Final_Data'', and
``CSAPR_NUSA_2017_SO2_1st_Round_Final_Data'', available on EPA's Web
site at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-compliance-year-2017-nusa-nodas. The three spreadsheets show our final determinations of first-
round 2017 NUSA allocations under the CSAPR NOX annual,
CSAPR NOX ozone season (Group 1 and Group 2), and CSAPR
SO2 (Group 1 and Group 2) trading programs, respectively.
EPA notes that an allocation or lack of allocation of allowances to
a given unit does not constitute a determination that CSAPR does or
does not apply to the unit. We also note that allocations are subject
to potential correction.
(Authority: 40 CFR 97.411(b), 97.511(b), 97.611(b), 97.711(b), and
97.811(b).)
Dated: July 27, 2017.
Karen L. Orehowsky,
Acting Director, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric
Programs, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2017-19822 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
