1352 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 12, 2013. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31567 Filed 1–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0660; FRL–9901–51– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AQ91 

Withdrawal of Proposed Standards of 

Performance for Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions From New Stationary 

Sources: Electric Utility Generating 

Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States EPA (EPA) 

is withdrawing the proposal for new 

source performance standards for 

emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), 

which was published on April 13, 2012, 

for new affected fossil fuel-fired electric 

utility generating units (EGUs). The EPA 

received more than 2.5 million 

comments on that notice and has 

received new information, which 

together necessitates substantial changes 

in the proposed requirements. The 

changes not only affect determinations 

of potentially covered sources but could 

also result in substantial changes in 

what some sources must do to comply 

with the standards and could thereby 

cause them to alter planned facility 

designs or technological control 

systems. These changes concern the 

addition of a determination of the best 

system of emission reduction for fossil 

fuel-fired boilers and IGCC units; an 

alternative compliance option for solid 

fuel-fired EGUs; the treatment of certain 

units that had received permits to 

construct but for which construction 

had not yet commenced; the limits for 

natural gas-fired stationary combustion 

turbines; and the application of CO2

emission fees under the title V operating 

permit program. These changes are of 

substantial consequence and are 

sufficient to merit withdrawal (i.e., 

rescission) of that notice of proposed 

rulemaking. At the same time, in a 

separate notice of proposed rulemaking 

published in today’s Federal Register, 

the EPA is issuing new proposed 

requirements for new fossil-fuel-fired 

electric generating units, which are 

based on different analyses from the 

original proposal and would establish 

requirements that differ significantly 

from the original proposal. 

DATES: The proposed rule published on 

April 13, 2012 (78 FR 22392), is 

withdrawn as of January 8, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Docket: A rulemaking 

docket for the April 13, 2012, notice of 

proposed rulemaking was established 

and identified as EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0660. All documents in the docket are 

listed in the http://www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available (e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute). Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. Visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at http://www.epa.gov/

epahome/dockets.htm for additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket. 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this action 

will also be available on the Worldwide 

Web (WWW) through the Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN). Following 

signature, a copy of the action will be 

posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or 

promulgated rules at the following 

address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. 

The TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Christian Fellner, Energy Strategies 

Group, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division (D243–01), U.S. EPA, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone 

number (919) 541–4003, facsimile 

number (919) 541–5450; email address: 

fellner.christian@epa.gov or Dr. Nick 

Hutson, Energy Strategies Group, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (D243– 

01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541– 

2968, facsimile number (919) 541–5450; 

email address: hutson.nick@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Overview 

In 2009, the EPA issued a finding that 

greenhouse gas (GHG) air pollution may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

Americans’ public health and welfare, 

now and in the future, by contributing 

to climate change. In the notice of 

proposed rulemaking that was 

published on April 13, 2012 (April 2012 

document), the EPA proposed to limit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1353 

1 In the April 2012 document, we referred to these 

sources, interchangeably, as power plants, affected 

sources, fossil fuel-fired electric generating units, 

and electric generating units (EGUs). 

GHG emissions from new fossil fuelfired power plants through standards for 

CO2 emissions.1 These power plants are 

the largest stationary sources of U.S. 

GHG emissions. 

The April 2012 document proposed 

federal standards of performance for 

new fossil fuel-fired power plants that 

the EPA concluded could be met with 

existing technology. Specifically, the 

EPA proposed a single electricityoutput-based emission standard of 1,000 

pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of 

gross electrical output (1,000 lb CO2/

MWh) for all new affected fossil fuelfired power plants. This standard was 

based on the demonstrated performance 

of recently constructed, modern natural 

gas combined cycle (NGCC) units, 

which the EPA concluded were in wide 

use throughout the country and were 

likely to be the predominant fossil fuelfired technology for new generation in 

the future. Indeed, modeling conducted 

in support of that proposal predicted no 

new coal-fired EGUs would be 

constructed at least until after 2020. 

However, the EPA recognized that a 

very small number of new fossil fuelfired utility boilers and IGCC units may 

be built, and if so, they could meet the 

proposed standard through the use of 

available carbon capture and storage 

(CCS) technology. To assist such sources 

in complying with the standard, the 

EPA proposed an alternative 30-year 

averaging option that would be available 

only for affected coal- and petroleum 

coke-fired sources complying with the 

standard through the use of CCS. 

In addition, the EPA identified as 

‘‘transitional’’ sources certain coal-fired 

power plants that had received approval 

of their PSD preconstruction permits as 

of the date of the April 2012 proposal 

(or that had approved PSD permits that 

expired and were in the process of being 

extended, if they were participating in 

a Department of Energy CCS funding 

program), and that commenced 

construction within one year of the date 

of the April proposal. For those sources, 

the EPA did not propose a standard of 

performance. 

The EPA also stated that it was not 

proposing standards of performance for 

simple cycle combustion turbines or for 

non-continental sources (i.e., those in 

Hawaii or the U.S. territories). 

In a separate notice of proposed 

rulemaking published in today’s 

Federal Register, the EPA has made 

several key changes to its original 

proposal. First, instead of proposing a 

single limit covering all affected fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs, the EPA is proposing 

three different limits: (1) A limit of 

1,000 lb CO2/MWh for large natural gasfired stationary combustion turbines, (2) 

a limit of 1,100 lb CO2/MWh for small 

natural gas-fired stationary combustion 

turbines, and (3) a limit of 1,100 lb CO2/ 

MWh for fossil fuel-fired utility boilers 

and IGCC units. Second, instead of 

proposing an alternative 30-year 

averaging compliance option for new 

solid fuel-fired EGUs, the EPA is 

proposing an alternative 7-year (84- 

operating month) averaging option and 

is soliciting comment on a limit of 1,000 

to 1,050 lb CO2/MWh. Third, the EPA is 

no longer excluding all previously 

identified transitional sources (but is 

considering a subcategory for one to 

three coal-fired projects that are still 

currently under development). Fourth, 

instead of proposing to exempt simple 

cycle combustion turbines, the EPA is 

proposing to exempt units that sell to 

the grid a relatively small portion of 

their potential electric output. These 

exempt units generate less than onethird of their potential electric output 

over a three year rolling averaging 

period. 

B. Why is the EPA withdrawing the 

proposed rule? 

In response to the proposed rule, the 

EPA received over 2.5 million public 

comments on all aspects of its proposal. 

Many commenters were supportive of 

the Agency’s proposed actions, other 

commenters opposed the proposed 

actions, and many commenters 

provided new information and/or 

recommended significant changes in the 

EPA’s proposed requirements. In 

addition, the EPA has obtained and 

analyzed new information that 

significantly alters its views on 

important assumptions and which 

counsel for major changes in some of 

the requirements proposed in the April 

2012 document. 

We fully describe the actions we are 

proposing to take in response to the 

comments received and the results of 

our analyses of new information in a 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register. The following is a description 

of the principal reasons why those 

changes warrant rescission of the April 

2012 document and issuance of a new 

proposal. 

1. Changes in Proposed Applicability 

Requirements 

Changes to the proposed rule’s 

applicability will impact which sources 

are potentially covered. By changing the 

proposed rule’s applicability, projects 

based on NGCC technology that are 

intended to, and that do, generate less 

than one-third of their potential electric 

output on a three year rolling average, 

which would have been covered by the 

original proposal, are not covered by 

today’s proposal. Such projects could be 

beneficial because they are likely to be 

more efficient and lower emitting and 

could potentially cost less than natural 

gas-fired simple cycle combustion 

turbines in some instances. If we did not 

withdraw the original proposal, 

developers might not consider this 

technology because they may perceive a 

greater risk that we would finalize the 

applicability requirements of the 

original proposal. This could have the 

unintended effect of potentially stifling 

development of NGCC technology that 

can be used to meet peak energy 

demand. 

2. Changes With Respect to Proposed 

Standards 

The Agency is also proposing 

significant substantive changes from the 

original proposal in today’s new 

proposal with respect to the standards 

themselves. 

a. Projected New Coal-Fired Electrical 

Generating Capacity 

In the April 2012 proposal, although 

the EPA acknowledged the possibility of 

a very small amount of construction of 

new coal-fired generating capacity, the 

EPA relied primarily on several 

modeling analyses, including analyses 

using the EPA’s Integrated Planning 

Model (IPM), which projected that there 

would be no construction of new coalfired generation through the year 2030 

without CCS even assuming the 

potential for higher future electric 

demand or with higher future natural 

gas prices. Comments received, along 

with new information, have brought 

more clearly into focus the possibility 

that, in fact, there could well be limited 

new coal-fired generating capacity being 

constructed within the planning 

timeframe covered by the proposed rule. 

This new capacity could be in response 

to the need for companies to establish 

or maintain fuel diversity in their 

generation portfolios or the ability of 

some companies to combine coal-fired 

generation of electricity with the 

profitable sale of by-products from 

gasification or combustion of coal. As a 

result, even though our baseline 

analysis does not project any new coal 

that would not meet the originally 

proposed standard, the EPA believes it 

is appropriate to develop separate 

standards for coal-fired capacity, which, 

as it turns out, differ from those for new 

natural gas-fired EGUs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

1354 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

b. Best System of Emission Reduction 

for Coal-Fired EGUs 

The April 2012 proposal set a single 

standard of performance for all affected 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs, regardless of 

generation technology or fuel, based on 

our proposed findings that the best 

system of emission reduction 

adequately demonstrated (BSER) for 

fossil fuel-fired units is natural gas 

combined cycle technology. Thus, in the 

April 2012 proposal, we did not propose 

a separate BSER for coal- and other solid 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs, although we 

identified carbon capture and storage (or 

sequestration) (CCS) technology as a 

compliance alternative for those EGUs 

and we proposed a 30-year averaging 

compliance option for those EGUs that 

implemented CCS. 

We received significant public 

comments on this approach. Our 

evaluation of those comments has led us 

to modify significantly our conclusions 

regarding the BSER and the resulting 

emission limitations for fossil fuel-fired 

sources, and we no longer consider it 

appropriate to propose a single standard 

for all such units. 

Instead, we are proposing separate 

emission standards based on separate 

BSER determinations for (i) fossil fuelfired utility boilers and IGCC units and 

(ii) natural gas-fired stationary 

combustion turbines. For fossil fuelfired utility boilers and IGCC units, we 

are proposing partial-capture CCS as the 

BSER. Additionally, we now believe 

that a shorter compliance averaging 

option than the 30-year scheme 

proposed in the April 2012 notice may 

be more appropriate. 

These changes are significant. 

Moreover, they affect at least one unit in 

advanced stages of project development. 

As a result, the EPA believes it is 

important to withdraw the original 

document, in part to make it clear to the 

developer of this project—and any other 

projects in development—that their new 

source performance standards will be 

based on a BSER determination that is 

more closely aligned with technology 

appropriate to those projects. 

c. Emission Standards for Natural-Gas 

Fired Stationary Combustion Units 

As noted, in the new action, the EPA 

is proposing separate emission 

standards for fossil fuel-fired utility 

boilers and IGCC units and for natural 

gas-fired stationary combustion 

turbines. In the new proposal, the EPA 

also is proposing separate emission 

standards for smaller natural gas-fired 

stationary combustion turbines and for 

larger natural gas-fired stationary 

combustion turbines. This 

differentiation may be significant to 

projects under development. 

d. Treatment of Transitional Sources 

We received numerous comments 

objecting to our proposed treatment of 

transitional sources. In light of many of 

those comments and additional 

information we have obtained, we have 

reassessed this issue and are revisiting 

our proposed treatment of these types of 

units. 

e. Title V Permit Fees 

When EPA finalizes CO2 emission 

requirements for new fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs, GHGs will, for the first time, fall 

within the definition of ‘‘regulated air 

pollutant’’ in parts 70 and 71, which 

implement the title V permitting 

program. This would trigger 

requirements related to the calculation 

of permit fees under federal and state 

title V operating permit programs. The 

April 2012 proposal did not address 

title V fee issues related to GHG 

emissions, but we recognize that it is 

important to do so. The reproposal 

addresses title V fees for GHG emissions 

and includes several options for 

calculating the reasonable costs 

associated with GHG permitting. 

II. Impacts of This withdrawal 

The April 2012 document provided 

estimated air and energy impacts, as 

well as projected compliance costs, 

economic and employment impacts, and 

benefits associated with the proposed 

rule. This action withdraws the April 

2012 proposal, and thus any projected 

impacts associated with it are being 

replaced with the results of a new 

assessment accompanying the notice of 

proposed rulemaking published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

III. Statutory Authority 

Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), 

the Administrator is determining that 

this action is subject to the provisions 

of CAA section 307(d). The statutory 

authority for this action is provided by 

sections 111, 301 and 307(d) of the CAA 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601 and 

7607(d)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control. 

Dated: September 20, 2013. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31079 Filed 1–7–14; 12:45 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 300 and 665 

[Docket No. 130708597–3999–01] 

RIN 0648–BD46 

Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; U.S. 

Territorial Catch and Fishing Effort 

Limits 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed 

specifications; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS seeks public comment 

on two proposed actions. First, NMFS 

proposes to establish a management 

framework for specifying catch and 

fishing effort limits and accountability 

measures for pelagic fisheries in the 

U.S. Pacific territories (American 

Samoa, Guam, and the Northern 

Mariana Islands). The framework would 

authorize the government of each 

territory to allocate a portion of its catch 

or fishing effort limit to a U.S. fishing 

vessel or vessels through a specified 

fishing agreement, and establish the 

criteria that an agreement would need to 

satisfy. The proposed framework also 

includes accountability measures for 

adhering to catch and fishing effort 

limits to ensure sustainability. 

Second, NMFS proposes an annual 

limit of 2,000 metric tons (mt) of 

longline-caught bigeye tuna for each 

territory, using the framework described 

in the proposed rule. NMFS would 

allow a territory to allocate up to 1,000 

mt of the 2,000 mt each year to a U.S. 

longline fishing vessel or vessels in a 

specified fishing agreement that meets 

the established criteria. NMFS would 

monitor, attribute, and restrict catches 

of longline-caught bigeye tuna, 

including catches made under a 

specified fishing agreement, using the 

procedures and accountability measures 

described in the proposed rule. The 

longline bigeye tuna catch limit 

specifications would be effective in 

2014. 

NMFS also proposes to make 

technical administrative changes to 

certain international fisheries 

requirements under the Western and 

Central Pacific Fisheries Convention 

Implementation Act, to make them 

consistent with this proposed rule. 

NMFS intends the proposed rule and 

specifications to implement Section 113 

of the Consolidated and Further 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS