10750 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

e. Whether and under what 

circumstances the current procedure 

should be replaced with a procedure 

that does not delay the election, such as: 

i. a vote-and-impound procedure, or 

ii. reliance solely on other existing 

procedures, such as motions to dismiss 

the petition and/or post-election 

objections. 

F. Post-Election Hearings. Whether or 

how post-election hearing procedures 

should be amended. 

1. Whether to codify the existing 

practice of determining if the hearing is 

warranted by examining the offer(s) of 

proof. 

2. Whether such offer(s) of proof in 

support of objections should be filed at 

the same time as the objection(s). 

3. When the post-election evidentiary 

hearing should be held. 

4. Whether the post-election hearing 

should open with statements of party 

positions, followed by the same joinder 

and offers of proof procedures as 

proposed for pre-election hearings. (See 

Issue B.2) 

G. Other Post-Election Procedures. 

Whether or how post-election Board 

review procedures should be amended. 

1. Whether stipulated elections 

should be subject to discretionary Board 

review of post-election decisions by the 

regional director. 

2. Whether, in contested cases, 

regional directors should be required to 

issue a final decision and certification 

concerning the hearing officer’s report 

and recommendation, or may instead 

choose to transfer the matter to the 

Board. 

3. Whether the current discretionary 

standard for Board review of the 

regional director’s certification in 

contested cases should be amended. 

H. Other Issues. 

(Sample) Request To Appear 

In the matter: Representation-Case 

Procedures Rulemaking 

RIN 3142–AA08 

Name: Your Name. 

Date: February 28, 2014. 

Organization (if applicable): Your 

Name & Associates, P.L.L.C.. 

Issues: B.6; A.1 & A.9; and G.1 & G.2 

& G.3. 

First Issue: B.6. 

Summary: I strongly oppose the 

Board’s proposal to eliminate the 

parties’ right to file post hearing briefs 

to the Regional Director after the close 

of the pre-election hearing. Although 

the proposal grants hearing officers 

discretion to permit the filing of posthearing briefs, it seems clear that the 

rule is intended to eliminate the right to 

file briefs in all but the most 

complicated cases. However, the preelection hearing is extremely important 

in every case because that provides the 

basis for the regional director to decide 

what the appropriate unit is for 

purposes of conducting the election. 

When I file a brief, I point out the best 

evidence and cases that support my 

client’s position. No matter how 

dedicated the people in the regional 

offices are, and no matter how ‘‘routine’’ 

the case is, it is entirely possible that the 

regional offices will accidentally miss 

key testimony or fail to locate key cases 

that support my client’s position. This, 

in turn, may lead the regional office to 

mistakenly reject my client’s position 

and direct an election in the wrong unit. 

If that happens, my client will have to 

go through the hassle and expense of a 

second election. I firmly believe 

maintaining parties’ right to file briefs 

will help eliminate mistakes. The old 

system worked well, and there is no 

reason to change it. 

Second Issue: A.1 & A.9 

Summary: I litigate cases and deal 

with a variety of agencies on behalf of 

clients. On a regular basis I file and 

receive documents electronically. I have 

never had a problem with electronic 

filing or service of a document. It makes 

good sense and saves my clients money. 

I no longer have to pay the cost of 

having to ‘‘overnight a document’’ so it 

can be filed by the deadline; instead, I 

can just electronically file the document 

with the push of a few buttons. This 

means I don’t have to pass on those 

costs to my client. I also get documents 

quicker this way. It’s a win win for all 

the parties and practitioners as well as 

the government. Accordingly, I strongly 

support the Board’s proposal to allow 

parties and the Board to electronically 

file and transmit representation case 

documents. 

Third Issue: G.1 & G.2 & G.3 

Summary: I agree with the Board’s 

proposal to require the regional director 

in contested cases to issue a final 

decision. In these cases it makes little 

sense for the Board to hear exceptions 

directly from the hearing officer, when, 

in my experience, the regional director 

is usually quite familiar with the case 

and the issues presented. And once the 

regional director has issued a decision, 

there is no problem with the Board 

having only discretionary review—as 

expressly stated in Section 3(b) of the 

Act. Stipulated cases, however, present 

an entirely different issue. In these 

cases, the parties have entered into an 

agreement predicated on their right to 

have the Board—not the regional 

director—decide post-election matters. 

If, as proposed, the Board eliminates 

that right, the parties will have less 

incentive to enter into stipulations. For 

these reasons, I support the Board’s 

proposed changes to post-election 

review of contested cases, but not 

stipulated cases. 

Dated: Washington, DC February 20, 2014. 

By direction of the Board. 

William B. Cowen, 

Solicitor. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04127 Filed 2–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7545–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60, 70, 71 and 98 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0495; FRL–9906–59– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AQ91 

Standards of Performance for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New 

Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Data Availability 

(NODA). 

SUMMARY: The EPA is issuing this 

NODA in support of the proposed rule 

titled ‘‘Standards of Performance for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New 

Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units’’ that was published 

on January 8, 2014. Through this NODA 

and the technical support document it 

references, the EPA solicits comment on 

its interpretation of the provisions in the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, including the 

federal tax credits contained in that Act, 

which limit the EPA’s authority to rely 

on information from facilities that 

received assistance under that Act. The 

EPA believes those provisions do not 

alter the EPA’s determination in the 

proposed rule that the best system of 

emission reduction for new fossil fuelfired boiler and integrated gasification 

combined cycle electric utility 

generating units is partial carbon 

capture and sequestration. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before Monday, March 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0495, by one of 

the following methods: 

At the Web site http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

At the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ 

oar/docket.html: Follow the instructions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 10751 

for submitting comments on the EPA 

Air and Radiation Docket Web site. 

Email: Send your comments by 

electronic mail (email) to a-and-rdocket@epa.gov, Attn: Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0495. 

Facsimile: Fax your comments to 

(202) 566–9744, Attn: Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0495. 

Mail: Send your comments to the EPA 

Docket Center, U.S. EPA, Mail Code 

28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attn: Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0495. Please 

include a total of two copies. 

Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to the EPA Docket 

Center, William Jefferson Clinton West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attn: 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0495. Such deliveries are accepted only 

during the Docket Center’s normal hours 

of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

federal holidays), and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket ID 

number (EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0495). 

The EPA’s policy is to include all 

comments received without change, 

including any personal information 

provided, in the public docket, available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0495. Clearly mark the 

part or all of the information that you 

claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 

a disk or CD–ROM that you mail to the 

EPA, mark the outside of the disk or 

CD–ROM as CBI and then identify 

electronically within the disk or CD– 

ROM the specific information you claim 

as CBI. In addition to one complete 

version of the comment that includes 

information claimed as CBI, you must 

submit a copy of the comment that does 

not contain the information claimed as 

CBI for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

The EPA requests that you also 

submit a separate copy of your 

comments to the contact person 

identified below (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). If the comment 

includes information you consider to be 

CBI or otherwise protected, you should 

send a copy of the comment that does 

not contain the information claimed as 

CBI or otherwise protected. 

The www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the 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 the EPA without 

going through http:// 

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, the 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 the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the 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 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, William 

Jefferson Clinton West Building, 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 

federal 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 or 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. 

The information presented in this 

NODA is organized as follows: 

I. Does this action apply to me? 

II. What are the background and purpose of 

this NODA? 

I. Does this action apply to me? 

The entities potentially affected by 

the determination that is at issue in this 

NODA are shown in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES a

Category NAICS * code Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ..................................................... 221112 Fossil fuel electric power generating units. 

Federal Government ................................. b 221112 Fossil fuel electric power generating units owned by the federal government. 

State/Local Government ........................... b 221112 Fossil fuel electric power generating units owned by municipalities. 

Tribal Government .................................... 921150 Fossil fuel electric power generating units in Indian Country. 

* North American Industry Classification System. 

a Includes NAICS categories for source categories that own and operate electric power generating units (including boilers and stationary combined cycle combustion turbines). bFederal, state or local government-owned and operated establishments are classified according to the activity in which they are engaged. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

10752 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1 In addition, EPAct05 Title IV amended the 

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13201 et seq.) 

(EPAct92) by adding the ‘‘Clean Air Coal Program’’ 

to support and promote the production and 

generation of clean coal-based power, including 

supporting air pollution control technologies. These 

provisions included, in EPAct05 § 421(a), a 

constraint similar to EPAct05 § 402(i). As amended 

by EPAct05 § 421(a), EPAct92 § 3103(e) (42 U.S.C. 

13573(e)) and EPAct92 § 3104(d) (42 U.S.C. 

13574(d)), provides, insofar as is presently relevant, 

under the heading, ‘‘Applicability,’’ that no 

technology, or level of emission reduction, shall be 

treated as adequately demonstrated for purpose of 

section 111 of the Clean Air Act solely by reason 

of the use of such technology, or the achievement 

of such emission reduction, by one or more 

facilities receiving assistance under section 

3102(a)(1) or (2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 13572(a)(1)). 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive but to provide a guide for 

readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this NODA. To determine 

whether this NODA affects your facility, 

company, business, organization, etc., 

you should examine the applicability 

criteria in 40 CFR 60.1. If you have 

questions regarding applicability, 

consult either the air permitting 

authority for the entity in question or 

your EPA regional representative as 

listed in 40 CFR 60.4 or 40 CFR 63.13 

(General Provisions). 

II. What are the background and 

purpose of this NODA? 

On January 8, 2014, the EPA 

published the proposed rule, 

‘‘Standards of Performance for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New 

Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units,’’ (79 FR 1430) which 

was issued pursuant to Clean Air Act 

(CAA) section 111. In the proposed rule, 

the EPA explains its rationale for 

emission standards for new fossil fuelfired boiler and integrated gasification 

combined cycle (IGCC) electric utility 

generating units (EGUs). These 

standards are based on the 

determination that the best system of 

emission reduction (BSER) for those 

sources is partial carbon capture and 

sequestration (CCS). The EPA today is 

providing a technical support document 

(TSD) that addresses the interaction of 

the determination of BSER in the 

proposed rule and several provisions in 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPAct05), which are described 

immediately below. 

Limitations associated with EPAct05. 

In providing assistance to fossil fuelfired electricity generating plants and 

other facilities that employ advanced 

technology, EPAct05 included several 

provisions that limit the EPA’s authority 

to rely on information from those 

facilities in conducting rulemaking or 

taking other action under various 

provisions of the CAA, including 

section 111. Section 402(i) of the 

EPAct05, codified at 42 U.S.C. section 

15962(i), provides as follows, insofar as 

is presently relevant, that no 

technology, or level of emission 

reduction, solely by reason of the use of 

the technology, or the achievement of 

the emission reduction, by one or more 

facilities receiving assistance under 

EPAct05, shall be considered to be 

adequately demonstrated for purposes 

of section 111 of the Clean Air Act.1

In addition, internal revenue code (IRC) 

section 48A(g), codified at 26 USC section 

48A(g), provides, insofar as is presently 

relevant, that no use of technology (or level 

of emission reduction solely by reason of the 

use of the technology), and no achievement 

of any emission reduction by the 

demonstration of any technology or 

performance level, by or at one or more 

facilities with respect to which a credit is 

allowed under this section, shall be 

considered to indicate that the technology or 

performance level is adequately 

demonstrated for purposes of section 111 of 

the Clean Air Act. 

As explained in the TSD, the EPA’s 

preliminary interpretation of these 

provisions is that EPA may not rely on 

information from facilities that have 

received assistance under EPAct05, 

including being allowed tax credits 

under IRC section 48A, as the sole basis 

for a determination that a particular 

technology is the best system of 

emission reduction adequately 

demonstrated (BSER), but the EPA may 

rely on information from those facilities 

in conjunction from other information 

to support such a determination, or to 

corroborate an otherwise supported 

determination. In the TSD, the EPA also 

explains and solicits comments on other 

issues of interpretation that arise from 

the terms of IRC section 48A(g). 

2014 Proposal BSER and EPAct05. In 

the proposed rule, the EPA determined 

that implementation of partial capture 

CCS technology is the BSER for new 

fossil fuel-fired boilers and IGCC units 

because it fulfills the criteria established 

under CAA section 111. The EPA’s 

rationale, insofar as is relevant for 

present purposes, is that partial capture 

is technically feasible and can be 

implemented at a reasonable cost. In 

discussing its rationale, the EPA 

referenced some facilities that have 

received financial assistance under the 

EPAct05, including being allocated tax 

credits pursuant to IRC section 48A. As 

explained in the TSD, however, the 

EPA’s rationale does not depend solely 

upon those projects, and the 

determination remains adequately 

supported without any information from 

facilities that have been allocated the 

IRC section 48A tax credit. 

Thus, the EPA’s proposed standards, 

which are based on its determination 

that partial capture CCS represents the 

best system of emission reduction 

adequately demonstrated, are not 

beyond the scope of its legal authority. 

As indicated in the TSD, the EPA 

solicits comment on all aspects of the 

interpretation of the provisions in 

EPAct05, including IRC section 48A(g), 

that limit the EPA’s authority to rely on 

certain information in rulemaking under 

CAA section 111. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 70 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 71 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 98 

Environmental protection, 

Greenhouse gases and monitoring, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 5, 2014. 

Mary E. Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2014–03115 Filed 2–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0878; FRL–9906–88– 

OW] 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations: Minor Corrections to the 

Revisions to the Total Coliform Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this action, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing minor corrections to the 

final Revisions to the Total Coliform 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS