61042 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ 

Click on Open Docket Folder on the line 

associated with this deviation. You may 

also visit the Docket Management 

Facility in Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the Department of 

Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this notice, 

call or email Mr. Joe Arca, Project 

Officer, First Coast Guard District Bridge 

Branch, 212–668–7165, joe.m.arca@

uscg.mil. If you have questions on 

viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, 

Program Manager, Docket Operations, 

telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Basis and Purpose 

On May 1, 2014, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled ‘‘Drawbridge Operation 

Regulation Oceanport Creek, Oceanport, 

New Jersey’’ in the Federal Register (79 

FR 24654). 

The proposed rulemaking concerned 

the New Jersey Transit Rail Operations 

(NJTRO) Bridge across Oceanport Creek 

at mile 8.4, at Oceanport, New Jersey. 

The owner of the bridge, NJTRO, 

submitted a request to the Coast Guard 

to change the drawbridge operating 

regulations to allow the bridge to open 

year-round if at least a four-hour 

advance notice was given. This request 

to change the regulations was based on 

the past three years of bridge opening 

data which indicated the bridge only 

received eight requests to open during 

that time period. 

The Coast Guard received three 

comment letters in response to our 

notice of proposed rulemaking. The 

comment letters requested that the Coast 

Guard deny the bridge owner’s request 

to change the Drawbridge Operation 

Regulations for the NJTRO Bridge 

because it would have a detrimental 

effect on upstream businesses. 

The Fort Monmouth Marina and 

Restaurant located upstream from the 

NJTRO Bridge recently re-opened as The 

Marina at Oceanport. The marina was 

closed for the past three years as a result 

of damage sustained from Hurricane 

Sandy. 

The bridge opening data used to 

support the bridge owner’s proposal to 

allow the NJTRO Bridge to require a 

four-hour advance notice year-round 

based on the reduced number of bridge 

opening requests received during the 

past three years was collected during 

the time period when the marina 

located upstream was closed following 

Hurricane Sandy. 

B. Withdrawal 

We are withdrawing this proposed 

rule as a result of the comments and 

information received. It is anticipated 

that the number and frequency of bridge 

opening requests will significantly 

increase now that the marina has reopened. As a result, we do not believe 

that a four-hour advance notice 

requirement for bridge openings is 

justifiable and that it would not meet 

the reasonable needs of navigation. 

Authority: This action is taken under the 

authority of 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

Dated: September 19, 2014. 

V.B. Gifford, Jr., 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24170 Filed 10–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0206; FRL–9917–59– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; 

Nitrogen Oxide Combustion Turbine 

Alternative Control Requirements for 

the Milwaukee-Racine Former 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental. 

SUMMARY: On February 24, 2014, the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR) submitted revisions 

to the limits found in its nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) combustion turbine rule for the 

Milwaukee-Racine area formerly 

nonattainment for the 1997 ozone 

standard. This revision is contained in 

‘‘2013 Wisconsin Act 91—Senate Bill 

371,’’ which provides for alternative 

NOX requirements, subject to 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

approval on a case-by-case basis, to 

determine whether these alternative 

limits satisfy the reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA 

proposed to approve this rule as a 

revision to the State Implementation 

Plan on April 30, 2014 and received 

adverse comments. EPA is issuing this 

supplemental proposal to revise and 

expand the basis for proposing approval 

of the SIP revision. This supplemental 

proposal addresses the issue of whether 

the SIP revision satisfies certain antibacksliding requirements of the CAA. 

EPA is seeking comment only on the 

potential anti-backsliding issue, and is 

not re-opening for comment other issues 

raised in its prior proposal. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 23, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2014–0206, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov 

3. Fax: (312)408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2014– 

0206. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61043 

1As noted above, EPA believes that the emissions 

rates in the SIP are technically infeasible for these 

sources to meet. 

2As the offset is for NOX emissions, the analysis 

is equally applicable to the NAAQS for ozone and 

nitrogen dioxide. 

3Although the SIP revision would continue to 

allow use of fuel oil, we have analyzed the change 

in emissions with respect to natural gas because at 

least since 2009 (and probably longer) these sources 

have only fired natural gas for electricity 

generation, and, in light of current pricing and 

industry practice, we do not expect this to change. 

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 docket 

are listed in the 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 in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Steven 

Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 886–6052 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–6052, 

rosenthal.steven@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for this 

supplemental proposal? 

II. On which specific issue is EPA taking 

comment? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

supplemental proposal? 

A detailed background is contained in 

the April 30, 2014 direct final rule (79 

FR 24337), which can also be found in 

the docket for this action. 

Under Wisconsin’s current SIP 

approved NR 428 NOX control program, 

existing simple cycle combustion 

turbines larger than 84 megawatts (MW) 

that undergo a major modification after 

February 2001 must meet the emission 

limitations set forth in s. NR 

428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a. This provision 

sets NOX emission limits of 12 or 25 

parts per million dry volume (ppmdv) at 

15% oxygen (O2), on a 30-day rolling 

basis, when firing natural gas or 

distillate oil, respectively. 

The WDNR originally set the NOX

emission limitations for combustion 

turbines, in NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a., 

based on the mistaken assumption that 

dry low NOX (DLN) combustion 

technology was both feasible and 

available for new and modified 

combustion turbines and that such 

technology was capable of meeting the 

established emission limitations. As 

previously stated, the emission 

limitations in NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 

2.a. apply to simple cycle combustion 

turbines that are larger than 84 MW (of 

which there are only four in the 

Milwaukee-Racine maintenance area) 

and undergo a major modification. 

These four combustion turbines are the 

model 11N turbines that were 

manufactured by ASEA Brown-Boveri 

(ABB) and operated by We Energies at 

its Paris generating facility. These four 

combustion turbines were designed and 

manufactured to use water injection 

instead of DLN technology to control 

NOX emissions. Use of water injection 

limits NOX emissions to the alternate 

levels provided by Wisconsin Act 91 (25 

and 65 ppmdv), but cannot achieve the 

emission limits required by NR 

428.04(2)(g), Wis. Admin. Code (12 and 

25 ppmdv). These combustion turbines 

are all located in an area that is 

designated attainment for both the 1997 

and 2008 ozone standards, although 

there is currently a monitor in the area 

with a design value that exceeds the 

2008 ozone standard. 

For reasons described in the April 30, 

2014 direct final rule (79 FR 24337), 

WDNR has determined that the 

previously-approved SIP NOX emission 

limits for simple cycle combustion 

turbines that undergo a major 

modification in the Milwaukee-Racine 

area are not feasible for the four existing 

combustion turbines to which these 

limits could apply. EPA agrees with this 

determination. The Wisconsin 

legislature adopted s. 285.27 (3m), 

which became effective on December 

15, 2013, to establish feasible RACT 

limits in the event of a major 

modification. EPA believes that these 

limits reflect RACT and issued both a 

direct final rule and a proposed rule to 

approve the rule into the SIP. 

In response to EPA’s rulemakings, the 

Sierra Club and Midwest Environmental 

Defense Center provided comments 

objecting to the proposed revision on 

the grounds that two units had 

undergone modifications in 2002, 

making them subject to the lower limits 

of s. NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a. The 

comments stated that the SIP revision 

was thus relaxing the limits for these 

units and that ‘‘EPA has done no 

analysis of whether this increase would 

result in problems maintaining 

compliance with ozone standards or 1- 

hour NO2 standards.’’ 

In response to this comment, EPA 

withdrew the direct final rule and is 

providing this supplemental notice to 

explain its basis for concluding that the 

SIP revision satisfies the antibacksliding requirements of section 

110(l) of the CAA. 

II. On which specific issue is EPA 

taking comment? 

EPA notes the point raised by the 

commenters that, although the rule is 

not expected to result in any units 

operating at higher emissions rates than 

in the past, the rule would increase the 

emissions limits applicable to these 

sources under the SIP.1 Section 110(l) of 

the CAA provides in part that, ‘‘The 

Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a [SIP] if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 7501 of this title), or any 

other applicable requirement of [the 

Act].’’ 

In order to avoid any potential for 

interference with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone 

and nitrogen dioxide, Wisconsin has 

identified contemporaneous, offsetting 

emission reductions of NOX from a 

different emission source to compensate 

for the change in the SIP limits for NOX

proposed in the rule at issue.2 We 

explain below how Wisconsin 

calculated the appropriate amounts of 

offsets, and the source of the offsets. 

The theoretical emissions increase 

being addressed for anti-backsliding is 

the difference between the emissions 

that would occur annually if the Paris 

combustion turbines meet the 12 ppmdv 

requirement compared to emissions 

allowable under the proposed SIP 

revision.3 In order to quantify this 

differential in terms of tons per year, 

Wisconsin identified that the maximum 

fuel use for each individual CT occurred 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61044 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

4Wisconsin selected 2005 based on a review of 

historic emissions from 2001 through 2013 as 

reported in EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division 

(CAMD) emissions database. This timeframe reflects 

that the 12 ppmdv requirement was first created in 

January 2001. 

5Thus, these compensating reductions are 

contemporaneous with the emissions limits in 

Wisconsin statute 285.27 (3m), which was enacted 

by the Wisconsin legislature in December 2013. 

in 2005,4 and converted the emissions 

standards from ppmdv @15% O2 to a 

lbs/mmbtu equivalent. 

To determine the amount of emissions 

that needs to be offset, the difference 

between the 2005 maximum allowable 

emission rate of 25 ppmdv @15% O2

(converted to 0.092 lbs/mmbtu) minus 

12 ppmdv @15% O2 (converted to 

0.0442 lbs/mmbtu) was multiplied by 

the heat input for each combustion 

turbine in 2005. This calculation results 

in a total of 54.6 tons per year for which 

equivalent reductions must be obtained. 

This is a conservative estimate of the 

amount of offsetting credits needed 

because it is based upon the year within 

a 13-year period with the highest fuel 

use. 

Wisconsin has identified enforceable 

emission reductions to be used in 

offsetting the 54.6 tons per year of 

excess emissions in order to offset any 

backsliding. These emission reductions 

are generated by enforceable emission 

limitations currently in place for the 

South Oak Creek (SOC) Unit 5 electric 

generating facility, which operates in 

the Milwaukee-Racine former ozone 

nonattainment area. Under the 

Wisconsin Ozone SIP, SOC Unit 5 is 

required to meet a NOX emission 

limitation of 0.18 lbs/mmbtu. However, 

the same unit has also been required to 

meet an emission limitation of 0.10 lbs/ 

mmbtu since 2013 under a Jnauary 18, 

2012 consent decree (Civil Action No. 

03–C–0371) entered between EPA and 

We Energies, the operator of the SOC 

facility.5 Paragraph No. 107 of the 

consent decree allows the use of 

emission reductions generated by the 

decree ‘‘for the purpose of attainment 

demonstrations . . . or in determining 

impacts on NAAQS.’’ Wisconsin 

determined the emissions in excess to 

the SIP by multiplying the difference in 

the SIP and consent decree emission 

limits (0.18—0.10 lbs/mmbtu) by the 

unit’s heat input in 2013. The unit’s 

heat input for 2013 was obtained from 

the CAMD database. This calculation 

yields a total of 334.3 tons per year of 

excess emission reductions, which have 

not been allocated as offsets for any 

other purpose. Notably, the heat input 

for SOC Unit 5 was the lowest in 2013 

since 2001. Using this value thus 

represents the most conservative value 

since 2001 for heat input in calculating 

excess emissions reductions. 

Wisconsin submitted to EPA 54.6 tons 

per year of excess emission credits 

generated by the SOC Unit 5 generating 

facility to be used to address potential 

backsliding under this SIP revision. 

Wisconsin also notes that a total of 

61,970 tons of NOX was emitted in the 

Milwaukee-Racine ozone area from all 

sources in 2011. The emission 

reductions of 54.6 tons per year being 

addressed here for anti-backsliding 

represents less than 0.07% of that total. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is seeking comment only on the 

section 110(l) issue described above and 

is not reopening comment on any other 

issues. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

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). 

This rule is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it 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, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Nitrogen oxides. 

Dated: September 30, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24172 Filed 10–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0272; FRL–9917–48– 

Region 8] 

Automatic Delegation of Authority to 

the States of Colorado, Montana, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and 

Wyoming To Implement and Enforce 

New Source Performance Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This action informs the public 

that on February 27, 2014, the EPA 

authorized automatic delegation to 

implement and enforce Clean Air Act 

New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) to the states of Colorado, 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Utah, and Wyoming (hereafter Region 8 

states). Also in this action, we propose 

to delete the delegation status table of 

NSPS for Region 8 states in the Code of 

Federal Regulations at 40 CFR part 

60.4(c) and replace it with a Web page 

address reflecting current delegation 

status of Region 8 states. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS