Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Notices 43537 

1The 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). 

1035TH MEETING—REGULAR MEETING—Continued 

[September 20, 2017 10:00 a.m.] 

Item No. Docket No. Company 

E–18 ........................ OMITTED 

E–19 ........................ ER17–1333–000 .................................... Southwest Power Pool, Inc. 

E–20 ........................ ER17–520–000 ...................................... Southwest Power Pool, Inc. 

E–21 ........................ ER17–772–000, ER17–772–001, 

ER17–772–002.

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. 

E–22 ........................ EL17–34–000 ........................................ Alcoa Corporation. 

E–23 ........................ ER16–2320–001 .................................... Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 

GAS 

G–1 ......................... OMITTED. 

G–2 ......................... RP17–349–000 ...................................... Black Marlin Pipeline Company. 

G–3 ......................... RP17–519–000 ...................................... Texas Eastern Transmission, LP. 

G–4 ......................... OR13–14–002 ....................................... Western Refining Pipeline, LLC. 

HYDRO 

H–1 ......................... P–12569–014 ........................................ Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County, Washington. 

H–2 ......................... P–12628–013 ........................................ City of Nashua, Iowa. 

H–3 ......................... P–2114–289 .......................................... Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Washington. 

H–4 ......................... P–2197–112, P–2197–113 .................... Alcoa Power Generating Inc., Cube Yadkin Generation LLC. 

H–5 ......................... P–2197–110 .......................................... Alcoa Power Generating Inc., Cube Yadkin Generation LLC. 

H–6 ......................... P–2114–286, P–2114–287 .................... Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Washington. 

Issued: September 13, 2017. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

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. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19870 Filed 9–14–17; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

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 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 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with NOTICES
43538 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Notices 

2A fifth written objection was withdrawn prior to 

EPA’s drafting of this notice. 

3The 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. 

4The 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. 

5The 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. 

6EPA 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). 

7 76 FR 48208, 48288–91 (August 8, 2011). 

8 81 FR 74504, 74563–66 (October 26, 2016). 

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 

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 

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 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Notices 43539 

9See § 97.812(a)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), respectively. 

10See 81 FR at 74564–65. 11See 81 FR at 74565; 40 CFR 97.810(a)(17)(ii). 

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 

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).) 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: 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. 

ADDRESSES: The IRIS Assessment Plan 

for Nitrate/Nitrite, will be available via 

the Internet on IRIS’ Recent Additions at 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/iris-recentadditions and in the public docket at 

http://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 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/iris-recentadditions and in the public docket at 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with NOTICES