[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30400-30402]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12313]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1063]
RIN 1625-AA00

Moving Security Zone Around Escorted Vessels on the Lower
Mississippi River

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Captain of the Port of New Orleans (COTP New Orleans) is
re-establishing and extending the effective period for the moving
security zone on the Mississippi river, mile marker 90 through mile
marker 110, extending 300 yards on all sides of vessels being escorted
by one or more Coast Guard assets.

DATES: Section 165.T08-040, temporarily added at 77 FR 6013, effective
from January 1, 2012, through March 31, 2012, is re-established and
effective from May 23, 2012 through August 15, 2012. Beginning April 1,
2012 this rule continues to be enforced through actual notice.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-1063 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-1063 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 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 on this
temporary rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Kenneth
Blair, Sector New Orleans, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule. Based on risk evaluations completed, and
information gathered, from November 26, 2011 to March 12, 2012 and
after evaluating the security needs for escorted vessels, the Coast
Guard determined that the existing moving security zones should be
extended from April 1, 2012 through August 15, 2012. This moving
security zone is needed to protect escorted vessels and personnel from
destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts,
accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. Providing a public
notice and comment period for this temporary final rule is contrary to
national security and the public interest.
    Additionally, the City of New Orleans will be hosting several high
visibility events beginning in April, 2012, including the French
Quarter Festival and War of 1812 Commemoration that will bring
thousands of people into the New Orleans Central Business District. A
thirty day notice period would unnecessarily delay the effective dates
and would be contrary to the public interest by delaying or foregoing
the necessary protections required for these escorted vessels and
personnel. For these reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Basis and Purpose

    Certain vessels, including high capacity passenger vessels, vessels
carrying certain dangerous cargoes as defined in 33 CFR part 160, tank
vessels constructed to carry oil or hazardous materials in bulk, and
vessels carrying liquefied hazardous gas as defined in 33 CFR part 127
have been deemed by the COTP New Orleans to require escort protection
during transit between mile marker 90.0 to mile marker 110.0 of the

Lower Mississippi River. A moving security zone has been established
for the escorted vessels, between mile marker 90.0 to mile marker
110.0, extending 300 yards in all directions of the escorted vessels.
Vessels will not be allowed to transit through the moving security zone
without the permission of the Captain of the Port, New Orleans or the
on-scene Coast Guard asset. This security zone is necessary to protect
the escorted vessels and personnel from destruction, loss or injury
from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents or other causes of a
similar nature.

Discussion of Rule

    Under the authority of the Magnuson Act, 50 U.S.C. 191-195 and 33
CFR part 6, the Coast Guard has established a moving security zone
regulation to protect the escorted vessels and personnel. While this
temporary rule remains in effect, vessels are prohibited from
transiting in the vicinity of the escorted vessel, specifically within
an area extending 300 yards in all directions from each escorted
vessel. Deviations from this rule may be requested from the Captain of
the Port New Orleans through the on-scene Coast Guard assest, via VHF
Ch. 67 or the Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Notice of the moving security zones will be made through broadcast
notices to mariners.
    A vessel may request permission of the COTP New Orleans or the on-
scene Coast Guard asset to enter the security zone. If permitted to
enter the security zone, a vessel must proceed at the minimum safe
speed and must comply with the order of the COTP New Orleans or the on-
scene asset. No vessel may enter the inner 50-yard portion of the
security zone closest to the vessel being escorted. The COTP New
Orleans will inform the public of the existence or status of the
security zones around escorted vessels in the regulated area by Marine
Safety Information Bulletins or Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Coast
Guard assets will be clearly identified by lights, vessel markings, or
with agency insignia. This moving security zone is necessary to protect
vessels deemed to be in need of escort protection by the COTP New
Orleans for security reasons.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Due to its
duration and location the impacts on routine navigation are expected to
be minimal.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: the owners or operators of vessels, intending to
transit in the vicinity of mile marker 90.0 through mile marker 110.0
of the Lower Mississippi River, extending 300 yards in all directions
of an escorted vessel. This security zone will not have significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities because of its
location and duration. If you are a small business entity and are
significantly affected by this regulation please contact Lieutenant
Commander (LCDR) Kenneth Blair, Sector New Orleans, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule fits the category selected from
paragraph (34)(g), as it establishes a temporary security zone for a
limited period of time.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available and accessible in the docket as indicated
in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.06-1, 6.05-6 and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Section 165.T08-040 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-040  Moving Security Zone, Escorted Vessels.

    (a) Location. The following areas are security zones: Navigable
waters of the Lower Mississippi River, from mile marker 90.0 to mile
marker 110.0, extending 300 yards in all directions of escorted
vessels. Escorted vessels will be escorted by one or more Coast Guard
assets or other federal, state, or local law enforcement agency assets
clearly identifiable by lights, vessel markings, or with agency
insignia.
    (b) Effective period. This rule is effective May 23, 2012 through
August 15, 2012. Beginning April 1, 2012 this rule is enforced through
actual notice.
    (c) Regulation. (1) Under the general regulations in Sec.  165.33
of this part, vessels are prohibited from entering or transiting the
security zones described in paragraph (a) of this temporary section,
Sec.  165.T08-040.
    (2) If granted permission to enter a security zone, a vessel must
operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course,
unless required to maintain speed by the Navigation Rules, and shall
proceed as directed by the Coast Guard. When within the security zone,
no vessel or person is allowed within 50 yards of the escorted vessel
unless authorized by the Coast Guard.
    (3) Persons or vessels requiring deviations from this rule must
request permission from the Captain of the Port New Orleans through the
on-scene Coast Guard or other agency asset, via VHF Ch. 67 or the Coast
Guard Vessel Traffic Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) All persons and vessels granted permission to enter a security
zone must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port New
Orleans and designated personnel. Designated personnel include
commissioned, warrant and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard, and
local, state, and federal law enforcement officers on clearly
identified law enforcement agency vessels.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The Captain of the Port or a
designated representative will inform the public through marine safety
information bulletins or broadcast notices to mariners of this
regulation.

    Dated: April 1, 2012.
John J. Arenstam,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting, Captain of the Port New Orleans.
[FR Doc. 2012-12313 Filed 5-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 51 (Friday, March 17, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14115-14117]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05326]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6137; Special Conditions No. 25-644-SC]

Special Conditions: The Boeing Company Model 787-10 Airplane;
Aeroelastic Stability Requirements, Flaps-Up Vertical Modal-Suppression
System

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Company
(Boeing) Model 787-10 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or
unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology
envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category
airplanes. This design feature is a flaps-up vertical modal-suppression
system, which is in lieu of traditional methods of improving airplane
flutter characteristics. The applicable airworthiness regulations do
not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective April 17, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wael Nour, FAA, Airframe and Cabin
Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 30, 2013, Boeing applied for an amendment to Type
Certificate No. T00021SE to include the new Model 787-10 airplane. This
twin-engine, transport-category airplane is a stretched-fuselage
derivative of the 787-9, with maximum seating capacity of 440
passengers. The 787-10 has a maximum takeoff weight of 560,000 lbs.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 787-10 airplane meets the
applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No.
T00021SE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of
application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed
upon by the FAA.
    In addition, the certification basis includes other regulations,
special conditions, and exemptions that are not relevant to these
proposed special conditions. Type Certificate No. T00021SE will be
updated to include a complete description of the certification basis
for this airplane model.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model 787-10 airplane because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model 787-10 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent
and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model 787-10 airplane will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design feature:
    A flaps-up vertical modal suppression system.

Discussion

    The Boeing Model 787-10 will add a new flaps-up vertical modal-
suppression (F0VMS) system to the Normal mode of the primary flight-
control system (PFCS). The F0VMS system is needed to satisfy the
flutter-damping margin requirements of Sec.  25.629 and the means-of-
compliance provisions in Advisory Circular (AC) 25.629-1B. This system
will be used in lieu of typical methods of improving the flutter
characteristics of an airplane, such as increasing the torsional
stiffness of the wing or adding wingtip ballast weights.
    The F0VMS system is an active modal-suppression system that will
provide additional damping to an already stable, but low-damped, 3Hz
symmetric wing, nacelle, and body aeroelastic mode of the airplane.
This feedback-control system will maintain adequate damping margins to
flutter. The F0VMS system accomplishes this by oscillating the
elevators, and, when needed, the flaperons.
    Because Boeing's flutter analysis shows that the 3Hz mode is stable
and does not flutter, the F0VMS system is not an active flutter-
suppression system, but, rather, a damping-augmentation system. At this
time, the FAA is not prepared to accept an active flutter-suppression
system that suppresses a divergent flutter mode in the operational or
design envelope of the airplane.
    This will be the first time an active modal-suppression system will
be used for Sec.  25.629 compliance. The use of this new active modal-
suppression system for flutter compliance is novel or unusual when
compared to the technology envisioned in the current airworthiness
standards. Consequently, special conditions are required in
consideration of the effects of this new system on the aeroelastic
stability of the airplane, both in the normal and failed state, to
maintain the level of safety intended by Sec.  25.629.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-16-05-SC for the

Boeing Model 787-10 airplane was published in the Federal Register on
September 20, 2016 (81 FR 64360). One substantive comment was received.
    By letter no. B-H020-REG-16-TLM-68 dated November 1, 2016, Boeing
stated that they ``. . . recommend that development of future
requirements for the application of [active modal-suppression system
for flutter compliance] technology be the subject of an Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).'' Boeing adds that ``. . .
standard requirements should be developed which reflect this state-of-
the-art system and apply to all airplane manufacturers. The development
of these requirements would benefit from the collaborative effort of an
ARAC.''
    The FAA agrees with Boeing and currently has plans to task ARAC to
develop recommendations on this subject.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Boeing Model 787-10 airplane. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions
would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Boeing Model 787-10 airplanes.
    The following special conditions are proposed to address the
aeroelastic stability of the 787-10 airplane with the F0VMS system as
an integral part of the PFCS Normal mode:

Analytical Flutter-Clearance Requirements

    1. The airplane in the PFCS Normal mode (which includes F0VMS) must
meet the nominal (no failures) flutter and aeroelastic stability
requirements of Sec.  25.629(b)(1), and the damping-margin criteria of
AC 25.629-1B, Section <IP_ADDRESS>. Figure 1, below, illustrates the Damping
versus Airspeed plot.
    a. The aeroservoelastic analysis must take into account the effect
of the following items:
    i. Significant structural and aerodynamic nonlinearities.
    ii. Significant F0VMS nonlinearities, including control-surface
rate and displacement saturation, and blowdown.
    iii. The range of design maneuver load factors.
    iv. Control surface freeplay.
    v. Any other items that may affect the performance of the F0VMS
system in maintaining adequate modal damping margins.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17MR17.000

    2. The airplane in the PFCS Normal mode, but with the F0VMS system
inoperative, must exhibit a damping margin to flutter of 0.015g within
the VD/MD envelope, linearly decreasing (in KEAS)
to zero damping margin to flutter at 1.15 VD/1.15
MD, limited to Mach 1.0. That is, the 3Hz mode should not
cross the g = 0.015 line below VD, or the g = 0.03 line
below 1.15 VD, assuming the use of analysis Method 1 of AC
25.629-1B, Section <IP_ADDRESS>. Figure 2, below, illustrates the Damping
versus Airspeed plot.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17MR17.001

    3. The airplane in the PFCS Normal mode (which includes F0VMS) must
meet the fail-safe flutter and aeroelastic stability requirements of
Sec.  25.629(b)(2), and the damping-margin criteria of AC 25.629-1B,
Section <IP_ADDRESS>.
    4. The airplane in the PFCS Secondary and Direct modes must meet
the fail-safe flutter and aeroelastic-stability requirements of Sec.
25.629(b)(2), and the damping-margin criteria of AC 25.629-1B, Section
<IP_ADDRESS>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 10, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-05326 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 5)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1274-1276]
[DOCID:fr08ja08-7]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2007-0191]

RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones: Northeast Gateway, Deepwater Port, Atlantic Ocean,
Boston, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary safety zones 500
meters around the primary components, two independent submerged turret
loading buoys, of Excelerate Energy's Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port,
Atlantic Ocean, and its accompanying systems. The purpose of these
temporary safety zones is to protect vessels and mariners from the
potential safety hazards associated with deepwater port facilities. All
vessels, with the exception of deepwater port support vessels, are
prohibited from entering into or moving within either of the safety
zones.

DATES: This rule is effective from January 8, 2008 until May 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2007-0191 and are available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find
this docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact Chief Eldridge McFadden, Waterways Management Division, Coast
Guard Sector Boston, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The deepwater port facilities
discussed elsewhere in this rule were recently completed and present a
potential safety

hazard to vessels, especially fishing vessels, operating in the
vicinity of the submerged structures associated with the deepwater port
facility. A more robust regulatory scheme to ensure the safety and
security of vessels operating in the area will be developed by separate
rulemaking. These safety zones are needed to protect vessels from the
hazard posed by the presence of the currently uncharted, submerged
deepwater infrastructure. Delaying the effective day pending completion
of notice and comment rulemaking is contrary to the public interest to
the extent it would expose vessels currently operating in the area to
the known, but otherwise uncharted submerged hazards.
    For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Any delay
encountered in this regulation's effective date would be impracticable
and contrary to public interest since it would expose vessels currently
operating in the area to the known, by otherwise uncharted submerged
hazards.

Background and Purpose

    On May 14, 2007, the Maritime Administration (MARAD), in accordance
with the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended, issued a license to
Excelerate Energy to own, construct, and operate a natural gas
deepwater port, ``Northeast Gateway.'' Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port
(NEGDWP) is located in the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 13 nautical
miles south-southwest of the City of Gloucester, Massachusetts, in
Federal waters. The coordinates for its two submerged turret loading
(STL) buoys are: STL Buoy A, Latitude 42[deg]23[min]39[sec] N,
Longitude 070[deg]35[min]28[sec] W and STL Buoy B, Latitude
42[deg]23[min]55[sec] N, Longitude 070[deg]36[min]48[sec] W. The NEGDWP
will accommodate the mooring, connecting, and offloading of two
liquefied natural gas carriers (LNGCs) at one time. The NEGDWP operator
plans to offload LNGCs by degasifying the LNG on board the vessels. The
regasified natural gas is then transferred through two submerged turret
loading buoys, via a flexible riser leading to a seabed pipeline that
ties into the Algonquin Gas Transmission Pipeline for transfer to
shore.
    Excelerate recently completed installation of the STL buoys and
associated sub-surface infrastructure, which includes, among other
things, a significant sub-surface sea anchor and mooring system.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary safety zones 500
meters around the Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port (NEGDWP) STL buoys
as described above to protect vessels from these submerged hazards. All
vessels, other than Liquefied Natural Gas carriers and associated
support vessels, are prohibited from entering into or moving within
these safety zones.
    This rule is effective upon publishing in the Federal Register and
for 120 days thereafter.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This regulation may have some impact on the public in excluding
vessels from the areas of these zones. This impact, however, is
outweighed by the safety risk mitigated by the enactment of these
zones.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in those portions of Atlantic Ocean covered by the
safety zones. For the reasons outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation
section above, this rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants to assist
small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this
rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please call Lieutenant Commander Heather
Morrison, Chief, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector
Boston, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and will not concern an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of the
categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation as the rule establishes a safety zone.
    A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' will be available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226 and 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T01-0191 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0191  Safety Zones: Northeast Gateway, Deepwater Port,
Atlantic Ocean, Boston, MA.

    (a) Location. The following areas are safety zones: All navigable
waters of the United States within a 500-meter radius of the two
submerged turret loading buoys of the Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port
located at 42[deg]23[min]39[sec] N, 70[deg]35[min]28[sec] W and
42[deg]23[min]55[sec] N, 070[deg]36[min]48[sec] W. All coordinates are
North American Datum 1983.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Authorized representative means a Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement
officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port, Boston
(COTP).
    Deepwater port means any facility or structure meeting the
definition of deepwater port in 33 CFR 148.5.
    Navigable Waters of the United States means all waters of the
territorial sea as described in Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of
December 27, 1988, which declared that the territorial sea of the
United States extends to 12 nautical miles from the baseline of the
United States.
    Support vessel means any vessel meeting the definition of support
vessel in 33 CFR 148.5.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
Sec.  165.23 apply.
    (2) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into or movement within these zones is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Boston. Liquefied Natural
Gas Carrier vessels and related Support Vessels calling on the
Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port are authorized to enter and move
within the safety zones of this section in the normal course of their
operations.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port or authorized representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by an authorized representative by siren,
radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall
proceed as directed.
    (5) Persons and vessels may contact the Coast Guard to request
permission to enter the zone on VHF-FM Channel 16 or via phone at 617-
223-5761.

    Dated: December 26, 2007.
Frederick G. Myer,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Boston,
Massachusetts.
[FR Doc. 08-35 Filed 1-4-08; 12:03 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-U


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 144 (Monday, July 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45140-45145]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15442]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0284; FRL-10012-45-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Maine; Midcoast Area and Portland Second 10-
Year Limited Maintenance Plans for 1997 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation
plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maine. On February 18,
2020, the State submitted their 1997 ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) Limited Maintenance Plans (LMPs) for the Portland and
Midcoast areas. EPA is proposing to approve the Portland and Midcoast
LMPs because they provide for the maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
through the end of the second 10-year portion of the maintenance
period. The effect of this action will be to make certain commitments
related to maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Portland and
Midcoast maintenance areas part of the Maine SIP and therefore
federally enforceable.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2020-0284 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Rackauskas, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617)
918-1628, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of EPA's Action
II. Background
III. Maine's SIP Submittal
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Maine's SIP Submittal
    A. Procedural Requirements
    B. Substantive Requirements
    i. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    ii. Maintenance Demonstration
    iii. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    iv. Contingency Plan
V. Transportation Conformity
VI. Proposed Action and Public Comment
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of EPA's Action

    Under the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve Limited Maintenance
Plans (LMP) for the Portland and Midcoast maintenance areas for the
1997 ozone NAAQS, submitted as a revision to the Maine State
Implementation Plan (SIP) on February 18, 2020. The Portland area under
the 1997 ozone NAAQS is comprised of 57 cities and towns in York,
Cumberland and Sagadahoc Counties along with Durham, Maine in
Androscoggin County. The Midcoast area is made up of 55 coastal towns
and islands in Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo counties. On June 15,
2004, the Portland and Midcoast areas were designated as nonattainment
areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. On January 10, 2007, the areas were
redesignated to attainment with that standard.
    The Portland and Midcoast areas' LMPs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
submitted by Maine DEP are designed to maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS
within these areas through the end of the second ten-year period of the
maintenance period. We are proposing to approve the plans because they
meet all applicable requirements under CAA sections 110 and 175A.

II. Background

    Ground-level ozone is formed when oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the
presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone
precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including
on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public

health effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in
children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone
can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase
respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases.
    Ozone exposure also has been associated with increased
susceptibility to respiratory infections, medication use, doctor and
emergency department visits and hospital admissions for individuals
with lung disease. Ozone exposure also increases the risk of premature
death from heart or lung disease. Children are at increased risk from
exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are
more likely to be active outdoors, which increases their exposure.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone,'' January 6, 2010 and 75 FR 2938
(January 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997,
EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over
an 8-hour period. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).\2\ The EPA set the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone
causes adverse health effects at lower concentrations and over longer
periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone
NAAQS was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more
protective of human health, especially for children and adults who are
active outdoors, and individuals with a preexisting respiratory
disease, such as asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them by lowering the
level for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, EPA designated the Portland and
Midcoast areas as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and the
designations became effective on June 15, 2004. Under the CAA, states
are also required to adopt and submit SIPs to implement, maintain, and
enforce the NAAQS in designated nonattainment areas and throughout the
state.
    When a nonattainment area has three years of complete, certified
air quality data that has been determined to attain the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, and the area has met other required criteria described in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, the state can submit to the EPA a
request to be redesignated to attainment, referred to as a
``maintenance area''.\3\ One of the criteria for redesignation is to
have an approved maintenance plan under CAA section 175A. The
maintenance plan must demonstrate that the area will continue to
maintain the standard for the period extending 10 years after
redesignation and must contain such additional measures as necessary to
ensure maintenance and such contingency provisions as necessary to
assure that violations of the standard will be promptly corrected. At
the end of the eighth year after the effective date of the
redesignation, the state must also submit a second maintenance plan to
ensure ongoing maintenance of the standard for an additional ten years.
CAA section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets out the requirements
for redesignation. They include attainment of the NAAQS, full
approval under section 110(k) of the applicable SIP, determination
that improvement in air quality is a result of permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions, demonstration that the state
has met all section 110 and part D requirements, and a fully
approved maintenance plan under CAA section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has published long-standing guidance for states on developing
maintenance plans.\4\ The Calcagni memo provides that states may
generally demonstrate maintenance by either performing air quality
modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will
not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by showing that future emissions
of a pollutant and its precursors will not exceed the level of
emissions during a year when the area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). EPA clarified in three subsequent guidance
memos that certain nonattainment areas could meet the CAA section 175A
requirement to provide for maintenance by demonstrating that the area's
design value \5\ was well below the NAAQS and that the historical
stability of the area's air quality levels showed that the area was
unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future.\6\ EPA refers to this
streamlined demonstration of maintenance as an LMP. EPA has interpreted
CAA section 175A as permitting this option because section 175A of the
Act defines few specific content requirements for maintenance plans,
and in EPA's experience implementing the various NAAQS, areas that
qualify for an LMP and have approved LMPs have rarely, if ever,
experienced subsequent violations of the NAAQS. As noted in the LMP
guidance memoranda, states seeking an LMP must still submit the other
maintenance plan elements outlined in the Calcagni memo, including: An
attainment emissions inventory, provisions for the continued operation
of the ambient air quality monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a contingency plan in the event of a future
violation of the NAAQS. Moreover, states seeking an LMP must still
submit their section 175A maintenance plan as a revision to their state
implementation plan, with all attendant notice and comment procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Calcagni, John, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' September
4, 1992 (Calcagni memo).
    \5\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
    \6\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001. Copies of these guidance memoranda can be
found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the LMP guidance memoranda were originally written with
respect to certain NAAQS,\7\ EPA has extended the LMP interpretation of
section 175A to other NAAQS and pollutants not specifically covered by
the previous guidance memos.\8\ In this case, EPA is proposing to
approve Maine's LMP, because the State has made a showing, consistent
with EPA's prior LMP guidance, that the area's ozone concentrations are
well below the 1997 ozone NAAQS and have been historically stable.
Maine DEP has submitted these LMPs for the Portland and Midcoast 1997
ozone NAAQS areas to fulfill the second maintenance plan requirement in
the Act. Our evaluation of the Portland and Midcoast areas 1997 ozone
NAAQS LMPs is presented below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The prior memos addressed: Unclassifiable areas under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, nonattainment areas for the PM10
(particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10
microns) NAAQS, and nonattainment areas for the carbon monoxide
NAAQS.
    \8\ See, e.g., 79 FR 41900 (July 18, 2014) (Approval of second
ten-year LMP for Grant County 1971 SO2 maintenance area).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 3, 2006, Maine DEP submitted to EPA a request to
redesignate the Portland and Midcoast nonattainment areas to attainment
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This submittal included a plan to provide for
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Portland and Midcoast
nonattainment areas through 2016 as a revision to the Maine SIP. EPA
approved maintenance plans for the Portland and Midcoast nonattainment
areas and the State's request to redesignate the Portland and Midcoast
nonattainment areas to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on December
11, 2006 (71 FR 71489).
    In conjunction with our approval of the Portland and Midcoast
nonattainment areas 1997 ozone Maintenance Plan covering the first 10-
year maintenance period, we approved various regulatory provisions
adopted by the State providing for the continued implementation of the
control measures relied upon for attainment, and for the authority for
state agencies to implement contingency measures should the area
violate the standard again during this period.
    Under CAA section 175A(b), states must submit a revision to the
first maintenance plan eight years after redesignation to provide for
maintenance of the NAAQS for ten additional years following the end of
the first 10-year period. EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008
ozone NAAQS revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS and stated that one
consequence of revocation was that areas that had been redesignated to
attainment (i.e., maintenance areas) for the 1997 standard no longer
needed to submit second 10-year maintenance plans under CAA section
175A(b).\9\ In South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, the
D.C. Circuit vacated EPA's interpretation that second maintenance plans
were not required for 1997 NAAQS maintenance areas because of the
revocation of that standard. South Coast, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir.
2018). Thus, states with 1997 ozone NAAQS maintenance areas still must
comply with the requirement to submit maintenance plans for the second
maintenance period. Accordingly, on February 18, 2020, Maine submitted
second maintenance plans for the Portland and Midcoast areas that show
that the areas are expected to remain in attainment with the 1997 ozone
NAAQS through the last year of the second 10-year maintenance period,
i.e., through the end of the full 20-year maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Maine's SIP Submittal

    On February 18, 2020, Maine DEP submitted the Portland and Midcoast
areas LMPs to the EPA as a revision to the Maine SIP. The submittal
includes the LMP and appendices. Appendices to the plan include air
quality data, emission inventory information, air quality monitoring
information, and documentation of notice, hearing, and public
participation.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of Maine's SIP Submittal

A. Procedural Requirements

    CAA section 110(a)(2) and 110(l) require revisions to a SIP to be
adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA
has promulgated specific procedural requirements for SIP revisions in
40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These requirements include publication of a
notice by prominent advertisement in the relevant geographic area of
the proposed SIP revisions, at least a 30-day public comment period,
and an opportunity for a public hearing.
    Maine DEP published a notice of a 30-day comment period and notice
for a public hearing for LMPs for the Portland and Midcoast maintenance
areas on the State's website. On December 12, 2019, Maine DEP held a
public hearing on the Portland and Midcoast areas 1997 Ozone NAAQS
LMPs; no oral or written comments were submitted. Maine DEP then
submitted the Portland and Midcoast areas 1997 Ozone NAAQS LMPs to EPA
as a revision to the Maine SIP. The process followed by Maine DEP in
adopting the Portland and Midcoast areas 1997 Ozone NAAQS LMP complies
with the procedural requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section
110 and EPA's implementing regulations.

B. Substantive Requirements

    EPA has reviewed the Portland and Midcoast maintenance areas 1997
Ozone NAAQS LMPs, which are designed to maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS
within the Portland and Midcoast areas through the end of the 20-year
period beyond redesignation, as required under CAA section 175A(b). The
following is a summary of EPA's interpretation of the requirements \10\
and EPA's evaluation of how each requirement is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Calcagni memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive,
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year to
identify the level of emissions which is sufficient to maintain the
NAAQS. A state should develop this inventory consistent with EPA's most
recent guidance on emissions inventory development. For ozone, the
inventory should be based on typical summer day emissions of VOCs and
NOX, as these pollutants are precursors to ozone formation.
The Portland and Midcoast areas LMPs include an ozone attainment
inventory for the Portland and Midcoast maintenance areas that reflects
typical summer day emissions in 2005, 2014, and 2028. Tables 1 and 2
present a summary of the inventories for these years contained in the
maintenance plan.

                  Table 1--Summer Day Typical Ozone Emissions for the Portland Maintenance Area
                                                   [Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2005                    2014                    2028
                Category                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              VOC         NOX         VOC         NOX         VOC         NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................        4.22       10.48        2.04        4.52        2.04        4.33
Nonpoint................................       41.56        6.30       21.09       11.01       16.83        7.25
Mobile: Onroad..........................       27.03       55.33       12.04       28.92        3.96        7.52
Mobile: Nonroad.........................       20.60       12.02       11.70        6.86        8.36        4.11
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................       93.41       84.13       51.87       51.31       31.22       23.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Table 2--Summer Day Typical Ozone Emissions for the Midcoast Maintenance Area
                                                   [Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2005                    2014                    2028
                Category                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              VOC         NOX         VOC         NOX         VOC         NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................        1.52        4.53        1.96        5.05        1.98        3.19
Nonpoint................................       14.21        3.66        5.12        4.22        4.78        3.97
Mobile: Onroad..........................        8.66       15.30        4.41        8.82        1.17        1.60
Mobile: Nonroad.........................       13.73        4.71        8.20        4.18        4.61        2.79
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................       38.12       28.20       19.69       22.27       12.54       11.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maine obtained the 2005 emission data from the Maine DEP's 2006
redesignation request as approved on December 11, 2006 (71 FR 71489).
The 2014 emissions inventory information is from the EPA 2014 version
7.0 modeling platform.\11\ The 2028 emissions inventory is projected
from the EPA 2011 version 6.3 modeling.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The inventory documentation for this platform can be found
at: https://www.epa.gov/airemissions-modeling/2014-version-70-platform.
    \12\ The inventory documentation for this platform can be found
at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2011-version-63-platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the methods, models, and assumptions used by
Maine DEP to develop the VOC and NOX estimates, we find that
the Portland and Midcoast areas 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS LMPs include
comprehensive, reasonably accurate inventories of actual ozone
precursor emissions in attainment year 2005, and conclude that the
plans' inventories are acceptable for the purposes of a subsequent
maintenance plans under CAA section 175A(b).
2. Maintenance Demonstration
    Maine's projected emissions to 2028 show that the area will
continue to maintain the NAAQS until the end of the 20-year period
following redesignation. Moreover, the State also submitted information
that indicates that the guidelines for an LMP have also been met. These
guidelines are met if the state can provide sufficient weight of
evidence indicating that air quality in the area is well below the
level of the standard, that past air quality trends have been shown to
be stable, and that the probability of the area experiencing a
violation over the second 10-year maintenance period is low.\13\ These
criteria are evaluated below with regard to the Portland and Midcoast
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable Ozone
Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994; ``Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas''
from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6, 1995; and ``Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment
Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Evaluation of Ozone Air Quality Levels
    To attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of the
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
(design value) at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.08 ppm.
Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix
I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below.
Consistent with prior guidance, EPA believes that if the most recent
air quality design value for the area is at a level that is well below
the NAAQS (e.g., below 85% of the standard, or in this case below 0.071
ppm), then EPA considers the state to have met the section 175A
requirement for a demonstration that the area will maintain the NAAQS
for the requisite period. Such a demonstration assumes continued
applicability of PSD requirements, any control measures already in the
SIP, and Federal measures will remain in place through the end of the
second 10-year maintenance period, absent a showing consistent with
section 110(l) that such measures are not necessary to assure
maintenance.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), the Portland
and Midcoast areas are also subject to additional permitting
requirements through nonattainment new source review (NNSR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 presents the design values for each monitor in the Portland
and Midcoast areas over the 2016-2018 period. As shown in Table 3, all
sites have been well below the level of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the
most current design value is below the level of 85% of the NAAQS,
consistent with prior LMP guidance.
    Additional supporting information that these areas are expected to
continue to maintain the standard can be found in projections of future
year design values that EPA recently completed to assist states with
development of interstate transport SIPs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Using a 2011 base year, EPA forecast ozone concentrations for 2023
under alternative scenarios that included a modified version of the
``3x3'' grid approach for those monitors located in coastal areas.
Those projections, made for the year 2023 (also in Table 3), show that
the highest design values of any monitor in the Portland and Midcoast
areas are all expected to be well below the 85% maximum allowed value
of 0.071ppm (71ppb).

                                     Table 3--Ozone NAAQS Design Values (DV)
                                            [Parts per billion, ppb]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2023
            AQS  site ID                      County           2009-2013    2009-2013    2016-2018   ``3x3'' max
                                                                avg  DV      max  DV         DV           DV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
230010014...........................  Androscoggin..........         61.0           62           59         50.2
230052003...........................  Cumberland............         69.3           70           65         56.8
230090102...........................  Hancock...............         71.7           74           70         63.2
230090103...........................  Hancock...............         66.3           69           63         57.3
230112005...........................  Kennebec..............         62.7           64           62         51.5
230130004...........................  Knox..................         67.7           69           63         55.7

230173001...........................  Oxford................         54.3           55          N/A         44.3
230194008...........................  Penobscot.............         57.7           59           57         47.6
230230006...........................  Sagadahoc.............         61.0           61          N/A         48.7
230310038...........................  York..................         60.3           62           59         49.6
230310040...........................  York..................         64.3           65           61         52.0
230312002...........................  York..................         73.7           75           66         61.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Portland and Midcoast areas demonstration that the
areas will maintain the NAAQS based on the long record of monitored
ozone concentrations that attain the NAAQS, together with the
continuation of existing VOC and NOX emissions control
programs, adequately provide for the maintenance of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS in the Portland and Midcoast maintenance areas through the second
10-year maintenance period (and beyond).
b. Stability of Ozone Levels
    As discussed above, the Portland and Midcoast areas have maintained
air quality well below the 1997 ozone NAAQS over the past ten years.
Additionally, the design value data shown within Table 3 illustrates
that ozone levels have been relatively stable over this timeframe, with
a modest downward trend. This downward trend in ozone levels, coupled
with the relatively small year over year variation in ozone design
values, makes it reasonable to conclude that the Portland and Midcoast
areas will not exceed the 1997 ozone NAAQS during the second 10-year
maintenance period.
    After Maine submitted the LMPs for the Portland and Midcoast areas,
EPA released the final 2017-2019 ozone design values. These values show
a continued downward trend in ozone levels, with 2017-2019 design
values for the Portland and Midcoast areas of 0.064 and 0.069 ppm,
respectively.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For EPA's full design value report please see https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    EPA periodically reviews the ozone monitoring network that Maine
DEP operates and maintains, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. This
network is consistent with the ambient air monitoring network
assessment and plan developed by Maine DEP that is submitted annually
to EPA and that follows a public notification and review process. EPA
has reviewed and approved the 2020 Ambient Air Monitoring Network
Assessment and Plan.
    To verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance
period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued
operation of an appropriate, EPA-approved monitoring network in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. As noted above, Maine DEP's monitoring
network in the Portland and Midcoast areas has been approved by EPA in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and the area has committed to continue
to maintain a network in accordance with EPA requirements. For further
details on monitoring, the reader is referred to the 2020 Maine DEP's
Annual Network Plan found at: https://www.maine.gov/dep/air/monitoring/docs/2020-air-monitoring-plan.pdf as well as EPA's approval letter for
the 2020 Annual Network Plan, which can be found in the docket for
today's action. We believe Maine's monitoring network is adequate to
verify continued attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Portland and
Midcoast areas.
4. Contingency Plan
    Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. The purpose of such contingency provisions is
to prevent future violations of the NAAQS or promptly remedy any NAAQS
violations that might occur during the maintenance period. These
contingency measures do not have to be fully adopted regulations at the
time of redesignation. However, the contingency plan is an enforceable
part of the SIP and should ensure that the contingency measures are
adopted expeditiously once they are triggered by a future violation of
the NAAQS or some other trigger. The contingency plan should identify
the measures to be expeditiously adopted and provide a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the measures. The state
should also identify specific triggers which will be used to determine
when the contingency measures need to be implemented. While a violation
of the NAAQS is an acceptable trigger, states may wish to choose a
violation action level below the NAAQS as a trigger, such as an
exceedance of the NAAQS. By taking action promptly after an exceedance
occurs, a state may be able to prevent a violation of the NAAQS.
Possible contingency measures identified by Maine include the
following:
     Reduce the VOC content limit for cutback asphalt from 5%
to 4%, and lower current VOC content limits for emulsified asphalt by
20%.
     Adopt and implement the Ozone Transport Commission 2011
Model Rule for Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line
Coating Operations.
     Adopt and implement the Ozone Transport Commission 2012
Model Rule for Consumer Products.
     Adopt and implement the 2014 OTC Model Rule for
Architectural Coatings.
     Increase enforcement of existing rules to increase rule
effectiveness.
    EPA proposes to find that Maine's contingency measures, as well as
the commitment to continue implementing any SIP requirements, satisfy
the pertinent requirements of CAA section 175A.

V. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans,
programs and projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they conform. The conformity
rule generally requires a demonstration that emissions from the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation

Improvement Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle
emissions budget (MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP revision
or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is
defined as ``that portion of the total allowable emissions defined in
the submitted or approved control strategy implementation plan revision
or maintenance plan for a certain date for the purpose of meeting
reasonable further progress milestones or demonstrating attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS, for any criteria pollutant or its precursors,
allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions (40 CFR
93.101).
    Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emission analysis (40 CFR 93.109(e)).
    All actions that would require transportation conformity
determinations for the Portland and Midcoast ozone maintenance areas
under our transportation conformity rule provisions are considered to
have already satisfied the regional emissions analysis and ``budget
test'' requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 as a result of an adequacy finding
for the LMP or approval of the LMP. (See 69 FR 40004, 40063 (July 1,
2004).)
    However, because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects of transportation conformity determinations still will be
required for transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically,
for such determinations, RTPs, TIPs and transportation projects still
will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR
93.108), meet the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105 and 40 CFR
93.112) and Transportation Control Measure (TCM) implementation in the
conformity rule provisions (40 CFR 93.113). Additionally, conformity
determinations for RTPs and TIPs must be determined no less frequently
than every four years, and conformity of plan and TIP amendments and
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104. In addition, in order for
projects to be approved they must come from a currently conforming RTP
and TIP (40 CFR 93.114 and 93.115).

VI. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    Under sections 110(k) and 175A of the CAA and for the reasons set
forth above, EPA is proposing to approve the second 10-year LMPs for
the Portland and Midcoast maintenance areas for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS,
submitted by Maine DEP on February 18, 2020, as a revision to the Maine
SIP. We are proposing to approve the Portland and Midcoast areas LMPs
because we find that they include an acceptable update of the various
elements of the 1997 ozone NAAQS Maintenance Plan approved by EPA for
the first 10-year period (including emissions inventory, assurance of
adequate monitoring and verification of continued attainment, and
contingency provisions), and essentially carry forward all of the
control measures and contingency provisions relied upon in the earlier
plan.
    We also find that the Portland and Midcoast areas qualify for the
LMP option and that therefore the Portland and Midcoast areas 1997
Ozone NAAQS LMPs adequately demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through documentation of monitoring data showing maximum
1997 8-hour ozone levels well below the NAAQS and continuation of
existing control measures. We believe the Portland and Midcoast areas
1997 Ozone LMPs to be sufficient to provide for maintenance of the 1997
ozone NAAQS in the Portland and Midcoast areas over the second 10-year
maintenance period (though 2026) and to thereby satisfy the
requirements for such a plan under CAA section 175A(b).
    EPA is soliciting public comments on this document and on issues
relevant to EPA's proposed action. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal for the next 30 days.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866;
     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 Clean Air Act; 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, the SIP 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 and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 13, 2020.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2020-15442 Filed 7-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 65382]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20569]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2322-069; 2322-071; 2325-100; 2574-092; 2611-091]

Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC, Merimil Limited Partnership,
Hydro-Kennebec, LLC; Notice of Revised Procedural Schedule for
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Project Relicense,
Interim Species Protection Plan, and Final Species Protection Plan

    On January 31, 2020, Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC filed an
application for a new license to continue to operate and maintain the
8.65-megawatt (MW) Shawmut Hydroelectric Project No. 2322 (Shawmut
Project). On June 1, 2021, in a separate compliance proceeding for the
Shawmut Project, Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC filed an Interim
Species Protection Plan (Interim Plan) for Atlantic salmon and
requested Commission approval to amend the current Shawmut license to
incorporate the Interim Plan. The Interim Plan includes measures to
protect endangered Atlantic salmon until the Commission issues a
decision on the relicense application for the Shawmut Project.
    Also on June 1, 2021, Brookfield Power US Asset Management, LLC
(Brookfield), on behalf of the affiliated licensees for the 6.915-MW
Lockwood Hydroelectric Project No. 2574, 15.433-MW Hydro-Kennebec
Hydroelectric Project No. 2611, and 15.98-MW Weston Hydroelectric
Project No. 2325, filed a Final Species Protection Plan (Final Plan)
for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, and shortnose sturgeon and
requested Commission approval to amend the three project licenses to
incorporate the Final Plan. All four projects are located on the
Kennebec River, in Kennebec and Somerset Counties, Maine.
    On November 23, 2021, Commission staff issued a notice of intent to
prepare a draft and final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to
evaluate the effects of relicensing the Shawmut Project and amending
the licenses of all four projects to incorporate the measures in the
Interim and Final Plans. The notice of intent included a schedule for
preparing a draft and final EIS. The schedule was updated on February
15, 2023, in response to Brookfield's filing of supplemental
information for the Final Plan, Interim Plan, and License Application.
    On March 29, 2023, Commission staff initiated Tribal consultation
with potentially affected Indian Tribes on the proposed license
amendments. The Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians filed comments and
recommendations on May 4, 2023, and the Penobscot Indian Nation filed
comments and recommendations on May 1, 2023, and August 17, 2023. The
EIS will consider the comments and recommendations from the Tribes.
Therefore, by this notice, Commission staff is updating the procedural
schedule for completing a draft and final EIS.
    The revised schedule is shown below. Further revisions to the
schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Draft EIS........................  March 2024.
Issue Final EIS........................  September 2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Matt Cutlip
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at [email protected].

    Dated: September 18, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20569 Filed 9-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P