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

    MassDEP believes that there will be further emissions reductions at
the targeted units as a result of EPA's recently issued Mercury and Air
Toxics Standards (MATS) rule.\21\ MATS gives coal units with scrubbers
a compliance option to meet an SO2 emissions rate of 0.2
lbs/MMBtu as an alternative to a hydrogen chloride emissions rate,
which is more stringent than MassDEP's 310 CMR 7.29 annual
SO2 emissions rate (3.0 lbs/MWh, which is roughly equivalent
to 0.3 lbs/MMBtu). Brayton Point and Mt. Tom Station may choose this
option for their coal units, thereby further reducing their permitted
SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ http://www.epa.gov/mats/pdfs/20111216MATSfinal.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To be subject to MATS in a given year, an EGU must fire coal or oil
for more than 10 percent of the average annual heat input during the 3
previous consecutive calendar years, or for more than 15 percent of the
annual heat input during any one of the 3 previous calendar years. This
provision provides an incentive to Canal Unit 2, which can burn oil or
natural gas, to limit the amount of oil it burns so that it is not
subject to MATS, which would result in future SO2 emissions
continuing to be lower than permitted emissions. MATS also establishes
work practices (versus emissions rates) for oil-fired units with

an annual capacity factor of less than 8% of its maximum heat input.
Canal Station Unit 1's utilization was 1% in 2011, and thus has an
incentive to remain below 8%, which would result in future
SO2 emissions continuing to be lower than its permitted
emissions. Even without MATS, oil-fired combustion at Canal Units 1 and
2 is expected to be low well into the future because of the high cost
of oil relative to natural gas. This cost differential is why Canal's
utilization currently is very low.
    Taking into account 310 CMR 7.29 SO2 emission rates,
permit restrictions and retirements, and MassDEP's proposed low-sulfur
oil regulation, MassDEP conservatively projects SO2
emissions in 2018 would represent at least a 67% reduction in
SO2 emissions compared to 2002 emissions.\22\ However,
taking into account EPA's MATS, including the SO2 compliance
option and incentives for low utilization of oil-fired units, MassDEP
believes there is a likelihood that SO2 emissions in 2018
will be up to 87% lower than 2002 emissions. Therefore, Massachusetts
believes that existing regulatory programs will lead to SO2
emission reductions that fulfill the MANE-VU Targeted EGU Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The 67% projection is less than the 72% reduction already
achieved in 2011 because it assumes the same unit utilization as in
the 2002 baseline year, whereas the reduction achieved in 2011 is
due in part to low utilization of several units, including Canal
Units 1 and 2 and Mt. Tom Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Massachusetts also notes that even the conservative projection of a
67% reduction in SO2 emissions from the targeted EGUs is
more than enough to meet the level of SO2 emissions
projected for Massachusetts EGUs which was used in the MANE-VU 2018
regional modeling, as documented in NESCAUM's 2018 Visibility
Projections.\23\ Emission results from the 2018 Inter-Regional Planning
Organization CAIR Case Integrated Planning Model v.2.1.9 estimated
17,486 tons of SO2 emissions for Massachusetts.\24\ However,
MANE-VU planners recognized that CAIR allows for emission trading.
MANE-VU decided that projected emissions should be increased to
represent the implementation of the strategy for the 167 stacks within
the limits of CAIR program, and therefore increased the projected
emissions from states subject to CAIR cap and trade. For Massachusetts,
this modification resulted in projected SO2 emission of
45,941 tons SO2 for Massachusetts. As shown in Table 10,
MassDEP's conservative 67% reduction projection for targeted EGU
results in 2018 emissions of 26,811 tons SO2,\25\ well below
the 45,941 tons of SO2 that is needed to meet the modeled
2018 reasonable progress goals for the Class I areas Massachusetts
affects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Appendix G on Massachusetts December 30, 2011 SIP
submittal.
    \24\ Appendix W, Table 1 of the Massachusetts December 30, 2011
SIP submittal.
    \25\ Two additional EGUs beyond the ``167 Stack'' Targeted EGUs
were projected to have 2018 SO2 emissions totaling 3,588
tons, which would bring the total 2018 emissions to 30,399 tons,
which is still well below the 45,941 tons used in the 2018 modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Massachusetts Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy
    The MANE-VU low sulfur fuel oil strategy includes: Phase I
reduction of distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur by weight (500 parts per
million (ppm)) by no later than 2014; Phase II reductions of 4
residual oil to 0.25% sulfur by weight by no later than 2018;
6 residual oil to 0.5% sulfur by weight by no later than 2018;
and further reduction of the sulfur content of distillate oil to 15 ppm
by 2018.
    The expected reduction in SO2 emissions by 2018 from the
MANE-VU ``Ask'' will yield corresponding reductions in sulfate aerosol,
the main culprit in fine-particle pollution and regional haze. For
Massachusetts, the MANE-VU analysis demonstrates that the reduction of
the sulfur content in fuel oil will lead to an average reduction of
0.15 [mu] g/m\3\ in the 24 hour PM2.5 concentration within
the State, improving health and local visibility. In addition, the use
of low sulfur fuels will result in cost savings to owners/operators of
residential furnaces and boilers due to reduced maintenance costs and
extended life of the units.
    Massachusetts has proposed amendments to 310 CMR 7.05, ``Fuels All
Districts.'' The proposed amendments limit the Statewide sulfur content
of distillate oil to 500 parts per million (ppm) July 1, 2014 through
June 30, 2018. Starting July 1, 2018, the sulfur content of distillate
is limited to 15 ppm. The sulfur in fuel limit for No. 6 residual oil,
starting July 1, 2018 is 0.5% by weight Statewide, except for the
Berkshire Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The Berkshire APCD has
a 1974 legislative exemption allowing sources in this district to burn
up to 2.2% sulfur residual oil. Therefore, the proposed revisions do
not require lower sulfur residual oil in the Berkshire APCD due to the
existing law.\26\ Legislative action would be needed in order for
MassDEP to apply the lower sulfur residual oil limits for this
district. Despite this legislative exemption, MassDEP expects that the
majority of residual oil burned in the Berkshire APCD will have a
reduced sulfur content because the suppliers in Massachusetts, and in
the surrounding states, will need to supply lower sulfur residual oil
for sale in other APCDs and states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Massachusetts Chapter 353 of the Acts of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Continued Evaluation of Other Control Measures To Reduce
SO2 and NOX Emissions
    While MassDEP continues to evaluate other control measures to
reduce SO2 and NOX emissions, Massachusetts has
adopted a program to reduce wood smoke emissions from outdoor hydronic
heaters (OHHs, also known as outdoor wood-fired boilers or OWBs). This
regulation, 310 CMR 7.26(50)-(54), ``Outdoor Hydronic Heaters,'' was
submitted as part of the December 30, 2011 SIP submittal. The
regulation is based in part on a NESCAUM model rule developed in
January 2007 and has requirements for manufacturers, sellers, and
owners of OHHs. Manufacturers must meet performance standards in order
to sell OHHs in Massachusetts. The Phase I emission standard is 0.44
lb/MMBtu for units sold after October 1, 2008, and the Phase II
emission standard is 0.32 lb/MMBtu for units sold after March 31, 2010.
Owners of current and new OHHs are subject to regulations regarding the
operation of their OHHs. Massachusetts concludes that adoption of these
regulations will reduce future smoke and particulate emissions from
OHHs.
    Massachusetts did not include emission reductions which result from
the promulgation of the outdoor wood boilers rule in the visibility
modeling to ensure reasonable progress. However, Massachusetts is
including this program in its Regional Haze SIP as a SIP strengthening
measure. In today's action, EPA is proposing to approve Massachusetts'
310 CMR 7.26(50)-(54), ``Outdoor Hydronic Heaters,'' and incorporating
this regulation into the SIP.
    EPA is also proposing to approve Massachusetts' Regional Haze SIP
for the first implementation period. This includes proposed approval of
Massachusetts' LTS which will allow other States to meet their
respective RPGs. Massachusetts' LTS includes its Alternative to BART,
expected enforceable SO2 emission reduction in excess of
modeled 2018 SO2 emission inventories for the 167 stacks and
other EGUs, Massachusetts proposed amendments to 310 CMR 7.05, ``Sulfur
in Fuels'' to reduce the sulfur content of distillate and residual
oils, and the

outdoor wood boiler control regulation, 310 CMR 7.26(50)-(54),
``Outdoor Hydronic Heaters.'' EPA believes that between Massachusetts'
Alternative to BART and expected reductions from other programs,
Massachusetts will reduce SO2 emissions from its EGUs
identified by MANE-VU as top contributors to visibility impairment
below the level that MANE-VU modeled as being necessary for other
States to meet their RPGs. In addition, EPA believes that
SO2 reductions from the proposed low sulfur fuel oil
strategy will be comparable to modeled reductions despite the exclusion
of the Berkshire APCD. Therefore, EPA does not anticipate that
Massachusetts' emissions under its LTS will interfere with the ability
of other States to meet their respective RPGs.
5. Additional Considerations for the LTS
    In 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), States are required to consider the
following factors in developing the long term strategy:
    a. Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control
programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable
visibility impairment;
    b. Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities;
    c. Emission limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the
reasonable progress goal;
    d. Source retirement and replacement schedules;
    e. Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry
management purposes including plans as currently exist within the State
for these purposes;
    f. Enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures;
and
    g. The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected
changes in point area, and mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the long term strategy.
a. Emission Reductions Including RAVI
    Since Massachusetts does not contain any Class I areas, the State
is not required to address RAVI, nor has any Massachusetts source been
identified as subject to RAVI. A list of Massachusetts' ongoing air
pollution control programs is included in Section III.C.1.
b. Construction Activities

    The Regional Haze Rule requires Massachusetts to consider measures
to mitigate the impacts of construction activities on regional haze.
MANE-VU's consideration of control measures for construction activities
is documented in Technical Support Document on Measures to Mitigate the
Visibility Impacts of Construction Activities in the MANE-VU Region,
Draft, October 20, 2006.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ This document has been provided as part of the docket to
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The construction industry is already subject to requirements for
controlling pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment. For
example, federal regulations require the reduction of SO2
emissions from construction vehicles. At the State level, Massachusetts
regulation 310 CMR 7.09 regulates dust from construction and demolition
activities. 7.09(3) states, ``No person shall cause, suffer, allow, or
permit a building, road, driveway, or open area to be constructed,
used, repaired, or demolished without applying such reasonable measures
as may be necessary to prevent particulate matter from becoming air-
borne that may cause or contribute to a condition of air pollution.''
See 37 FR 23085, (October 28, 1972.)
    MANE-VU's Contribution Report found that, from a regional haze
perspective, crustal material generally does not play a major role. On
the 20 percent best-visibility days during the 2000-2004 baseline
period, crustal material accounted for 6 to 11 percent of the particle-
related light extinction at the MANE-VU Class I Areas. On the 20
percent worst-visibility days, however, the contribution was reduced to
2 to 3 percent. Furthermore, the crustal fraction is largely made up of
pollutants of natural origin (e.g., soil or sea salt) that are not
targeted under the Regional Haze Rule. Nevertheless, the crustal
fraction at any given location can be heavily influenced by the
proximity of construction activities; and construction activities
occurring in the immediate vicinity of MANE-VU Class I area could have
a noticeable effect on visibility.
    For this regional haze SIP, Massachusetts concluded that its
current regulations are currently sufficient to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities. Any future deliberations on potential control
measures for construction activities and the possible implementation
will be documented in the first regional haze SIP progress report in
2014. EPA proposes to find that Massachusetts has adequately addressed
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities.
c. Emission Limitations and Schedules for Compliance To Achieve the RPG
    In addition to the existing CAA control requirements discussed in
section III.C.1, Massachusetts has adopted a low sulfur fuel oil
strategy consistent with the MANE-VU ``Ask'' as discussed in Section
III.C.4. EPA proposes to find that Massachusetts has adequately
addressed emissions limitations and schedules for compliance.
d. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedule
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) of the Regional Haze Rule,
Massachusetts is required to consider source retirement and replacement
schedules in developing the long term strategy. Source retirement and
replacement were considered in developing the 2018 emissions. However,
no additional sources beyond those already discussed have been
identified by Massachusetts. EPA proposes to find that Massachusetts
has adequately addressed source retirement and replacement schedules.
e. Smoke Management Techniques
    The Regional Haze Rule requires States to consider smoke management
techniques related to agricultural and forestry management in
developing the long-term strategy. MANE-VU's analysis of smoke
management in the context of regional haze is documented in Technical
Support Document on Agricultural and Smoke Management in the MANE-VU
Region, September 1, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as the ``Smoke
TSD'').\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ This document has been included as part of the docket to
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Massachusetts does not have a formal smoke management program
(SMP). SMPs are required only when smoke impacts from fires managed for
resources benefits contribute significantly to regional haze. The
emissions inventory presented in the Smoke TSD indicates that
agricultural, managed, prescribed, and open burning emissions are very
minor; the inventory estimates that, in Massachusetts, those emissions
from those source categories totaled 414.2 tons of PM10 and
270.4 tons of PM2.5 in 2002, which constitute 0.2% and 0.5%
of the total inventory for these pollutants, respectively.
    Source apportionment results show that wood smoke is a moderate
contributor to visibility impairment at some Class I areas in the MANE-
VU region; however, smoke is not a large contributor to haze in MANE-VU
Class I areas on either the 20% best or 20% worst visibility days.
Moreover, most of wood smoke is attributable to residential wood
combustion. Therefore, it is unlikely that fires for agricultural or
forestry management cause large

impacts on visibility in any of the Class I areas in the MANE-VU
region. On rare occasions, smoke from major fires degrades air quality
and visibility in the MANE-VU area. However, these fires are generally
unwanted wildfires that are not subject to SMPs. EPA proposes to
approve Massachusetts' decision that an Agricultural and Forestry Smoke
Management Plan to address visibility impairment is not required at
this time.
f. Enforceability of Emission Limitations and Control Measures
    Massachusetts has asked, and we are proposing to process approval
of 310 CMR 7.29, 310 CMR 7.05, and 310 CMR 7.26(50) in parallel with
the approval of Massachusetts' Regional Haze SIP. Massachusetts
indicated that they plan to have the final supplemental SIP revision by
July 2012, prior to the finalization of this action. EPA will review
the final SIP supplement and determine whether it differs significantly
from the February 17, 2012 proposal. At the same time we take final
action on Massachusetts' Regional Haze SIP, we will then take final
action on 310 CMR 7.29, 310 CMR 7.05, and 310 CMR 7.26(50)-(54) as well
as on several ECPs discussed in the BART section. Upon EPA final
action, these requirements and associated emission limitations included
as part of the Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP, will become federally
enforceable. EPA is proposing to find that Massachusetts has adequately
addressed the enforceability of emission limitations and control
measures.
g. The Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility
    MANE-VU used the best and final emission inventory to model
progress expected toward the goal of natural visibility conditions for
the first regional haze planning period. All of the MANE-VU Class I
areas are expected to achieve greater progress toward the natural
visibility goal than the uniform rate of progress, or the progress
expected by extrapolating a trend line from current visibility
conditions to natural visibility conditions.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Projected visibility improvements for each MANE-VU Class I
area can be found in the NESCAUM document dated May 13, 2008, ``2018
Visibility Projections'' (www.nescaum.org/documents/2018-visibility-projections-final-05-13-08.pdf/)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, EPA is proposing to find that Massachusetts has
adequately addressed the LTS regional haze requirements.

D. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

    On May 10, 2006, the MANE-VU State Air Directors adopted the Inter-
RPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation Framework that documented the
consultation process within the context of regional phase planning, and
was intended to create greater certainty and understanding among RPOs.
MANE-VU States held ten consultation meetings and/or conference calls
from March 1, 2007 through March 21, 2008. In addition to MANE-VU
members attending these meetings and conference calls, participants
from the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO, Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal Land
Managers were also in attendance. In addition to the conference calls
and meeting, the FLMs were given the opportunity to review and comment
on each of the technical documents developed by MANE-VU.
    On November 21, 2008 and July 31, 2009, Massachusetts submitted a
draft Regional Haze SIP to the relevant FLMs for review and comment
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). The FLMs provided comments on the
draft Regional Haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). The
comments received from the FLMs were addressed and incorporated in
Massachusetts' SIP revision. Most of the comments were requests for
additional detail as to various aspects of the SIP. These comments and
Massachusetts' response to comments can be found in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking.
    On January 11, 2011, Massachusetts proposed its Regional Haze SIP
for public hearing. Comments were received from U.S. EPA, the National
Park Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Conservation Law
Foundation, Wheelabrator, Massachusetts Petroleum Council, and
Massachusetts Oil Heat Council.\30\ On February 17, 2012, MassDEP
proposed revisions to the Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP for public
hearing. Comments were received from U.S. EPA, the National Park
Service, and the Sierra Club. To address the requirement for continuing
consultation procedures with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4),
Massachusetts commits in its SIP to ongoing consultation with the FLMs
on emission strategies, major new source permits, assessments or
rulemaking concerning sources identified as probable contributors to
visibility impairment, any changes to the monitoring strategy, work on
the periodic revisions to the SIP, and ongoing communications regarding
visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The comments and MassDEP's responses have been included in
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to find that Massachusetts has addressed the
requirements for consultation with the Federal Land Managers.

E. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g), Massachusetts
has committed to submitting a report on reasonable progress (in the
form of a SIP revision) to the EPA every five years following the
initial submittal of its regional haze SIP. The reasonable progress
report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the MANE-VU
Class I areas, located in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New
Jersey.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f), Massachusetts is required to submit
periodic revisions to its Regional Haze SIP by July 31, 2018, and every
ten years thereafter. Massachusetts acknowledges and agrees to comply
with this schedule.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v), Massachusetts will also make
periodic updates to the State's emissions inventory. Massachusetts
proposes to complete these updates to coincide with the progress
reports. Actual emissions will be compared to projected modeled
emissions in the progress reports.
    Lastly, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), Massachusetts will submit a
determination of adequacy of its regional haze SIP revision whenever a
progress report is submitted. Massachusetts' regional haze SIP states
that, depending on the findings of its five-year review, Massachusetts
will take one or more of the following actions at that time, whichever
actions are appropriate or necessary:
     If Massachusetts determines that the existing State
Implementation Plan requires no further substantive revision in order
to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions
reductions, Massachusetts will provide to the EPA Administrator a
negative declaration that further revision of the existing plan is not
needed.
     If Massachusetts determines that its implementation plan
is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of
emissions from sources in one or more other State(s) which participated
in the regional planning process, Massachusetts will provide
notification to the EPA Administrator and to those other State(s).
Massachusetts will also collaborate with the other State(s) through the
regional planning process

for the purpose of developing additional strategies to address any such
deficiencies in Massachusetts' plan.
     If Massachusetts determines that its implementation plan
is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of
emissions from sources in another country, Massachusetts will provide
notification, along with available information, to the EPA
Administrator.
     If Massachusetts determines that the implementation plan
is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of
emissions from sources within the State, Massachusetts will revise its
implementation plan to address the plan's deficiencies within one year
from this determination.

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing approval of Massachusetts' December 30, 2011 SIP
revision and February 17, 2012 proposed regional haze SIP revision
supplement, as meeting the applicable requirements of the Regional Haze
Rule found in 40 CFR 51.308. EPA is proposing to approve 310 CMR 7.29
``Emission Standards for Power Plants,'' 310 CMR 7.26(50)-(54)
``Outdoor Hydronic Heaters,'' Amended Emission Control Plan for Mt. Tom
Station dated May 15, 2009, Facility Shutdown of Somerset Power, LLC
dated June 22, 2011, Modified Emission Control Plan for General
Electric Aviation--Lynn dated March 24, 2011, and Modified Emission
Control Plan for Wheelabrator Saugus, Inc. dated March 14, 2012.
Pursuant to MassDEP's May 2, 2012 request for parallel processing, EPA
is proposing approval of Massachusetts' proposed 310 CMR 7.00
``Definitions,'' 310 CMR 7.05 ``Fuels All Districts,'' proposed Amended
Emission Control Plan Approval for Salem Harbor Station dated February
17, 2012, and proposed Amended Emission Control Plan Approval for
Brayton Point Station dated February 16, 2012. Under this procedure,
EPA prepared this action before the State's final adoption of these
regulations and ECPs. Massachusetts has already held a public hearing
on the proposed regulations and received public comment. Massachusetts
may revise the regulations and ECPs in response to comments. After
Massachusetts submits its final adopted supplemental SIP revision, EPA
will review this submittal to determine whether it is significantly
different from the proposal. EPA will determine whether it is
appropriate to approve the final rules and ECPs with a description of
any changes since the proposal, re-propose action based on the final
adopted regulations, or take other action as appropriate.

V. 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 14, 2012.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2012-12640 Filed 5-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 35669]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14515]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1917-000]

RE McKenzie 6 LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
RE McKenzie 6 LLC application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 21, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 1, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14515 Filed 6-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


SPCC 7 7 21 OPA 1997 0002 0075 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2050  0021 3. Type of information collection (check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c.  Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested (check one) a.  Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes  No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a.  Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /__

7. Title Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plans 8. Agency form number( s) (If applicable) 0328.08 9. Keywords Oil, oil spill 10. Abstract The Oil Pollution Prevention regulation requires certain regulated facilities to prepare and maintain SPCC Plans in order to prevent oil discharges.

11. Affected public (Mark primary with "P" and all others that apply with "X") a. Individuals or households d.  Farms b.  Business or other for profit e.  Federal Government c.  Not for profit institutions f.  State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond (Mark primary with "P" and all others that apply with "X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c.  Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 469,289 b. Total annual responses 469,993 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 2,828,150 d. Current OMB inventory 2,766,821 e. Difference 61,329 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 61,329 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden (in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $316 b. Total annual costs (O& M) $28,427 c. Total annualized cost requested $28,743 d. Current OMB inventory $305 e. Difference $28,438 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment $28,438 15. Purpose of information collection (Mark Primary With "P" and all others that apply with "X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g.  Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting (check all that apply) a.  Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c.  Reporting 1.  On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other (describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes  No 18. Agency contact (person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Hugo Fleischman Phone: 703 603 8769 OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29842-29843]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13616]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83478; File No. SR-ISE-2018-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the
Exchange's Rules Pertaining to Co-location and Direct Connectivity

June 20, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 5, 2018, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to relocate the Exchange's rules pertaining
to co-location and direct connectivity, which are presently at Section
VI, subsections E (co-location) and F-H (direct connectivity) of the
Exchange's Schedule of Fees, to the Exchange's new rulebook shell,
entitled ``General Rules,'' at new General 8 (``Connectivity''),
Sections 1 and 2, respectively.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://ise.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to relocate its rules governing co-location
and direct connectivity services, which presently comprise Section VI,
subsections E (co-location) and F-H (direct connectivity) of the
Exchange's Schedule of Fees. The Exchange proposes to establish, within
its new rulebook shell,\3\ a new General 8 heading, entitled
``Connectivity,'' to renumber Section VI, subsection E as Section 1
thereunder, and to renumber Section VI, subsections F, G, and H as
Section 2(a), (b), and (c) thereunder.\4\ The Exchange also proposes to
update internal cross-references in the renumbered Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Recently, the Exchange added a shell structure to its
Rulebook with the purpose of improving efficiency and readability
and to align its rules closer to those of its five sister exchanges:
The Nasdaq Stock Exchange, LLC; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Nasdaq PHLX LLC;
Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (together with ISE, the
``Affiliated Exchanges''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
82173 (November 29, 2017), 82 FR 57505 (December 5, 2017) (SR-ISE-
2017-102).
    \4\ The Exchange notes that as a consequence of this proposal,
it will list its fees, in part, in Section VI of the Rulebook and,
in part, in General 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange considers it appropriate to relocate these Rules to
better organize its Rulebook. The other Affiliated Exchanges intend to
propose similar reorganizations of their co-location and direct
connectivity rules so that these rules will be harmonized among all of
the Affiliated Exchanges.
    The relocation of the co-location and direct connectivity rules is
part of the Exchange's continued effort to promote efficiency and
conformity of its processes with those of its Affiliated Exchanges. The
Exchange believes that moving the co-location and direct connectivity
rules to their new location will facilitate the use of the Rulebook by
Members of the Exchange who are members of other Affiliated Exchanges.
Moreover, the proposed changes are of a non-substantive nature and will
not amend the relocated rules other than to update their numbers and
make conforming cross-reference changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by improving the way its Rulebook is organized, providing ease of
reference in locating co-location and direct connectivity rules, and
harmonizing the Exchange's Rules with those of the other Affiliated
Exchanges. As previously stated, the proposed Rule relocation is non-
substantive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket or intra-market competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed changes do not impose a burden on competition because, as
previously stated, they (i) are of a non-substantive nature, (ii) are
intended to harmonize the Exchange's rules with those of its Affiliated
Exchanges, and (iii) are intended to organize the Rulebook in a way
that it will ease the Members' navigation and reading of the rules
across the Affiliated Exchanges.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \9\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. The
proposed rule change merely relocates the co-location and direct
connectivity rules in the Exchange's Schedule of Fees, as well as
corrects a technical error.\11\ Accordingly, the Commission believes
that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest and hereby waives the
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon
filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ Specifically, with respect to Point of Presence (POP)
Connectivity, the Exchange corrects an incorrect reference to GEMX
in the rule text to ISE.
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2018-54 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2018-54. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2018-54, and should be submitted on
or before July 17, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13616 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P