[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45242-45253]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20721]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0083; FRL-9968-43-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Nonattainment Plan for the
Central New Hampshire SO2 Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision that the State of
New Hampshire submitted to EPA on January 31, 2017 for attaining the 1-
hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) for the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment
Area. This plan (herein called a ``nonattainment plan'') includes New
Hampshire's attainment demonstration and other elements required under
the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition to an attainment demonstration,
the nonattainment plan addresses the requirement for meeting reasonable
further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the NAAQS, reasonably
available control measures and reasonably available control technology
(RACM/RACT), base-year and projection-year emission inventories, and
contingency measures. As a part of approving the attainment
demonstration, EPA is also proposing to approve SO2 emission
limits and associated compliance parameters for Merrimack Station into
the New Hampshire SIP. EPA proposes to conclude that New Hampshire has
appropriately demonstrated that the nonattainment plan provisions
provide for attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS
in the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area by the applicable
attainment date and that the nonattainment plan meets the other
applicable requirements under the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2017-0083 at http://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, 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. 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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leiran Biton, EPA New England, 5 Post
Office Square Suite 100, Mail Code OEP05-2, Boston, MA 02109-3912;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Why was New Hampshire required to submit an SO2 plan
for the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment area?
II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area Plans
III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer-Term Averaging
IV. Review of Modeled Attainment Plan
    A. Model Selection and Modeling Components
    B. Area of Analysis
    C. Receptor Grid
    D. Meteorological Data
    E. Source Characterization
    F. Emissions Data
    G. Emission Limits
    1. Enforceability
    2. Longer-Term Average Limits
    H. Background Concentrations
    I. Summary of Results
V. Review of Other Plan Requirements
    A. Emissions Inventory
    B. RACM/RACT
    C. New Source Review (NSR)
    D. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
    E. Contingency Measures
VI. Additional Elements of New Hampshire's Submittal
    A. Conformity
    B. Changes in Allowable Emissions
    C. Air Quality Trends
    D. Compliance With Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
    E. Equivalency Techniques
VII. EPA's Proposed Action
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Why was New Hampshire required to submit an SO2 plan for
the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment area?

    On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at an
ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations does not
exceed 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR
part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). On August 5,
2013, EPA designated a first set of 29 areas of the country as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including the Central
New Hampshire Nonattainment Area within the State of New Hampshire. See
78 FR 47191, codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C. These area
designations were effective October 4, 2013. Section 191 of the CAA
directs states to submit SIPs for areas designated as nonattainment for
the SO2 NAAQS to EPA within 18 months of the effective date
of the designation, i.e., by no later than April 4, 2015 in this case.
These SIPs are required to demonstrate that their respective areas will
attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5
years from the effective date of designation, which is October 4, 2018.
    For a number of areas, including the Central New Hampshire
Nonattainment Area, EPA published a notice on March 18, 2016 that New
Hampshire and other pertinent states had failed to submit the required
SO2 nonattainment plan by the submittal deadline. See 81 FR
14736. This finding initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for
the potential imposition of new source and highway funding sanctions,
and for EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) under
section 110(c) of the CAA. In response to the requirement for
SO2 nonattainment plan submittals, New Hampshire submitted a
nonattainment plan for the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area on
January 31, 2017. Pursuant to New Hampshire's January 31, 2017
submittal and EPA's subsequent letter dated March 20, 2017 to New
Hampshire finding the submittal complete and noting the stopping of the
sanctions deadline, these sanctions under section 179(a) will not be
imposed. However, to

stop the deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP, the state must have made
the necessary complete submittal and EPA must have approved the
submittal as meeting applicable requirements no later than two years
after the prior finding of failure to submit. Therefore, EPA remains
under a FIP deadline of April 18, 2018. This FIP obligation will not
apply if EPA issues final approval of New Hampshire's SIP submittal by
April 18, 2018.
    The remainder of this preamble describes the requirements that
nonattainment plans must meet in order to obtain EPA approval, provides
a review of the State's plan with respect to these requirements, and
describes EPA's proposed action on the plan.

II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area Plans

    Nonattainment SIPs must meet the applicable requirements of the
CAA, and specifically CAA sections 110, 172, 191 and 192. EPA's
regulations governing nonattainment SIPs are set forth at 40 CFR part
51, with specific procedural requirements and control strategy
requirements residing at subparts F and G, respectively. Soon after
Congress enacted the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, EPA issued
comprehensive guidance on SIPs in a document entitled, ``General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990,'' published at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)
(General Preamble). Among other things, the General Preamble addressed
SO2 SIPs and fundamental principles for SIP control
strategies. Id., at 13545-49, 13567-68. On April 23, 2014, EPA issued
recommended guidance for meeting the statutory requirements in
SO2 SIPs, in a document entitled, ``Guidance for 1-Hour
SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,'' available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf. In this guidance, EPA described
the statutory requirements for a complete nonattainment area SIP, which
includes: An accurate emissions inventory of current emissions for all
sources of SO2 within the nonattainment area, an attainment
demonstration, demonstration of RFP, implementation of RACM (including
RACT), an approvable NSR program, enforceable emissions limitations and
control measures as needed for timely attainment, and adequate
contingency measures for the affected area.
    In order for EPA to fully approve a SIP as meeting the requirements
of CAA sections 110, 172, 191, and 192, and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR
part 51, the SIP for the affected area needs to demonstrate to EPA's
satisfaction that each of the aforementioned requirements has been met.
Under CAA sections 110(l) and 193, EPA may not approve a SIP that would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning NAAQS attainment
and RFP, or any other applicable requirement under the CAA.
Furthermore, no requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an
order, settlement, agreement, or plan in effect before November 15,
1990, in any nonattainment area for any air pollutant, may be modified
in any manner unless it ensures equivalent or greater emission
reductions of such air pollutant.

III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer-Term Averaging

    CAA sections 172(c)(1) and (6) direct states with areas designated
as nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted plan provides for
attainment of the NAAQS. Forty CFR part 51, subpart G further
delineates the control strategy requirements that SIPs must meet, and
EPA has long required that all SIPs and control strategies reflect four
fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability,
replicability, and accountability. See General Preamble, at 13567-68.
SO2 attainment plans must consist of two components: (1)
Emission limits and other control measures that assure implementation
of permanent, enforceable, and necessary emission controls; and (2) a
modeling analysis that meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 51,
appendix W (the Guideline on Air Quality Models; ``the Guideline'') and
demonstrates that these emission limits and control measures provide
for timely attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but by no later than the attainment date
for the affected area. In all cases, the emission limits and control
measures must be accompanied by appropriate methods and conditions to
determine compliance with the respective emission limits and control
measures and must be quantifiable (i.e., a specific amount of emission
reduction can be ascribed to the measures), fully enforceable
(specifying clear, unambiguous, and measurable requirements for which
compliance can be practicably determined), replicable (the procedures
for determining compliance are sufficiently specific and non-subjective
so that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain
the same result), and accountable (source specific limits must be
permanent and must reflect the assumptions used in the SIP
demonstrations).
    EPA's April 2014 guidance recommends that the emission limits be
expressed as short-term average limits (e.g., addressing emissions
averaged over one or three hours), but also describes the option to
utilize emission limits with longer averaging times of up to 30 days so
long as the state meets various suggested criteria. See April 2014
guidance, pp. 22 to 39. The guidance recommends that--should states and
sources utilize longer averaging times--the longer-term average limit
should be set at an adjusted level that reflects a stringency
comparable to the 1-hour average limit at the critical emission value
shown to provide for attainment that the plan otherwise would have set.
    The April 2014 guidance provides an extensive discussion of EPA's
rationale for concluding that appropriately set comparably stringent
limitations based on averaging times as long as 30 days can be found to
provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In evaluating
this option, EPA considered the nature of the standard, conducted
detailed analyses of how 30-day average limits impact attainment of the
standard, and carefully reviewed how best to achieve an appropriate
balance among the various factors that warrant consideration in judging
whether a state's plan provides for attainment. Id. at pp. 22 to 39.
See also id. at appendices B, C, and D.
    As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour
concentrations is less than or equal to 75 parts per billion. In a year
with 365 days of valid monitoring data, the 99th percentile would be
the fourth highest daily maximum 1-hour value. The 2010 SO2
NAAQS, including this form of determining compliance with the standard,
was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit in Nat'l Envt'l Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA, 686 F.3d
803 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Because the standard has this form, a single
exceedance does not create a violation of the standard. Instead, at
issue is whether a source operating in compliance with a properly set
longer-term average could cause exceedances, and if so what the
resulting frequency and magnitude of such exceedances will be, and in
particular whether EPA can have reasonable confidence that a properly
set longer-term average limit will provide that the average fourth
highest daily maximum value will be at or below 75 ppb. A synopsis of
how EPA judges whether such plans

``provide for attainment,'' based on modeling of projected allowable
emissions and in light of the form of the NAAQS for determining
attainment at monitoring sites, follows.
    For plans for SO2 based on 1-hour emission limits, the
standard approach is to conduct modeling using fixed emission rates.
The maximum emission rate that would be modeled to result in attainment
(i.e., in an ``average year'' \1\ shows three, not four days with
maximum hourly levels exceeding 75 ppb) is labeled the ``critical
emission value.'' The modeling process for identifying this critical
emission value inherently considers the numerous variables that affect
ambient concentrations of SO2, such as meteorological data,
background concentrations, and topography. In the standard approach,
the state would then provide for attainment by setting a continuously
applicable 1-hour emission limit at this critical emission value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An ``average year'' is used to mean a year with average air
quality. While 40 CFR 50 appendix T provides for averaging three
years of 99th percentile daily maximum values (e.g., the fourth
highest maximum daily concentration in a year with 365 days with
valid data), this discussion and an example below uses a single
``average year'' in order to simplify the illustration of relevant
principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recognizes that some sources have highly variable emissions,
for example due to variations in fuel sulfur content and operating
rate, that can make it extremely difficult, even with a well-designed
control strategy, to ensure in practice that emissions for any given
hour do not exceed the critical emission value. EPA also acknowledges
the concern that longer-term emission limits can allow short periods
with emissions above the critical emission value, which, if coincident
with meteorological conditions conducive to high SO2
concentrations, could in turn create the possibility of a NAAQS
exceedance occurring on a day when an exceedance would not have
occurred if emissions were continuously controlled at the level
corresponding to the critical emission value. However, for several
reasons, EPA believes that the approach recommended in our guidance
document suitably addresses this concern. First, from a practical
perspective, EPA expects the actual emission profile of a source
subject to an appropriately set longer-term average limit to be similar
to the emission profile of a source subject to an analogous 1-hour
average limit. EPA expects this similarity because it has recommended
that the longer-term average limit be set at a level that is comparably
stringent to the otherwise applicable 1-hour limit (reflecting a
downward adjustment from the critical emission value) and that takes
the source's emission profile into account. As a result, EPA expects
either form of emission limit to yield comparable air quality.
    Second, from a more theoretical perspective, EPA has compared the
likely air quality with a source having maximum allowable emissions
under an appropriately set longer-term limit, as compared to the likely
air quality with the source having maximum allowable emissions under
the comparable 1-hour limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour average
limit scenario, the source is presumed at all times to emit at the
critical emission level, and in the longer-term average limit scenario,
the source is presumed occasionally to emit more than the critical
emission value but on average, and presumably at most times, to emit
well below the critical emission value. In an ``average year,''
compliance with the 1-hour limit is expected to result in three
exceedance days (i.e., three days with hourly values above 75 ppb) and
a fourth day with a maximum hourly value at 75 ppb. By comparison, with
the source complying with a longer-term limit, it is possible that
additional exceedances would occur that would not occur in the 1-hour
limit scenario (if emissions exceed the critical emission value at
times when meteorology is conducive to poor air quality). However, this
comparison must also factor in the likelihood that exceedances that
would be expected in the 1-hour limit scenario would not occur in the
longer-term limit scenario. This result arises because the longer-term
limit requires lower emissions most of the time (because the limit is
set well below the critical emission value), so a source complying with
an appropriately set longer-term limit is likely to have lower
emissions at critical times than would be the case if the source were
emitting as allowed with a 1-hour limit.
    As a hypothetical example to illustrate these points, suppose a
source always emits 1,000 pounds of SO2 per hour and results
in air quality at the level of the NAAQS (i.e., results in a design
value of 75 ppb). Suppose further that in an ``average year,'' these
emissions cause the five highest maximum daily average 1-hour
concentrations to be 100 ppb, 90 ppb, 80 ppb, 75 ppb, and 70 ppb. Then
suppose that the source becomes subject to a 30-day average emission
limit of 700 pounds per hour. It is theoretically possible for a source
meeting this limit to have emissions that occasionally exceed 1,000
pounds per hour, but with a typical emission profile, emissions would
much more commonly be between 600 and 800 pounds per hour. In this
simplified example, assume a zero background concentration, which
allows one to assume a linear relationship between emissions and air
quality. (A nonzero background concentration would make the mathematics
more difficult but would give similar results.) Air quality will depend
on what emissions occur during critical hours, but suppose that
emissions at the relevant times on these 5 days are 800 pounds per
hour, 1,100 pounds per hour, 500 pounds per hour, 900 pounds per hour,
and 1,200 pounds per hour, respectively. (This is a conservative
example because the average of these emissions, 900 pounds per hour, is
well over the 30-day average emission limit.) These emissions would
result in daily maximum 1-hour concentrations of 80 ppb, 99 ppb, 40
ppb, 67.5 ppb, and 84 ppb. In this example, the fifth day would have an
exceedance that would not otherwise have occurred, but the third and
fourth days would not have exceedances that otherwise would have
occurred. In this example, the fourth highest maximum daily
concentration under the 30-day average would be 67.5 ppb.
    This simplified example illustrates the findings of a more
complicated statistical analysis that EPA conducted using a range of
scenarios using actual plant data. As described in appendix B of EPA's
April 2014 SO2 nonattainment planning guidance, EPA found
that the requirement for lower average emissions is highly likely to
yield better air quality than is required with a comparably stringent
1-hour limit. Based on analyses described in appendix B of our April
2014 guidance, EPA expects that an emission profile with maximum
allowable emissions under an appropriately set comparably stringent 30-
day average limit is likely to have the net effect of having a lower
number of exceedances and better air quality than an emission profile
with maximum allowable emissions under a 1-hour emission limit at the
critical emission value. This result provides a compelling policy
rationale for allowing the use of a longer averaging period in
appropriate circumstances where the facts indicate this result can be
expected to occur.
    The question then becomes whether this approach--which is likely to
produce a lower number of overall exceedances even though it may
produce some unexpected exceedances above the critical emission value--
meets the requirement in section 110(a)(1) and 172(c)(1) and (6) for
state implementation plans to ``provide for

attainment'' of the NAAQS. For SO2, as for other pollutants,
it is generally impossible to design a nonattainment plan in the
present that will guarantee that attainment will occur in the future. A
variety of factors can cause a well-designed attainment plan to fail
and unexpectedly not result in attainment, for example if meteorology
occurs that is more conducive to poor air quality than was anticipated
in the plan. Therefore, in determining whether a plan meets the
requirement to provide for attainment, EPA's task is commonly to judge
not whether the plan provides absolute certainty that attainment will
in fact occur, but rather whether the plan provides an adequate level
of confidence of prospective NAAQS attainment. From this perspective,
in evaluating use of a 30-day average limit, EPA must weigh the likely
net effect on air quality. Such an evaluation must consider the risk
that occasions with meteorology conducive to high concentrations will
have elevated emissions leading to exceedances that would not otherwise
have occurred, and must also weigh the likelihood that the requirement
for lower emissions on average will result in days not having
exceedances that would have been expected with emissions at the
critical emission value. Additional policy considerations, such as in
this case the desirability of accommodating real world emissions
variability without significant risk of violations, are also
appropriate factors for EPA to weigh in judging whether a plan provides
a reasonable degree of confidence that the plan will lead to
attainment. Based on these considerations, especially given the high
likelihood that a continuously enforceable limit averaged over as long
as 30 days, determined in accordance with EPA's guidance, will result
in attainment, EPA believes as a general matter that such limits, if
appropriately determined, can reasonably be considered to provide for
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    The April 2014 guidance offers specific recommendations for
determining an appropriate longer-term average limit. The recommended
method starts with determination of the 1-hour emission limit that
would provide for attainment (i.e., the critical emission value), and
applies an adjustment factor to determine the (lower) level of the
longer-term average emission limit that would be estimated to have a
stringency comparable to the otherwise necessary 1-hour emission limit.
This method uses a database of continuous emission data reflecting the
type of control that the source will be using to comply with the SIP
emission limits, which (if compliance requires new controls) may
require use of an emission database from another source. The
recommended method involves using these data to compute a complete set
of emission averages, computed according to the averaging time and
averaging procedures of the prospective emission limitation. In this
recommended method, the ratio of the 99th percentile among these
longer-term averages to the 99th percentile of the 1-hour values
represents an adjustment factor that may be multiplied by the candidate
1-hour emission limit to determine a longer-term average emission limit
that may be considered comparably stringent.\2\ The guidance also
addresses a variety of related topics, such as the potential utility of
setting supplemental emission limits, such as mass-based limits, to
reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude of elevated emission levels that
might occur under the longer-term emission rate limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For example, if the critical emission value is 1,000 pounds
of SO2 per hour, and a suitable adjustment factor is
determined to be 70 percent, the recommended longer-term average
limit would be 700 pounds per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are
described in appendix A of EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models. In
2005, EPA promulgated AERMOD as the Agency's preferred near-field
dispersion modeling for a wide range of regulatory applications
addressing stationary sources (for example in estimating SO2
concentrations) in all types of terrain based on extensive
developmental and performance evaluation. On December 20, 2016, EPA
revised the Guideline, which provided additional regulatory options and
updated methods for dispersion modeling with AERMOD; the updates became
effective on May 22, 2017. Supplemental guidance on modeling for
purposes of demonstrating attainment of the SO2 standard is
provided in appendix A to the April 23, 2014 SO2
nonattainment area SIP guidance document referenced above. Appendix A
of the guidance provides extensive guidance on the modeling domain,
source inputs, assorted types of meteorological data, and background
concentrations. Consistency with the recommendations in this guidance
is generally necessary for the attainment demonstration to offer
adequately reliable assurance that the plan provides for attainment.
    As stated previously, attainment demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS must demonstrate future attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS in the entire area designated as nonattainment
(i.e., not just at the violating monitor) by using air quality
dispersion modeling to show that the mix of sources and enforceable
control measures and emission rates in an identified area will not lead
to a violation of the SO2 NAAQS. For a short-term (e.g., 1-
hour) standard, EPA believes that dispersion modeling using allowable
emissions and addressing stationary sources in the affected area (and
in some cases those sources located outside the nonattainment area
which may affect attainment in the area) is technically appropriate,
efficient, and effective in demonstrating attainment in nonattainment
areas because it takes into consideration combinations of
meteorological and emission source operating conditions that may
contribute to peak ground-level concentrations of SO2.
    The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be
processed with the most recent version of AERMET. Estimated
concentrations should include ambient background concentrations, should
follow the form of the standard, and should be calculated as described
in the August 23, 2010 clarification memo on ``Applicability of
Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hr SO2 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard.''

IV. Review of Modeled Attainment Plan

    The following discussion evaluates various features of the modeling
that New Hampshire used in its attainment demonstration.

A. Model Selection and Modeling Components

    New Hampshire's attainment demonstration used EPA's preferred model
AERMOD (version 15181) with default options (e.g., without use of the
ADJ_U* option) and rural dispersion coefficients for this application.
The AERMOD modeling system contains the following components:

--AERMOD: The dispersion model
--AERMAP: The terrain processor for AERMOD
--AERMET: The meteorological data processor for AERMOD
--BPIP-PRIME: The building input processor
--AERMINUTE: A pre-processor to AERMET incorporating 1-minute automated
surface observation system (ASOS) wind data
--AERSURFACE: The surface characteristics processor for AERMET
--AERSCREEN: A screening version of AERMOD

    For any dispersion modeling exercise, the ``urban'' or ``rural''
determination of

a source is important in determining the boundary layer characteristics
that affect the model's prediction of downwind concentrations. For
SO2 modeling, the urban/rural determination is important
because AERMOD invokes a 4-hour half-life for urban SO2
sources.
    To investigate whether the rural determination was correct, EPA
examined aerial imagery within 3 km of the facility and classified land
use within the total area, as described in section <IP_ADDRESS> of the
Guideline. Using this approach, EPA found that less than 50 percent of
the land use in the area reflected urban characteristics, and that
therefore, consistent with the State's selection, rural dispersion
characteristics were most appropriate for use in this assessment.
    The State used AERMOD version 15181, the most up-to-date version at
the time the area was modeled, using all regulatory default options.
AERMOD version 16216r has since become the regulatory model version.
There were no updates from 15181 to 16216r that would significantly
affect the concentrations predicted here.
    The ADJ_U* option, which adjusts the minimum surface roughness
velocity under stable, low-wind speed conditions, was not invoked by
the State. Not invoking ADJ_U*, as in the demonstration submitted by
New Hampshire, may result in higher modeled concentrations; therefore,
this element of the model option selection is conservative (i.e.,
unlikely to underpredict concentrations).
    EPA finds this selection appropriate because this model version
using default options is sufficiently up to date, the rural option
selection is in line with site characteristics, and the selection of
default surface roughness velocity characteristics (i.e., no ADJ_U*) is
not expected to underpredict concentrations.

B. Area of Analysis

    New Hampshire accounted for SO2 impacts in the modeling
domain, which extends in a 50 km radius around Merrimack Station and
includes both locations within and outside of the nonattainment area,
through the inclusion of measured background levels and explicitly
modeled emission sources. The only source New Hampshire included
explicitly in the modeling was Merrimack Station. In the narrative of
the January 31, 2017 SIP submittal, New Hampshire indicated that other
emitters of SO2 were accounted for in the background levels
monitored within the nonattainment area. (The approach for developing
the monitored background levels is described in detail in section IV.H,
below.) In the submittal, New Hampshire also identified sources with
annual emissions greater than 100 tons SO2 per year outside
of the nonattainment area. Specifically, in the submission to EPA, New
Hampshire identified Schiller Station and Newington Station, which are
both located in the New Hampshire seacoast area approximately 55 km to
the east southeast of Merrimack Station, as the principal nearby
emitters of over 100 tons SO2 annually. Schiller and
Newington stations are each located about 30 km from the boundary of
the nonattainment area.
    For the purpose of ensuring that no other sources of SO2
were inappropriately excluded in New Hampshire's modeling, EPA reviewed
its 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), version 1 for sources
within or nearby to the nonattainment area. During this review, EPA
identified one additional source in the region that has emitted greater
than 100 tons of SO2 annually, though not within the Central
New Hampshire Nonattainment Area. The source, Monadnock Paper Mills
Inc. (Monadnock Paper), a pulp and paper facility located in
Bennington, New Hampshire approximately 40 km to the southwest of
Merrimack Station and 24 km from the closest portion of the
nonattainment area, emitted 148 tons SO2 in 2014 according
to the 2014 NEI.
    EPA examined whether Monadnock Paper might have an influence on the
nonattainment area. The main criterion described in section 8.3 of the
Guideline for establishing whether a secondary source is adequately
represented by ambient monitoring data is whether that secondary source
causes a significant concentration gradient in the vicinity of the
primary source under consideration. In this context, secondary sources
that do not cause a significant concentration gradient are typically
considered to be adequately represented in the monitored ambient
background. Based on the magnitude of emissions and distance relative
to the nonattainment area, EPA believes it is unlikely that Monadnock
Paper will cause a significant concentration gradient within the
nonattainment area and has concluded that Monadnock Paper is adequately
represented in the monitored ambient background.
    To examine the possible influence of other sources on the
nonattainment area, EPA considered the most recent modeling assessment
for Schiller and Newington stations provided by New Hampshire to EPA in
February 2017 for purposes of SO2 designations. That
modeling and EPA's evaluation of it are described in detail in the New
Hampshire technical support document for EPA's intended designations
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, for which EPA sent letters to states
on August 22, 2017. Based on this information, EPA found no significant
concentration gradient due to emissions from Schiller Station or
Newington Station within the nonattainment area and has concluded that
both stations are adequately represented in the monitored ambient
background.
    Additionally, EPA believes that the background levels reasonably
account for other sources influencing air quality within the
nonattainment area because data used to develop background levels
include hours during which those sources may have impacted the
monitors.
    Therefore, based on the reasoning provided in the preceding
paragraphs, EPA concludes that the State appropriately accounted for
these other sources through the inclusion of monitored background
concentrations (see section IV.H below).

C. Receptor Grid

    Within AERMOD, air quality concentration results are calculated at
discrete locations identified by the user; these locations are called
receptors. The receptor placement for the area of analysis selected by
the State is a network of polar grids centered on Merrimack Station to
a distance of 50 km in all directions. Polar grid radii were spaced at
10 degree intervals. Receptors were placed every 20 meters along the
perimeter of and excluded within the facility. Polar receptors along
the radii were spaced as follows:

--20-meter spacing to 200 meters;
--50-meter spacing from 200 meters to 500 meters;
--100-meter spacing from 500 meters to 2 km;
--250-meter spacing from 2 km to 10 km;
--500-meter spacing from 10 km to 30 km; and
--1,000-meter spacing from 30 km to 50 km.

    In addition to the 4,349 receptors included in the description
above, the State included 2,308 additional receptors in dense Cartesian
arrays with 100-meter spatial resolution, over areas of expected
maximum predicted concentrations based on preliminary modeling.
Specifically, this was done in areas of complex terrain features at
distances between 5 and 15 km of Merrimack Station.
    The receptor network contained a total of 6,657 receptors, covering
a

circular area of 50 km in radius, including the entirety of the
nonattainment area. EPA finds that the modeling domain and receptor
network are sufficient to identify maximum impacts from Merrimack
Station, and are therefore adequate for characterizing the
nonattainment area.

D. Meteorological Data

    New Hampshire used AERMOD's meteorological data preprocessor AERMET
(version 15181) with 2 years of surface and concurrent upper air
meteorological data. The State relied on site-specific surface
observations collected at Merrimack Station in Bow, New Hampshire
during the 23-month period from January 1994 through November 1995 at
five meteorological tower measurement levels and fifteen SODAR (Sound
Detection and Ranging) levels. In addition, the State used surface
observations from the National Weather Service (NWS) station at Concord
Municipal Airport in Concord, New Hampshire (WBAN Station No. 14745) in
the following ways: (1) To supplement site-specific surface data with
additional parameters (sky cover, ceiling height, and surface pressure)
not available in the site-specific meteorological data, (2) to
substitute for missing site-specific wind observations (51 hours of the
16,776 hours of the 23 month period), and (3) to extend the
meteorological dataset through December 1995 to develop a full 2-year
analysis period. Concord Municipal Airport is approximately 7 km to the
north-northwest of Merrimack Station. The State used coincident upper
air observations from different NWS stations located in Portland, Maine
(WBAN Station No. 14764) from January 1, 1994 through September 21,
1994, and Gray, Maine (WBAN Station No. 54762) from September 22, 1994
through December 31, 1995. (The Portland station ceased its upper air
observations on September 22, 1994, when the Gray station began its
upper air observations.) The Portland station is around 110 km to the
northeast of Merrimack and the Gray station is around 130 km to the
northeast of Merrimack.
    New Hampshire also considered the use of more recent (2008-2012)
NWS data collected at Concord Municipal Airport. The State cited two
potential advantages of using this alternative dataset, mainly that it
was significantly newer and included data derived from 1-minute
resolution observations using the AERMINUTE preprocessor to AERMET. New
Hampshire weighed these considerations against the advantages of using
the 1994-1995 site-specific data, specifically: (1) The observation
height for the site-specific data is closer in height to the stacks at
Merrimack Station than the 8 meter collection height for the NWS data;
(2) the site-specific wind direction data are more representative of
the channeling effect within the Merrimack River valley in the location
of Merrimack Station; and (3) use of the site-specific data would be
consistent with previous modeling of Merrimack, which relied on the
site-specific meteorology.
    EPA concurs with the choice of surface and upper air meteorological
data inputs as being appropriately representative of site-specific
meteorology. Specifically, EPA has judged the representativeness of the
measured surface meteorological data according to the following four
factors, as listed in section 8.4.1(b) to the Guideline: (1) The
proximity of the meteorological monitoring site to the area under
consideration, (2) the complexity of the terrain, (3) the exposure of
the meteorological monitoring site, and (4) the period of time during
which data are collected. Regarding proximity (factor 1), the site-
specific data is preferred over the more distant NWS data, though both
data sources are sufficiently close to be appropriately representative
of the site. Regarding the complexity of terrain (factor 2), both
Concord and the site-specific location show wind flow patterns with
predominant northwest flow and secondary southeast flows, but the site-
specific data show a more pronounced valley channeling effect with
fewer hours with wind flow in other directions. In terms of exposure of
the site, neither location appears to be exposed in a way that would
have biased data collection (factor 3). Finally, regarding the data
collection time period (factor 4), the more recent data at the NWS
station would allow for use of 1-minute resolution data for more
accurate wind data inputs, and would be preferred for this factor.
Notwithstanding the age of the onsite data, current land-use is
comparable to historical land-use, so that the historic meteorological
data are sufficiently representative of current conditions. In summary,
based on the four factors described above, despite the availability of
recent nearby NWS data, the analysis suggests that the 1994-1995 site-
specific data augmented with NWS data are more representative of
conditions pertinent to releases at Merrimack Station. The 23 months of
site-specific data supplemented with 1 additional month of NWS data
represent an appropriate study period, consistent with EPA guidance
contained in section 8.4.2(e) of the Guideline, which states that at
least 1 year of site-specific meteorological data are required to
ensure that worst-case meteorological conditions are adequately
represented in the model results. The upper air stations selected for
the analysis are the closest sites and are suitably representative of
the upper air in the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area, and are
therefore most appropriate for developing upper air profiles for the
State's modeling analysis.
    The State used AERSURFACE version 13016 using land cover data from
the 1992 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) for both surface data
collection locations to estimate the surface characteristics (albedo,
Bowen ratio, and surface roughness length) of the area of analysis. The
State estimated surface roughness length values for 12 spatial sectors
out to the recommended radius of 1 km at a monthly temporal resolution
for average surface moisture conditions. EPA concurs with New
Hampshire's approach to developing relevant surface characteristics for
use in processing meteorological data for this area.

E. Source Characterization

    EPA also reviewed the State's source characterization in its
modeling assessment, including source types, use of accurate stack
parameters, and inclusion of building dimensions for building downwash.
The State's source characterization in its modeling demonstration was
consistent with the recommendations included in the Guideline. The
source used actual stack height (445 feet), which EPA determined to be
good engineering practice (GEP) height using BPIP-PRIME. The State also
adequately characterized the source's building layout and location, as
well as the stack parameters, e.g., exit temperature, exit velocity,
location, and diameter. EPA verified the position of buildings and
stacks using aerial imagery and relevant stack parameters based on
permit conditions.

F. Emissions Data

    New Hampshire included maximum allowable 1-hour emissions from
Merrimack Station in its modeled attainment demonstration for the
Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area. The State indicated that
SO2 air quality in the area is almost entirely characterized
by emissions from the two primary boilers at Merrimack Station, and
this informed the State's decision to only explicitly model
SO2 emissions from Merrimack Station. Additional

units (i.e., two peak combustion turbines, an emergency generator, an
emergency boiler, and a fire pump) at Merrimack Station operate
infrequently and were treated as intermittent sources; therefore, they
were excluded from the modeling.\3\ The State provided historical
(2011-2014) counts of hours of operation for these units to bolster its
contention that these units do not contribute to the annual
distribution of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations. Specifically,
during the 2011-2014 period, the two turbines were operated during an
average of 40 and 45 hours per year, the emergency generator during an
average of 17 hours per year, the emergency boiler during an average of
43 hours per year, and the fire pump during an average of 3 hours per
year. The maximum annual usage of any of these pieces of equipment
during that time was 114 hours for combustion turbine 1 in 2014. The
emergency generator is limited through section Env-A 1311.02(a) of New
Hampshire's SIP-approved air pollution control regulations, to a
maximum of 500 hours of operation during any consecutive 12-month
period. The fire pump is limited to a maximum of 100 hours for
maintenance and testing during any consecutive 12-month period because
it is subject to EPA's New Source Performance Standards for stationary
internal combustion engines, specifically 40 CFR 60.4211(e). These
utilization levels and patterns are consistent with EPA's assessment of
intermittent emissions based on the March 1, 2011 EPA guidance. EPA
believes that this treatment is appropriate for those units in this
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The March 1, 2011 EPA memorandum from Tyler Fox to EPA
Regional Air Division Directors entitled ``Additional Clarification
Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour
NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' which also
includes information relevant to modeling for SO2,
addresses treatment of intermittent sources. This guidance indicates
that air permitting authorities have discretion to exclude certain
types of intermittent emissions for modeling the 1-hour NAAQS on a
case-specific basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Hampshire provided attainment modeling used to support its
establishment of emission rates for Merrimack Station. In establishing
the emission limits, the State followed EPA's April 2014 guidance by
using modeling to develop a critical emission value and adjustment
factor to establish a longer term limit for Merrimack. The State
modeled three ``normal operating scenarios,'' comprised of one scenario
with maximum operation of both utility boilers (scenario 1), and two
other scenarios with maximum operation of each boiler individually
(scenarios 2 and 3, respectively). In 2011, New Hampshire issued a
permit (TP-0008) for Merrimack Station that contained, among other
things, SO2 emission limits associated with a flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) system. The FGD was required to be installed at
Merrimack Station by the New Hampshire legislature. See New Hampshire
Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 125-O:11. EPA approved the
SO2-related source-specific requirements of that permit into
the New Hampshire SIP as part of the State's regional haze SIP
submittal. See 77 FR 50602 (August 22, 2012). In September 2016, New
Hampshire issued a second permit (TP-0189) for Merrimack Station, which
included SO2 emission limits specifically designed to ensure
compliance with the SO2 NAAQS. The emission limits included
in TP-0189, and which New Hampshire has proposed for inclusion in the
State's SIP, apply at all times. The State's modeling established a
critical emission value of 2,544 pounds (lb) SO2 per hour
for scenario 1, which the State concluded is comparably stringent to a
7-boiler operating day rolling average limit of 0.39 lb SO2
per million British thermal units (MMBtu). The 7-boiler operating day
rolling average emissions limits that would be comparably stringent to
the 1-hour critical emission value under scenarios 2 and 3 would be
0.92 and 0.47 lb SO2/MMBtu, respectively. Because scenario 1
was the basis for establishing this limit, and the limit (0.39 lb/
MMBtu) is more stringent than the limits that would have been
established for either scenario 2 or 3 (0.92 and 0.47 lb/MMBtu,
respectively), using emissions from scenario 1 as the basis of the
modeling analysis is appropriate. See section IV.G.2 below for further
details on the emissions in the State's attainment modeling, including
discussion of the State's conclusion of comparable stringency with the
critical emission value.
    In summary, EPA concurs with the State's selection in its
attainment demonstration modeling of emissions from utility boilers at
Merrimack Station, and exclusion of additional emission sources at
Merrimack due to their intermittent operation.

G. Emission Limits

    An important prerequisite for approval of a nonattainment plan is
that the emission limits that provide for attainment be quantifiable,
fully enforceable, replicable, and accountable. See General Preamble at
13567-68. The limits that New Hampshire's plan relies on for Merrimack
Station are expressed as 7-boiler operating day rolling average limits,
where a boiler operating day is defined as a 24-hour period that begins
at midnight and ends the following midnight during which any fuel is
combusted at any time in the boiler; it is not necessary for the fuel
to be combusted for the entire 24-hour period. Therefore, part of the
review of New Hampshire's nonattainment plan must address the use of
these limits, both with respect to the general suitability of using
such limits for this purpose and with respect to whether the particular
limits included in the plan have been suitably demonstrated to provide
for attainment. The first subsection that follows addresses the
enforceability of the limits in the plan, and the second subsection
that follows addresses in particular the 7-boiler operating day average
limits.
1. Enforceability
    On September 1, 2016, New Hampshire issued a permit, TP-0189, to
Public Service of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy for Merrimack
Station. The permit became effective and enforceable upon issuance, and
was issued pursuant to RSA 125-C:11. These requirements are more
stringent than the applicable measures for the facility, which require
90% reduction for both MK1 and MK2, as incorporated into the SIP by
reference to Table 4, Items 6 and 8 of TP-0008. EPA considers the 30-
boiler operating day limits included in TP-0189 (specifically, Table 4,
Item 2) to supersede the conditions specified in Table 4, Items 6 and 8
of TP-0008.
    Monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping requirements related to all
of the permit's SO2 emission limits are clearly described in
the permit and ensure that the limits are quantifiable, fully
enforceable, and replicable. The accountability of the limits is
established through the State's inclusion of the permit limits in its
nonattainment plan, and its modeling demonstration using the 1-hour
emission levels that are comparably stringent to the permit limits. In
accordance with EPA policy, the 7-boiler operating day average limit
for Merrimack Station is set at a lower level than the critical
emission value used in the attainment demonstration; the relationship
between these two values is discussed in more detail in the following
section.
2. Longer-Term Average Limits
    New Hampshire developed a critical emission value for each of the
three normal operating scenarios (see section IV.F above) using a
target concentration threshold of 183.2 micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\) by subtracting a background value of 12.8 [mu]g/m\3\, the

highest hour-by-season background value (see section IV.H below), from
196 [mu]g/m\3\, which is equivalent to the level of the NAAQS of 75
ppb.\4\ The State then divided the target concentration threshold by
the maximum predicted 99th percentile concentration using a unit
emission rate (i.e., 1 lb/hr) for each normal operating scenario to
establish the critical emission value for each scenario (e.g., 2,544
lb/hr, equivalent to a limit of 0.54 lb/MMBtu at full operating load,
for scenario 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Using a numerical conversion factor of 2.619 [mu]g/m\3\ per
ppb, the 2010 SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb is equivalent to 196.4
[mu]g/m\3\. The state rounded 196.4 [mu]g/m\3\ down to a more
protective level of 196 [mu]g/m\3\. EPA is using the lower value in
this case because it is consistent with the State's analysis and is
also protective of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using hourly emission data provided by EPA's Air Markets Program
Data database for Merrimack Station for the period between July 4, 2013
and March 30, 2015 (i.e., since the FGD system became operational), the
State derived adjustment factors for longer-term averaging periods for
each scenario. Because the dataset includes only data from Merrimack
Station using the control technology, it is appropriate for use in
developing adjustment factors. Prior to deriving the adjustment
factors, the State removed erroneous data points from the dataset based
on information provided by the facility. The adjustment factors were
calculated as the ratio of the 99th percentile of mass emissions for
the longer-term period to the 99th percentile hourly mass emissions.
For the rolling 7-day averaging period, the adjustment factor was 0.73
for each of the three scenarios. That is, the 7-day mass emission rate
limit would need to be 0.73 times (or 27% lower than) the critical
emission value to have comparable stringency as a 1-hour rate limit.
The 7-day adjustment factor of 0.73 for Merrimack Station is similar to
0.71, EPA's average 30-day adjustment factor for sources with wet
scrubbers (derived from a database of 210 sources) as listed in
appendix D of the April 2014 guidance. The State then derived emission
limits for each scenario on an emission per heat-input basis, and
selected the lowest level for the 7-day averaging period of 0.39 lb/
MMBtu.
    Based on a review of the State's submittal, EPA believes that the
7-boiler operating day average limit for Merrimack Station provides a
suitable alternative to establishing a 1-hour average emission limit
for this source. The State has used a suitable database in an
appropriate manner and has thereby applied an appropriate adjustment,
yielding an emission limit that has comparable stringency to the 1-hour
average limit that the State determined would otherwise have been
necessary to provide for attainment. While the 7-boiler operating day
average limit allows occasions in which emissions may be higher than
the level that would be allowed with the 1-hour limit, the State's
limit compensates by requiring average emissions to be lower than the
level that would otherwise have been required by a 1-hour average
limit. For the reasons described above and explained in more detail in
EPA's April 2014 guidance for SO2 nonattainment plans, EPA
finds that appropriately set longer-term average limits provide a
reasonable basis by which nonattainment plans may provide for
attainment. Based on our review of this general information as well as
the particular information in New Hampshire's plan, EPA finds that the
7-boiler operating day average limit for Merrimack Station will provide
for attainment of the SO2 NAAQS.
    In the April 2014 guidance for SO2, EPA also described
possible supplemental limits on the frequency and/or magnitude of
elevated emissions to strengthen the justification for the use of
longer-term average limits to protect against NAAQS violations. One
option provided in the guidance regarding this topic is the use of
relatively shorter averaging times, which provide less allowance of
emission spikes than would longer averaging times, i.e., the 30-day
averaging time. In this instance, the emission limit for Merrimack
Station is on a 7-boiler operating day average basis and the limit
applies at all times. Furthermore, the adjustment factor used to derive
the limit is similar to 0.71, EPA's average 30-day adjustment factor
for sources with wet scrubbers as listed in appendix D of the April
2014 guidance, meaning that the factor used to adjust the emission
limit downward is more pronounced for a 7-day period than would
typically be expected. Based on these considerations, EPA believes that
the 7-boiler operating day limits are sufficiently protective of the
NAAQS without application of an additional, supplemental limit.

H. Background Concentrations

    To develop background concentrations for the nonattainment area,
the State of New Hampshire relied on 2012-2014 data from two monitors
within the nonattainment area: The Pembroke monitor, Air Quality System
(AQS) number 33-013-1006, and the Concord monitor, AQS number 33-013-
1007. The Pembroke monitor is located on Pleasant Street in Pembroke,
New Hampshire, about 1.3 km to the southeast of Merrimack Station, and
the Concord monitor is located at Hazen Drive in Concord, New
Hampshire, about 9.4 km to the north-northwest of Merrimack Station.
Each of these monitors was sited to record neighborhood scale exposure
levels rather than regional background levels; there are currently no
regional background monitors in the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment
Area. Per section 8.3.1.a of the Guideline, background air quality
should not include the ambient impacts of the source under
consideration. Both the Pembroke and Concord monitors reflect impacts
attributable to Merrimack Station. One solution to develop background
concentrations from monitoring data around an isolated source, as
described in section 8.3.2.c.i of the Guidance, is to exclude monitor
measurements collected when wind is from a 90[deg] sector centered on
the source. Due to the low wind speeds and swirling winds
characteristic of Merrimack Station's river valley location, emissions
from the source may contribute to the monitors even when the wind
direction is outside of the 90[deg] sector. Therefore, the State
determined that the 90[deg] exclusion sector approach was not
appropriate for this application, and selected an alternative approach
to develop background levels. Specifically, the State compiled an
ambient concentration database using the lower observed value for the
two monitors' hourly values as representing regional background levels.
This approach accounts for area and mobile sources and more distant
sources that were not modeled explicitly but affect SO2
levels in the nonattainment area without also double-counting impacts
from Merrimack Station, which was modeled explicitly. Using this
approach, EPA finds the State's treatment of SO2 background
levels to be suitable for the modeled attainment demonstration.

I. Summary of Results

    The modeling analysis upon which the State relied in establishing a
critical emission value for setting emission limits for Merrimack
Station results in concentrations of no greater than 196.0 [micro]g/
m\3\, which is below the level of the 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS of 196.4 [micro]g/m\3\. EPA agrees with the State that these
results indicate that emissions at the critical emission value for
Merrimack Station provide for attainment of the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.

V. Review of Other Plan Requirements

A. Emissions Inventory

    The emissions inventory and source emission rate data for an area
serve as the foundation for air quality modeling and other analyses
that enable states to: (1) Estimate the degree to which different
sources within a nonattainment area contribute to violations within the
affected area; and (2) assess the expected improvement in air quality
within the nonattainment area due to the adoption and implementation of
control measures. As noted above, the State must develop and submit to
EPA a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of SO2 emissions in each
nonattainment area, as well as any sources located outside the
nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area. See CAA
section 172(c)(3).
    In its plan, New Hampshire included a current emissions inventory
for the nonattainment area and also for the three-county area of
Hillsborough, Merrimack, and Rockingham Counties based on the 2011-2015
period. The State principally relied on 2014 as the most complete and
representative record of annual SO2 emissions because it
coincided with EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI), which includes
a comprehensive inventory of all source types. The State allocated 2014
NEI version 1 emissions from the portion of each county within the
nonattainment area using city- and town-level population (for area and
non-road mobile sources) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT; for on-road
mobile sources) statistics. The State included emissions from point
sources (e.g., Merrimack Station) to the area based on location. The
State calculated emissions for the area from some types of sources
based on county-level emissions. A summary of the State's emissions
inventories for 2011, 2014, and 2018 are presented in Table 1. Based on
the State's inventory, of the 5,471 tons SO2 emitted in 2014
within the three county area, 1,480 tons were emitted within the
nonattainment area. Merrimack Station emitted 1,044 tons SO2
in 2014. These emissions levels are much lower than historical
emissions levels; for example, in 2011, Merrimack Station emitted
22,420 tons SO2.

    Table 1--Summary of New Hampshire's Inventory of Actual SO2 Emissions for the Central New Hampshire Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Hillsborough,      Central New
                                                             Merrimack, and       Hampshire         Merrimack
                           Year                                Rockingham       nonattainment    Station (tons)
                                                            Counties  (tons)    area  (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011......................................................            24,934            22,398            22,420
2014......................................................             5,471             1,480             1,044
2018 (projected)..........................................             6,966             2,473             1,927
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Hampshire also developed a projected emission inventory for the
2018 attainment year. The emissions projection indicates 1,927 tons of
SO2 from Merrimack Station and a total of 2,473 tons of
SO2 within the nonattainment area; however, these
projections rely on a 90% reduction in SO2 emissions from
Merrimack Station, which is less stringent than the at least 93.4%
reduction incorporated into the permit New Hampshire issued for
Merrimack Station on September 1, 2016, TP-0189.
    EPA agrees that the State's emissions inventories are appropriate
because they rely on well-established and vetted estimates of emissions
for the current period and attainment year, respectively.

B. RACM/RACT

    CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide
for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures
(RACM) as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in
emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through
the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology
(RACT)) and shall provide for attainment of the NAAQS. EPA interprets
RACM, including RACT, under section 172, as measures that a state
determines to be reasonably available and which contribute to
attainment as expeditiously as practicable for existing sources in the
area.
    In its January 31, 2017 SIP submittal, New Hampshire identified the
operational and SO2 emission limits contained in Merrimack
Station's permit, TP-0189, as meeting RACM/RACT. New Hampshire's plan
for attaining the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the Central New
Hampshire Nonattainment Area is based on the operational and emission
limitations contained in Merrimack Station's permit. Specifically,
Merrimack Station's permit limits SO2 emissions from the MK1
and MK2 boilers at Merrimack Station to 0.39 lb/MMBtu on a 7-boiler
operating day rolling average (achieved through operation of the FGD),
which the State demonstrated was comparably stringent to the critical
emission value that provides for attainment of the NAAQS, as described
in section IV.G.2 above. New Hampshire's nonattainment plan includes
the SO2 control measures required by the permit, which was
effective immediately upon issuance on September 1, 2016. New Hampshire
has determined that these measures suffice to provide for timely
attainment, and plans to incorporate relevant conditions contained in
TP-0189 into Merrimack's title V operating permit (TV-0055).
    The air modeling analysis submitted to EPA during the development
of the SO2 limits in TP-0189 confirms that these limits are
protective of the NAAQS, as described in section IV. Because the
modeling demonstrates attainment using emission limits contained in
Merrimack Station's permit, TP-0189, the State determined that controls
for SO2 emissions at Merrimack Station are appropriate in
the Central New Hampshire Area for purposes of attaining the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, New Hampshire only completed a RACM/
RACT analysis for Merrimack Station because the air quality modeling
showed that the SO2 emission reductions required by TP-0189
will be sufficient to ensure that the nonattainment area achieves
attainment with the SO2 NAAQS. EPA believes that New
Hampshire's approach is consistent with EPA's April 2014 guidance,
which indicates that ``[a]ir agencies should consider all RACM/RACT
that can be implemented in light of the attainment needs for the
affected area(s).''
    The Central New Hampshire Area is currently showing an attaining
design value for 2014-2016, and has been since

the 2012-2014 period, which means that attainment of the NAAQS is as
expeditious as practicable.
    Based on New Hampshire's modeling demonstration, which accounted
for the SO2 emission limits contained in Merrimack Station's
permit, TP-0189, the Central New Hampshire Area is projected to attain
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by the 2018 attainment date. Because the
area is currently attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA proposes
to find that the control strategy will ensure attainment of the NAAQS
by the required attainment date.
    The State's plan also includes a broader discussion of the
SO2 control strategy beyond Merrimack Station's permit, TP-
0189. Merrimack Station is also subject to requirements of the Mercury
and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which promotes reductions at subject
facilities of certain hazardous air pollutants, including hydrochloric
acid; such reductions are achieved at Merrimack Station through the
operation of the FGD system, which concurrently reduces emissions of
SO2. New Hampshire also notes in its nonattainment plan the
anticipated 73% reduction in SO2 emissions among upwind
states subject to EPA's Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which
will lessen the contribution of sources from other states into the
nonattainment area in future years. New Hampshire also described
emissions reductions at Schiller Station as part of statewide efforts
to reduce SO2, as well as other state rules.
    EPA concurs with New Hampshire's approach and analysis, and
proposes to conclude that the State has satisfied the requirement in
section 172(c)(1) to adopt and submit all RACM as needed to attain the
SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.

C. New Source Review (NSR)

    EPA last approved New Hampshire's Env-A 618 nonattainment new
source review rules on May 25, 2017 (82 FR 24057). These rules provide
for appropriate new source review for SO2 sources undergoing
construction or major modification in the Central New Hampshire
Nonattainment Area without need for modification of the approved rules.
Therefore, EPA concludes that this requirement has already been met for
this area.

D. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

    New Hampshire concluded that the appropriate control measures were
implemented as expeditiously as practicable in order to ensure
attainment of the standard by the applicable attainment date.
Specifically, the State implemented its main control strategy, i.e.,
establishment of federally enforceable SO2 emissions limits
and operational conditions in TP-0189 for Merrimack Station in
September 2016. New Hampshire concluded that this plan therefore
provides for RFP in accordance with the approach to RFP described in
EPA's guidance. EPA concurs and proposes to conclude that the plan
provides for RFP.

E. Contingency Measures

    As discussed in our guidance, Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA defines
contingency measures as such measures in a SIP that are to be
implemented in the event that an area fails to make RFP, or fails to
attain the NAAQS, by the applicable attainment date. Contingency
measures are to become effective without further action by the state or
EPA, where the area has failed to (1) achieve RFP or (2) attain the
NAAQS by the statutory attainment date for the affected area. These
control measures are to consist of other available control measures
that are not included in the control strategy for the nonattainment
area SIP. EPA guidance describes special features of SO2
planning that influence the suitability of alternative means of
addressing the requirement in section 172(c)(9) for contingency
measures for SO2. Because SO2 control measures
are by definition based on what is directly and quantifiably necessary
emissions controls, any violations of the NAAQS are likely related to
source violations of a source's permit terms. Therefore, an appropriate
means of satisfying this requirement for SO2 is for the
state to have a comprehensive enforcement program that identifies
sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an
aggressive follow-up for compliance and enforcement.
    For its contingency program, New Hampshire proposed to continue to
operate a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of
the SO2 NAAQS and undertake aggressive compliance and
enforcement actions, including expedited procedures for establishing
consent agreements pending the adoption of the revised SIP. New
Hampshire's program for enforcement of SIP measures for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS was approved by EPA on June 15, 2016. See 81 FR
44542. As EPA stated in its April 2014 guidance, EPA believes that this
approach continues to be a valid approach for the implementation of
contingency measures to address the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    Based on the contingency measures identified by the State in its
plan submittal, EPA believes that New Hampshire's plan provides for
satisfying the contingency measure requirement. EPA concurs and
proposes to approve New Hampshire's plan for meeting the contingency
measure requirement in this manner.

VI. Additional Elements of New Hampshire's Submittal

A. Conformity

    The State addresses general conformity and transportation
conformity requirements as they apply to the nonattainment area.
Generally, as set forth in section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act,
conformity requires that actions by federal agencies do not cause new
air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the relevant NAAQS. General conformity applies to federal
actions, other than certain highway and transportation projects, if the
action takes place in a nonattainment area or maintenance area (i.e.,
an area which submitted a maintenance plan that meets the requirements
of section 175A of the CAA and has been redesignated to attainment) for
ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, or
SO2. EPA's General Conformity Rule (40 CFR 93.150 to 93.165)
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining if a federal
action conforms to the SIP. With respect to the 2010 SO2
NAAQS, federal agencies are expected to continue to estimate emissions
for conformity analyses in the same manner as they estimated emissions
for conformity analyses under the previous NAAQS for SO2.
EPA's General Conformity Rule includes the basic requirement that a
federal agency's general conformity analysis be based on the latest and
most accurate emission estimation techniques available (40 CFR
93.159(b)). When updated and improved emissions estimation techniques
become available, EPA expects the federal agency to use these
techniques. New Hampshire addresses general conformity under SIP-
approved state rule Env-A 1500.
    Federal Highway and Federal Transit Administration projects are
subject to transportation conformity rather than general conformity
requirements, with some exceptions. New Hampshire asserts in its plan
that due to minimal impact on SO2 from combustion of
gasoline and diesel fuels, transportation conformity rules do not
generally apply to SO2 unless the EPA Regional Administrator
or the state air director finds that its transportation-related
SO2 emissions are a significant contributor to fine
particulate matter as a precursor.

This reasoning is consistent with EPA's April 2014 guidance and EPA
proposes to conclude that New Hampshire's plan meets our guidance and
rule requirements with regard to general and transportation conformity.

B. Changes in Allowable Emissions

    The State quantified the changes in allowable emissions expected to
result from implementation of its nonattainment area plan. To do so,
the State compared allowable annual emissions at Merrimack Station
prior to installation of the FGD control system with those after the
system was operational and with those with the conditions of TP-0189 in
place (i.e., allowable emissions under the plan). Prior to the
effective date of TP-0189, under the conditions of TP-0008 (see 77 FR
50602), Merrimack Station was permitted to operate the MK1 boiler
through the bypass stack (i.e., now the emergency stack) for no more
than 840 hours during any consecutive 12-month period and thereby
bypass SO2 controls; the MK2 boiler is unable to operate
through the bypass stack. The State quantified emissions from these
boilers which were allowed prior to installation of the FGD and the
effective date of TP-0008. Then, the State quantified emissions from
the MK1 and MK2 boilers under the provisions of TP-0008 (i.e., using a
90% emissions reduction). Finally, the State quantified emissions for
MK1 and MK2 allowed under the provisions of TP-0189, i.e., assuming an
average of 0.39 lb/MMBtu. A summary of these allowable emissions is
presented in Table 2. According to the plan, allowable annual
SO2 emissions prior to the FGD installation (and the
conditions of TP-0008) were 82,537 tons, compared to 8,254 tons under
the permit conditions of TP-0008, and 8,047 tons under the
nonattainment plan (namely the SO2 emissions limit for NAAQS
compliance included in TP-0189). That is, the State expects
implementation of the plan to allow 207 tons fewer than prior to plan
implementation, and 74,490 tons fewer than prior to installation and
operation of the FGD.

       Table 2--Summary of Annual Allowable SO2 Emissions for the MK1 and MK2 Boilers at Merrimack Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Difference in   Difference in
                                                                                allowable       allowable
                                                                       Total      emissions from  emissions from
                                                                     allowable     prior to TP-    prior to TP-
                                                                     emissions     0008  (tons)    0189  (tons)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to TP-0008................................................          82,537
With TP-0008....................................................           8,254      \a\-74,283
Nonattainment Area Plan (With TP-0189)..........................           8,047      \a\-74,489        a b-206
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Reported negative emissions values for differences indicate emission reductions.
\b\ New Hampshire reported a difference of 206 tons compared with the numerical difference of 207 tons between
  the reported total allowable emissions. This slight difference can be attributed to rounding.

C. Air Quality Trends

    New Hampshire also included trends in ambient monitoring data for
the nonattainment area. In its nonattainment plan, the State shows that
ambient concentrations in the area have dropped markedly since 2011,
when Merrimack Station began operation of its FGD system under the SIP-
approved conditions of TP-0008, and are now below 75 ppb, the level of
the NAAQS. The monitored design value for the Pembroke monitor (AQS
number 33-013-1006), consistently the highest in the area, was 23 ppb
for 2012 to 2014, and 20 ppb for both 2013 to 2015 and 2014 to 2016.

D. Compliance With Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA

    Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires nonattainment SIPs to meet
the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. While the
provisions of 110(a)(2) address various topics, EPA's past
determinations suggest that only the section 110(a)(2) criteria linked
with a particular area's designation and classification are relevant to
section 172(c)(7). This nonattainment SIP submittal satisfies all
applicable criteria of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, as evidenced by
the State's nonattainment new source review program which addresses
110(a)(2)(I), the included control strategy, and the associated
emissions limits which are relevant to 110(a)(2)(A). In addition, EPA
approved the State's SO2 infrastructure SIP on May 25, 2017
(82 FR 24057). EPA will take action in a separate rulemaking on the
remaining portion of the State's infrastructure SIP, the so-called
SO2 ``good neighbor'' or ``interstate transport'' SIP to
satisfy section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA is proposing to
conclude that the State has meet the requirements of 172(c)(7) of the
CAA.

E. Equivalency Techniques

    Section 172(c)(8) of the CAA states that upon application by any
state, the Administrator may allow the use of equivalent modeling,
emission inventory, and planning procedures, unless the Administrator
determines that the proposed techniques are, in the aggregate, less
effective than the methods specified by the Administrator.
    The State's nonattainment SIP indicates that it followed existing
regulations, guidance, and standard practices when conducting modeling,
preparing the emissions inventories, and implementing its planning
procedures. Therefore, the State did not use or request approval of
alternative or equivalent techniques as allowed under of the CAA and
EPA is proposing to conclude that the State's nonattainment SIP meets
the requirements of section 172(c)(8) of the CAA.

VII. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA has determined that New Hampshire's SO2
nonattainment plan meets the applicable requirements of sections 110,
172, 191, and 192 of the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve New
Hampshire's January 31, 2017 SIP submission for attaining the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS for the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment
Area and for meeting other nonattainment area planning requirements.
This SO2 nonattainment plan includes New Hampshire's
attainment demonstration for the SO2 nonattainment area. The
nonattainment area plan also addresses requirements for RFP, RACT/RACM,
enforceable emission limits and control measures, base-year and
projection-year emission inventories, and contingency measures.
    In the January 31, 2017 submittal to EPA, New Hampshire included
the applicable monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements contained in Merrimack Station's permit, TP-0189, to
demonstrate how compliance with Merrimack Station's SO2
emission limit will be achieved and determined. EPA is proposing to
approve into the New Hampshire SIP the provisions of Merrimack
Station's permit, TP-0189, that constitute the SO2 operating
and emission limits and their associated monitoring, testing,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. EPA is proposing to approve
these provisions into the State's SIP through incorporation by
reference, as described in section VIII, below. EPA's analysis is
discussed in this proposed rulemaking.
    EPA is not proposing to remove from the existing New Hampshire SIP,
Table 4, items 6, 8, and 10 contained in Merrimack Station's July 2011
permit, TP-0008, because EPA has not received a request from the State
to do so. See 52.1520(d) EPA-approved State Source specific
requirements. However, EPA considers those provisions to be superseded
by the conditions of TP-0189, which are more stringent, and which are
to be incorporated into the SIP in this proposed action. Specifically,
two of the provisions, items 6 and 8 from Table 4, relate to
SO2 emissions limits that have been superseded by Merrimack
Station's September 2016 permit, TP-0189. Item 10 from Table 4 has also
been superseded by Merrimack Station's September 2016 permit, TP-0189,
in that the existing SIP provision allowed operation of one of
Merrimack Station's two boilers, MK1, for up to 840 hours in any
consecutive 12-month period through the emergency bypass stack, i.e.,
not through the FGD. Each of the corresponding provisions of Merrimack
Station's September 2016 permit, TP-0189, are more stringent than those
existing SIP provisions. EPA is taking public comments for thirty days
following the publication of this proposed action in the Federal
Register. We will take all comments into consideration in our final
action.

VIII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference certain federally enforceable provisions of Merrimack
Station's permit, TP-0189, effective on September 1, 2016.
Specifically, the following provisions of that permit are proposed to
be incorporated by reference: Items 1, 2, and 3 in Table 4 (``Operating
and Emission Limits''); items 1 and 2 in Table 5 (``Monitoring and
Testing Requirements''); items 1 and 2 in Table 6 (``Recordkeeping
Requirements''); and items 1 and 2 in Table 7 (``Reporting
Requirements'').
    EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 1 Office
(please contact the person identified in the For Further Information
Contact section of this preamble for more information).

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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 CAA. 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    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, Incorporation by
Reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: September 15, 2017.
Ken Moraff,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2017-20721 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 237)]
[Notices]
[Page 73471]
[DOCID:fr12de05-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM04-9-000]

Electronic Notification of Commission Issuances; Notice of New
Service List Download Options

December 6, 2005.
    Take notice that on December 6, 2005, the Commission released a new
version of its Web Service List system. The new version allows users to
download the postal addresses only for those persons who do not have an
e-mail address on the service list. Previously, the only option for
postal addresses was to download the postal addresses for all contacts,
including those who could be served by e-mail.
    The three download options are:
    1. E-mail: Downloads the e-mail addresses for all contacts on the
service list that are linked to an eRegistration account. The addresses
are placed in a text file with a semicolon delimiter. It may be
necessary to change the delimiter if your e-mail product requires a
different delimiter. Once the delimiter is correct, you can copy/paste
the addresses into an e-mail address field. Please note that pasting
numerous addresses in a single e-mail may trigger some spam-prevention
programs.
    2. Postal contacts without e-mail: Downloads the postal addresses
only for those contacts that are not linked to an eRegistration account
for the applicable service list. The download format options are the
same as before: Delimited with a semicolon, comma, space, tab, or
tilde; fixed length; Excel; Database file (dbf); or XML format. Options
1 and 2 together account for all contacts on the service list.
    3. All contacts: Downloads the postal addresses for all contacts,
whether they are linked to an eRegistration account or not, with the
same format options as above. Option 3 also accounts for all contacts
on the service list.
    The record format for the postal address download options is
identical to the previous version. However, if you use the ``Postal
contacts without e-mail'' option, the downloaded file will contain
blank entries in any record where one or both of the contacts had an e-
mail address. This means that some users may need to revise a macro or
other program used to generate mail labels to account for the blank
entries.
    The Commission encourages any party intervening in Commission
proceedings to efile the motion to intervene and to ensure that all
contacts for the party and for a law firm that may represent the party
have validated eRegistration accounts. The eFiling system allows
persons filing a motion to intervene to specify all of the parties to
the motion, all legal representatives of the party or parties, and any
other contacts for the parties that should be served.
    Contacts for entities filing applications, petitions, or requests
with the Commission should also have validated eRegistration accounts
even if the application, petition, or request itself cannot be
submitted to the Commission electronically. This will enable the
Commission's Registry staff to select the eRegistration account for
each contact so that the contact's e-mail address will appear on the
service list.
    All persons with eRegistration accounts should maintain those
accounts to reflect current address and other information. If an
account holder's e-mail address changes, and the account holder wants
to preserve links to existing service lists and eSubscriptions, that
person should edit the e-mail address in the existing account instead
of creating a new account. Persons should create new accounts only
when, as a result of a move to another company or firm, there is no
need to preserve links to service lists and eSubscriptions linked to
the previous account.
    For additional guidance on using FERC Online for eRegistration,
eFiling, and eService, refer to the FERC Online Reference Guide at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/fol-ref-guide.pdf.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7213 Filed 12-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29002]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0480]

Recurring Safety Zone; Monongahela Area Chamber of Congress/
Monongahela 4th of July Celebration, Monongahela, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the
Monongahela Area Chamber of Congress/Monongahela 4th of July
Celebration, to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the
marine environment on the Monongahela River during this event. Our
regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District
identifies the regulated area for this event in Monongahela, PA. During
the enforcement periods, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh or
a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 45, will be
enforced from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 4, 2018, with a rain date
of July 5, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Jennifer Haggins,
Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-
0807, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone
for the Monongahela Area Chamber of Congress/Monongahela 4th of July
Celebration in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 45, from 9 p.m. through 11
p.m. on July 4, 2018, with a rain date of July 5, 2018. This action is
being taken to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the
marine environment on the Monongahela River during this event. Our
regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District,
Sec.  165.801, specifies the location of the safety zone for the
Monongahela Area Chamber of Congress/Monongahela 4th of July
Celebration, which covers a one-mile stretch of the Monongahela River.
Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a
designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or
pass through the area must request permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. They can be reached on VHF FM channel 16. If
permission is granted, all persons and vessel shall comply with the
instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through
Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs),
Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), and/or through other means
of public notice as appropriate at least 24 hours in advance of each
enforcement.

    Dated: June 15, 2018.
L. McClain, Jr.,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2018-13394 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 2)]
[Notices]
[Page 351]
[DOCID:fr05ja10-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13456-000]

FFP Iowa 4, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

December 29, 2009.
    On April 30, 2009, FFP Iowa 4, LLC filed an application pursuant to
section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the
feasibility of the Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 17 Water Power
Project (Lock & Dam 17 Project), to be located at River Mile 437.1 on
the Mississippi River near Wapello, Louisa County, Iowa and in Mercer
County, Illinois.
    The proposed Lock & Dam 17 Project would be located at the existing
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lock & Dam No. 17 and would consist of:
(1) Twenty nine 525-kilowatt (kW) Very Low Head (VHL) generating units
to be installed integral with the dam, and one hundred 37.5-kW
hydrokinetic generating units to be installed in the Mississippi River
in an area just downstream of the dam; (2) a combined capacity of 17.7
megawatts (MW) for all turbine generating units; and (3) an existing
single overhead three-phase 27,000-foot-long, 69-kilovolt (or greater)
transmission line connected to an existing above-ground local
distribution system. The project would have an estimated average annual
generation of 86,400 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Daniel R. Irvin, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930, (978) 252-
7631.
    FERC Contact: Patrick Murphy,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings, please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp.
    More information about this project can be viewed or printed on the
``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-13456) in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-
866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-31324 Filed 1-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P