[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63228-63234]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25300]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0317 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0321 (CT); EPA-R01-OAR-
2011-0318 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0322 (ME); EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0459 and
EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323 (MA); EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-
0324 (NH); A-1-FRL-9740-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire; Infrastructure SIPs
for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving most elements of submittals from the States
of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. We are also
conditionally approving certain elements of these submittals, as well
as disapproving a few elements of Massachusetts' submittals. The
submittals outline how each state's State Implementation Plan (SIP)
meets the requirements of section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for
both the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). These actions are being
taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets for these actions under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0317 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0321 for
Connecticut,\1\ EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0318 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0322 for
Maine, EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0459 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323 for
Massachusetts, and EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0324 for
New Hampshire. All documents in the dockets are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if
at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding legal holidays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For each State, the first docket number refers to the docket
for the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure submittal and the
second docket number refers to the docket for the 2006
PM2.5 infrastructure submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at
the respective State Air Agency: The Bureau of Air Management,
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, State Office
Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1630; the Bureau of Air
Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, First Floor of
the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental Health Institute Complex, Augusta,
ME 04333-0017; Division of Air Quality Control, Department of
Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA
02108; and Air Resources Division, Department of Environmental
Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5
Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109--
3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in
this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    Under CAA section 110(a)(1), states are required to submit plans
called state implementation plans (SIPs) that provide for the
implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS. 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(1). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, in turn,
specifically requires SIPs to contain provisions adequate to prohibit
emissions activity within the state that

contributes significantly to nonattainment or interferes with
maintenance in another state. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    On July 23, 2012, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPR) for the States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New
Hampshire. See 77 FR 43023. The NPR proposed action on submittals from
these four states that outlined how each state's SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards.
    The States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire
submitted SIPs to meet infrastructure requirements under section
110(a)(2) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIPs
addressed the following section 110(a)(2) components:
    (A) Emission limits and other control measures.
    (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
    (C) Program for enforcement of control measures.
    (D) Interstate transport.
    (E) Adequate resources.
    (F) Stationary source monitoring system.
    (G) Emergency power.
    (H) Future SIP revisions.
    (J) Consultation with government officials, Public notification,
Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Visibility
protection.
    (K) Air quality modeling/Data
    (L) Permitting fees.
    (M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
    EPA proposed to approve the submittals from all four states as
fully meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards for the following section 110(a)(2) elements
and sub-elements: (B), (C) (enforcement program only), (E)(i),
(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation), (J) (public notification),
(K), (L), and (M). EPA also proposed to approve the submittals from
Maine and New Hampshire as fully meeting the infrastructure
requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards for the
two prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These two prongs are (1)
contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with
respect to any such national primary or secondary NAAQS, and (2)
interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to the same
NAAQS. EPA proposed to determine that their existing SIPs satisfy these
prongs because emissions from these states do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
1997 annual or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state. See 77 FR 43207. In addition, EPA proposed to approve the
submittals from Maine for the prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
related to interference with visibility protection, and the submittals
from New Hampshire for section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to interstate
and international pollution abatement.
    EPA proposed to conditionally approve the submittals from all four
states for the following section 110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements:
(A) and (E)(ii) (state boards and conflict of interest provisions). We
proposed to conditionally approve the submittals from three states
(Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire) for section 110(a)(2) sub-
elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to the states' PSD
programs. We also proposed to conditionally approve the submittals from
Connecticut and Maine for section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
    For Massachusetts, EPA proposed to disapprove the state's
submittals for section 110(a)(2) sub-elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J)
as they relate to the state's PSD program, as well as (D)(ii), which
relates to interstate and international pollution abatement.
Notwithstanding our conclusion that Massachusetts' section 110(a)
submissions do not meet these PSD requirements, the state is already
subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for PSD, and so EPA has
no additional FIP obligations under section 110(c). Furthermore, the
state will not be subject to mandatory sanctions as a result of this
disapproval.
    A detailed explanation of the requirements for PM2.5
infrastructure SIPs, as well as EPA's analysis of the submittals from
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, was provided in
the NPR and is not restated here.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received comments on our proposed action from an anonymous
commenter and from the Sierra Club. The anonymous commenter noted that
EPA's action on the four states' infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is a good move to alleviate air pollution,
thus reducing poor air quality days. EPA agrees with this commenter.
The Sierra Club's comments focused on the states' air-quality standards
and PSD programs, and a recent judicial decision vacating the Cross
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The comments are provided in the
dockets for today's final actions. A summary of the comments and EPA's
responses are provided below.
    Comment 1: The Sierra Club noted that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires
SIPs to include enforceable emission limits. The Sierra Club argued
that any infrastructure SIP submissions ultimately approved by EPA must
include emissions limitations on direct PM2.5 emissions, PM
precursors, and condensable PM. It also asserted that the state
infrastructure SIP submissions needed to impose specific
PM2.5 emissions limitations on major sources such as the
Schiller and Merrimack coal-fired power plants in New Hampshire, the
Mount Tom and Brayton Point plants in Massachusetts, and the Bridgeport
plant in Connecticut.
    Response 1: In this action, EPA is conditionally approving the
states' PM2.5 infrastructure SIPs with respect to section
110(a)(2)(A) pending each state's timely submission (i.e., within one
year of conditional approval) of specific enforceable measures to
fulfill specific requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) as explained in
the proposal. We will review each state's submission as it is received,
and will propose to approve or disapprove that submission based on our
evaluation of whether the submission meets the applicable requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(A) relevant to infrastructure SIP requirements. At
that time, it will be appropriate for commenters to raise any questions
regarding whether the submission has met applicable requirements.
    Comment 2: The Sierra Club noted that sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D),
and (J) require infrastructure submittals to include, among other
things, a SIP-approved PSD program that meets all federal requirements.
The Sierra Club argued that any infrastructure SIP submission approved
by EPA must include PM2.5 increments under the PSD Program.
    Response 2: In this action, EPA is conditionally approving the
infrastructure SIPs submitted by Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire
with respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J) pending each
state's timely submission (i.e., within one year of conditional
approval) of specific enforceable measures to fulfill requirements of
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J) as explained in the proposal. EPA
proposed conditional approval consistent with EPA's authority under
section 110(k)(4), and based upon a commitment by each State to address
these deficiencies within one year. We will review each state's
submission as it is received, and will propose to approve or disapprove
that submission based on our evaluation of whether the submission meets
the applicable

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), D(i)(II), and (J), relevant to
infrastructure SIP requirements. At that time, it will be appropriate
for commenters to raise any questions regarding whether the submission
has met applicable requirements. As described in section 110(k)(4),
should the States fail to meet their commitments to address these
deficiencies, a final conditional approval for these elements would
become a disapproval. The Commenter does not argue that this proposed
action is inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA.
    However, EPA disagrees with Commenter's suggestion that EPA must
generally approve the PM2.5 increments prior to fully
approving sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J). Pursuant to the 2010 PSD
for PM2.5 Rule (75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010) and CAA
section 166(b), States were not required to submit a revised SIP
addressing the PM2.5 increments until July 20, 2012. The
Agency proposed action on Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire's
infrastructure SIPs in a notice signed on July 16, 2012.\2\ Therefore,
on the date that the proposed rule was signed by the Agency, the
PM2.5 increments were not required to be included in the
States' SIPs in order for the States to meet the PSD requirements of
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J) of the Act. However, Connecticut,
Maine, and New Hampshire each submitted to EPA a request for a
conditional approval of these infrastructure elements based, in part,
on its commitment to adopt the PM2.5 increments into the
State rules and submit revisions including the PM2.5
increments to EPA within one year of EPA's conditional approval.
Accordingly, although EPA would not generally have been required to
address the PM2.5 increments prior to the deadline for
submission of such revisions on July 20, 2012, because the States
requested conditional approval contingent on their commitments to
address the increments, EPA's proposed conditional approval was also
made contingent on those commitments. EPA will review the sufficiency
of any future submissions made by the States in order to satisfy the
conditional approvals consistent with its commitments and in accordance
with the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although the notice was published by the Federal Register on
July 23, 2012, the notice was signed by the Regional Administrator
on July 16, 2012, before the statutory deadline for submission of
the SIP revision addressing the PM2.5 increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, we are disapproving the Massachusetts submittals with
respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J). Massachusetts does not
have an approved PSD SIP, and has long been subject to a FIP. Because
the state is subject to a PSD FIP, PM2.5 increments are
applied consistent with the federal program. Although Massachusetts'
infrastructure submissions are not approvable with respect to sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J), the state is not subject to mandatory
sanctions because the SIP deficiencies are not associated with a
submittal required under part D or in response to a SIP call. In
addition, because state requirements are satisfied by the FIP, this
disapproval action will not trigger additional FIP obligations.
    Comment 3: The Sierra Club noted that on August 21, 2012, the D.C.
Circuit Court issued an opinion vacating the Cross State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR), which is also known as the Transport Rule and was
promulgated by EPA in 2011 to address interstate pollution issues. See
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. August
21, 2012). The Sierra Club asserted that EPA can no longer approve any
submission in which compliance with interstate transport (section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) or visibility (section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II))
requirements are based on the CSAPR.
    Response 3: We discuss sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) separately.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): In this action, EPA is approving
infrastructure SIP submissions for Maine and New Hampshire with respect
to both prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): (1) contribute
significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any
such national primary or secondary NAAQS; and (2) interfere with
maintenance by any other state with respect to that NAAQS. The CSAPR
also addressed and quantified certain states' requirements under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 76 FR 48208. Neither Maine nor New
Hampshire were subject to any requirements under the CSAPR, see 76 FR
48208, 48236-45 (Aug. 8, 2011), and neither state's compliance with the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is based on CSAPR. As such,
this action does not rely on any requirements of the CSAPR or emission
reductions associated with that rule to support its conclusion that
these two states have met their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with
respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA's decision to approve the infrastructure SIPs for Maine and New
Hampshire for this element is based on our conclusion that the existing
SIPs for both states have adequate provisions to satisfy the obligation
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA to address these
requirements with respect to the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained in section III of this notice,
this conclusion is based on air quality modeling originally conducted
to quantify each individual state's contributions to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance areas during the rulemaking process for
the CSAPR.
    The recent D.C. Circuit opinion in the CSAPR litigation, EME Homer
City Generation v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir., August 21, 2012), does
not alter our conclusion that the existing SIPs for Maine and New
Hampshire adequately address this requirement. Nothing in the Homer
City opinion disturbs or calls into question that conclusion or the
validity of the air quality modeling on which the conclusion is based.
In addition, nothing in that opinion undermines our conclusion that
Maine and New Hampshire do not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state because
emissions from neither state contributes more than one percent of the
1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to any downwind area with
nonattainment or maintenance problems.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ To the contrary, the Court looked favorably upon EPA's
determination to exclude certain states from the CSAPR based on the
amount of the upwind State's contribution to nonattainment and
maintenance areas in downwind states. See EME Homer City, slip op.
at 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II): For New Hampshire, we will take
separate action on PM2.5 infrastructure SIP visibility
requirements. Notably, we recently approved the New Hampshire Regional
Haze SIP. See 77 FR 50602, August 22, 2012. However, we are not taking
action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility requirements for New
Hampshire today.
    For Maine, in this action, we are approving Maine's
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP as meeting the visibility
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). This approval is based on
the fact that EPA has approved Maine's Regional Haze SIP for the first
planning period from 2008 through 2018 (77 FR 24385).

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals
from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire as fully
meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards for the following 110(a)(2) elements and
sub-elements: (B), (C) (enforcement program), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F),
(G), (H), (J) (consultation), (J) (public notification), (K), (L), and
(M). EPA is also approving the submittals from Maine and New Hampshire
as

fully meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards for the two prongs of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These two prongs are (1) contribute significantly
to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national
primary or secondary NAAQS, and (2) interfere with maintenance by any
other state with respect to the same NAAQS. EPA's decision to approve
the infrastructure SIPs for Maine and New Hampshire for this element is
based on our conclusion that the existing SIPs for both states have
adequate provisions to satisfy the obligation under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA to address these requirements with
respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This conclusion is
based on air quality modeling originally conducted to quantify each
individual state's contributions to downwind nonattainment and
maintenance areas during the rulemaking process for the CSAPR. A
technical support document describing that modeling is available in the
dockets for the Maine and New Hampshire portions of this rulemaking.
This air quality modeling demonstrates that emissions from the states
of Maine and New Hampshire do not contribute more than one percent of
the NAAQS to any downwind areas with nonattainment and maintenance
problems with respect to the 1997 and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
For this reason, EPA concludes that these states do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.
    In addition, EPA is approving the submittals from Maine for the
prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to interference with
visibility protection. EPA is also approving the submittals from New
Hampshire for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to interstate and international
pollution abatement.
    EPA is conditionally approving the submittals from all four states
for the following 110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements: (A) and (E)(ii)
(state boards and conflict of interest provisions). We are
conditionally approving the submittals from three states (Connecticut,
Maine, and New Hampshire) for section 110(a)(2) sub-elements (C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to the states' PSD programs. We are
also conditionally approving the submittals from Connecticut and Maine
for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
    For Massachusetts, EPA is disapproving the state's submittals for
section 110(a)(2) sub-elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate
to the state's PSD program, as well as (D)(ii), which relates to
interstate and international pollution abatement. Notwithstanding our
conclusion that the Massachusetts' 110(a) submissions do not meet these
PSD requirements, the state is already subject to a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for PSD, and so EPA has no additional FIP
obligations under section 110(c). Furthermore, the state will not be
subject to mandatory sanctions as a result of this disapproval.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this 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 action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP either is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the
state or does not alter the requirements of any state law that may
already apply in Indian country. EPA notes that this approval will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 17, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 27, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart H--Connecticut

0
2. Section 52.379 is amended by adding paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and
(f) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.379  Control strategy: PM2.5.

* * * * *
    (c) Approval--Submittal from the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, dated September 4, 2008, to address the Clean
Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This submittal is
approved as meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(B), (C)
(enforcement program only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J)
(consultation and public notification only), (K), (L), and (M).
    (d) Conditional Approval--Submittal from the Connecticut Department
of Environmental Protection, dated September 4, 2008, to address the
Clean Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is
conditionally approving Connecticut's submittal with respect to CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(A), (C) only as it related to the PSD program,
(D)(ii), (E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates to the PSD program. This
conditional approval is contingent upon Connecticut taking actions to
meet requirements of these elements within one year of conditional
approval, as committed to in letters from the state to EPA Region 1
dated June 15, 2012, and July 11, 2012.
    (e) Approval--Submittal from the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, dated September 18, 2009, with supplements
submitted on January 7, 2011, and August 19, 2011, to address the Clean
Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This submittal is
approved as meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(B), (C)
(enforcement program only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J)
(consultation and public notification only), (K), (L), and (M).
    (f) Conditional Approval--Submittal from the Connecticut Department
of Environmental Protection, dated September 18, 2009, with supplements
submitted on January 7, 2011, and August 19, 2011, to address the Clean
Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is conditionally
approving Connecticut's submittal with respect to CAA sections
110(a)(2)(A), (C) only as it related to the PSD program, (D)(ii),
(E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates to the PSD program. This
conditional approval is contingent upon Connecticut taking actions to
meet requirements of these elements within one year of conditional
approval, as committed to in letters from the state to EPA Region 1
dated June 15, 2012, and July 11, 2012.

Subpart U--Maine

0
3. Section 52.1019 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1019  Identification of plan--conditional approval.

    (a) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIP submitted September 10,
2008, with a supplement submitted on June 1, 2011, is conditionally
approved for Clean Air Act (CAA) elements 110(a)(2)(A), (C) only as it
relates to the PSD program, (D)(i)(II) only as it relates to the PSD
program, (D)(ii), (E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates to the PSD
program. This conditional approval is contingent upon Maine taking
actions to meet requirements of these elements within one year of
conditional approval, as committed to in letters from the state to EPA
Region 1 dated June 13, 2012, and June 30, 2012.
    (b) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIP submitted July 27, 2009,
with a supplement submitted on June 1, 2011, is conditionally approved
for CAA elements 110(a)(2)(A), (C) only as it relates to the PSD
program, (D)(i)(II) only as it relates to the PSD program, (D)(ii),
(E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates to the PSD program. This
conditional approval is contingent upon Maine taking actions to meet
requirements of these elements within one year of conditional approval,
as committed to in letters from the state to EPA Region 1 dated June
13, 2012, and June 30, 2012.

0
4. In Sec.  52.1020, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
two entries to the end to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                              Maine Non Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
   Name of non regulatory SIP      geographic or     State submittal   EPA approved date
           provision               nonattainment      date/effective          \3\              Explanations
                                        area               date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Submittal to meet Section        Statewide........  9/10/2008;         10/16/2012         This submittal is
 110(a)(2) Infrastructure                            supplement         [Insert Federal    approved with respect
 Requirements for the 1997                           submitted 6/1/     Register page      to the following CAA
 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                        2011.              number where the   elements or portions
                                                                        document begins].  thereof: 110(a)(2)
                                                                                (B), (C) (enforcement
                                                                                program only),
                                                                                (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II)
                                                                                (visibility only),
                                                                                (E)(i), (E)(iii),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J)
                                                                                (consultation and
                                                                                public notification
                                                                                only), (K), (L), and
                                                                                (M).
Submittal to meet Section        Statewide........  7/27/2009;         10/16/2012         This submittal is
 110(a)(2) Infrastructure                            supplement         [Insert Federal    approved with respect
 Requirements for the 2006                           submitted 6/1/     Register page      to the following CAA
 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                        2011.              number where the   elements or portions
                                                                        document begins].  thereof: 110(a)(2)
                                                                                (B), (C) (enforcement
                                                                                program only),
                                                                                (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II)
                                                                                (visibility only),
                                                                                (E)(i), (E)(iii),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J)
                                                                                (consultation and
                                                                                public notification
                                                                                only), (K), (L), and
                                                                                (M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

Subpart W--Massachusetts

0
5. Section 52.1131 is amended by adding paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e),
(f) and (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1131  Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (b) Approval--Submittal from the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, dated April 4, 2008 to address the Clean Air
Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. This submittal satisfies requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement program only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F),
(G), (H), (J) (consultation and public notification only), (K), (L),
and (M).
    (c) Conditional Approval--Submittal from the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, dated April 4, 2008, to address
the Clean Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS is conditionally approved for CAA elements
110(a)(2)(A) and (E)(ii). This conditional approval is contingent upon
Massachusetts taking actions to meet requirements of these elements
within one year of conditional approval, as committed to in a letter
from the state to EPA Region 1 dated July 12, 2012.
    (d) Disapproval--Submittal from the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, dated April 4, 2008, to address the Clean Air
Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. This submittal does not satisfy requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C) (PSD program only), (D)(i)(II) (PSD program only),
(D)(ii), and (J) (PSD program only).
    (e) Approval--Submittal from the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, dated September 21, 2009, with supplements
submitted on January 13, 2011, and August 19, 2011, to address the
Clean Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. This submittal satisfies requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement program only), (E)(i),
(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation and public notification
only), (K), (L), and (M).
    (f) Conditional Approval--Submittal from the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, dated September 21, 2009, with
supplements submitted on January 13, 2011, and August 19, 2011, to
address the Clean Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is conditionally approved for CAA elements
110(a)(2)(A) and (E)(ii). This conditional approval is contingent upon
Massachusetts taking actions to meet requirements of these elements
within one year of conditional approval, as committed to in a letter
from the state to EPA Region 1 dated July 12, 2012.
    (g) Disapproval--Submittal from the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, dated September 21, 2009, with supplements
submitted on January 13, 2011, and August 19, 2011, to address the
Clean Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. This submittal does not satisfy requirements of
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) (PSD program only), (D)(i)(II) (PSD program
only), (D)(ii), and (J) (PSD program only).

Subpart EE--New Hampshire

0
6. Section 52.1519 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.1519  Identification of plan--conditional approval.

    (a) * * *
    (3) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP
submitted on April 3, 2008, with a supplement submitted on July 3,
2012, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act (CAA) elements
110(a)(2)(A), (C) only as it relates to the PSD program, (D)(i)(II)
only as it relates to the PSD program, (E)(ii), and (J) only as it
relates to the PSD program. This conditional approval is contingent
upon New Hampshire taking actions to meet requirements of these
elements within one year of conditional approval, as committed to in a
letter from the state to EPA Region 1 dated June 29, 2012.
    (4) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP
submitted on September 18, 2009, with a supplement submitted on July 3,
2012, is conditionally approved for CAA elements 110(a)(2)(A), (C) only
as it relates to the PSD program, (D)(i)(II) only as it relates to the
PSD program, (E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates to the PSD program.
This conditional approval is contingent upon New Hampshire taking
actions to meet requirements of these elements within one year of
conditional approval, as committed to in a letter from the state to EPA
Region 1 dated June 29, 2012.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 52.1520 is amended to read as follows:
    In Sec.  52.1520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
two entries to the end to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                          New Hampshire Non Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
   Name of non regulatory SIP      geographic or     State submittal   EPA approved date
           provision               nonattainment      date/effective          \ 3\             Explanations
                                        area               date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Submittal to meet Section        Statewide........  4/3/2008;          10/16/2012         This submittal is
 110(a)(2) Infrastructure                            supplement         [Insert Federal    approved with respect
 Requirements for the 1997                           submitted 7/3/     Register page      to the following CAA
 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                        2012.              number where the   elements or portions
                                                                        document begins].  thereof:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(B), (C)
                                                                                (enforcement program
                                                                                only), (D)(i)(I),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E)(i),
                                                                                (E)(iii), (F), (G),
                                                                                (H), (J)
                                                                                (consultation and
                                                                                public notification
                                                                                only), (K), (L), and
                                                                                (M).
Submittal to meet Section        Statewide........  9/18/2009;         10/16/2012         This submittal is
 110(a)(2) Infrastructure                            supplement         [Insert Federal    approved with respect
 Requirements for the 2006                           submitted 7/3/     Register page      to the following CAA
 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                        2012.              number where the   elements or portions
                                                                        document begins].  thereof:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(B), (C)
                                                                                (enforcement program
                                                                                only), (D)(i)(I),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E)(i),
                                                                                (E)(iii), (F), (G),
                                                                                (H), (J)
                                                                                (consultation and
                                                                                public notification
                                                                                only), (K), (L), and
                                                                                (M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

[FR Doc. 2012-25300 Filed 10-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 165)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52461]
[DOCID:fr26au10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0775]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
Wrightsville Beach, NC and Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of two
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) drawbridges: The
S.R. 74 Bridge, across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 283.1,
at Wrightsville Beach, NC, and the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge across the
Northeast Cape Fear River, mile 1.0, at Wilmington, NC. The deviation
is necessary to accommodate distance races. This deviation allows the
bridges to remain in the closed position during the races.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. through 11:59 p.m. on
November 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0775 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0775 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Lindsey Middleton, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Wilmington Family YMCA on behalf of the
NCDOT requested a temporary deviation from the current operating
regulations of the S.R. 74 Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway (AIWW), mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach and the Isabel S.
Holmes Bridge across the Northeast Cape Fear River, mile 1.0, at
Wilmington. The current operating schedules for the aforementioned
bridges are set out in 33 CFR 117.821(a) (4) and 33 CFR 117.829(a)
respectively. The requested deviation is to accommodate the Third
Annual Beach2Battleship Iron and Half-Iron distance Triathlons
scheduled for Saturday, November 13, 2010.
    The S.R. 74 Bridge at Wrightsville Beach is a lift drawbridge with
a vertical clearance of 20 feet above mean high water (MHW) in the
closed position. The Isabel S. Holmes Bridge at Wilmington is a lift
drawbridge with a vertical clearance of 40 feet above MHW in the closed
position. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed-to-
navigation position can do so at any time. The bridge will not be able
to open for emergencies.
    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the two bridge closures so
that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused
by the temporary deviation. There are no alternate routes available to
vessel traffic.
    To facilitate the races, the drawbridges will be maintained in the
closed-to-navigation position on November 13, 2010, at the following
times: From 7 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. for the S.R. 74 Bridge and from 12
p.m. to 11:59 p.m. for the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 12, 2010.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-21300 Filed 8-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24962-24963]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11191]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2056-031]

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Aesthetic Flow Adequacy Plan Amendment.
    b. Project No: 2056-031.
    c. Date Filed: March 30, 2017.
    d. Applicant: Northern States Power Company--Minnesota dba Xcel
Energy.
    e. Name of Project: St. Anthony Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Mississippi River in
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Matthew Miller, Licensing Specialist, Xcel
Energy, 1414 West Hamilton Street, PO Box 8, Eau Claire, WI 54702;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Dr. Mark Ivy,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: June 22, 2017.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/

efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2056-031. Comments emailed to Commission staff are not
considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee filed the results of a
public perception survey report pursuant to article 403 of the March 8,
2004 Order Issuing New License, which required photo documentation of
specific flow levels between 100 and 2,000 cubic feet per second (cfs)
and periodic filing of minimum flow reports. Due to the results of the
public perception survey, Xcel Energy requests Commission approval of
an amendment to the aesthetic flow adequacy plan to increase minimum
flows from 100 cfs to 300 cfs as a means to enhance aesthetics at the
project.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from
the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE as
applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and
the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person
commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with
the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary
basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of
service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: May 23, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11191 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P