[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9952-9953]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3847]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2011-0038; OMB No. 1660-0034]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request, Emergency Management Institute Course Evaluation Form

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a proposed revision of a currently approved information
collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this notice seeks comments concerning the Emergency Management
Institute Course Evaluation Form, which is used to evaluate the quality
of course deliveries, facilities, and instructors at the Emergency
Management Institute (EMI).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Emergency Management Institute Course Evaluation Form.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0034.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 092-0-3, Emergency Management
Institute Course Evaluation Form.
    Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government, Individuals or
households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 36,444.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: .08 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,746.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $135,981.37. There is no estimated annual cost to
respondents for operations and maintenance costs for technical
services. There are no annual

start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal government is
$77,775.50.

John G. Jenkins, Jr.,
Acting Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2012-3847 Filed 2-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-72-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 10, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13637-13640]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04869]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0096; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00040-R;
Amendment 39-21440; AD 2021-04-18]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-23-
02, which applied to all Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters.
AD 2020-23-02 required repetitive inspections of the bearing in the
swashplate assembly of the main rotor mast assembly for discrepancies
(ceramic balls that have a hard point or sensitive axial play or both)
and, depending on the findings, replacement of an affected main rotor
mast assembly with a serviceable main rotor mast assembly. Since the
FAA issued AD 2020-23-02, the FAA has determined additional main rotor
mast assemblies are affected by the unsafe condition. This AD continues
to require the actions specified in AD 2020-23-02, and also includes
additional affected main rotor mast assemblies; as specified in a
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated
by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 25, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 25,
2021.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by April 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, 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 material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact
the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49
221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321,
Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0096.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0096; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3218; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2020-23-02, Amendment 39-21318 (85 FR 73607,
November 19, 2020) (AD 2020-23-02), which applied to all Airbus
Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters. AD 2020-23-02 required
repetitive inspections of the bearing in the swashplate assembly of the
main rotor mast assembly for discrepancies (ceramic balls that have a
hard point or sensitive axial play or both) and, depending on the
findings, replacement of an affected main rotor mast assembly with a
serviceable main rotor mast assembly. The FAA issued AD 2020-23-02 to
address defective ceramic balls in the bearing installed in the
swashplate assembly of the main rotor mast assembly, which could lead
to premature spalling of the ball itself and of the bearing, loss of
function of the bearing, and overload of the main rotor mast scissor,
resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.

Actions Since AD 2020-23-02 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2020-23-02, the FAA has determined that
additional main rotor mast assemblies are affected by the unsafe
condition.
    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0264, dated December 2, 2020
(EASA AD 2020-0264) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters. EASA AD 2020-0264
supersedes EASA AD 2020-0079, dated April 1, 2020 (which corresponds to
FAA AD 2020-23-02).
    This AD was prompted by a report of a manufacturing and control
issue regarding the ceramic balls in the bearing installed in the
swashplate assembly of the main rotor mast assembly. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address defective ceramic balls in the bearing installed in
the swashplate assembly of the main rotor mast assembly, which could
lead to premature spalling of the ball itself and of the bearing, loss
of function of the bearing, and overload of the main rotor mast
scissor, resulting in reduced control of the helicopter. See the MCAI
for additional background information.

Explanation of Retained Requirements

    Although this AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD
2020-

23-02, this AD retains all of the requirements of AD 2020-23-02. Those
requirements are referenced in EASA AD 2020-0264, which, in turn, is
referenced in paragraph (g) of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0264 describes procedures for repetitive inspections
of the main rotor mast swashplate assembly for discrepancies (ceramic
balls that have a hard point or sensitive axial play or both), and
replacement of an affected main rotor mast assembly with a serviceable
main rotor mast assembly. This material is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD because the FAA has
evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of products
of the same type design.

Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD
2020-0264 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, in EASA AD 2020-
0264 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD, therefore,
requires compliance with EASA AD 2020-0264 in its entirety, through
that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions
in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same
as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean
that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where
the AD requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance
times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the
section titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in the
EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0264 that is
required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0264 is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2021-0096.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD interim action and further AD action may
follow.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.)
authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for
rules when the agency, for ``good cause'' finds that those procedures
are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a
final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because defective ceramic balls in the bearing installed in the
swashplate assembly of the main rotor mast assembly could lead to
premature spalling of the ball itself and of the bearing, loss of
function of the bearing, and overload of the main rotor mast scissor,
resulting in reduced control of the helicopter. This AD adds other
affected main rotor mast assemblies to those identified in AD 2020-23-
02. In addition, the compliance time for the initial instance of the
repetitive inspections is 50 hours time-in-service, a time period of
less than 2 months based on the average flight-hour utilization rate of
these helicopters. Accordingly, the compliance time for the required
action is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and
for publication of the final rule. Therefore, notice and opportunity
for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to public
interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the
reasons stated above, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30
days.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0096; Project Identifier MCAI-
2021-00040-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which
is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good
cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and
comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt
this rule

without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 30 helicopters of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Actions                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD                4 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $340         $10,200
 2020[dash]23[dash]02.                   hour = $340.
New actions...........................  4 work-hours x $85 per                 0             340          10,200
                                         hour = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition action that would be required based on the results of any
required action. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
helicopters that might need this on-condition action:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 work-hours x $85 per hour = $8,500             (*)         * $8,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Airbus Helicopters informed the FAA that the parts cost will vary for
  each aircraft, and be determined by several factors, including the
  condition of the returned assembly. Airbus Helicopters provided
  information indicating the cost may be as low as $270,000 per
  aircraft. For the purposes of this AD, the FAA estimates the average
  cost will be between $270,000 and $500,000 per aircraft.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2020-23-02, Amendment 39-21318 (85 FR 73607, November 19, 2020), and
adding the following new AD:

2021-04-18 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-21440; Docket No. FAA-
2021-0096; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00040-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 25,
2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2020-23-02, Amendment 39-21318 (85 FR 73607,
November 19, 2020) (AD 2020-23-02).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters,
certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6230, Main Rotor
Mast/Swashplate.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a manufacturing and control
issue regarding the ceramic balls in the bearing installed in the
swashplate assembly of the main rotor mast assembly. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address defective ceramic balls in the bearing
installed in the swashplate assembly of the main rotor mast
assembly, which could lead to premature spalling of the ball itself
and of the bearing, loss of function of the bearing, and overload of
the main rotor mast scissor, resulting in reduced control of the
helicopter.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0264, dated December 2, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0264).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0264

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0264 refers to April 15, 2020 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2020-0079), this AD requires using
December 4, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-23-02).
    (2) Where Table 1 of EASA AD 2020-0264 specifies a column
heading of ``FH Accumulated,'' for this AD use hours time-in-service
accumulated as of December 4, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-
23-02).

    (3) Where Table 2 of EASA AD 2020-0264 specifies a column
heading of ``FH Accumulated,'' for this AD use hours time-in-service
accumulated as of the effective date of this AD.
    (4) Where EASA AD 2020-0264 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (5) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0264 does not apply
to this AD.
    (6) Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-
0264 specifies to return certain parts, this AD requires removing
those parts from service instead.
    (7) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-
0264 specifies ``compliance with the works steps concerned with the
check is described in a video'' this AD requires a complete rotation
of the swashplate in both directions using a rate of one revolution
per minute.
    (8) Where EASA AD 2020-0264 refers to flight hours (FH), this AD
requires using hours time-in-service. The guidance provided by Note
1 to Table 1 and Table 2 in EASA AD 2020-0264 is still applicable.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0264
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and
21.199, are not allowed.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Strategic Policy Rotorcraft Section, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the Strategic Policy Rotorcraft Section,
send it to: Manager, Strategic Policy Rotorcraft Section, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen
Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0264,
dated December 2, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2020-0264, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0096.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on February 10, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-04869 Filed 3-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 45876]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3389-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Alabama; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Alabama (FEMA-3389-EM), dated September 11, 2017, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 16, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective September 14, 2017.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-21114 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 96 (Friday, May 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23078-23080]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80673; File No. SR-CHX-2017-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Regarding Anonymous Trade Reporting and Clearing

May 15, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on May 11, 2017, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CHX proposes to amend Article 21, Rule 5 of the Rules of the
Exchange (``CHX Rules'') regarding anonymous trade reporting and
clearing. The text of this proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at (www.chx.com) and in the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Article 21, Rule 5 to mandate
anonymity for all transaction and clearing reports resulting from all
executions on the

Exchange, which would include executions resulting from both single-
sided and cross orders,\3\ subject to certain current exceptions. To
this end, the Exchange proposes to eliminate (1) the requirement that a
Participant \4\ affirmatively request that its identity remain
anonymous on transaction and clearing reports and (2) the exclusion of
cross orders from the scope of Article 21, Rule 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(a)(2) defining ``cross order.''
    \4\ A Participant is a ``member'' of the Exchange for purposes
of the Act. See CHX Article 1, Rule 1(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing the amendments to update its outdated
trade and clearing anonymity rule and to harmonize the rule with
similar rules and practices of other exchanges, such as Bats BYX
Exchange and the Investors Exchange (``IEX'').\5\ Aside from these
changes, the Exchange does not propose any other amendments to the CHX
Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Bats BYX Rule 11.15(d); see also IEX Rule 11.250(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Background
    In October 2007, the Exchange adopted current Article 21, Rule 5
(Anonymous Trade Reporting and Clearing).\6\ Thereunder, current Rule
5(a) provides that, except as provided under current Rule 5(e),
transaction reports for all trades executed on the Exchange will
indicate the details of the transaction, but will not reveal a
Participant's identity as a contra party if that Participant has
requested that its identity remain anonymous. Also, current Rule 5(e)
provides that the provisions of Rule 5 shall not apply to any type of
cross trade executed on the Exchange, the result of which is that
transaction reports for cross executions will always reveal the
identity of the parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 56704 (October 25, 2007), 72 FR
61921 (November 1, 2007) (SR-CHX-2007-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, in recent years, trading activity on the Exchange has
evolved such that trade and clearing anonymity have become routinely
necessary for Participants for all types of executions on the Exchange.
In particular, trade and clearing anonymity have become ubiquitous
market wide and many Participants are members of other national
securities exchanges that mandate trade and clearing anonymity, subject
to certain exceptions.\7\ At CHX, all of the most active Participants
have requested trade anonymity and the Exchange is not aware of any
Participant that requires its identity be disclosed on transaction and
clearing reports. Consequently, the Exchange believes that the current
requirement that a Participant elect anonymity for single-sided
executions imposes an unnecessary compliance burden on Participants,
especially on those Participants that are members of other national
securities exchanges with mandatory trade and clearing anonymity, which
would be eliminated by harmonizing Article 21, Rule 5 with the rules of
other national securities exchanges, such [sic] Bats BYX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to cross executions, the Exchange believes that the
original purpose for excluding cross executions from the scope of
Article 21, Rule 5, which was to provide Participants [sic] ``with a
sufficiently detailed trade or clearing report to permit it to
effectively service its customers' needs,'' \8\ has been obviated by
enhancements to back office operations realized by Participants that
submit cross orders. As such, the disclosure of the identity of parties
to the trade on a cross transaction report is no longer necessary. In
fact, the Participants that submit cross orders have recently expressed
a strong preference for anonymous transaction reports. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes it necessary and appropriate to apply mandatory trade
and clearing anonymity to cross executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See SR-CHX-2007-20, id, at 61921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Amended Article 21, Rule 5
    In light of the above, the Exchange proposes to amend current Rule
5(a) to mandate trade and clearing anonymity for all executions on the
Exchange. Specifically, amended Rule 5(a) would provide that
transaction reports produced by the Exchange will indicate the details
of transactions executed on the Exchange, but shall not reveal contra
party identities. Amended Rule 5(a) would further provide that except
as set forth in paragraph (b) below,\9\ transactions executed on the
Exchange will also be cleared and settled anonymously. In addition, in
order to mandate trade and clearing anonymity for cross executions, the
Exchange proposes to delete current Rule 5(e) in its entirety and,
since two or more Participants may be parties to a particular cross
execution,\10\ the Exchange proposes to amend current Rule 5(b)(3) \11\
to provide that the Exchange will reveal the identity of a Participant
or a Participant's clearing firm if all parties to the trade consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Current CHX Article 21, Rule 5(b) provides that the Exchange
will reveal the identity of a Participant or a Participant's
clearing firm in the following circumstances: (1) For regulatory
purposes or to comply with an order of a court or arbitrator; (2)
when the National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') ceases
to act for a Participant or a Participant's clearing firm and NSCC
determines not to guarantee the settlement of a Participant's
trades; or (3) if both parties to the trade consent.
    \10\ See Exchange Act Release No. 77785 (May 9, 2016), 81 FR
29936 (May 13, 2016) (SR-CHX-2016-06).
    \11\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
\13\ in particular, which requires, among other things, that the
Exchange's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system by promoting consistency and
uniformity among different markets \14\ regarding trade and clearing
anonymity. For Participants that are members of other exchanges, the
proposed rule change will result in efficiencies with respect to such
Participants' rule compliance efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change will reduce the regulatory burden placed on
market participants that are members of various markets, as well as
reduce administrative burden on the Exchange. The Exchange believes
that the harmonization of the anonymous trade reporting and clearing
provisions across the various markets \15\ will reduce burdens on
competition by removing impediments to participation in the national
market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id.

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \16\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \18\ permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule
change will become operative on May 15, 2017. The Exchange stated that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest by immediately eliminating the administrative
burden of enforcing an outdated rule and by facilitating compliance
with CHX Rules by current and new Participants that are already
accustomed to the mandatory trade and clearing anonymity rules and
practices of other exchanges. Waiver of the operative delay would allow
the Exchange, without delay, to make its trade and clearing anonymity
rules consistent with the rules and practices of other exchanges. The
Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as
it will permit CHX to harmonize its trade and clearing rules with those
of the other exchanges without delay. Therefore, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative on May 15,
2017.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2017-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2017-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2017-09, and should be
submitted on or before June 9, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-10128 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46028-46029]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18879]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4451-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Missouri; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for State of Missouri (FEMA-4451-DR), dated July 9, 2019, and related
determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on August 16, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Jon K. Huss, of
FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this
disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Seamus K. Leary as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.)

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-18879 Filed 8-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50602-50608]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20271]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0599 ; A-1-FRL-9716-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Hampshire; Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the New Hampshire State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that addresses regional haze for the first
planning period from 2008 through 2018. The revision was submitted by
the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) on
January 29, 2010, with supplemental submittals on January 14, 2011, and
August 26, 2011. This revision addresses the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require States to prevent any
future, and remedy any existing, manmade impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I Areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to
as the ``regional haze program'').

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on September 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0599. All documents in the docket
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.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at
the Air Resources Division, Department of Environmental Services, 6
Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA
02109--3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0697, 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

    On February 28, 2012, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPR) for the State of New Hampshire. See 77 FR 11809. The NPR proposed
approval of the New Hampshire State Implementation Plan (SIP) that
addresses regional haze for the first planning period from 2008 through
2018. It was submitted by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services (NHDES) on January 29, 2010, with supplemental submittals on
January 14, 2011, and August 26, 2011. Specifically, EPA proposed to
approve New Hampshire's January 29, 2010 SIP revision, and its
supplements, as meeting the applicable implementing regulations found
in 40 CFR 51.308. EPA also proposed to approve, and incorporate into
the New Hampshire SIP, New Hampshire's regulation Env-A 2300 Mitigation
of Regional Haze and a permit for Public Service of New Hampshire
(PSNH) Merrimack Station.
    A detailed explanation of the requirements for regional haze SIPs,
as well as EPA's analysis of New Hampshire's Regional Haze SIP
submittal was provided in the NPR and is not restated here.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received a number of comments on our proposal to approve New
Hampshire's Regional Haze SIP submittal. Comments were received from
NHDES, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service (NPS), and
the Sierra Club. The following discussion summarizes and responds to
the relevant comments received on EPA's proposed approval of New
Hampshire's Regional Haze SIP.
    Comment: The U.S Forest Service commented that they are pleased
that current permit conditions require Merrimack Station to submit
calendar monthly emission rates for the preceding twelve months by
December 31, 2014, in order to determine the maximum sustainable rate
of control for the facility. In addition, they acknowledged the work
that the State of New Hampshire has accomplished and encouraged the
State of New Hampshire to continue to reduce regional haze.
    Response: EPA acknowledges this comment from the U.S. Forest
Service.
    Comment: NHDES noted that EPA incorrectly referred to the New
Hampshire Air Toxic Control Act, NH Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA)
125-I, and the regulations promulgated thereunder as requiring the
installation of the wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system for
mercury removal on the two coal-fired boilers at PSNH Merrimack
Station. The correct citation is NH RSA 125-O, the Multiple Pollutant
Reduction Program statute. The sections of the law that specifically
address mercury removal and require a FGD system are RSA 125-O:11-18.
    Response: EPA agrees that there was an error in the citation of the
law requiring the FGD system.
    Comment: NPS commented that the Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) modeling and interpretation did not follow EPA's BART modeling
guidelines or the methods recommended by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) States and the Federal Land Managers (FLMs).
NPS stated that since only one year of meteorological data was modeled,
NHDES should have used the 20% best natural background visibility
conditions in the modeling and reported the maximum visibility impact
at the Class I areas due to the source's baseline emissions and
emissions control options. NPS noted that in NHDES's August 2011
revision, the BART modeling was partially corrected to use the natural
background visibility, but still incorrectly reports the visibility
impact for the 20% worst days and the 20% best days rather than the
single day with the maximum visibility impact. NPS stated that while
correcting the modeling results may not change the BART control
decisions, EPA should

not propose to approve methods and interpretations that are not
consistent with the correct applications by the other MANE-VU States
and States in other regions. NPS recommended that NHDES and EPA
correctly report the maximum visibility impact from the BART units for
baseline emissions and emissions control options.
    Response: Upon further inspection of the model output, NHDES
confirmed that the single day with the maximum visibility impact was
used when determining the visibility improvement expected from the
installation of potential BART control. The highest impact for the 20%
worst natural days was used as the baseline condition for the
determination of pre-control visibility impact and post-control
visibility impact. The 20% worst natural visibility days were used
instead of the 20% best natural visibility days because meteorological
conditions prevalent during the 20% best natural visibility days are
not conducive for transport from the New Hampshire BART sources to the
nearby Class I Areas.
    However, in response to the NPS's comment, NHDES did undertake a
modeling analysis to rerun the pre- and post-BART emission scenarios
using the 20% best natural visibility days as the baseline to determine
the greatest visibility impact from the BART sources.\1\ As an example
of the revised modeling, Table 1 provides the updated visibility
improvement in deciviews (dv) expected from the various sulfur dioxide
(SO2) control strategies that were assessed for Newington
Station NT1 (specifically the lowering of the sulfur content of the
fuel oil used).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ New Hampshire's additional modeling ``6-2012 Revised BART
Modeling Results--V2.pdf'' is available in the docket to this
rulemaking.

              Table 1--Cost and Visibility Impacts Projected From Implementation of SO2 Control Using the Revised NHDES Visibility Modeling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Increased cost/hr               $/ton SO2 reduced                          Cumulative
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------   Visibility      visibility
                        % Sulfur                                                                                improvement at    improvement
                                                                Low            High             Low            High        acadia  (dv)        (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2% to 1%................................................           $0.00          $2,993               0          $1,030             0.4            0.79
2% to 0.7%..............................................           1,346           4,712             402           1,407  ..............  ..............
2% to 0.5%..............................................           2,020           6,059             528           1,583            0.62            1.21
2% to 0.3%..............................................           2,693          11,445             627           2,664            0.70            1.37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When using the 20% worst natural visibility days, the days in which
the BART unit NT1 actually impacts the visibility in the nearby Class I
areas, the visibility improvement between the selected level of
SO2 control (lowering the SO2 emission limit to
the equivalent of requiring 0.5% sulfur fuel oil) and the more
stringent level of SO2 control (lowering the SO2
emission limit to the equivalent of requiring 0.3% sulfur fuel oil) is
0.06 dv (0.11 dv cumulative).\2\ The corresponding visibility
improvement using the 20% best natural visibility days is 0.08 dv (0.16
dv cumulative). Thus, the NPS comment has been addressed. EPA finds
that the NHDES modeling is consistent with the methods recommended by
MANE-VU and the FLMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See EPA's NPR on New Hampshire SIP revision, 77 FR 11809,
for the visibility impact using the 20% worst natural visibility
background conditions for the Newington Station NT1 BART
SO2 analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Sierra Club referenced EPA's proposal to approve the New
Hampshire determination that BART for Merrimack is wet scrubbers and a
90% reduction in SO2 emissions, based on ``[c]urrent permit
conditions.'' Sierra Club asserted that while it is correct that wet
scrubbers are BART for Merrimack, the SIP sets far too lax an emission
standard for SO2. Sierra Club also referenced the BART
analysis for Merrimack Station which notes that SO2 removal
efficiencies for wet scrubbers in general range up to 97%, and for
``new Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) systems * * * the presumptive norm
is 95 percent reduction of SO2 emissions.'' Similarly, MANE-
VU analysis ``recommends [a] limit of 95% reduction in SO2
emissions.''
    Furthermore, Sierra Club included a progress report developed by
the operator of Merrimack, which states that the newly-installed
scrubbers are actually removing far more than 90% of the SO2
from the plant's exhaust stream. In the report, PSNH notes that the
scrubbers are demonstrating ``exceptional success'' and that ``[s]ulfur
dioxide removal from boiler flue-gas is approximately 96-98%.'' See
Public Service Company of New Hampshire Merrimack Station Scrubber
Project Progress Report (March 22, 2012).\3\ Sierra Club concludes that
there is no justification for the SIP's determination that BART for
Merrimack consists of a mere 90% reduction in SO2 emissions,
when the presumptive standard would involve releasing half as much
SO2, and the facility is already claiming to emit less than
a third as much. Sierra Club recommends that BART for Merrimack Station
MK2 should involve at least a 97% SO2 reduction rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This document is available in the docket to this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The installation of the wet scrubber is the result of
state legislation requiring the reduction of mercury emissions from
Merrimack Station Units MK1 and MK2.\4\ The wet scrubber has the co-
benefit of reducing SO2 emissions, a visibility impairing
pollutant. The wet scrubber has been configured to maximize the mercury
emission reduction. It was not known at the time of the BART
determination what the SO2 control efficiency would be under
the current configuration. Current permit conditions require the
facility to submit calendar monthly emission rates for the preceding 12
months by December 31, 2014. At that time, New Hampshire will determine
the maximum sustainable rate of control. As specified by permit
conditions, in no case may this rate be less than 90% control. As
supported by preliminary reports, it is expected that the scrubber will
provide greater than 90% SO2 control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Multiple Pollutant Reduction Program, NH RSA 125-O:11-
18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the MK2 BART determination, NHDES considered the existing
control, the wet scrubber which is calibrated for the removal of
mercury. NHDES selected an approach that reasonably balances mercury
removal with a sustainable level of SO2 removal. EPA finds
that the approach to setting BART level of controls for MK2 taken by
New Hampshire is reasonable.
    Comment: The Sierra Club noted that, since the BART analysis for
Merrimack was based in part on Merrimack's actual historical capacity
factors, any increase in Merrimack's capacity factor will

result in increased emissions and negative impacts on visibility in
ways that the SIP will fail to address. According to Sierra Club, the
SIP should therefore be amended to restrict Merrimack's emissions not
only on a basis of pollutants-per-MMBtu, but also through reference to
Merrimack's actual historical level of operation. Put another way,
Sierra Club suggested that the SIP must be revised to restrict
Merrimack's operation to the capacity factors relied upon in the BART
analysis.
    Response: According to the BART Guidelines,\5\ when calculating the
average cost of control, ``The baseline emission rate should represent
a realistic depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the source.
In general, for the existing sources subject to BART, you will estimate
the anticipated annual emissions from a baseline period. In the absence
of enforceable emission limitations, you calculate baseline emissions
based upon continuation of past practices.'' On the other hand, the
BART Guidelines require enforceable limitations if the utilization or
other parameters used to determine future emissions differ from past
practice. See BART Guidelines Section D. Step 4.d (70 FR 39156, 39167,
July 6, 2005). The utilization and parameters used in the BART analysis
for Merrimack are consistent with baseline conditions and past
practices, therefore the parameters used, including capacity factor,
are not required to be enforceable. On the point of requiring a lb/
MMBtu limit instead of a percent control efficiency limit, the BART
guidelines list the presumptive levels in units of lb/MMBtu or a
percent reduction, and thus we are approving the State's approach of
percent control as being consistent with the guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze
Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: NPS commented that NHDES should have considered Advanced
Separated Overfire Air (ASOFA) as an oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) control option for Merrimack Station MK2 in addition
to the existing SCR. NPS asserted that the addition of ASOFA would
result in a NOX rate of 0.24 lb/MMBtu instead of the
proposed 0.30 lb/MMBtu 30-day rolling average. NPS indicated that a 25%
NOX reduction would provide 0.5 cumulative deciview of
visibility improvement at Acadia National Park, Great Gulf Wilderness
Area, and Lye Brook Wilderness Area. NPS reviewed four other coal/
lignite-fired cyclone boilers (Kincaid in IL and Leland Olds 2
and Milton R. Young 1 & 2 in ND) that are subject to
BART. NPS noted that the Kincaid electrical generating unit (EGU) is
already equipped with overfire air (and SCR), and the three cyclone
boilers in ND will install ASOFA and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
(SNCR) as BART. NPS cited the estimated NOX emission
reductions from the installation of ASOFA for Leland Olds 2
(LOS2), Milton R. Young 1 (MRY1) and Milton R. Young
2 (MRY2) as 28%, 39.5%, and 37.7%, respectively.
    Response: Merrimack Station Unit MK2 is a 320 mega-watt (MW) coal-
fired cyclone boiler. MK2 fires bituminous coal rather than lignite
used in the units discussed by NPS. Bituminous coal ash becomes fluid
at a higher temperature than lignite coal ash. This means that a higher
combustion temperature is needed in bituminous coal boilers to ensure
coal ash remains fluid and is properly removed from the boiler.
Improper removal of coal ash can cause the boiler to plug with coal
ash, shutting down combustion or creating unsafe operating conditions,
and requiring maintenance for coal ash removal.
    The installation of ASOFA would lower the combustion temperature
and degrade the performance of the boiler. Due to the different
properties of the fuels used, EPA does not agree that Merrimack Station
Unit MK2 would achieve the same NOX emission reduction from
ASOFA as estimated for the cited units.
    In addition, the North Dakota units lacked any NOX
control in the BART baseline, therefore the expected visibility
improvement at the highest impacted Class I area due to installation of
BART control is 2.9 dv for MRY1, 3.379 dv for MRY2, and 3.9 dv for
LOS2. See 76 FR 58570 (Sept. 21, 2011). By comparison, Merrimack
Station MK2 has an existing SCR. The greatest expected visibility
improvement from the installation of ASOFA at MK2, using the NPS
estimate of 25% reduction in NOX, would be 0.2 dv at Acadia,
0.2 dv at Great Gulf, and 0.1 dv at Lye Brook. It is unlikely that the
projected visibility improvement at these Class I areas would be cost-
effective considering the cost of installation of ASOFA, the potential
for degraded performance, and the increase in maintenance costs. EPA
finds that the NHDES determination that SCR represents BART for
Merrimack Station Unit MK2 is reasonable.
    Comment: NPS commented that the emission limit for the
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) should reflect the actual
capabilities of the units, 0.019 lb total suspended particulate
(``TSP'') per MMBtu instead of the proposed limit of 0.08 lb TSP/MMBtu.
    Response: The BART Guidelines state ``emission limits must be
enforceable as a practical matter.'' The MANE-VU recommended
particulate matter (PM) limit for non-CAIR EGUs, such as MK2, is 0.02-
0.04 lb/MMBtu.\6\ NHDES decided to provide some level of flexibility to
Merrimack Station which has a source subject to BART (MK2) and a source
not subject to BART (MK1). MK2 and MK1 will share a stack with the
installation of the new FGD. If only MK1 operated, the emission limit
required by New Hampshire would represent a decrease of 70.4% from the
MK1 emission limit of 0.27 lb/MMBtu. At worst, when only MK2 is
operating, the emission limit represents a decrease of 64.8% from the
currently permitted limit of 0.227 lb/MMBtu. The emission limit chosen
by New Hampshire also results in a lower emission rate from the
combined units than if New Hampshire had only required MK2 to meet the
limit suggested by MANE-VU.\7\ Therefore New Hampshire's proposed BART
control limit for PM is consistent with the MANE-VU recommended
emission limit while providing flexibility to operate a shared stack.
Considering the current controls on emissions from Merrimack Station--
two ESPs in series--as well as the reductions guaranteed by New
Hampshire's limits, EPA finds that NHDES was reasonable in establishing
the TSP emission limit for MK2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The MANE-VU Workgroup Recommended level of BART control can
be found in Attachment W--``MANE-VU Five-Factor Analysis of BART
eligible Sources'' of the New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP submittal
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    \7\ For the ``bubble,'' the combined emission rate if both units
are operating is 377 lb/hr:
    0.08 lb/MMBtu x 4,711 MMBtu/hr = 377 lb/hr.
    Without the ``bubble,'' the sum of the individual emission rates
applying MANE-VU's presumptive PM emission limit of 0.04 lb/MMBtu
would be 473 lb/hr:
    (0.04 lb/MMBtu x 3,473 MMBtu/hr) + (0.27 lb/MMBtu x 1,238 MMBtu/
hr) = 473 lb/hr.
    New Hampshire's approach therefore results in a decrease of
almost 100 lb/hr beyond what application of the MANE-VU suggested
limit would require.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The Sierra Club commented that the New Hampshire haze SIP
proposes that an emission limit of 0.08 lbs TSP/MMBtu comports with
BART. However, the Sierra Club indicated that this limit is much higher
than what is achievable by the PM controls at Merrimack and with BART.
The Sierra Club cited the MANE-VU analysis which recommends a
``particulate matter limit of 0.02-0.04 lb/MMBtu'' for Merrimack unit
MK2. Similarly, the Merrimack BART Analysis noted that stack tests for
Merrimack have recorded actual PM

emissions of as low as 0.021 lbs TSP/MMBtu. The Sierra Club concluded
that this would support a determination that an appropriate BART limit
for Merrimack would be 0.02 lbs TSP/MMBtu. However, the SIP proposes an
emission limit of 0.08 lbs TSP/MMBtu for both units which would result
in emissions ``less than the total allowable TSP emissions * * * in
which a limit for Unit MK2 were revised to 0.04 lb/MMBtu and the limit
for Unit MK1 remained unchanged.'' The Sierra Club acknowledged that
while salutary--and potentially necessary to ensure that New Hampshire
meets its reasonable progress goals--the Sierra Club does not think the
implementation of a limit for unit MK1 has any bearing on what BART-
derived limit is consistent with what is ``achievable through the
application of the best system of continuous emission reduction'' for
MK2. Sierra Club stated that New Hampshire may not quadruple the
emissions from a BART-eligible unit and call it BART just because it
also proposes to limit emissions from another source elsewhere. The
limits applicable to MK2 are derived from what may be achieved from the
best available retrofit technology. Here, that technology supports an
emissions limit of 0.02 lbs TSP/MMBtu; Sierra Club indicated that this
limit, and not 0.08 lbs TSP/MMBtu, should be set as BART in the SIP. In
addition, to ensure that particulate matter emission reductions are
being achieved, the Sierra Club commented that the SIP should require
continuous emissions monitoring for particulate matter.
    Response: With the installation of the FGD, MK1 and MK2 share a
common stack and the EPA finds that NHDES has acted reasonably in
setting an emission limit that accounts for, and reduces, emissions
from both units. The permit conditions require stack testing post
emission controls, and therefore the TSP emissions from MK1 must be
considered when developing the TSP emission limit for MK2. Sierra Club
has incorrectly characterized New Hampshire's Regional Haze SIP as
allowing emissions from a BART-eligible unit to quadruple. As noted in
the response above, even under the worst case scenario where only MK2
is operating, New Hampshire's approach results in a decrease of
approximately 65% TSP. Assuming dual operation of MK1 and MK2, New
Hampshire's approach results in nearly 100 lb TSP/hr less than the
limit MANE-VU, and Sierra Club, recommend.
    As to the Sierra Club suggestion of requiring a CEM for particulate
matter, current federally enforceable permit conditions require the
continuous operation of the existing ESPs. While emission limits must
be enforceable as a practical matter, the BART Guidelines clearly state
that continuous emission monitors (CEMs) are not required in every
instance. See 70 FR 39172, July 6, 2005. Moreover, the BART Guidelines
recognize that monitoring requirements are in many instances governed
by other regulations, such as compliance assurance monitoring.
    EPA reiterates that New Hampshire has reasonably developed a
control level of MK2 that provides for significant emissions reductions
and operational flexibility.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Sierra Club also commented that EPA should ``address all
particulate matter, not just TSP.'' Total suspended particulates, or
TSP, is the measure of total particulate matter, regardless of size,
and therefore accounts for all particulate matter emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Sierra Club commented that the SIP does not explicitly
include requirements for continuous operation of either the PM or
SO2 controls.
    Response: With respect to SO2 controls, the operating
permit submitted as part of the New Hampshire haze SIP states,
``Beginning on July 1, 2013, the Owner shall not operate MK2 unless
MK2-PC7 (the scrubber) is in operation.'' \9\ EPA proposed to approve
this permit and incorporate it into the SIP on Feb 28, 2012. See 77 FR
11809. EPA is approving this permit in today's action. With respect to
PM controls, as discussed in the previous response, the existing
federally enforceable Title V permit requires continuous ESP operation
to meet permit limits.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Public Service of New Hampshire Merrimack Station
Temporary Permit TP-0008 Table 4, Item 7. This document is available
in the docket for this rulemaking.
    \10\ See Public Service of New Hampshire Merrimack Station Title
V Permit Table 5, Item 7, condition B. This document is available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The Sierra Club observed that much of the New Hampshire
haze SIP is based on modeling and other determinations developed as
part of the MANE-VU regional planning organization analysis
incorporating pollution and visibility data from a wide range of states
and tribal entities. MANE-VU member state and tribal governments
include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Sierra Club noted that implicit in the New Hampshire haze SIP is the
understanding that each individual entity within MANE-VU will achieve
the reductions specified for each jurisdiction. Accordingly, the limits
and goals for reasonable progress determined in the New Hampshire SIP
are based on the reductions in other jurisdictions being met.
    Sierra Club asserted that not all MANE-VU jurisdictions are, in
fact, on target to meet their reductions. According to Sierra Club, to
the extent that the assumptions underpinning the reasonable progress
goals in the New Hampshire haze SIP are thereby impacted, the accuracy
of the analysis in the SIP should be re-examined.
    Response: The EPA notes that the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requires
States to determine what constitutes reasonable progress by, among
other things, consideration of the four statutory factors. The RHR
states that the determination of what constitutes reasonable progress
can only be made once the necessary technical analyses of emissions,
air quality, and the reasonable progress factors have been conducted.
See 64 FR 35721, July 1, 1999. The RHR states the following: ``Once a
State has adopted a reasonable progress goal and determined what
progress will be made toward that goal over a 10-year period, the goal
itself is not enforceable. All that is `enforceable' is the set of
control measures which the State has adopted to meet that goal. If the
State's strategies have been implemented but the State has not met its
reasonable progress goal, the State could either: (1) Revise its
strategies in the SIP for the next long-term strategy period to meet
its goal, or (2) revise the reasonable progress goals for the next
implementation period. In either case, the State would be required to
base its decisions on appropriate analyses of the statutory factors
included in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of the final rule.'' See
64 FR 35733, July 1, 1999.
    Consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(g), New Hampshire has committed to
submit to EPA a progress report, in the form of a SIP revision, every
five years following the initial submittal of the SIP. The report will
evaluate the progress towards the reasonable progress goal for each
mandatory Class I area located within the State and in each mandatory
Class I area located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions from within the State. At this time, New Hampshire will also
determine the adequacy of the existing implementation plan. See 40 CFR
51.308(h).
    Sierra Club is correct to point out that implementation of the
regional haze program in one State is to a certain extent
interconnected with implementation in other States. However, requiring
constant revision to modeled emission levels prior to

implementation would create indecisiveness and gridlock and would stall
implementation of emissions reductions. EPA adopted the above mentioned
aspects of the Regional Haze Rule to allow adjustments of State
planning goals during, and at the end of, each planning period to
account for any discrepancies between projected and actual emissions
reductions both within the State and from other States. EPA disagrees
with Sierra Club and does not find that New Hampshire must reevaluate
the modeling in its SIP at the present time.
    Comment: NPS commented that NHDES is not proposing emission
reductions sufficient to meet the MANE-VU ask. The FLMs disagree with
EPA's proposal to approve New Hampshire's plan and recommend the EPA
disapprove the New Hampshire plan because it does not meet the
reasonable progress goals set by New Hampshire.
    Response: New Hampshire, in cooperation with the MANE-VU States,
developed the MANE-VU ``Ask'' that will provide for reasonable progress
towards achieving natural visibility at the MANE-VU Class I areas. The
``Ask'' consists of: (a) Timely implementation of BART requirements;
(b) a 90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions from each of the
EGU stacks identified by MANE-VU comprising a total of 167 stacks; (c)
adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (d) continued
evaluation of other control measures to reduce SO2 and
NOX emissions. While New Hampshire is not adopting a low
sulfur fuel oil strategy as part of this submittal, it is expected that
the FGD for Merrimack Station MK1 and MK2 will provide greater than 90%
SO2 control. In addition, SO2 emissions in New
Hampshire have been reduced through the conversion of coal-fired Unit 5
at Schiller Station to a biomass-firing unit and the shutdown of Fraser
LLC pulp and paper mill.\11\ The reasonable progress goal developed by
New Hampshire, along with the other MANE-VU States is a goal and not in
of itself enforceable. As noted in the above response, New Hampshire
will have the opportunity to assess the reasonable progress goals and
the State's control strategies as part of the 5-year review. EPA
reiterates that the SO2 emission reductions included in the
New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP are comparable to reductions from the
MANE-VU ``Ask'' and will be sufficient to assure progress toward the
natural visibility goal for the New Hampshire Class I areas for the
first planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The annual 2002 SO2 emissions from Schiller
Station Unit 5 and Fraser LLC were 2,796 tons and 638 tons,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The Sierra Club commented that the MANE-VU four factor
analysis for reasonable progress determined that ``reductions in
SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU industrial point sources
will result in the greatest improvements in visibility in the MANE-VU
region, more than any other visibility-impairing pollutant.'' See 77 FR
11816, February 28, 2012. MANE-VU thus recommended a 90% reduction in
SO2 emissions from EGU emissions points. The Sierra Club
indicated that PSNH Schiller Station in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, is
one of the largest sources of SO2 pollution in New
Hampshire, emitting 3,549 tons of SO2 in 2009 and 1,706 tons
in 2010, according to EPA's Clean Air Markets Database. The Sierra Club
also stated that in recent years, Schiller is emitting SO2
at levels below historical norms for operation of the facility and
credited this emission reduction to the recent economic downturn.
    Sierra Club continued that while this emission reduction results in
less haze-causing air pollution in New Hampshire, the temporary
emissions reductions owing to the economic downturn and attendant
diminished output capacity at Schiller will not be permanent. Thus,
Sierra Club concluded that if these capacities are relied upon in
reasonable progress determinations for the New Hampshire Class I areas,
they must be made enforceable, with permit conditions limiting the
hours of operation or automatically requiring additional controls in
the event that specific annual usage is exceeded. This is critical
given the historic fluctuations in emission levels at Schiller.
    Sierra Club also stated that to the extent that the decreased
SO2 emissions are due to Schiller's conversion of one of its
coal-fired boilers to burn biomass, these reductions should be made
enforceable by requiring that Schiller not burn any coal in that
boiler. Otherwise, should economic conditions change or Schiller's
operator change its mind about what it would like to burn in that
boiler, the visibility gains factored into the SIP's reasonable
progress planning would be jeopardized.
    Response: As noted above, the ``Ask'' calls for a 90% reduction in
SO2 emissions from the top 167 impacting electrical
generating units (EGUs). MANE-VU modeling did not indicate that units
at Schiller Station were amongst the highest contributors to visibility
impairment at any nearby Class I area.\12\ The modeling was conducted
using 2002 emissions, prior to any economic downturn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For a list of the 167 highest visibility impacting EGUs,
see Attachment Y of the New Hampshire Regional Haze submittal,
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated by Sierra Club, in 2006, Public Service of New
Hampshire converted one of the three 50 MW units from coal burning to
biomass burning. The permit modification to convert to biomass burning
was undertaken through the federally approved permit process and any
modification that increases emissions above the applicable level would
require a federally approved permit. EPA relied upon this conversion to
biomass, and the related emissions reductions, and not on any decreased
utilization of other units at Schiller in evaluating New Hampshire's
plans to achieve reasonable progress.
    Comment: NPS observed that EPA states in the NPR: ``New Hampshire
relied on emission reductions from a number of ongoing and expected air
pollution control programs as part of the State's long term strategy.
For electrical generating units (EGUs), New Hampshire's Regulation
Chapter Env-A 3200, NOX Budget Trading Program limits ozone
season NOX emissions on all fossil-fuel fired EGUs greater
than 15 MW located in Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, and
Strafford Counties to 0.15 lb/MMBtu. However, a unit can meet this
limit via NOX credits.''
    The NPS commented that Clean Air Markets data indicates that MK1 is
not meeting the 0.15 lb/MMBtu target. NPS noted that since New
Hampshire is not included in the NOX State Implementation
Plan Call, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, or the Cross State Air
Pollution Rule, the NPS is not aware of any NOX trading
approach that NHDES is relying on to meet the 0.15 lb/MMBtu target. In
the absence of any discussion by NHDES or EPA regarding additional
control of emissions from MK1, the NPS can only state that a four-
factor reasonable progress analysis is required, and NPS believes it is
likely that they would have similar comments regarding SO2
and NOX emissions from MK1 as they do for MK2.
    Response: NHDES and MANE-VU undertook a four factor analysis for
reasonable progress. MANE-VU identified SO2 as the main
contributor to visibility impairment for this first planning period.
The result of the four factor analysis was the MANE-VU ``Ask.'' As part
of the MANE-VU ``Ask,'' New Hampshire agreed to require MK1

to reduce SO2 emissions by 90%. The operating permit
submitted as part of the New Hampshire SIP requires MK1 to meet at
least 90% reduction with the installation of the wet scrubber.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See PSNH Merrimack Station Temporary Permit TP-008 Table 4,
Item 8, condition a. This document is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NPS is correct that New Hampshire is not part of the NOX
State Implementation Plan Call, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, or the
Cross State Air Pollution Rule. However, New Hampshire was included in
the earlier NOX Budget Program that was developed via a
Memorandum of Understanding of the Ozone Transport Commission. See 65
FR 68078 (March 9, 2000). Since New Hampshire was not included in the
subsequent trading programs, New Hampshire's program is for all intents
and purposes an intrastate NOX credit trading program. The
New Hampshire NOX Budget program requires MK1 to meet an
ozone season emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu or 75% NOX
control from the 1990 baseline, whichever is less stringent. NPS is
correct in that MK1 is not meeting an ozone season emission limit of
0.15 lb/MMBtu, but is meeting 75% NOX control from the 1990
baseline.
    In addition to the ozone season NOX Budget Program, MK1
is subject to the NOX Reasonably Achievable Control
Technology (RACT) program. Pursuant to RACT Order ARD-97-001 issued in
accordance with New Hampshire's Env-A 1211 which was approved into the
SIP on July 23, 2002 (67 FR 48033), MK1 is required to meet 18.1 tons
NOX per 24-hour calendar day when MK2 is not in full
operation and 29.1 tons per calendar day when combined with MK2.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving New Hampshire's January 29, 2010 SIP revision and
supplemental submittals on January 14, 2011 and August 26, 2011, as
meeting the applicable implementing regulations found in 40 CFR 51.308.
EPA is also approving, and incorporating into the New Hampshire SIP,
New Hampshire's regulation Env-A 2300 Mitigation of Regional Haze and
PSNH Merrimack Station Temporary Permit TP-0008 Flue Gas
Desulfurization System dated March 9, 2009, and reissued August 2,
2010, and July 8, 2011.

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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 22, 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: July 12, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    40 CFR part 52 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 EE--New Hampshire

0
2. Section 52.1520 is amended by adding a new entry to the Table in
paragraph (c) in alphanumeric order, and by adding new entries to the
end of the Tables in paragraphs (d) and (e), to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) EPA approved regulations.

                                     EPA-Approved New Hampshire Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
           State citation                 Title/subject       effective    EPA approval date \1\   Explanations
                                                                 date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Env-A 2300.........................  Mitigation of Regional       1/8/11  8/22/12 [Insert         ..............
                                      Haze.                                Federal Register page
                                                                           number where the
                                                                           document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in the table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

    (d) EPA-approved State Source specific requirements.

                             EPA-Approved New Hampshire Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
          Name of source              Permit No.         State      EPA approval date \2\    explanations/Sec.
                                                    effective date                            52.1535 citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
PSNH Merrimack Station............         TP-0008        7/8/2011  8/22/2012 [Insert      Flue Gas
                                                                     Federal Register       Desulfurization
                                                                     page number where      System.
                                                                     the document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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.

    (e) Nonregulatory.

                                           New Hampshire Nonregulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP         geographic or       State submittal     EPA approved date    Explanations
            provision               nonattainment area  date/effective date          \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP    Statewide..........  1/29/2010;           8/22/2012 [Insert    ..............
 and its supplements.                                    supplements          Federal Register
                                                         submitted; 1/14/     page number where
                                                         2011, 8/26/2011.     the document
                                                                              begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 prov

[FR Doc. 2012-20271 Filed 8-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P