[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22956-22964]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09372]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0796; EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0862; FRL-9926-73-Region 1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Hampshire; Nonattainment New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
conditionally approve the New Hampshire November 15, 2012 State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions that are intended to ensure that
the State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs are consistent with the
federal PSD and NNSR program requirements. In a letter dated March 20,
2015, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES)
committed to revising its regulations no later than one year from the
date when EPA publishes a notice of final conditional approval, and to
submitting the revised regulations to EPA for approval into the SIP.
EPA is also proposing to fully approve a July 1, 2003 SIP revision that
clarifies two definitions related to New Hampshire's permitting
programs. These actions are being taken in accordance with the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2014-0796 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0796'',
Ida McDonnell, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, Toxics,
and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code
OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Ida
McDonnell, Manager, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (mail
code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2014-0796. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Air Permits, Toxics
and Indoor Programs 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's proposed
approval and technical support document are also available for public
inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Air
Resources Division, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services,
6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brendan McCahill, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post
Office Square--Suite 100, (mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing in this document?
II. Why is EPA reproposing its January 21, 2015 proposed approval of
New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 PSD program SIP submittal?
III. What comments did EPA receive during the comment period for New
Hampshire's PSD proposed program approval?
IV. What action is EPA proposing for New Hampshire's NNSR SIP
submittal?
    A. What is the background for New Hampshire's November 15, 2012
NNSR program SIP submittal?
    B. What revisions did EPA make in December 31, 2002?
    C. What revisions did EPA make in May 16, 2008?
V. What is EPA's analysis of New Hampshire's proposed NNSR program
SIP revisions?
    A. What requirements did EPA apply in deciding to propose
conditional approval of some of New Hampshire's SIP submittal?
    B. What provisions did New Hampshire include in its November 15,
2012 NNSR SIP submittal?
    C. How did the New Hampshire November 15, 2012 NNSR SIP
submittal meet new and existing NNSR program requirements?
    D. How did New Hampshire demonstrate that the definitions of
``Baseline actual emissions'' and ``Reasonable period'' are as
stringent as the corresponding federal definitions?
    E. What are the provisions that New Hampshire needs to submit in
order for the conditional approval to become a full approval?
VI. What action is EPA proposing for New Hampshire's July 21, 2003
SIP submittal to its PART Env-A 101: Permit definitions?
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing in this document?

    EPA is proposing three actions in this document. First, EPA is
proposing to conditionally approve revisions to the New Hampshire PSD
program under PART Env-A 619, ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration.'' EPA originally proposed approval of the State's PSD
program revisions on January 21, 2015. See 80 FR 2860. EPA is
reproposing to approve the State's PSD program as a conditional
approval because subsequent to EPA's January 21, 2015 Federal Register
document, EPA concluded that New Hampshire's regulations did not
contain a provision, consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), requiring
notice of a draft PSD permit to state air agencies whose lands may be
affected by emissions from the permitted source. In a letter from New
Hampshire dated March 20, 2015, the State committed to revise its
regulations, no later than one year from EPA's notice of a final
conditional approval, to include the additional public notice procedure
in its regulations and to submit the revision to EPA for approval into
the SIP.
    EPA is also proposing to conditionally approve revisions to New
Hampshire's NNSR program SIP submitted on November 15, 2012. The
approval is conditioned on New Hampshire submitting in a timely manner
two requirements missing from its rules: (1) Provisions that meet the
federal regulations for ``reasonable possibility,'' applicable to
projects at major stationary sources that are not major modifications
based on the actual-to-projected actual test but have a ``reasonable
possibility'' of resulting in a significant emission increase; and (2)
provisions stating that approval to construct shall not relieve any
owner or operator of the responsibility to comply fully with applicable
provisions of the plan and any other requirements under local, state or
federal law. In a letter dated March 20, 2015, the NH DES committed to
revising its NNSR regulations to include the requirements above and to
submitting the revised regulations to EPA for approval into the SIP.
    Finally, EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's July 1, 2003
SIP revision that modifies two definitions in PART Env-A 101, ``Permit
definitions:'' (1) ``minor permit amendment,'' and (2) ``state permit
to operate.'' These revisions are intended to clarify the State's
definitions relevant to certain permitting transactions and to render
them consistent with the requirements in the State's permitting rules.

II. Why is EPA reproposing its January 21, 2015 proposed approval of
New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 PSD program SIP submittal?

    EPA's original proposal to approve the November 15, 2012 revisions
to New Hampshire's PSD program is described in detail in the January
21, 2015 Federal Register document. See 80 FR 2860. In the document,
EPA noted that public participation requirements for New Hampshire's
PSD program were first approved in October 28, 2002. In the November
15, 2012 submittal, New Hampshire renumbered its State citation for the
public notice procedures but did not include any substantive revisions
to the language. However, after reviewing New Hampshire's rules to
determine compliance with the federal infrastructure SIP requirements
under CAA section 110, EPA concluded that New Hampshire's regulations
did not contain a provision, consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv),
requiring notice of a draft PSD permit to be sent to state air agencies
whose lands may be affected by emissions from the permitted source. As
noted above, EPA is now proposing to conditionally approve New
Hampshire's PSD program based on the State's commitment to revise its
regulation and to submit it to EPA for approval into the SIP.

III. What comments did EPA receive during the comment period for New
Hampshire's PSD proposed program approval?

    EPA received one comment from Earthjustice during the comment
period for the proposed approval of the PSD program. Earthjustice
commented that EPA's January 21, 2015 document proposing approval for
the State's PSD program was confusing and should have more clearly
stated that New Hampshire did not incorporate by reference the
significant impact levels (SILs) for Particulate Matter less than 2.5
microns (PM2.5) into its PSD SIP. EPA agrees that its
January 21, 2015 document should have been written more clearly on that
point. On January 22, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit granted a request from EPA to vacate and
remand the portions of the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule
(40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) addressing the SILs for
PM2.5 so that EPA could voluntarily correct an error in
these provisions. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 463-66 (D.C.
Cir. 2013). (The court declined to vacate the SILs provision at 40 CFR
51.165(b)(2) that did not contain that same error. Id.) EPA here
confirms that New Hampshire's November 12, 2012 proposed PSD revisions
did not incorporate by reference the PM2.5 SIL provision
under 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2). EPA is also confirming that we are not
approving 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) into the SIP.

IV. What action is EPA proposing for New Hampshire's NNSR SIP
submittal?

    New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal also included
revisions to the State's NNSR program at PART Env-A 618,
``Nonattainment New Source Review.'' The revisions incorporated by
reference into the State's regulations, at PART Env-A 618
``Nonattainment New Source Review,'' consist of many of the

provisions of the federal NNSR program codified in the July 1, 2011
edition of 40 CFR 51.165. New Hampshire incorporated those provisions
which are appropriate for state implementation (with the exception of
certain permit application and public notice requirements for which New
Hampshire submitted its own equivalent language and with the exception
of two definitions for which New Hampshire established its own
language, as described below). EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD)
sets forth in detail which provisions of 40 CFR 51.165 were
incorporated by the State and which were not. EPA's TSD is available as
part of the docket and administrative record for this action. The
State's NNSR submittal requested that EPA approve the revisions into
the State's SIP-approved NNSR program. The State's submitted NNSR
program includes provisions that comply with the requirements in EPA's
December 31, 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules and EPA's May 16, 2008
Final Rules Governing the Implementation of NSR for Fine Particulate
Matter (i.e., particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers
(PM2.5)). EPA is proposing to conditionally approve PART
Env-A 618 because the State's submittal did not include: (1) provisions
for ``reasonable possibility'' established in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and
(a)(7); and (2) provisions required under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i)
providing that approval to construct shall not relieve any owner or
operator of the responsibility to comply fully with applicable
provisions of the plan and any other requirements under local, State or
Federal law. By letter dated March 20, 2015, the State committed to
revise its regulations and to submit them to EPA for approval into the
SIP no later than one year from the date of EPA's notice of a final
conditional approval. We also note that PART Env-A 618, on which EPA is
today taking action, will supersede all other versions of the NNSR
rules earlier approved by EPA into New Hampshire's SIP.

A. What is the background for New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 NNSR
program SIP submittal?

    New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal adopting provisions
from the July 1, 2011 edition of 40 CFR 51.165 (with the exceptions
mentioned above and described in more detail in EPA's TSD) into the
SIP, involves the addition of several major changes to the State's NNSR
rules since EPA last approved the State's NNSR program on July 27,
2001. As mentioned earlier, the exact provisions of the federal
regulations which are and are not being incorporated by reference into
the New Hampshire SIP in this action are contained in EPA's TSD for
this rulemaking. The new NNSR provisions, i.e., those that are
different than the NNSR provisions earlier approved by EPA into New
Hampshire's SIP, are summarized below in the next two sections (IV.B.
and IV.C) of this document. The State's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal
retains much of the substantive content of the major NNSR rule
provisions last approved into the SIP on July 27, 2001 but also
incorporates changes to the federal regulations that occurred since
that time, i.e. in December 2002. The already existing provisions
include, among other things, requirements for major stationary sources
to obtain emission reductions (``offsets'') from existing stationary
sources to ensure new stationary sources do not interfere with state
plans to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
requirements that major stationary sources apply emissions controls
that constitute the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) which is
derived from the most stringent emission limitation contained in any
state implementation plan or achieved in practice for that class or
category of stationary source.

B. What revisions did EPA make in December 31, 2002?

    EPA issued a Final Rule entitled, ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR):
Baseline Emissions Determination, Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology,
Plantwide Applicability Limitations, Clean Units, Pollution Control
Projects'' (67 FR 80185, December 31, 2002). The rule made a number of
changes to the applicability requirements of the federal NNSR rule
including the following:
     A new definition of ``actual emission baseline'' that
defines an emission unit's pre-modification actual emissions;
     New ``Applicability Procedures'' under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2)
that define the test method used to calculate the emission increase
from the construction or modification of new or existing emission
units;
     The expansion of the ``Actual-to-Projected Actual''
applicability test to determine if projects at non-Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units (non-EUSGU) are major modifications. (The pre-
2002 federal NSR regulations restricted the Actual-to-Projected Actual
applicability test to EUSGUs only);
     New procedures requiring stationary sources to monitor,
keep records and report emissions from projects at existing emission
units if there is a reasonable possibility (as defined in 40 CFR
51.165(a)(6)(vi)) that a project that is determined pre-construction
not to be a major modification may actually in the future result in a
significant emission increase; and
     The addition of the optional ``Plantwide Applicability
Test'' (PAL) for all source categories.
    The Federal Register document for the December 2002 NSR rule gave
state permitting agencies until January 2, 2006 to submit SIP
amendments that implemented the new federal revisions or, if a state
permitting agency did not submit any SIP amendments or submitted
amendments that differed from the federal rules, a demonstration
showing that its existing permitting program or amended permitting
program is at least as stringent as EPA's revised program. In addition,
federal regulations governing SIP-approved NNSR rules at 40 CFR 51.165
``Permit Requirements'' require that all state plans use the specific
definitions as promulgated by EPA. Deviations from the federal
definitions will be approvable by EPA only if the state specifically
demonstrates that the submitted definition is more stringent than, or
at least as stringent in all respects as, the corresponding federal
definition.
    The final document for the December 2002 NSR rule at http://www.epa.gov/NSR/fr/20021231_80186.pdf provides a full description of
the NSR improvements, the requirements for SIP submittals, and the
final amended federal rule for SIP-approved NNSR programs at 40 CFR
51.165 ``Permit Requirements.''

C. What revisions did EPA make in May 16, 2008?

    EPA issued a Final Rule governing the implementation of NSR for
PM2.5. (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008). The rule includes the
new major stationary source applicability threshold level for major
stationary sources of PM2.5. A stationary source is defined
as a major stationary source and subject to the PM2.5 NNSR
requirements if it emits 100 or more tons per year (tpy) of
PM2.5.
    The rule also identified the following list of pollutants that
contribute to PM2.5 formation and a description of whether
the pollutant, as a precursor to PM2.5, is regulated under
the NNSR rules.
     Direct emissions of PM2.5--regulated under the
NNSR rule;

     Sulfur dioxide (SO2)--regulated under the NNSR
rule;
     Nitrogen oxides (NOX)--regulated under the NNSR
rule unless the state demonstrates that NOX emissions are
not a significant contributor to the formation of PM2.5 for
an area(s) in the state;
     Volatile organic compounds (VOC)--not regulated under the
NNSR rule unless the state demonstrates that VOC emissions are a
significant contributor to the formation of PM2.5 for an
area(s) in the state; and
     Ammonia--not regulated under the NNSR rule unless the
state demonstrates that ammonia emissions are a significant contributor
to the formation of PM2.5 for an area(s) in the state.
    The rule also identifies the following significant emission rates
used to determine if increases in direct emissions of PM2.5
or increases in PM2.5 precursors from a construction project
at an existing facility result in major modifications that are then
subject to the NNSR rule:
     Direct PM2.5 emissions--10 tons per year (tpy)
     SO2 emissions--40 tpy
     NOX emissions--40 tpy
     VOC emissions (if regulated) 40 tpy unless the state
demonstrates that a lower rate is appropriate.

V. What is EPA's analysis of New Hampshire's proposed NNSR program SIP
revisions?

A. What requirements did EPA apply in deciding to propose conditional
approval of New Hampshire's SIP submittal?

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA a
plan which provides for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement
of each NAAQS. These plans, generally referred to as the SIP, include
numerous air quality monitoring, emission inventory, and emission
control requirements designed to obtain and maintain the NAAQS within
the state. The CAA requires states to adopt SIP revisions into state
regulations and to submit the revisions to EPA for approval into the
state's SIP. Section 110(l) of the CAA states that EPA shall not
approve a revision to the SIP if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment (of the NAAQS) and
reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA section 7501) or any
other requirement of the CAA.

B. What provisions did New Hampshire include in its November 15, 2012
NNSR SIP submittal?

    New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal added or revised
the following provisions to its NNSR Program under PART Env-A 618
Nonattainment New Source Review. The provisions include requirements
from 40 CFR 51.165 previously incorporated by reference into New
Hampshire's SIP on July 27, 2001, additional or amended requirements
contained in the July 2011 version of 40 CFR 51.165, and certain new
and previously approved state permit program requirements, including
permit application and permit issuance procedures and other
requirements necessary to implement the NNSR program.

 PART Env-A 618.01: Purpose
 PART Env-A 618.02: Applicability
 PART Env-A 618.03: Definitions
 PART Env-A 618.04: Owner or Operator Obligations
 PART Env-A 618.05 Implementation Plan Requirements
 PART Env-A 618.06: Permit Application Requirements
 PART Env-A 618.07: Emission Offset Requirements
 PART Env-A 618.08: Procedure for acquiring and Implementing
Emission Offsets
 PART Env-A 618.09: Establishing a PAL
 PART Env-A 618.10 Department Review and Public Notice

    The following is a description of each section.
    PART Env-A 618.01 Purpose defines the purpose of the part to
implement the NNSR program as set forth in sections 171 through 193 of
the CAA and the July 1, 2011 edition of 40 CFR 51.165.
    PART Env-A 618.02 Applicability identifies the stationary sources
subject to the state NNSR program: New major stationary source or major
modifications of a regulated NSR pollutant located in an area
designated as nonattainment under 40 CFR 81.330, or new major
stationary sources or major modifications for NOX or VOC if
the stationary source is located in the Northeast Ozone Transport
region (OTR) as defined in PART Env-A 618.03(b)(3).
    The section also requires projects to use emission calculations
described in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2)(ii)(A) through (F) to determine if the
project is a new major stationary source or new major modification.
    In addition, if a new stationary source or modification is
determined to be a major stationary source or major modification solely
by virtue of a relaxation in any enforceable limitation established
after August 7, 1980 on the capacity of the stationary source or
modification otherwise to emit a pollutant, such as a restriction on
hours of operation, then the provisions of this part shall apply to the
stationary source or modification as though construction had not yet
commenced on the stationary source or modification.
    PART Env-A 618.03 Definitions adopts the specific definitions
contained in the July 1, 2011 edition of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1) and (f)(2)
with the following clarifications: The NH DES revised the federal
definitions of ``Baseline actual emissions'' and ``Reasonable period.''
An analysis of the State's revisions to the federal definitions of the
terms ``Baseline actual emissions'' and ``Reasonable period'' is found
in section V.D of this document. The section also included five
additional definitions not specifically defined in the federal NNSR
regulations, but relevant to the program: ``Emission offset,''
``Emission offset ratio,'' ``Northeast Ozone Transport Region,''
``Offset source,'' and ``Ozone season.''
    PART Env-A 618.04 Owner or Operator Obligations includes the
following requirements:
     The owner or operator of any new major stationary source
or major modification subject to this part shall comply with LAER;
     obtain offsets for the increase in emissions for the
project in accordance with PART Env-A 618.07; and
     obtain a NNSR permit prior to commencement of
construction.
    In addition, the owner or operator of an existing major stationary
source with a Plantwide applicability limit (PAL) shall comply with the
provisions of its PAL.
    PART Env-A 618.05 Implementation Plan Requirements ensures, in
accordance with section 173(a)(4) of the CAA, that NH DES will not
issue a permit or permits to a stationary source to which the
requirements of PART Env-A 618 apply if the EPA Administrator has
determined that the applicable implementation plan is not being
adequately implemented for the nonattainment area in which the proposed
stationary source is to be constructed or modified.
    PART Env-A 618.06 Permit Application Requirements identifies the
procedures to file with NH DES, NNSR and PAL permit applications. The
section also identifies the items that should be included in an
application including: (1) A control technology evaluation to
demonstrate that a new major stationary source or major modification
will meet LAER; (2) a documented plan to obtain creditable

emission reduction offsets in accordance with PART Env-A 618.07; (3) a
demonstration showing that all major stationary sources in New
Hampshire under common ownership are in compliance; and (4) an analysis
of alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and an environmental
control techniques demonstration showing the benefits of the proposed
stationary source significantly outweigh the environmental and social
costs imposed as a result of its location, construction, or
modification. In addition, a PAL application shall contain information
required pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(f)(3).
    PART Env-A 618.07 Emission Offset Requirements identifies the
requirements for offsets including, but not limited to, defining: (1)
the use of actual emissions from the stationary source providing offset
credits as the baseline for determining emission offsets; (2) the
offset ratio requirements for different ozone nonattainment
designations; and (3) the location requirements restricting where a
stationary source may obtain offsets. The section includes requirements
for a stationary source seeking offsets to demonstrate that the
stationary source of the offsets causes or contributes to a violation
of a NAAQS in the nonattainment area which the new or modified
stationary source is proposed to be located. The section also requires
that offsets obtained outside of New Hampshire be subject to a
federally enforceable permit or other federally enforceable document
approved by the state or governing jurisdiction in which the offset
stationary source is located.
    The section also states that offsets shall not include: (1) Any
reductions from compliance, or scheduled compliance, with applicable
rules in effect prior to the permit application of the new or modified
stationary source; (2) Reductions required to meet RACT or acid
deposition provisions of the Act, as stipulated in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990, 57 FR 13553, III.G.2.e; or 3) Reductions required to meet any
other provisions of Env-A 100 et seq. and the Act.
    PART Env-A 618.08 Procedures for Acquiring and Implementing
Emission Offsets identifies requirements for owners and operators to
document the offset pollutant, actual and potential estimates of each
new pollutant, the offset stationary source and location, the actual
and allowable annual estimate of each pollutant for the offset
stationary source prior to the effective date of the offset, potential
annual estimates of each pollutant of the new stationary source after
the effective date of the offset, and for NOX and VOC
emissions, the ozone season annual emissions estimate from the new
stationary source.
    The section also requires stationary sources obtaining offsets from
outside New Hampshire to file documentation with the NH DES verifying
that the offset stationary source has obtained a federally enforceable
permit or other federally enforceable documentation for the emission
reduction control measures pertaining to the offsets for the new
stationary source.
    The section also allows the use of emission reduction credits
(ERCs) in accordance to PART Env-A 3006.04 to satisfy NNSR emissions
offset requirements. Stationary sources may also use discrete emission
reductions (DERs) to meet the offset requirements provided the DERs
comply with the requirements of section 173 of the Act, 40 CFR
51.165(a) and PART Env-A 3108.02.
    Env A 618.09 Establishing a PAL identifies the requirements to
establish and implement a PAL in accordance with 40 CFR 51.165(f)(1),
(4) and (6) through (14) except that public participation procedures
identified in PART Env-A 618.10(b) and (c) shall be used.
    PART Env-A 618.10 Department Review and Public Notice requires
stationary sources applying for a PAL permit to file an application.
The regulation specifies that NH DES will address all material comments
received during the comment period before taking a final action on a
PAL permit application. Applications to comply with NNSR or to
establish a PAL permit shall be subject to the public notice procedures
specified in PART Env-A 621.04 including the requirement for a 30-day
public notice and comment period and permit appeal procedures under the
state judicial review regulations.

C. How did the New Hampshire November 15, 2012 NNSR SIP submittal meet
new and existing NNSR program requirements?

    With the exception of the definitions of the terms ``Baseline
actual emissions'' and ``Reasonable period,'' the NH DES's November 15,
2012 SIP submittal incorporated by reference into the State regulation
the definitions for a SIP-approved nonattainment NSR program under 40
CFR 51.165(a)(1) and the definitions for PALs under 40 CFR
51.165(f)(2). The submittal also included five additional definitions:
``Emission offset,'' ``Emission offset ratio,'' ``Northeast Ozone
Transport Region,'' ``Offset source,'' and ``Ozone season'' for the
purpose of clarifying the State's NNSR requirements. The definitions
for ``Emission offset,'' ``Emission offset ratio'' and ``Ozone season''
were previously approved by EPA into the SIP and clarify the offset
requirements under New Hampshire's NNSR program. The definition for the
``Northeast Ozone Transport Region'' was also previously approved by
EPA into the SIP and means the same geographical area as defined under
Section 184(a) of the CAA. The definition of ``Offset source'' replaces
the previously approved SIP definition of ``Offset donor source'' and
identifies potential sources of emissions from which a new or modified
stationary source may obtain emission offsets. The additional
definitions help clarify the offset requirements under New Hampshire's
NNSR program and are consistent with all federal requirements under the
CAA for approval into the SIP.
    By incorporating by reference the federal provisions under 40 CFR
51.165 (with the exceptions noted earlier and in EPA's TSD) the vast
majority of the State's proposed SIP revisions satisfy the existing
SIP-approved NNSR program requirements approved on July 27, 2001, the
December 31, 2002 NSR Improvement Rule, and the May 16, 2008
PM2.5 NSR Rule.\1\ The two conditional approval issues that
are missing from New Hampshire's submittal are described earlier and
later in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ New Hampshire's few changes to definitions used in the
federal regulations and use of several additional clarifying
definitions, as explained in this document, are also approvable
because they are consistent with all CAA requirements for approval
into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NH DES submittal also expanded upon the emissions offset
provisions previously approved into the SIP. As noted, the submittal
includes a new definition for ``Emission offset'' under PART Env-A
618.03 requiring reductions in pollutants achieved at an existing
stationary source to meet criteria specified in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3).
The NH DES also included two new sections in the NNSR program; Env
618.07, ``Emission Offset Requirements'' and Section PART Env-A 618.08,
``Procedure for Acquiring and Implementing Emissions Offsets.''
    As described above, PART Env-A 618.07 identifies the specific
provisions applicable to all offset emissions. These provisions include
requirements that offsets: (1) Be surplus; (2) obtained from an area
designated with an equal or higher nonattainment classification; (3)
obtained in an amount equal to or exceeding a one-to one ratio, or
another

ratio as required by the nonattainment designation; and, 4) if obtained
outside the designated area where the new stationary source or
modification is to be constructed, a demonstration that the offsets
cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS in which the stationary
source or modification is to be constructed, as allowed under section
173(c)(1) of the CAA.
    PART Env-A 618.08 identifies the procedures for documenting
emission reductions used for offsets. Among other requirements, the
section allows stationary sources subject to the offset provisions to
use ERCs in accordance with PART Env-A 3006.04. The section also allows
DERs to meet the offset requirements, provided the DERs comply with the
requirements of section 173 of the CAA, 40 CFR 51.165(a) and PART Env-A
3108.02. As explained below, EPA previously has allowed the use of DERs
to meet a CAA emissions requirement. EPA has determined, given the
procedures that will apply to the use of DERs and ERCs to meet the NNSR
emissions offset requirements, that it is appropriate and consistent
with CAA requirements to approve these provisions into New Hampshire's
SIP.
    In EPA's approval of New Hampshire's Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) and Volatile
Organic Compounds (79 FR 49458, August 21 2014), EPA allowed stationary
sources subject to the State's RACT rule to comply by the purchase and
generation of DER credits pursuant to PART Env-A 3100. The approval
further states, since PART Env-A 3100 has not been approved into the
SIP, any order issued by New Hampshire that allows the use of PART Env-
A 3100 to comply with NOX RACT will need to be approved into
New Hampshire's SIP as a source specific SIP revision.
    Similar to the RACT rule, since PART Env-A 3000 and PART Env-A 3100
have not been approved by EPA into the SIP, any NNSR permit issued by
New Hampshire that allows for the use of ERCs and/or DERs to meet an
offset requirement would first need the ERC or DER offset to be
approved by EPA into the SIP before the NNSR permit could be issued.
Each individual SIP approval of a stationary source's use of DERs and/
or ERCs for the purpose of meeting the NNSR emissions offset
requirement, would be required to meet the requirements identified in
PART Env-A 618.07 and PART Env-A 618.08 and to satisfy all offset and
any other relevant requirements of the CAA before EPA would be able to
approve the use of the DERs and/or ERCs into the SIP for a specific
proposed new major stationary source or modification.

D. How did New Hampshire demonstrate that the definitions of ``Baseline
actual emissions'' and ``Reasonable period'' are as stringent as the
corresponding federal definitions?

1. ``Baseline Actual Emissions'' Analysis
    The ``Baseline actual emissions'' definition is used in all major
stationary source applicability tests and defines the actual emissions
from a stationary source before the project. The difference between the
pre-project ``actual emission baseline'' and the post-project
``projected actual emissions'' determines the emission increase from a
project.
    The federal definition of ``Baseline actual emissions'' at 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(xxxv) defines separate baseline emissions calculations for
existing electric utility steam generating units (EUSGU) and all other
existing emission units other than EUSGU. The key elements of the
definition relevant to this document are as follows:
     Existing EUSGU: The owner/operator may select any
consecutive 24-month period for each pollutant, without the need for a
demonstration, within the 5-year period immediately preceding when the
owner/operator begins actual construction of the project. The reviewing
authority may allow the use of a different time period upon a
determination showing the time period is more representative of normal
stationary source operations. A different consecutive 24-month period
can be used for each regulated pollutant.
     All other existing emission units: The owner/operator may
select any consecutive 24-month period in the 10-year period
immediately preceding either the date the owner/operator begins actual
construction or the date a completed permit application is received by
the reviewing authority for a permit, whichever is earlier. No other
different time period is allowed. A different consecutive 24-month
period can be used for each regulated pollutant.
    The NH DES definition tracks the requirements in 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(xxxv) except for the following differences:
     Unlike the federal definitions, the State uses the same
definition for EUSGUs and non-EUSGUs.
     Under the State's definition, in establishing baseline
actual emissions for a project, the owner/operator presumptively shall
select the same consecutive 24-month period for all pollutants; and the
consecutive 24-month period shall be selected from within the 5-year
period immediately preceding the date when the owner/operator begins
actual construction of the project. However, the NH DES shall allow the
use of a different consecutive 24-month time period for all pollutants,
up to 10 years immediately preceding the date when the owner/operator
begins actual construction of the project, or allow the use of a
different consecutive 24-month period for different pollutants within
that 10 year period, upon determining (after adequate demonstration by
the applicant) that the alternative time period is more representative
of normal stationary source operations.
    Forty CFR 51.165(a)(1) requires that all state plans use the
specific definitions as promulgated by EPA. Deviations from the federal
wording for each definition will be approved only if the state
specifically demonstrates that the submitted definition is more
stringent, or at least as stringent in all respects, as the
corresponding federal definition.
    As part of the December 2002 NSR final rule, EPA prepared a
November 21, 2002, ``Supplemental Analysis of the Environmental Impact
of the 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules (Supplemental Analysis).'' The
Supplemental Analysis provided a description of the NSR reform rules
and an analysis demonstrating that the reform rule's environmental
benefits were equivalent to or more stringent than the existing pre-
reform rules. For the addition of the definition of ``Baseline actual
emissions,'' EPA concluded that the use of a 10 year period to select a
baseline is a reasonable period considering the variability of
different business cycles. EPA believes the effect from the new
definition is small and would not alter the baseline for 90% of the
stationary sources. For the remaining 10%, EPA cannot draw general
conclusions about how many stationary sources would or would not
receive an alternative baseline nor estimate what emission consequences
would result. EPA's complete analysis of the definition of ``Baseline
Actual Emissions'' can be found at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/nsr-analysis.pdf.
    The NH DES included as part of its SIP submittal a November 16,
2012 memorandum entitled ``Supplemental Information for SIP Revision
Request Parts of PART Env-A 600, Statewide Permit System.'' Similar to
the EPA's study and analysis summarized above in the previous
paragraph, the State's memorandum described the differences between the
federal and state ``Baseline actual emissions'' definitions and
described an emissions study that compares the effects of the state and

federal definition on emission changes to actual stationary sources
located in New Hampshire. The NH DES's analysis looked at the federal
definition of baseline actual emission, the State's presumptive or
default baseline actual emission method (i.e., 24 consecutive months
selected from the 5 years preceding actual construction for all
regulated pollutants), and the State's allowed alternative emission
baseline if the owner/operator could demonstrate normal stationary
source operations are better represented by:
     Use of an alternative 24-consecutive month period selected
from the period between 5 to 10 years immediately preceding beginning
actual construction, and
     use of different 24-consecutive month periods for
different regulated pollutants, within the period between 5 and 10
years immediately preceding beginning actual construction.
    For the majority of changes occurring at any type of stationary
source, the State's presumptive or default baseline actual emissions
method (using a 24-consecutive month period during the 5 year period
immediately preceding beginning actual construction) resulted in the
same or lower baseline emissions as compared to the federal definition.
For owner/operators that could demonstrate that normal stationary
source operations were better represented by 24 consecutive months
selected from the 5 to 10 year period preceding beginning actual
construction or that different consecutive 24-month periods for
different regulated pollutants better represent normal stationary
source operations, the analysis showed that the State's definition
resulted in baseline emissions that were at least as stringent in all
cases to the federal definition.
    EPA therefore concludes that the NH DES's definition of ``Baseline
actual emissions'' is as stringent in all respects as the federal
definition. The State's definition results in the same emission
baseline for new emission units, changes to existing EUSGUs, and
changes at existing units that emit one pollutant and with high
utilization rates within the last 5 years. For all other changes, the
State's definition allows the use of baselines selected outside of 5
years (but before 10 years) and baselines for each regulated pollutant
where appropriately demonstrated to be as stringent. As a result, any
difference in the application of the state and federal definitions on
the selection of baseline actual emissions would be insignificant at
worst and would therefore result in permit applicability decisions,
emissions limitations or emissions control requirements that are
equally stringent.
2. Reasonable Period Analysis
    The NH DES's submittal also revised the definition for ``Reasonable
period.'' The term ``Reasonable period'' is used in the definition for
``Net emissions increase'' and defines the contemporaneous period for
the emission increases and decreases that are used in the calculation
determining applicability of the NNSR regulations to a particular
project. Under Sec.  51.165(a)(1)(vi)(C)(1), the reviewing authority is
authorized to specify the applicable ``Reasonable period.'' Reviewing
authorities typically use the period defined in the federal Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. That period
begins five years before the date construction of the project commences
and ends when the emissions increase from the project actually occurs.
    The NH DES's definition for ``reasonable period'' uses a period
that begins five years from the date the NH DES receives a complete
permit application for a project and ends upon the ``expiration date''
of the pre-construction permit issued for the project (at which time a
NH DES-issued state operating permit for the project becomes
effective). A ``Reasonable period'' based on a fixed date (i.e., the
receipt of a complete permit application) ensures the stationary
source, the permitting authority and the public that the NNSR
applicability determination for a stationary source or modification
will not change after the state has reviewed a permit application and
made a permit decision. Since the 5 year period will not change after
the complete permit application is received, all contemporaneous
emission increases and decreases used by the stationary source and
state to determine NSR applicability will remain in effect.
    Under the federal definition, the 5-year period is based on the
date construction commences, a date that may change significantly based
on the many factors that could delay construction. As a result, the
five year contemporaneous period would also be delayed. Emission
increases previously within the contemporaneous period could fall
outside the contemporaneous period and change the applicability of the
stationary source or modification. In addition, the NH DES version of
``Reasonable period'' extends out to the expiration date of the
``temporary'' or preconstruction air permit issued for the project, a
date compatible with the NH DES's air permitting program. Under the NH
DES's permit program, the initial preconstruction permit required
before construction begins is referred to as a temporary permit.
Temporary permits expire after 18 months. Before expiration, stationary
sources must complete construction and begin operational testing or, if
construction has not commenced with the 18 months, reapply for a new
temporary permit. For those cases where a stationary source has
completed construction and has begun to operate, the state and federal
terms provide equivalent results. However, for stationary sources and
permitting agencies that may have difficulty determining when a new
stationary source has begun operating due to various stationary source
startup issues, defining the end date of reasonable period in relation
to a fixed permit expiration date (and corresponding permit to operate
issuance date) ensures the state agency and the stationary source that
NNSR program applicability will not change after initial permit
decisions have been reviewed and approved. Considering the benefits of
the NH DES's version of ``Reasonable period'' noted above, EPA
concludes the State's term for ``reasonable period'' is approvable and
is as stringent as the federal definition.

E. What are the provisions that New Hampshire needs to submit in order
for the conditional approval to become a full approval?

    The State's proposed SIP revision did not include two provisions
that preclude EPA from fully approving the State's proposed NNSR SIP
revisions. The first missing provision applies to any regulated NSR
pollutant emitted from projects at existing emission units at a major
stationary source (other than projects at a source with a PAL) in
circumstances where there is a reasonable possibility, within the
meaning of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6)(vi), that a project not a part of a
major modification may result in a significant emissions increase of
such pollutant, and the owner or operator elects to use the projected
actual method specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(xxviii)(B)(1) through (3)
for calculating projected actual emissions. These specific procedures
include additional monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting for those
projects that exceed 50% of the significant emission increase and
significant net emission increase for the applicable pollutant. The NH
DES has committed by letter dated March 20, 2015 to submit for EPA
approval into the SIP in a timely manner provisions that meet the
requirements at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and (a)(7) so that EPA may

at that time fully approve the NH DES's NNSR program.
    The second missing provision from NH DES's submittal is the
requirement at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i) that a State approval to
construct shall not relieve any owner or operator of the responsibility
to comply fully with applicable provisions of the plan and any other
requirements under local, State or Federal law. This provision,
originally part of the SIP and unintentionally left out of the November
15, 2012 SIP submittal, affirms that sources subject to the NNSR
program must continue to comply with all other applicable state and
federal requirements. The NH DES has committed by letter dated March
20, 2015 to submit for EPA approval into the SIP in a timely manner
provisions that meet the requirements at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i) so that
EPA may at that time fully approve the NH DES's NNSR program.

VI. What action is EPA proposing for New Hampshire's s July 21, 2003
SIP submittal to its PART Env-A 101: Permit definitions?

    New Hampshire July 23, 2003 SIP submittal clarifies how the State
addresses minor changes to the permit terms contained in ``Temporary
Permits'' (i.e., preconstruction air quality permits) and ``State
Permits to Operate'' issued under the State's PART Env-A 600, Statewide
Permit System. The current SIP-approved rules do not have definitions
sufficient to address minor changes to existing permit terms or
conditions for stationary sources, where the changes would not: (a)
result in an increase in the amount of a specific air pollutant emitted
by the source or device; (b) result in the emission of any additional
air pollutant; or (c) necessitate the use of permit notice and hearing
procedures.
    To address such minor changes to existing permit terms, the SIP
submittal included definitions for the terms for ``minor permit
amendment'' and ``state permit to operate.'' The term ``minor permit
amendment'' provides for minor changes to conditions in permits other
than Title V permits (which are not issued pursuant to SIP
regulations). The term ``state permit to operate'' means a non-Title V
operating permit issued prior to operation or material modification of
a stationary source, area stationary source or device. Both definitions
are consistent with all federal requirements under the CAA for approval
into the SIP.

VII. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the NH DES's November 15,
2012 PSD Program submittal originally proposed to be fully approved by
EPA on January 21, 2015. The reproposed, conditional approval of the
PSD program is conditioned on the State submitting in a timely manner a
SIP revision that adds a provision, consistent with 40 CFR
51.166(q)(2)(iv), requiring notice of a draft PSD permit to state air
agencies whose lands may be affected by emissions from the permitted
source.
    EPA is also proposing to conditionally approve PART Env-A 618
``Nonattainment New Source Review,'' because the NH DES must submit to
EPA in a timely manner additional provisions that comply with 40 CFR
51.165(a)(6) and (a)(7) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i), i.e., 1) provisions
for ``reasonable possibility'' established in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and
(a)(7); and 2) provisions required under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i)
providing that approval to construct shall not relieve any owner or
operator of the responsibility to comply fully with applicable
provisions of the plan and any other requirements under local, State or
Federal law.
    Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may conditionally approve a
State's plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific
enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than 1 year from
the date of final conditional approval. By letter dated March 20, 2015
New Hampshire has committed to revising its regulations to be
consistent with EPA's regulations not later than one year after EPA's
publication of a notice of final conditional approval. If the State
fails to do so in a timely manner, this conditional approval will, by
operation of law, become a disapproval one year from publication of
that notice of final conditional approval. At that time, the
conditionally approved SIP revisions would not be part of New
Hampshire's approved SIP. If that were to occur, EPA would then also
notify the State by letter. EPA subsequently would publish a notice in
the Federal Register notifying the public that the conditional approval
automatically converted to a disapproval. If the State meets its
commitment within the applicable time frame, however, EPA would
subsequently publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the
public that EPA intends to take final action to approve or disapprove
the State's revised regulations. If EPA were to approve the revised
regulations, the regulations would be fully approved in their entirety
and replace the conditionally approved provisions of the State's SIP
regulations. Finally, EPA is proposing to fully approve the definitions
at PART Env-A 101.174 ``Minor permit amendment'' and PART Env-A 101.262
``State permit to operate'' submitted to EPA on July 21, 2003.

VIII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the following NH DES rules: the PSD rules at PART Env-A 619,
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration'' (originally proposed on
January 21, 2015) as discussed in Section IV of the preamble; the NNSR
rules at PART Env-A 618, ``Nonattainment New Source Review'' discussed
in Section V of the preamble; and the definitions for ``minor permit
amendment'' and ``state permit to operate'' under PART Env-A 101,
``Permit Definitions'' as discussed in section VI of the preamble. EPA
has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard
copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, Toxics
and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (mail code
OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a

substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 8, 2015.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2015-09372 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44478]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18929]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0841]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Trent River, New Bern, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the U.S. 70 (Alfred A. Cunningham)
Bridge across the Trent River, mile 0.0, at New Bern, NC. The deviation
is necessary to accommodate the 30th Annual Bike MS: Historic New Bern
Ride. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-
navigation position.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8:00 a.m. on September 8, 2018
to 9:30 a.m. on September 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0841], is
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Kashanda Booker, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone (757) 398-
6227, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The event director, Game On Inc., with
approval from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, who owns
and operates the U.S. 70 (Alfred A. Cunningham) Bridge across the Trent
River, mile 0.0, at New Bern, NC, has requested a temporary deviation
from the current operating regulations. This temporary deviation is
necessary to accommodate participation by cyclists during the 30th
Annual Bike MS: Historic New Bern Ride. The bridge is a double bascule
bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 14 feet
above mean high water.
    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.843(a).
Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the
closed-to-navigation position from 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on September
8th and September 9th 2018. The Trent River is used by a variety of
vessels including small commercial vessels and recreational vessels.
The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with
waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at anytime. There is no immediate alternate route for vessels
unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position but the bridge
will be able to open for emergencies. The Coast Guard will also inform
users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that
vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by
this temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 27, 2018.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-18929 Filed 8-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 48258]
[DOCID:fr22se09-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9202-160--Colorado]

Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

September 15, 2009.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations (18 CFR part 380), the Office of Energy Projects has
prepared an environmental assessment (EA) regarding Upper Yampa Water
Conservancy District's (District) request for a non-capacity license
amendment for the Stagecoach Project (FERC No. 9202) located on the
Yampa River in Routt County, Colorado. The District requests Commission
approval to amend the project's license to (1) Increase the height of
the project dam spillway's crest elevation by 4 feet, and (2) increase
the maximum operating storage elevation of Stagecoach Reservoir by 4
feet. This would increase the maximum storage capacity in Stagecoach
Reservoir from 33,275 acre-feet to 36,460 acre-feet, and increase the
project's potential for increasing downstream water supply. This EA
concludes that the proposed license amendment, with staff's recommended
mitigation measures, would not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice and should be addressed to Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. Copies of the EA are available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room. The EA also may be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number (P-9202) in the docket number field to access the
document. For assistance, please contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>. For TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For further information regarding this notice, please contact B.
Peter Yarrington at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22718 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 312-313]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33714]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66061; File No. SR-CHX-2011-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Suspension of a
Participant's Trading Privileges on the Exchange

December 28, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on December 16, 2011, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CHX proposes to add Interpretation and Policy .01 to Article 13,
Rule 2 (Emergency Suspension) regarding the suspension of a
Participant's trading privileges on the Exchange. 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 and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. 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 add Interpretation and Policy .01 to
Article 13, Rule 2 (Emergency Suspension) thereunder (``Rule 2'')
regarding the suspension of a Participant's trading privileges on the
Exchange. Currently, this Rule authorizes the Exchange's Chief
Regulatory Officer (``CRO'') to suspend a Participant's membership with
the Exchange or place other limitations on its activities if various
circumstances occur, such as insolvency, failure to perform its
contracts or obligations, expulsion or suspension by another self-
regulatory organization or where it reasonably appears that the
Participant is violating and will continue to violate any provision of
the Rules of the Exchange or the federal securities laws (or rules
promulgated thereunder). The Exchange proposes to permit any Officer of
the Exchange designated by the CRO to suspend the trading privileges of
a Participant on the Exchange's facilities pursuant to the provisions
of Rule 2 if a Qualified Clearing Agency refuses to act to clear and
settle the trades of that Participant. The CRO must approve any such
suspensions within two (2) days of the action. If the Chief Regulatory
Officer does not approve the action taken, the suspension shall be
immediately lifted as of the time of his or her decision or after the
expiration of two days, whichever is earlier. Suspensions pursuant to
these provisions, including the appeal thereof, would otherwise be
governed by the provisions of Article 13, Rule 2.
    The recent actions taken with respect to MF Global, Inc. (``MF
Global'') illustrate the need for a limited expansion of the emergency
suspension authority of Rule 2 in the situation where the Qualified
Clearing Agency is considering whether to continue to act for a
Participant in the clearance and settlement of trades.\3\ On October
31, 2011, there were public news reports that MF Global was in
financial difficulties and might be insolvent. On that day, NSCC stated
that it would continue to honor the transactions of MF Global presented
to it for clearance and settlement. After the close of trading that
day, however, NSCC stated that it would cease to act for MF Global and
the Exchange's CRO suspended the trading privileges of the firm
pursuant to Article 13, Rule 2 effective November 1, 2011.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Currently, there is only one Qualified Clearing Agency, the
National Securities Clearing Corp. (``NSCC''), for cash equities
securities.
    \4\ See CHX Market Regulation Department Information Memorandum
MR-11-19 (Nov. 1, 2011), available on CHX public Web site, http://www.chx.com. See also NSCC Notice A7314, Re: MF Global,
Inc. (Nov. 1, 2011), available on its public Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/imp_notices/2011/nscc/a7314.pdf.

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

    While this situation was adequately addressed under the current
rule structure, the Exchange is concerned that there may be situations
in which the CRO may be unavailable to issue the suspension order if
NSCC signals its intention to cease to act for a CHX Participant. This
concern is particularly true if the Qualified Clearing Agency were to
cease to act on an intraday basis.\5\ The Exchange therefore proposes
that any Officer of the Exchange designated by the CRO may suspend the
trading privileges on the Exchange of a Participant in the limited
circumstance in which a Qualified Clearing Agency refuses to act to
clear and settle the trades of that Participant. The proposal requires
that the CRO approve this action within two (2) days. Any such
suspensions of trading privileges would be otherwise governed by the
provisions of Rule 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Historically, NSCC has normally ceased to act for one of its
Participants only after the close of trading. The Exchange
understands, however, that NSCC reserves the right to act on an
intraday basis if necessary and appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate a reference to the Chief
Executive Officer in Section (c) of Rule 2 and replace it with a
reference to the CRO regarding appeals of suspensions under Rule 2.
Before it was amended in 2006, emergency suspensions were authorized by
the Chief Executive Officer.\6\ The Exchange believes that the
continued reference to the Chief Executive Officer in Rule 2(c)
represents a simple oversight in the 2006 amendments and seeks to
correct it as part of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54437 (Sept. 13,
2006), 71 FR 55037 (Sept. 20, 2006) (SR-CHX-2005-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act in general,\7\ and furthers the objectives
of Section 6(b)(5) in particular,\8\ in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transaction in
securities, to remove impediments and perfect the mechanisms of a free
and open market, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest by allowing CHX to amend its rules to permit any Officer of
the Exchange designated by the Chief Regulatory Officer to suspend the
trading privileges of a Participant on the Exchange's facilities if a
Qualified Clearing Agency refuses to act to clear and settle the trades
of that Participant. The Exchange believes that this measure serves the
public interest by giving the CHX more flexibility to prevent the
execution of trades on our facilities which could not ultimately be
cleared and settled if the Qualified Clearing Agency refuses to act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of 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.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-2011-34 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2011-34. 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
a.m. and 3 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-2011-34 and should be
submitted on or before January 25, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-33714 Filed 1-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P