[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11798-11809]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4656]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0631 ; A-1-FRL-9638-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Rhode Island; Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of a revision to the Rhode Island
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) on August 7, 2009, that
addresses regional haze for the first planning period from 2008 through
2018. 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 (also referred to as the ``regional haze program'').
States are required to assure reasonable progress toward the national
goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2009-0631 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-2009-0631,''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5

Post Office Square--Suite 100 (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100
(mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. 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 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2009-0631. 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, 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.
    In addition, copies of the State submittal are also available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the
State Air Agency; Office of Air Resources, Department of Environmental
Management, 235 Promenade Street, Providence, RI 02908-5767.

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<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Background Information
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
II. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
III. What is EPA's analysis of Rhode Island's regional haze
submittal?
    A. Rhode Island's Impact on MANE-VU Class I Areas
    B. Long-Term Strategy
    1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
    2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
    3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility
Impairments
    4. Reasonable Progress Goal
    5. Additional Considerations for the LTS
    C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
    D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
IV. What action is EPA proposing?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean the EPA.

I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles and their precursors (e.g.,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in some cases, ammonia and
volatile organic compounds). Fine particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
which also impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light.
Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance
that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious health
effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental
effects such as acid deposition.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas (i.e.,
national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international
parks meeting certain size criteria) in the Western United States is
100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range
that would exist without manmade air pollution. In most of the eastern
Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is less
than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would
exist under estimated natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715, (July 1,
1999).

B. Background Information

    In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national
parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a
national goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any
existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I

Federal areas \1\ which impairment results from manmade air
pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to
address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, i.e.,
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment'' (RAVI). See 45 FR
80084 (Dec. 2, 1980). These regulations represented the first phase in
addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze
that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling and
scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and
visibility impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 69122,
November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). Although States and Tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager'' (FLM). (42 U.S.C.
7602(i)). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we
mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule. The Regional Haze Rule
revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the
regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze
requirements are summarized in Section II. The requirement to submit a
regional haze SIP applies to all 50 States, the District of Columbia
and the Virgin Islands. Forty CFR 51.308(b) requires States to submit
the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility
impairment no later than December 17, 2007. On January 15, 2009, EPA
found that 37 States, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin
Islands failed to submit this required implementation plan. See 74 FR
2392, (Jan. 15, 2009). In particular, EPA found that Rhode Island
failed to submit a plan that met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. See
74 FR 2393. On August 7, 2009, RI DEM submitted revisions to the Rhode
Island SIP to address regional haze as required by 40 CFR 51.308. EPA
has reviewed Rhode Island's submittal and proposes to find that it is
consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 outlined in Section
II.

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among States, tribal governments, and
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, States need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the States and Tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their States and Tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and other pollutants
leading to regional haze.
    The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO is a
collaborative effort of State governments, Tribal governments, and
various federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate
activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility
and other air quality issues in the Northeastern United States. 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.

II. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require States to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for the purpose of eliminating or
reducing visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP
requirements are discussed in further detail below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for
measuring visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes
in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions.
Visibility is determined by measuring the visual range (or deciview),
which is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark
object can be viewed against the sky. The deciview is a useful measure
for tracking progress in improving visibility, because each deciview
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
(which are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national
visibility goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions,
and tracking changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain
measures that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal
of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas
caused by manmade air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions
that cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., manmade sources of air pollution would no longer
impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program and as part of the process for
determining reasonable progress, States must calculate the degree of
existing visibility impairment at each Class I area within

the State at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and
periodically review progress every five years midway through each 10-
year planning period. To do this, the RHR requires States to determine
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of
their Class I areas. In addition, States must also develop an estimate
of natural visibility conditions for the purposes of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to States regarding how
to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005, available at www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze
Rule, September 2003 (EPA-454/B-03-004 located at www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's
2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of impairment for the 20 percent least
impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days at the time the
regional haze program was established. Using monitoring data from 2000
through 2004, States are required to calculate the average degree of
visibility impairment for each Class I area within the State, based on
the average of annual values over the five year period. The comparison
of initial baseline visibility conditions to natural visibility
conditions indicates the amount of improvement necessary to attain
natural visibility, while the future comparison of baseline conditions
to the then current conditions will indicate the amount of progress
made. In general, the 2000-2004 baseline period is considered the time
from which improvement in visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the States that establish RPGs for Class I areas for each
(approximately) 10-year planning period. The RHR does not mandate
specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for States
to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward
achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility conditions for
their Class I areas. In setting RPGs, States must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the
(approximately) 10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in the CAA and
in EPA's RHR: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for
compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources. States must demonstrate in their SIPs how these
factors are considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst
days for each applicable Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
States have considerable flexibility in how they take these factors
into consideration, as noted in EPA's July 1, 2007 memorandum from
William L. Wehrum, Acting Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA
Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10, entitled Guidance for
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program (p.
4-2, 5-1)(EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance). In setting the RPGs,
States must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural
visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the ``uniform rate of
progress'' or the ``glide path'') and the emission reduction measures
needed to achieve that rate of progress over the 10-year period of the
SIP. The year 2064 represents a rate of progress which States are to
use for analytical comparison to the amount of progress they expect to
achieve. In setting RPGs, each State with one or more Class I areas
(``Class I State'') must also consult with potentially ``contributing
States,'' i.e., other nearby States with emission sources that may be
contributing to visibility impairment at the Class I State's areas. See
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs States to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, the CAA requires States to revise their SIPs to
contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress
towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that
certain categories of existing stationary sources built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``Best Available Retrofit
Technology'' as determined by the State. (CAA 169A(b)(2)a)).\3\ States
are directed to conduct BART determinations for such sources that may
be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a
Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls,
States also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program
or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides
greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
States in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART applicability determination
for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total
generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a State must use
the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A State is encouraged,
but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of sources.
    States must address all visibility impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate matter (PM). EPA has
stated that States should use their best judgment in determining
whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH3)
and ammonia compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.
    The RPOs provided air quality modeling to the States to help them
in

determining whether potential BART sources can be reasonably expected
to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area.
Under the BART Guidelines, States may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The State must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the State should not be higher than 0.5
deciviews. See 70 FR 39161, (July 6, 2005).
    In their SIPs, States must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. The term ``BART-eligible source''
used in the BART Guidelines means the collection of individual emission
units at a facility that together comprises the BART-eligible source.
See 70 FR 39161, (July 6, 2005). In making BART determinations, section
169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that States consider the following
factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life
of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which
may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such
technology. States are free to determine the weight and significance to
be assigned to each factor. See 70 FR 39170, (July 6, 2005).
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
State has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP, as required by CAA (section 169(g)(4)) and the RHR (40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to what is required by the RHR, general
SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for
the BART controls on the source. States have the flexibility to choose
the type of control measures they will use to meet the requirements of
BART.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that States include a
LTS in their SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all control measures a
State will use to meet any applicable RPGs. The LTS must include
``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals'' for
all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the State. See
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a State's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another State, the RHR requires the impacted State to coordinate with
the contributing States in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing State must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between States may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two States
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, States must describe how
each of the seven factors listed below is taken into account in
developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3)
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG;
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including
plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; (7) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point,
area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS.
See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the State's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the State must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing reasonably attributable and regional
haze visibility impairment, and the State must submit the first such
coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated
LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs,
must be submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and
periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g),
respectively. The periodic reviews of a State's LTS must report on both
regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the State. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation
in the IMPROVE network. The monitoring strategy is due with the first
regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. The
monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring sites
if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will
be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a State with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the State;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a State with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze

visibility impairment at Class I areas in other States;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the State, and
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A State must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    Forty CFR 51.308(f) of the RHR requires control strategies to cover
an initial implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a
comprehensive reassessment and revision of those strategies, as
appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must
meet the core requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d) with the exception of
BART. The BART provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e), as noted above, apply
only to the first implementation period. Periodic SIP revisions will
assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will
continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that States consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.
Further, a State must include in its SIP a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State and
FLMs regarding the State's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

III. What is EPA's analysis of Rhode Island's regional haze submittal?

    On August 7, 2009, RI DEM's Office of Air Resources submitted
revisions to the Rhode Island SIP to address regional haze as required
by EPA's RHR, specifically 40 CFR 51.308. EPA has reviewed Rhode
Island's submittal and is proposing to find that it is consistent with
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 as outlined in Section II. A detailed
analysis follows.
    Rhode Island is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP
which addresses Rhode Island's impact on any nearby Class I areas. As
Rhode Island has no Class I areas within its borders, Rhode Island is
not required to address the following Regional Haze SIP elements: (a)
calculation of baseline and natural visibility conditions, (b)
establishment of reasonable progress goals, (c) monitoring requirements
and (d) RAVI requirements.
    In addition, Rhode Island evaluated the major point sources in the
State and determined that none meet the criteria (as discussed in
Section II.D) to be considered BART eligible. EPA is proposing to
approve RI DEM's determination that there are no BART-eligible sources
in Rhode Island.

A. Rhode Island's Impact on MANE-VU Class I Areas

    Rhode Island is a member of the MANE-VU RPO. The MANE-VU RPO
contains seven Class I areas in four States: Moosehorn Wilderness Area,
Acadia National Park, and Roosevelt/Campobello International Park in
Maine; Presidential Range/Dry River Wilderness Area and Great Gulf
Wilderness Area in New Hampshire; Brigantine Wilderness Area in New
Jersey; and Lye Brook Wilderness Area in Vermont.
    Through source apportionment modeling, MANE-VU assisted States in
determining their contribution to the visibility impairment of each
Class I area in the MANE-VU region. Rhode Island and the other MANE-VU
States adopted a weight-of-evidence approach which relied on several
independent methods for assessing the contribution of different sources
and geographic source regions to regional haze in the northeastern and
mid-Atlantic portions of the United States. Details about each
technique can be found in the NESCAUM Document Contributions to
Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States, August
2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ``Contribution Report'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The August 2006 NESCAUM document ``Contributions to Regional
Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States'' has been
provided as part of the docket to this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The source apportionment modeling demonstrated that the
contribution of Rhode Island emissions to total sulfate (the main
contributor to visibility impairment in the Northeast) was consistently
determined to be no more than 0.31% of the total sulfate at any Class I
area. This finding was consistently predicted by different assessment
techniques that are based on the application of disparate chemical,
meteorological and physical principles. The greatest modeled
contribution from Rhode Island for each of the MANE-VU Class I areas
was 0.31% sulfate at Acadia National Park, 0.22% sulfate at Moosehorn
Wilderness Area and Roosevelt Campobello International Park, 0.11%
sulfate at Great Gulf Wilderness Area and Presidential Range--Dry River
Wilderness Area, 0.08% sulfate at Lye Brook Wilderness Area, and 0.14%
at Brigantine Wilderness Area. The impact of sulfate on visibility is
discussed in greater detail below.
    The MANE-VU Class I States determined that any State contributing
at least 2% of the total sulfate observed on the 20 percent worst
visibility days in 2002 were contributors to visibility impairment at
the Class I area. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District
of Columbia were determined to contribute less than 2% of sulfate at
any of the Class I areas in the Northeast.
    EPA is proposing to find that RI DEM has adequately demonstrated
that emissions from Rhode Island sources do not cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in nearby Class I Areas.

B. Long-Term Strategy

    As described in Section II.E of this action, the LTS is a
compilation of State-specific control measures relied on by the State
to obtain its share of emission reductions to support the RPGs
established by Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New Jersey, the
nearby Class I area States. Rhode Island's LTS for the first
implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from federal,
State, and local controls that take effect in the State from the
baseline period starting in 2002 until 2018. Rhode Island participated
in the MANE-VU regional strategy development process and supported a
regional approach towards deciding which control measures to pursue for
regional haze, which was based on technical analyses documented in the
following reports: (a) The Contribution Report; (b)

Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I
Areas (available at www.marama.org/visibility/RPG/FinalReport/RPGFinalReport_070907.pdf); (c) Five-Factor Analysis of BART-Eligible
Sources: Survey of Options for Conducting BART Determinations
(available at www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-final-memo-06-28-07.pdf);
and (d) Assessment of Control Technology Options for BART-Eligible
Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and
Paper, and Pulp Facilities (available at www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-control-assessment.pdf).
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 with Federal and State Control
Requirements
    The State-wide emissions inventories used by MANE-VU in its
regional haze technical analyses were developed by MARAMA for MANE-VU
with assistance from Rhode Island. The 2018 emissions inventory was
developed by projecting 2002 emissions forward based on assumptions
regarding emissions growth due to projected increases in economic
activity and emissions reductions expected from federal and State
regulations. MANE-VU's emissions inventories included estimates of
NOX, coarse particulate matter (PM10),
PM2.5, and SO2, VOC, and NH3. The BART
guidelines direct States to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC
and NH3 impair visibility in their Class I area(s). As
discussed further in Section III.B.3 below, MANE-VU demonstrated that
anthropogenic emissions of sulfates are the major contributor to
PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. It was also determined that the
total ammonia emissions in the MANE-VU region are extremely small.
    MANE-VU developed emissions inventories for four inventory source
classifications: (1) Stationary point sources, (2) stationary area
sources, (3) non-road mobile sources, and (4) on-road mobile sources.
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation also developed an
inventory of biogenic emissions for the entire MANE-VU region.
Stationary point sources are those sources that emit greater than a
specified tonnage per year, depending on the pollutant, with data
provided at the facility level. Stationary area sources are those
sources whose individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the
large number of these sources, the collective emissions from the source
category could be significant. Non-road mobile sources are equipment
that can move but do not use the roadways. On-road mobile source
emissions are automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway
system. The emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type
and road type. Biogenic sources are natural sources like trees, crops,
grasses, and natural decay of plants. Stationary point sources emission
data is tracked at the facility level. For all other source types,
emissions are summed on the county level.
    There are many federal and State control programs being implemented
that MANE-VU and Rhode Island anticipate will reduce emissions between
the baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these control
programs in the MANE-VU region were projected to achieve substantial
visibility improvement by 2018 at all of the MANE-VU Class I areas. To
assess emissions reductions from ongoing air pollution control
programs, BART, and reasonable progress goals, MANE-VU developed 2018
emissions projections called ``Best and Final.'' The emissions
inventory provided by the State of Rhode Island for the Best and Final
2018 projections is based on expected control requirements.
    Rhode Island relied on emission reductions from the following
ongoing and expected air pollution control programs as part of the
State's long term strategy. For electrical generating units (EGUs),
Rhode Island relied on Air Pollution Control (APC) Regulations Numbers
38 and 41 which limit NOX emissions from all EGUs. The State
also relied on source specific permit restrictions limiting the sulfur
content of fuel oil to 0.05% at Dominion Energy Manchester Street,
0.0015% at Ocean State Power and 0.2% at Pawtucket Power. Rhode Island
also relied on the following controls on non-EGU point sources in
estimating 2018 emissions inventories: NOX SIP Call Phases I
and II; NOX Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
in 1-hour Ozone SIP; NOX Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
2001 Model Rule for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI)
Boilers; VOC 2-year, 4-year, 7-year and 10-year Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) Standards; Combustion Turbine and
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) MACT; and Industrial
Boiler/Process Heater MACT (also known as the Industrial Boiler MACT).
    On July 30, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia vacated and remanded the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule. NRDC v.
EPA, 489F.3d 1250 (DC Cir. 2007). This MACT was vacated since it was
directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) definition rule. EPA
proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur on
June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March 21, 2011
(76 FR 15608). On May 18, 2011, EPA stayed the effective date of the
Industrial Boiler MACT pending review by the DC Circuit or the
completion of EPA's reconsideration of the rule. See 76 FR 28662.
    On December 2, 2011, EPA issued a proposed reconsideration of the
MACT standards for existing and new boilers at major (76 FR 80598) and
area (76 FR 80532) source facilities, and for Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incinerators (76 FR 80452). On January 9, 2012, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia vacated EPA's stay of the
effectiveness date of the Industrial Boiler MACT, reinstating the
original effective date and therefore requiring compliance with the
current rule in 2014. Sierra Club v. Jackson, Civ. No. 11-1278, slip
op. (D.D.C. Jan. 9, 2012).
    Even though Rhode Island's modeling is based on the old Industrial
Boiler MACT limits Rhode Island's modeling conclusions are unlikely to
be affected because the expected reductions in SO2 and PM
resulting from the vacated MACT rule are a relatively small component
of the Rhode Island inventory and the expected emission reductions from
the final MACT rule are comparable to those modeled. In addition, the
new MACT rule requires compliance by 2014 and therefore the expected
emission reductions will be achieved prior to the end of the first
implementation period in 2018. Thus, EPA does not expect that
differences between the old and revised Industrial Boiler MACT emission
limits would affect the adequacy of the existing Rhode Island regional
haze SIP. If there is a need to address discrepancies between projected
emissions reductions from the old Industrial Boiler MACT and the
Industrial Boiler MACT finalized in March 2011, we expect Rhode Island
to do so in their 5-year progress report.
    Controls on area sources expected by 2018 include: the OTC VOC
rules for consumer products (APC Regulation No. 31); architectural and
industrial maintenance coatings (APC Regulation No. 33) and solvent
cleaning (APC Regulation No. 36); mobile equipment repair and
refinishing APC Regulation No. 30); VOC control measures for adhesive
and sealants (APC Regulation No. 44); VOC control measures for
emulsified and cutback asphalt paving (APC Regulation No. 25); and VOC

control measures for portable fuel containers (contained in EPA's
Mobile Source Air Toxics rule).
    Controls on mobile sources expected by 2018 include: enhanced
safety inspection program (Rhode Island Motor Vehicle Safety and
Emissions Control Regulation No. 1); on-board diagnostics testing for
1996 and new vehicles (APC Regulation No. 34); Federal On-Board
Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Rule; Federal Tier 2 Motor Vehicle
Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Requirements; Federal Heavy-
Duty Diesel Engine Emission Standards for Trucks and Buses; and Federal
Emission Standards for Large Industrial Spark-Ignition Engines and
Recreation Vehicles.
    Controls on non-road sources expected by 2018 include the following
federal regulations: Control of Air Pollution: Determination of
Significance for Nonroad Sources and Emission Standards for New Nonroad
Compression Ignition Engines at or above 37 kilowatts (59 FR 31306,
June 17, 1994); Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad
Diesel Engines (63 FR 56967, Oct. 23, 1998); Control of Emissions from
Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines (67 FR
68241, Nov. 8, 2002); and Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from
Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuels (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
    Tables 1 and 2 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018
estimated emissions inventories for Rhode Island. The 2018 estimated
emissions include emissions growth as well as emission reductions due
to ongoing emission control strategies and reasonable progress goals.

                           Table 1--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for Rhode Island
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX         PM2.5         PM10         NH3          SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................        1,928        2,764          183          300           58        2,666
Area..............................       31,402        3,886        2,064        8,295          883        4,557
On-Road Mobile....................       12,358       16,677          211          345          853          425
Non-Road Mobile...................        7,780        5,001          443          500            4          377
Biogenics.........................       19,233          211            0            0            0            0
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................       72,881       28,540        2,901        9,440        1,797        8,026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Table 2--2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for Rhode Island
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX         PM2.5         PM10         NH3          SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................        1,841        3,018          340          473          195        1,509
Area..............................       23,305        4,249        1,570        4,269        1,025           52
On-Road Mobile....................        6,305        5,351          148          168        1,200          100
Non-Road Mobile...................        5,389        2,723          303          348            5           42
Biogenics.........................       19,233          211            0            0            0            0
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................       56,073       15,553        2,362        5,260        2,425        1,703
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modeling to Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
    MANE-VU performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 11
Mid-Atlantic and Northeast States and the District of Columbia. The
modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with
selection of the modeling system. MANE-VU used the following modeling
system:
     Meteorological Model: The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania
State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic,
prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional-
scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze regulatory
modeling studies.
     Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions (SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system is an emissions modeling
system that generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of
mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission
sources for photochemical grid models.
     Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale
Air Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model capable
of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a regional
scale.
     Air Quality Model: The Regional Model for Aerosols and
Deposition (REMSAD), is a Eulerian grid model that was primarily used
to determine the attribution of sulfate species in the Eastern US via
the species-tagging scheme.
     Air Quality Model: The California Puff Model (CALPUFF),
version 5 is a non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model used to access
the contribution of individual States' emissions to sulfate levels at
selected Class I receptor sites.
    CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the MANE-VU region for 2002 and
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer (km) cells that
covers the 11 MANE-VU States (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia and States adjacent
to them. This grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling
grid of 36x36 km grid cells that covers the continental United States,
portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection of a representative
period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline air quality
conditions and projecting future changes in air quality due to changes
in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. MANE-VU conducted an
in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection of the entire year of
2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of meteorology
available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The

MANE-VU States' modeling was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance
on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of
Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, April
2007 (EPA-454/B-07-002, available at www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf), and EPA document, Emissions
Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze
Regulations, August 2005 and updated November 2005 (EPA-454/R-05-001,
available at www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html)
(hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's Modeling Guidance'').
    MANE-VU examined the model performance of the regional modeling for
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone,
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks
and databases for the 2002 base year. MANE-VU used a diverse set of
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once MANE-VU determined the
model performance to be acceptable, MANE-VU used the model to assess
the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the State of Rhode Island
provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required
analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and
modeling used to develop the glide path and to support the LTS are
consistent with EPA's RHR, and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance.
EPA is proposing to find the MANE-VU technical modeling to support the
LTS and determine visibility improvement for the uniform rate of
progress acceptable because the modeling system was chosen and used
according to EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA agrees with the MANE-VU model
performance procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is an appropriate
tool for the regional haze assessments for the Rhode Island LTS and
regional haze SIP.
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
    An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further
reducing emissions from different pollutants, MANE-VU developed
emission sensitivity model runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and
air quality impacts from various groups of emissions and pollutant
scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days.
    Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting
visibility in the MANE-VU region, MANE-VU's contribution assessment
demonstrated that sulfate is the major contributor to PM2.5
mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic Region. Sulfate particles commonly account for more than
50 percent of particle-related light extinction at northeastern Class I
areas on the clearest days and for as much as, or more than, 80 percent
on the haziest days. For example, at the Brigantine National Wildlife
Refuge Class I area (the MANE-VU Class I area with the greatest
visibility impairment), on the 20 percent worst visibility days in
2000-2004, sulfate accounted for 66 percent of the particle extinction.
After sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently accounts for the next
largest fraction of light extinction. Organic carbon accounted for 13
percent of light extinction on the 20 percent worst visibility days for
Brigantine, followed by nitrate that accounts for 9 percent of light
extinction.
    The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by MANE-VU predict
that reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU
industrial point sources will result in the greatest improvements in
visibility in the Class I areas in the MANE-VU region, more than any
other visibility-impairing pollutant. As a result of the dominant role
of sulfate in the formation of regional haze in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic Region, MANE-VU concluded that an effective emissions
management approach would rely heavily on broad-based regional
SO2 control efforts in the eastern United States.
4. Reasonable Progress Goal
    Since the State of Rhode Island does not have a Class I area, it is
not required to establish RPGs. However, as a MANE-VU member State,
Rhode Island adopted the ``Statement of MANE-VU Concerning a Request
for a Course of Action by States Within MANE-VU Toward Assuring
Reasonable Progress'' on June 7, 2007. This document included four
emission management strategies that will provide for reasonable
progress towards achieving natural visibility at the MANE-VU Class I
areas. These emission management strategies are collectively known as
the MANE-VU ``Ask,'' and include: (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 \5\; (c) adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (d)
continued evaluation of other control measures to reduce SO2
and NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Appendix H--``2018 Emissions from EGUs in the Eastern
US'' of the Rhode Island SIP submittal for a complete listing of the
167 stacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rhode Island does not have any BART eligible units, nor does it
have any EGU stacks identified by MANE-VU as a top contributor to
visibility impairment in any of the MANE-VU Class I areas.
    The MANE-VU low sulfur fuel oil strategy includes: Phase I
reduction of distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur by weight (500 parts per
million (ppm)) by no later than 2014; Phase II reductions of 4
residual oil to 0.25% sulfur by weight by no later than 2018;
6 residual oil to 0.5% sulfur by weight by no later than 2018;
and further reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 15 ppm by
2018.
    The expected reduction in SO2 emissions by 2018 from the
MANE-VU ``Ask'' will yield corresponding reductions in sulfate aerosol,
the main culprit in fine-particle pollution and regional haze. For
Rhode Island, the MANE-VU analysis demonstrates that the reduction of
the sulfur content in fuel oil will lead to an average reduction of
0.25-0.36 [mu]g/m\3\ in the 24 hour PM2.5 concentration
within the State, improving health and local visibility. In addition,
the use of low sulfur fuels will result in cost savings to owners/
operators of residential furnaces and boilers due to reduced
maintenance costs and extended life of the units.
    In its August 7, 2009 SIP submittal, Rhode Island states that ``RI
DEM intends to adopt the low-sulfur fuel oil requirements by January 1,
2012 and will have a compliance date of 2014 for Phase I and 2018 for
Phase II.'' RI DEM continues to work toward the adoption of this
regulation. However, in a letter dated January 31, 2012, RI DEM
informed EPA that they do not

anticipate being able to adopt the low-sulfur fuel oil requirements
before the end of 2012. RI DEM articulated that they are still
committed to adopting the low-sulfur oil requirements but cannot do so
on the time line of their original commitment.
    EPA is today proposing approval of the Rhode Island Regional Haze
SIP for the first implementation period without inclusion of an adopted
low sulfur fuel oil regulation.\6\ As described in Section III.A of
this notice, Rhode Island neither causes nor contributes to visibility
impairment in the closest Class I areas located in New Jersey, Vermont,
New Hampshire, and Maine. For each of these Class I areas, the
contribution of Rhode Island's emissions to total sulfate is less than
the 2% threshold set by the MANE-VU States to determine whether any
State contributed to visibility impairment. While the SO2
reductions being achieved by Rhode Island are somewhat less than the
statewide reductions that were projected to result from adoption of a
low-sulfur fuel oil strategy by 2012, this shortfall is not anticipated
to interfere with the ability of other States to meet their respective
reasonable progress goals. All emissions from Rhode Island contribute
no more than 0.31% of total sulfate at any Class I area. We encourage
adoption of a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy by Rhode Island as such a
strategy will have local air quality and some, limited visibility
benefits, however, we do not believe it is a necessary component of an
approvable Regional Haze SIP for Rhode Island for the first
implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On January 15, 2009, EPA made a finding that, among other
States, Rhode Island had failed to submit a Regional Haze SIP by the
required deadline. 74 FR 2392. We have proposed a consent decree to
resolve a deadline suit regarding this finding as well as the
finding of failure for 36 other States, the District of Columbia,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. National Parks Conservation Association
v. Jackson, Civ. No. 1:11-cv-1548 (D.D.C. 2011). Because we do not
believe a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy is necessary for Rhode Island
during this first implementation period, EPA is moving forward with
this proposed approval of the State's SIP submittal in order to
satisfy our obligations under the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Additional Considerations for the LTS
    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires States to consider the following
factors in developing the long term strategy:
    a. Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control
programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable
visibility impairment;
    b. Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities;
    c. Emission limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the
reasonable progress goal;
    d. Source retirement and replacement schedules;
    e. Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry
management purposes including plans as currently exist within the State
for these purposes;
    f. Enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures;
and
    g. The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected
changes in point area, and mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the long term strategy.
a. Emission reductions including RAVI
    Since Rhode Island does not contain any Class I areas, the State is
not required to address RAVI, nor has any Rhode Island source been
identified as subject to RAVI. A list of Rhode Island's ongoing air
pollution control programs is included in Section III.B.1.
b. Construction Activities
    The Regional Haze Rule requires Rhode Island to consider measures
to mitigate the impacts of construction activities on regional haze.
MANE-VU's consideration of control measures for construction activities
is documented in ``Technical Support Document on Measures to Mitigate
the Visibility Impacts of Construction Activities in the MANE-VU
Region, Draft, October 20, 2006.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This document has been provided as part of the docket to
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The construction industry is already subject to requirements for
controlling pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment. For
example, federal regulations require the reduction of SO2
emissions from construction vehicles. At the State level, Rhode Island
Air Pollution Control Regulation Number 5, ``Fugitive Dust'' regulates
dust from construction and demolition activities. Section 5.3 of that
regulation states, ``No person shall cause or permit any materials,
including but not limited to sand, gravel, soil, aggregate and any
other organic or inorganic solid matter capable of releasing dust, to
be handled, transported, mined, quarried, stored or otherwise utilized
in any way so as to cause airborne particulate matter to travel beyond
the property line of the emission source without taking adequate
precautions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne.''
    MANE-VU's Contribution Report found that, from a regional haze
perspective, crustal material generally does not play a major role. On
the 20 percent best-visibility days during the 2000-2004 baseline
period, crustal material accounted for 6 to 11 percent of the particle-
related light extinction at the MANE-VU Class I Areas. On the 20
percent worst-visibility days, however, the contribution was reduced to
2 to 3 percent. Furthermore, the crustal fraction is largely made up of
pollutants of natural origin (e.g., soil or sea salt) that are not
targeted under the Regional Haze Rule. Nevertheless, the crustal
fraction at any given location can be heavily influenced by the
proximity of construction activities; and construction activities
occurring in the immediate vicinity of MANE-VU Class I area could have
a noticeable effect on visibility.
    For this regional haze SIP, Rhode Island concluded that its current
regulations are currently sufficient to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities. Any future deliberations on potential control
measures for construction activities and the possible implementation
will be documented in the first regional haze SIP progress report in
2012. EPA proposes to find that Rhode Island has adequately addressed
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities.
c. Emission Limitations and Schedules for Compliance To Achieve the RPG
    In addition to the existing CAA control requirements discussed in
Section III.B.1, Rhode Island has committed to adopt a low sulfur fuel
oil strategy consistent with the MANE-VU ``Ask'' by the end of 2012. It
is expected that the compliance date for Phase I will be in 2014 and
the compliance date for Phase II will be in 2018. As described in
Section III.B.4 above, we do not believe inclusion of the low sulfur
oil strategy is a necessary component of an approvable Region Haze SIP
for Rhode Island. Therefore, EPA is proposing to determine that Rhode
Island has satisfactorily considered emission limitations and schedules
as part of the LTS.
d. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedule
    Forty CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) of the Regional Haze Rule requires
Rhode Island to consider source retirement and replacement schedules in
developing the long term strategy. Source retirement and replacement
were considered in developing the 2018 emissions. The sources in Rhode
Island that were shut down after the 2002 base year and therefore were
not included in the 2018 inventory are: Albin, Display World, Clariant
Corporation, Leviton, CCL Custom Manufacturing, Eastern

Butcher Block, Fiber Mark, Metal Recycling Company Incorporated, Slater
Dye Works in Cumberland, Slater Dye Works in Pawtucket, and Charbert
Incorporated. EPA is proposing to determine that Rhode Island has
satisfactorily considered source retirement and replacement schedules
as part of the LTS.
e. Smoke Management Techniques
    The Regional Haze Rule requires States to consider smoke management
techniques related to agricultural and forestry management in
developing the long-term strategy. MANE-VU's analysis of smoke
management in the context of regional haze is documented in ``Technical
Support Document on Agricultural and Smoke Management in the MANE-VU
Region, September 1, 2006.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This document has been included as part of the docket to
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rhode Island does not currently have a Smoke Management Program
(SMP). However, SMPs are required only when smoke impacts from fires
managed for resources benefits contribute significantly to regional
haze. The emissions inventory presented in the above-cited document
indicates that agricultural, managed and prescribed burning emissions
are very minor; the inventory estimates that, in Rhode Island, those
emissions from those source categories totaled 7.8 tons of
PM10, 6.7 tons of PM2.5 and 0.5 tons of
SO2 in 2002, which constitute 0.08%, 0.2% and 0.006% of the
total inventory for these pollutants, respectively.
    Source apportionment results show that wood smoke is a moderate
contributor to visibility impairment at some Class I areas in the MANE-
VU region; however, smoke is not a large contributor to haze in MANE-VU
Class I areas on either the 20% best or 20% worst visibility days.
Moreover, most of wood smoke is attributable to residential wood
combustion.\9\ Therefore, it is unlikely that fires for agricultural or
forestry management cause large impacts on visibility in any of the
Class I areas in the MANE-VU region. On rare occasions, smoke from
major fires degrades air quality and visibility in the MANE-VU area.
However, these fires are generally unwanted wildfires that are not
subject to SMPs. EPA proposes to approve Rhode Island's decision that
an Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Plan to address
visibility impairment is not required at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Although not included as part of the Regional Haze SIP,
effective April 14, 2011, Rhode Island promulgated APC Regulation
No. 48--Outdoor Wood Boilers which prohibits the sale or
installation of any outdoor wood boiler on or after the effective
date of the regulation unless it has been qualified by EPA to meet
the Phase 2 emissions level for particulate matter (0.3 pounds per
million British Thermal Units output).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Enforceability of Emission Limitations and Control Measures
    All emission limitations included as part of Rhode Island's
Regional Haze SIP are currently federally enforceable. EPA is proposing
to find that Rhode Island has adequately addressed the enforceability
of emission limitations and control measures.
g. The Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility
    MANE-VU used the best and final emission inventory to model
progress expected toward the goal of natural visibility conditions for
the first regional haze planning period. All of the MANE-VU Class I
areas are expected to achieve greater progress toward the natural
visibility goal than the uniform rate of progress, or the progress
expected by extrapolating a trend line from current visibility
conditions to natural visibility conditions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Projected visibility improvements for each MANE-VU Class I
area can be found in the NESCAUM document dated May 13, 2008, ``2018
Visibility Projections'' (www.nescaum.org/documents/2018-visibility-projections-final-05-13-08.pdf/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

    On May 10, 2006, the MANE-VU State Air Directors adopted the Inter-
RPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation Framework that documented the
consultation process within the context of regional phase planning, and
was intended to create greater certainty and understanding among RPOs.
MANE-VU States held ten consultation meetings and/or conference calls
from March 1, 2007 through March 21, 2008. In addition to MANE-VU
members attending these meetings and conference calls, participants
from the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO, Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal Land
Managers were also in attendance. In addition to the conference calls
and meeting, the FLMs were given the opportunity to review and comment
on each of the technical documents developed by MANE-VU.
    On January 26, 2009, Rhode Island submitted a draft Regional Haze
SIP to the relevant FLMs for review and comment pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2). The FLMs provided comments on the draft Regional Haze SIP
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). The comments received from the
FLMs were addressed and incorporated in Rhode Island's SIP revision.
Most of the comments were requests for additional detail as to various
aspects of the SIP. These comments and Rhode Island's response to
comments can be found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
    On July 30, 2009, Rhode Island proposed its Regional Haze SIP for
public hearing and no comments were received. To address the
requirement for continuing consultation procedures with the FLMs under
40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), Rhode Island commits in their SIP to ongoing
consultation with the FLMs on emission strategies, major new source
permits, assessments or rulemaking concerning sources identified as
probable contributors to visibility impairment, any changes to the
monitoring strategy, work on the periodic revisions to the SIP, and
ongoing communications regarding visibility impairment.
    EPA is proposing to find that Rhode Island has addressed the
requirements for consultation with the Federal Land Managers.

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g), Rhode Island
has committed to submitting a report on reasonable progress (in the
form of a SIP revision) to the EPA every five years following the
initial submittal of its regional haze SIP. The reasonable progress
report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the MANE-VU
Class I areas, located in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New
Jersey.
    Forty CFR 51.308(f) requires the RI DEM to submit periodic
revisions to its Regional Haze SIP by July 31, 2018, and every ten
years thereafter. RI DEM acknowledges and agrees to comply with this
schedule.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v), RI DEM will also make periodic
updates to the Rhode Island emissions inventory. RI DEM proposes to
complete these updates to coincide with the progress reports. Actual
emissions will be compared to projected modeled emissions in the
progress reports.
    Lastly, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), RI DEM will submit a
determination of adequacy of its regional haze SIP revision whenever a
progress report is submitted. Rhode Island's regional haze SIP states
that, depending on the findings of its five-year review, Rhode

Island will take one or more of the following actions at that time,
whichever actions are appropriate or necessary:
     If Rhode Island determines that the existing State
Implementation Plan requires no further substantive revision in order
to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions
reductions, RI DEM will provide to the EPA Administrator a negative
declaration that further revision of the existing plan is not needed.
     If Rhode Island determines that its implementation plan is
or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of
emissions from sources in one or more other State(s) which participated
in the regional planning process, Rhode Island will provide
notification to the EPA Administrator and to those other State(s).
Rhode Island will also collaborate with the other State(s) through the
regional planning process for the purpose of developing additional
strategies to address any such deficiencies in Rhode Island's plan.
     If Rhode Island determines that its implementation plan is
or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of
emissions from sources in another country, Rhode Island will provide
notification, along with available information, to the EPA
Administrator.
     If Rhode Island determines that the implementation plan is
or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of
emissions from sources within the State, Rhode Island will revise its
implementation plan to address the plan's deficiencies within one year
from this determination.

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing approval of Rhode Island's August 7, 2009 SIP
revision as meeting the applicable requirements of the Regional Haze
Rule found in 40 CFR 51.308.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 13, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2012-4656 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 205 (Monday, October 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 73116]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25603]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0882]

Generic Drug User Fees; Notice of Public Meeting; Request for
Comments; Extension of Comment Period; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
extension of the comment period and correcting a notice that appeared
in the Federal Register of Monday, September 26, 2016 (81 FR 66035).
The document announced a public meeting entitled ``Generic Drug User
Fees; Public Meeting; Request for Comments.'' In that Federal Register
notice, FDA requested comments on the draft recommendations related to
the reauthorization of the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012
(GDUFA). The Agency is taking this action to allow interested persons
the statutorily required 30 days to submit comments. Also, the document
was published with an error in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
This document corrects that error.

DATES: FDA is extending the comment period on the Generic Drug User Fee
recommendations published September 26, 2016 (81 FR 66035). Submit
either electronic or written comments by November 16, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Derek Griffing, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1673, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-
6980, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of September 26,
2016, FDA published a request for comments on GDUFA reauthorization
draft recommendations. The comment period ends on November 7, 2016.
    Because the Agency posted the draft recommendations on October 14,
2016, and the statute requires a period of 30 days be provided for the
public to provide comments on the draft recommendations, FDA is
extending the comment period for the GDUFA reauthorization draft
recommendations until November 16, 2016.
    In addition, in FR Doc. 2016-23111, appearing on page 66035 in the
Federal Register of Monday, September 26, 2016, the following
correction is made:
    On page 66038, in the final paragraph of the first column, the
second sentence is corrected to read: ``Specifically, FDA would issue
product-specific guidance identifying the methodology for developing
drugs and generating evidence needed to support ANDA approval, for 90
percent of new chemical entity new drug applications that are approved
on or after October 1, 2017, at least 2 years prior to the earliest
lawful filing date.''

    Dated: October 18, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-25603 Filed 10-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2972-2973]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1071]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Thunder Bay Power Company, Thunder Bay Power, LLC, et al.; Notice
of Application for Transfer of Licenses, and Soliciting Comments and
Motions To Intervene

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thunder Bay Power Company...................  Project No. 2404-095
Thunder Bay Power, LLC
Midwest Hydro, Inc..........................  Project Nos. 2348-035, 287-034, 2347-049, 2373-010
Midwest Hydro, LLC
Midwest Hydraulic Company, Inc..............  Project No. 10805-054
Midwest Hydraulic Company, LLC
N.E.W. Hydro, Inc...........................  Project Nos. 2550-026, 2689-039, 2523-052, 2744-040
N.E.W. Hydro, LLC

N.E.W. Hydro, Inc. and Neenah Paper FR, LLC.  Project No. 7264-024
N.E.W. Hydro, LLC and Neenah Paper FR, LLC,
 jointly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 3, 2012, see Table below, all wholly-owned subsidiaries
of North American Hydro Holdings, Inc. filed an application to transfer
the licenses for the following projects:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Project No.             Transferor           Transferee          Project name             Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-2404-095..............  Thunder Bay Power    Thunder Bay Power,   Thunder Bay Basin    Upper Branch River,
                           Company.             LLC.                 Project.             Alpena, Montmorency,
                                                                                Alcona, Presque Isle,
                                                                                and Oscoda counties,
                                                                                MI.
P-2348-035..............  Midwest Hydro, Inc.  Midwest Hydro, LLC.  Beloit Blackhawk...  Rock River, Rock
                                                                                County, WI.
P-287-034...............  Midwest Hydro, Inc.  Midwest Hydro, LLC.  Dayton.............  Fox River, LaSalle
                                                                                County, IL.
P-2347-049..............  Midwest Hydro, Inc.  Midwest Hydro, LLC.  Janesville Central.  Rock River, Rock
                                                                                County, WI.
P-2373-010..............  Midwest Hydro, Inc.  Midwest Hydro, LLC.  Rockton............  Rock River, Winnebago
                                                                                County, IL.
P-10805-054.............  Midwest Hydraulic    Midwest Hydraulic    Hatfield...........  Black River, Jackson
                           Company, Inc.        Company, LLC.                             and Clark counties,
                                                                                WI.
P-2550-026..............  N.E.W. Hydro, Inc..  N.E.W. Hydro, LLC..  Weyauwega..........  Waupaca River, Waupaca
                                                                                County, WI.
P-2689-039..............  N.E.W. Hydro, Inc..  N.E.W. Hydro, LLC..  Oconto Falls Lower.  Oconto River, Oconto
                                                                                County, WI.
P-2523-052..............  N.E.W. Hydro, Inc..  N.E.W. Hydro, LLC..  Oconto Falls Upper.  Oconto River, Oconto
                                                                                County, WI.
P-2744-040..............  N.E.W. Hydro, Inc..  N.E.W. Hydro, LLC..  Menominee/Park Mill  Menominee River,
                                                                                Marinette County, WI
                                                                                and Menominee County,
                                                                                MI.
P-7264-024..............  Neenah Paper FR,     Neenah Paper FR,     Middle Appleton Dam  Lower Fox River,
                           LLC and N.E.W.       LLC and N.E.W.                            Outagamie County, WI.
                           Hydro, Inc.          Hydro, LLC,
                                                jointly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the licenses for
the above projects from the transferors to the transferees.
    Applicants' Contact: Transferors and Transferees: Mr. Charles F.
Alsberg, Chief Executive Officer, North American Hydro Holdings, Inc.,
116 State Street, Neshkoro, WI 54960,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Ext. 11 and Mr.
Donald H. Clarke, Esq., Law Offices of GKRSE, 1500 K Street NW., Suite
330, Washington, DC 20005,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 15 days from
the issuance date of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may
be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be paper-
filed. To paper-file, an original plus seven copies should be mailed
to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. More information about this
project can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the
docket numbers (P-2404, P-2348, P-287, P-2347, P-2373, P-10805, P-2550,
P-2689, P-2523, P-2744, and P-7264) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-(866) 208-3372.

    Dated: January 13, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1071 Filed 1-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55468-55469]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19730]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

United States Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0188]

Recertification of Cook Inlet Regional Citizens' Advisory Council

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice of recertification.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the recertification of the Cook
Inlet Regional Citizens' Advisory Council (CIRCAC) as an alternative
voluntary advisory group for Cook Inlet, Alaska. This certification
allows the CIRCAC to monitor the activities of terminal facilities and
crude oil tankers under the Cook Inlet Program established by the Oil
Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight and Monitoring Act of
1990.

DATES: This recertification is effective for the period from September
1, 2020, through August 31, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document,
call or email LT Lauren Bloch, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpi),
by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard published guidelines on December 31, 1992 (57 FR
62600), to assist groups seeking recertification under the Oil Terminal
and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight and Monitoring Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 2732) (the Act). The Coast Guard issued a policy statement on
July 7, 1993 (58 FR 36504), to clarify the factors that the Coast Guard
would be considering in making its determination as to whether advisory
groups should be certified in accordance with the Act, and the
procedures which the Coast Guard would follow in meeting its
certification responsibilities under the Act. Most recently, on
September 16, 2002 (67 FR 58440), the Coast Guard changed its policy on
recertification procedures for regional citizen's advisory council by
requiring applicants to provide comprehensive information every three
years. For the two years in between, applicants only submit information
describing substantive changes to the information provided at the last
triennial recertification. This is the year in the triennial cycle in
which CIRCAC provided comprehensive information on its application for
recertification. The Coast Guard solicited public comments on CIRCAC
recertification through a Notice; Request for comments published on
June 11, 2020, titled ``Application for Recertification of Cook Inlet
Regional Citizens' Advisory Council'' (85 FR 35658).

Discussion of Comments

    On June 11, 2020, the Coast Guard published a Notice; Request for
comments titled ``Application for Recertification of Cook Inlet
Regional Citizens' Advisory Council'' in the Federal Register (85 FR
35658). We received 39 comments, all in support of the CIRCAC
recertification. No public meeting was requested. The comments
consistently cited CIRCAC's broad representation of the respective
communities' interest, appropriate actions to keep the public informed,
improvements to both spill response preparation and spill prevention,
and oil spill industry monitoring efforts that

combat complacency--as intended by the Act.

Recertification

    By letter dated August 28, 2020, the Commander, Seventeenth Coast
Guard District, certified that the CIRCAC qualifies as an alternative
voluntary advisory group under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o). The triennial review
is valid until August 31, 2023. The annual recertification will
terminate on August 31, 2021.

    Dated: August 28, 2020.
Matthew T. Bell, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2020-19730 Filed 9-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P