[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38898-38905]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17000]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0353; FRL-9997-89-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Transport Element for the 2010
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
interstate transport SIP requirements, referred to as the good neighbor
provision, for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This submission addresses the
interstate transport requirements of the CAA that

the SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions from
Massachusetts from having certain adverse air quality effects in other
states. In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve this portion of
the infrastructure SIP submission that certifies that the Massachusetts
SIP contain adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in the
Commonwealth will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any
other state.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 9,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2019-0353 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Hubbard, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suit 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109--3912, tel. (617)
918-1614, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate
Transport SIPs
III. Massachusetts's Submission and the EPA's Analysis
    A. Massachusetts's Analysis
    B. The EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation--Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment
    C. The EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance
of the NAAQS
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on the 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.\1\ Whenever the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS,
CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to
provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS. This particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to
as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' These submissions must meet the various
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Due to ambiguity
in some of the language of CAA section 110(a)(2), the EPA believes that
it is appropriate to interpret these provisions in the specific context
of acting on infrastructure SIP submissions. The EPA has previously
provided comprehensive guidance on the application of these provisions
through a guidance document for infrastructure SIP submissions and
through regional actions on infrastructure submissions.\2\ Unless
otherwise noted below, we are following that existing approach in
acting on this submission. In addition, in the context of acting on
such infrastructure submissions, the EPA evaluates the submitting
state's SIP for facial compliance with statutory and regulatory
requirements, not for the state's implementation of its SIP.\3\ The EPA
has other authority to address any issues concerning a state's
implementation of the rules, regulations, consent orders, etc. that
comprise its SIP. One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor''
provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on
neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
    \2\ The EPA explains and elaborates on these ambiguities and its
approach to address them in its September 13, 2013 Infrastructure
SIP Guidance (available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous agency actions, including the EPA's
prior action on Massachusetts's infrastructure SIP to address the
1997 ozone, 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS (see 81 FR 93627, December 21, 2016).
    \3\ See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in
Montana Environmental Information Center v. EPA, No. 16-71933 (Aug.
30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly
referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP
submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions that
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in
another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the
NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which
are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), require SIPs to contain
adequate provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with
measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4).
    In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the February 9,
2018 Massachusetts submission, which certifies that the Commonwealth's
infrastructure SIP contains adequate provisions related to prong 1 and
prong 2, i.e., to ensure that air emissions in the Commonwealth will
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state. All
other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS have been addressed in a separate rulemaking.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the EPA's final action on other elements of
Massachusetts's SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at 81 FR 93627
(December 21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs

    Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point
and nonpoint sources as is directly emitted PM2.5 and the
precursors to ozone and PM2.5,

interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport of
PM2.5 or ozone because SO2 emissions sources
usually do not have long range SO2 impacts. The transport of
SO2 relative to the 1-hour NAAQS is more analogous to the
transport of Pb relative to the Pb NAAQS in that emissions of
SO2 typically result in 1-hour pollutant impacts of possible
concern only near the emissions source. However, ambient 1-hour
concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as quickly with
distance from the source as do 3-month average concentrations of Pb,
because SO2 gas is not removed by deposition as rapidly as
are Pb particles and because SO2 typically has a higher
emissions release height than Pb. Emitted SO2 has wider
ranging impacts than emitted Pb, but it does not have such wide-ranging
impacts that treatment in a manner similar to ozone or PM2.5
would be appropriate. Accordingly, while the approaches that the EPA
has adopted for ozone or PM2.5 transport are too regionally
focused, the approach for Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed to
the source. SO2 transport is therefore a unique case and
requires a different approach.
    In SO2 transport analyses, we focus on a 50 km-wide zone
because the physical properties of SO2 result in relatively
localized pollutant impacts near an emissions source that drop off with
distance. Given the physical properties of SO2, the EPA
selected the ``urban scale''--a spatial scale with dimensions from 4 to
50 kilometers (km) from point sources--given the usefulness of that
range in assessing trends in both area-wide air quality and the
effectiveness of large-scale pollution control strategies at such point
sources.\5\ Furthermore, the American Meteorological Society/
Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) is the EPA's
preferred modeling platform for regulatory purposes for near-field
dispersion of emissions for distances up to 50 km (Appendix W to 40 CFR
part 51). As such, the EPA utilized an assessment up to 50 km from
point sources in order to assess trends in area-wide air quality that
might impact downwind states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2,
please see 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how
the EPA is applying these definitions with respect to interstate
transport of SO2, see the EPA's proposal on Connecticut's
SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, and 21354 (May 8,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section III of this proposed action, the EPA first
reviewed Massachusetts's analysis to assess how the Commonwealth
evaluated the transport of SO2 to other states, the types of
information the Commonwealth used in the analysis, and the conclusions
drawn by the Commonwealth. The EPA then conducted a weight of evidence
analysis, including review of the Massachusetts submission and other
available information, including ambient air quality data, data from
SO2 emission sources, and emission trends within the
Commonwealth and neighboring states to which it could potentially
contribute or interfere.

III. Massachusetts's Submission and the EPA's Analysis

    In this section, we provide an overview of Massachusetts's 2010
SO2 transport analysis included in its February 9, 2018
submission that addresses the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as well as the EPA's evaluation of prongs 1
and 2.

A. Massachusetts's Analysis

    Massachusetts conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine
whether SO2 emissions from Massachusetts significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring and downwind states. Massachusetts
evaluated air monitoring data from ambient air monitoring stations in
Massachusetts, as well in neighboring and downwind states.
Massachusetts assessed whether SO2 emissions from sources
located within 50 km of Massachusetts's borders may have contributed
significantly to nonattainment or interfered with maintenance in
neighboring and downwind states. Massachusetts's analysis included
source-specific SO2 emissions data from Massachusetts
sources located within 50 km of Massachusetts's border and having
SO2 emissions over 100 tons per year (tpy). Massachusetts
included the most recent stationary source SO2 emissions
data, which was from 2015. These sources included: Brayton Point Energy
LLC (1446 tpy SO2, located 2 km from the Rhode Island
border), which shutdown in 2017; Mystic Station (729 tpy
SO2, located 39 km from the New Hampshire border); Solutia
Inc (523 tpy SO2, located 13 km from the Connecticut
border), which permanently switched from coal to natural gas in 2016;
NRG Canal LLC (492 tpy SO2, located 53 km to Rhode Island
border); Wheelabrator Millbury Inc (224 tpy SO2, located 20
km from the Connecticut border); SEMASS Partnership (192 tpy
SO2, located 32 km to the Rhode Island border); and Veolia
Energy Boston Inc (117 tpy SO2, located 43 km from the New
Hampshire border).
    The largest SO2 point source in Massachusetts, Brayton
Point Energy LLC, permanently ceased operations in 2017. Massachusetts
noted that SO2 emissions have declined in the last 15 years,
and that SO2 levels at all monitors in the Commonwealth are
below the 75 ppb SO2 NAAQS. The Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP) certifies that sources in
Massachusetts do not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any
neighboring state.

B. The EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation--Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment

    The EPA has analyzed the ambient air quality data, data from
SO2 emission sources, distance from neighboring states, and
emissions trends in Massachusetts and neighboring and downwind states,
i.e., Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and
Vermont.\6\ Based on that analysis and discussed in greater detail
below, the EPA proposes to find that Massachusetts's SIP meets the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
prong 1 for the 2010 NAAQS, and Massachusetts will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any
other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For this analysis, though Maine does not share a border with
Massachusetts, the EPA is analyzing SO2 transport impacts
of Massachusetts sources on ambient air in Maine, because Maine is
located approximately 24 km from Massachusetts at its nearest point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 includes the most recent air quality design value for each
active SO2 monitor in Massachusetts or in a neighboring or
downwind state within 50 km of the Massachusetts border. These monitors
were reviewed to see if there are any sites that show elevated
SO2 concentrations which may warrant further investigation
with respect to interstate transport of SO2 from
Massachusetts emission sources near any given monitor.

                Table 1--SO2 Monitor Values in Massachusetts and Neighboring and Downwind States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Distance to      2016-2018
                       State/city or town                             Site ID      Massachusetts   design value
                                                                                border  (km) *   (ppb)[dagger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut/Cornwall............................................     09-005-0005              25               2
Massachusetts/Fall River........................................     25-005-1004               2               7
Massachusetts/Ware..............................................     25-015-4002              31               3
Massachusetts/Boston............................................     25-025-0002              41               3
Massachusetts/Boston............................................     25-025-0042              43               4
Massachusetts/Worcester.........................................     25-027-0023              26               4
New Hampshire/Peterborough......................................     33-011-5001              18               2
New Hampshire/Suncook...........................................     33-013-1006              46              14
New Hampshire/Portsmouth........................................     33-015-0014              24              13
New Hampshire/Londonderry.......................................     33-015-0018              17               3
New York/Loudonville............................................     36-001-0012              41               3
New York/Millbrook..............................................     36-027-0007              36               2
Rhode Island/East Providence....................................     44-007-1010               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All distances throughout this notice are approximations.
[dagger] Data retrieved from the EPA's https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report on July
  24, 2019.

    As seen in the Table 1, there are no violating monitored design
values in Massachusetts or neighboring or downwind states. The data
presented in Table 1 show that Massachusetts's network of
SO2 monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour
SO2 design values that monitored 1-hour SO2
levels in Massachusetts range between 4% and 10% of the 75 ppb level of
the NAAQS. As shown above, all five Massachusetts SO2
monitors are located within 50 km of a neighboring state's border.
Seven monitors with data sufficient to calculate a design value for the
2016-2018 period in neighboring or downwind states are located within
50 km of the Massachusetts border, and these monitors recorded
SO2 design values ranging between 2% and 19% of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Thus, these air quality data do not, by
themselves, indicate any particular location that would warrant further
investigation with respect to SO2 emission sources that
might significantly contribute to nonattainment in neighboring states.
However, the monitoring network is not necessarily designed to find all
locations of high SO2 concentrations. Therefore, this
observation indicates an absence of evidence of impact at monitored
locations, but is not sufficient evidence by itself of an absence of
impact at all locations in the neighboring and downwind states. Given
this, the EPA has also conducted a source-oriented analysis.
    As mentioned previously, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to
examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in
Massachusetts in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the source.
The EPA assessed point sources up to 50 km from state borders to
evaluate trends and SO2 concentrations in area-wide air
quality. The list of sources with 2015 emissions equal to or greater
than 100 tpy \7\ SO2 within 50 km from Massachusetts borders
is shown in Table 2, based on Massachusetts's submission. The EPA has
also included 2017 SO2 emissions for those sources in the
table, which were collected from MassDEP and transmitted to the EPA for
incorporation into the National Emissions Inventory (NEI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Massachusetts limited its analysis to Massachusetts sources
of SO2 emitting at least 100 tpy in 2015. We agree with
Massachusetts's choice to limit its analysis in this way, because in
the absence of special factors, for example the presence of a nearby
larger source or unusual factors, Massachusetts sources emitting
less than 100 tpy can appropriately be assumed to not be causing or
contributing to SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS. The
EPA recognizes that in 2017 Ardagh Glass Inc. emitted 92 tpy
SO2, with the next highest source (Wheelabrator Saugus
Inc) emitting 54 tpy SO2. Ardagh Glass Inc. has
permanently ceased operations as of September 26, 2018. Given these
facts, the EPA finds MassDEP's analysis of SO2 sources
above 100 tpy adequate for analysis of SO2 transport
impacts to neighboring and downwind states.

          Table 2--Massachusetts SO2 Sources Greater Than 100 TPY Near Neighboring and Downwind States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2017 emissions
                                                                                Distance (km)   (tons) for the
                                                                                to nearest         nearest
                                   2015 SO2        2017 SO2       Distance to      neighboring    neighboring or
     Massachusetts source          emissions       emissions     Massachusetts  state SO2 source  downwind state
                                    (tons)          (tons)       border  (km)     emitting over       source
                                                                                100 tons in 2017   emitting over
                                                                                100 tons *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brayton Point Energy LLC (shut           1,446             552               2  150 (Public                  263
 down in May 2017).                                                              Service of New
                                                                                Hampshire
                                                                                (PSNH) Schiller
                                                                                Station--Portsm
                                                                                outh, New
                                                                                Hampshire).
Mystic Station................             729             354              39  82 (PSNH                     263
                                                                                Schiller
                                                                                Station--Portsm
                                                                                outh, New
                                                                                Hampshire).
SEMASS Partnership............             192             301              32  140 (PSNH                    263
                                                                                Schiller
                                                                                Station--Portsm
                                                                                outh, New
                                                                                Hampshire).
Solutia Inc (ceased burning                523               0              13  104 (Monadnock               101
 coal as of December 2016).                                                      Paper Mills
                                                                                Inc--Bennington
                                                                                , New
                                                                                Hampshire).
Veolia Energy Boston Inc......             117               0              43  85 (PSNH                     263
                                                                                Schiller
                                                                                Station--Portsm
                                                                                outh, New
                                                                                Hampshire).

Wheelabrator Millbury Inc.....             224             187              20  88 (PSNH                     263
                                                                                Schiller
                                                                                Station--Portsm
                                                                                outh, New
                                                                                Hampshire).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions data were obtained using the EPA's 2017 NEI Draft.

    Table 2 shows the distance from each Massachusetts source emitting
at least 100 tpy SO2 in 2015 to the nearest out-of-state
source emitting at least 100 tpy of SO2 in 2017. As shown,
six facilities in Massachusetts are within 50 km of the border with
another state and are at a distance of 82 km or greater from the
nearest out-of-state SO2 source emitting over 100 tpy. The
nearest SO2 source emitting greater than 100 tpy in
Massachusetts to a neighboring state, Brayton Point Energy LLC (2 km
from Rhode Island), permanently ceased operations on May 31, 2017.
Solutia Inc (13 km from Connecticut) converted its coal-fired unit to
natural gas in 2016 and is no longer permitted to burn fuels that would
result in emissions equal to or greater than 100 tpy. The EPA has
reviewed the data Massachusetts submitted and agrees with the
determination that the closure of Brayton Point Energy LLC and fuel
switching at Solutia Inc have significantly lowered SO2
emissions in Massachusetts and are not having downwind impacts in
violation of prongs 1 and 2.
    For the remaining active Massachusetts point sources emitting over
100 tpy of SO2, i.e., Mystic Station, SEMASS Partnership,
Veolia Energy Boston Inc, and Wheelabrator Millbury Inc, the nearest
SO2 source in a neighboring state is PSNH Schiller Station
in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The EPA has assessed potential
SO2 impacts from Massachusetts sources on the New Hampshire
area with SO2 sources near the Massachusetts border,
specifically the Portsmouth, New Hampshire area and the Central New
Hampshire nonattainment area, by examining monitoring and modeling
information. These assessments are presented as follows for the Central
New Hampshire nonattainment area and the Portsmouth, New Hampshire
area.
    First, the EPA assessed information presented by Massachusetts
regarding the State's impacts in the Central New Hampshire
nonattainment area. Massachusetts reviewed potential SO2
impacts on the Central New Hampshire area, which includes parts of
Hillsborough, Merrimack, and Rockingham counties, and was designated as
a nonattainment area for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS on August 5,
2013. The nonattainment designation was related to a monitored
violation of the NAAQS at a monitoring station in Pembroke, New
Hampshire and caused primarily by SO2 emissions from nearby
Merrimack Generating Station in Bow, New Hampshire.\8\ The Merrimack
Generating Station facility installed an emissions control system in
response to a New Hampshire requirement, and the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) established stringent
emissions limits and other conditions for the facility on September 1,
2016. New Hampshire submitted an attainment plan for the Central New
Hampshire area on January 31, 2017, which relied mainly on the
emissions limits and other conditions established for the facility, and
the EPA approved that plan on June 5, 2018.\9\ New Hampshire's
attainment plan and demonstration relies on air dispersion modeling of
the 1-hour critical emission value shown to be equivalent to the
federally-enforceable 7-boiler operating day allowable emissions limit
for the Merrimack Generating Station, in addition to monitored
background concentrations. These measured background concentrations
account for contributions from Massachusetts. The New Hampshire
modeling analysis demonstrated that allowable emissions from Merrimack
Generating Station, in addition to the background levels, will not
cause a violation of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The attainment
plan did not require any reductions from Massachusetts sources, and
relied solely on controls and limits at Merrimack Generating Station to
address the nonattainment. Therefore, the EPA concludes that sources in
Massachusetts do not contribute significantly to SO2
nonattainment in the Central New Hampshire area.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 40 CFR part 81 Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (78 FR 47191, August 5, 2013).
    \9\ See the EPA's final action on the Central New Hampshire
Nonattainment Area Plan for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at 83 FR
25922 (June 5, 2018).
    \10\ On July 31, 2019, the EPA published a proposal to formally
redesignate the Central New Hampshire SO2 Nonattainment
Area to attainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (84 FR 37187).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the EPA has assessed information, including both monitoring
and modeling information, for the area around Portsmouth, New Hampshire
during the third round of SO2 designations.\11\ For
monitoring information, the EPA reviewed available monitoring data in
the Portsmouth, New Hampshire area. There is one SO2 monitor
(Site ID 33-015-0014--See Table 1) in the area, located 4 km southeast
of PSNH Schiller Station. As shown, this monitor recorded a design
value of 13 ppb from 2016-2018. This design value indicates that
SO2 levels are low (17% of the NAAQS) in areas of
Portsmouth. An additional monitor sited at Sawgrass Lane in Eliot,
Maine (Site ID 23-031-0009), was located 1.1 miles to the northeast of
PSNH Schiller Station and collected ambient SO2 data from
October 24, 2014 to April 1, 2016. The maximum 1-hour SO2
concentration observed from this monitor was 37.7 ppb on January 8,
2015, when winds came from the direction of PSNH Schiller Station and
the power plant was operating at near-maximum capacity.\12\ While the

Portsmouth SO2 monitor is not sited to determine maximum
impacts from PSNH Schiller Station, the Sawgrass Lane monitor measured
combined impacts from PSNH Schiller Station and background
concentrations for the area that generally include contributions from
sources emitting upwind in Massachusetts. Additionally, Massachusetts
noted air quality modeling by the State of New Hampshire. New
Hampshire's air quality modeling indicates that allowable emissions
from PSNH Schiller Station combined with background levels that include
contributions from sources emitting SO2 in Massachusetts
will not cause a violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\13\ The
EPA has previously evaluated that modeling and agrees that the modeling
supports Massachusetts's conclusion. Therefore, the EPA concludes that
sources in Massachusetts would not contribute significantly to
SO2 nonattainment in the Portsmouth, New Hampshire area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A full assessment of New Hampshire's modeling for the
Portsmouth, New Hampshire area is provided in the technical support
document for the EPA's intended Round 3 air quality designations for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (82 FR 41903, September 5, 2017).
    \12\ The Sawgrass Lane monitor was sited in an area expected to
experience peak SO2 impacts from PSNH Schiller Station
based on modeling information submitted by the Town of Eliot.
Additional background and results of the Sawgrass Lane monitoring
study are described in the report, ``Review of 2014-2016 Eliot,
Maine Air Quality Monitoring Study,'' EPA, the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection, and NH DES (September 2016).
    \13\ See EPA's final action of New Hampshire's SIP revision at
83 FR 64470 (December 17, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also reviewed sources in neighboring and downwind states
emitting more than 100 tpy of SO2 and located within 50 km
of the Massachusetts border (see Table 3). This is because elevated
SO2 levels, to which an SO2 source in
Massachusetts may contribute, are most likely to be found near such
sources. Massachusetts based its analysis on 2015 SO2
emissions, and the EPA has included updated 2017 emissions as part of
the weight of evidence analysis. As shown in Table 3, the shortest
distance between a source emitting at least 100 tpy SO2 in
Massachusetts and one in another state is 82 km. Given the localized
range of potential 1-hour SO2 impacts, this indicates that
there are no additional locations in neighboring and downwind states
that would warrant further investigation with respect to Massachusetts
SO2 emission sources that might contribute to problems with
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

   Table 3--Neighboring and Downwind State SO2 Sources Greater Than 100 tpy and Within 50 km of Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Distance to
                                                                                nearest       Massachusetts
                                   2015 SO2        2017 SO2       Distance to     Massachusetts     source 2015
            Source                 emissions       emissions     Massachusetts     SO2 source        emissions
                                   (tons) *         (tons)       border  (km)   greater than 100      (tons)
                                                                                tpy  (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lafarge North America--Ravena            4,806              63              36  107 (Solutia                 523
 (Ravena, New York).                                                             Inc--Springfiel
                                                                                d).
Monadnock Paper Mills Inc          [dagger] 80             101              36  88 (Wheelabrator             224
 (Bennington, New Hampshire).                                                    Millbury Inc--
                                                                                Millbury).
Norlite Corp (Cohoes, New       [dagger][dagge              60              34  117 (Solutia                 523
 York).                                 r] 117                                   Inc--Springfiel
                                                                                d).
Northeast Solite Corporation    [dagger][dagge             303              39  121 (Solutia                 523
 (Glasco, New York).                    r] 222                                   Inc--Springfiel
                                                                                d).
PSNH--Merrimack Station (Bow,              636             144              49  90 (Mystic                   729
 New Hampshire).                                                                 Station--Everet
                                                                                t).
PSNH--Newington Station                    294              41              25  82 (Mystic                   729
 (Newington, New Hampshire).                                                     Station--Everet
                                                                                t).
PSNH--Schiller Station                     858             263              26  82 (Mystic                   729
 (Portsmouth, New Hampshire).                                                    Station--Everet
                                                                                t).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data retrieved, unless otherwise noted, by the EPA from its Emissions Inventory System gateway, available at
  https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventory-system-eis-gateway, on July 22, 2019 for
  2015 emissions as submitted by MassDEP, New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC), New
  Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES), and Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
  Protection.
[dagger] Emissions data reported by NHDES.
[dagger][dagger] Emissions data reported by NYDEC.

    The EPA also assessed previous modeling information available for
the Lafarge North America--Ravena facility in Ravena, New York. This
modeling information was available based on the technical support
document for the EPA's intended Round 3 air quality designations for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (82 FR 41903, September 5, 2017). The
Lafarge North America--Ravena facility had its kiln replaced in 2016,
resulting in considerably lower emissions than those emitted prior to
the kiln replacement. The Lafarge North America--Ravena facility was
modeled using new allowable emissions rather than previous actual
emissions and the modeling indicated the area around the facility would
not violate the NAAQS. New York's modeling, which the EPA found
accurately characterized air quality in the area of analysis, included
monitored background concentrations for the area. Based on this
information, the EPA concludes that combined impacts from Lafarge North
America--Ravena and background levels will not cause a violation of the
NAAQS.
    Massachusetts asserted that because there are no large sources of
SO2 emissions that significantly affect any neighboring
state, and because monitored SO2 levels in Massachusetts and
adjacent states are substantially below the 2010 SO2 NAAQS,
sources in Massachusetts do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment areas in any neighboring states. The EPA agrees with this
conclusion.
    In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 1, the EPA reviewed
ambient SO2 monitoring data and SO2 emission
sources both within Massachusetts and in neighboring and downwind
states. Based on this analysis, the EPA proposes to determine that
Massachusetts will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

C. The EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance of the
NAAQS

    The EPA has reviewed available information on SO2 air
quality and emission trends to evaluate the Commonwealth's conclusion
that Massachusetts will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in downwind states.
    The EPA interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2 to
require an

evaluation of the potential impact of a state's emissions on areas that
are currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues
maintaining that air quality, rather than only former nonattainment
areas (and thus current maintenance areas). Therefore, in addition to
the analysis presented by Massachusetts, the EPA has also reviewed
additional information on SO2 air quality and emission
trends to evaluate the Commonwealth's conclusion that Massachusetts
will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
downwind states. This evaluation builds on the analysis regarding
significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1). Specifically,
because of the low monitored ambient concentrations of SO2
in Massachusetts and neighboring and downwind states, the EPA is
proposing to find that SO2 levels in neighboring states near
the Massachusetts border do not indicate any inability to maintain the
SO2 NAAQS that could be attributed in part to sources in
Massachusetts.
    As shown in Table 1 in section III.B. of this notice, the EPA
reviewed 2016-2018 SO2 design value concentrations at
monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour SO2
design values in Massachusetts and neighboring states. There are no
violating monitored design values in Massachusetts or neighboring or
downwind states.
    Table 4 shows emission trends for Massachusetts along with
neighboring and downwind states (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New
York, Rhode Island, and Vermont).

             Table 4--Statewide SO2 Data (tpy) for Massachusetts and Neighboring and Downwind States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                SO2 reduction,
              State                    2000            2005            2010            2017        2000-2017 (%)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts...................         208,146         139,937          57,892          15,100              93
Connecticut.....................          60,309          34,638          16,319          11,379              81
Maine...........................          57,906          32,397          17,020          10,447              82
New Hampshire...................          68,768          63,634          35,716           6,401              91
New York........................         543,868         386,568         170,247          38,641              93
Rhode Island....................           8,976           7,356           4,416           3,399              62
Vermont.........................           9,438           7,038           3,659           1,512              84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 4, the statewide SO2 emissions from
Massachusetts and neighboring and downwind states have decreased
substantially over time, per the EPA's review of emissions trends data
for these states.\14\ From 2000 to 2017, total statewide SO2
emissions decreased by the following proportions: Massachusetts (93%
decrease), Connecticut (81% decrease), Maine (82% decrease), New
Hampshire (91% decrease), New York (93% decrease), Rhode Island (62%
decrease), and Vermont (84%). This trend of decreasing SO2
emissions does not by itself demonstrate that areas in Massachusetts
and neighboring states will not have issues maintaining the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece of this weight of evidence
analysis for prong 2, it provides further indication (when considered
alongside low monitor values in neighboring states) that such
maintenance issues are unlikely. This is because the geographic scope
of these reductions and their large sizes strongly suggest that they
are not transient effects from reversible causes, and thus these
reductions suggest there is very low likelihood that a strong upward
trend in emissions will occur that might cause areas presently in
attainment to violate the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Additional emissions trends data are available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/airpollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in Massachusetts's submission, sources of SO2
emissions will be addressed by Massachusetts's SIP-approved
SO2 control programs. These programs include the low sulfur
fuel rule, emissions standards for power plants, SO2 limits
on municipal waste combustors, and a statewide permitting program. The
low sulfur fuel rule reduces the sulfur content of oil combusted in
stationary sources and requires the use of low sulfur fuel for large
stationary engines and turbines based on EPA requirements for diesel
fuel.\15\ Massachusetts notes in the submission that sulfur emissions
from stationary sources will continue to decrease over time due to
MassDEP's fuel rule. The State's Emissions Standards for Power Plants
regulation establishes a facility-wide rolling 12-month SO2
emissions rate of 3.0 pounds per megawatt-hour and a monthly average
emissions rate of 6.0 pounds per megawatt-hour.\16\ The State's 310 CMR
7.08 regulations establish limits on municipal waste combustors and
requires such facilities to establish emission control plans and places
limits on SO2.\17\ MassDEP's statewide permitting program
establishes a pre-construction Plan Approval for sources that require
Best Available Control Technology for pollutants will be emitted,
including SO2, and ensures that projects requiring Plan
Approvals will limit SO2 emissions.\18\ These regulations
will help ensure that sulfur emissions from stationary sources will
continue to decrease over time, and that new or modified stationary
sources in Massachusetts will not cause exceedances of the
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See the EPA's final action of the regional haze portions in
Massachusetts's SIP, at 78 FR 57487 (September 21, 2013).
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ See the EPA's final action of the reasonably available
control technology (RACT) of nitrous oxides in Massachusetts's SIP,
at 64 FR 48095, September 13, 1999.
    \18\ See the EPA's final action of the Massachusetts ``U
Restricted Emission Status'' regulation into the SIP, at 60 FR
17226, April 5, 1995. Massachusetts has delegation of the Federal
Prevention of Significant Deterioration program (See CFR 40
52.1165).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, the EPA reviewed
additional information about emissions trends, Massachusetts
regulations that limit SO2 sources, and the technical
information considered for interstate transport prong 1. The EPA finds
that the combination of low ambient concentrations of SO2 in
Massachusetts and neighboring and downwind states, the distances
between cross-state SO2 sources, the downward trend in
SO2 emissions from Massachusetts and neighboring and
downwind states, and Massachusetts regulations that limit
SO2 sources indicate no interference with maintenance of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS from Massachusetts. Accordingly, the EPA
proposes to determine that Massachusetts SO2 emissions
sources will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve Massachusetts's February 9, 2018
submission of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as meeting the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on
other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking
final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed
rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this Federal Register.

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, the 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866;
     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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: August 5, 2019.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-17000 Filed 8-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 20 (Wednesday, February 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8930-8932]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02083]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF17-2-000]

Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Planned 2018 Expansion Project and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the 2018 Expansion Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Paiute Pipeline
Company (Paiute) in Douglas and Lyon Counties and Carson City, Nevada.
The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to
determine whether the project is in the public convenience and
necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before February 27, 2017.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on October 17, 2016, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. PF17-2-000 to ensure they are considered as part
of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal
consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form
or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments and has expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these instructions so that
your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety

of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New
eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(PF17-2-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Please note this is not your only public input opportunity; please
refer to the review process flow chart in appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of the Planned Project

    Paiute plans to construct approximately 8.4 miles of pipeline to
upsize or loop four sections along its Carson and South Tahoe Laterals
in Douglas and Lyon Counties and Carson City, Nevada. The project would
provide 4,604 dekatherms per day of new natural gas transportation
capacity to meet growing demands in the above mentioned areas and in El
Dorado County, California. The project would consist of:
     Construction of 0.34 miles of new 12-inch-diameter
pipeline paralleling Paiute's existing South Tahoe Lateral pipeline
(Segment 1);
     replacement of 1.58 miles of existing 8-inch-diameter
Carson Lateral Loop pipeline with 12-inch-diameter pipeline (Segment
2);
     replacement of 2.34 miles of existing 10-inch-diameter
pipeline along Paiute's existing Carson Lateral pipeline with 20-inch-
diameter pipeline (Segment 3); and
     construction of 4.17 miles of new 20-inch-diameter
pipeline loop paralleling Paiute's existing Carson Lateral pipeline
(Segment 4).
    There are no aboveground facilities planned for the project. The
general location of the facilities is shown in appendix 2.

Land Requirements for Construction

    The entire project would be installed in or adjacent to Paiute's
existing rights of way. All pipeline facilities would be installed
within a combination of private easements, Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) rights-of-way, Nevada Department of Transportation rights-of-way,
and State of Nevada lands. In total, the project would disturb about
123.3 acres of land during construction. Following construction, Paiute
would maintain about 71.5 acres (including 51.3 acres of existing
rights-of-way) for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the
remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     Geology, paleontology, and soils;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife, including migratory birds;
     endangered and threatened species;
     land use;
     cultural resources;
     visual resources;
     recreation;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety; and,
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before
the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we
have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their
involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section beginning on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice. The BLM indicated that it plans to be a cooperating agency in
the preparation of the EA because the project would cross federally
administered lands in Nevada. As a cooperating agency, the BLM intends
to adopt the EA per Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part
1506.3 to meet its responsibilities under NEPA regarding Paiute's
application for a Right-of-Way Grant and Temporary Use Permit for
crossing federally administered lands. Impacts on resources and
programs, and the proposed project's conformance with land use plans,
will be considered in the BLM's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\4\ We will

define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in
consultation with the SHPOs as the project develops. On natural gas
facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject
to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way,
contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads).
Our EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on
historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under
section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of completed EA will be
sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment.
If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of
the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list,
please return the attached Information Request (appendix 3).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Paiute files its application with the Commission, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Instructions
for becoming an intervenor are in the ``Document-less Intervention
Guide'' under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.
Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor
status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a
formal application for the project.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., PF17-2). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings/sessions or site visits will be posted on
the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: January 26, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-02083 Filed 1-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45348-45351]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19161]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0280; FRL-9982-60--Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; 2017 Revisions to NR 400 and 406

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving certain
changes to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action
relates to changes in Wisconsin's construction permit rules as well as
the change in the definition for ``emergency electric generators'' in
NR 400. This request for the revision of the SIP was submitted by the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) on May 16, 2017.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0280. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (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
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend
that you telephone Rachel Rineheart, Environmental Engineer, at (312)
886-7017 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Rineheart, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows: is used, we mean EPA. This
supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

I. Review of State Submittal
II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Review of State Submittal

    This final rulemaking addresses the May 16, 2017 WDNR submittal for
a SIP revision, revising the rules in the Wisconsin SIP to align them
with Federal requirements. WDNR's submittal includes changes to the
term ``electric generator,'' replacing it with ``restricted internal
combustion engine'' as well as other minor language and administrative
changes. Specifically, NR 400.02(136m) replaces the existing definition
of emergency ``electric generator'' with a definition of ``restricted
use internal combustion engine,'' and NR 406.04(1)(w) amends the
exemption language for ``emergency electric generators,'' replacing it
with an exemption for ``restricted use reciprocating internal
combustion engines.'' NR 406.08(1) and NR 406.10 involve minor changes
to language, and NR 406.11(1) amends procedures for revoking
construction permits. These changes serve the purpose of aligning
Wisconsin's definitions with the Federal definitions.
    WDNR is also requesting the removal of NR 406.16(2)(d) and NR
406.17(3)(e) from the SIP. These provisions address the eligibility of
coverage under general and registration construction permits based on
whether the project constituted a Type 2 action under the previous
chapter NR 150. However, the current chapter NR 150 was amended and no
longer defines or sets requirements for Type 2 actions. Removing these
provisions from Wisconsin's SIP ensures consistency with the Wisconsin
Environmental Protection Act (WEPA), and does not affect consistency
with the Clean Air Act (CAA). It is also consistent with Section 110(l)
of the CAA. Sources covered under registration and general permits are
still subject to all emission caps and applicable requirements
contained in those permits.

II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?

    EPA published a direct final rule on November 7, 2017 (82 FR
51575), approving Wisconsin's requested revisions to the SIP, along
with a proposed rule (82 FR 51594) that provided a 30-day public
comment period. EPA received two comment letters during the public
comment process. There were comments on the proposed approval from
Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity combined and one
comment from an anonymous commenter. The letter from the anonymous
commenter was dated December 2, 2017 and the letter from Sierra Club
and the Center for Biological Diversity was dated December 7, 2017.
Consequently, the direct final rule on this approval was withdrawn on
December 21, 2017 (82 FR 60545). A summary of the comments received and
EPA's response follows.

A. Section 110(l) Determination

    Comment 1: The revisions to the prior exemption for emergency
generators are a relaxation of the SIP and EPA cannot approve the SIP
relaxation without an analysis that the relaxation will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) or any other CAA requirement pursuant to Section
110(l) of the CAA.
    EPA Response: Section 110(l) states ``each revision to an
implementation plan submitted by a State under this chapter shall be
adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The
Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171 of this
title), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.'' Wisconsin
has adequately demonstrated that the

change in exemption will not interfere with attainment or maintenance
of the NAAQS. EPA does not interpret section 110(l) to require a full
attainment or maintenance demonstration before any changes to a SIP may
be approved. Generally, a SIP revision may be approved under section
110(l) if EPA finds it will at least preserve status quo air quality.
See Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir.
2006); GHASP v. EPA, No. 06-61030 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008); see also,
e.g., 70 FR 53, 57 (Jan. 3, 2005), 70 FR 28429, 28430 (May 18, 2005)
(proposed and final rules, upheld in Kentucky Resources, which discuss
EPA's interpretation of section 110(l).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Discussed in Utah Approval, Disapproval, and Promulgation of
Air Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; Revisions to New Source
Review Rules, 76 FR 41712 at 41713 (Aug 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned in Subsection A, above, Wisconsin has included two
categories of engines within its definition of Restricted Use
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE):
    (a) One that is operated no more than 200 hours per year and that
meets the definition of emergency stationary RICE or black start engine
in 40 CFR 63.6675.
    (b) One that is operated in accordance with the definition of
limited use RICE in 40 CFR 63.6675.
    In order to evaluate whether the air quality will be maintained
despite the change in definition, we have addressed the two categories
of engines separately. The first category of engines within the
definition of emergency stationary RICE or black start engines, as
defined in 40 CFR 63.6675, operates no more than 200 hours per year (NR
400.02(136m)(a)). NR 406.04(1)(w) exempts restricted use reciprocating
internal combustion engines fueled by gaseous fuels, gasoline or a
clean fuel and which have a combined electrical output of less than
3000 kilowatts. This is consistent with the definition and exemption
for emergency electric generators prior to the revision, which referred
to an electric generator whose purpose is to provide electricity to a
facility if normal electrical service is interrupted and which is
operated no more than 200 hours per year. The prior exemption excluded
``emergency electric generators powered by internal combustion engines
which are fueled by gaseous fuels, gasoline or distillate fuel oil with
an electrical output of less than 3000 kilowatts.'' Since the size as
well as the number of operating hours per year of engines used for
emergency purposes remains the same before and after the revision,
there will be no additional impact to air quality as a result of this
revision.
    The second category of engine within Wisconsin's definition of
restricted use RICE are limited use engines as defined in 40 CFR
63.6675 that operate less than 100 hours per year (NR 400.02(136m)(b)).
We reviewed information on how the State permitted limited use RICE
prior to the proposed exemption. Limited use RICE, as opposed to
restricted use RICE, was not a defined category and these engines were
permitted as stationary RICE with permit restrictions. However, this
provision in the Wisconsin code exempting limited use RICE from
obtaining a permit will not result in an increase in emissions beyond
what would result from construction or modification of these types of
engines through an individual minor new source review (NSR)
construction permit. Wisconsin has shown that this permit exemption is
consistent with conditions that would have been part of a construction
permit under the prior version of the state regulations.
    For example, prior to the exemption, limited use RICE were included
in permits with a permit limitation or an operational restriction. The
permit may or may not have included a restriction in the number of
hours. Under the proposed exemption, however, sources will need to
operate for less than 100 hours per year in order to be eligible for
this exemption, in accordance with 40 CFR 63.6675. Therefore, in some
cases, this provision in the rule may be more protective of air quality
than an individual permit. An increase in the hours of operation to
over 100 hours per year will make the source ineligible for this
exemption, as per the definition of limited use engines. Further, an
increase to 100 hours per year or greater will make the source subject
to the requirements under the Federal National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). An exemption from obtaining a permit
does not relieve the source from having to comply with the NESHAP.
Therefore, the NESHAP acts as a backstop to ensure emissions from these
engines are controlled. As mentioned above, EPA may approve a SIP
revision under section 110(l) if EPA finds it will at least preserve
status quo air quality. Kentucky Resources, supra.

B. Aligning With Federal Requirements

    Comment 1: ``It is unclear what Federal requirements or Federal
program EPA is referencing throughout this notice''.
    EPA response: In this action, EPA is referring to the Federal
definition of RICE under 40 CFR 63.6675. The Federal regulations do not
specifically define emergency generators. 40 CFR 63.6675 defines
internal combustion engines that are used for emergency purposes.
WDNR's revised definition conforms to the Federal definition of
internal combustion engines used for emergency purposes.
    EPA does not find the need to re-propose this action, since
commenters had adequate notice of these Federal requirements. The
Federal citation is clearly mentioned in Wisconsin's revised definition
of RICE under NR 400.02(136m).
    Comment 2: The Federal NESHAPs are not the same program as the NSR
program and are not designed to meet the same goals. Thus EPA's
statement that these changes ``serve the purpose of aligning the state
and Federal regulations'' is not grounded in the CAA.
    EPA response: EPA understands that NESHAPs and the NSR program are
different programs, but that does not eliminate the value in aligning
state and Federal regulations. Consistency among state and Federal
regulatory requirements, whether from the same or different programs,
is valuable to achieve goals such as simplifying applicability and
regulatory requirements and promoting compliance. Such alignment need
not be mandated by the CAA to add such value, and EPA and states need
only assure that an alignment of state and Federal requirements across
programs is not inconsistent with the CAA requirements for either
program. The revisions approved in this action pass this test.
    Further, this action is only aligning Wisconsin's definitions with
the Federal definitions, thereby aligning permitting exemptions with
certain NESHAP exemptions. The revision does not attempt to align the
regulatory requirements or the pollutants addressed by these programs
in a manner that is inconsistent with the CAA requirements for either
program.

C. Exclusions From Modifications, NR 406.04(4)(e)

    The Wisconsin Code NR 406.04(4) has provisions that exclude certain
types of changes from constituting a modification. The purpose of these
exclusions is to minimize the administrative and economic burdens on
both the agency and low emitting sources without sacrificing
environmental protection. NR 406.04(4)(e) excludes from the definition
of modification sources that increase their hours of operation if: (1)

The increase is not prohibited by any permit, plan approval or special
order applicable to the source; and (2) the increase will not cause or
exacerbate the violation of an ambient air quality standard or ambient
air increment or violate an emission limit.
    Comment 1: The exemption in NR 406.04(1)(w), when considered in
conjunction with the existing exemptions under NR 406.04(4)(e), could
allow the construction of a stationary reciprocating internal
combustion engine without a permit that could ultimately be allowed to
operate 8760 hours per year with no construction permit being issued
prior to review.
    EPA response: 40 CFR 51.160 requires that a SIP set forth legally
enforceable procedures that enable the permitting authority to
determine whether the source is in violation of applicable portions of
the control strategy or would result in an interference with the
attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. The exemption in NR 406.04(1)(w)
exempts restricted use RICE that (1) operated no more than 200 hours
per year and meet the definition of emergency stationary RICE in 40 CFR
63.6675; or (2) are operated in accordance with the definition of
limited use RICE in 40 CFR 63.6675, i.e. RICE that is operated no more
than 100 hours per year. An increase in hours of operation above these
thresholds, as applicable, will cause the source to no longer qualify
for the permit exemption and will thereby result in a SIP violation.
Further, the exemption in NR 406.04(1)(w)2. requires that records be
kept of total hours the engines operate each year to verify that the
units continue to meet the criteria for an exemption.

D. Air Quality Analysis

    Comment 1: Wisconsin's exemption could apply to generators used for
peak shaving. Peaking units typically go through frequent startups and
shutdowns and thus could have disproportionately high emissions on a
short-term basis despite the limited operating hours per year. EPA must
require a worst case evaluation of impacts on the NAAQS--particularly
the 1-hour SO2 and 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.
    EPA response: WDNR's definition of restricted use RICE mirrors the
Federal definition of emergency stationary RICE in 40 CFR 63.6675. This
definition, while allowing an engine to operate for up to 50 hours per
year for non-emergency purposes, clearly precludes the source from
using the engines for ``. . . peak shaving or non-emergency demand
response, or to generate income for a facility to an electric grid or
otherwise supply power as part of a financial arrangement with another
entity.'' Prior to adopting the proposed definition, Wisconsin did not
have a category called ``limited-use'' engines. An engine could either
be operated as a ``limited-use'' engine by restricting the number of
operating hours through a permit, or have permit limits based on its
usage. Engines that had restrictions on the number of operating hours
were required to maintain records of the number of hours they operate,
with no further requirements. Under the revised regulation, operating
hours equal to or greater than the applicable thresholds under the
definition will trigger a permit requirement and the requirements of
Wisconsin's minor source permit program. These permitting requirements
include an analysis of the impact on ambient air quality. Moreover, an
increase in the number of hours will trigger requirements under the
NESHAP. As discussed above in the context of section 110(l), EPA has
conducted an evaluation sufficient to support the conclusion that the
approved changes will preserve the status quo air quality.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the requested revisions to WDNR's SIP.
Specifically EPA is approving revisions to Wisconsin rules NR
400.02(136m), NR 406.04(1)(w), NR 406.08(1), NR 406.10 and NR
406.11(1). EPA is also approving the removal of NR 406.16(2)(d) and NR
406.17(3)(e) from the SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Wisconsin
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5
Office (please contact the person identified in the ``For Further
Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take
effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report,
which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this action and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 6, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 8, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. Section 52.2570 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(113)(i)(D), and
by adding paragraph (c)(137) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (113) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) NR 400.02(73m) and (131m), 406.02(1) and (2), 406.04(2m), NR
406.11(1)(g)(1), 406.11(3), 406.16, 406.17, 406.18, 407.02(3m),
407.105, 407.107, 407.14 Note, 407.14(4)(c), 407.15(8)(a) and
410.03(1)(a)(6) and (7) as created and published in the (Wisconsin)
Register, August 2005, No. 596, effective September 1, 2005. Sections
NR 406.16(2)(d) and NR 406.17(3)(e) were repealed in 2015 and are
removed without replacement; see paragraph (c)(137) of this section.
* * * * *
    (137) On May 16, 2017, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources submitted a request to revise Wisconsin's air permitting
rules NR 400.02(136m), NR 406.04(1)(w), NR 406.08(1), NR 406.10 and NR
406.11(1). These revisions replace the existing definition of
``emergency electric generator'' with the Federal definition of
``restricted internal combustion engine'', amends procedures for
revoking construction permits and include minor language changes and
other administrative updates. Wisconsin has also requested to remove
from the SIP NR 406.16(2)(d) and NR 406.17(3)(e), provisions affecting
eligibility of coverage under general and registration construction
permits, previously approved in paragraph (c)(113) of this section.
This action ensures consistency with Wisconsin Environmental Protection
Act (WEPA) laws.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 400.02(136m) as published in
the Wisconsin Administrative Register November 2015 No. 719, effective
December 1, 2015.
    (B) Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 406.04(1)(w), NR 406.08(1),
NR 406.10 and NR 406.11(1) as published in the Wisconsin Administrative
Register November 2015 No. 719, effective December 1, 2015.

[FR Doc. 2018-19161 Filed 9-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P