[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43023-43032]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17902]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0317 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0321 (CT); EPA-R01-OAR-
2011-0318 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0322 (ME); EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0459 and
EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323 (MA); EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-
0324 (NH); A-1-FRL-9704-2]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve most elements of submittals from
the States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. We
are also proposing to conditionally approve certain elements of these
submittals, as well as disapprove a few elements of Massachusetts'
submittals. The submittals outline how each state's State
Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the requirements of section 110(a) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for both the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of
each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. This SIP is commonly referred to as
an infrastructure SIP. These actions are being taken under the Clean
Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0317 or
EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0321 for comments pertaining to our proposed action
for Connecticut,\1\ EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0318 or EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0322 for
comments pertaining to our proposed action for Maine, EPA-R01-OAR-2009-
0459 or EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323 for comments pertaining to our proposed
action for Massachusetts, and EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460 or EPA-R01-OAR-
2011-0324 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for New
Hampshire by one of the following methods:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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-2011-0317; EPA-
R01-OAR-2011-0321; EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0318; EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0322; EPA-
R01-OAR-2009-0459; EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323; EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460; or
EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0324,'' Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 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, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, 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 Numbers: EPA-R01-
OAR-2011-0317 or EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0321 for comments pertaining to our
proposed action for Connecticut, EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0318 or EPA-R01-OAR-
2011-0322 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for Maine,
EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0459 or EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323 for comments pertaining
to our proposed action for Massachusetts, and EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460 or
EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0324 for comments pertaining to our proposed action
for New Hampshire. 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, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person 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 submittals and EPA's technical
support documents are also available for public inspection during
normal business hours, by appointment at the respective State Air
Agency: the Bureau of Air Management, Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street,
Hartford, CT 06106-1630; the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department
of Environmental Protection, First Floor of the Tyson Building, Augusta
Mental Health Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333-0017; Division of
Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, One Winter
Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108; and Air Resources Division,
Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95,
Concord, NH 03302-0095.

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

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the States' submittals?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing action on infrastructure SIPs submitted by the
States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.
Pursuant to the October 2, 2007 EPA guidance \2\ for addressing the SIP
infrastructure elements required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2),
there are fourteen section 110(a)(2) components that must be included
in the SIPs that the States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and
New Hampshire submitted for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
These fourteen section 110(a)(2) components are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(l) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' from William T. Harnett,
Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, dated October 2, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) Emission limits and other control measures.
    (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
    (C) Program for enforcement of control measures.
    (D) Interstate transport.
    (E) Adequate resources.
    (F) Stationary source monitoring system.
    (G) Emergency power.
    (H) Future SIP revisions.
    (I) Nonattainment area plan under Part D
    (J) Consultation with government officials, Public notification,
Prevention of significant deterioriation (PSD), and Visibility
protection.
    (K) Air quality modeling/Data.
    (L) Permitting fees.
    (M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
    EPA is proposing to approve the submittals from all four states as
fully meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards for the following 110(a)(2) elements and
sub-elements: (B), (C) (enforcement program), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F),
(G), (H), (J) (consultation), (J) (public notification), (K), (L), and
(M).
    EPA also is proposing to approve the submittals from Maine and New
Hampshire as fully meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards for the two prongs of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These two prongs are (1) contribute significantly
to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national
primary or secondary NAAQS, and (2) interfere with maintenance by any
other state with respect to the same NAAQS. In addition, EPA is
proposing to approve the submittals from Maine for the prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to interference with visibility protection,
and the submittals from New Hampshire for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to
interstate and international pollution abatement.
    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the submittals from all
four states for the following 110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements: (A)
and E(ii) (state boards and conflict of interest provisions). We are
proposing to conditionally approve the submittals from three states
(Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire) for section 110(a)(2) sub-
elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to the states' PSD
programs. We are also proposing to conditionally approve the submittals
from Connecticut and Maine for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
    For Massachusetts, EPA is proposing to disapprove the state's
submittals for section110(a)(2) sub-elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J)
as they relate to the state's PSD program, as well as (D)(ii), which
relates to interstate and international pollution abatement.
Notwithstanding our conclusion that the Massachusetts' 110(a)
submissions do not meet these PSD requirements, the state is already
subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for PSD, and so EPA has
no additional FIP obligations under section 110(c). Furthermore, the
state will not be subject to mandatory sanctions as a result of this
disapproval.

II. What is the background for this action?

    On July 18, 1997, EPA published new NAAQS for particulate matter
(PM) (62 FR 38652). This included a new annual and a new 24-hour NAAQS
for particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a
nominal 2.5 micrometers (denoted PM2.5). The annual
PM2.5 standard was set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\) based on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations, and the 24-hour PM2.5
standard was set at 65 [micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the
98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.
    Thus, states were required to submit ``infrastructure'' SIPs for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000.
However, intervening litigation over the 1997 PM2.5 (and
1997 8-hour ozone) NAAQS created uncertainty about how to proceed, and
many states did not provide the required ``infrastructure'' SIP
submissions for these newly promulgated NAAQS.
    On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue
related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related
to the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 (and
8-hour ozone) NAAQS. With regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,
EPA entered into a consent decree with Earthjustice, which required EPA
to complete a Federal Register notice

announcing EPA's determinations pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) of the
Act as to whether each state had made complete submissions to meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
by October 5, 2008.
    On October 17, 2006, EPA published revised standards for PM (71 FR
61144). For PM2.5, the annual standard of 15 [micro]g/m\3\
was retained, and the 24-hour standard was revised to 35 [micro]g/m\3\.
For PM10, the annual standard was revoked, and the 24-hour
standard (150 [micro]g/m\3\) was retained. As required by section
110(a)(1) of the CAA, 110(a)(2) (``infrastructure'') submittals were
due within three years of promulgation of the revised 24-hour
PM2.5 standard (i.e., by September 21, 2009).
    For the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire submitted certification letters to EPA
on September 4, 2008; September 10, 2008; April 4, 2008; and April 3,
2008, respectively. On October 22, 2008, EPA published findings
concerning whether states had made the 110(a)(2) submissions for the
1997 PM2.5 standards (73 FR 62902). In the October 2008
action, we found that Connecticut, Maine and New Hampshire had made
complete submissions. Massachusetts received a ``finding of failure to
submit'' a SIP addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) pertaining to
the Part C PSD permit program. However, this requirement has already
been addressed by a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that remains in
place, and therefore, the finding-of-failure action did not trigger any
additional FIP obligations.
    For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire submitted certification letters to EPA
on September 18, 2009; July 27, 2009; September 21, 2009; and September
18, 2009, respectively. On September 8, 2011, EPA published findings
concerning whether states had made the 110(a)(2) submissions for the
2006 PM2.5 standards (76 FR 55577). None of these four
states received a finding for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA is proposing to fully approve most elements of the 110(a)
submittals from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.
We are also proposing to conditionally approve certain elements of
these submittals, as well as proposing disapproval of a few elements of
Massachusetts' submittals. Elements for which we are proposing
approval, conditional approval, and disapproval are listed in section I
and IV of this notice.
    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 the EPA
New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
Federal Register.

III. What is EPA's evaluation of the States' submittals?

    EPA has reviewed the submittals for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards listed above and has determined that most,
but not all, of each state's SIPs meet the section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure requirements of the CAA and are consistent with the
relevant EPA guidance. Each state's submittals and EPA's evaluation of
those submittals are detailed in the following technical support
documents (TSDs). These TSDs (one per state) are available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov: Docket numbers EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0317 and
EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0321 (Connecticut), EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0318 and EPA-R01-
OAR-2011-0322 (Maine), EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0459 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323
(Massachusetts), and EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0324
(New Hampshire).
    In their submittals, each state references items in their state
laws, statutes, regulations and SIPs that address the elements detailed
in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Specifically, Connecticut references
the Connecticut Air Quality SIP, the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS)
and the Regulations of the Connecticut State Air Agency (RCSA); Maine
references the Maine Air Quality SIP, the Code of Maine Regulations
(CMR) and the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA); Massachusetts
references the Massachusetts Air Quality SIP, the Massachusetts General
Laws (MGL) and the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR); and New
Hampshire references the New Hampshire Air Quality SIP, the New
Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) as well as the New Hampshire
Rules Governing the Control of Air Pollution, and New Hampshire
Administrative Rules Env-A 100 et seq.
    The discussion below summarizes how each state meets each relevant
CAA infrastructure requirement. As noted above, Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire provided infrastructure submittals for
both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the
demonstrations submitted by each State for how it is meeting many of
the section 110(a)(2) elements are substantively identical for both of
the PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, unless otherwise noted, the
following evaluation of each element pertains to both standards. For
more information, please refer to the TSDs referenced above.

A. Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission
limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for
compliance and other related matters. The rules approved in the EPA-
approved SIPs for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire
apply a substantial level of control on PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors.
    In January 2011, Connecticut revised Section 22a-174-3a. However,
to be sure that references to NAAQS in Section 22a-174 incorporate by
reference the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, Connecticut
submitted a letter to EPA, dated July 11, 2012, committing to provide a
statement of legal authority or to take any necessary actions to meet
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) by a date no later than one year
from conditional approval of Connecticut's PM2.5
infrastructure submissions. Therefore, we are proposing to
conditionally approve Connecticut's submissions for infrastructure
element 110(a)(2)(A).
    Maine's Ambient Air Quality Standards in Chapter 110 currently do
not reflect the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP) has recently proposed
revisions to Chapter 110 to address the more recent NAAQS. On June 30,
2012, Maine submitted a letter to EPA committing to adopt and submit
the necessary regulation revisions to EPA by a date that is no later
than one year from conditional approval of Maine's PM2.5
infrastructure submissions. Therefore, we propose to conditionally
approve Maine's 110(a) submissions for infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(A).
    Regarding Massachusetts, the current SIP-approved 310 CMR 6.00
(Ambient Air Quality Standards) does not reflect the 1997 or 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Massachusetts has submitted a letter to EPA on
July 12, 2012, committing to take action to meet requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) by a date no later than one year from conditional
approval of Massachusetts' PM2.5 infrastructure submissions.
Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally approve Massachusetts'
110(a) submissions for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(A).
    For New Hampshire, the current SIP-approved Env-A 300 (Ambient Air
Quality Standards) does not reflect the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. However,

in March 2012, New Hampshire proposed the necessary revisions to Env-A
300, and has submitted a letter dated June 29, 2012, committing to
adopt and submit the necessary regulation revisions to EPA by a date
that is no later than one year from conditional approval of New
Hampshire's PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. We propose to
conditionally approve New Hampshire's 110(a) submissions for
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(A).

B. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide
for establishment and operation of ambient air-quality monitors,
collecting and analyzing ambient air-quality data, and making these
data available to EPA upon request. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts
and New Hampshire have all established and currently operate ambient
air-quality monitors and submit the data collected to EPA. All four
states have submitted annual air monitoring network plans which have
been approved by EPA. We conclude that all four states' infrastructure
SIPs for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS meet the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(B).

C. Program for Enforcement of Control Measures

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to have a plan that includes a
program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the
regulation of modification and construction of any stationary source
within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that NAAQS
are achieved, including a program to meet PSD and nonattainment New
Source Review (NSR) requirements.
    Recent PM2.5 PSD rules that require updates to state
regulations and subsequent submittal to EPA for approval include
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (73 FR 28321, May
16, 2008) and ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010). States were also
required to update their regulations to meet PSD rules related to
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These are the ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule''
(75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010), as modified by the ``Limitation of
Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans'' or ``Narrowing Rule'' (75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010). The
effect of EPA narrowing its approval in this manner is that the
provisions of previously approved SIPs that apply PSD to increases in
GHG emissions from sources that emit GHGs below the Tailoring Rule
thresholds have the status of having been submitted by the state, but
not yet acted upon by EPA.
    In this action, we are not evaluating nonattainment-related
provisions, such as the nonattainment NSR program required by part D in
110(a)(2)(C) and measures for attainment required by section
110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS because these submittals are required beyond the
date (3 years from NAAQS promulgation) that section 110 infrastructure
submittals are required.
    The Connecticut PSD program is established in RCSA section 22a-174-
3a (k). This PSD program was approved into the SIP on May 10, 2011 (76
FR 26933). Connecticut has authority to issue PSD permits and enforce
them under its approved PSD SIP. EPA recently approved changes to
Connecticut's PSD program on May 10, 2011, to reflect changes in the
federal PSD program related to the permitting of greenhouse gas
emission (76 FR 26933). This PSD program takes advantage of the
Tailoring Rule thresholds for PSD applicability.
    New Hampshire's PSD provisions for air-quality permits are
established in Env-A 619. The most recent version of the state's
Statewide Permit System (Env-A 600) was approved into the New Hampshire
SIP on February 6, 2012 (77 FR 5700). New Hampshire has authority to
issue PSD permits and enforce them under its approved PSD SIP. EPA
recently approved changes to New Hampshire's PSD program that reflect
changes in the federal PSD program related to the permitting of
greenhouse gas emission (77 FR 5700, February 6, 2012). This PSD
program takes advantage of the Tailoring Rule thresholds for PSD
applicability by relying on the GHG PSD Narrowing Rule.
    For Connecticut and New Hampshire, EPA is proposing to make a
determination that the state 110(a) submittals for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS do not meet the portions of section 110(a)(2)(C)
which relate to the state's need to have a federally enforceable PSD
program that meets requirements of the two major source
PM2.5 PSD rules, ``Implementation of the New Source Review
(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)'' (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008), and ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels
(SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864,
October 20, 2010). However, Connecticut and New Hampshire are making
progress. On June 15, 2012, Connecticut submitted a letter to EPA
committing to adopt and submit the necessary regulation revisions to
EPA by a date no later than one year from conditional approval of
Connecticut's PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. On June 28,
2012, New Hampshire submitted a letter to EPA committing to adopt and
submit the necessary regulation revisions to EPA by a date no later
than one year from conditional approval of New Hampshire's
PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. Therefore, we propose to
conditionally approve Connecticut's and New Hampshire's 110(a)
submissions for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C) as it relates to
the states' need to have a PSD program that meets all federal
requirements. As discussed below, for these states, we are also
proposing to conditionally approve related elements (D)(i)(II) and (J).
    The Maine PSD program is established in CMR (Maine Regulations)
Chapters 100, 113, 115 (licensing for minor sources) and 140 (licensing
for major sources). Maine implements its PSD program requirements under
CMR Chapter 115. This PSD program was approved into the SIP on February
14, 1996 (61 FR 5690). Maine has authority to issue PSD permits and
enforce them under its approved PSD SIP. Maine has adopted revisions to
its PSD permitting program to address GHG emissions, but has not yet
submitted these rules to EPA.
    For Maine, EPA is proposing to make a determination that the state
110(a) submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS do not
meet the portions of section 110(a)(2)(C) which relate to the state's
need to have a federally enforceable PSD program that meets
requirements of the two major source PM2.5 PSD rules listed
above (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008 and 75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010). In
addition, Maine's current PSD regulations do not properly account for
NOX as a precursor to ozone as required by the Phase 2 Ozone
Implementation Rule (70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005). However, ME DEP
is in the process of adopting rules to meet its obligations for PSD
under the

Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, and, on June 13, 2012, Maine
submitted a letter to EPA committing to adopt and submit regulation
revisions to EPA to meet requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) by a date
that is no later than one year from conditional approval of the state's
PM2.5 110(a) submissions. Therefore, we are proposing to
conditionally approve Maine's 110(a) submittals with respect to section
110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed
below, we are also proposing to conditionally approve related elements
(D)(i)(II) and (J).
    Massachusetts does not have an approved PSD SIP, and has long been
subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). Between 1982 and 2003,
Massachusetts implemented that FIP through a delegation agreement.
Massachusetts rescinded the delegation agreement in 2003. However,
effective April 11, 2011, EPA Region 1 granted the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) full delegation
authority to implement and enforce the Federal PSD program (76 FR
31241). Because the state is subject to a PSD FIP, its infrastructure
submissions are not approvable with respect to this element. However,
the state is not subject to mandatory sanctions solely as a result of
this type of infrastructure SIP disapproval, for the reason that the
SIP deficiencies are neither with respect to a submittal that is
required under part D nor in response to a SIP call under section
110(k)(5) of the CAA. Moreover, the requirements for which the state is
subject to the FIP are already satisfied by the FIP, and so EPA has no
additional FIP obligations under section 110(c).
    For these reasons, we conclude that Massachusetts' infrastructure
SIPs for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS meet the enforcement
and minor NSR requirements, but not the PSD requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C). Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove Massachusetts'
110(a) submittals with respect to section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Notwithstanding our conclusion that the
Massachusetts' 110(a) submissions do not meet the PSD requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C), the state is not subject to mandatory sanctions
as a result of this disapproval. As discussed below, we are also
proposing to disapprove related elements (D)(i)(II) and (J).

D. Interstate Transport

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) is divided into two components,
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). In addition, EPA has subdivided
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) into four ``prongs,'' two under
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and two under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The two prongs
under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) are (prong 1) contribute significantly to
nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national
primary or secondary NAAQS, and (prong 2) interfere with maintenance by
any other state with respect to the same NAAQS. The two prongs under
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) are (prong 3) interfere with measures required to
be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state
under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or
(prong 4) to protect visibility.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) addresses interstate and international
pollution abatement, and requires SIPs to include provisions insuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate
and international pollution abatement.
Connecticut
    In this action for Connecticut, we are only addressing prong 3 of
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (interference with PSD) for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
    As discussed above under (C) (program for enforcement of control
measures), Connecticut's PSD program does not yet meet requirements of
the most recent federal PSD rules (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008 and 75 FR
64864, October 20, 2010), but Connecticut has committed to revising its
PSD regulations to meet current requirements. Therefore, we are
proposing to conditionally approve prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in
Connecticut's 110(a) submittal for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), Connecticut's PSD regulations
provide for notice to most of the parties consistent with the
requirements in the EPA PSD program. There is, however, a flaw in
Connecticut's SIP-approved PSD program regarding notice to other
states. Compare CAA section 126 (a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv)
(requiring notice to, among others, ``any State * * * or Indian
Governing body whose lands may be affected by emissions from the source
or modification'') with RCSA 22a-174-2a(b)(6) (specifically excluding
other states from the list of parties to receive copies of draft PSD
permits). Although there is no specific mandate in Connecticut's
regulations that affected states receive notice, Connecticut issues
extensive notice of its draft permits, and neighboring states
consistently get copied on those drafts. On January 12, 2012,
Connecticut proposed revisions to their permit program notification
requirements in 22a-174-2a(b)(5) and (6). On June 15, 2012, Connecticut
sent a letter to EPA committing to submit the adopted provision to EPA
by a date that is no later than one year from conditional approval of
Connecticut's PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. Also, the
State also has no pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of
the Act. Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally approve
Connecticut's submissions for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
Maine
    In this action for Maine, we are addressing all four prongs of
110(a)(2)(D)(i). On June 30, 2012, Maine submitted a letter to EPA
certifying that it is not contributing significantly to nonattainment
or interfering with maintenance of the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in any other state. EPA agrees and has conducted modeling for the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) and for
the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208, August 8,
2011) that shows that Maine does not contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in any other state. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve Maine's submissions with respect to prongs 1 and 2
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    Regarding prong 3 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), as discussed under
(C) (program for enforcement of control measures), Maine's SIP-approved
PSD program does not yet meet requirements of the most recent federal
PSD rules for implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS or the Phase 2
Ozone Implementation Rule, but Maine has committed to revising its PSD
regulations to meet current requirements. Therefore, we are proposing
to conditionally approve prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in Maine's 110(a)
submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Regarding prong 4 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (interference with
visibility protection), EPA proposes to approve Maine's 110(a)
submissions. Specifically, Maine submitted a Regional Haze SIP to EPA
on December 9, 2010, with supplemental submittals on September 14, 2011
and November 9, 2011. On April 24, 2012, EPA approved Maine's Regional
Haze SIP for the first planning period from 2008 through 2018 (77 FR
24385).
    Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), Maine's currently approved SIP,
which EPA approved on February 14, 1996 (61 FR 5690), provides for
notice to various parties consistent with the requirements in the EPA
PSD program at 40 CFR 51.166(q)(iv). (Maine has since revised its
notice regulation for PSD permits,

and since the approved SIP's notice regulation is adequate, we are not
presently reviewing the revised regulation.) In its 110(a) submissions,
the state certified that it has no pending obligations under section
115 or 126(b) of the CAA. As noted in the June 2011 addendum to their
110(a) submittals, Maine notifies affected states regarding new source
and modifications under its Chapter 140 Part 70 Air Emission License
Regulations. However, this regulation has not been approved into the
Maine SIP. On June 13, 2012, Maine submitted a letter to EPA committing
to adopt and submit the necessary regulation revisions to EPA by a date
that is no later than one year from conditional approval of Maine's
PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. Therefore, we are
proposing to conditionally approve Maine's submissions for
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
Massachusetts
    In this action for Massachusetts, we are only addressing prong 3 of
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (i.e., interference with PSD). As discussed under (C)
(program for enforcement of control measures), Massachusetts is
currently subject to a PSD FIP. A state's infrastructure SIP submittal
cannot be considered for approvability with respect to prong 3 until
EPA has issued final approval of that state's PSD SIP or,
alternatively, has issued final approval of a SIP that EPA has
otherwise found adequate to prohibit interference with other states'
measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.
Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove Massachusetts' 110(a)
submissions for prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). However, this disapproval
will not trigger any sanctions or additional FIP obligation.
    Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), which relates to interstate and
international pollution abatement, as noted above, Massachusetts is
subject to a PSD FIP. States relying on the federal PSD program
requirements of 40 CFR 52.21(q), which provide for notification of
affected state and local air agencies, to satisfy this requirement have
programs that are considered technically deficient and not approvable.
Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove Massachusetts' submissions
for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). However, this disapproval
will not trigger any sanctions or additional FIP obligation.
New Hampshire
    In this action for New Hampshire, we are addressing prongs 1, 2 and
3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. On July 3,
2012, New Hampshire submitted a letter to EPA certifying that it is not
contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state. EPA agrees and has conducted modeling for the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) and for the Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) that shows that New
Hampshire does not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in any other state. Therefore, we are proposing to approve
New Hampshire's submissions with respect to prongs 1 and 2 of
110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    Regarding prong 3 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), as discussed under
(C) (program for enforcement of control measures), New Hampshire's SIP-
approved PSD program does not yet meet requirements of the most recent
federal PSD rules for implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS, but New
Hampshire has committed to revising its PSD regulations to meet current
requirements. Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally approve
prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in New Hampshire's 110(a) submittals for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), New Hampshire is required to
give notice of draft PSD permits that meet the requirements in our
regulations. In the currently approved SIP, former Env-A 205.03
provides that New Hampshire specifically defers to 40 CFR Part 52 for
the process by which PSD permits are issued. Forty CFR Part 52
effectively incorporates the requirements of 40 CFR Part 124, which
include affected state notice. (See 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(iii), (vii) &
(x).) (New Hampshire has since revised its notice regulation for PSD
permits, Env-A 621.03-04, and it does not reference 40 CR Part 52.
However, since the approved SIP's notice regulation is adequate, we are
not presently reviewing the revised regulation.) The State also has no
pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of the Act. Therefore,
we are proposing to approve New Hampshire's submissions for
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).

E. Adequate Resources

    Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide (i) necessary
assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and
authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited
by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or
portion thereof), (ii) requires that the state comply with the
requirements respecting state boards under section 128, and (iii)
necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or
regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation
of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring
adequate implementation of such SIP provision.
    Congress added section 128 in the 1977 amendments as the result of
a conference agreement. Titled ``State boards,'' section 128 provides
in relevant part: (a) Not later than the date one year after August 7,
1977, each applicable implementation plan shall contain requirements
that:
    (1) Any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders
under [this Act] shall have at least a majority of members who
represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion
of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders
under [this Act], and (2) Any potential conflicts of interest by
members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with
similar powers be adequately disclosed.
    Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have SIP-
approved regulations that provide adequate authority for each of the
states to carry out their SIP obligations with respect to the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Each of the four states receives sections
103 and 105 grant funds through their Performance Partnership Grants
along with required state-matching funds to provide funding necessary
to carry out their SIP requirements. Therefore, EPA proposes to find
that Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have
sufficient resources to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(i).
    With regard to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), Maine and New Hampshire
have state boards, Maine Board of Environmental Protection and New
Hampshire Air Resources Council, that approve permits or enforcement
orders under the CAA. Therefore, both states are subject to the
requirements of subsection 128(a)(1), as well as to the requirements of
section 128(a)(2). However, although both states have conflict-of-
interest provisions in their general statutes, they have not been
approved by EPA into either the Maine or New Hampshire SIP. These items
were not addressed in Maine and New Hampshire's original
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals. In a letter dated June
29, 2012, New Hampshire submitted its statute addressing conflict of
interest for SIP approval. EPA has not yet acted on this submittal.
Also, in a letter dated June 13, 2012, Maine committed to submitting
the statutory provisions pertaining to conflict of

interest to EPA within one year of our final action on its
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP. Therefore, we are proposing to
conditionally approve the infrastructure submittals for both Maine and
New Hampshire with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
    Connecticut and Massachusetts do not have state boards that approve
permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. Instead, permits and
enforcement orders are approved by each state's Commissioner of
Environmental Protection. Thus, Connecticut and Massachusetts are not
subject to the requirements of subsection 128(a)(1). However, they are
subject to the requirements of section 128(a)(2), but neither state
demonstrated in their infrastructure submittals that they have met
these requirements. Subsequently, on June 15, 2012, Connecticut
submitted a letter to EPA committing to address this issue by a date no
later than one year from conditional approval of Connecticut's
PM2.5 Infrastructure submittals. Massachusetts submitted a
similar commitment letter to EPA on July 12, 2012. Therefore, we are
proposing to conditionally approve Connecticut's and Massachusetts'
submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
    With respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), none of the four states
has assigned responsibility for carrying out portions of the SIP to any
local government, agency, or other instrumentality. Therefore, the
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire 110(a) submittals
meet the requirements for this element.

F. Stationary Source Monitoring System

    Section 110(a)(2)(F) of the CAA requires states to establish a
system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and to submit
periodic emission reports. The infrastructure submittals for
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire reference specific
regulations that require sources to monitor emissions and submit
reports to EPA. The specific rules are referenced in the TSD for each
state.
    EPA has reviewed the laws and regulations that been approved into
the Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIPs and has
determined that all four states' infrastructure submittals for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards meet the requirements for section
110(a)(2)(F).

G. Emergency Power

    Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires states to provide for
authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, including contingency plans to implement
the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
    For PM2.5, EPA's guidance dated September 25, 2009 \3\
provides clarification that states that have air quality control
regions identified as either Priority I, Priority IA or Priority II by
the ``Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes'' rules at 40 CFR
51.150 must develop emergency episode contingency plans. The guidance
recommends that until EPA establishes significant harm levels (SHL) for
PM2.5, states should establish their own SHL levels based on
EPA's February 12, 2007 issue paper on setting priority and emergency
action levels and also consider the recommended levels set forth in
Attachment B of the September 25, 2009 guidance. States would be
required to develop emergency episode plans for any area that has
monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels greater than
140.4 [micro]g/m\3\ since 2006. A state that has never exceeded this
level since 2006 is considered to be Priority III in accordance with
the guidance, may certify that it has appropriate general emergency
powers to address PM2.5 -related episodes, and is not
required to adopt specific emergency episode plans at this time, given
the existing monitored levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(l) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated September 25,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Air-quality monitors in all four states show that PM2.5
levels for the past three years are below the 140.5 [micro]g/m\3\
threshold. Connecticut and Massachusetts certified in their
infrastructure submittals that they expect to be classified as Priority
III regions and, therefore, emergency episode plans for
PM2.5 are not required. Maine and New Hampshire submitted
letters to EPA, dated June 13, 2012, and July 3, 2012, respectively,
certifying that they expect to be classified as Priority III regions.
Therefore, all four states have met the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(G) for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.

H. Future SIP Revisions

    Section 110(a)(2)(H) of the CAA requires states to have the
authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS,
availability of improved methods for attaining NAAQS, or in response to
an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate.
    Infrastructure submittals for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and
New Hampshire for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards
certify that SIPs for each state may be revised should EPA find that a
plan is substantially inadequate to attain a standard or to comply with
any additional requirements under the CAA. Therefore, Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have met the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(H).

I. Nonattainment Area Plan Under Part D

    Section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA requires that each such plan shall
``in the case of a plan or plan revision for an area designated as a
nonattainment area, meet the applicable requirements of part D of this
subchapter (relating to nonattainment areas).'' EPA is not evaluating
nonattainment-related provisions, such as the NSR program required by
part D in section 110(a)(2)(C) and measures for attainment required by
section 110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure SIPs because these
submittals are required beyond the date (3 years from NAAQS
promulgation) that section 110 infrastructure submittals are required.

J. Consultation With Government Official, Public Notification, PSD, and
Visibility Protection

    Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for
consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers carrying
out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to Section 121 relating
to consultation. Section 127 requires that the state notify the public
of any NAAQS exceedences, advise the public of health hazards
associated with such pollution, and include measures to enhance public
awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances.
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to meet applicable
requirements of Part C related to prevention of significant
deterioration and visibility protection. EPA interprets this section
110 provision on visibility as not being ``triggered'' by a new NAAQS
because the visibility requirements in part C are not changed by a new
NAAQS.
Consultation With Government Officials
    EPA finds that the 110(a) submittals from Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(J) for consultation with government officials.
Public Notification
    Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire are all state
partners participating in EPA's AIRNOW and EnviroFlash Air Quality

Alert programs. (See www.airnow.gov.) We are proposing to approve the
infrastructure submittals for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New
Hampshire with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) for public notification.
PSD
    Regarding the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) that the
infrastructure submittals meet the applicable requirements of part C of
title I of the CAA, EPA evaluated this requirement in the context of
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to permitting (see discussion under
(C) (program for enforcement of control measures)).
    The Connecticut PSD program is established in RCSA section 22a-174-
3a (k). This PSD program was approved into the SIP on May 10, 2011 (76
FR 26933). Connecticut has authority to issue PSD permits and enforce
them under its approved PSD SIP. EPA recently approved changes to
Connecticut's PSD program on May 10, 2011, to reflect changes in the
federal PSD program related to the permitting of greenhouse gas
emission (76 FR 26933, May 10, 2011). This PSD program takes advantage
of the Tailoring Rule thresholds for PSD applicability. However, as
discussed under (C) (program for enforcement of control measures),
Connecticut's EPA-approved PSD program does not yet meet requirements
of the two major source PM2.5 PSD rules (73 FR 28321, May
16, 2008 and 75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010). The State has, however,
committed to address this issue. Therefore, we are proposing to
conditionally approve the state's 110(a) submittals for the portion of
section 110(a)(2)(J) that relates to PSD.
    The Maine PSD program is established in CMR (Maine Regulations)
Chapters 100, 113, 115 (licensing for minor sources) and 140 (licensing
for major sources). Maine implements its PSD program requirements under
CMR Chapter 115. This PSD program was approved into the SIP on February
14, 1996 (61 FR 5690). Maine has authority to issue PSD permits and
enforce them under its approved PSD SIP. However, as discussed under
(C) (program for enforcement of control measures), Maine has adopted
revisions to its PSD permitting program to address GHG emissions, but
has not yet submitted these rules to EPA. In addition, Maine has not
completed rulemaking to meet requirements of the two PM2.5
PSD rules (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008 and 75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010)
discussed above, nor of the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule. However,
Maine is making progress and, on June 13, 2012, Maine submitted a
letter to EPA committing to adopt and submit the necessary regulation
revisions to EPA by a date that is no later than one year from
conditional approval of Maine's PM2.5 infrastructure
submissions. Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally approve the
state's 110(a) submittals for the portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) that
relates to PSD.
    Massachusetts is currently subject to a PSD FIP, as discussed under
(C) (program for enforcement of control measures). The approvability of
a state's PSD program in its entirety is essential to the approvability
of the infrastructure SIP with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J). Until
the state provides such a program, the Massachusetts infrastructure SIP
is not approvable with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J). Therefore, we
propose to disapprove Massachusetts' infrastructure SIP with respect to
the PSD sub-element of 110(a)(2)(J). However, as noted above, this
disapproval does not impose any sanctions or new FIP obligations.
    New Hampshire's PSD provisions for air-quality permits are
established in Env-A 619. The most recent version of the state's
Statewide Permit System (Env-A 600) was approved into the New Hampshire
SIP on February 6, 2012 (77 FR 5700). New Hampshire has authority to
issue PSD permits and enforce them under its approved PSD SIP. EPA
recently approved changes to New Hampshire's PSD program that reflect
changes in the federal PSD program related to the permitting of
greenhouse gas emission (77 FR 5700, February 6, 2012). This PSD
program takes advantage of the Tailoring Rule thresholds for PSD
applicability by relying on the GHG PSD Narrowing Rule. However, as
discussed under (C) (program for enforcement of control measures), New
Hampshire's EPA-approved PSD program does not yet meet requirements of
the two major source PM2.5 PSD rules (73 FR 28321, May 16,
2008 and 75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010), or implement the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS itself. The State has, however, committed to
address these issues. Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally
approve the state's 110(a) submittals for the portion of section
110(a)(2)(J) that relates to PSD.
Visibility Protection
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. In the
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we
find that there is no new visibility obligation triggered under section
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.

K. Air Quality Modeling/Data

    Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for
performing air-quality modeling for predicting effects on air quality
of emissions from any NAAQS pollutant and submission of such data to
EPA upon request. The infrastructure submittals for Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire reference regulations that have
provisions for performing air-quality modeling, including modeling for
attainment plans, permits, and redesignation requests. The specific
rules are referenced in the TSD for each state.
    EPA has reviewed the laws and regulations that been approved into
the Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIPs and has
determined that all four states infrastructure submittals for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards meet the requirements for section
110(a)(2)(K).

L. Permitting Fees

    Section 110(a)(2)(L) of the CAA requires SIPs to require each major
stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of
reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit, until such
time as the SIP fee requirement is superseded by EPA's approval of the
State's Title V operating permit program.
    EPA's full approval of Title V programs for Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire became effective on May 31, 2002 (CT),
December 17, 2001 (ME), November 27, 2001 (MA), and November 23, 2001
(NH). Before EPA can grant full approval, a state must demonstrate the
ability to collect adequate fees. Each of the four states' title V
programs included a demonstration that the state will collect a fee
from title V sources above the presumptive minimum in accordance with
40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). The states collect sufficient fees to administer
their title V permit programs. Therefore, Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire all meet the requirements for section
110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.

M. Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities

    Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the CAA requires states to provide for
consultation and participation in SIP

development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    EPA reviewed the laws and regulations that been approved into the
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire SIPs, and proposes
to find that all four states' 110(a) submittals for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards meet the requirements for section
110(a)(2)(M).

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the submittals from all four states as
fully meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards for the following 110(a)(2) elements and
sub-elements: (B), (C) (enforcement program), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F),
(G), (H), (J) (consultation), (J) (public notification), (K), (L), and
(M).
    EPA also is proposing to approve the submittals from Maine and New
Hampshire as fully meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards for the two prongs of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These two prongs are (1) contribute significantly
to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national
primary or secondary NAAQS, and (2) interfere with maintenance by any
other state with respect to the same NAAQS. In addition, EPA is
proposing to approve the submittals from Maine for the prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to interference with visibility protection,
and the submittals from New Hampshire for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to
interstate and international pollution abatement.
    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the submittals from all
four states for the following 110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements: (A)
and E(ii) (state boards and conflict of interest provisions). We are
proposing to conditionally approve the submittals from three states
(Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire) for section 110(a)(2) sub-
elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to the states' PSD
programs. We are also proposing to conditionally approve the submittals
from Connecticut and Maine for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
    For Massachusetts, EPA is proposing to disapprove the state's
submittals for section 110(a)(2) sub-elements (C), prong 3 of (D)(i),
and (J) as they relate to the state's PSD program, as well as (D)(ii),
which relates to interstate and international pollution abatement.
However, this disapproval will not trigger any sanctions or additional
FIP obligation.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments will be
considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register, or by submitting comments
electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier following the
directions in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.
    Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may conditionally approve a
plan based on a commitment from a State to adopt specific enforceable
measures by a date certain, but not later than one year from the date
of approval. If EPA conditionally approves the commitment in a final
rulemaking action, the State must meet its commitment to complete
requirements of each section 110(a)(2) element listed above. If
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts or New Hampshire fails to do so for
any section 110(a)(2) element, our conditional approval of that element
will, by operation of law, become a disapproval for the applicable
State or States one year from the date of final approval. EPA will
notify the State or States by letter that this action has occurred. At
that time, this commitment will no longer be a part of the approved SIP
for the applicable State or States. EPA subsequently will publish a
document in the Federal Register notifying the public that the
conditional approval automatically converted to a disapproval. If
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and/or New Hampshire meet their
commitments within the applicable time frame, the conditionally
approved submission will remain a part of the SIP or SIPs until EPA
takes final action approving or disapproving the element in question.
If EPA disapproves a State's new submittal, the conditionally approved
section 110(a)(2) element will also be disapproved at that time. If EPA
approves the submittal, the section 110(a)(2) element will be fully
approved in its entirety and replace the conditionally approved
110(a)(2) element in the SIP. Finally, if, based on information
received before EPA takes final action on this proposal, EPA determines
that it cannot issue a final conditional approval for one or more
elements for which EPA has proposed a conditional approval, then EPA
will instead issue a disapproval for such elements.

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: July 16, 2012.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2012-17902 Filed 7-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14289-14291]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04939]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0097]

Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers: Small Business in
Transportation Coalition (SBTC) Application for Exemption From ELD and
Certain HOS Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that the Small Business in Transportation
Coalition (SBTC) has applied for an

exemption from the electronic logging device (ELD) requirements for
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers traveling with domestic animals,
in interstate commerce. SBTC also requests an exemption from the hours-
of-service requirements, allowing these drivers to drive up to 13 hours
during a driving shift and up to 16 hours from the beginning of the
work shift, following 10 consecutive hours off duty. FMCSA requests
public comment on SBTC's application for exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2020-0097 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform
its rulemaking and exemption review processes. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2020-0097), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comments online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2020-0097'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period and may grant or not grant this application
based on your comments.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) to grant exemptions
from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

II. Background

Current Regulations

    Generally, individuals may not drive a property-carrying CMV more
than 11 hours during a work shift, following 10 consecutive hours off
duty. Under the current regulations all driving must be completed
within 14 hours of the beginning of the work shift. (See 49 CFR 395.3.)
    Drivers who are required to prepare and maintain records of duty
status (RODS) to document their hours of service must generally use
electronic logging devices (ELDs). (See 49 CFR 395.8.)

SBTC Exemption Application

    SBTC requests that drivers of property-carrying CMVs, when
accompanied by any domestic animal, be exempt from the requirement to
use ELDs for their RODS (49 CFR 395.8). These drivers would prepare and
maintain paper RODS as an alternative.
    SBTC also requests that drivers of property-carrying vehicles
accompanied by any domestic animal be granted an exemption from 49 CFR
395.3(a)(2) and (3)(i), allowing them to drive up to 13 hours during a
work shift, following 10 consecutive hours off-duty. The exemption
would allow them a 16-hour driving window within which to use the 13
hours of driving time. A copy of the exemption application has been
placed in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.

III. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), FMCSA requests public
comment from all interested persons on SBTC's application for an
exemption. All comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice

will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket
at the location listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the
public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In
addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the
public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the
comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the
public docket for new material.

    Issued on: March 6, 2020.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-04939 Filed 3-10-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: March 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 11606-11608]
[DOCID:fr08mr06-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-66-000]

Port Barre Investments, L.L.C. (d/b/a Bobcat Gas Storage); Notice
of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed
Bobcat Gas Storage Project and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues

February 28, 2006.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of a proposal by Port Barre
Investments, L.L.C. (d/b/a Bobcat Gas Storage (Bobcat)) to construct a
new salt cavern natural gas storage facility in St. Landry Parish,
Louisiana.\1\ The Bobcat Gas Storage Project would provide
approximately 12 billion cubic feet of working natural gas storage
capacity, capable of injecting gas at maximum rates of up to 900
million cubic feet per day (MMcfd) and delivering gas at maximum rates
of up to 1,200 MMcfd. The facilities would include two solution mined
storage caverns, a 37,880 horsepower (hp) compressor station, a
leaching plant, brine disposal facilities, approximately 18.1 miles of
pipeline, and metering and regulating stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Bobcat's application was filed with the Commission under
section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping period that will
be used to gather environmental input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Please note that the scoping comments are
requested by March 31, 2006.
    This notice is being sent to potentially affected landowners;
Federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes, other
interested parties; local libraries and newspapers. State and local
government representatives are asked to 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, you may be contacted
by a Bobcat company representative about the acquisition of an easement
to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The
company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement.
However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval
conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement
negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the natural gas company
could initiate condemnation proceedings 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 (http://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.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Bobcat proposes to construct, own, and operate a high-
deliverability natural gas storage project on an 84-acre parcel of land
leased by Bobcat, located about 2.2 miles east of the Town of Port
Barre, Louisiana. Two caverns would be solution mined in the Port Barre
Salt Dome in four phases, over an approximate five-year time span. The
project would include construction of the following:
    (1) Gas Storage Site, including:
     Eight (8) 4,735 horsepower compressors, dehydration and
appurtenant facilities (Bobcat Compressor Station);
     A leaching plant;
     0.5 mile of non-jurisdictional electric distribution line;
     2 freshwater and 2 cavern wells; and
     0.5 mile of 16-inch-diameter freshwater pipeline.
    (2) Brine Disposal Site, including three brine disposal wells;
    (3) 1.5 miles of 16-inch-diameter brine disposal pipeline;
    (4) 16.1 miles of 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline and
appurtenances; and
    (5) 5 interstate and 1 intrastate pipeline system interconnects,
each with a regulator/meter station.
    The location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would require about 261.9
acres of land. Following construction, about 104.3 acres would be
maintained as new aboveground facility sites and right-of-

way. The remaining 157.6 acres of land would be restored and allowed to
revert to its former use.

The EA Process

    We \3\ are preparing this EA to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which 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 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 of Intent, the Commission staff requests public comments on
the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments received are
considered during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ''We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By this notice, we are also asking Federal, state, and local
agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation
of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating status
should follow the instructions for filing comments below.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to Federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    In the EA, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the project. We will also evaluate
reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the
project.
    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and
the environmental information provided by Bobcat. This preliminary list
of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
    Project-related impact on:
     Noise sensitive areas (i.e., residences) located in
proximity to construction operations and the proposed compressor
facility;
     12.0 acres of wetlands;
     171.5 acres of agricultural land;
     3 federally-listed threatened and endangered species
potentially in the project area;
     7 waterbody crossings; and
     The Chicot sole source aquifer.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative locations
and routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The
more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please
carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are
received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie
R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 3.
     Reference Docket Number CP06-66-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before March 31, 2006.
    Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing of any comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link and the

link to the User's Guide. Before you can file comments, you will need
to create and account which can be created online.

Site Visit

    On March 21, 2006, the OEP staff will conduct a pre-certification
site visit of the planned Bobcat Gas Storage Project. We will view the
proposed facility locations and pipeline route. Examination will be by
automobile and on foot. Representatives of Bobcat will be accompanying
the OEP staff.
    All interested parties may attend. Those planning to attend must
provide their own transportation and should meet at 9 a.m. (CST) in the
lobby of the Holiday Inn, 5696 I-49 North Service Road, Opelousas,
Louisiana on March 21, 2006.
    For additional information, please contact the Commission's Office
of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor''. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process.
Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of
case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors.
Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the
Commission's eFiling system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the
Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all
other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. If
you want to become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene
according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.214, see Appendix 2).\4\ Only intervenors have
the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    If you wish to remain on our environmental mailing list, please
return the Information Request Form included in Appendix 2. If you do
not return this form, you will be removed from our mailing list.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://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. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online

Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TYY, 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 now 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 http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-3194 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19818-19819]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8373]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64173; File No. SR-CHX-2011-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Alter the Fee Schedule To Repeal the Trade Processing Fee Credit Paid
to Institutional Brokers

April 4, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 24, 2011, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. CHX has filed
the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CHX proposes to amend its Schedule of Participant Fees and
Assessments (the ``Fee Schedule''), effective March 24, 2011, to alter
its schedule of fees for Participants to repeal the Trade Processing
Fee credit currently paid to institutional brokers. The text of this
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm, and in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The CHX has prepared

summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Through this filing, the Exchange is proposing to alter its
schedule of fees for Participants to repeal the Trade Processing Fee
credit currently paid to institutional brokers. The Trade Processing
Fee credit is a credit paid to CHX institutional brokers based upon the
amount of Trade Processing Fees \5\ collected by the Exchange from the
parties to a non-tape, clearing-only submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section E.7. of the CHX Schedule of Fees and Assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Fee Schedule provides for a Trade Processing Fee
credit of 4% per side of the Trade Processing Fees received by the
Exchange paid to the originating broker, plus 12% of the Trade
Processing Fees received by the Exchange paid to the broker of credit,
for the portion(s) of the transaction handled by the broker of credit.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Trade Processing Fee credit
currently paid to institutional brokers while retaining the Trade
Processing Fee charge to Participants for this service. The Exchange
plans, under a different rule filing, to propose rules relating to non-
tape, clearing-only submissions and does not believe that it is
appropriate to consider providing credits associated with Trade
Processing Fees until these rules have been submitted to, and approved
by, the Commission.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its members. The Exchange plans, under a different
rule filing, to propose rules relating to non-tape, clearing-only
submissions and does not believe that it is appropriate to consider
providing credits associated with Trade Processing Fees until these
rules have been submitted to, and approved by, the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \9\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a member imposed by the self-regulatory
organization. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2011-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2011-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2011-02 and should be
submitted on or before April 29, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8373 Filed 4-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P