9016 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: February 4, 2013. 

Michael S. Black, 

Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02871 Filed 2–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0951; FRL– 9778–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Massachusetts; Revisions to Fossil 

Fuel Utilization and Source 

Registration Regulations and Boiler 

Industrial Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve several State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 

State of Massachusetts. The revisions 

add new monitoring, inspection, 

maintenance and testing requirements 

for certain fossil fuel utilization 

facilities, rename and clarify stationary 

source emission reporting requirements, 

and establish compliance and 

certification standards for new boilers. 

The intended effect of this action is to 

propose approval of the state’s revised 

fossil fuel utilization facility regulation, 

source registration regulation, and new 

industrial performance standards for 

boilers. This action is being taken under 

the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 11, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2012–0951 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: mcdonnell.ida@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0653. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0951’’, 

Ida E. McDonnell, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Permits, Toxics and 

Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Ida E. McDonnell, 

Manager, Air Permits, Toxics, and 

Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, 

Toxics and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post 

Office Square—Suite 100, (mail code 

OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2012– 

0951. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Permits, Toxics and 

Indoor Programs, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

In addition, copies of the state 

submittal and EPA’s technical support 

document are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the Division of 

Air Quality Control, Department of 

Environmental Protection, One Winter 

Street, 7th Floor, Boston, MA 02108. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brendan McCahill, Air Permits, Toxics 

and Indoor Programs Unit, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 

100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 

02109–3912, Telephone number (617) 

918–1652, Fax number (617) 918–0652, 

Email McCahill.Brendan@EPA.GOV. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Organization of this document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing in this 

document? 

II. What is the background for the action 

proposed by EPA in this document? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Massachusetts’s 

SIP revisions? 

A. 310 CMR 7.04: U Fossil Fuel Utilization 

Facilities 

B. 310 CMR 7.12: U Source Registration 

C. 310 CMR 7.26(30)–(37) Industrial 

Performance Standard—U Boilers 

D. Miscellaneous Changes 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing in this 

document? 

On June 28, 1990 and July 11, 2001, 

the Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection (MassDEP) 

submitted SIP amendments revising 310 

CMR 7.04 ‘‘U Fossil Fuel Utilization 

Facilities.’’ On July 11, 2001, the 

MassDEP submitted a SIP amendment 

revising 310 Code of Massachusetts 

Regulations (CMR) 7.12, ‘‘U Source 

Registration.’’ On September 14, 2006, 

the MassDEP submitted a SIP 

amendment adopting 310 CMR 

7.26(30)–(37), ‘‘Industrial Performance 

Standard—U Boilers.’’ On February 13, 

2008, the MassDEP submitted an 

additional amendment to revise 310 

CMR 7.04 ‘‘U Fossil Fuel Utilization 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 9017 

Facilities’’ and to correct several 

typographical errors and to clarify 

certain requirements to 310 CMR 7.00, 

310 CMR 7.12 and 310 CMR 7.26(30)– 

(37). On January 18, 2013, the MassDEP 

submitted a letter withdrawing outdated 

and obsolete regulation submittals and 

replaced them with effective versions of 

the above regulations for approval and 

inclusion into the SIP. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

February 13, 2008 revisions to 310 CMR 

7.04; the July 11, 2001 and February 13, 

2008 revisions to 310 CMR 7.12; the 

September 14, 2006 and February 13, 

2008 revisions to 310 CMR 7.26(30)– 

(37); and the February 13, 2008 

revisions to the list of Massachusetts 

cities and towns that reflect changes in 

the MassDEP regional boundaries 

located at the beginning 310 CMR 7.00. 

II. What is the background for the 

action proposed by EPA in this 

document? 

Section 110 (a)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires each state to submit to 

EPA a plan which provides for the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of each national ambient 

air quality standard (NAAQS). These 

plans, generally referred to as the state 

implementation plans or SIPs, include 

numerous air quality monitoring, 

emission inventory, and emission 

control requirements designed to obtain 

and maintain the NAAQS within the 

state. The CAA requires states to adopt 

SIP revisions into the state regulations 

and to submit the revisions to EPA for 

approval. Section 110(l) of the CAA 

states that EPA shall not approve a 

revision to the SIP if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment of 

the NAAQS and reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. Section 193 of 

the CAA states that EPA shall not 

approve a revision to any control 

requirement in effect before November 

15, 1990 in an area which is a 

nonattainment area for any air pollutant 

unless the modification ensures 

equivalent or greater emission 

reductions of that air pollutant. 

EPA has over time approved 

numerous state regulatory revisions into 

the Massachusetts SIP. Each regulation 

performs a different function 

specifically required by the CAA or 

determined by the state to be necessary 

to attain and maintain the NAAQS. 

Among other requirements, the 

Massachusetts SIP-approved regulations 

include 310 CMR 7.04, ‘‘Fossil Fuel 

Utilization Facilities’’ and 310 CMR 

7.12, ‘‘Source Registration.’’ 

310 CMR 7.04 regulates the use of 

fossil fuels by fossil fuel utilization 

facilities in Massachusetts. The 

regulation establishes smoke density 

limits; combustion efficiency 

requirements; and inspection, 

maintenance and testing requirements 

for fossil fuel fired facilities. The use of 

fossil fuels is a significant source of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), and particulate matter (PM) 

emissions. While not specifically 

required by the CAA, the fossil fuel 

control requirements in 310 CMR 7.04 

reduce the emissions of all the 

pollutants in Massachusetts. 

310 CMR 7.12 requires stationary 

sources to collect information, keep 

records and report emissions on a 

periodic schedule. The MassDEP then 

uses the emission data to develop the 

state’s emissions inventory and NAAQS 

emission control planning requirements. 

Section 182(a)(3)(B) ‘‘Emission 

Statements’’ of the CAA establish the 

federal requirements for stationary 

source emissions reporting. The section 

requires permitting agencies to adopt 

regulations requiring owners and 

operators of stationary sources of NOX

or VOC to provide a statement showing 

the actual emissions of NOX and VOCs 

from applicable sources. 

310 CMR 7.26(30)–(37) establishes 

emission limits and operational 

restrictions for new boilers with heat 

inputs equal to or greater than 10 

million British thermal units per hour 

(MMBtu/hr) and less than 40 MMBtu/ 

hr. Emission increases from the 

construction of new boilers are 

currently subject to the MassDEP’s 310 

CMR 7.02(4) and (5) ‘‘Plan Approval 

and Emission Limitations.’’ The 

MassDEP adopted 310 CMR 7.02(4) and 

(5) in an effort to comply with Sections 

110(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the CAA. The 

CAA requires states to adopt procedures 

that regulate modification and 

construction of stationary sources as 

necessary to ensure that NAAQS are 

achieved, and in particular to prohibit a 

new stationary source of emissions, 

such as a new boiler, from emitting any 

air pollutant in amounts that would 

contribute to a violation of a NAAQS or 

interfere with a NAAQS control 

strategy. For sources that do not meet 

federal ‘‘major source’’ levels, the 

requirements for the procedures 

required by Section 110(a)(2)(C), 

typically referred to as the ‘‘minor new 

source review program,’’ are codified 

into the federal regulations at 40 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.160– 

164. The MassDEP currently has a SIPapproved minor NSR program (currently 

entitled ‘‘Regulation 2. Plans Approval 

and Emissions Limitations,’’ approved 

in 1979), and the state also implements 

its minor NSR regulations at 310 CMR 

7.02(4) and (5). 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Massachusetts’s SIP revisions? 

As discussed above, Section 110(l) of 

the CAA establishes EPA’s standard for 

approving revisions to a SIP (and, for 

certain pre-1990 requirements, Section 

193 may apply as well). The following 

analysis explains how the SIP revisions 

meet these standards and may be 

approved by EPA. 

A. 310 CMR 7.04: U Fossil Fuel 

Utilization Facilities 

The June 28, 1990 SIP amendment 

includes two new provisions to 310 

CMR 7.04(2) ‘‘U Smoke Density 

Indicator.’’ The existing SIP provision in 

regulation 4.2.1 prohibits the burning of 

fossil fuel oil or coal in any high 

pressure fossil fuel utilization facility 

that is not equipped with a smoke 

density sensing device. New provision 

310 CMR 7.04(2)(a) establishes a new 

heat input applicability threshold level 

of 40 MMBtu/hr above which fossil fuel 

utilization facilities are required to 

install and operate smoke density 

sensing instrumentation on or after June 

1, 1990. New provision 310 CMR 

7.04(2)(b) provides the MassDEP the 

authority to require fuel utilization 

facility to be equipped with a smoke 

density sensing device if, in the opinion 

of the MassDEP, such a device is 

necessary. 

The July 11, 2001 SIP amendment 

includes two additional provisions to 

310 CMR 7.04(2). New provision 310 

CMR 7.04(2)(c) allows fossil fuel 

utilization facilities with energy inputs 

equal to or greater than 10 MMBtu/hr 

but less than 40 MMBtu/hr to 

discontinue and remove smoke density 

sensing equipment even if required in a 

previous plan approval. New provision 

310 CMR 7.04(2)(d) states that, 

notwithstanding the requirements of 

310 CMR 7.04(2)(a) and (c), new or 

modified fossil fuel fired facilities may 

be required to install instrumentation to 

monitor opacity if subject to New 

Source Performance Standards at 40 

CFR part 60, subpart D, Da, Db or Dc. 

The February 13, 2008 SIP 

amendment includes a new provision 

under 310 CMR 7.04(4)(a) that prohibits 

the operation of fossil fuel fired 

facilities with heat input capacities 

equal to or greater than 3 million British 

thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) 

unless the facility has been inspected 

and maintained in accordance with 

manufacturer’s recommendations and 

been tested for efficient operation at 

least once every calendar year. The new 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

9018 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

provisions also require facilities to 

record the results from the inspection, 

maintenance and testing and to post the 

result conspicuously on or near the 

facility. The provision also includes 

language that excludes combustion 

turbines and reciprocating engines from 

the inspection, maintenance and testing 

requirements. The inspection, 

maintenance and testing requirements 

for these types of sources are already 

established under state’s rules at 310 

CMR 7.02(8) and 310 CMR 7.26, 

‘‘Industrial Performance Standards.’’ 

Therefore, the inspection, maintenance 

and testing requirements under 310 

CMR 7.04 are redundant and not needed 

for these source types. 

EPA proposes approval of the June 28, 

1990, July 11, 2001 and February 13, 

2008 SIP amendments to 310 CMR 7.04. 

EPA has not identified any reason why 

removing the requirement to operate 

smoke density sensing devices on small 

boilers would change how smaller 

boilers operate or result in any emission 

increase. In addition, the February 13, 

2008 SIP amendment requires boilers 

with heat inputs capacities over 3 

MMBtu/hr to inspect, maintain and test 

for operational efficiency. This will 

improve boiler operation and reduce 

overall emissions. The emission 

decrease will more than offset any 

possible emission increase that could 

result from the June 28, 1990, July 11, 

2001 and February 13, 2008 SIP 

amendments. The amendment is also 

not inconsistent with the CAA since 

federal technology-based emission 

control standards for boilers do not 

regulate smoke density but rather 

opacity. EPA finds the amendments 

together will improve operations at 

fossil fuel fired facilities, lower 

emissions for all pollutants, strengthen 

the SIP, and be consistent with all 

federal requirements. 

B. 310 CMR 7.12: U Source Registration 

The July 11, 2001 SIP amendment 

includes numerous revisions to 310 

CMR 7.12. The amendment renames the 

regulation from ‘‘Certificate Record 

Keeping and Reporting’’ to ‘‘Source 

Registration.’’ The amendment clarifies 

the regulation’s applicability 

requirements, reporting deadlines, and 

information submission requirements. 

The amendment also includes the 

addition of new source categories and 

pollutants subject to the regulation’s 

reporting requirements. Finally, the 

amendment establishes reporting 

procedures for sources who had not 

previously filed reports. 

The February 13, 2008 SIP 

amendment includes new provisions 

that require a facility to file a source 

registration if it operates under the 

following: (1) a restricted emission 

status pursuant to 310 CMR 7.02(9), ‘‘U 

Restricted emissions Status’’ or 7.02(10), 

‘‘U Modification of Restricted Emissions 

Status’’ issued since January 1, 1990, or 

(2) a federal operating permit approval 

issued under 310 CMR 7.00, Appendix 

C. 

EPA proposes to approve the July 11, 

2001 and February 13, 2008 

amendments into the SIP. The 

amendments do not change the 

underlying SIP-approved requirements 

but rather strengthens the state 

regulations by adding new 

requirements, expanding the 

applicability requirements, and 

reorganizing and clarifying current 

requirements. The Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for this proposed 

rulemaking provides a complete list of 

revisions proposed by MassDEP and 

how they comply with federal 

requirements. 

C. 310 CMR 7.26(30)–(37): Industrial 

Performance Standard—U Boilers 

310 CMR 7.26(30)–(37) establishes 

emission limits and operational 

restrictions for new boilers with heat 

inputs equal to or greater than 10 

MMBtu/hr and less than 40 MMBtu/hr. 

Emission increases from the 

construction of new boilers are 

currently subject to the MassDEP’s 310 

CMR 7.02(4) and (5) ‘‘Plan Approval 

and Emission Limitations.’’ As noted 

above, the MassDEP currently has a SIPapproved minor NSR program (currently 

entitled ‘‘Regulation 2. Plans Approval 

and Emissions Limitations,’’ approved 

in 1979), and the state also implements 

its minor NSR regulations at 310 CMR 

7.02(4) and (5). 

In July, 2000, the MassDEP proposed 

to replace the existing plan approval 

procedures for new boilers with heat 

inputs equal to or greater than 10 

MMBtu/hr and less than 40 MMBtu/hr 

with new performance standards and 

compliance certifications requirements 

adopted under the state’s Environmental 

Result Program (ERP). As described in 

the state’s July 2000 Technical Support 

and Background Document (TSBD) for 

the proposed amendment, the purpose 

of the ERP is to develop process-specific 

performance standards and compliance 

certifications that simplify the 

regulatory process, reduce cost and time 

for compliance while maintaining 

effective standards and improving 

environmental results. On September 

14, 2006, the MassDEP submitted the 

proposed performance standards and 

compliance certifications requirements 

for boilers under 310 CMR 7.26(30)–(37) 

‘‘Industrial Performance Standards—U 

Boilers’’ to EPA as a formal SIP 

submittal. 

The new industrial performance 

standard establishes emission limits and 

operational restrictions for new natural 

gas and/or distillate oil fired boilers. In 

lieu of obtaining a plan approval under 

310 CMR 7.02, owners and operators of 

a new boiler with heat inputs equal to 

or greater than 10 MMBtu/hr and less 

than 40 MMBtu/hr must submit a 

certification to the MassDEP stating that 

the new boiler complies with the 

emission and operational requirements 

in 310 CMR 7.26(30)–(37). 

On February 13, 2008, the MassDEP 

submitted a SIP amendment revising 

310 CMR 7.26(30)–(37). The 2008 SIP 

amendment includes a new provision 

that requires an owner or operator of a 

new boiler subject to 310 CMR 7.26(30)– 

(37) to submit the certification to the 

MassDEP prior to installation and 

operation of the boiler. 

The amendments to 310 CMR 

7.26(30)–(37) effectively revise 

Regulation 2, which was approved into 

the Massachusetts SIP in 1979 in an area 

that is designated as nonattainment. 

Consequently, these amendments 

cannot be approved unless they will 

ensure equal or greater emission 

reductions as compared to the existing 

SIP-approved rules. These rules 

(specifically, the minor NSR program) 

must meet the federal minor NSR 

program requirements at 40 CFR 

51.160–164, including the applicability 

requirements at 40 CFR 51.160(e). 

Section 51.160(e) requires the MassDEP 

to describe the types of sources subject 

to minor NSR and to discuss the basis 

for determining which facilities will be 

subject to review. 

As discussed in the MassDEP’s July 

2000 TSBD Document, the proposed 

Industrial Performance Standard 

requires the same emission limits, fuel 

requirements and operational 

limitations as compared to boilers 

currently undergoing case-by-case 

review under 310 CMR 7.02. In 

addition, the emission limits meet or 

exceed the requirements for boilers 

under the federal NSPS and National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) programs. 

The proposed boiler regulation also 

provides protection, similar to 310 CMR 

7.02(4) and (5), that ensures the 

construction of new boilers will not 

cause or contribute to a violation of an 

applicable NAAQS or other control 

strategy. To ensure emissions disperse 

properly, 310 CMR 7.26(35) requires 

minimum stack heights for subject 

boilers. If the stack height is below 

minimum height requirements, the 

provision requires the use of an EPA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 9019 

1For example, the MassDEP’s ‘‘Boiler 

Environmental Certification Workbook’’ explains 

that ‘‘Stack heads, devices used to prevent 

precipitation from entering the stack, must not 

restrict the vertical flow of the exhaust gas stream. 

Devices such as ‘shanty caps’ and ‘egg beaters’ are 

prohibited. Coning of the top of the stack and rain 

sleeves are acceptable. ’’ See MassDEP, Boiler 

Environmental Certification Workbook, page 11, 

available at http://www.mass.gov/dep/service/ 

online/boilwbk.pdf. EPA has added this document 

to the administrative record for this action. 

guideline air quality model to show that 

the operations of the boiler will not 

cause the exceedance of a NAAQS. To 

provide additional safeguards to protect 

the public, 310 CMR 7.26(35) restricts a 

subject boiler to the use of inherently 

low emitting natural gas if the boiler is 

locating on property adjacent to a street 

or sidewalk. Section 7.26(35) also 

provides that ‘‘Stacks shall not be 

equipped with rain protection of a type 

that restricts the vertical exhaust flow of 

the combustion gases as they are 

emitted to the ambient air. ‘Shanty 

caps’, ‘egg beaters’ and the like are 

prohibited.’’ The terms ‘‘shanty caps’’ 

and ‘‘egg beaters’’ refer to devices that 

are used to prevent precipitation from 

entering the stack but which restrict the 

vertical flow of the exhaust gas stream.1

In accordance with this understanding, 

EPA proposes that, for purposes of the 

federal SIP, the prohibition in Section 

7.26(35) should be interpreted to apply 

to any device for stack rain protection 

that restricts the vertical exhaust flow of 

the exhaust stream. 

In addition, the monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting provisions 

throughout 310 CMR 7.26(30)–(37) 

provides adequate compliance 

requirements for all emission and 

operational requirements. 

Finally, 310 CMR 7.26(32)(b) requires 

owners or operators of subject boilers to 

submit a compliance certification before 

a new boiler is installed and 

operational. This provision provides the 

ability for the MassDEP to prevent 

installation of a boiler if it may violate 

a NAAQS or other state emission 

requirement as required by the federal 

NSR requirements. 

Together, these provisions 

demonstrate that the proposed SIP 

amendments will not result in increases 

in emissions above the current SIPapproved rules or interfere with any 

attainment strategy. In addition, since 

310 CMR 7.26(30)–(37) applies 

equivalent emission and operational 

limitations as compared to boilers 

currently undergoing case by case 

review under the current SIP-approved 

requirements, the amendment ensures 

equivalent (or greater) emission 

reductions than the current SIPapproved minor NSR program. EPA 

concludes the amendments are 

consistent with federal requirements 

and should be approved into the SIP. 

D. Miscellaneous Changes 

On February 13, 2008, the MassDEP 

also submitted amendment updating the 

list of Massachusetts cities and towns to 

reflect changes in the MassDEP regional 

boundaries located at the beginning 310 

CMR 7.00. EPA is proposing to approve 

the updated list. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the June 

28, 1990 and July 11, 2001 SIP 

amendments to 310 CMR 7.04 ‘‘U Fossil 

Fuel Utilization Facilities.’’ EPA is also 

proposing to approve the July 11, 2001 

SIP amendment to 310 CMR 7.12, ‘‘U 

Source Registration’’ and the September 

14, 2006 SIP amendment to 310 CMR 

7.26(30)–(37), ‘‘Industrial Performance 

Standards—U Boiler.’’ Finally, EPA is 

proposing to approve the February 13, 

2008 SIP amendment that revises 310 

CMR 7.04 ‘‘U Fossil Fuel Utilization 

Facilities,’’ corrects several 

typographical errors and clarifies certain 

requirements to 310 CMR 7.12 and 310 

CMR 7.26(30)–(37) and updates the list 

of Massachusetts cities in 310 CMR 

7.00. 

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. 

The Agency has reviewed this request 

for revision of the Federally-approved 

State implementation plan for 

conformance with the provisions of the 

1990 amendments enacted on November 

15, 1990. The Agency has determined 

that this action conforms with those 

requirements irrespective of the fact that 

the submittal preceded the date of 

enactment. 

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, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

9020 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: January 31, 2013. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02812 Filed 2–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 13–69] 

Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks 

Further Comment on Specific Issues 

Related to the Implementation of the 

Remote Areas Fund 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau seeks 

further comment on specific issues 

relating to the implementation of the 

Remote Areas Fund. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

February 19, 2013 and reply comments 

are due on or before March 18, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file 

comments on or before February 19, 

2013 and reply comments on or before 

March 18, 2013. All pleadings are to 

reference WC Docket No. 10–90. 

Comments may be filed using the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 

copies, by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.

gov/ecfs2/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (tty). 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted 

Burmeister, Wireline Competition 

Bureau at (202) 418–7389 or TTY (202) 

418–0484, or Heidi Lankau, Wireline 

Competition Bureau at (202) 418–2876 

or TTY (202) 418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Public 

Notice (Notice) in WC Docket No. 10– 

90; DA 13–69, released January 17, 

2013. The complete text of this 

document is available for inspection 

and copying during normal business 

hours in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

The document may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile 

(202) 863–2898, or via Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. 

I. Introduction 

1. On November 18, 2011, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) released the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order and FNPRM, 76 

FR 73830, November 29, 2011 and 76 

FR 78384, December 16, 2011, which 

comprehensively reformed and 

modernized the universal service highcost and intercarrier compensation 

systems. The Commission established 

the Connect America Fund to ensure 

that voice and broadband service is 

available throughout the nation. Within 

Connect America, the Commission 

created a Remote Areas Fund with a 

budget of ‘‘at least $100 million 

annually’’ to ensure that even 

Americans living in the most remote 

areas of the nation, where the cost of 

providing terrestrial broadband service 

is extremely high, can obtain service. In 

the accompanying FNPRM, 76 FR 

78384, December 16, 2011, the 

Commission sought comment on 

various issues relating to the Remote 

Areas Fund, including how to define the 

remote areas eligible for support from 

the Remote Areas Fund, qualifications 

for participating providers, the public 

interest obligations of these providers, 

as well as administrative issues. 

2. Based on the record generated in 

response to the FNPRM, the Bureau now 

seeks further detailed comment on 

issues relating to the implementation of 

the Remote Areas Fund as a portable 

consumer subsidy program, as proposed 

by the Commission in the FNPRM and 

supported by a diverse group of 

commenters. In particular, we seek to 

further develop the record on a number 

of specific issues, including defining the 

areas where Remote Areas funding will 

be available, how to set the consumer 

subsidy, consumer eligibility, measures 

to keep the program within a defined 

annual budget, service provider 

participation, performance 

requirements, and accountability and 

oversight. 

II. Discussion 

A. Areas Eligible for Remote Areas Fund 

Support 

3. Discussion. We seek to further 

develop the record on administratively 

feasible ways to identify areas (both 

those served by price cap carriers and 

by rate-of-return carriers) where 

consumers would be eligible for the 

Remote Areas Fund. 

4. In lieu of using the cost model to 

define eligible areas, should the 

Commission use the National 

Broadband Map to identify unserved 

census blocks and provide Remote 

Areas Fund support to those census 

areas until they become served with 

broadband that meets the Commission’s 

performance requirements (i.e., speed, 

capacity, latency) for non-Remote Areas 

Fund eligible areas? 

5. If the Commission chooses to 

utilize the most current version of the 

National Broadband Map available at 

the time it adopts rules for the Remote 

Areas Fund for the purpose of 

determining areas eligible for the 

Remote Areas Fund, should there be a 

process to contest the classification of 

areas as unserved or served on the map 

before Remote Areas funding is 

provided, and how could that process 

be implemented in a way to expedite 

the launch of the Remote Areas Fund? 

For instance, should the Commission 

consider any updates to the National 

Broadband Map gathered in conjunction 

with Connect America Phase I when 

finalizing areas eligible for the Remote 

Areas Fund? Should the Commission 

implement a process to allow 

households to self-report if data indicate 

that certain areas are served, if they 

contend those areas are unserved? 

6. We ask for further comment on 

other possible data sources that the 

Commission could use to identify 

unserved areas. Should the Commission 

take into consideration the unique 

characteristics of locations like Alaska 

or Hawaii in determining areas eligible 

for Remote Areas funding, and if so, 

how? To the extent parties advocate use 

of information other than a cost model 

or the National Broadband Map to 

identify remote areas, they should 

provide specific objective metrics that 

could be used under such an approach. 

7. Implementing the Remote Areas 

Fund in Rate-of-Return Areas. We seek 

to further develop the record on the 

suggestion of the National Exchange 

Carrier Association, Inc. et al. that the 

Commission take into account the $250 

per-line per month cap when 

identifying areas that are eligible for the 

Remote Areas Fund. In lieu of relying 

on a forward looking cost model, should 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS