Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 6963 

No objections to the proposed 

temporary deviation were raised. 

Vessels that can transit the bridge, 

while in the closed-to-navigation 

position, may continue to do so at any 

time. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: January 27, 2012. 

D.H. Sulouff, 

District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3102 Filed 2–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2012–0006] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Merrimack River, Amesbury, MA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast 

Guard District, has issued a temporary 

deviation from the regulation governing 

the operation of the 1st Lt. Derek S. 

Hines Memorial Bridge, mile 5.8, across 

the Merrimack River at Amesbury 

(Newburyport), Massachusetts. The 

deviation is necessary to facilitate 

bridge rehabilitation and repairs. This 

deviation allows the bridge to remain in 

the closed position for four months. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

February 13, 2012 through May 11, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2012– 

0006 and are available online at 

www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– 

2012–0006 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ and then 

clicking ‘‘Search’’. They are also 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Docket Management Facility (M–30), 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First 

Coast Guard District, 

joe.m.arca@uscg.mil or telephone (212) 

668–7165. If you have questions on 

viewing the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 1st Lt. 

Derek S. Hines Memorial Bridge, across 

the Merrimack River, mile 5.8, at 

Amesbury (Newburyport), 

Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance 

in the closed position of 13 feet at mean 

high water and 20 feet at mean low 

water. The drawbridge operation 

regulations are listed at 33 CFR 

117.605(c). 

The owner of the bridge, 

Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation, requested a temporary 

deviation from the regulations to 

facilitate bridge rehabilitation repairs, 

replacement of operating machinery, 

structural steel, and highway deck on 

the swing span. 

Under this temporary deviation the 

bridge may remain in the closed 

position from February 13, 2012 through 

May 11, 2012. 

The bridge rarely opens during the 

time period this temporary deviation 

will be in effect. In addition, mariners 

may use an alternate channel to the 

south under the Chain Bridge, which is 

a fixed highway bridge that provides 28 

feet of vertical clearance at mean high 

water and 35 feet of vertical clearance 

at mean low water. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the bridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: February 1, 2012. 

Gary Kassof, 

Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3101 Filed 2–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0623; FRL–9628–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Preconstruction Permitting 

Requirements for Electric Generating 

Stations in Maryland 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is granting limited 

approval of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE). This SIP revision 

revises and supplements the Maryland 

SIP by adding the preconstruction 

permitting requirements for electric 

generating stations that are required to 

receive a Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) 

from the Maryland Public Service 

Commission (PSC) before commencing 

construction or modification. The SIP 

revision also requires electric generating 

stations to obtain a preconstruction 

permit from MDE when a CPCN is not 

required under the PSC regulations and 

statutes. EPA is granting limited 

approval of these revisions to 

Maryland’s preconstruction program for 

electric generating stations in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on March 12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0623. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submission are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. The PSC is an agent of the State 

of Maryland and is an independent unit 

in the Executive Branch of the 

government of the State of Maryland. 

The PSC regulates public utilities 

including electric generating stations 

owned by electric companies doing 

business in Maryland and is empowered 

by the State of Maryland to issue CPCNs 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
6964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

for the construction and modification of 

electric generating stations. On August 

4, 2011 (76 FR 47090), EPA published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) 

for the State of Maryland. The NPR 

proposed approval of changes to the 

Code of Maryland Administrative 

Regulations (COMAR), specifically the 

MDE regulations at COMAR 26.11.02.09 

and 26.11.02.10. The NPR also proposed 

to approve into the Maryland SIP for 

first time the following: (1) Maryland 

statutory provisions at Md. Code Ann., 

Public Utilities Cos. sections 7–205 

(2006), 7–207 (2007), 7–207.1 (2007) 

and 7–208 (2001); and (2) PSC 

regulations at COMAR 20.79.01.01; 

20.79.01.02; 20.79.01.06; 20.79.01.07; 

20.79.02.01; 20.79.02.02; 20.79.02.03; 

20.79.03.01; and 20.79.03.02. The 

formal SIP revision (#11–01) was 

submitted by MDE on May 13, 2011. 

EPA initially proposed full approval of 

the submission. 

However, in response to comments 

received on that proposal, a portion of 

the submission has been withdrawn by 

MDE. On December 20, 2011, MDE 

withdrew COMAR 20.79.01.07 

(regarding the PSC’s waiver authority 

for CPCNs) from its Maryland SIP 

revision submission. EPA is now 

granting limited approval of the 

remainder of the MDE SIP submission 

for electric generating stations which 

includes COMAR 26.11.02.09 and 

26.11.02.10, applicable parts of sections 

7–205, 7–207, 7–207.1 and 7–208 of the 

Md. Code Ann., and applicable parts of 

COMAR 20.79.01.01; 20.79.01.02; 

20.79.01.06; 20.79.02.01; 20.79.02.02; 

20.79.02.03; 20.79.03.01; and 

20.79.03.02. See Sections III, IV and V 

below for more detail. 

In our August 4, 2011 notice of 

proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to 

include a July 15, 2011 letter from the 

Secretary of MDE in the Maryland SIP. 

Because MDE’s July 15, 2011 letter 

addressed COMAR 20.79.01.07 which 

MDE has subsequently withdrawn from 

our consideration, EPA is not including 

the July 15, 2011 Letter in our limited 

approval of the May 13, 2011 Maryland 

SIP submission (as amended on 

December 20, 2011). 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

Under the CAA, major stationary 

sources of air pollution are required to 

obtain a permit to construct prior to 

commencing construction or 

modification activities. The Maryland 

statutory provisions at sections 7–205, 

7–207, 7–207.1, and 7–208 of the Md. 

Code Ann. and the PSC’s regulations 

identified above require electric 

generating stations in Maryland to 

obtain a CPCN from the PSC prior to 

construction or modification activities 

which would require a permit under the 

CAA. The CPCNs serve as the 

mechanism for the State to implement 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NSR) requirements for electric 

generating stations in Maryland. EPA is 

limitedly approving Maryland’s SIP 

revision request to add the statutory and 

regulatory requirements that require 

electric generating stations to obtain a 

CPCN prior to construction or 

modification. These requirements were 

not previously in the Maryland SIP; 

therefore, our limited approval corrects 

deficiencies in the Maryland SIP and 

strengthens the SIP. 

Previously, the Maryland SIP at 

COMAR 26.11.02.09 and 26.11.02.10 

exempted electric generating stations 

constructed or modified by electric 

generating companies from MDE’s 

permitting regulations. However, the 

State of Maryland has since modified 

Md. Code Ann., Environment Section 2– 

402(3) and COMAR 26.11.02.09 and 

26.11.02.10 so that electric generating 

stations that are not required to obtain 

CPCNs from the PSC remain subject to 

MDE’s preconstruction permitting 

requirements. Therefore, the SIP 

regulations were inconsistent with 

Maryland’s present statutory and 

regulatory provisions in that they do not 

preserve MDE’s permitting authority for 

electric generating stations that are not 

required otherwise to obtain a CPCN. 

MDE’s May 13, 2011 SIP revision 

request included the amended MDE 

regulations, COMAR 26.11.02.09 and 

26.11.02.10. Our limited approval of the 

May 13, 2011 SIP revision request, as 

amended on December 20, 2011, 

eliminates the inconsistency between 

the Maryland SIP and Maryland’s 

present statutory and regulatory 

provisions regarding MDE’s ability to 

permit electric generating stations when 

the electric generating stations do not 

receive CPCNs. 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA, 42 

U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2)(C), requires the 

state SIP to have a program for 

regulation of construction and 

modification of stationary sources to 

assure that national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) are achieved, 

including a permit program as required 

by Part C of Title I of the CAA for PSD 

and Part D of Title I of the CAA for NSR. 

Our limited approval of Maryland’s SIP 

revision of May 13, 2011, as amended 

on December 20, 2011, ensures that the 

Maryland SIP has a permit program for 

the construction and modification of 

electric generating stations as required 

by Parts C and D of Title I of the CAA 

and ensures that the SIP provides for the 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. Included in the May 13, 2011 

proposed SIP revision is section 7– 

208(f) of the Md. Code Ann. which 

specifically requires the PSC to include 

in CPCNs the requirements of federal 

and state environmental laws and 

standards as identified by MDE. EPA’s 

limited approval ensures the Maryland 

SIP is adequate to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in areas 

designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable as required by sections 

110(a) and 161 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

sections 7410(a) and 7471, and 40 CFR 

51.166. EPA’s limited approval of the 

Maryland permitting program for 

electric generating stations also ensures 

that the Maryland SIP meets plan 

requirements for nonattainment areas as 

required by Part D of Title I of the CAA. 

Because the provisions in the May 13, 

2011 SIP submission, as amended on 

December 20, 2011, strengthen the 

Maryland SIP, EPA limitedly approves 

them into the Maryland SIP. 

III. Limited Approval 

Why is EPA granting only ‘‘Limited 

Approval’’ of Maryland’s 

preconstruction program for electric 

generating stations for the Maryland 

SIP? 

In general, EPA has determined that 

MDE’s May 13, 2011 submission (#11– 

01), as amended by MDE’s December 20, 

2011 letter removing COMAR 

20.79.01.07, strengthens Maryland’s SIP 

by containing a permit program as 

required by Parts C and D of Title I of 

the CAA. However, we acknowledge 

that for the reasons stated below, the 

May 13, 2011 submission (as amended 

on December 20, 2011) does not fully 

meet all CAA requirements for SIPs. 

Therefore, EPA is granting limited 

approval in accordance with section 

110(k) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. section 

7410(k). 

A. Completeness Determinations 

The May 13, 2011 Maryland SIP 

submission, as amended December 20, 

2011, does not contain a requirement for 

the PSC to conduct completeness 

determinations for CPCN applications. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166(q)(1), a state 

SIP must require the permitting 

authority ‘‘to notify all applicants 

within a specified time period as to the 

completeness of the application or any 

deficiency in the application or 

information submitted.’’ See 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(1). However, as discussed 

more thoroughly in EPA’s Response to 

Comments in Section IV below, we 

believe the PSC is complying with this 

requirement in its practice for issuing 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 6965 

CPCNs such that the impact on CPCN 

applicants is minimized. 

B. Permit Documents in One Location 

for Public Access 

The May 13, 2011 Maryland SIP 

submission, as amended December 20, 

2011, does not contain a requirement for 

the PSC to make available for public 

inspection in one location the 

documents from a CPCN applicant and 

the reviewing agency’s analysis of the 

effect on air quality from the proposed 

construction or modification at an 

electric generating station. Pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.161(a) and (b)(1), a state SIP 

shall provide for the ‘‘[a]vailability for 

public inspection in at least one 

location in the area affected of the 

information submitted by the owner or 

operator and of the State or local 

agency’s analysis of the effect on air 

quality.’’ See 40 CFR 51.161(a) and 

(b)(1). As discussed more thoroughly in 

EPA’s Response to Comments in Section 

IV below, EPA believes the PSC 

provides in its practice the opportunity 

for public review of this information 

through the availability of such 

documents on its Web site. Therefore, 

the impact on the public’s opportunity 

to comment meaningfully is minimized. 

When the PSC amends its regulations to 

include the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.161(a) and (b)(1) and 51.166(q)(1), 

MDE may submit the revised regulations 

for EPA’s consideration for full approval 

of the permitting program for electric 

generating stations in the Maryland SIP. 

IV. EPA’s Response to Comments 

Received on the Proposed Action 

EPA received a single set of relevant 

comments on its August 4, 2011 (76 FR 

47090) proposed action to approve 

revisions to the Maryland SIP. These 

comments, provided by the 

Environmental Integrity Project 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the 

Commenter’’), raised concerns with 

regard to EPA’s August 4, 2011 

proposed action. A full set of these 

comments is provided in the docket for 

today’s final action. A summary of the 

comments and EPA’s responses are 

provided below. 

Generally, the Commenter raised four 

areas of concern. First, the Commenter 

asserts that the proposed revision to the 

Maryland SIP does not require 

compliance with NSR requirements in 

the CAA. Second, the Commenter 

asserts the proposed revision to the 

Maryland SIP allows the PSC, the air 

permitting agency for electric generating 

stations in Maryland, to waive or 

modify regulatory requirements. Third, 

the Commenter asserts the proposed 

Maryland SIP revision does not meet 

minimum requirements in the CAA for 

public participation, does not protect 

the public’s right to review and 

comment on draft permits, and does not 

require the PSC to respond to 

comments. Finally, the Commenter 

asserts the proposed Maryland SIP 

revision does not contain formal 

requirements for completeness 

determinations. EPA’s response to these 

four comments is provided below. 

Comment 1: The Commenter asserts 

the proposed revision to the Maryland 

SIP ‘‘does not clearly and 

unambiguously mandate compliance 

with New Source Review standards 

under the Clean Air Act.’’ The 

Commenter cites to section 110(a)(2)(C) 

of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. section 

7410(a)(2)(C), which requires SIPs to 

include a permit program as required by 

parts C and D of the CAA for PSD and 

NSR. The Commenter also cites to 40 

CFR 51.166(j) which includes 

requirements that SIPs provide certain 

requirements, including, but not limited 

to, requirements that major stationary 

sources or major modifications meet 

applicable emission limitations under 

40 CFR parts 60 and 61 and apply best 

available control technology (BACT) for 

each regulated NSR pollutant they 

would have the potential to emit in 

significant amounts or for each 

regulated NSR pollutant for which there 

is a significant net emissions increase. 

The Commenter cites to 40 CFR 

51.166(a)(1)(7)(ii) (requiring each SIP to 

incorporate requirements of 40 CFR 

51.166(j)–(r)) and to section 165(a)(2) of 

the CAA, 42 U.S.C. section 7475(a)(2), 

which requires major emitting facilities 

to receive permits prior to construction. 

Response 1: EPA does not agree with 

the Commenter that the Maryland SIP 

revision does not meet the above 

requirements. Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the 

CAA, 42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2)(C), 

requires each SIP to include a permits 

program as required in parts C and D of 

the CAA (42 U.S.C. sections 7470–7492 

and 7501–7515). 40 CFR 51.166 

provides further details on the 

requirements for the permits programs. 

EPA believes the statutory and 

regulatory requirements in the May 13, 

2011 Maryland SIP submission, as 

amended December 20, 2011, fulfill the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) and 

165(a)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.166. 

Pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Public 

Utilities Cos. sections 7–205 and 7–207, 

electric generating stations may not be 

modified or constructed without 

receiving prior approvals from the PSC 

through the PSC’s issuance of a permit 

which is known as a CPCN. Section 7– 

207 requires electric generating stations 

to obtain CPCNs from the PSC prior to 

construction. Section 7–205 requires 

electric generating stations to obtain 

approval from the PSC prior to 

commencing a modification to the 

generating station. ‘‘Approval’’ as used 

in the Maryland statutory provision 

(section 7–205) means a CPCN issued 

pursuant to sections 7–207 and 7–208. 

See COMAR 20.79.01.02(4). The 

Maryland statutory provisions in 

sections 7–207 and 7–208 which EPA 

proposed to include in the Maryland 

SIP contain specific requirements for 

the issuance of CPCNs. In particular, 

section 7–208(f)(1) states that the PSC 

shall include in each certificate it issues 

‘‘(i) the requirements of the federal and 

State environmental laws and standards 

that are identified by the Department of 

the Environment; and (ii) the methods 

and conditions that the Commission 

determines are appropriate to comply 

with those environmental laws and 

standards.’’ Section 7–208(f)(2) provides 

that the PSC ‘‘may not adopt any 

method or condition under paragraph 

(1)(ii) of this subsection that the 

Department of the Environment 

determines is inconsistent with federal 

and State environmental laws and 

standards.’’ 

The Maryland regulatory provisions 

EPA is limitedly approving in the SIP 

revision further fulfill the Clean Air Act 

requirements for SIPs. COMAR 

20.79.03.02 contains the requirements 

for applications for CPCNs and requires 

applicants for CPCNs to include in 

CPCN applications a description of the 

effect on air quality including the ability 

of the applicant to comply with PSD 

and NSR provisions, a description of the 

impact on PSD areas and nonattainment 

areas, and all information and forms 

required by MDE regulations for permits 

to construct and operating permits 

under COMAR 26.11. Further, COMAR 

20.79.01 contains additional 

requirements for electric generating 

stations applying for CPCNs including 

requirements for when modifications 

need CPCNs. 

EPA disagrees with the Commenter’s 

claim that the Maryland SIP revision 

does not meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.166. EPA believes the revision 

meets 40 CFR 51.166 through the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

identified above. As previously 

discussed, COMAR 20.79.03.02 requires 

CPCN applicants to identify relevant 

requirements of the CAA. Section 7– 

208(f) requires inclusion of federal 

environmental laws and standards 

identified by MDE which is the 

Maryland environmental agency which 

implements PSD and NSR as well as all 

requirements of the CAA for all sources 

in Maryland except electric generating 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
6966 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

stations. Because the Maryland SIP as 

implemented through MDE requires 

sources to apply BACT or Lowest 

Achievable Emissions Rate at COMAR 

26.11.06.14 and 26.11.17, because CPCN 

applicants identify requirements of the 

CAA needed for construction or 

modification projects, and because the 

emissions standards and standards of 

performance under 40 CFR Parts 60 and 

61 would be identified by MDE through 

section 7–208(f), EPA believes the 

Maryland SIP revision meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 as 

specifically identified by the 

Commenter, except as discussed below 

regarding 40 CFR 51.161(b)(1) and 

51.166(q)(1) (relating to availability of 

permit documents and completeness 

determinations). 

EPA believes that the statutory 

provisions in sections 7–205, 7–207, 

and 7–208 and the regulatory provisions 

in COMAR 20.79 contain the required 

and necessary permits program for PSD 

and NSR as required in sections 

110(a)(2)(C) and 165(a)(2) of the CAA, 

42 U.S.C. sections 7410(a)(2)(C) and 

7475(a)(2), and by 40 CFR 51.166. The 

Maryland provisions included in the 

SIP revision require CPCNs prior to 

construction or modification of electric 

generating stations. See sections 7–205, 

7–207, and 7–208. In addition, section 

7–208(f) specifically requires the PSC to 

include in CPCNs federal environmental 

requirements identified by MDE. MDE 

implements the SIP approved PSD and 

NSR permit program for sources other 

than electric generating stations in 

Maryland through COMAR 26.11.06.14 

and 26.11.17. 

Comment 2: The Commenter asserts 

the proposed revisions to the Maryland 

SIP contain a provision which allows 

the PSC authority to waive CAA 

requirements in COMAR 20.79. See 

COMAR 20.79.01.07. The Commenter 

asserts that the CAA requires a SIP to 

unambiguously require an applicant for 

a CPCN to comply with NSR 

requirements such as BACT. The 

Commenter asserts that the PSC has 

‘‘extremely broad authority to waive or 

modify any of the regulatory provisions 

in Title 20, Subchapter 79, which 

governs the CPCN application process.’’ 

The Commenter asserts that the letter 

submitted by the Secretary of MDE to 

the Regional Administrator of EPA 

Region III on July 15, 2011 stating that 

MDE would ensure that the PSC does 

not issue waivers or modifications not 

in compliance with the CAA and federal 

regulations was not sufficient to serve as 

a binding requirement on the state to 

ensure CPCN applicants comply with 

NSR requirements. The Commenter 

asserts that section 7–208(f) is 

insufficient to show that NSR 

requirements will be included in all 

CPCNs because section 7–208 ‘‘appears 

to apply only to the construction of an 

EGU when either (1) associated 

overhead transmission lines designed to 

carry a voltage in excess of 69,000 volts 

are also being constructed; or (2) the 

entity constructing the EGU is 

exercising the right of condemnation in 

connection therewith.’’ See section 7– 

208(a). 

Response 2: EPA notes that in a 

December 20, 2011 letter from Robert M. 

Summers, Secretary of MDE, to Shawn 

M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region III, MDE officially withdrew 

COMAR 20.79.01.07 from MDE’s 

proposal for inclusion in the Maryland 

SIP. In taking final action on Maryland’s 

proposed SIP revision, EPA is acting on 

the remaining statutes and regulations 

submitted by Maryland. Therefore, 

EPA’s limited approval of the PSC 

permitting program for electric 

generating stations does not include 

COMAR 20.79.01.07 and that provision 

is not included in the Maryland SIP. 

Nevertheless, EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter in general on the waiver 

issue and believes the Letter from 

Robert M. Summers, Secretary of MDE, 

to Shawn M. Garvin, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region III (July 15, 

2011) provides assurances that MDE 

will ensure that its sister Maryland 

agency, the PSC, will include all 

necessary PSD and NSR requirements as 

required by section 7–208(f). EPA 

believes that the PSC’s waiver authority 

in COMAR 20.79.01.07 is clearly 

restricted by the statutory restraint on 

the PSC’s CPCN authority in section 7– 

208(f) which provides that the PSC shall 

include federal environmental laws and 

standards identified by MDE in CPCNs. 

This statutory restraint is clearly evident 

from the plain language of the statute. 

The July 15, 2011 Letter from Robert M. 

Summers to EPA confirms the statutory 

limitation on the PSC’s waiver 

authority. EPA has given considerable 

weight to the Summers’ July 15, 2011 

letter because MDE has expertise in 

interpreting Maryland law. Presently, 

EPA has no reason to believe the PSC 

will exercise its waiver authority to 

issue CPCN’s without environmental 

requirements identified by MDE 

contrary to section 7–208(f). In addition, 

as of December 20, 2011, the PSC’s 

waiver authority in COMAR 20.79.01.07 

was removed from Maryland’s proposed 

SIP revision and is therefore not 

included in EPA’s limited approval of 

the Maryland permitting program for 

electric generating stations. Therefore, 

EPA believes the Maryland SIP revision 

meets the requirements of the CAA for 

the limited approval. 

Additionally, EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter that section 7–208 does not 

apply to the construction and 

modification of all electric generating 

stations in Maryland. EPA believes the 

Commenter’s assertion is contrary to 

established Maryland case law. Section 

7–207 was originally codified as 

Maryland Ann. Code, Article 78, section 

54A (1968), and section 7–208 was 

previously codified as Maryland Ann. 

Code, Article 78, section 54B (1971). In 

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Dept. of 

Health & Mental Hygiene, 284 Md. 216, 

225–26 (1979), the Maryland Court of 

Appeals interpreted Maryland Ann. 

Code, Article 78, sections 54A and 54B 

as providing a comprehensive plan for 

the erection of new power plants. The 

Maryland Court of Appeals stated 

section 54A prohibited construction of a 

generating station or overhead 

transmission line without first obtaining 

a CPCN and also found that section 54B 

(the predecessor of Md. Ann. Code, 

Public Utilities Co. section 7–208) 

simply provided the procedures for 

obtaining a CPCN under section 54A 

(now codified as section 7–207). Id. 

Likewise, today, section 7–207 requires 

CPCNs prior to construction of electric 

generating stations, and section 7–208 

provides the detailed requirements for 

those CPCNs. 

Further, COMAR 20.79.01.02(B)(4) 

clearly confirms that CPCNs issued for 

modification projects would be CPCNs 

issued pursuant to requirements in 

sections 7–207 and 7–208. Because 

Maryland case law found that Maryland 

Ann. Code, Article 78, sections 54A and 

54B (now codified as sections 7–207 

and 7–208) apply to construction of 

electrical generating stations or 

transmission lines and because the 

Maryland regulations included in the 

SIP revision state that section 7–208 

applies also to modifications, EPA does 

not believe the Commenter’s assertion is 

valid or a correct interpretation of 

Maryland law. 

Comment 3: The Commenter asserts 

the proposed Maryland SIP revisions do 

not meet minimum standards for public 

participation set forth in the CAA and 

do not protect the public’s right to 

review and comment on a draft CPCN. 

The Commenter also states the PSC does 

not allow for sufficient time for 

response to public comments. The 

Commenter asserts the proposed SIP 

revision does not contain a formal 

process for ensuring the PSC responds 

to comments and asserts the letter from 

H. Robert Erwin, Jr., General Counsel, 

PSC, to Robert M. Summers, Secretary, 

MDE (January 25, 2011) is inadequate to 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 6967 

establish an independent obligation 

under the SIP on the PSC to respond to 

comments during the CPCN permitting 

process. The Commenter asserts that the 

CAA requires a public hearing and an 

opportunity for public comment during 

the NSR permit process and that the 

permitting agency must make available 

to the public information submitted by 

the owner or operator of the applicant 

as well as the permit agency’s analysis 

of the effect on air quality and the draft 

approval in at least one location. See 40 

CFR 51.161(a), 51.161(b), and 51.166(q). 

The Commenter states the SIP must 

provide at least 30 days for public 

comments. 40 CFR 51.161(b)(2). The 

Commenter asserts that the Md. Code 

Ann., Pub. Util. Cos. section 7–207(d) 

and related regulations do not meet 

these requirements. 

Response 3: EPA agrees with the 

Commenter that the CAA does require 

public participation in NSR permitting, 

including the right to review 

documents. However, EPA disagrees 

with the Commenter regarding the 

proposed Maryland SIP revision 

because EPA believes the Maryland SIP 

revision meets the requirements of the 

CAA for public participation with the 

exception of the requirement for the SIP 

to require the permitting agency to make 

available to the public in at least one 

location information submitted by the 

owner or operator of the applicant as 

well as the permit agency’s analysis of 

the effect on air quality and the draft 

approval. See 40 CFR 51.161(a) and 

(b)(1). 

Sections 7–207(c) and (d) and 7– 

208(d) contain the CAA’s public 

participation requirements for SIPs. As 

discussed above, sections 7–207 and 7– 

208 apply to CPCNs for construction as 

well as for modification of electric 

generating stations. Section 7–207(c) 

and (d) require the PSC to provide 

notice of an application for a CPCN to 

all interested persons, to provide an 

opportunity for public comment, and to 

hold a public hearing on the CPCN 

application. Section 7–207(d) also 

requires weekly notice of the public 

hearing and opportunity for comment in 

a newspaper of general circulation in 

the four weeks prior to a hearing. 

Section 7–208(d) requires the PSC to 

provide notice to all interested persons 

upon receipt of an application for a 

CPCN and to hold a public hearing as 

required by section 7–207 upon 

publication of proper notice. 

However, EPA agrees with the 

Commenter that a SIP must require the 

permitting agency to make available to 

the public in at least one location 

information submitted by the permit 

applicant as well as the permit agency’s 

analysis of the effect on air quality and 

the draft approval. See 40 CFR 51.161(a) 

and (b)(1). As explained in this 

rulemaking, EPA is granting limited 

approval to the Maryland SIP revision 

until such time as MDE submits a 

statutory or regulatory requirement that 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.161(a) and (b)(1). EPA is granting this 

limited approval to the Maryland SIP 

revision because EPA believes the PSC 

in practice is providing the public with 

full access to the public information 

submitted by a CPCN applicant as well 

as the PSC’s and MDE’s analysis of the 

effect on air quality from an application. 

All public records relevant to a CPCN 

application and the PSC’s official 

actions on those applications are 

available to the public for review and 

download through access to the PSC’s 

publicly available Web page at http:// 

www.psc.state.md.us/. The purpose of 

providing an opportunity for public 

review is served by this method of 

availability such that EPA is granting a 

limited approval until the PSC and MDE 

include such a requirement in a request 

for SIP revision. 

In addition, we gain additional 

assurance that the public will have 

available for inspection information 

submitted by a CPCN applicant and 

associated PSC analyses through the 

PSC’s statutory obligation to comply 

with the Maryland Public Information 

Act, Md. Code Ann., State Government 

sections 10–611 to 10–630. The 

Maryland Public Information Act 

applies to all branches of the Maryland 

state government and provides persons 

the right to review the available records 

that are disclosable by the State and the 

right to obtain copies of those records. 

This statute provides that all persons are 

entitled to access to information about 

the affairs of government and the official 

acts of public officials and employees. 

See Maryland Public Information Act, 

section 10–612(a). The Maryland Public 

Information Act permits persons to 

inspect public records at any reasonable 

time within thirty days of a request and 

provides a process for persons to 

challenge the withholding of public 

documents. See Maryland Public 

Information Act, sections 10–614 and 

10–623. 

EPA believes these statutory 

obligations as well as the practice of 

making documents publicly available 

over the PSC’s Web page meet the intent 

of the requirements for SIPs in the CAA 

and in the regulations at 40 CFR 51.161 

and 51.166. Hence, EPA is granting 

limited approval to this SIP revision 

until such time as Maryland submits a 

statutory or regulatory requirement 

meeting 40 CFR 51.161(a) and (b)(1). 

The Commenter also addressed the 

PSC’s obligations to respond to public 

comments. In reviewing SIPs submitted 

for approval, EPA must follow the 

requirements in section 110 of the CAA 

and in 40 CFR 51.161 and 51.166. The 

Maryland SIP revision meets these 

requirements. As discussed above, EPA 

believes the Maryland SIP revision 

provides for public hearings for CPCNs 

and an opportunity for public comment 

as required by section 165(a)(2) of the 

CAA and 40 CFR 51.161. The PSC in its 

practice makes available to the public 

all information including the CPCN 

application as required by 40 CFR 

51.161(a) and (b) and 51.166(q) through 

complying with Md. Code Ann., Public 

Utilities Cos. sections 7–207 and 7–208 

and complying with its statutory 

mandate in the Maryland Public 

Information Law. In addition, the PSC 

provides further public access to 

documents relevant to CPCN obligations 

via its publically-available docket on the 

PSC’s Web site. While the Maryland 

Public Information Law and the PSC’s 

Web site are not included in the SIP 

revision, EPA believes that the PSC is 

obligated to act in accordance with 

these obligations and that the PSC’s 

practice in using the Web site 

strengthens public participation. 

If these public access provisions and 

policies were to be repealed or 

substantially changed, EPA would 

reevaluate the limited approval of the 

SIP revision. 

EPA reviews SIPs for their 

compliance with requirements in the 

CAA and in the implementing 

regulations. EPA agrees with the 

Commenter that responding to 

comments is essential to ensuring 

adequate public participation. However, 

EPA disagrees with the Commenter that 

the Maryland provisions for electric 

generating stations are not SIP 

approvable. EPA has previously stated 

that adequate public participation and 

comment requires air permitting 

agencies to address and respond to 

public comment. See In the Matter of 

Onyx Environmental Services, Petition 

V–2005–1 at 7 (February 1, 2006) (citing 

Home Box Office v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9, 35 

(DC Cir. 1977) (stating ‘‘the opportunity 

to comment is meaningless unless the 

agency responds to significant points 

raised by the public’’). See also In the 

Matter of Citgo Refining and Chemicals 

Co. L.P., Petition VI–2007–01 at 7 (May 

28, 2009) (stating permitting authorities 

have a responsibility to respond to 

significant comments); In the Matter of 

Kerr-McGee Gathering, LLC, Petition 

VIII–2007 at 4; In the Matter of 

Wheelabrator, Baltimore L.P., Permit 

24–510–01–886 at 7 (April 14, 2010). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
6968 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA believes an essential correlative in 

taking public comment on permits is 

responding to those comments such that 

an adequate record of the permit issuer’s 

rationale is created. Responding to 

public comments ensures meaningful 

public participation in permitting as 

intended by the Clean Air Act. 

In response to EPA’s concerns 

regarding the PSC’s responding to 

comments on CPCN applications, the 

General Counsel for the PSC did state in 

his January 25, 2011 letter to EPA 

referred to previously that interested 

persons would be able to raise to a PSC 

Hearing Examiner, during a prehearing 

scheduling conference which is part of 

the CPCN review process, any failure by 

the PSC to respond to public comments 

and the need for adequate time for the 

PSC to respond to comments in a 

scheduling order. See Robert Erwin’s 

January 25, 2011 letter to MDE. In 

addition, the PSC’s General Counsel 

stated that the failure to respond to 

comments could be brought to the PSC’s 

attention before a CPCN becomes final 

during the CPCN approval hearing 

process. Id. EPA believes the 

commitment to respond to comments 

from the PSC’s General Counsel as 

evidenced in the General Counsel’s 

January 25, 2011 letter satisfies EPA’s 

concerns that the PSC will respond to 

public comments on CPCN applications. 

EPA believes the Maryland SIP revision 

provides for full public participation as 

required by sections 110 and 165 of the 

CAA and its implementing regulations 

at 40 CFR 51.161 and 51.166 (with the 

exception of providing public access to 

documents in one location as discussed 

above). See id. 

Comment 4: Finally, the Commenter 

asserts that the proposed Maryland SIP 

revision does not contain a requirement 

that the permit reviewing authority (the 

PSC) shall notify all permit applicants 

within a specified time period as to the 

completeness of the permit application 

or any deficiency in the application as 

required in 40 CFR 51.166(q)(1). 

Response 4: EPA agrees with the 

Commenter that the Maryland SIP 

revision does not formally contain a 

requirement directly meeting 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(1). EPA is granting limited 

approval to the PSC permitting program 

in the Maryland SIP until Maryland 

submits a regulation meeting 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(1) (as well as 40 CFR 51.161(a) 

and (b)(1) as discussed previously). 

However, EPA has granted limited 

approval because EPA is satisfied that 

the PSC is meeting this requirement in 

practice. EPA believes the revised 

Maryland SIP as implemented by the 

PSC will appropriately address CPCN 

completeness determinations. 

According to 40 CFR 51.166(q)(1), a SIP 

shall provide that the ‘‘reviewing 

authority shall notify all applicants 

within a specified time period as to the 

completeness of the application or any 

deficiency in the application or 

information submitted.’’ EPA believes 

the General Counsel’s January 25, 2011 

letter addresses this issue. See Robert 

Erwin’s January 25, 2011 letter to MDE. 

The PSC’s General Counsel stated in the 

January 25, 2011 letter that parties 

should raise the issue of completeness 

determinations with the PSC Hearing 

Examiner at the Prehearing Scheduling 

Conference which is held during the 

CPCN application review process. The 

General Counsel stated that the PSC’s 

Hearing Examiner for each CPCN 

application would hear argument and 

make a determination as to 

completeness of applications and 

subsequently either order an incomplete 

CPCN application be supplemented or 

make a finding on the record that a 

CPCN application was complete. See id. 

We believe the PSC provides adequate 

opportunities during the CPCN 

application process for parties to raise 

the issue of incomplete CPCN 

applications. 

In addition, the statutory and 

regulatory provisions in the proposed 

Maryland SIP revision support EPA’s 

belief that the PSC will act on 

completeness determinations. Pursuant 

to section 7–205(d), the PSC must 

render a decision on a CPCN application 

within 150 days of the filing of the 

CPCN application. See Md. Code Ann., 

Public Util. Cos. section 7–205(d). In 

addition, section 7–207(d) provides the 

requirements for the PSC to hold public 

hearings on CPCN applications, and 

section 7–208(e) follows along with the 

requirements in section 7–207(d) by 

requiring the PSC to grant or deny CPCN 

applications within 90 days of the 

conclusion of the hearings on the CPCN 

applications. Finally, the PSC’s 

implementing regulations at COMAR 

20.79.02.03, require the PSC to impose 

a schedule of procedural dates to ensure 

timely completion of the CPCN 

application process. Reading these 

statutory and regulatory provisions 

together with the PSC General Counsel’s 

January 25, 2011 letter, EPA believes the 

Maryland SIP revision together with the 

PSC’s implementation as described 

above satisfies the intent of 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(1) sufficient for EPA to 

provide limited approval to the 

Maryland SIP revision until Maryland 

submits a regulation from the PSC for 

SIP approval formally addressing the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(q)(1). 

Furthermore, EPA believes the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(q)(1) are 

intended to protect the interests of 

permit applicants in receiving timely 

review of permit applications. EPA does 

not believe that the Commenter is 

adversely affected by the PSC’s failure 

to do a completeness determination on 

a particular CPCN. EPA has no reason 

to believe that the PSC is not conducting 

completeness determinations as 

discussed by the PSC’s General Counsel 

and has received no adverse comment 

on this issue from the regulated and 

impacted community of electric 

generating stations. 

Finally, EPA notes that the 

Commenter included additional 

statements in its Comments relating to 

CPCNs issued previously by the PSC 

and the federal enforceability of those 

CPCNs. To the extent that these 

comments do not relate to the Maryland 

SIP revision and are not relevant to 

EPA’s limited approval of the SIP 

revision, EPA is not responding to those 

Comments here. 

V. Final Action 

EPA is granting limited approval in 

accordance with section 110(k) of the 

CAA, 42 U.S.C. section 7410(k), of 

MDE’s May 13, 2011 SIP submission 

(#11–01), as amended on December 20, 

2011 with the removal of COMAR 

20.79.01.07, because the submission as 

amended strengthens Maryland’s SIP. 

When the PSC adopts amended 

regulations which meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.161(a) and 

(b)(1) and 51.166(q)(1), MDE may 

request full SIP approval of the 

permitting program for construction and 

modification of electric generating 

stations in Maryland. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 6969 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, 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. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by April 10, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. 

This action pertaining to 

preconstruction requirements for 

Electric Generating Stations in 

Maryland may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: January 31, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart V—Maryland 

■ 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the heading of the table. 

■ b. Revising the existing entries for 

COMAR 26.11.02.09 and 26.11.02.10. 

■ c. Adding entries for COMAR 

20.79.01, 20.79.02 and 20.79.03 in 

numerical order after the existing entry 

for COMAR 03.03.06.06. 

■ d. Adding new entries for ‘‘Public 

Utility Companies Article of the 

Annotated Code of Maryland’’ at the 

end of the table. 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c)* * * 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS, TECHNICAL MEMORANDA, AND STATUTES IN THE MARYLAND SIP 

Code of Maryland administrative regulations (COMAR) 

citation 

Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation/ citation at 40 CFR 52.1100 

*******

26.11.02 Permits, Approvals, and Registrations 

26.11.02.09 .......................... Sources Subject to Permits 

to Construct and Approvals.

11/16/09 2/10/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Revised 26.11.02.09A(1), (2); limited approval. 

26.11.02.10 .......................... Sources Exempt from Permits to Construct and Approvals.11/16/09 2/10/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Revised 26.11.02.10A; limited approval. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
6970 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS, TECHNICAL MEMORANDA, AND STATUTES IN THE MARYLAND SIP—Continued 

Code of Maryland administrative regulations (COMAR) 

citation 

Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation/ citation at 40 CFR 52.1100 

*******

20.79.01 Applications Concerning the Construction or Modification of Generating Stations and Overhead Transmission Lines— 

General 

20.79.01.01A, .01C, and 

.01D.

Scope .................................. 12/28/09 2/10/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added; limited approval. 

20.79.01.02A and .02B(1) 

through (13), (14)(a), (15), 

(16), and (18) through (20).

Definitions ............................ 12/28/09 2/10/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added; limited approval. 

20.79.01.06 .......................... Modifications to Facilities at 

a Power Plant.

12/28/09 2/10/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added; limited approval. 

20.79.02 Applications Concerning the Construction or Modification of Generating Stations and Overhead Transmission Lines— 

Administrative Provisions 

20.79.02.01 .......................... Form of Application ............. 2/10/97 2/10/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added; limited approval. 

20.79.02.02 .......................... Distribution of Application .... 2/10/97; 

11/8/04 

2/10/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added; limited approval. 

20.79.02.03 .......................... Proceedings on the Application.2/10/97; 

11/8/04 

2/10/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added; Limited approval. 

20.79.03 Applications Concerning the Construction or Modification of Generating Stations and Overhead Transmission Lines—Details

of Filing Requirements—Generating Stations 

20.79.03.01 .......................... Description of Generating 

Station.

2/10/97; 

11/8/04 

2/10/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added; limited approval. 

20.79.03.02A and .02B(1) 

and (2).

Environmental Information ... 2/10/97; 

11/8/04 

2/10/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added; limited approval. 

* * * * * * * 

Annotated Code of Maryland 

citation 

Title/subject State effective 

date 

EPA approval date Additional explanation/ 

citation at 40 CFR 52.1100 

Public Utility Companies Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland 

Section 7–205 ...................... Electric Companies—Modification of Power Plant.7/01/06 2/10/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added; limited approval. 

Section 7–207(a), (b)(1), (c), 

(d), and (e).

Generating Stations or 

Transmission Lines—General Certification Procedure.

7/01/07 2/10/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added; limited approval. 

Section 7–207.1(a) and (e) .. Generating Stations or 

Transmission Lines—Onsite Generated Electricity; 

Approval Process.

7/01/07 2/10/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added; limited approval. 

Section 7–208 (a)(1), (b) 

through (f), and (h)(2).

Generating Stations or 

Transmission Lines—Joint 

Construction of Station 

and Associated Lines.

7/01/01 2/10/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added; limited approval. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–2984 Filed 2–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 6971 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. CDC–2012–0003] 

RIN 0920–AA47 

Establishment of User Fees for 

Filovirus Testing of Nonhuman Primate 

Liver Samples 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Direct final rule and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: Through this Direct Final 

Rule, the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC), located within 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) is establishing a user fee 

for filovirus testing of all nonhuman 

primates that die during HHS/CDCrequired 31-day quarantine period for 

any reason other than trauma. We are 

amending regulations to establish a 

filovirus testing service at HHS/CDC 

because testing is no longer being 

offered by the only private, commercial 

laboratory that previously performed 

these tests. This testing service will be 

funded through user fees. The direct 

final rule does not impose any new 

burdens on the regulated community 

because the testing of non-human 

primates for filovirus is a long-standing 

requirement and the amount of the user 

fee is consistent with the amount 

previously charged commercially. HHS/ 

CDC is therefore publishing a direct 

final rule because it does not expect to 

receive any significant adverse comment 

and believes that the establishment of 

an HHS/CDC testing program and 

imposition of user fees are noncontroversial. However, in this Federal 

Register, HHS/CDC is simultaneously 

publishing a companion notice of 

proposed rulemaking that proposes 

identical filovirus testing and user fee 

requirements. If HHS/CDC does not 

receive any significant adverse comment 

on this direct final rule within the 

specified comment period, it will 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

confirming the effective date of this 

final rule within 30 days after the 

comment period on the direct final rule 

ends and withdraw the notice of 

proposed rulemaking. If HHS/CDC 

receives any timely significant adverse 

comment, it will withdraw the direct 

final rule in part or in whole by 

publication of a document in the 

Federal Register within 30 days after 

the comment period ends and proceed 

with notice and comment under the 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register. A significant adverse 

comment is one that explains: Why the 

direct final rule is inappropriate, 

including challenges to the rule’s 

underlying premise or approach; or why 

the direct final rule will be ineffective 

or unacceptable without a change. 

DATES: The direct final rule is effective 

on March 12, 2012 unless significant 

adverse comment is received by April 

10, 2012. If we receive no significant 

adverse comment within the specified 

comment period, we intend to publish 

a notice confirming the effective date of 

the final rule in the Federal Register 

within 30 days after the end of the 

comment period on this direct final 

rule. If we receive any timely significant 

adverse comment, we will withdraw 

this final rule in part or in whole by 

publication of a notice in the Federal 

Register within 30 days after the 

comment period ends. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ‘‘RIN 0920–AA47’’: by any 

of the following methods: 

• Internet: Access the Federal erulemaking portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Division of Global Migration 

and Quarantine, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton 

Road NE., MS–03, Atlanta, Georgia 

30333, ATTN: NHP DFR. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulation Identifier 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. All 

comments will be posted without 

change to http://regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the ‘‘Public Participation’’ heading 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, please go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Comments 

will be available for public inspection 

Monday through Friday, except for legal 

holidays, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., 

Eastern Time, at 1600 Clifton Road NE., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Please call 

ahead to 1–866–694–4867 and ask for a 

representative in the Division of Global 

Migration and Quarantine (DGMQ) to 

schedule your visit. To download an 

electronic version of the rule, access 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions concerning this direct final 

rule: Ashley A. Marrone, JD, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 

Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E–03, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30333; telephone 404– 

498–1600. For information concerning 

program operations: Dr. Robert Mullan, 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., 

Mailstop E–03, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; 

telephone 404–498–1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

This preamble is organized as follows: 

I. Public Participation 

II. Background 

III. Rationale for Direct Final Rule 

IV. User Fees 

V. Services and Activities Covered by User 

Fees 

VI. Analysis of User Fee Charge (Cost to 

Government) 

VII. Payment Instructions 

VIII. Regulatory Analysis 

IX. References 

I. Public Participation 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written views, opinions, 

recommendations, and data. Comments 

received, including attachments and 

other supporting materials, are part of 

the public record and subject to public 

disclosure. Do not include any 

information in your comment or 

supporting materials that you do not 

wish to be disclosed publicly. 

Comments are invited on any topic 

related to this direct final rule. 

II. Background 

Filoviruses belong to a family of 

viruses known to cause severe 

hemorrhagic fever in humans and 

nonhuman primates (NHPs). So far, only 

two members of this virus family have 

been identified: Ebola virus and 

Marburg virus. Five species of Ebola 

virus have been acknowledged: Zaire, 

Sudan, Reston, Ivory Coast, and 

Bundibugyo. Most strains of Ebola virus 

can be highly fatal in humans, and 

while the Reston strain is the only strain 

of filovirus that has not been reported to 

cause disease in humans, it can be fatal 

in monkeys. (http://www.cdc.gov/ 

ncidod/dvrd/spb/mnpages/dispages/ 

filoviruses.htm). 

Ebola hemorrhagic fever was first 

recognized in 1976, when two 

epidemics occurred in southern Sudan 

and in Zaire. Since that time, multiple 

outbreaks have occurred, mostly in 

Central Africa, and all have been 

associated with high (45–90%) casefatality rates in humans (for an updated 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES