[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14062-14066]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06153]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0123; FRL-9924-54-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri, Construction Permits Required

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State
of Missouri submitted on October 2, 2013. This proposed rulemaking will
amend the SIP to update the construction permits rule to incorporate by
reference recent EPA actions related to plantwide applicability
limitations (PALs) for greenhouse gases (GHGs) and to correct the
definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant.'' Other revisions include
modifying the notification period for initial equipment start-up and
clarifying de minimis permit air quality analysis requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2015-0123, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2015-0123. 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 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, 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 the
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30
excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Background
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

IV. What action is EPA taking?

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision submitted by the state
of Missouri for 10 CSR 10-6.060, ``Construction Permits Required''. On
October 3, 2013, EPA received a request to amend the SIP to incorporate
by reference all sections of title 40 part 52.21 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) except for subsections (a), (q) and (s) through July
1, 2012. Missouri is also requesting to amend the SIP to incorporate by
reference EPA's July 12, 2012, final rule finalizing PALs for GHGs (77
FR 41051) and EPA's October 25, 2012, final rule amending the
definition of ``Regulated NSR Pollutant'' concerning condensable
particulate matter (77 FR 65107). In Missouri's letter to EPA, Missouri
also requested to amend the SIP to incorporate EPA's May 18, 2011, rule
repealing the grandfathering provisions for particulate matter less
than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) under the PSD program, but
because the state has an already approved PSD program which
incorporates by reference the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 through July
1, 2011, Missouri's Federally approved program already incorporates
this action. Other revisions to Missouri's rule which we are proposing
to take action on include clarifying the requirements for conducting an
air quality analysis in section 5, De Minimis Permits and making minor
administrative clarifications as well as revising the notification
period for initial start-up in section 6, General Permits.

II. Background

    Missouri implements its PSD program by incorporating by reference
section 52.21 of the CFR in its rule 10 CSR 10-6.060, ``Construction
Permits Required''. In a previous action on June 21, 2013, EPA approved
the most recent amendment to Missouri's PSD program (78 FR 37457).
Missouri's currently approved PSD program incorporates by reference
(IBR) the Federal regulations as promulgated July 1, 2011, in the CFR,
and incorporates the July 20, 2011, rule ``Deferral for CO2 Emissions
from Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Title V Programs'' (``Biomass Deferral''
76 FR 43490). Missouri's currently approved PSD program contains a
number of important required elements, including those related to the
2008 ``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (2008
NSR PM2.5 Rule; 73 FR 28321). For PSD sources in Missouri,
PSD permits must address direct PM2.5 emissions as well as
precursor emissions (including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX)), establish significant emission
rates for PM2.5 and precursor emissions, and establish the
requirement to account for condensable particulate matter. On January
4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(D.C. Circuit), in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, issued a
decision that remanded the EPA's rules implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ The court's remand of the 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule is relevant to this final rulemaking. This rule
promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of PM2.5 in
both nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and attainment/
unclassifiable areas (PSD). The D.C. Circuit found that EPA erred in
implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general
implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title 1 of the CAA,
rather than pursuant to the additional implementation provisions
specific to particulate matter nonattainment areas in subpart 4. The
Court ordered EPA to ``repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4
consistent with this opinion.'' (Id. at 437). However, as the
requirements of subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, it is
EPA's position that the portions of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule
that address requirements for PM2.5 in attainment and
unclassifiable areas are not affected by the D.C. Circuit's opinion in
NRDC v. EPA. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any
PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule in
order to comply with the court's decision. Accordingly, EPA's approval
of Missouri's SIP as to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008
NSR PM2.5 Rule does not conflict with the D.C. Circuit's
opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 20, 2010, EPA promulgated additional PSD regulations
relating to PM2.5: ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs), and
Significant Monitoring Concentrations (SMC)'' (2010 PSD
PM2.5 Rule, 73 FR 64864). On January 22, 2013, the D.C.
Circuit, in Sierra Club v. EPA, issued a judgment that, inter alia,
vacated and remanded the SIL provisions at section 52.21(k)(2).
Additionally, the D.C. Circuit vacated the SMC provisions at section
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c).\2\ In response to the D.C. Circuit's decision, EPA
took final action on December 9, 2013, to remove the SIL provisions
from the Federal PSD regulations, and to revise the SMC for
PM2.5 to zero (78 FR 73698). On March 19, 2013, and October
21, 2013, Missouri submitted additional information to amend their
September 5, 2012, SIP submission to clarify that they no longer
intended to include the PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions (see
78 FR 37457, June 21, 2013, for more information). Specifically,
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) will not apply either
the PM2.5 SILs provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and
52.21(k)(2), or the PM2.5 SMC provisions at 40 CFR
51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) to pending or future PSD permit actions. It is the
state's intent that PM2.5 will remain on the list of
pollutants but that the associated concentration level would be blank
or zero. In other words, pre-construction monitoring will continue to
apply but without de minimis thresholds. Therefore, the provisions with
which the court took issue are not in effect in Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 705 F.3d 458, 469
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in Utility Air
Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, issued a decision
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions.\3\ The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not
treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a
source is a major source (or modification thereof) required to obtain a
PSD permit. The Court also said that EPA could continue to require that
PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other
than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the
application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In order to
act consistently with its understanding of the Court's decision pending
further judicial action before the D.C. Circuit to effectuate the
decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would
require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme
Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the
requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that
sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant, (i) that
the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source
thesholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase
and a significant net emissions increase from

a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 134 S.Ct. 2427.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA anticipates a need to revise Federal PSD rules in light of the
Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states
will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the
Supreme Court's decision. This can be accomplished as soon as EPA
revises the Federal PSD rules in states that allow future revisions to
the Federal PSD program to be automatically incorporated into the SIP.
The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to the
EPA regulations is expected to be informed by additional legal
processes before the D.C. Circuit. EPA is not expecting states to have
revised their existing PSD program regulations at this juncture, before
the D.C. Circuit has addressed these issues and before EPA has revised
its regulations at 40 CFR 51.166. However, EPA is evaluating PSD
program submissions to assure that the state's program correctly
addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
    Missouri's existing approved SIP contains the GHG permitting
requirements reflected in 40 CFR 52.21 after EPA issued the Tailoring
Rule. As a result, the PSD permitting program in Missouri previously
approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits
(otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs)
contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT
when sources emit or increase greenhouse gases in the amount of 75,000
tons per year (measured as carbon dioxide equivalent). Although the
approved Missouri PSD permitting program may also currently contain
provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court
decision, this does not prevent EPA from approving the submission
addressed in this rule. Missouri's 2013 SIP submission does not add any
GHG permitting requirements that are inconsistent with the Supreme
Court decision. While this submission incorporates all of section 52.21
for completeness, except for subsections (a), (q) and (s), the
submission mostly reincorporates PSD permitting requirements for GHG's
that are already in the Missouri SIP.
    This proposed revision does add to the Missouri SIP the elements of
EPA's July 12, 2012, rulemaking, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG
Plantwide Applicability Limits, ``Step 3 Tailoring Rule'' (77 FR
41051), which implements Step 3 of the phase in of PSD permitting
requirements for GHGs. This rule became effective on August 13, 2012.
Specifically, the incorporation of the Step 3 rule provisions will
allow GHG-emitting sources to obtain plantwide applicability limits
(PALs) for their GHG-emitting sources on a carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e) basis. The GHG PAL provisions, as currently written, include
some provisions that may no longer be appropriate in light of the
Supreme Court decision. Since the Supreme Court has determined that
sources and modifications may not be defined as ``major'' solely on the
basis of the level of GHGs emitted or increased, PALs for GHGs may no
longer have value in some situations where a source might have
triggered PSD based on GHG emissions alone. However, PALs for GHGs may
still have a role to play in determining whether a modification that
triggers PSD for a pollutant other than GHGs should also be subject to
BACT for GHGs. These provisions, like the other GHG provisions
discussed previously, will likely be revised pending further legal
action. However, these provisions do not add new requirements for
sources or modifications that only emit or increase GHGs above the
major source threshold or the 75,000 tpy GHG level in section
52.21(b)(49)(iv). Rather, the PALs provisions provide increased
flexibility to sources that wish to address their GHG emissions in a
PAL. Since this flexibility may still be valuable to sources in at
least one context described above, we believe that it is appropriate to
approve these provisions into the Missouri SIP at this juncture.
    EPA is proposing to revise Missouri's SIP to incorporate by
reference EPA's October 25, 2012 rule, ``Implementation of the New
Source Review Program for Condensable Particulate Matter''. This
revision is appropriate and necessary to ensure that the inadvertent
error which was contained in EPA's 2008 rule, which was previously SIP
approved in the Missouri rule (78 FR 37457) is corrected. EPA's 2008
rule, ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5).'' See
73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008), inadvertently included a requirement to
consider condensable PM when measuring one of the emissions-related
indicators for PM known as ``particulate matter emissions'' in the
context of the PSD and NSR regulations. EPA's 2012 rule corrects the
error in the 2008 rule and therefore it is appropriate and necessary to
incorporate by reference the 2012 rule and related corrections to the
definition of ``particulate matter emissions.''

III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    As stated above, Missouri's incorporation by reference of all
sections of title 40 section 52.21 of the CFR except for subsections
(a), (q) and (s) and EPA's July 12, 2012, final rule on PALs for GHGs
(77 FR 41051) and EPA's October 25, 2012, final rule amending the
definition of ``Regulated NSR Pollutant'' concerning condensable
particulate matter (77 FR 65107) are appropriate even in light of
recent court actions and ensure that the state PSD program is in
agreement with Federal requirements. Missouri also requested to amend
the SIP to incorporate EPA's May 18, 2011, rule repealing the
grandfathering provisions for PM2.5 under the PSD program,
but because the state has an already approved PSD program which
incorporates by reference the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 through July
1, 2011, Missouri's Federally approved program already incorporates
this action.
    Additional revisions include, in paragraph (5)(D)(1) of the rule,
Missouri is adding subparagraphs A. and B. which provide clear and
specific requirements for when an air quality analysis is required for
De Minimis permits. In (5)(D)(2) of the rule, Missouri is adding
subparagraphs A., B., and C. which provide clear and specific
requirements for when the director may require an air quality analysis.
These revisions strengthen Missouri's PSD program.
    MDNR is making minor administrative edits to subsections (6)(A) and
(6)(A)(2). In (6)(E)(1)(A) Missouri is modifying the notification
period for initial equipment start-up. This revision shortens the
timeframe for which notification is provided to the state prior to
initial start-up.
    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfies the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, as explained above, the revision meets the substantive SIP
requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing
regulations. MDNR received five (5) comments from one source: The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Missouri responded to each of the
comments and made revisions to the rule as appropriate. Overall, these
actions strengthen the Missouri SIP, by ensuring the state PSD program
incorporates recent Federal PSD updates. These revisions do not

negatively impact air quality, nor relax the SIP.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the SIP. These
revisions update the construction permits rule to incorporate by
reference recent EPA actions related to PALs for GHGs, and amend the
definition of ``Regulated NSR Pollutant.'' Other revisions include
modifying the notification period for initial equipment start-up and
clarifying de minimis permit air quality analysis requirements.
    We are processing this rule as a proposed action because we are
soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will
occur after consideration of any comments.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Missouri 10 CSR 10-6.060 ``Construction Permits Required''
described in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).
    Under the CAA, 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 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'' under the terms
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 18, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not
affect the finality of this rulemaking 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 effectivess of such
future rule or action. This proposed action may not be challenged later
in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 9, 2015.
 Mark Hague,
 Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for 10-6.060 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of Plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     State
      Missouri citation              Title         effective   EPA Approval date            Explanation
                                                      date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods and Air Pollution Control
                                  Regulations for the Entire State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CSR 10-6.060..............  Construction          10/30/13  3/18/15 [Insert    Provisions of the 2010 PM2.5
                                Permits Required.               Federal Register   PSD--Increments, SILs and
                                                                citation].         SMCs rule (75 FR 64865,
                                                                                October 20, 2010) relating to
                                                                                SILs and SMCs that were
                                                                                affected by the January 22,
                                                                                2013 U.S. Court of Appeals
                                                                                decision are not SIP
                                                                                approved.
                                                                                Provisions of the 2002 NSR
                                                                                reform rule relating to the
                                                                                Clean Unit Exemption and
                                                                                Pollution Control Projects
                                                                                are not SIP approved.
                                                                                In addition, we have not
                                                                                approve Missouri's rule
                                                                                incorporating EPA's 2007
                                                                                revision fo the definition of
                                                                                ``chemical processing
                                                                                plants'' (the ``Ethanol
                                                                                Rule,'' 72 FR 24060 (May 1,
                                                                                2007).
                                                                                Although exemptions previously
                                                                                listed in 10 CSR 10-6.060
                                                                                have been transferred to 10
                                                                                CSR 10-6.061, the Federally-
                                                                                approved SIP continues to
                                                                                include the following
                                                                                exemption, ``Livestock and
                                                                                livestock handling systems
                                                                                from which the only potential
                                                                                contaminant is odorous gas.''
                                                                                Section 9, pertaining to
                                                                                hazardous air pollutants, is
                                                                                not SIP approved.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2015-06153 Filed 3-17-15; 08:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 20988-20989]
[DOCID:fr22ap10-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1862-172]

City of Tacoma, WA; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

April 15, 2010.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Amendment of License.
    b. Project No.: 1862-172.
    c. Date Filed: March 5, 2010, and supplemented on March 30, 2010.
    d. Applicant: City of Tacoma, Washington.
    e. Name of Project: Nisqually Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Nisqually River in
Pierce, Thurston, and Lewis Counties, Washington, partly on lands of
the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Patrick D. McCarty, Generation Manager,
Tacoma Power, 3628 South 35th Street, Tacoma, Washington 98409,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Marc Wicke, Tacoma Power, 3628 South 35th
Street, Tacoma, Washington 98409, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Linda Stewart, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: May 17, 2010.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov)
under the ``e-filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    All documents (original and eight copies) filed by paper should be
sent to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number
(P-1862-172) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: The City of Tacoma, Washington proposes
to modify Articles 405 (downramping rates) and 409 (timing of planned
spill events) to allow for monthly spillway gate testing at the
LaGrande Dam from November 1 to February 15. The spillway gate testing
is a recommendation of the June 2008 Independent Consultant's Part 12D
Safety Inspection Report for the project.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9261 Filed 4-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P