taking effect in early 2015. Notwithstanding these differences, which
stem from the different CAA requirements being addressed, we believe
that with the finalization of this rule, Portland has the information
it needs to make an informed decision on how to comply with both rules.
    At this time, the MATS rule is not final. The EPA has proposed the
MATS rule and is under a consent decree deadline to complete that rule
by December 16, 2011. The proposed MATS rule contained proposed
requirements for hazardous air pollutants, including existing sources
of acid gases (e.g., hydrogen chloride). The MATS rule does not
directly regulate SO2 but in the proposal the EPA provided
its assessment that the acid gas requirements of the proposed MATS
would have substantial SO2 co-benefits. While the date of
this section 126 rule does not exactly coincide with the date for the
final MATS, these two rules are expected to take effect within a short
time of each other. Accordingly, the EPA believes that GenOn will have
the information it needs to make an informed decision on how to meet
both this final rule and the MATS.
    Even if the schedules did not coincide so closely, the EPA does not
believe it would be appropriate to defer action on NJDEP's section 126
petition to achieve such harmonization. The EPA is required by the CAA
to take action on NJDEP's petition within 60 days (plus a 6 month
administrative extension granted in this case), and this time period
has already passed. We could not delay lawfully this rulemaking by any
significant time period to coincide with the date for the final MATS
rule. The EPA also notes that full harmonization is limited by
statutory constraints. While there is some flexibility within section
112 of the CAA to provide for a 4-year compliance period under certain
circumstances, this flexibility is not afforded under section 126.
Under section 126, the EPA cannot alter the statutory requirement that
the source eliminate its significant contribution to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance within 3 years of the section 126(b)
finding. Notwithstanding these constraints, as previously noted, our
expectation is that requirements for MATS, like those of the Transport
Rule, will be known in time to allow for consideration of integrated
strategies for compliance with MATS, the Transport Rule, and the
present section 126 action.
The Final Rule
    Based on the above considerations, we are retaining the 3-year
compliance date for the final limit. Adopting a substantially shorter
time frame than 3 years could not only restrict the options for
Portland to achieve the necessary reductions, but could render each of
them impracticable within that time frame. Because shorter time frames
have the effect of narrowing the available options, we are retaining
the 3-year compliance date for the final limit.

F. Other Considerations for Establishing the Final Remedy

1. Economic Feasibility
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the importance of the
Portland facility to the local economy should be taken into account,
and that we should not take an action that causes operations at
Portland units 1 and 2 to be no longer economically viable. These
commenters contend that there are limits to the costs the facility can
withstand and remain in operation, and that the facility should be
allowed to meet interim and final limits in the most cost-effective and
efficient manner possible. Commenters expressed concerns regarding the
practicality of expending high costs on scrubber installation
considering the size and age of the units at Portland, and questioned
the feasibility of replacing

Portland units 1 and 2 with comparable combined-cycle natural gas-fired
units.
    Response: The EPA stresses that in carrying out the statutory
obligation to address the SO2 exceedances caused by the
Portland facility, we are doing so in a way that meets those
obligations but is not overly prescriptive. We allow the facility
owners to choose the most cost-effective solution. While there are many
factors, some completely unrelated to this rule, which may impact the
long-term operation of the facility, the EPA is striving to provide
opportunities for flexible solutions to address section 126 of the CAA.
In particular, the rule does not mandate, nor do we expect, the
Portland owners and operators to install high capital-cost options
suggested by commenters, such as wet scrubbing or replacement with
combined-cycle natural gas units (although the rule also does not rule
them out as options). The source would more likely choose the control
technology best suited to achieving the required emission limits,
including the most cost-effective technology for the facility. It is
also useful to note that in the EPA's IPM modeling of the effects of
the Transport Rule over a wide region, the model predicted that less
than 0.5 percent of capacity would be lost as a result of the rule.
While these models are less reliable in assessing plant-specific
conditions, the EPA believes that the general indication of minimal
capacity loss, together with the availability of less capital-intensive
control options, suggest that Portland can achieve the needed
reductions without substantially affecting the economic viability of
the plant.
2. Requirement for Continuous Monitoring
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA should add a
requirement in the final rule to require Portland to operate CEMS for
SO2 emissions at the plant.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the importance of CEMS to ensure
compliance with emissions limits. However, GenOn is already required to
operate CEMS to monitor SO2 emissions at Portland in
accordance with requirements in 40 CFR part 75. Our regulations for
monitoring SO2 emissions from power plants with CEMS require
the owner or operator to ensure that all CEMS are in operation and
monitoring unit emissions at all times the affected unit combusts any
fuel. Regulations in part 75 provide limited exceptions during periods
of calibration, quality assurance, or preventative maintenance, but do
not provide any exemptions for startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the
combustion unit. The EPA concludes that the CEMS already required for
Portland under part 75 provide sufficient monitoring for compliance
determinations for SO2 emissions at Portland, and for the
final rule we refer to part 75 as the primary method for determining
compliance.
3. Delegation of Enforcement
    Comment: One commenter suggested enforcement of any emissions
limits or other restrictions on Portland related to this section 126
action should be delegated to the NJDEP as New Jersey is the downwind
receptor of emissions from Portland.
    Response: Ensuring that the Portland facility complies with the
requirements of the CAA including the provisions of this final rule is
the responsibility of the EPA. It will ultimately become the joint
responsibility of the EPA and of the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), because PADEP has primary
responsibility for implementing and enforcing the Pennsylvania SIP. The
EPA notes that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires Pennsylvania's SIP
to ``ensure compliance with the applicable requirements of section 7426
* * * of this title'' (i.e., section 126 of the CAA). Because these
requirements must become part of the SIP for Pennsylvania, they will be
subject to enforcement in the same manner as any other requirement of a
SIP. This includes the ability of third parties to raise challenges
under the citizen suit provisions of section 304 of the CAA. Thus, New
Jersey and its citizens will have ample opportunity for enforcement
under these provisions of the statute.

VI. Increments of Progress

    This section discusses issues concerning whether and how EPA should
establish appropriate increments of progress toward the final remedy.
The statute does not define ``increments of progress.'' The EPA has
discretion to define appropriate increments of progress on a case-by-
case basis. The increments of progress required in a particular case
may vary depending on the facts of the petition but should provide
incremental progress towards eventual compliance with the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section VI.A discusses interim emission
limits, and section VI.B discusses reporting milestones during the 3-
year period for the final remedy.

A. Interim Emission Limits

    As noted previously, section 126 allows the EPA to allow continued
operation of a source beyond a 3-month time period if the source
complies with ``emissions limitations and compliance schedules
(including increments of progress). In this section we discuss issues
related to whether the increments of progress should include interim
emissions limits and the final rule requirements for progress
milestones and reports.
1. What the EPA Proposed
    The EPA proposed interim emission limits for Portland units 1 and
2. Specifically, the EPA proposed to require Portland to meet an
SO2 emissions limit of 2,910 lb/hr for unit 1 and 4,450 lb/
hr for unit 2 within 1 year. These unit-specific emission limits
represented 50 percent of the allowable emissions rate for each unit
that was used for the EPA air quality modeling. The EPA proposed these
interim reduction requirements because section 126 calls for
``increments of progress,'' and because we believed that there were
readily achievable interim steps that could be accomplished in this
instance. In the proposal, the EPA discussed its evaluation of
available SO2 emission reduction options for meeting the
interim emissions limits such as reagent injection, switching to lower
sulfur coal and load shifting. The EPA requested comment on the
proposed interim reduction requirements for units 1 and 2, on the
achievability of the limits in the 1-year time period proposed, and on
the impact of the reductions on the reliability of the grid.
2. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses
a. Appropriateness of Including Interim Emissions Limits
    Comment: One commenter, GenOn, asserted that the EPA should not
establish interim limits because those interim requirements may be
inconsistent with the requirements of the Transport Rule or MATS
requirements. Moreover, the same commenter believed that because the
EPA has discretion not to impose interim emissions limits under section
126(c), and because of this need for long-term harmonization with the
Transport Rule, MATS and other requirements, the EPA is not justified
in imposing the interim emissions limitations.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with comments that the EPA should
exercise discretion provided by section 126 and remove the interim
emissions limits from the final rule. As noted later in this section in
our discussion of other GenOn comments, we believe that there

are readily available measures for Portland to make significant
progress in the short term that in no way impede or conflict with
achievement of the 3-year limits. Additionally, based on our assessment
of the steps necessary to achieve these limits, implementation of these
interim measures would complement, rather than conflict with, the
measures needed for meeting this rule as well as the Transport Rule and
MATS.
b. Technical Feasibility of Coal Switching
    Comment: In its comments, GenOn recommended that, should the EPA
retain the interim emissions limitations, the EPA should defer them
until GenOn can undertake necessary coal test burns to determine what
limits are reliably achievable. GenOn comments further stated that it
may be able to meet interim emissions limits if a reasonable time table
and level is set based upon coal test burn results, but that a full
evaluation of the practicality of interim limits was not possible by
the June 13, 2011, deadline for public comments. GenOn indicated its
intent to conduct initial coal testing by September 15, 2011. Finally,
to provide GenOn with greater flexibility, GenOn requested that the EPA
revise the form of any interim limits for Portland units 1 and 2; that
is, the EPA should establish the limits as combined emissions limits
for the total emissions from units 1 and 2 rather than establishing
limits that would apply to each unit.
    Subsequent to the close of the comment period, GenOn submitted a
report of the September 15, 2011, test burn referred to in its
comments. For the final rule, the EPA took this test burn report into
consideration. In the test burn, Portland blended its existing Northern
Appalachia coal supply with varying amounts of low sulfur Central
Appalachia coal from West Virginia. For each unit, the test burn
assessed the impacts of varying blending cases on the unit's generator
output, the reduction in SO2 emissions, and the effect on
the performance of the electrostatic precipitators. The test burn
report also noted facility changes in coal handling, feeder, and hopper
systems that would be needed to allow for routine use and blending with
lower sulfur coal in the future.
    In its comments, and in the later test burn report, GenOn commented
that, based on initial evaluations of the coals economically available
to be used to meet the proposed interim emission limits, the use of
lower sulfur coal is projected to cause significant production derates
at Portland units 1 and 2. That is, GenOn asserted that the total
megawatts (MW) of electricity output from the plant would decrease if
GenOn were to use a lower sulfur coal blend sufficient to meet the
interim limits.
    Response: The EPA considered the test burn report along with other
information relevant to the establishment of an interim limit. We
continue to strongly believe that significant reductions in
SO2 emissions can be achieved within 1 year. We do not
disagree that, aside from a reduction in electrical output, the use of
lower sulfur coal may indeed be the only viable option to meet interim
limits at Portland. The EPA, however, remains convinced that lower
sulfur Appalachian coals are readily available for use at Portland.
This opinion is supported by recent Central Appalachian thermal coal
quality and production data from Wood Mackenzie, published in April
2011. According to Wood Mackenzie data, Central Appalachian production
of thermal coal in 2010:
     Had a mean SO2 content of about 1.5 lb/mmBtu,
which could allow a significant SO2 emission reduction from
current coal usage, with ample margin to accommodate typical coal
quality variations;
     Had a mean higher heating value of nearly 12,600 Btu/lb,
which is likely well within 10 percent of the heating value currently
used at Portland; and
     Amounted to about 130 million tons, including amounts that
are about 50 times any possible maximum annual demand for low sulfur
coal from Portland.
    The EPA is aware that changes in the characteristics of the coal
(moisture content, ash content, grindability, etc.) used at Portland
could change the performance of the Portland units. Although GenOn
indicates that equipment modifications would be necessary to maintain
the use of 100 percent CAAP coal for a sustained period of time, the
EPA notes that during the test burn with 100 percent CAAP coal, the
generator output for unit 1 is relatively close to rated capacity (162
versus 171 MW, approximately 5 percent). Also the EPA notes that it is
not unusual for installation of air pollution controls to result in a
modest de-rate, and the EPA does not believe that maintenance of 100
percent of current output should be seen as a constraint on the
appropriateness of the interim limits. In addition, the test burn
report, which evaluated one particular coal supply, is silent on the
availability of a potentially more costly Central Appalachia coal that
would allow each Portland unit to maintain closer to full load, and
what boiler upgrades are necessary to improve generator output. The EPA
is also aware of proven measures that the EPA believes can be applied
relatively quickly to enhance PM control at Portland if needed due to
coal switching, so as to meet a new, lower interim SO2
emission limit while continuing to meet all other existing emissions
limits. Two such measures include various upgrades to Portland's
electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and/or use of flue gas conditioning,
both of which have been routinely used by coal plant operators to
improve or maintain ESP performance when switching to a lower sulfur
coal that might impact performance.
    The EPA has reviewed the information from GenOn on the possible
equipment changes, and has also reviewed our previous determinations of
the time needed to accomplish those changes. The EPA's engineering
judgment is that these changes can be accomplished within 1 year.
c. Interim Limits Suggested by the GenOn Test Burn Report
    Comment: Based on the results of the test burn report, GenOn
concluded that (1) Sustained unit operations using a blend of Northern
and Central Appalachia coals sufficient to achieve a 25 percent
reduction in allowable SO2 emissions is achievable with a
modest investment and an implementation schedule of 6 months, and (2)
sustained unit operations using a blend of Northern and Central
Appalachia coals to achieve a 35 percent reduction in allowable
SO2 emissions should be achievable with additional
investments and an implementation schedule of 8 to 12 months after
GenOn has established an operational record and completed equipment
performance evaluations at the 25 percent reduction blend level, and
any necessary permits are acquired.
    Response: The EPA evaluated the suggested interim reductions in the
GenOn test burn report. The EPA concluded that based upon this
evaluation, these targets are significant underestimates of the readily
available interim emissions reductions, represent very minimal
reductions from current operations, and are inconsistent with the
results of the test burn.
    Figure VI.C-1 shows the hourly SO2 emissions for all of
2010 at Portland, shown as the sum of emissions from units 1 and 2. For
the EPA (and GenOn's) air quality analysis, the assumed allowable
emissions rates for units 1 and 2 were 5,820 lb/hr and 8,900 lb/hr,
respectively, resulting in a total allowable rate of 14,720 lb/hour. A
25

percent reduction from this amount, that is a 25 percent reduction from
current allowable, thus becomes 11,040 lb/hr. As shown in Figure VI.C-
1, during 2010, Portland's hourly emissions exceeded 75 percent of
allowable emissions only rarely. Accordingly, a 25 percent reduction in
allowable emissions effectively represents status quo operations. A 35
percent reduction in allowable emissions, or 9,568 lb/hr, would require
at most a roughly 15 percent reduction in current emissions. EPA
continues to believe that the facility can make much more significant
reductions in line with the final interim limits within a year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07NO11.021

d. Load Shifting
    Comment: GenOn commented on the EPA's assessment that the proposed
interim limits could be met via ``load shifting.'' GenOn disagreed with
the EPA's assessment that load shifting is a viable option to meet an
interim limit. In its comments, GenOn interpreted the term ``load
shifting'' as referring to the ability of a utility to continue to
serve its customer load obligations by reducing utilization or ``load''
from a selected generator and increasing the output at other facilities
owned by the same utility: The load is ``shifted'' to other generators
that the company operates. Because GenOn's Portland plant is a merchant
plant that operates in a competitive, centrally cleared and dispatched,
Independent System Operator (ISO) market, GenOn noted that replacement
energy likely would come from one of GenOn's competitors, and it is
possible that Portland's production would be ``shifted'' to a less
efficient unit that might have higher emissions than Portland units 1
and 2. Additionally, as a ``capacity resource owner,'' GenOn is
required under the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection
(PJM) tariff to bid the Portland units into the PJM energy market every
day and make the units available to generate unless specific
circumstances, such as a unit outage, arise that precludes operation of
the plant.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the proposed rule could have used a
clearer term than ``load shifting'' in describing the possible ways the
interim emissions limits could be met. The EPA appreciates the
distinction that GenOn makes in regard to load shifting within a
utility's own assets versus load shifting in a competitive market. The
EPA did not mean to imply in its brief mention of load shifting that we
reached a conclusion that GenOn would merely shift any load reduction
at Portland to another GenOn facility. Rather, our use of the imprecise
term ``load shifting'' was referring to the ability of Portland to
reduce its operation as a way to meet the interim lb/hr limits, or as a
partial solution to meet the limits in combination with other
approaches. The EPA recognizes the open market aspects of the PJM
energy market including the probability that the load can shift to
other operators. These market realities are characterized in detail in
the models we use to forecast the effect of EGU regulations on the
utility industry. In response to Portland's observation that

the facility that replaces Portland's output could be higher-emitting,
the EPA observes that while its output would likely be more expensive
than Portland's energy, there is a good possibility that the energy
would be replaced with a scrubber or a gas-fired unit, either of which
could have much lower emission rates than Portland, given the
relatively high emission rate from Portland. As an older relatively
uncontrolled plant, much of the generation capacity would be expected
to emit less per unit of generation than the Portland facility.
e. One-Year Time Period
    Comment: One commenter, NJDEP, believed that the 1-year period
allowed for too much time for the Portland facility to meet interim
emissions limits, and that the interim limits were insufficiently
stringent. NJDEP in their comments urged the EPA to ensure that we
require interim reductions no less than 80 percent within 90 days.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with this comment. An 80 percent
reduction would represent nearly the 81 percent reduction required by
the 3-year limits in the final rule. As discussed in section VI.A
above, we believe that the 3-year period is an ``expeditious'' schedule
for emissions reductions of this magnitude, and that this level of
reduction would not be achievable in a 90-day time period.
    Comment: Another commenter, PADEP, noted that if the proposed 50
percent reduction in the maximum allowable SO2 emissions can
only be achieved by the installation of sorbent injection technology,
the 1-year deadline for complying with the interim limit does not
provide sufficient time for permitting, purchasing, and installing the
technology. Therefore, in lieu of setting specific interim emission
limits and deadlines, PADEP recommended that the EPA work with NJDEP,
GenOn, and PADEP, as the permitting agency, to establish emission
interim emission limits and compliance schedules containing increments
of progress consistent with CAA section 126(c).
    Response: The EPA believes that this approach would not be
consistent with the statute. Under section 126, the Administrator is to
set the emission limits and compliance schedules, and must accomplish
these through a notice and comment rulemaking. While we have considered
the comments of all the parties noted by the commenter, it would not be
appropriate for the EPA to defer the compliance schedules to a future
negotiation with the source owner and states.
    On the other hand, as discussed previously in section V.E, the EPA
does agree with the commenter, and with others who made similar
observations, that reagent injection may not be achievable within 1
year because Portland may need to upgrade its particulate matter
collection equipment. Accordingly, we no longer believe that reagent
injection alone serves as a technical basis for the interim emissions
reduction requirements in the final rule. Nevertheless, after analyzing
the comments regarding the feasibility of switching to cleaner coal and
the necessary time frame for doing so, we do believe that this is an
appropriate basis for the interim limit. Thus, the EPA has determined
that it is feasible for Portland to achieve interim reductions within 1
year that would achieve significant progress toward the final remedy
limits, would not interfere with Portland's progress toward meeting
those final limits, and would result in important public health
benefits in the interim.
f. Effect of Interim Limits on Reliability
    Comment: In response to the EPA's request for comments on the
effects of the interim limits on electric reliability, one commenter
noted that Portland is uniquely situated to supply power to the PJM
power interconnection from a location close to the source of demand,
that power transmissions coming from the Midwest are hampered by long
distance transmission losses, and that transmission lines are already
approaching overload. Another commenter, NJDEP, indicated that the 400
MW generated by the plant is relatively small compared to PJM's current
total capacity of 163,500 MW. NJDEP also concluded that it is unlikely
that these units would be needed to prevent brownouts or blackouts, but
that in the unlikely event that these units are necessary, the EPA
could include a condition that the units may only be run when called on
by PJM to provide power during a Maximum Emergency Generation Event.
    Response: The EPA agrees that given large reserve margins, we do
not expect that the interim limit will cause adverse effects on
electricity reliability. The EPA notes that the test burn reports cited
above show that at worst, in meeting the interim limits the facility
would be projected to continue operating under a small derate, and
given the significant reserve margin noted by the commenters, continued
operation of Portland at an occasionally lower rate would not be
expected to have an adverse effect on the PJM system's ability to
deliver needed power. Consequently, the EPA does not believe it is
necessary to make any provision for use of Portland to address
potential emergency events.
g. Clear Rationale for Limits
    Comment: One commenter, PADEP, noted its view that while section
126 expressly provides for increments of progress, there is no
provision in the CAA to suggest that a 50-percent reduction must be
made within 1 year of a finding. Without the EPA fully explaining the
rationale for these proposed interim emission reductions and timelines,
this commenter believed the EPA's interim requirements could be viewed
as arbitrary and capricious.
    Response: EPA has discretion under section 126 to establish
reasonable interim emissions controls. For reasons discussed above, the
EPA has a clear rationale for the interim emissions limits in the final
rule. These limits are based upon the ready availability of coal with a
sulfur content of 1.5 lb/mmBtu. We have reviewed the data on existing
coal supplies, carefully reviewed information on available
technologies, and established the interim limits based upon that
review.
h. Combined Emission Limits
    Comment: GenOn requested in its comments that any interim emissions
limits for Portland units 1 and 2 should be expressed as a combined
limit for the two units, rather than on a unit-by-unit basis.
    Response: The EPA agrees with GenOn that for the interim limits, a
substantial ``increment of progress'' towards meeting the ultimate (in
this case, 3-year) limit is achievable regardless of whether the
emissions limit is expressed as a combined limit or on a unit-by-unit
basis. Accordingly, for the final rule, we are adopting an interim
limit that will be a single combined limit, rather than separate
limits, for units 1 and 2. As with the 3-year limit, the EPA will
evaluate compliance based on available test data including part 75 CEMS
data. The EPA believes that the combined limit will provide GenOn with
greater flexibility to implement a variety of combinations of options
to satisfy the interim limit, which should in turn serve to reinforce
the EPA's view that there are readily available measures for Portland
to employ in meeting the interim emissions reduction requirement.
    The EPA notes that for the interim emissions reduction, unlike the
3-year limit, there is no explicit air quality goal defined by the Act.
For the 3-year limit, it is essential that the limit ensure that
Portland fully eliminates its significant

contribution to nonattainment and its interference with maintenance of
the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. For the interim reductions, however,
the goal is to establish ``increments of progress'' towards meeting
emissions limits that fully comply with section 126. Accordingly, for
the 3-year limit, the EPA concluded it was essential for the final rule
to include lb/mmBtu limits to ensure that the NAAQS were protected at
all loads. However the EPA determined that it was not necessary to
include similar lb/mmBtu limits for the interim limits. We also
determined that establishing lb/mmBtu limits in the interim might
unnecessarily restrict Portland's flexibility in the interim, since the
1-year compliance deadline already constrains the available options to
meet such a limit.
3. Final Rule Interim Emission Limits
    For the final rule, the EPA includes a combined interim limit of
6,253 lb/hour for the total SO2 emissions from units 1 and
2.
    The basis for the final limit differs from the proposed rule. For
the proposal, the EPA calculated the unit-by-unit proposed limits as 50
percent of the allowable emissions rate used for the EPA air quality
modeling. We believe that for the final rule it is preferable to base
these interim limits on coal characteristics of readily available coal
supplies. For the final rule, the combined interim limit is based on
the EPA's assessment that coal with sulfur content of 1.5 lb/mmBtu is
readily available and its use at Portland is achievable within 1 year.
Using this 1.5 lb/mmBtu value as the basis for the calculation of the
combined interim limit, we calculated \22\ the limit as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Heat input capacities of 1657.2 and 2511.6 mmBtu/hr are
those listed in the title V permit for Portland units 1 and 2.

For Unit 1: 1657.2 mmBtu/hr x 1.5 lb/mmBtu = 2486 lb/hr
For Unit 2: 2511.6 mmBtu/hr x 1.5 lb/mmBtu = 3767 lb/hr
    Total combined emission rate = 6253 lb/hr

    We agree with the commenters who feel strongly that this interim
limit is very important to include in the final rule, not only because
it drives progress toward the final remedy, but also because of the air
quality and public health benefits that will be realized in the
interim. While the limit is not calculated based on specific air
quality criteria, these readily available interim reductions will serve
to markedly reduce the number of days with SO2 violations in
New Jersey, and will serve to greatly reduce SO2
concentrations on days with remaining violations. We do not know what
specific approach Portland will use to comply with the interim limit,
so we cannot quantify the decrease in SO2 concentrations at
specific locations, but we do note that the interim limits will result
in significant SO2 emissions reductions within the first
year and make important progress toward the elimination of
SO2 violations within 3 years. These limits represent a 46-
percent decrease from peak 2010 actual emissions. Moreover, the most
significant reductions will occur during the hours when the emissions
are the highest. During 2010, more than 40 percent of the hours that
Portland operated resulted in emissions that exceeded 6253 lb/hr. The
interim limit will ensure that such high emissions during those times
are eliminated.

B. Increments of Progress: Reporting Milestones

1. What the EPA Proposed
    In addition to the proposed 3-year and 1-year emissions limits, the
EPA proposed a schedule of milestones that must be achieved to provide
assurance that the source is on track to achieve full compliance as
expeditiously as practicable and no later than the 3-year deadline.
    Those proposed milestones were:
    3-month notification: Within 3 months of the EPA's finding, the EPA
proposed that GenOn notify the EPA whether it will cease to operate
within that period or whether it will continue to operate subject to
the emission limitations and compliance schedules in the final
rulemaking. If Portland plans to continue to operate subject to these
limits, the EPA proposed to require Portland to indicate how it intends
to achieve full compliance with the emission limits. Specifically, we
proposed that Portland must indicate whether it intends to cease or
reduce operation at any emission unit subject to emission limits as its
method of compliance with such limits. If this 3-month notice indicated
that Portland intends to continue operation, the proposed rule required
the remaining reporting requirements also be satisfied.
    Modeling protocol and analysis: No later than 3 months from the
date of the section 126 finding, we proposed that GenOn submit to the
EPA a modeling protocol (including all units at Portland in the
protocol), consistent with our Guideline on Air Quality Models. If the
EPA identified deficiencies in the modeling protocol submitted by the
source, we proposed to require Portland to submit a revision to correct
any deficiencies within 15 business days. We proposed to require that
Portland submit a modeling analysis in accordance with the approved
protocol within 6 months.
    Status reports: We proposed to require GenOn to submit, beginning 6
months after the section 126 finding and continuing every 6 months
until the final compliance date, a progress report on the
implementation of the remedy, including status of design, technology
selection, development of technical specifications, awarding of
contracts, construction, shakedown, and compliance demonstration.
    Interim project report: We proposed to require GenOn to submit
within 1 year an interim project report demonstrating compliance with
the 1-year limits.
    Final project report: We proposed to require GenOn to submit,
within 3 years, a final project report which demonstrates compliance
with the emission limits in the final rulemaking. We proposed that this
final report include the date when full operation of controls was
achieved at Portland after shakedown; as well as a minimum of 1 month
of CEMS data demonstrating compliance with the emission limits in the
final rulemaking.
2. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses
    One commenter, GenOn, objected to both the 90-day compliance plan
and the periodic status reports. The commenter believed that requiring
a detailed plan 90 days after the final rule is unnecessarily
restrictive, particularly given that GenOn will not have fully
evaluated its compliance options under MATS. Similarly, GenOn believed
that detailed status reports are not justified and will limit GenOn's
flexibility to revise its compliance strategy in response to other
state and federal regulations. Because the regulatory environment is
fluid with further changes expected, GenOn expressed concerns that the
compliance plan and status reports should not restrict GenOn's ability
to revise its strategy for compliance with section 126 as circumstances
change.
    One commenter believed that the schedule for a required modeling
protocol within 3 months was overly ambitious and suggested the owner
and operator of Portland should have at least 6 months to submit a
modeling protocol for Portland's SO2 emissions.
3. Final Rule Reporting Milestones
    For the final rule, the EPA has amended the proposed requirement
for GenOn to develop a compliance plan with an identified remedy with
90 days.

The EPA agrees with GenOn that it is very possible that complete
information to inform this remedy may not be available within 90 days
of the rule's effective date. The EPA does, however, believe that in
order to implement controls it is reasonable to assume that information
necessary for a decision will be available within 12 months of the
effective date, and accordingly we have retained the requirement but
have postponed the deadline until 12 months after the effective date of
the final rule. The EPA acknowledges the commenters' point that there
are factors over time that could lead to a revised decision after the
12 month milestone. Even if such factors lead to a different eventual
remedy, the EPA believes that it is nonetheless reasonable to require a
status report on GenOn's intent at the 12 month point in order to
ensure that planned actions for compliance with the requirements of
section 126 are on track.
    The EPA has also retained the requirements for 6 month status
reports. We disagree with comments that these reports are not
justified. The status reports required by this rule are warranted not
only because section 126 requires ``increments of progress,'' but in
addition the EPA believes these are necessary for the EPA and the
states to monitor Portland's efforts to achieve compliance with the
emission limits established in this rule. The status reports are not
exhaustive, but will provide important information to the agency and to
the public to monitor Portland's progress towards the ultimate goal of
reducing its SO2 emissions and reducing its impact on New
Jersey's compliance with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    We have also retained the requirement for the interim and final
progress reports. For the final rule, we have extended the deadline for
the final project report by two months to provide time for evaluation
of CEMS data before submitting the report.
    In the final rule, we have retained the requirement to submit a
modeling protocol and modeling, but, after consideration of the timing
concerns raised by commenters, we have amended the deadlines. For the
final rule, the modeling protocol is required within 6 months of this
rulemaking and the final modeling within 12 months. The revisions to
the interim compliance schedule outlined in this section are all
logical outgrowths of the compliance schedule originally proposed as
they were made in response to consideration of the comments received in
response to that proposal.

VII. Alternate Compliance Schedule and Consideration of Petition for
Rulemaking for Alternative Emission Limits

    In this section, we discuss two additional overarching issues on
which we sought comment in the proposal. First we discuss our decision
regarding the proposed consideration of an alternative schedule based
upon Portland's decision to meet its compliance obligations by electing
to shut down unit 1 or unit 2, or both. We then discuss the potential
for additional rulemaking to accommodate alternative remedies from
those established in this rule.

A. Alternate Compliance Schedule if the Source Owner Opts To Cease
Operations

1. What the EPA Proposed
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA discussed why
different remedies for meeting the requirements of section 126 may
suggest different compliance schedules, 76 FR 19678. In particular, the
EPA noted that if GenOn decided to cease operation of the Portland
facility, it is possible that implementing such a remedy ``as
expeditiously as practicable'' may have different considerations than
if it decided to undertake a schedule of constructing and implementing
control technologies. Consistent with this perceived possibility, the
EPA requested comment in the proposal on how to interpret the phrase
``as expeditiously as practicable'' when the source owner and operator
has elected to cease operation as its method of compliance with the
emissions limit for a given unit and cessation cannot occur within 3
months of the EPA's finding. The EPA noted that if appropriate based
upon comments, the EPA would consider including in the final rule an
alternate compliance schedule for this possibility, and the EPA
requested comment on relevant factors that should be considered were we
to include such an alternate schedule.
2. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses
    Comment: One commenter stated that if the facility elected to
close, it must be required to cease operation immediately, as there is
no basis to allow the plant to continue to significantly contribute to
nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. Another commenter suggested that if
Portland plans to cease operations of the coal burning units, shutdown
should occur within 3 months of the EPA's final rule.
    Response: The EPA notes that section 126(c) of the CAA allows the
EPA to permit continued operation beyond 90 days if the source complies
with emissions limitations and compliance schedules established by the
Administrator. This language does not, however, mandate that any
decision to cease operation must occur in any particular time period
when the source is otherwise complying with the required emission
limits compliance schedules. The EPA disagrees with commenters
suggestion that any decision to shutdown must occur immediately or
within 90 days. For the final rule, the EPA concludes that the final
and interim emission limits and reporting milestones are sufficient for
all selected remedies, including a remedy under which GenOn would
choose to ultimately cease operation at one or more units. The EPA has
made this conclusion because compliance with the interim and final
emission limits, regardless of how the plant chooses to comply, results
in the elimination of Portland's significant contribution to the
affected areas in New Jersey and demonstrates appropriate interim
progress towards such elimination.
3. The Final Rule
    The EPA has retained the approach in the proposed rule, and we have
not included an alternative compliance schedule in the case that the
selected remedy is to cease operation of unit 1 and/or unit 2. The EPA
did not receive any information in comments that leads the EPA to
conclude that a different schedule is necessary.

B. Consideration of Petition for Rulemaking for Alternative Emission
Limits

    The EPA received comment from GenOn arguing that the unit-specific
SO2 limits for unit 1 and for unit 2 did not provide GenOn
with sufficient flexibility. Accordingly, GenOn recommended that the
EPA change the form of the final emissions limits to a combined
emissions limit for the total emissions from units 1 and 2. In this
way, they asserted GenOn would be able to evaluate a broader suite of
remedies which could possibly include remedies with equivalent air
quality impacts at substantially reduced cost.
    The EPA understands the source's request for operational
flexibility, and we considered the option suggested by GenOn. However,
based on the modeling analysis conducted by the EPA, we are not able to
set a combined

limit for the final remedy. The final rule contains individual final
limits that are specific to units 1 and 2. There are some combinations
of emissions from units 1 and 2 which will be protective of the NAAQS
and some that will not. Air quality modeling results indicated that
there are many possible scenarios under which a combined limit, of
similar stringency to the limits adopted, would lead to exceedances of
the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. In particular, given the multiple
possibilities of available controls for the two units, there would be a
large number of possible stack configurations with different dispersion
characteristics. While the EPA perhaps could have developed a combined
limit with sufficient stringency to ensure that all significant
contribution and interference with maintenance would be eliminated
under every possible combination of control options and stack
configurations, the EPA does not believe that this approach would
provide the flexibility that GenOn is seeking because the combined
limit would likely need to be much more stringent than the limits in
the final rule.
    Nevertheless, we acknowledge the greater operating flexibility that
an alternative set of emission limits might offer, and we note that in
some cases an appropriately constrained combined limit may be possible
to construct in a way that is protective of the NAAQS (e.g., more
stringent than the sum of the individual limits). Should GenOn wish to
have a higher limit at one of the units, in exchange for a lower limit
at the other, or seek a combined limit that is protective of the NAAQS
in all cases, the source may petition the EPA for additional rulemaking
to adopt alternative emissions limits if such petition demonstrates
that the proposed alternative would eliminate all emissions at Portland
that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey by the 3-
year deadline established in this rule. As part of the interim
reporting requirements, the rule requires GenOn to submit a modeling
analysis, pursuant to a modeling protocol that it is consistent with
the data and methods the EPA used to develop this rule, which shows
that the final compliance remedy is protective of the NAAQS. If GenOn
chooses to submit such a petition, the EPA expects GenOn to provide a
demonstration, in the course of conducting the modeling analysis
required by the rule, that shows that a specific alternative set of
emissions limits for unit 1 and unit 2 would also be protective of the
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. In order for the EPA to
consider such a rulemaking petition, GenOn would need to submit, no
later than the 1-year deadline for submitting modeling results under
the rule, any proposed alternative limits along with air quality
modeling, consistent with the approved modeling protocol, demonstrating
that the proposed alternative limits would, at all operating loads,
eliminate Portland's significant contribution to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance in New Jersey. If the EPA determines it
would be appropriate to propose approval of the alternative emission
limits, the EPA would conduct a notice and comment rulemaking on the
proposed alternative.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action will grant the NJDEP petition and is making a CAA
section 126 finding. This type of action is exempt from review under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, a ``collection of information'' is defined as a requirement for
``answers to * * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements
imposed on ten or more persons * * *.'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because
the rule applies to a single facility, Portland, the Paperwork
Reduction Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will
not impose any requirements on small entities because small entities
are not subject to the requirements of this rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

    This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The
cost necessary to comply with the limits in this notice are not
expected to exceed $100 million. Thus, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The requirements
for compliance in this rule will be borne by a single, privately owned
source.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule primarily affects the
private industry, and does not impose significant economic cost on
state or local governments or preempt state or local law. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the
EPA's policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and
local governments, the EPA specifically solicited comment on the
proposed action from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It does not have
a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes. Furthermore,
this action does not affect the relationship between Indian Tribes and
the federal government, or distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that may
disproportionately affect children. The EPA believes that the emissions
reductions in this rule will further improve air quality and will
further improve children's health.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is an exempted action under Executive Order
12866.

I. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the U.S.
    The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.
    The agency has also reviewed this rule to determine if there is
existing disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations that could
be mitigated by this rulemaking. An analysis of demographic data
illustrates that the population residing near the source is represented
by fewer minority and low-income residents than either the surrounding
counties, the average demographic composition of the states of New
Jersey and Pennsylvania, and national averages. In addition, this rule
increases the level of environmental and public health protection for
all affected populations since, when fully implemented, it will result
in attainment of the health-based 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The
results of the demographic analysis are presented in the supporting
document titled, ``Environmental Justice Assessment for Section 126
Petition from New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions from the
Portland Generating Station'' (September 2011), a copy of which is
available in the docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impracticable. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The
NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the
EPA did not consider the use of any VCS.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). The EPA is not
required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability. Nonetheless,
this action will be effective January 6, 2012.

L. 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 District of Columbia Circuit Court within 60 days from the date the
final action is published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition
for review by the Administrator of this final action 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
must be final, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such action.
    Thus, any petitions for review of this action related to the
section 126 finding must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final action
is published in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Approval and promulgation of implementation plans, Environmental
protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution
control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, and
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: October 31, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble part 52 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. Section 52.2039 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2039   Interstate transport.

    The EPA has made a finding pursuant to section 126 of the Clean Air
Act (the Act) that emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from
the Portland Generating Station in Northampton County, Upper Mount
Bethel Township, Pennsylvania (Portland) significantly contribute to
nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour
SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in Morris,
Sussex, Warren, and Hunterdon Counties in New Jersey. The owners and
operators of Portland shall comply with the requirements in paragraphs
(a) through (d) of this section.
    (a) The owners and operators of Portland shall not, at any time
later than one year after the effective date of the section 126
finding, emit SO2 (as determined in accordance with part 75
of this chapter) in excess of 6,253 pounds per hour (lb/hr) for unit 1
(identified with source ID 031 in Title V Permit No. 48-0006) and unit
2 (identified with source ID 032 in Title V Permit No. 48-0006)
combined;
    (b) The owners and operators of Portland shall not, at any time
later than three years after the effective date of the section 126
finding, emit SO2 (as determined in accordance with part 75
of this chapter) in excess of the following limits:
    (1) 1,105 lb/hr and 0.67 pounds per million British Thermal Unit
(lb/mmBtu) for unit 1; and
    (2) 1,691 lb/hr and 0.67 lb/mmBtu for unit 2.
    (c) The owners and operators of Portland shall comply with the
following requirements:
    (1) Perform air modeling to demonstrate that, starting no later
than three years after the effective date of the section 126 finding,
emissions from Portland will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey, in accordance with the following
requirements:
    (i) No later than six months after the effective date of the
section 126 finding, submit to the EPA a modeling protocol that is
consistent with the EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models, as codified
at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W, and that includes all units at the
Portland Generating Station in the modeling.
    (ii) Within 15 business days of receipt of a notice from the EPA of
any deficiencies in the modeling protocol under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of
this section, submit to the EPA a revised modeling protocol to correct
any deficiencies identified in such notice.
    (iii) No later than one year after the effective date of the
section 126 finding, submit to the EPA a modeling analysis, performed
in accordance with the modeling protocol under paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and
(c)(1)(ii) of this section, for the compliance methods identified in
the notice required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
    (2) No later than one year after the effective date of the section
126 finding, submit to the EPA the compliance method selected by the
owners and operators of Portland to achieve the emissions limits in
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (3) Starting six months after the effective date of the section 126
finding and continuing every six months until three years after the
effective date of the section 126 finding, submit to the EPA progress
reports on the implementation of the methods to achieve compliance with
emissions limits in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, including
status of design, technology selection, development of technical
specifications, awarding of contracts, construction, shakedown, and
compliance demonstrations as applicable. These reports shall include:
    (i) An interim project report, no later than one year after the
effective date of the section 126 finding, that demonstrates compliance
with the emission limit in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (ii) A final project report, submitted no later than 60 days after
three years after the effective date of the section 126 finding, that
demonstrates compliance with the emission limits in paragraph (b) of
this section and that includes at least one month of SO2
emission data from Portland's continuous SO2 emission
monitor, and that includes the date when full operation of controls was
achieved at Portland after shakedown.
    (4) The requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) of this
section shall not apply if the notice required by paragraph (c)(2) of
this section indicates that the owners and operators of Portland have
decided to completely and permanently cease operation of unit 1 and
unit 2 as the method of compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) and with
section 126 of the Act.
    (d) Compliance with the lb/mmBtu limitations in paragraph (b) of
this section is determined on a 30 boiler operating day rolling average
basis. Boiler operating day for the purposes of this paragraph means a
24-hour period between midnight and the following midnight during which
any fuel is combusted in the units identified in paragraph (a) of this
section.

[FR Doc. 2011-28816 Filed 11-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35375-35376]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14352]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1956-000]

Duke Energy Miami Fort, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Duke Energy Miami Fort, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 27, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC

Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call (866)
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 7, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14352 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P