[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13264-13265]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5467]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Office of
Dispute Resolution Procedures for Protests and Contract Disputes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DoT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. 14 CFR part 17 sets forth procedures for filing
solicitation protests and contract claims in the FAA's Office of
Dispute Resolution for Acquisition. The regulations seek factual and
legal information from protesters or claimants primarily through
written submissions.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 9, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Control Number: 2120-0632.
    Title: Office of Dispute Resolution Procedures for Protests and
Contract Disputes, 14 CFR 17.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 14 CFR 17.15 and 17.25 provide the procedures for
filing protests and contract claims with the Office of Dispute
Resolution for Acquisition. The regulations seek factual and legal
information from protesters or claimants primarily through written
submissions. The information sought by the regulations is used by the
ODRA, as well as the opposing parties: (1) To gain a clear
understanding as to the facts and the law underlying the dispute; and
(2) to

provide a basis for applying dispute resolution techniques.
    Respondents: Approximately 40 protestors or claimants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 20.5 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 820 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Scott, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 3, 2011.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-5467 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


OMB # 2060 0564 Expiration Date: 8/ 31/ 05 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency STRATOSPHERIC OZONE PROTECTION PROGRAM CLASS I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE REPORT: METHYL BROMIDE PRODUCER QUARTERLY REPORT ( Sec 82.13 ( f)( 3)( 4))

SECTION 1 PRODUCING COMPANY IDENTIFICATION 1.1 Date of Submission 1.2 Quarter and Year to Which This Report Applies 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Year 1.3 Producing Company Company Name Street Address City State Zip Code 1.4 Company Contact Identification Reporting Company Contact Person Phone Number Fax Number E mail Address 1.5 Importer Information Is your company an Importer of methyl bromide? If yes, is the Importer Quarterly Report attached? Yes Yes No No 1.6 Exporter Information Is your company an Exporter of methyl bromide? If yes, is the Exporter Quarterly Report attached? Yes Yes No No 1.7 Signature of Reporting Company Representative I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this and all attached documents, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.

Name Title Signature Date Information in reports submitted in compliance with the final rule may be claimed as confidential. A company may assert a claim of confidentiality for information submitted by clearly marking that information as confidential. Such information shall be treated in accordance with EPA's procedures for information claimed as confidential at 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, and will only be disclosed by the means set forth in the subpart. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the report when it is received by EPA, it may be made public without further notice to the company ( 40 CFR 2.203).

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 16 hours per response. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2137), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number and OMB control number in any correspondence. DO NOT SEND THIS FORM TO THESE ADDRESSES; ONLY SEND COMMENTS.

EPA FORM 2179.01 P 1MB, Revised 4/ 05 SEND COMPLETED FORMS TO: Tracking System Program Manager Stratospheric Protection Division U. S. EPA ( 6205J) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 OMB # 2060 0564 Expiration Date: 8/ 31/ 05 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency STRATOSPHERIC OZONE PROTECTION PROGRAM CLASS I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE REPORT:

METHYL BROMIDE PRODUCER QUARTERLY REPORT ( Sec 82.13 ( f)( 3)( 4))

SECTION 2 COMPANY PRODUCTION DATA 2.1 Company Name 2.2 Company Production Totals A B C D E F G H I J K Critical Use Exemption ( CUE) ( kg)

G1 G2 G3 Gross Production ( kg) In House Transformation ( kg) Second Party Transformation ( kg) In House Destruction ( kg) Second Party Destruction ( kg) Quarantine and Preshipment ( QPS) ( kg) Pre Plant Post Harvest For Export Emergency Use Exemption ( kg) Article 5 Production ( kg) Net Production of Methyl Bromide ( kg)

( A B C D E

FG1 G2 G3 H I= J) Critical Stock Allowances ( CSA) ( kg)

EPA FORM 2179.01 P 2MB, Revised 4/ 05 OMB # 2060 0564 Expiration Date: 8/ 31/ 05 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency STRATOSPHERIC OZONE PROTECTION PROGRAM CLASS I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE REPORT: METHYL BROMIDE PRODUCER QUARTERLY REPORT ( Sec 82.13 ( f)( 3)( 4))

SECTION 3 ALLOWANCE EXPENDITURE DATA 3.1 Company Name 3.2 Allowance Balance Summary Expended Unexpended A Total Article 5 allowances for year to date ( as of the end of the quarter) that were:

B1 Total pre plant critical use allowances for year to date ( as of the end of the quarter) that were:

B2 Total post harvest critical use allowances for year to date ( as of end of the quarter) that were:

C Total critical stock allowances ( CSAs) for year to date ( as of end of the quarter) that were:

3.3 Total Stocks of Pre phaseout Methyl Bromide ( Complete this question for 4th quarter reporting only)

kg owned by reporting company for year to date ( as end of the control period) ( including all quantities held by other suppliers, but not quantities sold to end users)

3.4 Name( s) of Company( ies) for Which Critical Use Methyl Bromide is Being Held and Associated Amounts ( kg) Held for Each ( excluding end users)

Company Name : Pre Plant kg, Post Harvest kg Company Name : Pre Plant kg, Post Harvest kg Company Name : Pre Plant kg, Post Harvest kg Company Name : Pre Plant kg, Post Harvest kg Company Name : Pre Plant kg, Post Harvest kg EPA FORM 2179.01 P 4MB, Revised 4/ 05


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68272-68279]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28017]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0691-201045, FRL-9222-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Kentucky:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Permitting
Authority and Tailoring Rule Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a draft revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by Kentucky's Energy and
Environment Cabinet, through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality
(KDAQ), to EPA on August 5, 2010, for parallel processing. The proposed
SIP revision makes two changes impacting the Commonwealth of Kentucky's
New Source Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program. First, the proposed revision provides the Commonwealth of
Kentucky with authority to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) under its PSD
program. Second, the proposed SIP revision establishes appropriate
emission thresholds for determining which new stationary sources and
modification projects become subject to Kentucky's PSD permitting
requirements for their GHG emissions. The first component of the
proposed revision is necessary because the Commonwealth of Kentucky is
required to apply its PSD program to GHG-emitting sources, and unless
it does so (or unless EPA promulgates a Federal implementation plan
(FIP) to do so), such sources will be unable to receive preconstruction
permits and therefore may not be able to construct or modify. The
second component is necessary because without it, on January 2, 2011,
PSD requirements would apply at the 100 or 250 tons per year (tpy)
levels provided under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), which would
overwhelm Kentucky's permitting resources. EPA is proposing approval of
the Commonwealth of Kentucky's August 5, 2010, SIP revision relating to
PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources because the Agency has made
the preliminary determination that this SIP revision is in accordance
with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-0691, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0691, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0691.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Kentucky
SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bradley's telephone number is (404)

562-9352; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information
regarding the Tailoring Rule, contact Ms. Heather Abrams, Air Permits
Section, at the same address above. Ms. Abrams' telephone number is
(404) 562-9185; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?
II. What is the background for the action proposed by EPA in today's
notice?
III. What is the relationship between today's proposed action and
EPA's proposed GHG SIP Call and GHG FIP?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Kentucky's proposed SIP revision?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?

    On August 5, 2010,\1\ KDAQ submitted a draft revision to EPA for
approval into the Kentucky SIP to: (1) Provide the Commonwealth with
the authority to regulate GHGs under its PSD program; and (2) establish
appropriate emission thresholds for determining which new or modified
stationary sources become subject to Kentucky's PSD permitting
requirements for GHG emissions. Final approval of Kentucky's August 5,
2010, SIP revision will make Kentucky's SIP adequate with respect to
PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources, thereby negating the need
for a GHG FIP. Furthermore, final approval of Kentucky's August 5,
2010, SIP revision will put in place the GHG emission thresholds for
PSD applicability set forth in EPA's Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514, June
3, 2010), ensuring that smaller GHG sources emitting less than these
thresholds will not be subject to permitting requirements when these
requirements begin applying to GHGs on January 2, 2011. Pursuant to
section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve this revision into
the Kentucky SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While the transmittal letter for Kentucky's submission (the
subject of this action) is dated July 15, 2010, EPA did not
officially receive Kentucky's request for parallel processing until
August 5, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because this draft SIP revision is not yet state-effective,
Kentucky requested that EPA ``parallel process'' the SIP revision.
Under this procedure, the EPA Regional Office works closely with the
state while developing new or revised regulations. Generally, the state
submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA
before conducting its public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed state
action and prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA publishes this
notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and solicits
public comment in approximately the same time frame during which the
state is holding its public hearing. The state and EPA thus provide for
public comment periods on both the state and the Federal actions in
parallel.
    After Kentucky submits the formal state-effective SIP revision
request (including a response to all public comments raised during the
Commonwealth's public participation process), EPA will prepare a final
rulemaking notice for the SIP revision. If changes are made to the SIP
revision after EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, such changes must
be acknowledged in EPA's final rulemaking action. If the changes are
significant, then EPA may be obliged to re-propose the action. In
addition, if the changes render the SIP revision not approvable, EPA's
re-proposal of the action would be a disapproval of the revision.
    In addition to the above-described changes, Kentucky's August 5,
2010, proposed SIP revision included provisions (i.e., 401 KAR 51:001
Section 1(80)(b) and (c)) to incorporate changes pursuant to EPA's
Fugitive Emissions Rule.\2\ 73 FR 77882 (December 19, 2008). Also,
Kentucky's submitted changes to exclude facilities that produce ethanol
through a natural fermentation process from the definition of
``chemical process plants'' in the major NSR source permitting program
(i.e., 401 KAR 51:001 Section 1 (118)). In today's proposed rulemaking,
EPA is not proposing to take action on Kentucky's changes to its PSD
regulations regarding the inclusion of fugitive emissions in NSR
applicability determinations, nor is EPA taking any action on
Kentucky's provisions to exclude facilities that produce ethanol
through a natural fermentation process from the definition of
``chemical process plants'' in the major NSR permitting program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On March 31, 2010, EPA stayed the Fugitive Emissions Rule
(73 FR 77882) for 18 months to October 3, 2011, to allow the Agency
time to propose, take comment and issue a final action regarding the
inclusion of fugitive emissions in NSR applicability determinations.
Therefore, the 40 CFR Part 51 and Part 52 administrative regulations
that were amended for the Fugitive Emissions Rule are stayed through
October 3, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for the action proposed by EPA in today's
notice?

    Today's proposed action on the Kentucky SIP relates to three
Federal rulemaking actions. The first rulemaking is EPA's ``Prevention
of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring
Rule,'' Final Rule (the Tailoring Rule). 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010).
The second rulemaking is EPA's ``Action to Ensure Authority to Issue
Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy
and SIP Call,'' Proposed Rule (GHG SIP Call). 75 FR 53892 (September 2,
2010). The third rulemaking is EPA's ``Action to Ensure Authority to
Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program
to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan,''
Proposed Rule, 75 FR 53883 (September 2, 2010) (GHG FIP), which serves
as a companion rulemaking to EPA's proposed GHG SIP Call. A summary of
each of these rulemakings is described below.
    In the first rulemaking, the Tailoring Rule, EPA established
appropriate GHG emission thresholds for determining the applicability
of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources. In the second rulemaking,
the GHG SIP Call (which is not yet final), EPA proposed to find that
the EPA-approved PSD programs in 13 States (including Kentucky) are
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements because they do not
appear to apply PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources. For each of
these States, EPA proposed to require the State (through a ``SIP
Call'') to revise its SIP as necessary to correct such inadequacies.
EPA proposed an expedited schedule for these States to submit their SIP
revision, in light of the fact that as of January 2, 2011, certain GHG-
emitting sources will become subject to the PSD requirements and may
not be able to obtain a PSD permit in order to construct or modify. In
the third rulemaking, the GHG FIP (which is not yet final), EPA
proposed a FIP to apply in any state that is unable to submit, by its
deadline, a SIP revision to ensure that the state has authority to
issue PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources. Kentucky is now seeking to
revise its SIP to make it adequate with respect to PSD requirements for
GHG-emitting sources, thereby negating the need for a GHG FIP.
Furthermore, Kentucky is seeking to revise its SIP to put in place the
GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set forth in EPA's
Tailoring Rule, thereby ensuring that smaller GHG sources emitting less
than these thresholds will not be subject to permitting requirements
when these requirements

begin applying to GHGs on January 2, 2011.
    Below is a brief overview of GHGs and GHG-emitting sources, the CAA
PSD program, minimum SIP elements for a PSD program, and EPA's recent
actions regarding GHG permitting. Following this section, EPA
discusses, in sections III and IV, the relationship between the
proposed Kentucky SIP revision and EPA's other national rulemakings as
well as EPA's analysis of Kentucky's SIP revision.

A. What are GHGs and their sources?

    A detailed explanation of GHGs, climate change and the impact on
health, society, and the environment is included in EPA's technical
support document for EPA's GHG endangerment finding final rule
(Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-11292 at http://www.regulations.gov). The endangerment finding rulemaking is discussed
later in this rulemaking. A summary of the nature and sources of GHGs
is provided below.
    GHGs trap the Earth's heat that would otherwise escape from the
atmosphere into space and form the greenhouse effect that helps keep
the Earth warm enough for life. GHGs are naturally present in the
atmosphere and are also emitted by human activities. Human activities
are intensifying the naturally occurring greenhouse effect by
increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, which is changing the
climate in a way that endangers human health, society, and the natural
environment.
    Some GHGs, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), are emitted to
the atmosphere through natural processes as well as human activities.
Other gases, such as fluorinated gases, are created and emitted solely
through human activities. The well-mixed GHGs of concern directly
emitted by human activities include CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6), hereafter referred to collectively as ``the six well-
mixed GHG,'' or, simply, GHGs. Together these six well-mixed GHGs
constitute the ``air pollutant'' upon which the GHG thresholds in EPA's
Tailoring Rule are based. These six gases remain in the atmosphere for
decades to centuries where they become well-mixed globally in the
atmosphere. When they are emitted more quickly than natural processes
can remove them from the atmosphere, their concentrations increase,
thus increasing the greenhouse effect.
    In the U.S., the combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, gas)
is the largest source of CO2 emissions and accounts for 80
percent of the total GHG emissions by mass. Anthropogenic
CO2 emissions released from a variety of sources, including
through the use of fossil fuel combustion and cement production from
geologically stored carbon (e.g., coal, oil, and natural gas) that is
hundreds of millions of years old, as well as anthropogenic
CO2 emissions from land-use changes such as deforestation,
perturb the atmospheric concentration of CO2, and the
distribution of carbon within different reservoirs readjusts. More than
half of the energy-related emissions come from large stationary sources
such as power plants, while about a third come from transportation. Of
the six well-mixed GHGs, four (CO2, CH4,
N2O, and HFCs) are emitted by motor vehicles. In the U.S.,
industrial processes (such as the production of cement, steel, and
aluminum), agriculture, forestry, other land use, and waste management
are also important sources of GHGs.
    Different GHGs have different heat-trapping capacities. The concept
of Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to compare the heat-
trapping capacity and atmospheric lifetime of one GHG to another. The
definition of a GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped
by one unit mass of the GHG to that of one unit mass of CO2
over a specified time period. When quantities of the different GHGs are
multiplied by their GWPs, the different GHGs can be summed and compared
on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) basis. For example,
CH4 has a GWP of 21, meaning each ton of CH4
emissions would have 21 times as much impact on global warming over a
100-year time horizon as 1 ton of CO2 emissions. Thus, on
the basis of heat-trapping capability, 1 ton of CH4 would
equal 21 tons of CO2e. The GWPs of the non-CO2
GHG range from 21 (for CH4) up to 23,900 (for
SF6). Aggregating all GHG on a CO2e basis at the
source level allows a facility to evaluate its total GHG emissions
contribution based on a single metric.

B. What are the general requirements of the PSD program?

1. Overview of the PSD Program
    The PSD program is a preconstruction review and permitting program
applicable to new major stationary sources and major modifications at
existing stationary sources. The PSD program applies in areas that are
designated ``attainment'' or ``unclassifiable'' for a national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS). The PSD program is contained in part C of
title I of the CAA. The ``nonattainment NSR'' program applies in areas
not in attainment of a NAAQS or in the Ozone Transport Region, and it
is implemented under the requirements of part D of title I of the CAA.
Collectively, EPA commonly refers to these two programs as the major
NSR program. The governing EPA rules are contained in 40 CFR 51.165,
51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, Appendices S and W. There is no
NAAQS for CO2 or any of the other well-mixed GHGs, nor has
EPA proposed any such NAAQS; therefore, unless and until EPA takes
further such action, the nonattainment NSR program does not apply to
GHGs.
    The applicability of PSD to a particular source must be determined
in advance of construction or modification and is pollutant-specific.
The primary criterion in determining PSD applicability is whether the
proposed project is sufficiently large (in terms of its emissions) to
be a major stationary source or modification, both of which are
described below. EPA has implemented these requirements in its
regulations, which use somewhat different terminology than the CAA
does, for determining PSD applicability.
a. Major Stationary Source
    Under PSD, a ``major stationary source'' is any source belonging to
a specified list of 28 source categories that emits or has the
potential to emit 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant subject to
regulation under the CAA, or any other source type that emits or has
the potential to emit such pollutants in amounts equal to or greater
than 250 tpy. See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1). We refer to these levels
as the 100/250-tpy thresholds. A new source with a potential to emit
(PTE) at or above the applicable ``major stationary source threshold''
is subject to major NSR. These limits originate from section 169 of the
CAA, which applies PSD to any ``major emitting facility'' and defines
the term to include any source that emits or has a PTE of 100 or 250
tpy, depending on the source category. Note that the major source
definition incorporates the phrase ``subject to regulation,'' which, as
described later, will begin to include GHGs on January 2, 2011, under
EPA's interpretation of that phrase as discussed in the recent
memorandum entitled, '' EPA's Interpretation of Regulations that
Determine Pollutants Covered by Federal Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program.'' 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010).
b. Major Modifications
    PSD also applies to existing sources that undertake a ``major
modification,'' which occurs when: (1) There is a

physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a ``major
stationary source;'' (2) the change results in a ``significant''
emissions increase of a pollutant subject to regulation (equal to or
above the significance level that EPA has set for the pollutant in 40
CFR 52.21(b)(23)); and (3) there is a ``significant net emissions
increase'' of a pollutant subject to regulation that is equal to or
above the significance level (defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)).
Significance levels, which EPA has promulgated for criteria pollutants
and certain other pollutants, represent a de minimis contribution to
air quality problems. When EPA has not set a significance level for a
regulated NSR pollutant, PSD applies to an increase of the pollutant in
any amount (that is, in effect, the significance level is treated as
zero).
2. General Requirements for PSD
    This section provides a very brief summary of the main requirements
of the PSD program. One principal requirement is that a new major
source or major modification must apply best available control
technology (BACT), which is determined on a case-by-case basis taking
into account, among other factors, the cost effectiveness of the
control and energy and environmental impacts. EPA has developed a
``top-down'' approach for BACT review, which involves a decision
process that includes identification of all available control
technologies, elimination of technically infeasible options, ranking of
remaining options by control and cost effectiveness, and then selection
of BACT. Under PSD, once a source is determined to be major for any
regulated NSR pollutant, a BACT review is performed for each attainment
pollutant that exceeds its PSD significance level as part of new
construction or for modification projects at the source, where there is
a significant increase and a significant net emissions increase of such
pollutant.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA notes that the PSD program has historically operated in
this fashion for all pollutants--when new sources or modifications
are ``major,'' PSD applies to all pollutants that are emitted in
significant quantities from the source or project. This rule does
not alter that for sources or modifications that are major due to
their GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to performing BACT, the source must analyze impacts on
ambient air quality to assure that sources do not cause or contribute
to violation of any NAAQS or PSD increments and must analyze impacts on
soil, vegetation, and visibility. In addition, sources or modifications
that would impact Class I areas (e.g., national parks) may be subject
to additional requirements to protect air quality related values
(AQRVs) that have been identified for such areas. Under PSD, if a
source's proposed project may impact a Class I area, the Federal Land
Manager is notified and is responsible for evaluating a source's
projected impact on the AQRVs and recommending either approval or
disapproval of the source's permit application based on anticipated
impacts. There are currently no NAAQS or PSD increments established for
GHGs, and therefore these PSD requirements would not apply for GHGs,
even when PSD is triggered for GHGs. However, if PSD is triggered for a
GHG-emitting source, all regulated NSR pollutants that the new source
emits in significant amounts would be subject to PSD requirements.
Therefore, if a facility triggers NSR for non-GHG pollutants for which
there are established NAAQS or increments, the air quality, additional
impacts, and Class I requirements would apply to those pollutants.
    Pursuant to existing PSD requirements, the permitting authority
must provide notice of its preliminary decision on a source's
application for a PSD permit and must provide an opportunity for
comment by the public, industry, and other interested persons. After
considering and responding to comments, the permitting authority must
issue a final determination on the construction permit. Usually NSR
permits are issued by a State or local air pollution control agency
that has its own authority to issue PSD permits under a permit program
that has been approved by EPA for inclusion in its SIP. In some areas,
EPA has delegated its authority to issue PSD permits under Federal
regulations to the State or local agency. In other areas, EPA issues
the permits under its own authority.

C. What are the CAA requirements to include the PSD Program in the SIP?

    The CAA contemplates that the PSD program be implemented in the
first instance by the states and requires that states include PSD
requirements in their SIPs. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that--

    Each implementation plan * * * shall * * * include a program to
provide for * * * regulation of the modification and construction of
any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as
necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are
achieved, including a permit program as required in part[ ] C * * *
of this subchapter.

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that--
    Each implementation plan * * * shall * * * meet the applicable
requirements of * * * part C of this subchapter (relating to
significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection).

CAA section 161 provides that--
    [E]ach applicable implementation plan shall contain emission
limitations and such other measures as may be necessary, as
determined under regulations promulgated under this part [C], to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality in each region * *
* designated * * * as attainment or unclassifiable.

    These provisions, read in conjunction with the PSD applicability
provisions as well as other provisions such as the BACT provision under
CAA Section 165(a)(4), mandate that SIPs include PSD programs that are
applicable to, among other things, any air pollutant that is subject to
regulation. As discussed below, this includes GHGs on and after January
2, 2011.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In the Tailoring Rule, EPA noted that commenters argued,
with some variations, that the PSD provisions applied only to NAAQS
pollutants, and not GHG, and EPA responded that the PSD provisions
apply to all pollutants subject to regulation, including GHG. See 75
FR 31560-62 (June 3, 2010). EPA maintains its position that the PSD
provisions apply to all pollutants subject to regulation, and the
Agency incorporates by reference the discussion of this issue in the
Tailoring Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of states do not have PSD programs approved into their
SIPs. In those states, EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 govern, and
either EPA or the state as EPA's delegatee acts as the permitting
authority. However, most states have PSD programs that have been
approved into their SIPs, and these states implement their PSD programs
and act as the permitting authority. Kentucky has a SIP-approved PSD
program.

D. What actions has EPA taken concerning PSD requirements for GHG-
emitting sources?

1. What are the Endangerment Finding, the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and
the Johnson memo reconsideration?
    By notice dated December 15, 2009, and pursuant to CAA section
202(a), EPA issued two findings regarding GHGs that are commonly
referred to as the ``Endangerment Finding'' and the ``Cause or
Contribute Finding.'' ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings
for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,'' 74 FR
66496. In the Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found that six
long-lived and directly emitted GHGs--CO2, CH4,
N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6--may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. In the Cause or
Contribute Finding, the Administrator ``defin[ed] the air pollutant as
the aggregate group of the

same six * * * greenhouse gases,'' 74 FR at 66536, and found that the
combined emissions of this air pollutant from new motor vehicles and
new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG air pollution that
endangers public health and welfare.
    By notice dated May 7, 2010, EPA published what is commonly
referred to as the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule'' (LDVR), which for the
first time established Federal controls on GHGs emitted from light-duty
vehicles. ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324. In
its applicability provisions, the LDVR specifies that it ``contains
standards and other regulations applicable to the emission * * * of six
greenhouse gases,'' including CO2, CH4,
N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. 75 FR at 25686 (40 CFR
86.1818-12(a)).
    On December 18, 2008, EPA issued a memorandum, ``EPA's
Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by
Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program''
(known as the ``Johnson Memo'' or the ``PSD Interpretive Memo,'' and
referred to in this preamble as the ``Interpretive Memo''), that set
forth EPA's interpretation regarding which EPA and state actions, with
respect to a previously unregulated pollutant, cause that pollutant to
become ``subject to regulation'' under the Act. Whether a pollutant is
``subject to regulation'' is important for the purposes of determining
whether it is covered under the Federal PSD permitting program. The
Interpretive Memo established that a pollutant is ``subject to
regulation'' only if it is subject to either a provision in the CAA or
regulation adopted by EPA under the CAA that requires actual control of
emissions of that pollutant (referred to as the ``actual control
interpretation''). On February 17, 2009, EPA granted a petition for
reconsideration on the Interpretive Memo and announced its intent to
conduct a rulemaking to allow for public comment on the issues raised
in the memorandum and on related issues. EPA also clarified that the
Interpretive Memo would remain in effect pending reconsideration.
    On March 29, 2010, EPA signed a notice conveying its decision to
continue applying (with one limited refinement) the Interpretive Memo's
interpretation of ``subject to regulation,'' ``Interpretation of
Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act
Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004. EPA concluded that the ``actual
control interpretation'' is the most appropriate interpretation to
apply given the policy implications. However, EPA refined the Agency's
interpretation in one respect: EPA established that PSD permitting
requirements apply to a newly regulated pollutant at the time a
regulatory requirement to control emissions of that pollutant ``takes
effect'' (rather than upon promulgation or the legal effective date of
the regulation containing such a requirement). In addition, based on
the anticipated promulgation of the LDVR, EPA stated that the GHG
requirements of the vehicle rule would take effect on January 2, 2011,
because that is the earliest date that a 2012 model year vehicle may be
introduced into commerce. In other words, the compliance obligation
under the LDVR does not occur until a manufacturer may introduce into
commerce vehicles that are required to comply with GHG standards, which
will begin with model year 2012 and will not occur before January 2,
2011.
2. What is EPA's Tailoring Rule?
    On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 2010), EPA promulgated a final
rulemaking, the Tailoring Rule, for the purpose of relieving
overwhelming permitting burdens that would, in the absence of the rule,
fall on permitting authorities and sources. 75 FR 31514. EPA
accomplished this by tailoring the applicability criteria that
determine which GHG emission sources become subject to the PSD program
\5\ of the CAA. In particular, EPA established in the Tailoring Rule a
phase-in approach for PSD applicability and established the first two
steps of the phase-in for the largest GHG-emitters. Additionally, EPA
committed to certain follow-up actions regarding future steps beyond
the first two, discussed in more detail later in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Tailoring Rule also applies to the title V program,
which requires operating permits for existing sources. However,
today's action does not affect Kentucky's title V program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the first step of the Tailoring Rule, which will begin on
January 2, 2011, PSD requirements will apply to major stationary source
GHG emissions only if the sources are subject to PSD anyway due to
their emissions of non-GHG pollutants. Therefore, in the first step,
EPA will not require sources or modifications to evaluate whether they
are subject to PSD requirements solely on account of their GHG
emissions. Specifically, for PSD, Step 1 requires that as of January 2,
2011, the applicable requirements of PSD, most notably, the BACT
requirement, will apply to projects that increase net GHG emissions by
at least 75,000 tpy CO2e, but only if the project also
significantly increases emissions of at least one non-GHG pollutant.
    The second step of the Tailoring Rule, beginning on July 1, 2011,
will phase in additional large sources of GHG emissions. New sources
that emit, or have the potential to emit, at least 100,000 tpy
CO2e will become subject to the PSD requirements. In
addition, sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least
100,000 tpy CO2e and that undertake a modification that
increases net GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e will
also be subject to PSD requirements. For both steps, EPA notes that if
sources or modifications exceed these CO2e-adjusted GHG
triggers, they are not covered by permitting requirements unless their
GHG emissions also exceed the corresponding mass-based triggers in tpy.
    EPA believes that the costs to the sources and the administrative
burdens to the permitting authorities of PSD permitting will be
manageable at the levels in these initial two steps and that it would
be administratively infeasible to subject additional sources to PSD
requirements at those times. However, EPA also intends to issue a
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in 2011, in which the Agency
will propose or solicit comment on a third step of the phase-in that
would include more sources, beginning on July 1, 2013. In the Tailoring
Rule, EPA established an enforceable commitment that the Agency will
complete this rulemaking by July 1, 2012, which will allow for 1 year's
notice before Step 3 would take effect.
    In addition, EPA committed to explore streamlining techniques that
may well make the permitting programs much more efficient to administer
for GHG, and that therefore may allow their expansion to smaller
sources. EPA expects that the initial streamlining techniques will take
several years to develop and implement.
    In the Tailoring Rule, EPA also included a provision, that no
source with emissions below 50,000 tpy CO2e, and no
modification resulting in net GHG increases of less than 50,000 tpy
CO2e, will be subject to PSD permitting before at least 6
years (i.e., April 30, 2016). This is because EPA has concluded that at
the present time, the administrative burdens that would accompany
permitting sources below this level would be so great that even with
the streamlining actions that EPA may be able to develop and implement
in the next several years, and even with the increases in permitting
resources that EPA can reasonably expect the

permitting authorities to acquire, it would be impossible to administer
the permit programs for these sources until at least 2016.
    As EPA explained in the Tailoring Rule, the threshold limitations
are necessary because without them, PSD would apply to all stationary
sources that emit or have the potential to emit more than 100 or 250
tons of GHG per year beginning on January 2, 2011. This is the date
when EPA's recently promulgated LDVR takes effect, imposing control
requirements for the first time on CO2 and other GHGs. If
this January 2, 2011, date were to pass without the Tailoring Rule
being in effect, PSD requirements would apply to GHG emissions at the
100/250 tpy applicability levels provided under a literal reading of
the CAA as of that date. From that point forward, a source owner
proposing to construct any new major source that emits at or higher
than the applicability levels (and which therefore may be referred to
as a ``major'' source) or modify any existing major source in a way
that would increase GHG emissions would need to obtain a permit under
the PSD program that addresses these emissions before construction or
modification could begin.
    Under these circumstances, many small sources would be burdened by
the costs of the individualized PSD control technology requirements and
permit applications that the PSD provisions, absent streamlining,
require. Additionally, state and local permitting authorities would be
burdened by the extraordinary number of these permit applications,
which are orders of magnitude greater than the current inventory of
permits and would vastly exceed the current administrative resources of
the permitting authorities. Permit gridlock would result since the
permitting authorities would likely be able to issue only a tiny
fraction of the permits requested.
    In the Tailoring Rule, EPA adopted regulatory language codifying
the phase-in approach. As explained in that rulemaking, many state,
local and tribal area programs will likely be able to immediately
implement the approach without rule or statutory changes by, for
example, interpreting the term ``subject to regulation'' that is part
of the applicability provisions for PSD permitting. EPA has requested
permitting authorities to confirm that they will follow this
implementation approach for their programs, and if they cannot, then
EPA has requested that they notify the Agency so that we can take
appropriate follow-up action to narrow Federal approval of their
programs before GHGs become subject to PSD permitting on January 2,
2011.\6\ On July 27, 2010, Kentucky provided a letter to EPA explaining
that it cannot interpret its SIP-approved PSD program as applying to
GHGs. Kentucky informed EPA that it would undertake a rulemaking to
include GHGs in its PSD program and presented EPA with a projected
rulemaking schedule. See the docket for this proposed rulemaking for a
copy of Kentucky's letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Narrowing EPA's approval will ensure that for Federal
purposes, sources with GHG emissions that are less than the
Tailoring Rule's emission thresholds will not be obligated under
Federal law to obtain PSD permits during the gap between when GHG
PSD requirements go into effect on January 2, 2011 and when either
(1) EPA approves a SIP revision adopting EPA's tailoring approach,
or (2) if a state opts to regulate smaller GHG-emitting sources, the
state demonstrates to EPA that it has adequate resources to handle
permitting for such sources. EPA expects to finalize the narrowing
action prior to the January 2, 2011 deadline with respect to those
States for which EPA will not have approved the Tailoring Rule
thresholds in their SIPs by that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The thresholds that EPA established in the Tailoring Rule are based
on CO2e for the aggregate sum of six GHGs that constitute
the pollutant that will be subject to regulation, which we refer to as
GHG.\7\ These gases are: CO2, CH4,
N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. Thus, in EPA's
Tailoring Rule, EPA provided that PSD applicability is based on the
quantity that results when the mass emissions of each of these gases is
multiplied by the GWP of that gas, and then summed for all six gases.
However, EPA further provided that in order for a source's GHG
emissions to trigger PSD requirements, the quantity of the GHG
emissions must equal or exceed both the applicability thresholds
established in the Tailoring Rule on a CO2e basis and the
statutory thresholds of 100 or 250 tpy on a mass basis.\8\ Similarly,
in order for a source to be subject to the PSD modification
requirements, the source's net GHG emissions increase must exceed the
applicable significance level on a CO2e basis and must also
result in a net mass increase of the constituent gases combined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``greenhouse gases'' is commonly used to refer
generally to gases that have heat-trapping properties. However, in
this notice, unless noted otherwise, we use it to refer specifically
to the pollutant regulated in the LDVR.
    \8\ The relevant thresholds are 100 tpy for title V, and 250 tpy
for PSD, except for 28 categories listed in EPA regulations for
which the PSD threshold is 100 tpy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What is the GHG SIP Call?
    By Federal Register notice dated September 2, 2010, EPA proposed
the GHG SIP Call. In that action, along with the companion GHG FIP
rulemaking published at the same time, EPA took steps to ensure that in
the 13 States that do not appear to have authority to issue PSD permits
to GHG-emitting sources at present, either the state or EPA will have
the authority to issue such permits by January 2, 2011. EPA explained
that although for most states, either the State or EPA is already
authorized to issue PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources as of that
date, our preliminary information shows that these 13 States have EPA-
approved PSD programs that do not appear to include GHG-emitting
sources and therefore do not appear to authorize these States to issue
PSD permits to such sources. Therefore, EPA proposed to find that these
13 States' SIPs are substantially inadequate to comply with CAA
requirements and, accordingly, proposed to issue a SIP Call to require
a SIP revision that applies their SIP PSD programs to GHG-emitting
sources. In the companion GHG FIP rulemaking, EPA proposed a FIP that
would give EPA authority to apply EPA's PSD program to GHG-emitting
sources in any State that is unable to submit a corrective SIP revision
by its deadline. The Commonwealth of Kentucky is included in the list
of areas for which EPA proposed a SIP Call.

III. What is the relationship between today's proposed action and EPA's
proposed GHG SIP Call and GHG FIP?

    As noted above, by notice dated September 2, 2010, EPA proposed the
GHG SIP Call. At the same time, EPA proposed a FIP to apply in any
state that is unable to submit, by its deadline, a SIP revision to
ensure that the state has authority to issue PSD permits to GHG-
emitting sources.\9\ As discussed in section IV of this rulemaking,
Kentucky does not interpret its current PSD regulations as providing it
with the authority to regulate GHGs, and as such, Kentucky is included
on the list of areas for the proposed SIP call. Kentucky's August 5,
2010, proposed SIP revision (the subject of this rulemaking) addresses
this authority. EPA will not take final action on the GHG SIP Call for
Kentucky if the Commonwealth submits its final SIP revision to EPA
prior to the final rulemaking for the GHG SIP Call. Additionally,
Kentucky would not be subject to the FIP if EPA finalizes

today's proposed approval of the Commonwealth's SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As explained in the proposed GHG SIP Call (75 FR 53892,
53896), EPA intends to finalize its finding of substantial
inadequacy and the SIP call for the 13 listed states by December 1,
2010. EPA requested that the states for which EPA is proposing a SIP
call identify the deadline--between 3 weeks and 12 months from the
date of signature of the final SIP Call--that they would accept for
submitting their corrective SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Kentucky's proposed SIP revision?

    On August 5, 2010, KDAQ provided a revision to Kentucky's SIP to
EPA for parallel processing and eventual approval. This revision to
Kentucky's SIP is necessary because without it: (1) The Commonwealth
would not have authority to issue PSD permits to GHG-emitting sources,
and as a result, absent further action, those sources may not be able
to construct or undertake modifications beginning January 2, 2011; and
(2) assuming that the Commonwealth attains authority to issue PSD
permits to GHG-emitting sources, PSD requirements would apply, as of
January 2, 2011, at the 100- or 250-tpy levels provided under the CAA.
This would greatly increase the number of required permits, imposing
undue costs on small sources; which would overwhelm Kentucky's
permitting resources and severely impair the function of the program.
    The Commonwealth's August 5, 2010, proposed SIP revision: (1)
Provides the Commonwealth with the authority to regulate GHG under the
PSD program of the CAA, and (2) establishes thresholds for determining
which stationary sources and modification projects become subject to
permitting requirements for GHG emissions under Kentucky's PSD program.
Specifically, Kentucky's August 5, 2010, proposed SIP revision includes
changes to Kentucky's Air Quality Regulations, 401 KAR 51:001--
Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 51,\10\ revising Kentucky's regulations
by updating the ``subject to regulation'' provision to provide
authority for the Commonwealth to regulate GHG and addressing the
thresholds for GHG permitting applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Kentucky's submittal also revises definitions for 401 KAR
52:001--Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 52; however, these
definitions relate to title V and are not included in the SIP. As
such, EPA is not proposing to take action to approve Kentucky's
update to these definitions in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commonwealth of Kentucky is currently a SIP-approved state for
the PSD program, and has incorporated the EPA's 2002 NSR reform
revisions for PSD into its SIP. However, Kentucky does not interpret
its current rules, which are generally consistent with the Federal
rules, to be automatically updating to include newly designated
regulated air pollutants such as GHG.\11\ In a letter provided to EPA
on July 27, 2010, Kentucky notified EPA that the Commonwealth does not
currently have the authority to regulate GHG and thus is in the process
of revising its regulation (the subject of this proposed action) to
provide this authority. To provide this authority, Kentucky is updating
the definitions for ``regulated NSR pollutant'' and ``subject to
regulation'' to explicitly include GHG as a regulated NSR pollutant
under the CAA. Specifically, while Kentucky revises its SIP provisions
in its August 5, 2010, submittal by establishing its own regulatory
language, it adopts relevant GHG definitions as ``defined in 40 CFR
51.166 or 52.21'' as amended by the Tailoring Rule promulgated on June
3, 2010. EPA has preliminarily determined that this change to
Kentucky's regulation is consistent with the CAA and its implementing
regulations regarding GHG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ On July 23, 2010, Lynorae Benjamin, Region 4 EPA Chief of
the Regulatory Development Section, confirmed with John Lyons, the
Director of KDAQ, that it is the Commonwealth of Kentucky's
interpretation that Kentucky does not have the authority to regulate
GHG without the revision that is the subject of today's proposed
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The changes included in Kentucky's PSD program are substantively
the same as EPA's Tailoring Rule. The Kentucky rules have been
formatted to conform to Kentucky's rule drafting standards for 401 KAR
51:001--Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 51, but in substantive content
the rules that address the Tailoring Rule provisions are the same as
the Federal rules. As part of its review of the Kentucky submittal, EPA
performed a line-by-line review of Kentucky's proposed changes to its
regulations and has preliminarily determined that they are consistent
with the Tailoring Rule. Furthermore, EPA preliminarily determined that
this revision to Kentucky's SIP is consistent with section 110 of the
CAA. See, e.g., Tailoring Rule, 75 FR at 31561.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Kentucky's August
5, 2010, SIP revision, relating to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting
sources. Specifically, Kentucky's August 5, 2010, proposed SIP
revision: (1) Provides the Commonwealth with the authority to regulate
GHGs under its PSD program, and (2) establishes appropriate emissions
thresholds for determining PSD applicability with respect to new and
modified GHG-emitting sources in accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule.
EPA has made the preliminary determination that this SIP revision is
approvable because it is in accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations
regarding PSD permitting for GHGs.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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
proposed action merely approves the Commonwealth's law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by the Commonwealth's law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the Commonwealth, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial

direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: October 25, 2010.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2010-28017 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 67 (Thursday, April 8, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17889-17891]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7946]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0376; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-267-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -
200LR, -300, and -300ER Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. This
proposed AD would require removing and repairing the sealant at the
four lower corners of the wing center section and the four lower t-
chord segment gaps on each side of the wing center section. This
proposed AD results from reports of fuel leakage from the center tank.
We are proposing this AD to detect and correct improperly applied
sealant, which could result in the disbonding and displacing of
sealant, and

consequent fuel leaks. On the ground, uncontained fuel leakage could
result in pooling, and pooling combined with an ignition source could
result in a fire.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 24, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6501; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0376;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-267-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received reports that 7 operators have reported 9 cases of
fuel leakage from the center tank on 9 airplanes. These airplanes had
accumulated approximately 10 to 10,000 flight hours, 5 to 2,000 flight
cycles, and 1 to 26 months in service. The leaks were found at the two
aft lower corners of the wing center section and one leak was found at
one of the four gaps between the lower t-chord segments on each side of
the wing center section. The forward lower corners and the remaining
gaps between the t-chord segments are also believed to be susceptible
to fuel leakage. The leaks are believed to be the result of improperly
applied sealant during production. This condition, if not detected and
corrected, could result in failing by the disbonding and displacing of
sealant, which can result in fuel leaks of up to 10 gallons per minute.
During flight, the fuel would leak into areas that have been designed
to accommodate fuel leakage, but on the ground, if the fuel leakage is
not contained, it could result in pooling. This pooling combined with
an ignition source could result in a fire.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-57-
0063, Revision 1, dated May 14, 2009. The service bulletin describes
procedures for removing and repairing the sealant at the four lower
corners of the wing center section and the four lower t-chord segment
gaps on each side of the wing center section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 8 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per
product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85
per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this
proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $6,800, or $850 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2010-0376; Directorate Identifier
2009-NM-267-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by May 24, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR,
-300, and -300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-57-0063,
Revision 1, dated May 14, 2009.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from reports of fuel leakage from the center
tank. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct improperly
applied sealant, which could result in the disbonding and displacing
of sealant, and consequent fuel leaks. On the ground, uncontained
fuel leakage could result in pooling, and pooling combined with an
ignition source, could result in a fire.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Removal and Repair of Sealant

    (g) Within 36 months or 6,000 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Remove and repair the
sealant at the four lower corners of the wing center section and the
four lower t-chord segment gaps on each side of the wing center
section, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-57-0063, Revision 1,
dated May 14, 2009.

Credit For Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Service
Bulletin

    (h) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-57-
0063, dated November 20, 2008, are considered acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding action specified in this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S,
FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(425) 917-6590. Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 1, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-7946 Filed 4-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46430-46431]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18982]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC12-125-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Inc., Franklin Resources, Inc.
    Description: Joint Application For Approval Under Section 203 of
the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Consideration of Dynegy
Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 7/25/12.

    Accession Number: 20120725-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/12.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER11-2780-005.
    Applicants: Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Safe Harbor Water Power
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 7/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120725-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2853-001.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: 07252012--PSCo Production Formula Compliance Filing to
be effective 9/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 7/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120725-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4304-002.
    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35: Compliance Filing to April 24 Order to be
effective 7/25/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120725-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2302-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 7-25-12 SSR Tariff Filing
to be effective 9/24/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120725-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2303-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): NYISO Tariff Revisions to Improve
Clarity and Consistency of OATT Attachment Y to be effective 9/24/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120725-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2304-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Green Mountain Power Corporation,
Central Vermont Public Service Corporation.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii) GMP and CVPSC Jt. Trans. Rate and Compliance Filing
(EC11-117) to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/26/12.
    Accession Number: 20120726-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2305-000.
    Applicants: The Detroit Edison Company.
    Description: The Detroit Edison Company submits tariff filing per
35.12: FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 44 to be effective 7/27/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/26/12.
    Accession Number: 20120726-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/12.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA
210(m)(3) filings:
    Docket Numbers: QM12-5-000.
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Application to Terminate Mandatory PURPA Purchase
Obligation of Otter Tail Power Company.
    Filed Date: 7/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120725-5126.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/12.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 26, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18982 Filed 8-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P