[Federal Register: August 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 169)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50305-50311]
[DOCID:fr31au07-29]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0399; FRL-8462-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; State Implementation Plan Revision To Implement the Clean
Air Interstate Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Connecticut
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on April 26, 2007. This
revision addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), promulgated on May 12, 2005 and subsequently revised on April
28, 2006 and December 13, 2006. EPA is proposing to determine that the
SIP revision fully implements the CAIR requirements for Connecticut.
Therefore, as a consequence of the SIP approval, EPA will also withdraw
the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (CAIR FIP) concerning
NOX ozone-season emissions for Connecticut. The CAIR FIPs
for all States in the CAIR region were promulgated on April 28, 2006
and subsequently revised on December 13, 2006.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 1, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-
R01-OAR-2007-0399, 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: ``FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0399'', Anne Arnold,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``FDMS Docket
ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0399''. 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 and any form of
encryption and should 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
http://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. In addition to publicly
available docket materials available electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov, the hard copy of these materials, including the
state submittal, is available at the Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. 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
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning
today's proposal, please contact Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?

II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?
III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?
IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals?
V. Analysis of Connecticut's CAIR SIP Submittal
    A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations
    B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs
    C. Applicability Provisions for non-EGU NOX SIP Call
Sources
    D. NOX Allowance Allocations
    E. Individual Opt-in Units
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?

    EPA is proposing to approve a revision to Connecticut's SIP,
submitted on April 26, 2007. This SIP revision includes a new
regulation, Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section
22a-174-22c, ``The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) Ozone Season Trading Program'' (herein called
``Connecticut's proposed CAIR program''), repeal of RCSA section 22a-
174-22a (``The Connecticut NOX Budget Program''), as of May
1, 2009, and repeal of RCSA section 22a-174-22b, ``The Connecticut
Post-2002 NOX Budget Program'' (herein called the
``Connecticut NOX SIP Call trading program''), as of May 1,
2010. In its SIP revision, Connecticut would meet CAIR requirements by
requiring certain electric generating units (EGUs) to participate in
the EPA-administered State CAIR cap-and-trade program addressing
NOX ozone-season emissions. EPA is proposing to determine
that the Connecticut SIP as revised will meet the applicable
requirements of CAIR. Any final action approving the SIP will be taken
by the Regional Administrator for Region 1. As a consequence of the SIP
Approval, the Administrator of EPA will also issue a final rule to
withdraw the FIP concerning NOX ozone-season emissions for
Connecticut. This action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.386. The
withdrawal of the CAIR FIP for Connecticut is a conforming amendment
that must be made once the SIP is approved because EPA's authority to
issue the FIP was premised on a deficiency in the SIP for Connecticut.
Once the SIP is fully approved, EPA no longer has authority for the
FIP. Thus, EPA will not have the option of maintaining the FIP
following the full SIP approval. Accordingly, EPA does not intend to
offer an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity
for written public comment on the withdrawal of the FIP.
    The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has
requested that EPA ``parallel process'' Connecticut's proposed CAIR SIP
revision. Under this procedure, EPA prepared this action before the
State's final adoption of the regulations included in the SIP revision.
The DEP held a public hearing on its proposed CAIR SIP revision on
October 19, 2006. The DEP has prepared a response to the comments
received on its proposal and has developed a ``post-hearing final
draft'' version of the regulations dated April 10, 2007. This is the
version of the regulations included in Connecticut's April 26, 2007 SIP
submittal to EPA and the subject of EPA's proposal.
    On June 19, 2007, the Connecticut DEP received adverse comments
regarding the allocation methodology in its proposed CAIR program.
Consequently, the DEP may revise its proposed regulations before final
promulgation. After the DEP submits its final adopted regulations, EPA
will review these final regulations to determine whether they differ
from the ``post-hearing final draft'' version that is the subject of
this proposal. If Connecticut's final regulations do in fact differ
from the ``post-hearing final draft'' version, then EPA would need to
determine whether any of the changes are significant. Ordinarily,
changes that are limited to the allocation methodology would not be
deemed significant for SIP approval purposes, assuming the methodology
does not lead to allocations in excess of the total state budget. Based
on EPA's determination regarding the significance of any changes in the
final regulations, EPA would then decide whether it is appropriate to
prepare a final rule and describe the changes in the final rulemaking
action, or re-propose action based on the state's final adopted
regulations.

II. What Is the Regulatory History of the CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

    The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) was published by EPA on May
12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In this rule, EPA determined that 28 States and
the District of Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment and
interfere with maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM2.5) and/or 8-hour
ozone in downwind States in the eastern part of the country. As a
result, EPA required those upwind States to revise their SIPs to
include control measures that reduce emissions of SO2, which
is a precursor to PM2.5 formation, and/or NOX,
which is a precursor to both ozone and PM2.5 formation. For
jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind
PM2.5 nonattainment, CAIR sets annual State-wide emission
reduction requirements (i.e., budgets) for SO2 and annual
State-wide emission reduction requirements for NOX.
Similarly, for jurisdictions that contribute significantly to 8-hour
ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets State-wide emission reduction
requirements for NOX for the ozone season (May 1st to
September 30th). Under CAIR, States may implement these reduction
requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs or by adopting any other control measures.
    CAIR explains to subject States what must be included in SIPs to
address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) with regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective
on May 25, 2005, that the States had failed to submit SIPs meeting the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due in July 2000, 3
years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS. These findings started a 2-year clock for EPA to promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D). Under CAA section 110(c)(1), EPA may issue a FIP
anytime after such findings are made and must do so within two years
unless a SIP revision correcting the deficiency is approved by EPA
before the FIP is promulgated.
    On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs for all States covered by
CAIR in order to ensure the emissions reductions required by CAIR are
achieved on schedule. Each CAIR State is subject to the FIPs until the
State fully adopts, and EPA approves, a SIP revision meeting the
requirements of CAIR. The CAIR FIPs require EGUs to participate in the
EPA-administered CAIR SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs, as appropriate. The CAIR
FIP SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone
season trading programs impose essentially the same requirements as,
and are integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs. The
integration of the FIP and SIP trading programs means that these
trading programs will work together to create effectively a single
trading program for each regulated pollutant (SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone-season) in all States
covered by the CAIR FIP or SIP trading program for that pollutant. The
CAIR FIPs also allow States to submit abbreviated SIP revisions that,
if approved by EPA, will automatically

replace or supplement certain CAIR FIP provisions (e.g., the
methodology for allocating NOX allowances to sources in the
State), while the CAIR FIP remains in place for all other provisions.
    On April 28, 2006, EPA published two additional CAIR-related final
rules that added the States of Delaware and New Jersey to the list of
States subject to CAIR for PM2.5 and announced EPA's final
decisions on reconsideration of five issues, without making any
substantive changes to the CAIR requirements.

III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

    CAIR establishes State-wide emission budgets for SO2 and
NOX and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase
of NOX reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014,
while the first phase of SO2 reductions starts in 2010 and
continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both
NOX and SO2 starts in 2015 and continues
thereafter. CAIR requires States to implement the budgets by either:
(1) Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs; or (2) adopting other control measures of the State's
choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in
compliance with the applicable State SO2 and NOX
budgets.
    The May 12, 2005 and April 28, 2006 CAIR rules provide model rules
that States must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired) if
they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs.
    With two exceptions, only States that choose to meet the
requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are
allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One
exception is for States that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model
rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered
trading programs. The other exception is for States that include all
units from their NOX SIP Call trading programs in their CAIR
NOX ozone season trading programs.

IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals?

    States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures
they will use to meet the requirements of CAIR. EPA anticipates that
most States will choose to meet the CAIR requirements by selecting an
option that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR
cap-and-trade programs. For such States, EPA has provided two
approaches for submitting and obtaining approval for CAIR SIP
revisions. States may submit full SIP revisions that adopt the model
CAIR cap-and-trade rules. If approved, these SIP revisions will fully
replace the CAIR FIPs. Alternatively, States may submit abbreviated SIP
revisions. These SIP revisions will not replace the CAIR FIPs; however,
the CAIR FIPs provide that, when approved, the provisions in these
abbreviated SIP revisions will be used instead of or in conjunction
with, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIPs
(e.g., the NOX allowance allocation methodology).
    A State submitting a full SIP revision may either adopt regulations
that are substantively identical to the model rules or incorporate by
reference the model rules. CAIR provides that States may only make
limited changes to the model rules if the States want to participate in
the EPA-administered trading programs. A full SIP revision may change
the model rules only by altering their applicability and allowance
allocation provisions to:
    1. Include NOX SIP Call trading sources that are not
EGUs under CAIR in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading
program;
    2. Provide for State allocation of NOX annual or ozone
season allowances using a methodology chosen by the State;
    3. Provide for State allocation of NOX annual allowances
from the compliance supplement pool (CSP) using the State's choice of
allowed, alternative methodologies; or
    4. Allow units that are not otherwise CAIR units to opt
individually into the CAIR SO2, NOX annual, or
NOX ozone season trading programs under the opt-in
provisions in the model rules.
    An approved CAIR full SIP revision addressing EGUs' SO2,
NOX annual, or NOX ozone-season emissions will
replace the CAIR FIP for that State for the respective EGU emissions.

V. Analysis of Connecticut's CAIR SIP Submittal

A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations

    The CAIR NOX annual and ozone-season budgets were
developed from historical heat input data for EGUs. Using these data,
EPA calculated annual and ozone season regional heat input values,
which were multiplied by 0.15 pounds per million British thermal units
(lb/mmBtu), for phase 1 of the CAIR program (2009-2014) and by 0.125
lb/mmBtu, for phase 2 of the CAIR program (2015 and thereafter) to
obtain regional NOX budgets for 2009-2014 and for 2015 and
thereafter, respectively. EPA derived the State NOX annual
and ozone-season budgets from the regional budgets using State heat
input data adjusted by fuel factors. Connecticut, however, is only
required to participate in the CAIR NOX ozone season program
and not the CAIR NOX annual or SO2 trading
programs. Therefore, only CAIR NOX ozone-season budgets
apply to the Connecticut CAIR program.
    In today's action, EPA is proposing approval of Connecticut's SIP
revision, which will be codified at RCSA section 22a-174-22c. This SIP
revision adopts the budget established for the State in CAIR, i.e.,
2,559 tons of NOX ozone-season emissions for CAIR phases 1
and 2, plus an additional 132 tons of NOX ozone-season
emissions for both phases 1 and 2 to account for NOX
emissions from ``non-EGUs'' from the Connecticut NOX SIP
Call trading program (see section V.B. below). The total NOX
ozone-season budget is therefore 2,691 tons of NOX ozone-
season emissions for CAIR phases 1 and 2. Connecticut's SIP revision
sets this budget as the total number of allowances (with each allowance
authorizing one ton of NOX ozone-season emissions) available
for allocation for each year under the EPA-administered CAIR cap-and-
trade program.

B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs

    The CAIR NOX annual and ozone-season model trading rules
both largely mirror the structure of the NOX SIP Call model
trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the
provisions of the NOX annual and ozone-season model rules
are similar, there are some differences. For example, the
NOX ozone-season model rule reflects the fact that the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program replaces the NOX
SIP Call trading program after the 2008 ozone season and is coordinated
with the NOX SIP Call program. The NOX ozone-
season model rule provides incentives for early emissions reductions by
allowing banked, pre-2009 NOX SIP Call allowances to be used
for compliance in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program.
In addition, States have the option of continuing to meet their
NOX SIP Call requirement by participating in the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program and including all their
NOX SIP Call trading sources in that program. Connecticut
has decided to exercise the option of including all its NOX
SIP Call units in its State CAIR program. Therefore, the Connecticut
CAIR SIP revision includes amendments to the Connecticut NOX
SIP Call trading

program (RCSA section 22a-174-22b) such that the NOX SIP
Call trading program applies for the control periods from 2003 through
2008, but is then superseded by the Connecticut CAIR program beginning
with the control period in 2009.
    EPA also used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the
trading programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are
virtually identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made
to account for federal rather than state implementation. The CAIR model
SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season
trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to
work together as integrated SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs.
    In the SIP revision, Connecticut proposes to implement its CAIR
budgets by requiring EGUs (as well as ``non-EGUs'' from its
NOX SIP Call trading program, as discussed below) to
participate in EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs for
NOX ozone-season emissions. Connecticut is proposing a full
SIP revision that adopts, with certain allowed changes discussed below,
the CAIR model cap-and-trade rules for NOX ozone season
emissions.

C. Applicability Provisions for Non-EGU NOX SIP Call Sources

    In general, the CAIR model trading rules apply to any stationary,
fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion
turbine serving at any time, since the later of November 15, 1990 or
the start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with
nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale.
    States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NOX
ozone season program only, those units in the State's NOX
SIP Call trading program that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR
(herein called ``non-EGUs''). EPA advises States exercising this option
to add the applicability provisions in the State's NOX SIP
Call trading rule for ``non-EGUs'' to the applicability provisions in
40 CFR 96.304 in order to include in the CAIR NOX ozone
season trading program all units required to be in the State's
NOX SIP Call trading program that are not already included
under 40 CFR 96.304. Under this option, the CAIR NOX ozone
season program must cover all large industrial boilers and combustion
turbines, as well as any small EGUs (i.e. units serving a generator
with a nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less) that the State currently
requires to be in the NOX SIP Call trading program.
    In the SIP revision, Connecticut proposes to expand the
applicability provisions of the CAIR NOX ozone season
trading program to include all units in the State's NOX SIP
Call trading program, plus Exeter Energy, which is a waste-tire-fired
unit that EPA has determined meets the definition of a NOX
SIP Call unit and a CAIR unit. Units in the Connecticut NOX
SIP Call trading program include EGUs of 15 MW or more and non-EGUs
(such as industrial boilers and combustion turbines) with a maximum
design heat input of 250 MMBtu/hr or more. These units will be included
in the Connecticut CAIR program beginning with the control period in
2009.
    EPA has determined that Connecticut's proposed SIP revision
includes the allowable CAIR applicability provisions relating to adding
all NOX SIP Call trading-program units to the Connecticut
CAIR NOX ozone season program.

D. NOX Allowance Allocations

    Deadlines: There is one technical flaw in the SIP revision, but EPA
is proposing to approve the SIP revision despite this flaw. CAIR
requires states to submit to EPA the initial allocations for EGUs that
started operation before 2001 by October 31, 2006. Connecticut's
proposed SIP revision does not meet this requirement, nor did the state
in fact submit those allocations by this date. However, the purpose of
this date was to allow EPA sufficient time to process the allocations
data. EPA now has the allocations, and no outside party was prejudiced
by Connecticut's failure to meet this date.
    Specifically, according to 40 CFR 51.123(aa)(2)(iii)(C), for a full
SIP revision, ``[t]he State's methodology must require that, for EGUs
commencing operation before January 1, 2001, the State will determine,
and notify the Administrator of, each unit's allocation of CAIR
NOX allowances by October 31, 2006 for the ozone seasons
2009, 2010, and 2011.'' Connecticut's proposed SIP revision does not
meet this requirement because it does not require that the State submit
the 2009-2011 allocations for pre-2001 EGUs by October 31, 2006.
Instead, Connecticut's SIP revision requires that it submit, and in
fact it did submit, these allocations by April 30, 2007, the deadline
that is applicable to abbreviated SIP revisions under 40 CFR
51.123(ee)(2)(ii)(C).
    Since Connecticut has submitted a full SIP revision, not an
abbreviated SIP revision, this failure to require that the State will
submit allocations by October 31, 2006 is technically a deficiency in
the SIP. However, this does not render the SIP unapprovable. The
purpose of the October 31, 2006 deadline, as mentioned above, was to
allow EPA's Clean Air Markets Division sufficient time to process the
allocations. At this point, the deadline has elapsed; Connecticut has,
in fact, submitted its allocations; and the Clean Air Markets Division
is fully able to process the allocations despite having received them
later than CAIR envisions. Potentially regulated entities received
ample notice of Connecticut's plan for allocations when the State's
program was submitted for public comment on the state level.
Furthermore, in the context of this action, it makes no difference
whether EPA would have received the 2009-2011 allocations in April of
this year or October of last year, since EPA has, in fact, received
them well before the date of this document. No party is prejudiced by
the deficiency, since the deadline has passed, and any interested party
has a full opportunity to comment on any aspect of this proposed
action. Moreover, with Connecticut's April 2007 submission of the
allocations, EPA will still be able--after final approval of the SIP
revision--to record them in 2007 and, thereby, provide the allowances
to owners and operators sufficiently in advance of the 2009-2011
control periods. In sum, EPA has determined that the interests of the
public, potentially regulated entities, and EPA itself, including those
interests which 40 CFR 51.123(aa)(2)(iii)(C) sought to protect, have
been adequately met by the proposed SIP revision's adoption and, more
importantly, actual submission of 2009-2011 allocation data by April
30, 2007. Consequently, EPA proposes to approve this SIP revision
despite Connecticut's failure to meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.123(aa)(2)(iii)(C).
    NOX allowance-allocation methodology: Under the NOX
allowance-allocation methodology in the CAIR model trading rules and in
the CAIR FIP, NOX annual and ozone-season allowances are
allocated to units that have operated for five years (i.e., ``existing
units''), based on heat input data from a three-year period that are
adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for
oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading rules and the CAIR
FIP also provide a new unit set-aside from which units without five
years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units' prior
year emissions.
    States may establish in their SIP submissions a different
NOX allowance-allocation methodology that will be used to
allocate allowances to sources in

the States if certain requirements are met concerning the timing of
submission of units' allocations to the Administrator for recordation
and the total amount of allowances allocated for each control period.
In adopting alternative NOX allowance-allocation
methodologies, States have flexibility with regard to:
    1. The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be
distributed for free or auctioned;
    2. The frequency of allocations;
    3. The basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed,
for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal
output; and
    4. The use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size.
    In the SIP revision, Connecticut proposes to replace the provisions
of the CAIR NOX ozone-season model trading rule concerning
allowance allocations with its own methodology. For most fossil-fuel-
fired units, Connecticut proposes to allocate NOX ozone-
season allowances largely based on electric and thermal output, rather
than heat input. For cogeneration units, certain industrial boilers or
indirect heat exchangers, and waste-tire-fired units, Connecticut
proposes to allocate allowances based on the unit's actual or permitted
NOX emission rate. Connecticut also provides a percentage of
allowances for an energy efficiency/renewable energy set-aside and a
new unit set-aside.
(1) What Types of Set-Asides Are Included in Connecticut CAIR?
    In the SIP revision, Connecticut proposes to include in its CAIR
program both an energy efficiency/renewable energy set-aside (EERESA)
to encourage Energy Efficiency Projects (EEPs), Renewable Energy
Projects (REPs), and Qualifying Other Project (QOPs), and a new unit
set-aside to allow for addition of new units.
    Connecticut defines a new unit as any fossil-fuel-fired unit that
began operating on or after January 1, 2006 and that serves a generator
that produces electricity at an output of 15 MWe or more. A unit is
considered to be a new unit for 6 ozone-season control periods (or
portion thereof) following the date of initial operation. This change
in status means that a Connecticut CAIR ``new unit'' will then become a
Connecticut CAIR ``existing unit.''
    Connecticut proposes to establish a new unit set-aside at 7 percent
of the State's CAIR budget during CAIR phase 1 (2009-2014), and at 5
percent of the State's CAIR budget during CAIR phase 2 (2015 and
thereafter). Therefore, the new unit set-aside would include 200 CAIR
NOX ozone-season allowances during CAIR phase 1, and 134
allowances during CAIR phase 2.
    Connecticut proposes to establish an EERESA at 10 percent of the
State's CAIR budget for both phases of the CAIR program. Therefore, the
EERESA would include 268 CAIR NOX allowances for the 2009
and subsequent ozone-season control periods.
(2) Methodology for Allocating CAIR Allowances
    Connecticut is proposing to replace the provisions of the CAIR
NOX ozone-season model trading rule concerning allowance
allocations with a largely output-based methodology. Under
Connecticut's proposed SIP revision, most fossil-fuel-fired units would
receive allocations based on their average net electricity output,
without adjustments for fuel type. For cogeneration, industrial, and
waste-tire-fired units, Connecticut proposes to allocate allowances
based on the units' actual or permitted NOX emission rates
and average heat input.
    EPA has identified two potential ambiguities in the allocation
provisions of Connecticut's proposed CAIR program, and asked the
Connecticut DEP for its interpretations. The Connecticut DEP (Wendy
Jacobs, Bureau of Air Management) responded by electronic mail on June
20, 2007. After reviewing the Connecticut DEP's interpretations as
stated in that electronic mail message, EPA interprets the provisions
involved as follows.
    First, the proposed regulation uses the term ``NOX
allowance'' in three places. See RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(c)(2), 22a-
174-22c(c)(3)(B), 22a-174-22c(g)(4). However, this term is defined
neither in the proposed SIP revision nor in the CAIR model rule.
According to the Connecticut DEP, the term ``NOX allowance''
when used in RCSA section 22a-174-22c is identical to the term ``CAIR
NOX Ozone Season allowance'' as defined at 40 CFR 96.302.
EPA adopts this interpretation.
    Second, under RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(7)(A) and (B) and 22a-
174-22c(e)(8)(A), there is no limit to the number of allowances that
can be allocated to cogeneration units, industrial units, waste-tire-
fired units, or Phase I units in any control period. In theory, these
provisions could operate to allocate more allowances to cogeneration
units, industrial units, waste-tire-fired units, or Phase I units than
are available in Connecticut's CAIR NOX ozone-season budget.
That said, RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(2) and 22a-174-22c(e)(3), which
authorize the Connecticut DEP to allocate CAIR NOX ozone
season allowances, state the maximum number of allowances available for
allocation for all units other than new units.
    According to the Connecticut DEP, RCSA sections 22a-174-
22c(e)(7)(A) and 22a-174-22c(e)(8)(A) are modeled after analogous
provisions in the Connecticut NOX Budget Program and the
Connecticut NOX SIP Call trading program, and under those
programs, the allocations for cogeneration units and industrial units
have never resulted in a shortage of allowances for units in other
categories. The DEP suggests that if the data support allocating
allowances to cogeneration units, industrial units and waste-tire-fired
units on an output basis, or if there are a significant number of new
entrants into these categories, DEP may revise its CAIR program to
allocate to these categories on an output basis.
    For purposes of construing Connecticut's proposed SIP revision, EPA
interprets RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(2) and 22a-174-22c(e)(3) to
prohibit the Connecticut DEP from allocating allowances in excess of
the total state budget, and to control in any conflict with RCSA
sections 22a-174-22c(e)(7)(A) and (B) and 22a-174-22c(e)(8)(A). Thus,
if the operation of RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(7)(A)-(B) and/or 22a-
174-22c(e)(8)(A) were to yield allowances for cogeneration units,
industrial units, waste-tire-fired units, or Phase I units in excess of
the state budget, either by themselves or in combination with
allocations to other categories, then RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(2)
and 22a-174-22c(e)(3) would require the Connecticut DEP to recalculate
or reallocate allowances so as not to exceed the state budget.
    EPA is relying on this interpretation of Connecticut's proposed SIP
revision for the purposes of approving it as meeting the requirements
of the Act and the CAIR program. If EPA does not receive comments to
the contrary from the Connecticut DEP or any other party during the
public comment period, the interpretations stated above will represent
EPA's formal interpretations of the SIP provisions at issue for
purposes of federal law.
(3) NOX Reporting Requirements
    Under the CAIR model rule, facilities that are subject to the Acid
Rain Program or the CAIR NOX and SO2 annual
trading programs must report emissions data year-round, but facilities
that are only subject to the NOX ozone season trading
program need only submit NOX emission data to the State
during the ozone season. As noted above, Connecticut is only required
to

participate in the CAIR NOX ozone season program. However,
Connecticut's proposed CAIR program requires additional data reporting
beyond that required by the model CAIR NOX ozone season
rule. Specifically, all units would be required to provide annual
reports of net electricity output and useful steam output (or an
estimate of this steam output) for each control period. New CAIR units
would be required to provide annual estimates of the total number of
hours of operation for each control period. Units that are not subject
to an Acid Rain emissions limitation and that are monitoring
NOX emissions using a CEMS (but not those that are not
monitoring using a CEMS) would be required to report emissions on a
year-round basis.
    EPA has determined that these modifications of the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading rule in regard to reporting of
output data are acceptable.
(4) Submittal of CAIR Allocations to EPA
    In the SIP revision, Connecticut requires the State to provide EPA
with existing-unit CAIR allocations for each control period beyond 2011
by October 31st of each year beginning in 2008. For units starting
operation after January 1, 2001 that are treated as new units, the
State would notify EPA of each unit's allocation by July 31st of the
year for which the CAIR allowances are allocated. EPA has determined
that these proposed reporting deadlines are acceptable.

E. Individual Opt-In Units

    The opt-in provisions of the CAIR SIP model trading rules allow
certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers, combustion turbines, and other
stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices) that do not meet the
applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program to participate
voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading program. A non-EGU may
opt into one or more of the CAIR trading programs. In order to qualify
to opt into a CAIR trading program, a unit must vent all emissions
through a stack and be able to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and
recording requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The owners and operators
seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading program must apply for a CAIR
opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a CAIR opt-in permit, the unit
becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated allowances, and must meet the same
allowance-holding and emissions monitoring and reporting requirements
as other units subject to the CAIR trading program. The opt-in
provisions provide for two methodologies for allocating allowances for
opt-in units, one methodology that applies to opt-in units in general
and a second methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units
that the owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015.
    States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions.
States may adopt the CAIR opt-in provisions entirely or may adopt them
but exclude one of the methodologies for allocating allowances. States
may also decline to adopt the opt-in provisions at all.
    The Connecticut CAIR SIP does not include opt-in provisions. Under
the model CAIR NOX ozone season trading rule, the energy-
output methodology that Connecticut proposes to use to allocate
allowances cannot be used for opt-in sources.

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's full CAIR SIP revision
submitted on April 26, 2007, including new RCSA section 22a-174-22c
(``The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) Ozone Season Trading Program''), repeal of existing
RCSA section 22a-174-22a (``The Connecticut NOX Budget
Program''), as of May 1, 2009, and repeal of existing RCSA section 22a-
174-22b (``The Connecticut Post-2002 NOX Budget Program''),
as of May 1, 2010. Under this SIP revision, Connecticut is choosing to
participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program for
NOX ozone-season emissions. Connecticut's proposed SIP
revision meets the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(o) and
(aa), with regard to NOX ozone-season emissions. EPA is
proposing to determine that the SIP as revised will meet the
requirements of CAIR. As a consequence of the SIP approval, the
Administrator of EPA will also issue, without providing an opportunity
for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public
comment, a final rule to withdraw the CAIR FIP concerning
NOX ozone-season emissions for Connecticut. This action will
delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.386.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements
and would impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by
State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). Because this action proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under State law and would not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4).
    This proposal also does not have tribal implications because it
would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications because it would 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
action merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal
standard and will result, as a consequence of that approval, in the
Administrator's withdrawal of the CAIR FIP. It does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it would approve a State rule implementing a Federal
Standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) do not apply. This proposed rule would not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric
utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.

    Dated: August 22, 2007.
Ira Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. E7-17196 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64892-64893]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22642]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-2506-000]

Oliver Wind III, 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
Oliver Wind III, 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 October 3, 2016.
    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
5 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 electronic 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<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 12, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22642 Filed 9-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 48273]
[DOCID:fr22se09-88]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on November 19, 2009, from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC/Silver Spring, The Ballrooms, 8727
Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD. The hotel phone number is 301-589-
5200.
    Contact Person: Kristine T. Khuc, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for
express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093), Rockville, MD 20857,
301-827-7001, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER>
in the Washington, DC area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice
in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss the efficacy supplement for new
drug application (sNDA) 21-395, for the approved product Spiriva
HandiHaler (tiotropium inhalation powder), manufactured by Boehringer
Ingelheim, for the reduction in exacerbations (worsening of symptoms)
in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/
default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
November 4, 2009. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those desiring to make formal
oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before October 27, 2009. Time allotted for each presentation may
be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by October
28, 2009.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kristine Khuc at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: September 17, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-22820 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: May 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 101)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25410-25413]
[DOCID:fr28my09-11]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 33

[Docket No. RM07-21-002; Order No. 708-B]

Blanket Authorization Under FPA Section 203

Issued May 21, 2009.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule; order on reporting requirements for blanket
authorization under FPA Section 203.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) adopts
reporting requirements under the expanded blanket authorization
established in Order No. 708-A, which amends section 33.1(c)(12) of the
Commission's regulations.

DATES: Effective Date: These regulations are effective July 27, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Noah Monick (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Andrew Mosier (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Ronald Lafferty (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly,
Marc Spitzer, and Philip D. Moeller.

Order on Reporting Requirements for Blanket Authorization Under FPA
Section 203

Order No. 708-B

Issued May 21, 2009.

    1. In this order, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) adopts reporting requirements that apply to the expanded
blanket authorization under Sec.  33.1(c)(12) of the Commission's
regulations,\1\ adopted in Order No. 708-A.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 33.1(c)(12) (2008).
    \2\ Blanket Authorization Under FPA Section 203, Order No. 708,
73 FR 11003 (Feb. 29, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,265 (2008),
order on reh'g, Order No. 708-A, 73 FR 43066 (July 24, 2008), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,273 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. In Order No. 708, the Commission amended its regulations under
section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to provide for five
additional blanket authorizations under FPA section 203(a)(1).\3\ The
Commission found that the blanket authorizations would facilitate
investment in the electric utility industry and, at the same time,
ensure that public utility customers are adequately protected from any
adverse effects of such transactions. One of the additional blanket
authorizations provided that a public utility could transfer its
outstanding voting securities to any holding company granted blanket
authorizations in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of Sec.  33.1 of the
Commission's regulations, if after the transfer, the holding company
and any of its associate or affiliate companies in aggregate would own
less than 10 percent of the outstanding voting interests of such public
utility. In adopting Sec.  33.1(c)(12) of the Commission's regulations,
the Commission rejected requests to extend the blanket authorization to
``any person,'' on the grounds that without increased reporting
requirements, any such extension would best be made on a case-by-case
basis.\4\ The Commission also rejected requests to expand the reporting
requirements applicable to the Commission's blanket authorizations
under Sec.  33.1 of the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 824b(a)(1) (2006).
    \4\ Order No. 708, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,265 at P 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Order No. 708-A, the Commission granted, in part, and denied,
in part, the requests for rehearing of Order No. 708. Among other
things, the Commission expanded the blanket authorization under Sec.
33.1(c)(12) of the Commission's regulations to authorize a public
utility to transfer its outstanding voting securities to ``any person''
other than a holding company if, after the transfer, such person and
any of its associate or affiliate companies will own less than 10
percent of the outstanding voting interests of such public utility. The
Commission stated that it would also adopt a reporting requirement for
entities transacting under that blanket authorization. In order to
properly tailor the additional reporting requirement, the Commission
also stated that it would issue a request for supplemental comments on
the narrow issue of the scope and form of the reporting requirements
under the expanded blanket authorizations under Sec.  33.1(c)(12) of
the Commission's regulations.
    4. In its request for rehearing, the Financial Institutions Energy
Group \5\ (Financial Group) proposed several conditions for the
reporting requirement. Financial Group proposed that within a specified
time following consummation of the transaction, the following
information be reported: (1) Names of all parties to the transaction;
(2) identification of both the pre-transaction and post-transaction
voting security holdings (and the percentage ownership) in the public
utility held by the acquirer and its associates or affiliate companies;
(3) the date the transaction was consummated; (4) identification of any
public utility or holding company affiliates of the parties to the
transaction; and (5) the same type of statement currently required
under Sec.  33.2(j)(1) of the Commission's regulations,\6\ which
describes Exhibit M to an FPA section 203 filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Financial Group consisted at the time of its comments on
September 22, 2008 of the following members: Bank of America, N.A.,
Barclays Bank PLC, CitiGroup Energy Inc., Credit Suisse Energy LLC
(a subsidiary of Credit Suisse), Deutsche Bank AG, J. Aron & Co. (a
subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group), JPMorgan Chase & Co., Lehman
Brothers Commodity Services Inc. (a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers
Holding Inc.), Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc., Morgan Stanley
Capital Group Inc., Soci[eacute]t[eacute] G[eacute]n[eacute]rale,
and UBS Energy LLC (a subsidiary of UBS AG).
    \6\ 18 CFR 33.2(j)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. On July 17, 2008, the Commission issued an order seeking
supplemental comments on the narrow issue of the scope and form of the
reporting requirements under the expanded blanket authorization. The
Commission sought comment on whether Financial Group's proposed
reporting requirement should be adopted, as proposed or modified. The
Commission requested that commenters who disagreed with the proposed
reporting requirement should explain why and propose alternative
reporting requirements. The Commission also sought comment as to
whether reports should be filed with the Commission on a quarterly
basis or on some other basis.

II. Comments

    6. The Commission received one comment on the proposed reporting
requirements, from Financial Group. Financial Group states that the
Commission should adopt the reporting requirements it proposed earlier.
Financial Group argues that for transactions involving non-holding
companies, these requirements would give the Commission at least as
much comfort (if not greater comfort) with respect to possible changes
in control as the preexisting reporting requirements applicable to
holding companies. The information required in the reports, Financial
Group argues, will allow the Commission to determine whether there is a
change in control--the purpose for monitoring these types of
transactions.
    7. With respect to the proposed requirement to include information
regarding cross-subsidization, Financial Group states that it does not
believe that this condition is necessary, but it does not object to the
inclusion of this condition if the Commission deems it necessary.
Financial Group notes that the transactions at issue presumptively do
not convey an ability to exercise control, so there should be no
concern about cross-subsidization for the Commission to consider. If
the Commission does require a statement regarding cross-subsidization,
Financial Group argues that this statement should not be required where
neither party to the transaction has captive customers.
    8. Financial Group recommends that the Commission require the
reporting information on transactions covered by the blanket
authorization in section 33(c)(12) of the Commission's regulations to
be provided within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter in
which the transactions occurred. This timeline would allow companies
who have made multiple transactions to make a combined filing that
would cover each of their transactions in the prior quarter. Such a
filing would be more efficient both for the filing party and for the
Commission's review. Financial Group requests that the Commission
affirm that the reporting requirement is not intended to be ongoing;
once a transaction has been reported there are no further reporting
requirements with respect to that transaction.
    9. Accordingly, Financial Group suggests that a new section
33(c)(17) be added with respect to the reporting requirement for
transactions under the

blanket authorization, to state as follows:

    A public utility granted blanket authorization under section
33.1(c)(12)(ii) to transfer its outstanding voting securities, and
the acquirer of such voting securities, shall within 30 days after
the end of the calendar quarter in which such transfer has occurred,
file with the Commission a report containing the following
information:
    (i) The names of all parties to the transaction;
    (ii) Identification of the pre- and post-transaction voting
security holdings (and percentage ownership) in the public utility
held by the acquirer and its associate or affiliate companies;
    (iii) The date the transaction was consummated; and
    (iv) Identification of any public utility or holding company
affiliates of the parties to the transaction.

III. Discussion

    10. As the Commission stated in Order No. 708-A, the expansion of
the blanket authorization under 18 CFR 33.1(c)(12) to include ``any
person'' requires additional reporting so that the Commission and the
public may monitor the purchase and sale of securities under the
blanket authorization. We find that the reporting requirements proposed
by Financial Group provide adequate disclosure of trades made under the
blanket authorization, and we adopt them here. The information required
in these reports will allow the Commission to review the purchases of
both holding and non-holding companies to determine whether any further
action is required under Commission regulations.
    11. With respect to the proposed disclosure requirement involving
cross-subsidization,\7\ we find that such a statement would be useful
for the Commission in reviewing trades. Accordingly, we will require
the disclosure report to include a statement either indicating that
neither party to the transaction has any captive customers, or
providing the information required in Sec.  33.2(j)(1) of the
Commission's regulations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Financial Group proposed that parties include in their
disclosure the same type of statement currently required under
section 33.2(j)(1), which describes Exhibit M to an FPA section 203
filing.
    \8\ 18 CFR 33.2(j)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Specifically, we will require that public utilities engaging in
transactions under the blanket authorization under 18 CFR 33.1(c)(12)
submit a report to the Commission within 30 days of the end of the
calendar quarter in which the transactions occurred. At this time, we
will not require continuing reporting requirements with respect to the
blanket authorization for a transaction once that transaction has been
reported. The following information, which will be codified under Sec.
33.1(c)(17) of the Commission's regulations, must be included in the
report:
     Names of all parties to the transaction;
     Identification of both the pre-transaction and post-
transaction voting security holdings (and the percentage ownership) in
the public utility held by the acquirer and its associate or affiliate
companies;
     The date the transaction was consummated;
     Identification of any public utility or holding company
affiliates of the parties to the transaction;
     A statement on cross-subsidization of the same type as
currently required under section 33.2(j)(1) of the Commission's
regulations,\9\ which describes Exhibit M to an FPA section 203 filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 18 CFR 33.2(j)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. The required reports for this fiscal year should be filed
electronically under Docket HC09-8-000.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    14. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting and record keeping (information
collections) requirements imposed by agency rules.\10\ Therefore, the
Commission is submitting the information collection to OMB for review
and approval in accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 5 CFR 1320.12.
    \11\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Burden Estimate: The public reporting burden for the reporting
requirements and the records retention requirement is as follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of       Number of       Hours per
            Data collection FERC-519                respondents      responses       response          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting.......................................              20               1               1              20
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................              20               1               1              20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information Collection Costs: The Commission has projected the
average annualized cost of all respondents to be the following: 20
hours (reporting) @ $66 per hour = $1,320 for respondents. No capital
costs are estimated to be incurred by respondents.
    Title: FERC-519(b), ``Blanket Authorization Transaction Report
under Section 203 FPA.''
    Action: New collection.
    OMB Control No: To be determined.
    The applicant will not be penalized for failure to respond to this
information collection unless the information collection displays a
valid OMB control number or the Commission has provided justification
as to why the control number should not be displayed.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for profit.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Necessity of the Information: This order codifies a limited
reporting requirement for entities taking advantage of a blanket
authorization under FPA section 203(a)(1), which in turn provides for a
category of jurisdictional transactions under section 203(a)(1) for
which the Commission would not require applications seeking before-the-
fact approval. The information will enable the Commission and the
public to monitor transactions that occur under the 18 CFR 33.1(c)(12)
blanket authorization, as extended in Order No. 708-A.
    Internal Review: The Commission has conducted an internal review of
the public reporting burden associated with the collection of
information and assured itself, by means of internal review, that there
is specific, objective support for its information burden estimate.
    15. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller,
Office of the Executive Director, Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (202) 273-
0873, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
V. Environmental Analysis

    16. Commission regulations require that an environmental assessment
or an environmental impact statement be

prepared for any Commission action that may have a significant adverse
effect on the human environment.\12\ No environmental consideration is
necessary for Commission action that involves information gathering,
analysis, and dissemination.\13\ Consequently, neither an environmental
impact statement nor an environmental assessment is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Regulations Implementing National Environmental Policy Act,
Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
30,783 (1987).
    \13\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    17. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \14\ generally
requires either a description and analysis of a rule that will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
or a certification that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Most utilities to
which this reporting requirement applies would not fall within the
RFA's definition of small entity.\15\ Consequently, the Commission
certifies that this reporting requirement will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
    \15\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3), citing to section 3 of the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. Section 3 of the Small Business Act defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. The
Small Business Size Standards component of the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) defines a small electric
utility as one that, including its affiliates, is primarily engaged
in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric
energy for sale and whose total electric output for the preceding
fiscal year did not exceed four million MWh. 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Document Availability

    18. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    19. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    20. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    21. These regulations are effective July 27, 2009. The Commission
has determined, with the concurrence of the administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The Commission will submit
this rule to both houses of Congress and the Government Accountability
Office.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 33

    Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 33,
Chapter I, Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 33--APPLICATIONS UNDER FEDERAL POWER ACT SECTION 203

0
1. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352; Pub. L. 209-58, 119 Stat. 594.

0
2. In Sec.  33.1, paragraph (c)(12) is revised and paragraph (c)(17) is
added to read as follows:

Sec.  33.1  Applicability, definitions, and blanket authorizations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (12) A public utility is granted a blanket authorization under
section 203(a)(1) of the Federal Power Act to transfer its outstanding
voting securities to:
    (i) Any holding company granted blanket authorizations in paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) of this section if, after the transfer, the holding company
and any of its associate or affiliate companies in aggregate will own
less than 10 percent of the outstanding voting interests of such public
utility; or
    (ii) Any person other than a holding company if, after the
transfer, such person and any of its associate or affiliate companies
in aggregate will own less than 10 percent of the outstanding voting
interests of such public utility, and within 30 days after the end of
the calendar quarter in which such transfer has occurred the public
utility notifies the Commission in accordance with paragraph (c)(17) of
this section.
* * * * *
    (17) A public utility granted blanket authorization under paragraph
(c)(12)(ii) of this section to transfer its outstanding voting
securities shall, within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter
in which such transfer has occurred, file with the Commission a report
containing the following information:
    (i) The names of all parties to the transaction;
    (ii) Identification of the pre- and post-transaction voting
security holdings (and percentage ownership) in the public utility held
by the acquirer and its associate or affilate companies;
    (iii) The date the transaction was consummated;
    (iv) Identification of any public utility or holding company
affiliates of the parties to the transaction; and
    (v) A statement indicating that the proposed transaction will not
result in, at the time of the transaction or in the future, cross-
subsidization of a non-utility associate company or pledge or
encumbrance of utility assets for the benefit of an associate company
as required in Sec.  33.2(j)(1).

[FR Doc. E9-12381 Filed 5-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61425-61426]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21981]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95967; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2022-038]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To Amend BZX Rule 11.28(a) To Extend the MOC Cut-Off Time

October 4, 2022.
    On August 5, 2022, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4

thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend BZX Rule 11.28(a) to
extend the Market-on-Close (``MOC'') Cut-Off Time from 3:35 p.m. to
3:49 p.m. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on August 24, 2022.\3\ The Commission has received no
comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95529 (Aug. 17,
2022), 87 FR 52092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may
designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-
regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve
the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved. The 45th day after publication of the notice for
this proposed rule change is October 8, 2022. The Commission is
extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the
issues raised therein. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ the Commission designates November 22, 2022, as the date by
which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change (File No. SR-CboeBZX-2022-038).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-21981 Filed 10-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18929-18931]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0792; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANE-13]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Boothbay, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at
Boothbay, ME, to accommodate a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) special Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) serving St. Andrews Hospital Heliport. This action would enhance
the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 13, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number
FAA-2012-0792;

Airspace Docket No. 12-ANE-13, at the beginning of your comments. You
may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2012-0792; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANE-13) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2012-0792; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANE-13.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal
Aviation Administration, room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace at Boothbay,
ME providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter
RNAV (GPS) special standard instrument approach procedures for St.
Andrews Hospital Heliport. Controlled airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface is required for IFR operations within a 6-
mile radius of the point in space coordinates of the heliport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at St. Andrews
Hospital Heliport, Boothbay, ME.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE
AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective September 15, 2012, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO ME E5 Boothbay, ME [New]

St. Andrews Hospital Heliport, ME
    (Lat. 43[deg]51'2'' N., long. 69[deg]38'16'' W.)
Point in Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 43[deg]51'2'' N., long. 69'38'16'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6- mile radius of the Point in Space Coordinates (lat.
43[deg]51'2''N., long. 69[deg]38'16''W.) serving St. Andrews
Hospital Heliport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 20, 2013.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-07110 Filed 3-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14503-14504]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05621]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-88-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on February 21, 2014, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company L.L.C. (Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas
77002, filed in Docket No. CP14-88-000, an application pursuant to
sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the
Commission's regulations, requesting abandonment approval and a
certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing Tennessee
to construct and operate its Niagara Expansion Project located in
southwestern New York and northwestern Pennsylvania. Specifically, the
Project consists of: (i) Installation of an approximately 3.1 miles,
30-inch diameter pipeline looping segment along Tennessee's 200 Line
north of Compressor Station 224 in Chautauqua County, New York; (ii)
modification of station piping at existing Compressor Station 219 in
Mercer County, Pennsylvania; (iii) installation of a new pig launcher
at existing Compressor Station 224 in Chautauqua County, New York, and
(iv) modification of meter station facilities at the existing Hamburg
Meter Station, located within Compressor Station 229 in Erie County New
York, including replacement of meter tubes, installation of a filter
separator, liquid storage tank, and regulation. The project will allow
Tennessee to increase natural gas

deliveries on the pipeline to provide up to an additional 158,000
dekatherms per day, all as more fully set forth in the application,
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Jacquelyne Rocan, Assistant General Counsel, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company, L.L.C., 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, phone:
(713) 420-4544, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Richard Siegel, Manager, Rates and
Regulatory Affairs, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 1001
Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:
(713) 420-1605, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    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<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: March 28, 2014.

    Dated: March 7, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05621 Filed 3-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P