[Federal Register: June 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 36766]
[DOCID:fr28jn06-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER06-738-000; ER06-738-001; ER06-739-000; ER06-739-001]

Cogen Technologies Liden Venture, L.P.; East Coast Power Liden
Holding, L.L.C.; Notice of Issuance of Order

June 22, 2006.
    Cogen Technologies Liden Venture, L.P. and East Coast Power Liden
Holding, L.L.C. (collectively, the Liden Group) filed applications for
market-based rate authority, with accompanying rate schedules. The
proposed market-based rate schedules provide for the sale of energy,
capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. The Liden Group
also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In
particular, the Liden Group requested that the Commission grant blanket
approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by the Liden Group.
    On June 21, 2006, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under part 34. The Director's order also stated
that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register establishing a period of time for the filing of protests.
Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket
approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by the
Liden Group should file a motion to intervene or protest 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, 385.214
(2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is July 21, 2006.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
the Liden Group is authorized to issue securities and assume
obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or
otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that
such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the
corporate purposes of the Liden Group, compatible with the public
interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of the Liden Group's issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-10163 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35302-35303]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12460]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-8941-000]

Rogers, Gregory S.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on June 2, 2020, Gregory S. Rogers, submitted for
filing, application for authorization to hold interlocking positions,
pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b)
(2019) and Part 45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45 (2019).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the

comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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 may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 23, 2020.

    Dated: June 3, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-12460 Filed 6-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 49 (Thursday, March 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14469-14470]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05075]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC20-44-000.
    Applicants: SR Terrell, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of SR Terrell, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200305-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: EC20-45-000.
    Applicants: Birdsboro Power LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of Birdsboro Power LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200306-5113; 20200306-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG20-89-000.
    Applicants: Coyote Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Coyote Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200305-5173.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2361-010.
    Applicants: Wildorado Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Wildorado
Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20200304-5326.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1409-004.
    Applicants: Birdsboro Power LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Settlement Compliance Filing to be
effective 5/30/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200306-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-786-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2020-03-06_SA 3408 Ameren Illinois-
Glacier Sands Wind Power Sub GIA (J1055) to be effective 12/20/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200306-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-790-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2020-03-06_SA 3409 City of
Springfield, IL-ZEP Grand Prairie Wind Sub GIA (J750) to be effective
12/30/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200306-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1187-000.

    Applicants: Atlantic City Electric Company, PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ACE submits Revisions to
OATT, Att. H-1A re: Accounting Changes for Materials an to be effective
3/6/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200306-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1188-000.
    Applicants: Delmarva Power & Light Company, PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Delmarva submits Revisions
to OATT, Att. H-3D re: Materials and Supplies to be effective 3/6/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200306-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1189-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Service Agreements (Nos.
1071 and 172) of Southern California Edison Company.
    Filed Date: 3/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20200304-5323.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1190-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Notice of Termination of Small Generator
Interconnection Agreement (No. 432) of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company.
    Filed Date: 3/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200305-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1191-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2841R1 Smoky Hills/Evergy
Kansas Central Meter Agent Cancel to be effective 2/24/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200306-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1192-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Notice of Termination of Small Generator
Interconnection Agreement (No. 433) of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company.
    Filed Date: 3/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200305-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1193-000.
    Applicants: Middletown Cogeneration Company LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: baseline refile to be effective 1/
1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200306-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1194-000.
    Applicants: Haverhill Cogeneration Company LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: baseline refiling to be effective
1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200306-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1195-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ICSA, SA No.
4952; Queue No. AA2-119/AC1-055/AD2-192 (amend) to be effective 6/25/
2019.
    Filed Date: 3/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200306-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1196-000.
    Applicants: American Municipal Power, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: EL18-185 eTariff Settlement
Compliance Filing to be effective 7/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 3/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200306-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1197-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PSC-WAPA-PRPA-
BndryMtrGateway-550-0.0.0-Agrmt to be effective 3/7/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200306-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1198-000.
    Applicants: Meldahl, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: EL18-184 eTariff Settlement
Compliance Filing to be effective 7/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 3/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200306-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF20-692-000.
    Applicants: Main St NJ CHP, LLC.
    Description: Form 556 of Main St NJ CHP, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200303-5303.
    Comments Due: Non-Applicable.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 6, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-05075 Filed 3-11-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68259-68265]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28005]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0811-201051; FRL-9222-9]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a portion of a draft revision to
the Mississippi State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the State
of Mississippi, through the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ), to EPA on September 14, 2010, for parallel processing.
The proposed SIP revision modifies Mississippi's New Source Review
(NSR) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program.
Specifically, the proposed SIP revision establishes appropriate
emission thresholds for determining which new stationary sources and
modification projects become subject to Mississippi's PSD permitting
requirements for their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Mississippi's
September 14, 2010, SIP revision is necessary because without it, on
January 2, 2011, PSD requirements would apply at the 100 or 250 tons
per year (tpy) levels provided under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act),
which would overwhelm Mississippi's permitting resources. EPA is
proposing approval of Mississippi's September 14, 2010, SIP revision
relating to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources because the
Agency has made the preliminary determination that this SIP revision is
in accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting
for GHGs.

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-0811 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0811, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0811.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
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. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the
Mississippi SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW.,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bradley's telephone number is (404)
562-9352; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information
regarding the Tailoring Rule, contact Ms. Heather Abrams, Air Permits
Section, at the same address above. Ms. Abrams' telephone number is
(404) 562-9185; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

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

    On September 14, 2010, MDEQ submitted a draft revision to EPA for
approval into the Mississippi SIP to establish appropriate emission
thresholds for determining which new or modified stationary sources
become subject to Mississippi's PSD permitting requirements for GHG
emissions. Final approval of Mississippi's September 14, 2010, SIP
revision will put in place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD
applicability set forth in EPA's Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3,
2010), ensuring that smaller GHG sources emitting less than these
thresholds will not be subject to permitting requirements when these
requirements begin applying to GHGs on January 2, 2011. Pursuant to
section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve this revision into
the Mississippi SIP.
    Because this draft SIP revision is not yet state-effective,
Mississippi requested that EPA ``parallel process'' the SIP revision.
Under this procedure, the EPA Regional Office works closely with the
state while developing new or revised regulations. Generally, the state
submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA
before conducting its public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed state
action and prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA publishes this
notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and solicits
public comment in approximately the same time frame during which the
state is holding its public hearing. The state and EPA thus provide for
public comment periods on both the state and the Federal actions in
parallel.
    After Mississippi submits the formal state-effective SIP revision
request (including a response to all public comments raised during the
state's public participation process), EPA will prepare a final
rulemaking notice for the SIP revision. If changes are made to the SIP
revision after EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, such changes must
be acknowledged in EPA's final rulemaking action. If the changes are
significant, then EPA may be obliged to re-propose the action. In
addition, if the changes render the SIP revision not approvable, EPA's
re-proposal of the action would be a disapproval of the revision.
    Mississippi's September 14, 2010, SIP revision also incorporates
two administrative changes to their PSD regulations (Air Pollution
Control, Section 5 (APC-S-5)--Regulations for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration). These changes relate to Mississippi's pre-
existing exclusion of certain provisions of the Federal PSD regulations
from its SIP, specifically, provisions pertaining to the ``reasonable
possibility'' standard,\1\ ``clean units,'' and ``pollution control
projects'' (PCPs).\2\ In today's action, EPA is proposing to approve
these administrative changes into the Mississippi SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On July 10, 2006 (71 FR 38773), EPA approved Mississippi's
incorporation by reference of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules into the
Mississippi SIP. The SIP-approved rule identifies certain provisions
of the Federal rules that are not incorporated by reference. Among
the excluded provisions are those set forth at 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6)
pertaining to the ``reasonable possibility'' standard, which
establishes criteria for when recordkeeping and reporting are
required for a modification that does not trigger major NSR. In
defining that exclusion, Mississippi's rule quoted the relevant
language from the Federal PSD regulations. Subsequently, on December
21, 2007 (73 FR 72607), EPA amended the reasonable possibility
standard in response to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the DC Circuit. See New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005).
While Mississippi will continue to exclude the reasonable
possibility provision from its PSD regulations, it is revising the
exclusion to reflect the revised reasonable possibility language at
40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) as promulgated on December 21, 2007.
    \2\ The Mississippi PSD regulations approved by EPA on July 10,
2006 (71 FR 38773) specifically excluded from incorporation by
reference the Federal regulatory provisions pertaining to ``clean
units'' and PCPs. Subsequently, the DC Circuit vacated the Federal
clean unit and PCP provisions. See New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d at 3.
Mississippi's September 14, 2010, proposed SIP revision removes the
reference to these vacated Federal regulations from its list of
excluded Federal provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to changes to address the Tailoring Rule and the
aforementioned administrative changes mentioned above, Mississippi's
September 14, 2010, SIP revision also includes: (1) provisions to
exclude facilities that produce ethanol through a natural fermentation
process (hereafter referred to as the ``Ethanol Rule'') from the
definition of ``chemical process plants'' in the major New Source
Review (NSR) source permitting program; and (2) revision to incorporate
by reference changes pursuant to EPA's Fugitive Emissions Rule (73 FR
77882, December 19, 2008).\3\ In today's proposed rulemaking, EPA is
not proposing to take action on Mississippi's changes to their PSD
regulations to exclude facilities from the definition of ``chemical
process plants'' in the major NSR permitting program, nor is EPA
proposing to take action on Mississippi's changes to incorporate the
provisions of the Fugitive Emission Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Today's proposed action on the Mississippi SIP relates to EPA's
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule,'' Final Rule (the Tailoring Rule). 75 FR 31514. In the
Tailoring Rule, EPA established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for
determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting
sources. These applicability thresholds were designed to ensure that
smaller GHG sources will not be subject to GHG permitting requirements.
While Mississippi already has authority to issue PSD permits governing
GHGs when PSD requirements begin applying to GHGs on January 2, 2011,
Mississippi needs to amend its SIP to incorporate the Tailoring Rule's
applicability thresholds. Today's notice announces EPA's proposed
approval of a revision to Mississippi's SIP that would put these
applicability thresholds in place.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On September 2, 2010, EPA proposed a ``SIP Call'' that would
require those states with SIPs that do not authorize PSD permitting
for GHGs to submit a SIP revision providing such authority. 75 FR
53892. In a companion rulemaking, EPA proposed a Federal
implementation plan (FIP) that would apply in any state that is
unable to submit the required SIP revision by its deadline. 75 FR
53883 (September 2, 2010). Because Mississippi's SIP already
authorizes Mississippi to regulate GHGs once GHGs become subject to
PSD requirements on January 2, 2011, Mississippi is not subject to
the proposed SIP Call or FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. What are GHGs and their sources?

    A detailed explanation of GHGs, climate change and the impact on
health, society, and the environment is

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

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

1. Overview of the PSD Program
    The PSD program is a preconstruction review and permitting program
applicable to new major stationary sources and major modifications at
existing stationary sources. The PSD program applies in areas that are
designated ``attainment'' or ``unclassifiable'' for a national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS). The PSD program is contained in part C of
title I of the CAA. The ``nonattainment NSR'' program applies in areas
not in attainment of a NAAQS or in the Ozone Transport Region, and it
is implemented under the requirements of part D of title I of the CAA.
Collectively, EPA commonly refers to these two programs as the major
NSR program. The governing EPA rules are contained in 40 CFR 51.165,
51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, Appendices S and W. There is no
NAAQS for CO2 or any of the other well-mixed GHGs, nor has
EPA proposed any such NAAQS; therefore, unless and until EPA takes
further such action, the nonattainment NSR program does not apply to
GHGs.
    The applicability of PSD to a particular source must be determined
in advance of construction or modification and is pollutant-specific.
The primary criterion in determining PSD applicability is whether the
proposed project is sufficiently large (in terms of its emissions) to
be a major stationary source or modification, both of which are
described below. EPA has implemented these requirements in its
regulations, which use somewhat different terminology than the CAA
does, for determining PSD applicability.
a. Major Stationary Sources
    Under PSD, a ``major stationary source'' is any source belonging to
a specified list of 28 source categories that emits or has the
potential to emit 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant subject to
regulation under the CAA, or any other source type that emits or has
the potential to emit such pollutants in amounts equal to or greater
than 250 tpy. See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1). We refer to these levels
as the 100/250-tpy thresholds. A new source with a potential to emit
(PTE) at or above the applicable ``major stationary source threshold''
is subject to major NSR. These limits originate from section 169 of the
CAA, which applies PSD to any ``major emitting facility'' and defines
the term to include any source that emits or has a PTE of 100 or 250
tpy, depending on the source category. Note that the major source
definition incorporates the phrase ``subject to regulation,'' which, as
described later, will begin to include GHGs on January 2, 2011, under
our interpretation of that phrase as discussed in the recent memorandum
entitled, ``EPA's Interpretation of Regulations that Determine
Pollutants Covered by Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) Permit Program.'' 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010).
b. Major Modifications
    PSD also applies to existing sources that undertake a ``major
modification,'' which occurs when: (1) There is a physical change in,
or change in the method of operation of, a ``major stationary source;''
(2) the change results in a ``significant'' emissions increase of a
pollutant subject to regulation (equal to or above the significance
level that EPA has set for the pollutant in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)); and
(3) there is a ``significant net emissions increase'' of a pollutant
subject to regulation that is equal to or above the significance level
(defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)). Significance levels, which EPA has
promulgated for criteria pollutants and certain other pollutants,
represent a de minimis contribution to air quality problems. When EPA
has not set a significance level for a regulated NSR

pollutant, PSD applies to an increase of the pollutant in any amount
(that is, in effect, the significance level is treated as zero).
2. General Requirements for PSD
    This section provides a very brief summary of the main requirements
of the PSD program. One principal requirement is that a new major
source or major modification must apply best available control
technology (BACT), which is determined on a case-by-case basis taking
into account, among other factors, the cost effectiveness of the
control and energy and environmental impacts. EPA has developed a
``top-down'' approach for BACT review, which involves a decision
process that includes identification of all available control
technologies, elimination of technically infeasible options, ranking of
remaining options by control and cost effectiveness, and then selection
of BACT. Under PSD, once a source is determined to be major for any
regulated NSR pollutant, a BACT review is performed for each attainment
pollutant that exceeds its PSD significance level as part of new
construction or for modification projects at the source, where there is
a significant increase and a significant net emissions increase of such
pollutant.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA notes that the PSD program has historically operated in
this fashion for all pollutants--when new sources or modifications
are ``major,'' PSD applies to all pollutants that are emitted in
significant quantities from the source or project. This rule does
not alter that for sources or modifications that are major due to
their GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that--

    Each implementation plan * * * shall * * * meet the applicable
requirements of * * * part C of this subchapter (relating to
significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection).

CAA section 161 provides that--

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

    These provisions, read in conjunction with the PSD applicability
provisions as well as other provisions such as the BACT provision under
CAA Section 165(a)(4), mandate that SIPs include PSD programs that are
applicable to, among other things, any air pollutant that is subject to
regulation. As discussed below, this includes GHGs on and after January
2, 2011.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In the Tailoring Rule, EPA noted that commenters argued,
with some variations, that the PSD provisions applied only to NAAQS
pollutants, and not GHG, and EPA responded that the PSD provisions
apply to all pollutants subject to regulation, including GHG. See 75
FR at 31560-62. EPA maintains its position that the PSD provisions
apply to all pollutants subject to regulation, and the Agency
incorporates by reference the discussion of this issue in the
Tailoring Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

1. What are the Endangerment Finding, the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and
the Johnson Memo Reconsideration?
    By notice dated December 15, 2009, and pursuant to CAA section
202(a), EPA issued two findings regarding GHGs that are commonly
referred to as the ``Endangerment Finding'' and the ``Cause or
Contribute Finding.'' ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings
for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,'' 74 FR
66496. In the Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found that six
long-lived and directly emitted GHGs--CO2, CH4,
N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6--may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. In the Cause or
Contribute Finding, the Administrator ``defin[ed] the air pollutant as
the aggregate group of the same six * * * greenhouse gases,'' 74 FR at
66536, and found that the combined emissions of this air pollutant from
new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG
air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.
    By notice dated May 7, 2010, EPA published what is commonly
referred to as the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule'' (LDVR), which for the
first time established Federal controls on GHGs emitted from light-duty
vehicles. ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324. In
its applicability provisions,

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

    \7\ The Tailoring Rule also applies to the title V program,
which requires operating permits for existing sources. However,
today's action does not affect Mississippi's title V program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the first step of the Tailoring Rule, which will begin on
January 2, 2011, PSD requirements will apply to major stationary source
GHG emissions only if the sources are subject to PSD anyway due to
their emissions of non-GHG pollutants. Therefore, in the first step,
EPA will not require sources or modifications to evaluate whether they
are subject to PSD requirements solely on account of their GHG
emissions. Specifically, for PSD, Step 1 requires that as of January 2,
2011, the applicable requirements of PSD, most notably, the BACT
requirement, will apply to projects that increase net GHG emissions by
at least 75,000 tpy CO2e, but only if the project also
significantly increases emissions of at least one non-GHG pollutant.
    The second step of the Tailoring Rule, beginning on July 1, 2011,
will phase in additional large sources of GHG emissions. New sources
that emit, or have the potential to emit, at least 100,000 tpy
CO2e will become subject to the PSD requirements. In
addition, sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least
100,000 tpy CO2e and that undertake a modification that
increases net GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e will
also be subject to PSD requirements. For both steps, EPA notes that if
sources or modifications exceed these CO2e-adjusted GHG
triggers, they are not covered by permitting requirements unless their
GHG emissions also exceed the corresponding mass-based triggers in tpy.
    EPA believes that the costs to the sources and the administrative
burdens to the permitting authorities of PSD permitting will be
manageable at the levels in these initial two steps and that it would
be administratively infeasible to subject additional sources to PSD
requirements at those times. However, EPA also intends to issue a
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in 2011, in which the Agency
will propose or solicit comment on a third step of the phase-in that
would include more sources, beginning on July 1, 2013. In the Tailoring
Rule, EPA established an enforceable commitment that the Agency will
complete this rulemaking by July 1, 2012, which will allow for 1 year's
notice before Step 3 would take effect.
    In addition, EPA committed to explore streamlining techniques that
may well make the permitting programs much more efficient to administer
for GHG, and that therefore may allow their expansion to smaller
sources. EPA expects that the initial streamlining techniques will take
several years to develop and implement.
    In the Tailoring Rule, EPA also included a provision, that no
source with emissions below 50,000 tpy CO2e, and no
modification resulting in net GHG increases of less than 50,000 tpy
CO2e, will be subject to PSD permitting before at least 6
years (i.e., April 30, 2016). This is because EPA has concluded that at
the present time, the administrative burdens that would accompany
permitting sources below this level would be so great that even with
the streamlining actions that EPA may be able to develop and implement
in the next several years, and even with the increases in permitting
resources that EPA can reasonably expect the permitting authorities to
acquire, it would be impossible to administer the permit programs for
these sources until at least 2016.
    As EPA explained in the Tailoring Rule, the threshold limitations
are necessary because without them, PSD would apply to all stationary
sources that emit or have the potential to emit more than 100 or 250
tons of GHG per year beginning on January 2, 2011. This is the date
when EPA's recently promulgated LDVR takes effect, imposing control
requirements for the first time on CO2 and other GHGs. If
this January 2, 2011, date were to pass without the Tailoring Rule
being in

effect, PSD requirements would apply to GHG emissions at the 100/250
tpy applicability levels provided under a literal reading of the CAA as
of that date. From that point forward, a source owner proposing to
construct any new major source that emits at or higher than the
applicability levels (and which therefore may be referred to as a
``major'' source) or modify any existing major source in a way that
would increase GHG emissions would need to obtain a permit under the
PSD program that addresses these emissions before construction or
modification could begin.
    Under these circumstances, many small sources would be burdened by
the costs of the individualized PSD control technology requirements and
permit applications that the PSD provisions, absent streamlining,
require. Additionally, state and local permitting authorities would be
burdened by the extraordinary number of these permit applications,
which are orders of magnitude greater than the current inventory of
permits and would vastly exceed the current administrative resources of
the permitting authorities. Permit gridlock would result since the
permitting authorities would likely be able to issue only a tiny
fraction of the permits requested.
    The Tailoring Rule's thresholds are based on CO2e for
the aggregate sum of six GHGs that constitute the pollutant that will
be subject to regulation, which we refer to as GHG.\8\ These gases are:
CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and
SF6. Thus, in EPA's Tailoring Rule, EPA provided that PSD
applicability is based on the quantity that results when the mass
emissions of each of these gases is multiplied by the GWP of that gas,
and then summed for all six gases. However, EPA further provided that
in order for a source's GHG emissions to trigger PSD requirements, the
quantity of the GHG emissions must equal or exceed both the
applicability thresholds established in the Tailoring Rule on a
CO2e basis and the statutory thresholds of 100 or 250 tpy on
a mass basis.\9\ Similarly, in order for a source to be subject to the
PSD modification requirements, the source's net GHG emissions increase
must exceed the applicable significance level on a CO2e
basis and must also result in a net mass increase of the constituent
gases combined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``greenhouse gases'' is commonly used to refer
generally to gases that have heat-trapping properties. However, in
this notice, unless noted otherwise, we use it to refer specifically
to the pollutant regulated in the LDVR.
    \9\ The relevant thresholds are 100 tpy for title V, and 250 tpy
for PSD, except for 28 categories listed in EPA regulations for
which the PSD threshold is 100 tpy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Tailoring Rule, EPA adopted regulatory language codifying
the phase-in approach. As explained in that rulemaking, many state,
local and tribal area programs will likely be able to immediately
implement the approach without rule or statutory changes by, for
example, interpreting the term ``subject to regulation'' that is part
of the applicability provisions for PSD permitting. EPA has requested
permitting authorities to confirm that they will follow this
implementation approach for their programs, and if they cannot, then
EPA has requested that they notify the Agency so that we can take
appropriate follow-up action to narrow Federal approval of their
programs before GHGs become subject to PSD permitting on January 2,
2011.\10\ On July 28, 2010, Mississippi provided a letter to EPA
confirming that the State has the authority to issue PSD permits
governing GHG emissions as of January 2, 2011, but explaining that
Mississippi needs to amend its SIP to enable it to implement the
Tailoring Rule thresholds. See the docket for this proposed rulemaking
for a copy of Mississippi's letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Narrowing EPA's approval will ensure that for Federal
purposes, sources with GHG emissions that are less than the
Tailoring Rule's emission thresholds will not be obligated under
Federal law to obtain PSD permits during the gap between when GHG
PSD requirements go into effect on January 2, 2011 and when either
(1) EPA approves a SIP revision adopting EPA's tailoring approach,
or (2) if a state opts to regulate smaller GHG-emitting sources, the
state demonstrates to EPA that it has adequate resources to handle
permitting for such sources. EPA expects to finalize the narrowing
action prior to the January 2, 2011 deadline with respect to those
states for which EPA will not have approved the Tailoring Rule
thresholds in their SIPs by that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    As noted above, by notice dated September 2, 2010, EPA proposed the
GHG SIP Call. At the same time, EPA proposed a FIP to apply in any
state that is unable to submit, by its deadline, a SIP revision to
ensure that the state has authority to issue PSD permits to GHG-
emitting sources.\11\ As discussed in Section IV of this rulemaking,
Mississippi interprets its current PSD regulations as providing it with
the authority to regulate GHGs, and as such, Mississippi is not
included on the list of areas for the proposed SIP call. Additionally,
Mississippi would not be subject to the FIP to implement GHG for PSD
applicability. Mississippi's September 14, 2010, proposed SIP revision
(the subject of this rulemaking) merely modifies Mississippi's SIP to
establish appropriate thresholds for determining which stationary
sources and modification projects become subject to permitting
requirements for GHG emissions under the PSD program of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As explained in the proposed GHG SIP Call (75 FR at 53896),
EPA intends to finalize its finding of substantial inadequacy and
the SIP call for the 13 listed states by December 1, 2010. EPA
requested that the states for which EPA is proposing a SIP call
identify the deadline--between 3 weeks and 12 months from the date
of signature of the final SIP Call--that they would accept for
submitting their corrective SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On September 14, 2010, MDEQ provided a revision to Mississippi's
SIP to EPA for parallel processing and eventual approval. This revision
to Mississippi's SIP is necessary because without it, PSD requirements
would apply, as of January 2, 2011, at the 100- or 250-tpy levels
provided under the CAA. This would greatly increase the number of
required permits, imposing undue costs on small sources; which would
overwhelm Mississippi's

permitting resources and severely impair the function of the program.
    The State of Mississippi's September 14, 2010, proposed SIP
revision establishes thresholds for determining which stationary
sources and modification projects become subject to permitting
requirements for GHG emissions under Mississippi's PSD program.
Specifically, Mississippi's September 14, 2010, proposed SIP revision
incorporates by reference, the Federal tailoring rule provisions at 40
CFR 52.21 (as amended June 3, 2010, and effective August 2, 2010), into
the Mississippi SIP (APC-S-5--Regulations for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration \12\) to address the thresholds for GHG
permitting applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Mississippi's submittal also revises definitions for APC-S-
6--Air Emissions Operating Permit Regulations for the Purposes of
Title V of the Federal Clean Air; however, these relate to title V
and are not included in the SIP. As such, EPA is not proposing to
take action to approve Mississippi's update to this regulation in
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mississippi is currently a SIP-approved state for the PSD program,
and has incorporated by reference EPA's 2002 NSR reform revisions for
PSD at 40 CFR 52.21. In a letter provided to EPA on July 28, 2010,
Mississippi notified EPA of its interpretation that the State's current
PSD regulations provided MDEQ the authority to regulate GHG under
Regulation APC-S-5 (which includes the preconstruction review program
required by Part C of title I of the CAA). Mississippi's current PSD
program incorporates by reference the Federal requirements, found at 40
CFR 52.21 (adopted prior to the promulgation of EPA's Tailoring Rule),
into the State's major source PSD program (which applies to major
stationary sources having the potential to emit at least 100-tpy or
250-tpy or more of a regulated NSR pollutant, depending on the type of
source or modifications constructing in areas designated attainment or
unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS).
    This current SIP revision to APC-S-5 (the subject of this proposed
rulemaking) incorporates by reference the provisions at 40 CFR 52.21 as
amended and promulgated as of September 13, 2010. Specifically,
Mississippi's September 14, 2010, revision updates its existing
incorporation by reference of the Federal NSR program to include the
relevant Federal Tailoring Rule provisions set forth at 40 CFR 52.21.
EPA has preliminarily determined that Mississippi's proposed SIP
revision is consistent with the Tailoring Rule. Furthermore, EPA has
preliminarily determined that this revision to Mississippi's SIP is
consistent with section 110 of the CAA. See, e.g., Tailoring Rule, 75
FR at 31561.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Mississippi's September 14, 2010,
SIP revision, relating to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources.
Specifically, Mississippi's September 14, 2010, proposed SIP revision
establishes appropriate emissions thresholds for determining PSD
applicability with respect to new and modified GHG-emitting sources in
accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that this SIP revision is approvable because it is in
accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting
for GHGs.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves the state's law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by the state's law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: October 27, 2010.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2010-28005 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 37 (Monday, February 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11910-11911]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03768]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-993-000]

Bath County Energy, 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
Bath County Energy, 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 March 13, 2017.
    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: February 21, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03768 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57177-57178]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22791]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67832; File No. SR-C2-2012-031]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Make Technical Amendments to the Rules

September 11, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 4, 2012, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    C2 proposes to make technical amendments to the C2 rules. The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to make technical amendments to chapters in
the Exchange rulebook that incorporate by reference rules of the
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''). CBOE Chapter
4--Business Conduct (which includes Interpretation and Policy .06 to
Rule 4.11--Position Limits) is incorporated into the C2 rules by
reference as C2 Chapter 4.\3\ Interpretation and Policy .06 to CBOE
Rule 4.11 describes the procedures and criteria by which a TPH
organization may obtain a facilitation exemption from applicable
standard position limits in non-multiply-listed Exchange options for
the purposes of facilitating some orders, pursuant to the provisions of
CBOE Rule 6.74(b). CBOE Rule 6.74(b) describes the process that allows
a floor broker to cross orders. Because C2, as an all-electronic
exchange, does not have floor brokers, CBOE Rule 6.74(b) does not apply
to C2 (and indeed, is not incorporated into C2 rules). And since
Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 4.11 relies on the inapplicable-
to-C2 CBOE Rule 6.74(b), Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 4.11 is
thereby itself inapplicable to C2. As such, the Exchange proposes to
state that, with respect to applicability to C2 only, Interpretation
and Policy .06 to CBOE Rule 4.11 is not applicable to C2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-62323 (June 17,
2010), 75 FR 36144 (June 24, 2012) (SR-C2-2010-002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend its Rule 17.50--Imposition of
Fines for Minor Rule Violations to fix inaccurate references. CBOE
Chapter 17--Discipline (which includes Rule 17.50--Imposition of Fines
for Minor Rule Violations) is incorporated into the C2 rules by
reference as C2 Chapter 17.\4\ CBOE Rule 17.50 references CBOE Rule
3.23--Integrated Billing System. However, C2's Integrated Billing
System rule is C2 Rule 3.9. Therefore, C2 proposes to state that any
references in Rule 17.50 to Rule 3.23 should be read, in reference to
C2 only, to C2 Rule 3.9. Substantively, CBOE Rule 3.23 and C2 Rule 3.9
are identical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-62323 (June 17,
2010), 75 FR 36144 (June 24, 2012) (SR-C2-2010-002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C2 also proposes to amend its Chapter 17 to state that, with
respect to applicability to C2 only, CBOE Rules 17.50(g)(4),
17.50(g)(5) and 17.50(g)(7) are not applicable to C2. Sections (g)(4),
(g)(5) and (g)(7) of CBOE Rule 17.50 are not applicable to C2 because
those sections apply to floor-based trading, and C2, as an all-
electronic exchange, does not have any floor-based trading. CBOE Rule
17.50(g)(4) imposes fines for the failures to submit trade information
on time and to the price reporter. On C2, trade information is
submitted automatically (and the Exchange represents that C2 has
appropriate systems in place to ensure that this occurs), rendering
CBOE Rule 17.50(g)(4) inapplicable.
    CBOE Rule 17.50(g)(5) imposes fines for the failure of a Market-
Maker or Floor Broker to (1) honor the firm quote requirements of CBOE
Rule 8.51, and (2) honor the priority of marketable customer orders
maintained in the Customer Limit Order Book pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.45.
Due to C2's nature as all-electronic, Market-Makers lack the requisite
control to commit such violations (and C2 does not have Floor Brokers).
The Exchange represents that C2 has appropriate systems in place to
ensure that firm quote violations do not occur and customer order
priority is automatically honored. CBOE Rule 17.50(g)(5) also imposes
fines for the failure of a Market-Maker or Floor Broker to use due
diligence in the execution of orders for which the floor Trading Permit
Holder maintains an agency obligation pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.73. This
section is inapplicable to C2 because C2 does not have floor Trading
Permit Holders.

    CBOE Rule 17.50(g)(7) imposes fines for failure to submit trade
data on the trade date. On C2, such trade data is submitted
automatically (and the Exchange represents that C2 has appropriate
systems in place to ensure that trade data is submitted in a timely
manner), rendering CBOE Rule 17.50(g)(7) inapplicable.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\5\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5)6 requirements that the rules of an
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove impediments to
and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. By correcting references and removing inapplicable sections
within Rule 17.50 and Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 4.11, the
Exchange eliminates confusion that could arise from reading Exchange
rules, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism for
a free and open market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. Impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \7\ of the Act and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b 4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of this proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2012-031 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2012-031. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of C2. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2012-031 and should be
submitted on or before October 9, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22791 Filed 9-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P