[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52596-52598]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20613]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70231; File No. SR-EDGA-2013-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate
EDGA Rule 13.4

August 19, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 7, 2013, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``EDGA'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. EDGA
filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of the Act and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \4\ thereunder so that the proposal was effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate Rule 13.4, ``Assigning of
Registered Securities in the Name of a Member or Member Organization,''
which permits the Exchange to establish a signature guarantee program.
All of the changes described herein are applicable to Members.\5\ The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal
office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer, or any person
associated with a registered broker or dealer that has been admitted
to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate Rule 13.4, ``Assigning of
Registered Securities in the Name of a Member or Member Organization,''
which permits the Exchange to establish a signature guarantee program.
In sum, a signature guarantee program allows an investor who seeks to
transfer or sell securities held in physical certificate form to have
their signature on the certificate ``guaranteed.'' Rule 13.4 permits
Members to guarantee their signatures by authorizing one or more of
their employees to assign registered securities in the Member's name
and to guarantee assignments of registered securities on behalf of the
Member where the security had been signed by one of the partners of the
Member or by one of the authorized officers of the Member by executing
and filing with the Exchange a separate Power of Attorney, also known
as a traditional signature card program. Transfer agents often insist
that a signature be guaranteed before they accept the transaction
because it limits their liability and losses if a signature turns out
to be forged.
    Rule 17Ad-15 under the Act permits transfer agents to reject
signature guarantees from eligible guarantor institutions that are not
part of a signature guarantee program.\6\ The rule encouraged a
movement away from the traditional signature card programs administered
by the exchanges towards signature guarantee programs that use a
medallion imprint or stamp which evidences their participation in the
program and is an acceptable signature guarantee (``Medallion Signature
Guarantee Program'').\7\ The Commission has also noted that:

    \6\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-15; Securities Exchange Act Release No.
30146 (January 10, 1992), 57 FR 1082 (February 24, 1992) (adopting
Rule 17Ad-15).
    \7\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 33669
(February 23, 1994), 59 FR 10189 (March 3, 1994) (SR-MSTC-93-13)
(``[t]his newly adopted Rule 17Ad-15 rule rendered [Midwest
Securities Trust Company's (``MSTC'')] Signature Distribution
Program and Signature Guarantee Program obsolete. Therefore, to
avoid costs that produce no benefits, MSTC eliminated its Signature
Distribution and Signature Guarantee Programs and deleted MSTC Rule
5, Sections 1 and 2 which govern these programs'').

[a]n investor can obtain a signature guarantee from a financial
institution--such as a commercial bank, savings bank, credit union,
or broker dealer--that participates in one of the Medallion
signature guarantee programs. . . . If a financial institution is
not a member of a recognized Medallion Signature Guarantee Program,
it would not be able to provide signature guarantees. Also, if [an
investor is] not a customer of a participating financial
institution, it is likely the financial institution will not
guarantee [the investor's] signature. Therefore, the best source of
a Medallion Guarantee would be a bank, savings and loan association,
brokerage firm, or credit union with which [the investor does]
business.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ``Signature Guarantees: Preventing the Unauthorized
Transfer of Securities,'' http://www.sec.gov/answers/sigguar.htm
(last modified May 20, 2009).

    In response to Rule 17Ad-15, certain exchanges have decommissioned
or amended their rules to no longer provide for traditional signature
card program.\9\ While the Exchange adopted Rule 13.4 as part of its
Form 1 exchange application,\10\ it has never offered, and does not now
intend to offer, a signature

guarantee service. The move towards Medallion Signature Guarantee
Programs has also rendered traditional card programs as provided for
under Exchange Rule 13.4 obsolete. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate Rule 13.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34188 (June 9,
1994), 59 FR 30820 (June 15, 1994) (SR-MSTC-93-13) (order approving
the elimination of MSTC's signature guarantee program stating that
Rule 17Ad-15 rendered it obsolete); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 32590 (July 7, 1993), 58 FR 37978 (July 14, 1993) (order
approving SR-PHLX-92-39 eliminating the PHLX's signature guarantee
program in light of Rule 17Ad-15) (noting that ``[b]y eliminating
its signature guarantee program, PHLX will streamline the signature
guarantee process. In place of the cumbersome signature card system,
PHLX will require participation in a Rule 17Ad-15 Signature
Guarantee Program''). In 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
(currently Nasdaq OMX PHLX LLC) (``PHLX'') eliminated Rules 327--340
regarding signature guarantees in their entirety from its rulebook,
noting that they are ``being deleted as obsolete because they refer
to the delivery and settlement of securities, which is not done by
the Exchange, but by registered clearing agencies.'' Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 54329 (August 17, 2006), 71 FR 504538
(August 25, 2006) (SR-PHLX-2006-43); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 54538 (September 28, 2006), 71 FR 59184 (October 6, 2006 (order
approving SR-PHLX-2006-43).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60651 (September
11, 2009), 74 FR 47827 (September 17, 2009) (File Nos. 10.193 and
10-194) (Notice of Filing of Exchange Applications for EDGA and EDGX
Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'')); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
61698 (March 12, 2010), 75 FR 13151 (March 18, 2010) (File Nos. 10-
193 and 10-194) (Order Approving Exchange Applications for EDGA and
EDGX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in that it is designed promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest by eliminating
unnecessary confusion with respect to the Exchange's rules. Rule 17Ad-
15 encouraged a movement away from the traditional signature card
programs administered by the exchanges towards certain Medallion
Signature Guarantee Programs. In response, certain exchanges have
decommissioned or amended their rules to no longer provide for a
traditional signature card program.\13\ The Exchange has never offered,
and does not now intend to offer, a signature guarantee service. Also,
the move towards Medallion Signature Guarantee Programs has rendered
traditional card programs as provided for under Exchange Rule 13.4
obsolete. Therefore, the Exchange believes eliminating Rule 13.4 would
clarify the Exchange's rules by eliminating rules that account for
services the Exchange does not provide. The Exchange also believes the
elimination of unnecessary and obsolete rules removes impediments to
the perfection of the mechanisms for a free and open market system
consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34188 (June 9,
1994), 59 FR 30820 (June 15, 1994) (SR-MSTC-93-13) (order approving
the elimination of MSTC's signature guarantee program stating that
Rule 17Ad-15 rendered it obsolete); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 32590 (July 7, 1993), 58 FR 37978 (July 14, 1993) (SR-PHLX-92-
39) (order approving SR-PHLX-92-39 eliminating the PHLX's signature
guarantee program in light of Rule 17Ad-15).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition.
Rule 17Ad-15 encouraged a movement away from the traditional signature
card programs administered by the exchanges towards certain Medallion
Signature Guarantee Programs. In response, certain exchanges have
decommissioned or amended their rules to no longer provide for a
traditional signature card program.\15\ An investor may still obtain a
signature guarantee from a financial institution that participates in
one of the Medallion Signature Guarantee Programs. The Exchange has
never offered, and does not intend to offer, a signature guarantee
service. Also, the move towards Medallion Signature Guarantee Programs
has rendered traditional card programs as provided for under Exchange
Rule 13.4 obsolete. Therefore, the Exchange believes eliminating Rule
13.4 would not impose any burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34188 (June 9,
1994), 59 FR 30820 (June 15, 1994) (SR-MSTC-93-13) (order approving
the elimination of MSTC's signature guarantee program stating that
Rule 17Ad-15 rendered it obsolete); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 32590 (July 7, 1993), 58 FR 37978 (July 14, 1993) (SR-PHLX-92-
39) (order approving SR-PHLX-92-39 eliminating the PHLX's signature
guarantee program in light of Rule 17Ad-15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \16\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\ thereunder. The
proposed rule change effects a change that (A) Does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms,
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest; provided that the
self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of
its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change,
or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description
and text of the proposed rule change, at least five (5) business days
prior to the date of filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change meets the
criteria of subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 \19\ because it would
clarify the Exchange's rules by eliminating rules that account for
services the Exchange does not provide. The Exchange has never offered,
and does not intend to offer, a signature guarantee service. Rule 17Ad-
15 encouraged a movement away from the traditional signature card
programs administered by the exchanges towards certain Medallion
Signature Guarantee Programs. This move towards Medallion Signature
Guarantee Programs has rendered traditional card programs as provided
for under Exchange Rule 13.4 obsolete. Today, an investor can obtain a
signature guarantee from a financial institution that participates in
one of the Medallion Signature Guarantee Programs. Therefore, the
Exchange believes eliminating Rule 13.4 is non-controversial because it
would clarify the Exchange's rules by eliminating rules that account
for services the Exchange does not provide. Accordingly, the Exchange
has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \20\ and paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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-EDGA-2013-25 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 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2013-25. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange.
    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-EDGA-2013-25
and should be submitted on or before September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-20613 Filed 8-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 8819]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02593]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91055; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-027]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Apply Additional
Initial Listing Criteria for Companies Primarily Operating in
Restrictive Markets

February 3, 2021.
    On May 29, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Exchange'') 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 apply
additional initial listing criteria for companies primarily operating
in a jurisdiction that has secrecy laws, blocking statutes, national
security laws or other laws or regulations restricting access to
information by regulators of U.S.-listed companies in such
jurisdiction. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on June 12, 2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89027 (June 8,
2020), 85 FR 35962. Comments on the proposed rule change can be
found at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-027/srnasdaq2020027.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 21, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\5\ On September 9, 2020, the Commission instituted proceedings
under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\ On December 3, 2020,
the Commission extended the period for consideration of the proposed
rule change to February 7, 2021.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89358, 85 FR 45275
(July 27, 2020). The Commission designated September 10, 2020, as
the date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove,
the proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89799, 85 FR 57282
(September 15, 2020).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90559, 85 FR 79249
(December 9, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 1, 2021, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change
(SR-NASDAQ-2020-027).

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02593 Filed 2-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60418-60419]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24363]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2696-033-NY]

Town of Stuyvesant, New York and Albany Engineering Corporation;
Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for a new license for the 4,320-kilowatt (kW)
Stuyvesant Falls Hydroelectric Project located on Kinderhook Creek in
Columbia County, New York, and prepared a draft Environmental
Assessment (draft EA). In the draft EA, Commission staff analyzes the
potential environmental effects of relicensing the project and
concludes that issuing a new license for the project, with appropriate
environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the draft EA is on file with the Commission and is
available for public inspection. The draft EA may also be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Comments on the draft EA should be filed within 30 days from the
date of this notice. Comments may be filed electronically via the
Internet. See 18

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please affix
``Stuyvesant Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 2696-033'' to all
comments.
    For further information, contact Andy Bernick at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 27, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24363 Filed 10-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2070-2076]
[FR Doc No: 2011-495]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-1028; FRL-9251-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas
Permitting Authority and Tailoring Rule Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(VADEQ). This revision pertains to EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG)
permitting provisions as promulgated on June 3, 2010. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 11,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2010-1028 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2010-1028, Kathleen Cox, Associate Director,
Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2010-1028. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through 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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. On October 27, 2010, the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality submitted a revision to
its SIP for the addition of a new Chapter 85 of 9VAC5.

I. Background

    On October 27, 2010, VADEQ submitted a draft revision to EPA for
approval into the Virginia SIP to establish appropriate emission
thresholds for determining which new or modified stationary sources
become subject to Virginia's Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permitting requirements for GHG emissions. Final approval of
Virginia's October 27, 2010, SIP revision will put in place the GHG
emission thresholds for PSD applicability set forth in EPA's
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule,'' (the Tailoring Rule) Final 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 Virginia SIP.
    Today's proposed action on the Virginia SIP generally relates to
three federal rulemaking actions. The first rulemaking is EPA's
Tailoring Rule. The second rulemaking is EPA's ``Action to Ensure
Authority to Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding
of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,'' Proposed Rule (GHG SIP Call).
75 FR 53892 (September 2, 2010). The third rulemaking is EPA's ``Action
to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan,'' Proposed Rule, 75 FR 53883
(September 2, 2010) (GHG FIP), which serves as a companion rulemaking
to EPA's proposed GHG SIP Call. A summary of each of these rulemakings
is described below.
    In the first rulemaking, the Tailoring Rule, EPA established
appropriate GHG

emission thresholds for determining the applicability of PSD
requirements to GHG-emitting sources. In the second rulemaking, the GHG
SIP Call (which is not yet final), EPA proposed to find that the EPA-
approved PSD programs in 13 States (not including Virginia) are
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements because they do not
appear to apply PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources. For each of
these States, EPA proposed to require the State (through a ``SIP
Call'') to revise its SIP as necessary to correct such inadequacies.
EPA proposed an expedited schedule for these States to submit their SIP
revision, in light of the fact that as of January 2, 2011, certain GHG-
emitting sources will become subject to the PSD requirements and may
not be able to obtain a PSD permit in order to construct or modify. In
the third rulemaking, the GHG FIP (which is not yet final), EPA
proposed a FIP to apply in any state that is unable to submit, by its
deadline, a SIP revision to ensure that the state has authority to
issue PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources. Because Virginia already
has authority to regulate GHGs, Virginia is only seeking to revise its
SIP to put in place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability
set forth in EPA's Tailoring Rule, thereby ensuring that smaller GHG
sources emitting less than these thresholds will not be subject to
permitting requirements when these requirements begin applying to GHGs
on January 2, 2011.
    Below is a brief overview of GHGs and GHG-emitting sources, the CAA
PSD program, minimum SIP elements for a PSD program, and EPA's recent
actions regarding GHG permitting. Following this section, EPA
discusses, in sections III and IV, the relationship between the
proposed Virginia SIP revision and EPA's other national rulemakings as
well as EPA's analysis of Virginia's SIP revision.

A. What are GHGs and their sources?

    A detailed explanation of GHGs, climate change and the impact on
health, society, and the environment is included in EPA's technical
support document for EPA's GHG endangerment finding final rule
(Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-11292 at 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 United States, 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 United States, 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 new source review (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 such further 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 for a proposed
new or modified source is whether the source is a ``major emitting
facility,'' based on its predicted potential emissions of regulated
pollutants, within the meaning of CAA section 169(1) that either
constructs or undertakes a modification. EPA has implemented these
requirements in its regulations, which use somewhat different

terminology than the CAA does, for determining PSD applicability.
a. Major Stationary Source
    Under PSD, a ``major stationary source'' is any source belonging to
a specified list of 28 source categories that emits or has the
potential to emit (PTE) 100 tons per year (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. 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.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA notes that the PSD program has historically operated in
this fashion for all pollutants--when new sources or modifications
are ``major,'' PSD applies to all pollutants that are emitted in
significant quantities from the source or project. This rule does
not alter that for sources or modifications that are major due to
their GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAA section 161 provides that--

    Each 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 for such 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 the
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.\2\ 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. Virginia's PSD program has been granted a ``limited''
approval. The approval was limited because the definition of ``baseline
actual emissions'' at 9 VAC5 Chapter 80 differs from the federal
definition at 40 CFR 51.166 (b)(47). This issue will not prevent
today's proposed action from being fully approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the Tailoring Rule, EPA noted that commenters argued,
with some variations, that the PSD provisions applied only to NAAQS
pollutants, and not GHG, and EPA responded that the PSD provisions
apply to all pollutants subject to regulation, including GHG. See 75
FR 31560-62 (June 3, 2010). EPA maintains its position that the PSD
provisions apply to all pollutants subject to regulation, and the
Agency incorporates by reference the discussion of this issue in the
Tailoring Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 ``define[d] the air pollutant as
the aggregate group of the same six * * * greenhouse gases,'' 74 FR
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 emissions of six
greenhouse gases,'' including CO2, CH4,
N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. 75 FR 25686 (40 CFR
86.1818-12(a)). Shortly before finalizing the LDVR, by notice dated
April 2, 2010, EPA published a notice commonly referred to as the
Johnson Memo Reconsideration. 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 CAA. Whether a pollutant is ``subject to regulation'' is
important for the purposes of determining whether it is covered under
the federal PSD permitting program. The Interpretive Memo established
that a pollutant is ``subject to regulation'' only if it is subject to
either a provision in the CAA or regulation adopted by EPA under the
CAA that requires actual control of emissions of that pollutant
(referred to as the ``actual control interpretation''). On February 17,
2009, EPA granted a petition for reconsideration on the Interpretive
Memo and announced its intent to conduct a rulemaking to allow for
public comment on the issues raised in the memorandum and on related
issues. EPA also clarified that the Interpretive Memo would remain in
effect pending reconsideration.
    On March 29, 2010, EPA signed a notice conveying its decision to
continue applying (with one limited refinement) the Interpretive Memo's
interpretation of ``subject to regulation'' (``Interpretation of
Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act
Permitting Programs,'' 75 FR 17004). EPA concluded that the ``actual
control interpretation'' is the most appropriate interpretation to
apply given the policy implications. However, EPA refined the Agency's
interpretation in one respect: EPA established that PSD permitting
requirements apply to a newly regulated pollutant at the time a
regulatory requirement to control emissions of that pollutant ``takes
effect'' (rather than upon promulgation or the legal effective date of
the regulation containing such a requirement). In addition, based on
the anticipated promulgation of the LDVR, EPA stated that the GHG
requirements of the vehicle rule would take effect on January 2, 2011,
because that is the earliest date that a 2012 model year vehicle may be
introduced into commerce. In other words, the compliance obligation
under the LDVR does not occur until a manufacturer may introduce into
commerce vehicles that are required to comply with GHG standards, which
will begin with model year 2012 and will not occur before January 2,
2011.
2. What is EPA's Tailoring Rule?
    On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 2010), EPA promulgated a final
rulemaking, the Tailoring Rule, for the purpose of relieving
overwhelming permitting burdens that would, in the absence of the rule,
fall on permitting authorities and sources. 75 FR 31514. EPA
accomplished this by tailoring the applicability criteria that
determine which GHG emission sources become subject to the PSD program
\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Tailoring Rule also applies to the title V program,
which requires operating permits for existing sources. However,
today's action does not affect Virginia'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 PTE, at least 100,000 tpy CO2e will
become subject to the PSD requirements. In addition, sources that emit
or have the PTE 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 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 it, PSD would apply to all stationary
sources that emit or have the PTE more than 100 or 250 tons of GHG per
year beginning on January 2, 2011. This is the date when EPA's recently
promulgated LDVR takes effect, imposing control requirements for the
first time on CO2 and other GHGs. If this January 2, 2011,
date were to pass without the Tailoring Rule being in effect, PSD
requirements would apply to GHG emissions at the 100/250 tpy
applicability levels provided under a literal reading of the CAA as of
that date. From that point forward, a source owner proposing to
construct any new major source that emits at or higher than the
applicability levels (and which therefore may be referred to as a
``major'' source) or modify any existing major source in a way that
would increase GHG emissions would need to obtain a permit under the
PSD program that addresses these emissions before construction or
modification could begin.
    Under these circumstances, many small sources would be burdened by
the costs of the individualized PSD control technology requirements and
permit applications that the PSD provisions, absent streamlining,
require. Additionally, state and local permitting authorities would be
burdened by the extraordinary number of these permit applications,
which are orders of magnitude greater than the current inventory of
permits and would vastly exceed the current administrative resources of
the permitting authorities. Permit gridlock would result since the
permitting authorities would likely be able to issue only a tiny
fraction of the permits requested.
    In the Tailoring Rule, EPA adopted regulatory language codifying
the phase-in approach. As explained in that rulemaking, many state,
local and tribal area programs will likely be able to immediately
implement the approach without rule or statutory changes by, for
example, interpreting the term ``subject to regulation'' that is part
of the applicability provisions for PSD permitting. EPA has requested
permitting authorities to confirm that they will follow this
implementation approach for their programs, and if they cannot, then
EPA has requested that they notify the Agency so that we can take
appropriate follow-up action to narrow federal approval of their
programs before GHGs become subject to PSD permitting on January 2,
2011.\4\ On July 28, 2010, Virginia provided a letter to EPA with
confirmation that the Commonwealth has the authority to regulate GHG in
its PSD and title V programs. See the docket for this proposed
rulemaking for a copy of Virginia's letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Narrowing EPA's approval will ensure that for federal
purposes, sources with GHG emissions that are less than the
Tailoring Rule's emission thresholds will not be obligated under
federal law to obtain PSD permits during the gap between when GHG
PSD requirements go into effect on January 2, 2011 and when either
(1) EPA approves a SIP revision adopting EPA's tailoring approach,
or (2) if a state opts to regulate smaller GHG-emitting sources, the
state demonstrates to EPA that it has adequate resources to handle
permitting for such sources. EPA expects to finalize the narrowing
action prior to the January 2, 2011 deadline with respect to those
States for which EPA will not have approved the Tailoring Rule
thresholds in their SIPs by that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The thresholds that EPA established in the Tailoring Rule are based
on CO2e for the aggregate sum of six GHGs that constitute
the pollutant that will be subject to regulation, which we refer to as
GHG.\5\ 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.\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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.
    \6\ The relevant thresholds are 100 tpy for title V, and 250 tpy
for PSD, except for 28 categories listed in EPA regulations for
which the PSD threshold is 100 tpy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What is the GHG SIP Call?
    By Federal Register notice dated September 2, 2010, EPA proposed
the GHG SIP Call. In that action, along with the companion GHG FIP
rulemaking published at the same time, EPA took steps to ensure that in
the 13 States that do not appear to have authority to issue PSD permits
to GHG-emitting sources at present, either the State or EPA will have
the authority to issue such permits by January 2, 2011. EPA explained
that although for most states, either the state or EPA is already
authorized to issue PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources as of that
date, our preliminary information shows that these 13 States have EPA-
approved PSD programs that do not appear to include GHG-emitting
sources and therefore do not appear to authorize these States to issue
PSD permits to such sources. Therefore, EPA

proposed to find that these 13 States' SIPs are substantially
inadequate to comply with CAA requirements and, accordingly, proposed
to issue a SIP Call to require a SIP revision that applies their SIP
PSD programs to GHG-emitting sources. In the companion GHG FIP
rulemaking, EPA proposed a FIP that would give EPA authority to apply
EPA's PSD program to GHG-emitting sources in any State that is unable
to submit a corrective SIP revision by its deadline. Virginia was not
one of the States for which EPA proposed a SIP Call.

II. 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.\7\ As discussed in Section IV of this rulemaking,
Virginia interprets its current PSD regulations as providing them with
the authority to regulate GHG, and as such, Virginia is not included on
the list of areas for the proposed SIP call. Additionally, Virginia
would not be subject to the FIP to implement GHG for PSD applicability.
Virginia's October 27, 2010, proposed SIP revision (the subject of this
rulemaking) merely modifies Virginia'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As explained in the proposed GHG SIP Call (75 FR 53892,
53896), EPA intends to finalize its finding of substantial
inadequacy and the SIP call for the 13 listed states by December 1,
2010. EPA requested that the states for which EPA is proposing a SIP
call identify the deadline--between 3 weeks and 12 months from the
date of signature of the final SIP Call--that they would accept for
submitting their corrective SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. * * *'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.'' Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides
that ``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
PSD program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event,
because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and
immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any
impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke
its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167,
205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the
state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition,
citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected
by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

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

    On October 27, 2010, VADEQ provided a revision to Virginia's SIP to
EPA for approval. This revision to Virginia'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 Virginia's permitting resources and
severely impair the function of the program.
    Virginia's October 27, 2010, proposed SIP revision establishes
thresholds for determining which stationary sources and modification
projects become subject to permitting requirements for GHG emissions
under Virginia's PSD program. Specifically, Virginia's October 27,
2010, proposed SIP revision includes changes to VADEQ's Rule 9VAC5,
specifically the creation of Chapter 85: Permits for Stationary Sources
Subject to Regulation, and addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting
applicability.
    The current SIP-approved program (adopted prior to the promulgation
of EPA's Tailoring Rule) 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.
    The changes to Virginia's PSD program regulations at 9VAC5 Chapter
85: Permits for Stationary Sources Subject to Regulation are
substantively the same as the federal provisions amended in EPA's
Tailoring Rule. As

part of its review of the Virginia submittal, EPA performed a line-by-
line review of Virginia's proposed revision and has preliminarily
determined that they are consistent with the Tailoring Rule. These
changes to Virginia's regulations are also consistent with section 110
of the CAA because they are incorporating GHGs for regulation in the
Virginia SIP.

V. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve
Virginia's October 27, 2010, SIP revision, relating to PSD requirements
for GHG-emitting sources. Specifically, Virginia's October 27, 2010,
proposed SIP revision establishes appropriate emissions thresholds for
determining PSD applicability 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. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be considered before taking final
action.

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 SIP revision pertaining to greenhouse
gas permitting 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: January 3, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011-495 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 15, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-22726

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  MSN Airlines (Guyana) Inc.						Date Filed: October 13, 2005

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in (1)
scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between the co-terminal points Miami, Florida and New York, New York, on
the one hand; via Port-of-Spain, Trinidad & Tobago; and Georgetown,
Guyana, on the other hand; (2) charter foreign air transportation
between a point or points in the United States and a point or points in
Guyana; and (3) other charters in accordance with Part 212 of the
Department’s rules.  The applicant would conduct these services only
by wet leasing from a duly authorized and properly supervised U.S. or
foreign air carrier.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority

Applicant representative: Moffett B. Roller<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Shelita A. Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  North American Airlines, Inc. (North American), a
U.S. certificated carrier and Laparkan Airways Inc. (Laparkan), a U.S.
freight forwarder filed answers to MSN’s application.  North American
states that it opposes grant of an exemption to MSN pending
clarification of the status of MSN’s Guyanese license, in view of the
fact that that correspondence dated September 29, 2005 from the Guyana
Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) appears to revoke the license of MSN.
Laparkan states that the license issued to MSN by the GCAA was revoked
shortly after its issuance; that the Civil Aviation Authority of
Trinidad and Tobago has not approved any application on behalf of MSN to
serve that country; that MSN does not appear to have a discernable
business structure in Guyana; and that, in light of the services
currently being offered in the markets MSN proposes to serve (markets
Laparkan describes as “overserved”) it questions the economic
viability of the proposed services.  MSN filed a consolidated reply
attaching correspondence from the Director General, GCAA, to MSN, dated
October 31, 2005, stating that the Guyanese licenses issued to MSN on
September 26, 2005, “have been continuously valid and are in good
standing.”  In its reply MSN states that it would not operate via
Trinidad and Tobago or any other intermediate point without obtaining
operating authority from the relevant aviation authorities; that MSN is
properly constituted and in good standing in Guyana; and that, while
economic viability is not a standard that DOT applies in considering
applications such as this, MSN has evaluated the passenger and cargo
markets between the United States and Guyana and is confident of the
economic viability of the competitive services it plans to operate.

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved							Action date:  December 15, 2005

Effective dates of exemption authority granted:  December 15, 2005 –
December 15, 2006

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): Reciprocity with
Guyana

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

    X    Standard exemption conditions (attached)
Foreign air carrier permit   (          )

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  Based on the
record in this case, we found that MSN is financially and operationally
qualified to perform the services authorized above.  In addition, we
found that MSN is substantially owned and effectively controlled by
citizens of Guyana.

MSN may not conduct U.S. operations with its own aircraft and crews
without further order of the Department.

With respect to the concerns raised by the respondents, we note that the
record now indicates that MSN holds the requisite license from its
homeland to conduct the services it proposes.  In addition, we do not
find that the concern raised by Laparkan over the potential economic
viability of MSN’s proposed services is relevant to our decision to
grant this authority.  While Laparkan may argue that the markets
involved are “overserved,” we believe, as a matter of policy, that
questions of appropriate service levels are best left to the decisions
of carrier management and to the competitive marketplace.  Under these
circumstances, we find that the objectors have raised no arguments that
would cause us to find that approval of MSN’s request would not be
consistent with the public interest.

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		   Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant is qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied

all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke
the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our
discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 MSN Airlines is currently a Category 2 country under the FAA’s
International Aviation Safety Assessment Program (IASA).

05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 154 (Friday, August 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 44704]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17383]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7186-052]

Missiquoi, LLC; Notice of Application for Amendment of License,
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Proceeding: Application for non-capacity amendment of
license.
    b. Project No.: 7186-052.
    c. Date Filed: August 2, 2021.
    d. Licensee: Missiquoi, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Sheldon Springs Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Missiquoi River in the
Town of Sheldon in Franklin County, Vermont.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Licensee Contact: Kevin Webb, Central Rivers Power MA, LLC, 670
N. Commercial Street, Suite 204, Manchester NH, 03101<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Rebecca Martin,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, interventions, and protests
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
September 8, 2021.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-7186-052. Comments emailed to Commission staff
are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The Licensee proposes to change the
project's mode of operation from a peaking facility, with two feet of
storage, to a run-of-river facility whereby inflow equals outflow year-
round, with allowance for minor, short-term deviations for flashboard
maintenance or for recreational purposes required under the project's
current license. The project has already been operating as a run-of-
river project for over 10 years.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: August 9, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17383 Filed 8-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 63950]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25005]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Securities Rule 477, SEC File No. 270-493, OMB Control No. 3235-
0550.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 477 (17 CFR 230.477) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77a et seq.) sets forth procedures for withdrawing a
registration statement, including any amendments or exhibits to the
registration statement. The rule provides that if an issuer intends to
rely on the safe harbor contained in Securities Act Rule 155 to conduct
an unregistered private offering of securities, the issuer must
affirmatively state in the withdrawal application that it plans to
undertake a subsequent private offering of its securities. Without this
statement, the Commission would not be able to monitor a company's
reliance on, and compliance with, Securities Act Rule 155(c). All
information submitted to the Commission under Securities Act Rule 477
is available to the public for review. Information provided under
Securities Act Rule 477 is mandatory. The information is required on
occasion. We estimate that approximately 327 issuers will file
Securities Act Rule 477 submissions annually at an estimated one hour
per response for a total annual burden of approximately 327 hours. We
estimate that 100% of the reporting burden is prepared by the issuer.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Riddle, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: November 8, 2019.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-25005 Filed 11-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P