emphasize that this is permissible only in limited circumstances. We
propose to include language in our new definition that limits the
circumstances under which post-baseline date emissions can be
considered representative of normal source operations for purposes of
establishing the baseline concentration. Such a limitation is needed to
ensure that the increment system continues to function as intended to
prevent significant deterioration from actual increases in emissions
after the baseline concentration is established. We seek to ensure that
real increases in emissions that are outside of a normal range of
variability will continue to be regarded as consuming increment, while
recognizing that due to the normal variability in source operations,
some apparent increases in emissions are justifiably included in the
baseline where they are representative of the emissions experienced by
a source as of

the baseline date. We believe that increases in emissions that are not
attributable to the normal variability of source operations at a
particular time are actual increases that should be counted as
consuming the available increment.
    Under the Act and applicable case law, it is clear that the
emissions that make up the baseline concentration must be
representative of air pollutant concentration levels at the time of the
baseline date. Section 169(4) of the Act defines baseline concentration
as the ``ambient air concentration levels which exist at the time of
the first application for a permit.'' In the Alabama Power decision,
the court observed that the baseline concentration is tied to first
permit application because Congress intended permitting authorities to
use actual data to establish baseline or make permit applicants collect
data at the appropriate time. See 636 F.2d at 375-76. In defining
baseline concentration, we have required a baseline concentration to be
based on ``actual emissions * * * representative of sources in
existence on the applicable minor source baseline date.'' See 40 CFR
51.166(b)(13)(i)(a).
    Our proposed approach should not be construed to allow emissions
estimates as of the baseline date to be based on operations over the
entire life of a source or a period of operations that is not
representative of operations as of a particular date. Actual emissions
as of a particular date must be representative of normal operations
(which include an expected range of variability) during the applicable
time period. For example, when estimating sulfur dioxide emissions from
a coal-fired electric generating unit, we do not believe it is
appropriate to use the weighted average sulfur content for coal from
any period over the life of the mine supplying the facility. However,
we recognize that there may be some variability in the sulfur content
of the coal used by a source at the time a baseline date is
established. For example, if the baseline date were some time in the
1970s, we believe it would be appropriate for the emissions from this
source to be based on a weighted average sulfur content for coal used
by the source in the 1970s. However, we would not consider it
appropriate for the source to use a weighted average of sulfur content
from coal used in the 1990s to represent the composition of coal
combusted in the 1970s, unless it can be shown that the composition of
coal used in the 1990s is in fact representative of the coal the source
actually used in the 1970s. Our intent is to revise the regulation to
codify the approach reflected in our Memorandum of Understanding with
North Dakota which calls for using the sulfur content of coal consumed
during a unit's baseline normal source operations, rather than the
sulfur content averaged over the entire life of a mine or any period of
operations in the life of the source that is not representative of
operations on a particular date.
    This approach is consistent with language in the existing
definition of ``actual emissions,'' which provides that ``[a]ctual
emissions shall be calculated using the unit's actual operating hours,
production rates, and types of materials processed, stored, or
combusted during the selected time period.'' See 40 CFR
51.166(b)(21)(ii) and 52.21(b)(21)(ii). The selected time period under
this provision should be either the 24 months before the particular
date or an alternative period that is shown to be more representative.
    In order to ensure consistent measurement of increases in air
pollutant concentration, we believe it is also appropriate to also
apply the ``normal source operation'' exception in the context of the
emissions inventory for the present day period. As applied to the
present day inventory of emissions, if a source experiences lower than
normal emissions in the 2 years preceding the review, more
representative emissions should also be used in the present day
inventory to avoid undercounting actual emissions increases.
    Thus, we propose to revise the regulatory language to allow actual
emissions used in an increment consumption analysis to be computed
based on the operations of a source during a time other than the 24
months preceding a particular date upon a determination that such
period is more representative of normal source operation as of the
particular date if a credible demonstration can be made that the unit's
operations in the 24 months preceding the date were not typical of
operations as of the particular date. A period after the particular
date may be used, but only if such period is more representative of
normal source operations as of the particular date. Operations
occurring prior to a particular date would not be considered
representative of normal source operations for a particular date if
they permanently ceased more than 24 months prior to that date. Under
the proposed regulation, the alternative time period that is used to
compute actual emissions must be another consecutive 24-month period
unless two non-consecutive 12-month periods are demonstrated to be more
representative of normal source operation under the criteria in the
regulation.
3. Actual Emissions Rates Used to Model Short-Term Increment Compliance
    We also propose in this rule to clarify how one should derive
source emissions rates of less than 1 year for sources contributing to
the baseline concentration and increment consumption when evaluating
compliance with the short-term (24-hour and 3-hour) increments for PM
and SO2. Increments for a 24-hour averaging time are
currently in place for both PM and SO2. The 3-hour averaging
time is only used for the SO2 increments. Based on recent
experience and the recommendations of WESTAR, we believe that we need
to provide additional guidance to States and regulated entities
concerning how to determine actual emissions for purposes of modeling
the concentration changes over the 3-hour and 24-hour averaging times.
    Background. The definition of actual emissions in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(21) and 52.21(b)(21) does not directly address how one is to
determine actual emissions when modeling pollutant concentrations
averaged over periods less than 1 full year. Under the current
provision, actual emissions are identified using an annual average in
tons per year. However, this section does not directly address how to
determine actual emissions over shorter time periods, such as the 24-
hour or 3-hour averaging times that are used for some of the PSD
increments.
    In draft guidance prepared in 1990, we recommended that sources and
reviewing authorities use the ``maximum actual emissions rate'' for
short-term averaging periods. See draft NSR Manual at C.49. We
indicated that ``the maximum rate is the highest occurrence for that
averaging period during the previous two years of operation.'' Id. We
recommended using this maximum rate for both the current and the
baseline time periods. Id. This was consistent with guidance that had
been provided by at least one EPA Regional Office as far back as 1981.
See Memorandum from Thomas W. Devine, Region IV, to State and Local Air
Directors, ``Policy Determinations Regarding PSD Questions'' (July 31,
1981).
    In practice, however, we have since come to recognize that there is
often not sufficient data available to determine the maximum short-term
emissions rate over a 2-year period. This type of determination will
typically require CEMS. For PSD baseline dates

established in the 1970s and 1980s, these data are especially difficult
to find. As a result of this difficulty, some States and EPA Regional
Offices have allowed calculation of an average short-term rate using an
average rate calculated from annual emissions in situations where
short-term maximum actual emissions data are not available.
    Proposed Action. We propose to promulgate a new definition of
``actual emissions'' applicable to the PSD increment analysis that
specifically addresses how to derive short-term emissions rates when
modeling the change in concentration for the 24-hour and 3-hour
averaging periods used in increments for some pollutants. We propose to
add a provision that allows permitting authorities to use their
discretion to use data that promotes consistency in the analysis and
does not bias the analysis in favor of one group of sources over
another. Under this approach, an average short-term rate may be used if
the reviewing authority finds this to be the best way to promote
consistency and avoid bias. Maximum short-term rates may continue to be
used where sufficient data are available, but need not be used in all
circumstances. Although we have historically called for use of maximum
short-term rates, some stakeholders have suggested that the modeled
change in concentration may be overly conservative when increment
consumption modeling is based on maximum emissions rates from all
sources that consume increment. We understand it may not be reasonable
to expect that increment-consuming sources will all be operating at
their maximum short-term emissions rates at exactly the same time. If
we were to require the use of maximum emissions rates in all instances,
this would mandate that PSD modeling always be conducted using a
scenario that is not necessarily representative of actual emissions or
concentrations. As the court said in Alabama Power, EPA should use
``reasonable efforts to ascertain the actual but usual concentration
levels'' and ``administrative good sense in establishing the baseline
and calculating exceedances.'' See Alabama Power, 636 F.2d at 380, 380
n.44. Since it may be unusual for all increment consuming sources to
all be operating at their maximum emissions rates at the same time, we
believe that ``administrative good sense'' dictates that we permit
average emissions rates to be used as well. However, we are not
proposing to preclude use of a maximum rate where a reviewing authority
or source wishes to conduct a more conservative screening analysis or
considers a maximum rate more appropriate under the circumstances for
all sources or just for certain sources in the inventory. In many
cases, combining the average emissions rates of all increment consuming
sources in an emissions inventory may produce a more representative
picture of the degree of change in short-term pollution concentration
over time.
    A more representative indication of the change in emissions is
produced by using a consistent set of data. If actual short-term
emissions rate or hourly operations data are only available from some
sources in an inventory, the analysis could be biased by mixing these
data with averages calculated from annual operational data. However, if
the reviewing authority derives short-term emissions rates by averaging
annual data from all sources in the inventory, this may provide a
representative depiction of the change in emissions over time.
Likewise, if reliable and consistent maximum or short-term rate data
are available for all sources in the inventory, this could provide a
representative assessment of the change in maximum rates over time. We
are proposing to establish a standard that allows sources to select a
consistent data set and to otherwise forgo using some maximum or actual
short-term data that may be available, but is incomplete and would
potentially bias the overall analysis when combined with data of a
different type that must be used to complete the assessment. At the
same time, we are not proposing to preclude reviewing authorities from
mixing data of different types where they consider it appropriate and
this technique produces a representative analysis.
    In addition, fairness also dictates that we allow use of average
short-term emissions rates and not require use of maximum emission
rates in all cases. If maximum emissions rates may be used when data
are available but averages are used when the data are insufficient, the
analysis may be biased against the sources that have maximum emissions
rate data. We want to encourage the use of CEMS that have been shown to
be reliable and want to avoid a policy that inadvertently discourages
the development and use of CEMS. Where most sources in an area are
using CEMS to track emissions, the maximum rate approach may be more
equitable, but this may not be the case in all areas. Thus, we propose
to give the reviewing authority discretion to use available data and to
achieve equitable treatment across sources and consistency in the
analysis.
    Request for Comment on WESTAR Recommendations. As part of its
general approach of establishing a menu of available data and
calculation methodologies, WESTAR has recommended that EPA establish a
more extensive list of permissible data sources and methods for
determining short-term emissions rates. For calculating short-term
actual emission rates where CEMS data are available, WESTAR recommended
that the menu include, with no implications of a hierarchy:
     Use short-term maximum emissions for the entire plant over
a 2-year period;
     Determine maximum short-term emissions from each source at
the facility;
     Determine short-term emission rates and sort them, then
determine representative rates, such as an upper percentile, as the
single short-term emission rate for modeling;
     Use CEMS data to determine actual emissions as defined by
rule and explained by EPA in the preamble to the 1980 PSD rule
revisions; or
     Use hour-by-hour CEMS data in the model.

In situations where CEMS data are not available, WESTAR recommended
that the menu for calculating short-term actual emission rates include,
with no implications of a hierarchy:
     Average 2 years of actual annual emissions representing
normal operations surrounding the baseline date and date of analysis
for current emissions, and divide by annual operating hours;
     Calculate emissions from production data for the 2 years
prior to the baseline date or date of analysis for current emissions
(emissions calculated using valid emissions factors and methods);
     Use 2 years of emissions data, which may be before or
after the baseline dates, which have a similar facility configuration
that would be representative of baseline emissions; or
     Use of allowable emission rates, including use of
regulatory limits, where appropriate.

We request comment on whether we should expand the proposed options for
short-term emissions rate calculation to include elements from WESTAR's
menu.
4. Use of Allowable Emissions Rates
    We have always allowed a reviewing authority or source to conduct a
more conservative screening analysis using allowable emissions rates
which are

typically higher than actual emissions rates. We propose to preserve
that option under the new definition, but we are modifying the language
from the prior definition slightly to make clear that we do not intend
to mandate the use of allowable emissions, only to allow it at the
discretion of the source or reviewing authority.
5. Emissions From a New or Modified Source
    When an increment consumption analysis is performed in the context
of a pending permit application to demonstrate that a new or modified
source will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the increment,
the analysis must include the emissions from the new or modified source
when it begins operations after the permitted construction is complete.
In the past, we have required such emissions to be based on the
potential to emit of the new or modified source. However, in reforms to
the NSR program completed in 2002, we allowed modified sources to use
projected actual emissions in calculating whether the change resulted
in a significant net increase in emissions. See 67 FR 80290 (December
31, 2002). For the same reasons discussed in that rulemaking, we
propose to adopt revised language for purposes of the increment
consumption assessment that requires the use of projected actual
emissions for a modified source. We propose to continue requiring the
increment assessment to be based on the potential to emit of a new
source that has not begun normal operations as of the date of the
assessment.

C. What meteorological models and data should be used in increment
consumption modeling?

    In addition to information on emissions from sources in the
relevant area, one also needs meteorological data to evaluate
consumption of the PSD increments. Meteorological data are a necessary
input to the air quality dispersion models that are used to identify
the change in concentration relative to a pollutant-specific baseline
date. This change in concentration is then compared to the increments
to demonstrate compliance. Adequate and appropriate meteorological data
are a critical input for dispersion models \13\ in characterizing the
state of the atmosphere in terms of the transport and diffusion of
airborne pollutants within the modeling domain. Appendix W contains a
list of meteorological data types and meteorological processors that
are appropriate for various applications of preferred dispersion
models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Dispersion models are mathematical formulations that
describe the fundamental processes that occur in the atmosphere.
These processes, for example, include emission, transport, and
chemical reaction of pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recent experience with PSD increment modeling exercises has raised
questions regarding the adequacy of the current EPA guidance to the
States and regulated community concerning the appropriateness of
certain types of meteorological data and the amount of data that should
be obtained for certain dispersion model applications, including PSD
increment analyses. We discuss these issues below in light of existing
guidance, and seek comment on the need for modification and/or
development of additional guidance.
1. Types of Meteorological Data and Processing
    Traditionally, dispersion model applications have utilized
meteorological inputs derived from the direct processing of National
Weather Service (NWS) observation data or meteorological data collected
as part of a site-specific measurement program. However, prognostic
meteorological models and other tools are available to project
meteorological conditions in order to fill gaps in site-specific
observational data. Recent experience suggests there may be a need for
us to clarify the circumstances when it is permissible and appropriate
to use meteorological data derived from prognostic meteorological
models in dispersion model simulations such as a PSD increment
consumption analysis.
    Prognostic meteorological models use fundamental equations of
momentum, thermodynamics, and moisture to determine the evolution of
specific meteorological variables from a given initial state. These
models can characterize meteorological conditions at times and
locations where observational data do not exist. Photochemical grid-
based air quality models, which require consistent input parameters
distributed over an even grid in time and space, routinely utilize data
output from prognostic meteorological models. Examples of prognostic
meteorological models are:
     MM5--Penn State University/National Center for Atmospheric
Research.
     WRF--Weather Research and Forecasting Model, NOAA/NCAR.
     RUC--Rapid Update Cycle, NOAA Rapid Refresh Development
Group.
    In addition, diagnostic processors such as CALMET can format
meteorological model output data for input into dispersion models.
These diagnostic processors often can incorporate meteorological
observation data into the process, resulting in a field of
meteorological data that effectively blends the ground-truth of
observations with the dynamics of the meteorological model. This data
assimilation process frequently takes place within the prognostic
meteorological models themselves. Run-time parameters may be set in the
diagnostic processors to vary the influence observations may have on
the resulting data set.
    Appendix W identifies criteria for judging the adequacy and
appropriateness of such meteorological input data for dispersion
modeling applications, including the spatial (i.e., space) and temporal
(i.e., time) representativeness of the data for the specific
application and the ability of the individual meteorological parameters
selected to properly characterize the transport and diffusion
conditions based on the formulations of a specific dispersion model.
Meteorological data may be considered adequate and appropriate for a
particular dispersion model or application, but that determination does
not necessarily imply the adequacy and appropriateness of the data for
other dispersion models or other applications of the same model. The
proper judgment of adequacy and appropriateness of meteorological data
requires expert knowledge of each of the main components--the
meteorological observation data; the meteorological processor; and the
dispersion model formulations and data requirements.
    Appendix W lists specific factors to consider when determining
whether or not a set of meteorological data is representative for a
particular dispersion model application. These include the proximity of
the meteorological monitoring site to the area of interest, the
complexity of the terrain in the area, the exposure of the
meteorological monitoring site, and the period of data collected.
Additional factors may be important depending on the requirements of
specific models. For example, surface characteristics of the
meteorological observation location, depending on land use and land
cover characteristics, as well as terrain type and elevation, are
required for input to AERMET, the meteorological processor for the
AERMOD dispersion model.\14\

These surface characteristics have a significant impact on the boundary
layer \15\ parameters that are required for input into the AERMOD
model, and therefore have an impact on the resulting air quality
results. The determination of representativeness for AERMOD therefore
requires consideration of the potential impact of differences in
surface characteristics between the meteorological monitoring site and
the surface characteristics that generally describe the area upon which
the air quality model simulation is focused.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ AERMOD is a steady-state plume dispersion model for
assessment of pollutant concentrations from a variety of sources.
AERMOD simulates transport and dispersion from multiple point, area,
or volume sources based on an up-to-date characterization of the
atmospheric boundary layer. Sources may be located in rural or urban
areas, and receptors may be located in simple or complex terrain.
AERMOD accounts for building wake effects (i.e., plume downwash)
based on the PRIME building downwash algorithms. The model employs
hourly sequential preprocessed meteorological data to estimate
concentrations for averaging times from 1 hour to 1 year (also
multiple years). AERMOD is designed to operate in concert with two
pre-processor codes: AERMET processes meteorological data for input
to AERMOD, and AERMAP processes terrain elevation data and generates
receptor information for input to AERMOD.
    \15\ The boundary layer is the layer of the atmosphere closest
to the Earth's surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For long-range transport modeling assessments or assessments
involving complex winds that require non-steady-state dispersion
modeling \16\ appendix W allows, and in fact encourages, the use of
prognostic mesoscale \17\ meteorological models to provide input data
into dispersion model simulations. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix W,
paragraph 8.3(d). However, proper use of output from these prognostic
meteorological models in dispersion model applications requires expert
judgment, and acceptance of such data is contingent on the concurrence
of the appropriate reviewing authorities. Appendix W further indicates
that mesoscale meteorological fields should be used in conjunction with
available NWS or comparable meteorological observations within and near
the modeling domain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Non-steady-state dispersion modeling is the one that
accounts for spatial and temporal variability in meteorological
parameters.
    \17\ Mesoscale is the meteorological phenomena with a horizontal
extent from a few to several hundred kilometers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, we are proposing to provide additional guidelines
for determining the appropriateness of prognostic meteorological model
output data for use in dispersion models. We propose that a
determination of appropriateness would involve a process equal in rigor
to that already used to review prognostic meteorological model output
data for use in photochemical grid modeling applications at the
regional scale. We believe that our existing guidance for ozone,
PM2.5, and regional haze SIP modeling provides a useful
basis for the process by which the State may allow use of certain data
sets created by prognostic meteorological models as input into
dispersion model applications provided these data sets are determined,
by using this process, to be appropriate. Currently, acceptable quality
of meteorological inputs derived from prognostic meteorological models
would be demonstrated by statistical comparison of the prognostic model
output to observations for key meteorological parameters, which may
include temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, wind speed and direction
(surface-level and aloft), clouds/radiation, precipitation, and the
depth and evolution of vertical mixing. Identification of key
meteorological parameters may depend on the type of model and the
temporal and spatial scale of the application.
    When making a determination of the representativeness of
meteorological inputs derived from prognostic models, it is important
to consider the influences of observations both in the meteorological
model and in any subsequent processing of the prognostic model outputs
when comparing the output to observations as part of the evaluation.
For example, a portion of the meteorological observations may be set
aside (i.e., not used in the data assimilation process) for evaluation
purposes. However, it is important to emphasize that a statistical
comparison of the meteorological observation data to the output of the
diagnostic processor, or even of the prognostic meteorological models,
can only be one part of any determination of appropriateness. A
phenomenological evaluation, a generally qualitative comparison focused
on the specific meteorological phenomena of importance to a specific
application, can be used together with the more quantitative
comparisons of specific parameters to provide a more complete
assessment of the representativeness of meteorological data. Additional
technical factors that may need to be considered in the determination
of appropriateness include:
     Selection of geographic domains and time periods;
     Influence of boundary and initial conditions;
     Technical options governing the meteorological model
calculations; and
     Data assimilation parameters.

Guidance for consideration of these factors can be found in ``Guidance
on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of
Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,''
draft version 3.2, September 2006 \18\ (referred to hereafter as ``the
Draft Guidance''). However, this guidance concerns regional-scale
photochemical grid model applications. We request comment on how these
and other factors may be considered in a determination of
appropriateness of meteorological data derived from prognostic
meteorological models for use in dispersion modeling applications. As
explained in the Draft Guidance, regional-scale photochemical grid
model applications require the above factors to be considered with
regard to prognostic meteorological model output, and additionally
require consideration of other factors specific to photochemical grid
modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Available at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/draft_final-pm-O3-RH.pdf
.

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

    While meteorological model input that has been accepted for use in
photochemical grid modeling may generally be acceptable for application
in dispersion modeling inasmuch as the specifics of the meteorological
model simulation are concerned, there are additional factors specific
to dispersion modeling that must be considered. For example, the
particular portion of the meteorological model output used in
dispersion modeling must be considered in terms of its appropriateness
for that particular dispersion model. Keeping in mind that the grid
model is designed to produce a consistent set of parameters covering a
large geographic area, we must consider the effects of extracting a few
geographic points, from as few as only one grid cell in the entire
model domain, and applying that very small subset of data from a
greater dataset that was designed to be used in total.
    For example, meteorological model simulations are influenced by
input data assigned to the boundary grid cells in the domain (i.e.,
boundary conditions) as well as to all grid cells within the domain at
the initial time step (i.e., initial conditions). There are appropriate
techniques that may be applied to model simulations to substantially
reduce the influence of initial and boundary conditions for
photochemical grid modeling.
    Boundary conditions, however, are incorporated into the
meteorological model at each time step, and therefore the effect of the
boundary conditions is evident throughout the meteorological model
simulation. To reduce the effect of these assigned boundary conditions,
we propose the area of interest be selected from an area substantially
within the model simulation domain, for example, at least six grid
cells from the boundary. We also propose to include in any review, a
thorough

description of the techniques used to extract data from a larger grid,
even if the meteorological data have been approved for use in a
photochemical grid model application, if the extraction is performed
using a tool or technique not listed in appendix W as part of a
preferred modeling system.
2. Years of Meteorological Data
    In addition to clarifying the process and guidance for determining
the circumstances under which it may be appropriate to input data from
prognostic meteorological models into dispersion modeling, we believe
it is also necessary to clarify guidance on the number of years of
prognostic meteorological model output data that are necessary for a
representative dispersion model simulation. With respect to the number
of years of meteorological observation data that should be used for
dispersion modeling, appendix W currently states the following:
     Five years of representative NWS meteorological
observation data are required--the most recent, readily available 5-
year period is preferred.
     At least 1 year of site-specific meteorological data is
required--as many as 5 years are preferred.
    See 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, paragraph <IP_ADDRESS>(a). However, with
respect to prognostic meteorological data, appendix W states that for
long-range transport modeling and for other assessments involving non-
steady-state dispersion modeling to account for complex flows, less
than 5, but at least 3, years of data from prognostic meteorological
models may be used, and that the years need not be consecutive. See
paragraph <IP_ADDRESS>(d). We believe that our current guidance provides
adequate discretion to the State to determine which and how many years
(but no less than 3 years) should be used with regard to meteorological
model output appropriate for the dispersion model application.
Consistent with appendix W, this approach is integrated with the
process described in the preceding section for determining
appropriateness of prognostic meteorological model output. When a State
is developing a set of data years for dispersion modeling, we propose
to allow the State to consider any data years that it has determined to
be appropriate using the process described above even if those data
years were not produced by the same exact meteorological model
configuration and simulation. However, we also propose that the State
must further determine that a particular set of data years can be
modeled to produce an appropriate depiction of the air quality issue at
hand.
3. Evaluating the Appropriateness of Data Years From Prognostic
Meteorological Models for Modeling Worst-Case Impacts
    For applications in which the modeling approach is designed to
model worst-case impacts, we propose that the State should determine
whether or not a set of years is appropriate based upon meteorological/
climatological representativeness, and additionally determine whether
or not that set of years is appropriate to simulate the worst-case
conditions required of the application. Keeping in mind worst-case
conditions might not be discernable until simulated through a
dispersion model, the term ``worst-case'' does not describe a set of
worst-case meteorology, but rather a set of meteorology that when
modeled, produces a worst-case depiction of air quality. This
relationship may not be apparent on simple inspection of only the
meteorological data set.
    That a particular data set sufficiently represents the
meteorological observations for a given area for a given time period,
based upon statistical analyses, may not be proof enough to determine
that the particular data set is most appropriate for a dispersion
application, especially when conducting worst-case applications.
Additionally, a set of prognostic meteorological model output might be
appropriate for dispersion modeling generally, but the portion of the
data extracted for the specific dispersion model application should
still be examined for appropriateness. While we do not explicitly
propose a three-step process for determining appropriateness, these
three individual examinations--appropriateness of the prognostic
meteorological model output in general, appropriateness (meteorological
representativeness) of the extracted data set, and appropriateness of
the data set for the dispersion model application--are each a necessary
part of the overall determination of appropriateness, especially in
replacing data years of processed meteorological observations. Of
course, once a particular data set/subset is determined appropriate, we
do not anticipate re-examining that data set for use in other
dispersion modeling provided the modeling applications and modeling
domains are similar.
    We request comment on continuing the current path, based upon
appendix W's guidance that previous years of meteorological data which
have been used as the basis for permit emission limitations should be
added to any subsequent period of meteorological data used for
dispersion modeling. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, paragraph
<IP_ADDRESS>(c). We will also accept comments on alternative methods for
determining appropriate years of meteorological data including the use
of data sets of processed observations, prognostic meteorological model
output, or combinations of both.

D. What are my documentation and data and software availability
requirements?

    Appendix W currently provides recommendations (see paragraph 3.1.1)
regarding documentation and software availability for preferred
modeling techniques that are listed in appendix W. (The preferred
models are found in appendix A to appendix W, and are sometimes
referred to as ``Appendix A models.'') The purpose of these
recommendations includes fostering consistency in the application of
dispersion models, minimizing the burden on applicants related to
acquiring and setting up modeling applications, and providing
transparency regarding model formulations, model performance, and model
input requirements. These appendix W recommendations regarding
documentation and software availability for preferred modeling
techniques include that the ``model and its code cannot be
proprietary.'' See paragraph 3.1.1(b)(vi) of appendix W.
    Application of the non-proprietary requirement to data developed
for input into or use by a preferred model, or to other software used
to process input data for a preferred model, is not explicitly
addressed in appendix W. However, a strict requirement to be non-
proprietary is currently not applied to alternative models (paragraph
3.2) that may be selected for use on a case-by-case basis, subject to
the approval of the appropriate reviewing authority. Rather, the focus
of recommendations related to the use of alternative models is on a
demonstration and documentation of model performance that is equivalent
or superior to the preferred model and, for cases where there is no
preferred model, a scientific peer review and documentation and
demonstration of the theoretical basis for the applicability of the
alternative model. In addition, proprietary software interfaces to
simplify the setup and analysis of Appendix A models have been
developed by several commercial vendors, and have been in common usage
for more than a decade. Such commercial software interfaces have not
been subjected to a requirement to make the proprietary code available
to the

public or the reviewing authority. However, demonstrations of
equivalency may be, and have been, required of such proprietary
interfaces, in keeping with paragraph 3.2.2(c) of appendix W.
    With technical advances and the increased use of more sophisticated
methodologies for developing the required meteorological inputs for
preferred modeling techniques, and in particular the use of prognostic
meteorological model outputs in the development of spatial and
temporally varying meteorology for long-range transport modeling
applications with the preferred CALPUFF model, it is appropriate to
address the adequacy and appropriateness of existing guidance for these
emerging modeling technologies. Given the critical impact that the
processed meteorological data have on such modeling applications, basic
requirements for technical documentation and performance demonstration
are certainly necessary. However, we believe that the existing guidance
provided for alternative modeling techniques adequately addresses these
concerns. The existing guidance implies a certain discretion and
latitude for the reviewing authority in defining the specific data and
documentation requirements necessary to make its determination of the
acceptability of an alternative modeling technique for a given
application. However, such requirements should be technically
appropriate and avoid imposing an unnecessary burden on the applicant.
In the case of meteorological data inputs for dispersion models, many
of the relevant issues and requirements for such data are also
discussed above in section IV.C of this preamble.
    In the special case of proprietary data that may be used in the
development of model inputs, we believe that it is currently within the
discretion of the State to require some independent review of the
proprietary data by an oversight agency, if such a review is deemed
critical to the overall assessment of the appropriateness of data for a
particular modeling application. Another option within the discretion
of the State would be for the State itself to conduct the review,
provided that proprietary information and trade secrets are protected
under a system that is equivalent to EPA's rules for requesting non-
disclosure of Confidential Business Information (CBI) submitted to the
Agency. See 40 CFR part 2. Provided that any appropriate and necessary
reviews can be conducted by an independent body or the State reviewing
authority with protection against disclosure of CBI, we do not believe
it is necessary to require such proprietary data to be made available
to the general public or to wholly preclude reliance on the data in
regulatory modeling applications.
    In the case of software, the focus of the determination of
acceptability by the reviewing authority should be on the adequacy of
the technical documentation and performance demonstrations that are
required to support the use of such software. More specifically in the
case of proprietary software, the reproducibility of the data or model
simulation may be an important component of the documentation to ensure
confidence in the modeling results, and the applicant should facilitate
such a demonstration when required. Additional documentation regarding
the quality assurance procedures used in the development of the
proprietary software may also be relevant to supporting the integrity
and accuracy of the results.
    We believe that the current text of appendix W adequately defines
the documentation and software availability requirements related to
both preferred and alternative modeling techniques. We request comment
on whether additional guidance is needed to clarify these requirements
as they apply to the use of proprietary software and/or data to develop
input for an Appendix A modeling application for PSD increment
consumption.

VI. Implementation Issues

A. Is there a need for States to make revisions to their SIPs?

    As described in this notice, with these regulations we are
proposing to refine certain aspects of PSD increment analyses to
provide greater clarity to States and regulated sources on how to
calculate increases in concentrations for purposes of determining
compliance with the PSD increments. Once we finalize these proposed
regulations, we intend to encourage States to incorporate them for the
sake of consistency and clarity, and to make their SIPs consistent with
the proposed rule amendments. This would be a relatively easy task
given that SIP changes resulting from other upcoming NSR rulemakings
(e.g., rules for electric generating units (EGUs); corn milling;
potential to emit (PTE); and aggregation, debottlenecking, and project
netting) will likely be required in roughly the same time period.
However, we believe that SIP changes would not necessarily be required
in order for reviewing authorities to begin conducting PSD increment
analyses consistent with these regulations because EPA's prior
recommendations have not been binding on States. We are specifically
seeking comment on the need for SIP revisions or any viable
alternatives for implementing the changes for these proposed increment
analysis provisions.

B. When would these policies be put into effect?

    We propose to make the proposed regulations effective 60 days from
promulgation.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it is likely
to raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates,
the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the
Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in
the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
We are not proposing any new paperwork requirements (e.g., monitoring,
reporting, recordkeeping) as part of this action. Although we are
refining our existing regulations and policy on the analysis of PSD
increment consumption, the proposed regulations do not contain new
paperwork requirements for permit applicants or reviewing authorities.
The PSD increment analysis is already required under existing EPA
regulations. The OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements contained in the existing PSD program regulations (40 CFR
51.166 and 52.21) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003,
EPA ICR number 1230.17. A copy of the OMB approved Information
Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection
Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-
1672.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes
of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation as to why
that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    This proposed action contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. The PSD increment consumption
analysis is already required under existing regulations. In this
rulemaking, we are only proposing to refine our existing regulations
and policy on how this analysis may be conducted and are not imposing
any additional analytical requirements. Thus, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    In addition, we have determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. As discussed above, this proposal would not impose
any new requirements on small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. Under section 6(c) of Executive
Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation.
    The EPA has concluded that this proposed rule may have federalism
implications. The proposed rule establishes Federal standards for the
administration of the PSD program by State reviewing authorities.
However, the proposed rule does not impose additional requirements on
State reviewing authorities because a PSD increment analysis is already
required under existing regulations. In addition, EPA proposes in this
action to make clear that States have discretion to use their best
judgment in conducting elements of the increment consumption analysis.
Thus, this rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on
State or local governments, nor will it preempt State law. Thus, the
requirements of sections 6(b) and 6(c) of the Executive Order do not
apply to this rule.
    Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless consulted with several
State officials and representatives of State governments early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation to permit them to have
meaningful and timely input into its development. As

discussed above, this proposal has been informed by the recommendations
of the Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) PSD Reform
Workgroup, which is an organization that includes State officials who
have sought greater clarity in methodologies for evaluating consumption
of the PSD increment. In addition, EPA has also been consulting for
several years with State officials in North Dakota about the parameters
for the increment consumption analysis.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 13175, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' The EPA has concluded that
this proposed rule may have tribal implications. However, it will
neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal
governments, nor preempt Tribal law.
    By refining our existing regulations and policy, this proposal may
affect how reviewing authorities determine increment consumption on the
tribal lands that have been redesignated to Class I or are in the
process of being redesignated to Class I. For that reason, EPA will
provide an opportunity for meaningful and timely involvement in this
action by consulting, during the period between proposal and
promulgation, with tribal officials from the six Tribes whose
reservations have been redesignated from Class II to Class I or are in
the process of being so redesignated. In addition, EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from all tribal
officials.

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

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The proposed rule does not impose
any new regulatory or analytical requirements, but simply refines
existing regulations and policy with respect to the PSD increment
consumption analysis that is currently required. The public is invited
to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which the
Agency may not be aware, that may be pertinent to the effect of this
proposed rule on children.

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

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have
concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy
effects because it does not impose any new requirements on sources that
supply, distribute, or use energy. The proposed rule does not establish
additional regulatory or analytical requirements, but simply refines
existing regulations and policy with respect to the PSD increment
consumption analysis that is currently required.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionate high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minorities and low-income populations in
the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The proposed rule does not establish or eliminate
regulatory or analytical requirements, but simply refines existing
regulations and policy with respect to the PSD increment consumption
analysis that is currently required.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (for example, materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

VIII. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections
163, 166, 169(4), and 301(a) of the Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7473,
7476, 7479(4), and 7601(a)). This notice is also subject to section
307(d) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations.

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations.

    Dated: May 24, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as set forth
below.

PART 51--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart I--[Amended]

    2. Section 51.166 is amended as follows:
    a. By revising paragraph (b)(13);
    b. By revising paragraph (b)(21)(i);
    c. By revising paragraph (f);
    d. By removing from paragraph (p)(5)(i) the cross reference to
``(q)(4)'' and adding in its place ``(p)(4)'';
    e. By removing from paragraphs (p)(5)(iii) and (p)(6)(iii) the
cross reference to ``(q)(7)'' and adding in its place ``(p)(7)''; and
    f. By removing from paragraph (p)(7) the cross reference to
``(q)(5) or (6)'' and adding in its place ``(p)(5) or (6)''.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  51.166  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (13)(i) Baseline concentration means that ambient concentration
level that exists in the baseline area at the time of the applicable
minor source baseline date. A baseline concentration is determined for
each pollutant for which a minor source baseline date is established
and shall include:
    (a) The actual emissions, as defined in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, representative of sources in existence on the applicable minor
source baseline date, except as provided in paragraph (b)(13)(ii) of
this section; and
    (b) The allowable emissions of major stationary sources that
commenced construction before the major source baseline date, but were
not in operation by the applicable minor source baseline date.
    (ii) The following will not be included in the baseline
concentration and will affect the applicable maximum allowable
increase(s):
    (a) Actual emissions, as defined in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, from any major stationary source on which construction
commenced after the major source baseline date; and
    (b) Actual emissions increases and decreases, as defined in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, at any source (including stationary,
mobile, and area sources) occurring after the minor source baseline
date.
* * * * *
    (21)(i) Actual emissions means the actual rate of emissions of a
regulated NSR pollutant from an emissions unit, as determined in
accordance with paragraphs (b)(21)(ii) through (iv) of this section,
except that this definition shall not apply for calculating whether a
significant emissions increase has occurred, for establishing a PAL
under paragraph (w) of this section, or for determining consumption of
ambient air increments. Instead, paragraphs (b)(40), (b)(47), and
(f)(1) of this section shall apply for those purposes.
* * * * *
    (f) Methods for determining increment consumption.
    (1) Actual emissions. For purposes of determining consumption of
the ambient air increments set forth in paragraph (c) of this section,
the plan shall define ``actual emissions'' in accordance with
paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section.
    (i) Actual emissions shall be calculated based on information that,
in the judgment of the reviewing authority, provides the most reliable,
consistent, and representative indication of the emissions from a unit
or group of units in an increment consumption analysis as of the
baseline date and on subsequent dates. In general, actual emissions for
a specific unit should be calculated using the unit's actual operating
hours, production rates, and types of materials processed, stored, or
combusted during the selected time period. However, where records of
actual operating hours, production rates, and composition of materials
are not available or are incomplete, the reviewing authority shall use
its best professional judgment to estimate these parameters from
available information in accordance with the criteria in this
paragraph. When available and consistent with the criteria in this
paragraph, data from continuous emissions monitoring systems may be
used.
    (ii) In general, when evaluating consumption of an increment
averaged over an annual time period, actual emissions as of a
particular date in an increment consumption analysis (the applicable
baseline date or the current time period) shall equal the average rate,
in tons per year, at which the unit actually emitted the pollutant
during a consecutive 24-month period which precedes the particular date
and which is representative of normal source operation.
    (iii) When evaluating consumption of an increment averaged over a
period of less than 1 year (i.e., 24-hour or 3-hour averaging), actual
emissions as of a particular date in an increment consumption analysis
(the applicable baseline date or the current time) may equal the
average rate, for the applicable averaging time, at which the unit
actually emitted the pollutant during a consecutive 24-month period
which precedes the particular date. The average rate may be calculated
by dividing an annual rate by the number of hours the unit was actually
operating over the annual period. The reviewing authority may use an
actual maximum rate over a 24-month period when sufficient data are
available to produce a consistent, reliable, and representative
analysis of the change in emissions from baseline to the current time
period.
    (iv) The reviewing authority may allow actual emissions to be based
on a different time period than the 24 months preceding a particular
date upon a determination that such period is more representative of
normal source operation as of the particular date, based upon credible
information showing that the unit's operations in the 24 months
preceding the date were not typical of operations as of the particular
date. A period after the particular date may be used, but only if such
period is more representative of normal source operations as of the
particular date. Operations occurring prior to a particular date are
not representative of normal source operations for a particular date if
they permanently ceased more than 24 months prior to that date. The
different time period shall be a consecutive 24-month period unless two
non-consecutive 12-month periods are demonstrated to be more
representative of normal source operation as described above.
    (v) The reviewing authority may use source-specific allowable
emissions for the unit instead of the actual emissions of the unit.
    (vi) For any modified emissions unit that has not resumed normal
operations on the date of an increment consumption analysis, the actual
emissions on the date the source begins operation shall equal the
projected actual emissions of the unit on that date. For any new
emissions unit that has not begun normal operations on the date of an
increment consumption analysis, the actual emissions on the date the
new source begins operations shall equal the potential to emit for that
source.
    (vii) To the extent any requirement of this paragraph (f)(1)
conflicts with a recommendation in appendix W of this part, paragraph
(f)(1) shall control.

    (2) Exclusions from increment consumption. (i) The plan may provide
that the following concentrations shall be excluded in determining
compliance with a maximum allowable increase:
    (a) Concentrations attributable to the increase in emissions from
stationary sources which have converted from the use of petroleum
products, natural gas, or both by reason of an order in effect under
section 2(a) and (b) of the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 (or any superseding legislation) over the
emissions from such sources before the effective date of such an order;
    (b) Concentrations attributable to the increase in emissions from
sources which have converted from using natural gas by reason of
natural gas curtailment plan in effect pursuant to the Federal Power
Act over the emissions from such sources before the effective date of
such plan;
    (c) Concentrations of particulate matter attributable to the
increase in emissions from construction or other temporary emission-
related activities of new or modified sources;
    (d) The increase in concentrations attributable to new sources
outside the United States over the concentrations attributable to
existing sources which are included in the baseline concentration;
    (e) Concentrations attributable to the temporary increase in
emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, or nitrogen oxides
from stationary sources which are affected by plan revisions approved
by the Administrator as meeting the criteria specified in paragraph
(f)(2)(iii) of this section; and
    (f) Concentrations attributable to sources that obtained a permit
based on a variance issued pursuant to paragraph (p)(4) of this
section, but only with respect to the Class I increment in the area for
which the variance was issued. Concentrations attributable to such
sources shall continue to be included in determining compliance with
the maximum allowable increase set forth in paragraphs (p)(4).
    (ii) If the plan provides that the concentrations to which
paragraph (f)(2)(i)(a) or (b) of this section refers shall be excluded,
it shall also provide that no exclusion of such concentrations shall
apply more than 5 years after the effective date of the order to which
paragraph (f)(2)(i)(a) of this section refers, or the plan to which
paragraph (f)(2)(i)(b) of this section refers, whichever is applicable.
If both such order and plan are applicable, no such exclusion shall
apply more than 5 years after the later of such effective dates.
    (iii) For purposes of excluding concentrations pursuant to
paragraph (f)(2)(i)(e) of this section, the Administrator may approve a
plan revision that:
    (a) Specifies the time over which the temporary emissions increase
of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, or nitrogen oxides would occur.
Such time is not to exceed 2 years in duration unless a longer time is
approved by the Administrator.
    (b) Specifies that the time period for excluding certain
contributions in accordance with paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(a) of this
section, is not renewable;
    (c) Allows no emissions increase from a stationary source which
would:
    (1) Impact a Class I area or an area where an applicable increment
is known to be violated; or
    (2) Cause or contribute to the violation of a national ambient air
quality standard;
    (d) Requires limitations to be in effect the end of the time period
specified in accordance with paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(a) of this section,
which would ensure that the emissions levels from stationary sources
affected by the plan revision would not exceed those levels occurring
from such sources before the plan revision was approved.
* * * * *

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

    4. Section 52.21 is amended as follows:
    a. By revising paragraph (b)(13);
    b. By revising paragraph (b)(21)(i);
    c. By adding paragraph (f);
    d. By removing from paragraph (p)(6) the cross reference to
``(q)(4)'' and adding in its place ``(p)(5)'';
    e. By removing from paragraphs (p)(6) and (p)(7) the cross
reference to ``(q)(7)'' and adding in its place ``(p)(8)''; and
    f. By removing from paragraph (p)(8) the cross reference to
``(q)(5) or (6)'' and adding in its place ``(p)(6) or (7)''.
    The addition and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.21  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (13)(i) Baseline concentration means that ambient concentration
level that exists in the baseline area at the time of the applicable
minor source baseline date. A baseline concentration is determined for
each pollutant for which a minor source baseline date is established
and shall include:
    (a) The actual emissions, as defined in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, representative of sources in existence on the applicable minor
source baseline date, except as provided in paragraph (b)(13)(ii) of
this section; and
    (b) The allowable emissions of major stationary sources that
commenced construction before the major source baseline date, but were
not in operation by the applicable minor source baseline date.
    (ii) The following will not be included in the baseline
concentration and will affect the applicable maximum allowable
increase(s):
    (a) Actual emissions, as defined in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, from any major stationary source on which construction
commenced after the major source baseline date; and
    (b) Actual emissions increases and decreases, as defined in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, at any source (including stationary,
mobile, and area sources) occurring after the minor source baseline
date.
* * * * *
    (21)(i) Actual emissions means the actual rate of emissions of a
regulated NSR pollutant from an emissions unit, as determined in
accordance with paragraphs (b)(21)(ii) through (iv) of this section,
except that this definition shall not apply for calculating whether a
significant emissions increase has occurred, for establishing a PAL
under paragraph (aa) of this section, or for determining consumption of
ambient air increments. Instead, paragraphs (b)(41), (b)(48), and
(f)(1) of this section shall apply for those purposes.
* * * * *
    (f) Methods for determining increment consumption--(1) Actual
emissions. For purposes of determining consumption of the ambient air
increments set forth in paragraph (c) of this section, the term
``actual emissions'' shall be defined in accordance with paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section.
    (i) Actual emissions shall be calculated based on information that,
in the judgment of the Administrator, provides the most reliable,
consistent, and representative indication of the emissions from a unit
or group of units in an increment consumption analysis as of the
baseline date and on subsequent dates. In general, actual emissions for
a specific unit should be calculated using the unit's actual operating
hours, production rates, and types of materials processed, stored, or
combusted during the selected time period. However, where records of

actual operating hours, production rates, and composition of materials
are not available or are incomplete, the Administrator shall use his or
her best professional judgment to estimate these parameters from
available information in accordance with the criteria in this
paragraph. When available and consistent with the criteria in this
paragraph, data from continuous emissions monitoring systems may be
used.
    (ii) In general, when evaluating consumption of an increment
averaged over an annual time period, actual emissions as of a
particular date in an increment consumption analysis (the applicable
baseline date or the current time period) shall equal the average rate,
in tons per year, at which the unit actually emitted the pollutant
during a consecutive 24-month period which precedes the particular date
and which is representative of normal source operation.
    (iii) When evaluating consumption of an increment averaged over a
period of less than one year (i.e., 24-hour or 3-hour averaging),
actual emissions as of a particular date in an increment consumption
analysis (the applicable baseline date or the current time) may equal
the average rate, for the applicable averaging time, at which the unit
actually emitted the pollutant during a consecutive 24-month period
which precedes the particular date. The average rate may be calculated
by dividing an annual rate by the number of hours the unit was actually
operating over the annual period. The Administrator may use an actual
maximum rate over a 24-month period when sufficient data are available
to produce a consistent, reliable, and representative analysis of the
change in emissions from baseline to the current time period.
    (iv) The Administrator may allow actual emissions to be based on a
different time period than the 24 months preceding a particular date
upon a determination that such period is more representative of normal
source operation as of the particular date, based upon credible
information showing that the unit's operations in the 24 months
preceding the date were not typical of operations as of the particular
date. A period after the particular date may be used, but only if such
period is more representative of normal source operations as of the
particular date. Operations occurring prior to a particular date are
not representative of normal source operations for a particular date if
they permanently ceased more than 24 months prior to that date. The
different time period shall be a consecutive 24-month period unless two
non-consecutive 12-month periods are demonstrated to be more
representative of normal source operation as described above.
    (v) The Administrator may use source-specific allowable emissions
for the unit instead of the actual emissions of the unit.
    (vi) For any modified emissions unit that has not resumed normal
operations on the date of an increment consumption analysis, the actual
emissions on the date the source begins operation shall equal the
projected actual emissions of the unit on that date. For any new
emissions unit that has not begun normal operations on the date of an
increment consumption analysis, the actual emissions on the date the
new source begins operations shall equal the potential to emit for that
source.
    (vii) To the extent any requirement of this paragraph (f)(1)
conflicts with a recommendation in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W,
paragraph (f)(1) shall control.
    (2) Exclusions from increment consumption. In determining
compliance with the maximum allowable increase, the Administrator shall
exclude concentrations attributable to sources that obtained a permit
based on a variance issued pursuant to paragraphs (p)(5) of this
section, but only with respect to the Class I increment in the area for
which the variance was issued. Concentrations attributable to such
sources shall continue to be included in determining compliance with
the maximum allowable increases set forth in paragraph (p)(5).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-10459 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83141-83143]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26097]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-E-0243]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; Zeposia

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has
determined the regulatory review period for Zeposia and is publishing
this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the
determination because of the submission of an application to the
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of
Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug
product.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) are incorrect may submit either electronic
or written comments and ask for a redetermination by January 29, 2024.
Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination
regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence
during the regulatory review period by May 28, 2024. See ``Petitions''
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of January 29, 2024. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are received on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the

manner detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and
``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2022-E-0243 for ``Determination of Regulatory Review Period for
Purposes of Patent Extension; ZEPOSIA.'' Received comments, those filed
in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with Sec.  10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and
other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's
posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18,
2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may
be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item
(human drug or biologic product, animal drug product, medical device,
food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by
FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's
regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of
extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award
(for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any
time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's
determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human
drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase
as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, Zeposia
(ozanimod hydrochloride), which is indicated for the treatment of
relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis, to include clinically isolated
syndrome, relapsing-remitting disease, and active secondary progressive
disease, in adults. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a
patent term restoration application for Zeposia (U.S. Patent No.
8,481,573) from Scripps Research Institute and the USPTO requested
FDA's assistance in determining the patent's eligibility for patent
term restoration. In a letter dated September 8, 2022, FDA advised the
USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review
period and that the approval of Zeposia represented the first permitted
commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO
requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
Zeposia is 3,383 days. Of this time, 3,016 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 367 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective:
December 22, 2010. The applicant claims January 17, 2011, as the date
the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective.
However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was December
22, 2010, which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505 of the FD&C Act: March 25,
2019. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for Zeposia (NDA 209899) was initially submitted on
March 25, 2019.
    3. The date the application was approved: March 25, 2020. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NDA 209899 was approved on March
25, 2020.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 1,410 days of patent term extension.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under
21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as
specified in Sec.  60.30 (21

CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination
regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence
during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition
must comply with all the requirements of Sec.  60.30, including but not
limited to: must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance
with Sec.  10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA
investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the
petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857,
part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in
the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: November 21, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-26097 Filed 11-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17545]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07513]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Flightcrew
Member Duty and Rest Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on December 22, 2014 (79 FR 76435). Reporting and
recordkeeping are required any time a certificated air carrier has
exceeded a maximum daily flight time limit or a maximum daily Flight
Duty Period (FDP) limit. It is also required for the voluntary
development of a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS), and for fatigue
training.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0751.
    Title: Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Extension without change of an information
collection.
    Background: The FAA collects reports from air carriers certificated
under 14 CFR part 121 as prescribed in 14 CFR part 117, 117.11 and
117.19 of the Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements, to notify
the FAA that the certificate holder has extended a flight time and/or
FDP limitation. Additionally, if air carriers choose to develop a
Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) they are required to collect data
specific to the need of the operation for which they will seek an FRMS
authorization. Each air carrier is required to develop specific
elements and incorporate these elements into their training program and
submit the revised training program for approval.
    Respondents: 67 certificated air carriers.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 20 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 3,178 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 27, 2015.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2015-07513 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 9614]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-6672-004]

Fisfis, David T.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on February 11, 2022, David T. Fisfis submitted
for filing, application for authority to hold interlocking positions,
pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d (b)
and Part 45.8 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45.8.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 4, 2022.

    Dated: February 15, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03692 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81754-81755]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27811]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: EG17-27-000.
    Applicants: American Falls Solar, LLC.
    Description: American Falls Solar, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 11/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20161110-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-28-000.
    Applicants: American Falls Solar II, LLC.
    Description: American Falls Solar II, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 11/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20161110-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-337-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Change to Natural Gas Price
Index to be effective 1/10/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20161110-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-338-000.
    Applicants: AEP Generation Resources Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Supply and Voltage
Control Amendment_Lightstone to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 11/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20161110-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-339-000.
    Applicants: 96WI 8ME, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: 96WI 8ME Initial MBR
Application and Request for Expedited Consideration to be effective 1/
1/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20161110-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's

Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Dated: November 10, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27811 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P