[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 270-272]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33196]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 239 and 258

[EPA-R10-RCRA-2010-0953; FRL-9247-6]

Alaska: Adequacy of Alaska Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action approves a modification to Alaska's approved
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF) permit program. The approved
modification allows the State to issue Research, Development, and
Demonstration (RD&D) permits to owners and operators of MSWLFs in
accordance with its State law. On March 22, 2004, EPA issued final
regulations allowing RD&D permits to be issued to certain MSWLFs by
approved States. On September 7, 2010, the State of Alaska submitted an
application to EPA Region 10 seeking Federal approval of its RD&D
requirements. After thorough review, EPA Region 10 has determined that
Alaska's RD&D permit requirements are adequate through this direct
final action.

DATES: This direct final rule will become effective March 7, 2011
without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comments on or
before February 3, 2011. If adverse comments are received, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the Federal
Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA
will then review the comments and then will publish a final rule in the
Federal Register responding to the comments and affirming or revising
its initial decision.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
RCRA-2010-0953, by one of the following methods:
     http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, to the attention of Domenic Calabro.
     Mail: Domenic Calabro, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics,
U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mailstop: AWT-122,
Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Domenic
Calabro, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mailstop: AWT-122, Seattle, WA 98101. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Office's normal hours of
operation.
    Instructions: Identify your comments as relating to Docket ID No.
EPA-R10-RCRA-2010-0953. EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or claimed to be
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not
submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected
through http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at
http:[sol][sol]www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-2010-0953. All documents in the docket are listed
on the http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov Web site. Although it may be
listed in the index, some information might not be publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the U.S. Region 10 Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA
98101 by appointment only; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domenic Calabro, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
Mailstop: AWT-122, Seattle, WA 98101, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 22, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 13242) amending
the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF) criteria in 40 CFR part 258
to allow for Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) permits (69
FR 13242). That rule allows for variances from specified criteria for a
limited period of time, to be implemented through State-issued RD&D
permits. RD&D permits are available only in States with approved MSWLF
permit programs that have been modified to incorporate RD&D permit
authority. While States are not required to seek approval to allow
permits under this new provision, those States that are interested in
providing RD&D permits to owners and operators of MSWLFs must seek
approval from EPA before issuing such permits. Approval procedures for
new provisions of 40 CFR Part 258 are outlined in 40 CFR 239.12.
    On March 15, 2000, EPA published a final rule (65 FR 453) approving
the State of Alaska's MSWLF permit program. On September 7, 2010,
Alaska applied for approval of its RD&D permit provisions which are
included as part of a broader revision package and is codified as 18
AAC 60.213. The final package was adopted by the ADEC, signed and
officially filed by the Lt. Governor, and took effect on September 5,
2010.

II. Decision

    After a thorough review of Alaska's revision package, EPA has
determined that the Alaska Research, Development and Demonstration
(RD&D) permit provisions as set out in 18 AAC 60.213 are adequate to
comply with the Federal criteria as set out in 40 CFR 258.4. The State
regulations regarding RD&D permits incorporate by reference all of the
requirements of 40 CFR 258.4, while specifying particular requirements
which are either equivalent to or more stringent than the requirements
of 40 CFR 258.4.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action approves State solid waste requirements pursuant to
Resource Conversation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Section 4005 and imposes
no Federal requirements. Therefore, this rule complies with applicable
executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

1. Executive Order 12866

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This direct final rule does not
establish or modify any information or recordkeeping requirements for
the regulated community. EPA has determined that it is not subject to
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., generally requires Federal agencies 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 direct final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1) A small business, as codified in the Small Business Size
Regulations at 13 CFR part 121; (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. EPA
has determined that this direct final action will not have a
significant impact on small entities because the action will only have
the effect of modifying pre-existing authorized requirements under
State law. I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or Tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local
or Tribal governments or the private sector. This action contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small government entities. Thus, EPA has determined that the
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA do not apply to this action.

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action addresses a modification to Alaska's approved MSWLF
permit program, which has been modified by State law to incorporate
RD&D permitting authority. There are no substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between Federal and State governments,
or on the distribution of power between among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Therefore, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action addresses a modification to Alaska's
approved

MSWLF permit program, which has been modified by State law to
incorporate RD&D permitting authority. Thus, EPA has determined that
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant and it is not based on health or safety
risks.

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866.

9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards bodies in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through the OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to
use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. EPA has
determined that this action does not involve ``technical standards'' as
defined by the NTTAA. Therefore EPA is not considering the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.

10. 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, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this action will 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. This action addresses a modification to Alaska's approved
MSWLF permit program, which has been modified by State law to
incorporate RD&D permitting authority. EPA has determined that the
action is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

11. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This action will be effective March 7, 2011.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 239

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Intergovernmental relations, Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 258

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment disposal,
Water pollution control.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of section
2002, 4005 and 4010(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a).

    Dated: December 22, 2010.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2010-33196 Filed 1-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 200)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60957-60963]
[DOCID:fr15oc08-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0002-200819; FRL-8727-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Alabama:
Approval of Revisions to the Visible Emissions Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the Visible
Emissions portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted to
EPA by the State of Alabama, via the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM), on September 11, 2003 (the ``2003 ADEM
submittal''), and amended by a revision submitted to EPA on August 22,
2008 (the ``2008 ADEM amendment''). The open burning portion of the
State of Alabama's 2003 ADEM submittal was previously approved in a
separate action on March 9, 2006 (71 FR 12138) and is not relevant to
this action. These revisions amend the requirements for units that are
required to operate continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) and
that are not subject to any opacity limits other than those of the
Alabama SIP.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective November 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0002. All documents in the
docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that, if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joel Huey, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9104. Mr. Huey can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding the Alabama SIP, contact
Ms. Stacy Harder at the same address listed above. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Harder can also be reached via electronic mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Background for This Action?
II. What Action Is EPA Taking?
III. Response to Comments
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background for This Action?

    On September 11, 2003, ADEM submitted a request for EPA approval of
a SIP submittal containing proposed revisions to the Visible Emissions
portion of the Alabama SIP, found at ADEM Administrative Code (AAC)
Chapter 335-3-4-.01, ``Visible Emissions,'' and pertaining to sources
of particulate matter (PM) emissions. In an action published on April
12, 2007 (72 FR 18428), EPA proposed to approve the proposed revisions
contingent upon Alabama submitting a revised SIP submittal addressing
EPA's concerns regarding impacts of the rule changes on attainment of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as set forth in 72
FR 18428-18434. EPA's proposal notice stated that the State would have
to provide EPA with a revised SIP submittal consistent with certain
changes described by EPA in our April 12, 2007, notice of proposed

rulemaking, before EPA would approve the revisions.
    EPA provided the public with 60 days to submit comments on our
proposed rule and the specific changes needed to make the Alabama
submittal approvable into the Alabama SIP. At the request of a
commenter, EPA extended the public comment period by 30 days to July
11, 2007. We received four comment letters from industry
representatives and one from the State air pollution control agency,
all of which were in favor of the rulemaking. We received one comment
letter, submitted on behalf of four environmental groups, opposed to
it. In general, comments received that were adverse to the proposed
rulemaking expressed concerns related to air quality impacts,
particularly on the particulate matter NAAQS, suggested inadequate
modeling analyses by EPA, and expressed concern with EPA's technical
assessment of the relationship between opacity and particulate matter
mass emissions. These comments, and EPA's responses to them, are
discussed in more detail below in Part III, ``Response to Comments.''
    Following the close of the comment period, EPA and ADEM discussed
some of the issues raised by the commenters, including comments
regarding the potential impact of a revised Visible Emissions rule on
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in Alabama. Documents
memorializing these conversations are part of the docket for this
action. As a result of these discussions, ADEM decided to submit the
necessary revisions proposed by EPA in our April 2007 Federal Register
notice to support final approval. ADEM also decided to include an
additional limitation on opacity based on public comments. This
additional provision limits subject sources to a daily opacity average
of no more than 22 percent, excluding periods of startup, shutdown,
load change and rate change (or other short intermittent periods upon
terms approved by ADEM's Director and included in a State-issued
permit).\1\ This 22 percent cap was selected because it is equivalent
to the maximum daily opacity average allowable under the current
approved SIP, which allows opacity of up to 40 percent for 24 six-
minute averages per day and up to 20 percent for the remainder of the
day, excluding periods of startup, shutdown, load change and rate
change (or other short intermittent periods upon terms approved by
ADEM's Director and included in a State-issued permit). That is, under
both the existing SIP and the August 22, 2008, revisions, if a source
were to operate at its maximum allowable opacity for an entire calendar
day, excluding periods of startup, shutdown, load change and rate
change (or other short intermittent periods upon terms approved by
ADEM's Director and included in a State-issued permit), the opacity
average for that day would be 22 percent. The equation below
illustrates the calculation of 22 percent average daily opacity allowed
under the current SIP when T1, the number of six-minute
average periods of startup, shutdown, load change and rate change (or
other short intermittent periods upon terms approved by ADEM's Director
and included in a State-issued permit), is zero.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The director's discretion provisions under Alabama rule 335-
3-4-.01(1)(c) and (d) would be unchanged by this SIP revision, so
periods of excess emissions allowed in a permit pursuant to those
provisions would continue to be allowed, as noted here. EPA notes
that, as the director's discretion provisions are not being revised
by ADEM or reviewed by EPA at present, nothing in this notice should
be considered as approving those provisions.
    \2\ This equation includes the variable, T1, to
represent periods of startup, shutdown, load change and rate change
(or other short intermittent periods upon terms approved by ADEM's
Director and included in a State-issued permit) because such periods
are allowed under both the existing SIP and the proposed revision,
although EPA expects that such periods will not occur during most
days. In calculating average opacity over a quarter in the April 12,
2007, proposal, EPA also used a range of values for such periods.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15OC08.007

We derived allowable average daily opacity equations for the current
SIP-approved rule and the 2008 ADEM submittal, substituted various
exemption durations (T1) in the equations, determined the
corresponding allowable average daily opacities, and organized the
results as shown in Table 1 below.

 Table 1--Calculated Allowable Average Daily Opacity Levels for Various Startup, Shutdown, Load Change, and Rate Change Durations (T1), Using Alabama's
                                                  Current SIP-Approved Rule and the 2008 ADEM Submittal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Calculated allowable average daily opacity (percent) for various startup, shutdown, load change, and rate
                                                                                change durations (T1)
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              T1 = 0          T1 = 12         T1 = 24         T1 = 48        T1 = 120        T1 = 216        T1 = 240
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current SIP Approved Rule...............            22.0            26.0            30.0            38.0            62.0            94.0           100.0
2008 ADEM Submittal.....................            22.0            25.9            29.8            37.6            61.0            92.2           100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the new paragraphs added to AAC Chapter 335-3-4-.01 now
reads as follows:

    (3) The conditions in paragraphs (4) and (5) of this rule apply
to each emissions unit that meets all of the following requirements:
    (a) A Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) is used for
indication of opacity of emissions;
    (b) With respect to opacity limitations, the units are subject
only to the opacity provisions stated in paragraph (1) of this rule;
and
    (c) The COMS system utilized is required to comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR

60.13 or 40 CFR 75.14 (if applicable) and is required to be
certified in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 60,
Appendix B, Performance Specification 1.
    (4) Except as otherwise exempt under subparagraphs (1)(c) or
(1)(d) of this rule, no permittee shall discharge into the
atmosphere from any source of emission, particulate of an opacity
greater than that designated as twenty percent (20%) opacity, as
determined by a six (6) minute average, except that during each
calendar quarter, the permittee may discharge into the atmosphere
from any emissions unit qualifying under paragraph (3) of this rule,
particulate with an opacity exceeding 20% for not more than twenty-
four (24), six (6) minute periods in any calendar day, if such
periods do not exceed 2.0 percent of the source calendar quarter
operating hours for which the opacity standard is applicable and for
which the COMS is indicating valid data.
    (5) No permittee shall discharge into the atmosphere from any
source of emission particulate of an opacity greater than 22%
(excluding exempt periods allowed under subparagraphs (1)(c) and
(1)(d) of this rule) averaged over each calendar day.
    (6) For a person subject to paragraph (4) of this rule,
compliance with the opacity standards in this rule shall be
determined by COMS data.
    (7) For emissions units described in paragraph (3) above, the
permittee shall comply with paragraphs (4) and (5) within 6 months
of EPA approval of paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6). Until 6 months
after EPA approval of paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6), emissions
units described by paragraph (3) above shall be subject to the
emission limit in subparagraph (1)(a) of this rule, the exceptions
in subparagraphs (1)(b), (1)(c) and (1)(d) of this rule, and the
compliance measurement techniques in paragraph (2) of this rule.

    For overall completeness of the changes to the Visible Emissions
rule, ADEM also made minor revisions to AAC rules 335-3-4-.01(1)(a),
335-3-4-.01(1)(b), and 335-3-4-.01(2).\3\ In accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as identified by EPA in our
April 2007 proposed rule, ADEM held a public hearing on these revisions
on August 6, 2008. The state-adopted revisions were submitted to EPA on
August 22, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The additional revisions are as follows in the underlined
text:
    AAC 335-3-4-.01(1)(a): `` Except as provided in subparagraphs
(b), (c), (d), or (e) of this paragraph, and paragraph (3) of this
rule, no person shall discharge into the atmosphere from any source
of emission, particulate of an opacity greater than that designated
as twenty percent (20%) opacity, as determined by a six (6) minute
average.''
    335-3-4-.01(1)(b): ``For a person not covered by paragraphs (3),
(4), and (5) of this rule, [d]uring one six (6) minute period in any
sixty (60) minute period, a person may discharge into the atmosphere
from any source of emission, particulate of an opacity not greater
than that designated as forty percent (40%) opacity.''
    335-3-4-.01(2): ``For a person subject to subparagraph (1)(b) of
this rule, [c]ompliance with opacity standards in this rule shall be
determined by conducting observations in accordance with Reference
Method 9 in Appendix A, 40 CFR Part 60, as the same may be amended
requiring a six (6) minute average as determined by twenty-four (24)
consecutive readings, at intervals of fifteen (15) seconds each.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    Today's action addresses revisions to Alabama SIP rule 335-3-4-.01
(``Visible Emissions''), submitted initially in 2003 and significantly
revised and re-submitted on August 22, 2008. These revisions amend the
requirements for units that operate COMS and that are not subject to
any opacity limits other than those of the Alabama SIP.\4\ After
consideration of the comments received in response to EPA's April 12,
2007, proposed rule and the State's final SIP revision submittal of
August 22, 2008, EPA is taking final action to approve the revisions to
the Visible Emissions portion of the Alabama SIP rule. EPA is taking
this action pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Although this new opacity standard would only apply to
certain sources using COMS, consistent with EPA's and ADEM's
credible evidence rules, nothing in the rule as revised should be
construed to preclude the use of COMS to enforce the existing
standard or the use of EPA Method 9 to enforce the revised standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final action is based on EPA's determination that the proposed
SIP revision satisfies the requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA.
Consistent with our discussion of these issues in the proposed
rulemaking (see 72 FR 18428), and after consideration of all public
comments submitted thereon, this determination is based upon our
findings that (1) the revision would not increase the allowable average
opacity levels; and (2) the relationship between changes in opacity and
increases or decreases in ambient PM2.5 levels cannot be quantified
readily for the sources subject to this SIP revision, and is
particularly uncertain for short-term analyses. In the proposal we
calculated the ``average quarterly opacity'' allowed under both the
existing SIP and the proposed revision and showed that the proposed
revision, with changes specified in the notice, would result in no
greater average quarterly opacity allowed than what is allowed under
the current standard. Accordingly, we relied primarily on the first
finding for a conclusion that the proposed revision, with changes,
satisfied the requirements of section 110(l) with respect to the annual
PM NAAQS. We relied on the second finding for a conclusion that the
proposed revision satisfied the requirements of section 110(l) with
respect to the 24-hour PM NAAQS.
    In evaluating the changes submitted by Alabama on August 22, 2008,
EPA notes that the revised rule as submitted is consistent with, but
not limited to, the revisions outlined by EPA in the proposal notice.
EPA's April 12, 2007, notice proposed to approve a revised rule, if one
were submitted, allowing up to 2.4 hours per day of operation at
opacity levels in excess of 20 percent, provided that the total of such
periods did not exceed 2 percent of operating time in a quarter,
excluding periods of startup, shutdown, load change and rate change (or
other short intermittent periods upon terms approved by ADEM's Director
and included in a State-issued permit). The changes identified by EPA
were intended to ensure that the allowable average quarterly opacity
under the revised rule would be at least as stringent as (i.e., equal
to or lower than) that allowed by the current approved SIP, and to
clarify that only a single version of the opacity standard applies to
any unit.
    As discussed above, the rule as submitted includes not only the
limits identified by EPA in the proposal notice but also an additional
restriction that a source's daily average opacity may not exceed 22
percent, excluding periods of startup, shutdown, load change and rate
change (or other short intermittent periods upon terms approved by
ADEM's Director and included in a State-issued permit). As a result,
unlike the opacity limits evaluated in the proposal, the average daily
opacity allowed under the proposed revision as submitted is now no
greater than under the current SIP. In this way, the rule as submitted
allows us to evaluate the possible impact of changes to the opacity
standard on the daily PM NAAQS using the approach we identified in the
proposal for evaluating the possible impact of changes on the annual PM
NAAQS. Since a calendar day is the shortest period over which
compliance with the PM NAAQS is measured, EPA believes it is
appropriate under this approach to evaluate whether the allowed average
opacity over a calendar day would be any greater under the proposed
revision, as submitted, as compared to the existing SIP. Accordingly,
EPA believes both of the findings cited in the April 12, 2007, proposal
provide support for our conclusion that the proposed revision as
submitted satisfies the requirements of section 110(l) with respect to
the 24-hour PM NAAQS.
    The Alabama Visible Emissions rule revision being approved today
provides, for sources meeting the criteria of the revised rule, two
situations where opacity levels above 20 percent are

allowed: (1) 24 six-minute averages per day of up to 100 percent
opacity, provided that no subject source can exceed a daily average
opacity of 22 percent, excluding periods of startup, shutdown, load
change and rate change (or other short intermittent periods upon terms
approved by ADEM's Director and included in a State-issued permit); and
(2) periods of startup, shutdown, load change and rate change (or other
short intermittent periods upon terms approved by ADEM's Director and
included in a State-issued permit). The provisions in the first
instance above do not apply if a source exceeds 20 percent opacity for
more than two percent of the remaining operating time in a quarter,
after subtracting out periods of startup, shutdown, load change and
rate change (or other short intermittent periods upon terms approved by
ADEM's Director and included in a State-issued permit).

III. Response to Comments

    EPA proposed to approve the Visible Emissions portion of the SIP
revision contained in the 2003 ADEM submittal, provided the State
revised it as described in the April 12, 2007, Federal Register Notice
and submitted it as a SIP revision. At the request of a commenter, EPA
extended the 60-day public comment period to 90 days, ending July 11,
2007. 72 FR 32569 (June 13, 2007). The final rule reflects our
consideration of the State's revision submitted on August 22, 2008, and
all comments received on the proposed action. This section responds to
the significant comments.
    Comment 1: Commenters objected to EPA's approval of Paragraphs (3),
(4) and (5) of AAC rule 335-3-4-.01, stating that doing so would be
approving an ``automatic exemption'' from certain emission limitations
that must function on a ``continuous basis'' and would result in a
violation of Section 302(k) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.100(z).
    Response: The revisions to ACC rule 335-3-4-.01 amend the
requirements for certain units that operate COMS and are, therefore,
revisions to the rule itself. A source that meets the requirements of
the revised standard will be in continuous compliance with the
standard. The provisions of the CAA and its implementing regulations
cited by the commenters do not require that all SIP measures require
compliance with the same numerical emission limitation at all times.
See Kamp v. Hernandez, 752 F.2d 1444 (9 Cir.), modified, 778 F.2d 527
(9th Cir. 1985). EPA believes the rule, as amended, does not violate
Section 302(k) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.100(z).
    Comment 2: Commenters stated that EPA's analysis of ACC rule 335-3-
4-.01 is ``illegal'' because an ``analysis premised on the notion that
a relaxation is acceptable as long as average emissions are equal to or
no lower than the status quo runs afoul of Hall, which explicitly
rejected that type of analysis.''
    Response: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Hall v. U.S.
E.P.A., 273 F.3d 1146, does not require EPA to disapprove the SIP
revision at issue. It is not binding precedent in the 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals, and two other circuits have agreed with EPA's view
that a SIP revision may be approved under section 110(l) ``unless the
agency finds it will make air quality worse.'' See Kentucky Resources
Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006); GHASP v. EPA, No.
06-61030 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008). Furthermore, although the Hall court
adopted an approach, based on the facts of that case, under which ``EPA
must be able to conclude that the particular plan revision before it is
consistent with the development of an overall plan capable of meeting
the Act's attainment requirements,'' EPA believes this revision is
consistent with development of an overall plan capable of demonstrating
attainment in a timely fashion.
    Comment 3: Commenters stated that EPA must perform modeling
analysis at every facility subject to the Alabama Visible Emissions
rule at AAC rule 335-3-4-.01 and suggest that the State and EPA will be
abdicating their responsibility to protect the NAAQS if they do not
perform modeling analysis for every facility subject to the proposed
rule.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters that modeling is
required at every facility. As a matter of law, the CAA does not
require EPA to perform modeling analysis at every facility subject to
the Alabama Visible Emissions rule. For purposes of analyzing SIP
revisions, as long as EPA evaluates all of the information before it in
light of its expertise and has a reasonable basis for concluding that
the rule revision satisfies the requirements of section 110(l) of the
CAA, we are authorized to act on a SIP revision. As set forth in the
proposed rule, we believe our technical analysis supports approval of
the proposed revisions to the Visible Emissions portion of the Alabama
SIP, rule 335-3-4-.01. See 72 FR 18428, 18431 (April 12, 2007).
    Comment 4: Commenters stated that CAA section 110(l) requires EPA
to evaluate whether the proposed SIP revision will make the ambient air
worse and whether the existing SIP and the proposed revisions, taken
together, will still achieve the necessary pollution reductions
required for the State to continue to meet the NAAQS.
    Response: Under section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA may not approve
revisions to SIPs if the revisions would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore, in determining
whether to approve the revisions to Alabama's Visible Emissions rule,
we considered the relevant impacts of the proposed change in light of
the type of requirement affected by the requested revision. In this
instance, the State is proposing revisions to its opacity requirements.
EPA notes that the opacity standard itself is not a NAAQS and that the
PM emission reduction standards remain unchanged in the approved
Alabama SIP. We have considered the impact of Alabama's proposed
revision on the NAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5, and on
other applicable requirements, and determined that it satisfies the
requirements of CAA section 110(l).
    Comment 5: Commenters opposed EPA's approval of paragraphs (3), (4)
and (5) of AAC rule 135-3-4-.01, stating that EPA's analysis did not
include whether the current rule ``as is'' is adequately protective of
the NAAQS and, therefore, EPA's comparison analysis is incapable of
providing the information necessary to evaluate the 2003 ADEM
submittal.
    Response: The CAA requires EPA to evaluate the initial SIP
submittal as well as all proposed revisions pursuant to the conditions
set forth in section 110(l) of the CAA as cited above. EPA interprets
the requirements of section 110(l) to apply with respect to the
specific changes being proposed. EPA does not interpret section 110(l)
to require a full attainment or maintenance demonstration before any
changes to a SIP may be approved. See Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.
v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006); see also e.g., 70 FR 53 (Jan. 3,
2005), 70 FR 28429 (May 18, 2005) (proposed and final rules, upheld in
Kentucky Resources, which discuss EPA's interpretation of section
110(l)). In this action, the State proposed only revisions to its
opacity requirements. We evaluated the proposed revisions in light of
the relationship between opacity and PM emissions and determined that a
reliable and direct correlation could not be readily established,
particularly for short-term periods. Nonetheless, there is at least an
indirect relationship between opacity and PM emissions, including the
use of opacity to track the

effectiveness of PM control equipment operation, and we considered the
impact of Alabama's 2003 and 2008 revisions on the NAAQS for
PM10 and PM2.5 and on other applicable emission
limits. We concluded that these SIP revisions satisfy the requirements
of CAA section 110(l).
    Comment 6: Commenters stated that EPA's rationale for approving AAC
rule 335-3-4-.01, ``Visible Emissions,'' is not correct because AAC
rule 335-3-14-.03(1)(h)(2), ``Emergency Exception,'' serves essentially
the same purpose as a ``malfunction exception.'' Therefore, ADEM's
claim that there is pressing need to adopt a new two-percent exemption
lacks merit.
    Response: We did not consider AAC rule 335-3-14-.03(1)(h)(2),
``Emergency Exception,'' in our decision to approve revisions to ACC
rule 335-3-4-.01, ``Visible Emissions.'' EPA notes that it does not
interpret AAC rule 335-3-14-.03(1)(h)(2) as providing the same sort of
exemption for equipment malfunctions that is included in other SIPs
(and would be approvable, subject to certain limitations, under current
EPA policy and guidance). Section 110(l) requires us to evaluate
proposed SIP revisions in relation to applicable requirements of the
CAA, not state rules. EPA is not basing our approval of the revision on
the lack of a ``malfunction exemption'' in Alabama's SIP.
    Comment 7: Commenters stated that EPA may not have complied with
the Agency's SIP Consistency Policy. If not, then the Regional
Administrator was not authorized as a matter of law to promulgate the
proposed SIP revision.
    Response: EPA complied with its SIP consistency policy.
Documentation of the process is contained in the docket for this rule.
    Comment 8: Commenters stated that modeling shows the revisions to
AAC rule 335-3-4-.01 would interfere with the PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Response: EPA does not agree that the modeling submitted by the
commenters shows the revisions to the Alabama Visible Emissions rule
would interfere with the PM2.5 NAAQS. First, the modeling
submitted by the commenters assumed that maximum PM emissions will
occur at 100 percent opacity and that 100 percent opacity will occur
when the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is turned off. Commenters did
not submit data to support this assumption. Data reviewed by EPA in
considering this SIP revision suggest a wide variation in opacity
associated with PM emission rates across a range of operating
conditions for ESPs. For example, data from Review of Concurrent Mass
Emission and Opacity Measurements for Coal-burning Utility and
Industrial Boilers (EPA-600/7-80-062), which is listed in the docket
for this rule and is publicly available, on similarly equipped and
operated coal-fired electric utilities illustrate the variability of
opacity with respect to ESP operation and of opacity with particulate
matter emissions. In one example, a facility equipped with a fully
energized ESP exhibited 22 percent opacity and a PM emissions rate of
0.314 lbs PM per million British thermal units (BTU). During another
test run under the same operating conditions, this facility exhibited a
45 percent increase in opacity to 32 percent opacity, but a 60 percent
decrease in PM emissions rate to 0.126 lbs PM per million BTU.
Moreover, during another test series for this facility in which the ESP
was fully energized for one run, then turned off for another run, the
opacity remained constant at 22 percent. Thus, evidence in the docket
indicates that, at least for some sources, there is not a universal
correlation between operating conditions of the ESP and opacity.
    Second, one commenter also stated that the facility could operate
at 100 percent opacity for consecutive periods of 2.4 hours per day and
up to 4.8 hours in two days back-to-back, thus creating the potential
for significant short-term impacts on ambient air quality. The
commenter is correct, provided that these periods of operation do not
cause the source to exceed two percent of the source calendar operating
hours or an average daily opacity of 22 percent. Given Alabama's newly
adopted rule, in a hypothetical situation in which a source operated at
100 percent opacity for 2.4 hours, the facility would be limited to no
more than 13.3 percent opacity for the remainder of the day; this limit
is two-thirds of the otherwise generally applicable limit of 20
percent. EPA notes that the 24-hour PM NAAQS are measured on a
calendar-day basis, not as a rolling 24-hour average. Accordingly, EPA
does not believe the possibility that a facility could operate for 4.8
hours in two consecutive calendar days indicates that the revised rule
would interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 24-hour PM
NAAQS. Furthermore, as discussed below, nothing in the Visible
Emissions rule excuses a source from compliance with any applicable PM
emission limit.
    The AERMOD model (a regulatory dispersion model) requires several
inputs, including PM emission rate. Some commenters assumed a
correlation between opacity and PM emission rate as part of their
efforts to model the impact of the revised opacity rule on PM emissions
and ambient PM concentrations. Opacity, the degree to which emissions
reduce the transmission of light and obscure the view of an object in
the background,\5\ is a condition, not a pollutant. For a useful
relationship to exist between the opacity and mass concentration of the
particulate emissions from a pollution source, the characteristics of
the particles (size, shape, and composition) must be sufficiently
constant, and for a conventional transmissometer (e.g., COMS) to be
useful as a monitor of the mass concentration, the particulate
characteristics must remain constant over a useful period of time.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Measurement of the Opacity and Mass Concentration of
Particulate Emissions by Transmissometry, EPA-650/2-74-128, p3.
    \6\ Measurement of the Opacity and Mass Concentration of
Particulate Emissions by Transmissometry, EPA-650/2-74-128, p 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is a general relationship between opacity and PM, which
generally develops over longer periods of time. While opacity is used
as an indicator of compliance with PM limits in certain regulatory
programs, establishing a relationship between PM and opacity that holds
for all sources, fuels, control devices, and operating modes can be
complex. Opacity may not be a reliable indicator of short-term mass
emissions, or for use in projecting changes in short-term PM ambient
air quality concentrations. A given opacity level can be associated
with a range of mass emissions, the level of which depends on fuels,
industry, boiler type, and controls. Although source-specific
correlations between opacity and mass emissions can be established for
some sources, none have been for the sources subject to this SIP
revision and therefore assumptions must be made about how a change in
the opacity rule might affect the level of PM mass emissions being
modeled. These assumptions made about the relationship drive model
results and, thus, are important in evaluating the result of the
modeling exercise.
    For the modeling submittals on the Colbert Plant, commenters
assumed maximum opacity for maximum duration from turned-off PM
emission control devices. They developed and used differing PM emission
rates, one set of rates being four times larger than the other set of
rates, underscoring the uncertainty inherent with relating opacity
values to mass emissions. They both failed to include impacts of nearby
emission sources and of secondary PM emissions, and they both used
cumulative PM mass sizing estimates from AP-42 in their calculation of
PM10 and PM2.5; however, one commenter

used an incorrect value that overpredicts PM2.5, and
underpredicts PM10, by 2.3 times. One commenter included
condensable PM emissions.
    PM emissions associated with turned-off control devices are
expected to be higher than PM emissions associated with more commonly
occurring transient malfunctions of control devices, even though
maximum opacity may occur from either situation. In order to examine
the impact of Alabama's rule change on the NAAQS, we would need
additional information on the range of emission rates associated with
100 percent opacity and other opacity levels. Estimation of PM
emissions for a given opacity value is difficult without measurements
and is the major deficiency and limitation of any modeling for this
rule change. The range of emission rates that could produce 100 percent
opacity is not known and is not discussed or established in the
modeling submitted during the public comment period.
    Therefore, although the modeling presented by commenters shows the
possibility of an impact on the NAAQS under a worst-case scenario, the
modeling does not convincingly demonstrate the impact of the rule
change on the NAAQS because the level of PM emissions while operating
at 100 percent opacity, and the source-specific relationship between
opacity and PM emissions, are uncertain and are not demonstrated in the
public record. For these reasons, the modeling cannot show that the
rule change will interfere with the 24-hour NAAQS.
    Comment 9: Commenters disagreed with EPA's assertion that ``the
relationship between changes in opacity and increases or decreases in
ambient PM2.5 levels cannot be quantified readily and is
particularly uncertain for short-term and site specific analyses.''
    Response: EPA's assertion is consistent with the findings contained
in Review of Concurrent Mass Emission and Opacity Measurements for
Coal-burning Utility and Industrial Boilers (EPA-600/7-80-062), which
is listed in the docket for this rule and is publicly available. That
report was developed from over 400 concurrent particulate matter and
opacity measurements and found that any useful and definitive
relationships between stack particulate mass emission rates and their
corresponding opacity levels appear to be site specific. In addition,
as stated in the proposal notice, the uncertainty in assumptions about
a correlation between opacity levels and ambient PM concentrations on
short-term periods or site specific analyses is a function of many
factors, including differences in the mass of particles that exist at
the point of COMS measurement in the stack, the total mass of particles
exiting the stack, including condensable particles that form
immediately upon exposure to the ambient atmosphere, and the mass of
particles an ambient sampler is capable of collecting. Commenters
submitted no information that demonstrates that opacity can be reliably
correlated with mass emissions over short time periods for a range of
sources (or these specific sources) without performing site-specific
analyses, and EPA is aware of none.
    Comment 10: Commenters stated that analyzing air quality impacts on
a quarterly basis is not appropriate because EPA already has 24-hour
NAAQS standards for PM10 and PM2.5.
    Response: As we stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking and
earlier in this final rule, section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving
any revision to a SIP that would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement. In this instance we believe that
because the State regulation at issue pertains to opacity, the primary
CAA requirements of concern should be impacts on compliance with the
NAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5, which include both
daily and annual standards. The quarterly time frame commenters refer
to is used in AAC rule 335-3-4-.01(4) to prohibit a source from
operating at higher opacity levels for greater than 2 percent of the
source operating hours per calendar quarter. In light of this specific
provision that applies on a quarterly basis, and because analyzing for
impacts on a quarterly basis provides a conservative basis for
assessing impacts on an annual basis, we decided it appropriate to
analyze air quality impacts on a quarterly basis to judge interference
with the annual standards, and we concluded the requirements of section
110(l) have been satisfied with respect to all of the PM NAAQS.
    Comment 11: Commenters stated that the 2003 revisions to AAC rule
335-3-4-.01, and the conditions set forth in the April 12, 2007, notice
of proposed rulemaking, would lead to interference with compliance with
mass particulate matter limits. As evidence that its assertion was
correct, the commenters stated that if Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
were to turn off its control equipment for any of its units at the
Colbert plant for 2.4 consecutive hours, TVA would violate the PM
standard (0.12 lb/mmBtu) at that unit.
    Response: The PM limit of 0.12 lb/mmBtu under the Alabama SIP does
not include any exempt periods and continues to apply regardless of any
revisions to the opacity rule. EPA lacks the data necessary to
determine quantitatively what impact, if any, the revisions to the rule
would or could have on ambient PM emissions. As described earlier, the
commenters' assertion of an approach that allows one to determine the
amount of ambient PM emissions based on an increase in stack opacity is
fraught with questionable assumptions such as de-energized control
devices yielding 100 percent opacity and 100 percent opacity providing
maximum PM emissions.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the Visible Emissions portion
of the SIP revisions submitted to EPA by the State of Alabama on
September 11, 2003, and August 22, 2008. EPA is approving the revision
of paragraphs (1) and (2), and addition of paragraphs (3), (4), (5),
(6), and (7) to AAC rule 335-3-4-.01, ``Visible Emissions.''

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or

safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 15, 2008. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 1, 2008.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.50(c) is amended by revising the entry for ``Section 335-
3-4.01'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.50  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                            EPA-Approved Alabama Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
          State citation               Title/subject      effective date             EPA approval date                          Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
                                                    Chapter 335-3-4 Control of Particulate Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 335-3-4-.01..............  Visible Emissions....       9/30/2008  10/15/2008 [Insert citation of          ......................................
                                                                           publication].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-24031 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2874-2875]
[FR Doc No: 2010-792]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0486]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for
Industry, FDA, and Foreign Governments: Fiscal Year 2010 Medical Device
User Fee Small Business Qualification and Certification

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
February 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES:  To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0508.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
the document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Guidance for Industry, FDA, and Foreign Governments: Fiscal Year 2010
Medical Device User Fee Small Business Qualification and
Certification--OMB Control Number 0910-0508--Extension

    Section 101 of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act
(MDUFMA) amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) to
provide for user fees for certain medical device applications. FDA
published a Federal Register notice on August 3, 2009 (74 FR 38444),
announcing fees for fiscal year (FY) 2010. To avoid harming small
businesses, MDUFMA provides for reduced or waived fees for applicants
who qualify as a ``small business.'' This means there are two levels of
fees, a standard fee, and a reduced or waived small business fee (FDA
Form 3602--For Domestic Small Business Applicants For FY 2010). You can
qualify for a small business fee discount under MDUFMA if you reported
gross receipts or sales of no more than $100 million on your Federal
income tax return for the most recent tax year. If you have any
affiliates, partners, or parent firms, you must add their gross
receipts or sales to yours, and the total must be no more than $100
million. If your gross receipts or sales are no more than $30 million,
including all of your affiliates, partners, and parent firms, you will
also qualify for a waiver of the fee for your first (ever) premarket
application (product development protocol, biologics licensing
application, or Premarket Report). An applicant must pay the full
standard fee unless it provides evidence demonstrating to FDA that it
meets the ``small business'' criteria. The evidence required by MDUFMA
is a copy of the most recent Federal income tax return of the
applicant, and any affiliate, partner, or parent firm. FDA will review
these materials and decide whether an applicant is a ``small business''
within the meaning of MDUFMA (FDA Form 3602A-- For Foreign Small
Business Applicants). The 2007 Amendments provide an alternative way
for a foreign business to qualify as a small business eligible to pay a
significantly lower fee when a medical device user fee must be paid.
Before passage of the 2007 Amendments, the only way a business could
qualify as a small business was to submit a Federal (U.S.) income tax
return showing its gross receipts or sales that did not exceed a
statutory threshold, currently, $100 million. If a business could not
provide a Federal income tax return, it did not qualify as a small
business and had to pay the standard (full) fee. Because many foreign
businesses have not, and cannot, file a Federal (U.S.) income tax
return, this requirement has effectively prevented those businesses
from qualifying for the small business fee rates. Thus, foreign
governments, including the European Union, have objected. In lieu of a
Federal income tax return, the 2007 Amendments will allow a foreign
business to qualify as a small business by submitting a certification
from its national taxing authority, the foreign equivalent of our
Internal Revenue Service. This certification, referred to as a
``National Taxing Authority Certification,'' must: Be in English; be
from the national taxing authority of the country in which the business
is headquartered; provide the business' gross receipts or sales for the
most recent year, in both the local currency and in U.S. dollars, and
the exchange rate used in converting local currency to U.S. dollars;
provide the dates during which the reported receipts or sales were
collected; and bear the official seal of the national taxing authority.
Both FDA Forms 3602 and 3602A are available in the guidance document,
``Guidance for Industry, FDA and Foreign Governments: FY 2010 MDUFMA
Small Business Qualification and Certification,'' available on the
Internet at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/MedicalDeviceUserFeeandModernizationActMDUFMA/UCM179257.pdf.
    This guidance describes the criteria FDA will use to decide whether
an entity qualifies as a MDUFMA small business and will help
prospective applicants understand what they need to do to meet the
small business criteria for FY 2010.
    The FDA Form 3602 burden is based on the number of applications
received in the last 3 years. FDA believes most entities that submit
FDA Form 3602A will not have any affiliates, and very few will have
more than three or four affiliates. Based on our experience with FDA
Form 3602A, FDA believes each business will require 1 hour to complete
Sections I and II. FDA does not have any data on the time that will be
required to complete Section III, the National Taxing Authority
Certification, because there is a different tax verification process by
each country's National Taxing Authority. The information collection
for FDA Form 3602 is currently approved under OMB control

number 0910-0508. The information collection for FDA Form 3602A is
currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0613. With this
request for approval, FDA is requesting to consolidate OMB approvals
0910-0508 and 0910-0613 into one information collection using the OMB
control number 0910-0508.
    In the Federal Register of October 23, 2009 (74 FR 54826), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              No. of       Annual Frequency  of     Total Annual        Hours  per
                     FDA Form No.                          Respondents           Response            Responses           Response         Total Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3602                                                                3,000                     1              3,000                  1              3,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3602A Sections I and II                                               340                     1                340                  1                340
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3602A Section III                                                      33                     7                231                  1                231
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals                                                                                3,571
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: January 12, 2010.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2010-792 Filed 1-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 19, 2004

      NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-17677

________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________

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

Application of  Northwest Airlines, Inc.              filed   4/30/04
for:

XX   Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between a point or points in the United States and Port of Spain,
Trinidad and Tobago.  Northwest also requests authority to integrate
this authority with its existing certificate and exemption authority.
Northwest Airlines intends to operate this service pursuant to a
code-share arrangement with Continental Airlines with Continental
operating the service.

Applicant rep:   Megan Rae Rosia<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst:  Gerald
Caolo<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:  May 19, 2004, through  May
19, 2006

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the Air Transport Agreement
between the United States and Trinidad and Tobago.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:   XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	    XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
___________

Conditions:  The route integration authority granted is subject to the
condition that any service provided

under this exemption shall be consistent with all applicable agreements
between the United States and the foreign countries involved.
Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award of the route integration authority

requested should be construed as conferring upon Northwest Airlines
rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond rights) to
serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless Northwest
Airlines notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a market
and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier
selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized
to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a request by any
carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in
Northwest Airlines’ authority by virtue of the route integration
exemption granted here, but that are not then being used by Northwest
Airlines, the holding of such authority by route integration will not be
considered as providing any preference for Northwest Airlines in a
competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s)
should be entitled to use the authority at issue.

The code-share operations conducted under this authorization are subject
to the following conditions: (a) The code-sharing operations conducted
under this authority must comply with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendment
to the Department’s regulations concerning code-share arrangements
that may be adopted.  Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract
between the carriers, our approval here is expressly conditioned upon
the requirements that the subject foreign air transportation be sold in
the name of the carrier holding out such service in computer reservation
systems and elsewhere; that the carrier selling such transportation
(i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket) accept responsibility for the
entirety of the code-share journey for all obligations established in
its contract of carriage with the passenger; and that the passenger
liability of the operating carrier be unaffected; and  (b) the authority
granted here is specifically conditioned so that neither Northwest
Airlines nor Continental Airlines shall give any force or effect to any
contractual provisions between themselves that are contrary to these
conditions.

________________________________________________________________________
______________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; and (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

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

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

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

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

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

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

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

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3

05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 55 (Thursday, March 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14904-14905]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05818]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-D-0198]

Delayed Graft Function in Kidney Transplantation: Developing
Drugs for Prevention; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Delayed
Graft Function in Kidney Transplantation: Developing Drugs for
Prevention.'' The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in the
clinical development of drugs for the prevention of delayed graft
function (DGF) in kidney transplantation.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by June 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the

instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://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 http://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): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, 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-2017-D-0198 for ``Delayed Graft Function in Kidney Transplantation:
Developing Drugs for Prevention; Draft Guidance for Industry;
Availability.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     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 http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. 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 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: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://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 Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ozlem Belen, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave, Bldg. 22, Rm. 6118, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-0676.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Delayed Graft Function in Kidney Transplantation: Developing
Drugs for Prevention.'' The purpose of this guidance is to assist
sponsors in the clinical development of drugs for the prevention of DGF
in kidney transplantation.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on developing
drugs for the prevention of DGF in kidney transplant. It does not
establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the
public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have
been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001,
respectively.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 20, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-05818 Filed 3-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="16/10/2009 09:39:24 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register: February 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 37)]
[Notices]
[Page 9536-9537]
[DOCID:fr24fe06-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

February 14, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER03-295-002.
    Applicants: SESCO Enterprises, LLC.
    Description: SESCO Enterprises, LLC submits its Triennial Updated
Market Analysis.
    Filed Date: 2/7/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060210-0030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 28, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-394-004; ER03-427-004; ER03-175-006.
    Applicants: Elk Hills Power, LLC; Mesquite Power, LLC;
Termoelectrica U.S., LLC.
    Description: Elk Hills Power, LLC et al submit corrected pages to
the affidavit which formed a part of the Triennial Update filed on 1/
10/06.
    Filed Date: 2/7/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060209-0223.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 28, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER04-230-022; ER01-3155-015; ER01-1385-024; EL01-
45-023.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits its
Sixth Quarterly Report on the progress it is making in pursuing changes
to software modeling requirements and market rules.
    Filed Date: 2/8/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060210-0032.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 1, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-187-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits supplemental informational filing to its executed Large
Generator Interconnection Agreement with Valley View Transmission, LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/7/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060210-0031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 28, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-455-001.
    Applicants: Duquesne Power, LLC.
    Description: Duquesne Power, LLC submits an amendment to the 1/5/06
Notice of Succession filing.
    Filed Date: 2/8/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060210-0026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 1, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-526-001.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Co. submits an amended filing to
correct the effective date on Tariff Sheets 408B and 408C filed on 1/
18/06.
    Filed Date: 2/7/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060210-0033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 28, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-569-001.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: American Electric Power submits a replacement sheet
for Original Sheet No.16 of Attachment 1 for an interconnection and
local delivery service agreement with the Village of Greenwich, OH.
    Filed Date: 2/7/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060210-0029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 28, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-614-000.
    Applicants: Western Electricity Coordinating Council.
    Description: Western Electricity Coordinating Council submits an
amended version of their Electric Rate Schedule No. 1, reflecting
changes to their Bylaws.
    Filed Date: 2/7/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060208-0385.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 28, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-617-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent Sys. Oper. Inc. submits report of
tariff implementation errors, request for approval of proposed
compensation methodology, and request for limited tariff waivers.
    Filed Date: 2/8/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060213-0009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 1, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER88-478-001; ER91-576-002.
    Applicants: Ocean State Power; Ocean State Power II.
    Description: Ocean State Power and Ocean State Power II submit a
change in status with respect to the ownership of jurisdictional
facilities and withdraw their 1/10/06 filing.
    Filed Date: 2/6/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060206-5014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 27, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER97-2846-008.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Florida Power Corp dba Progress Energy Florida, Inc
notifies FERC that it has entered into a contract effective 1/25/06 for
purchase of 50 MW of capacity from The Energy Authority, Inc for 1/1/
06-9/30/06.
    Filed Date: 2/8/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060210-0028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 1, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-830-016; ER04-925-008.
    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc. and Merrill Lynch
Commodities, Inc.
    Description: Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc. and Merrill Lynch

Commodities, Inc., submit notification of change in status.
    Filed Date: 2/8/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060208-5047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 1, 2006.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2628 Filed 2-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P