Air Emission Research Plan for Dairy Preliminary 2 25 04 Purpose: The purpose of this research project is to provide quality assured air emission data from representative dairy farms in the U. S., to U. S. EPA, in the effort to determine which farms might fall under regulatory authority. Following sound scientific principles, this project will collect new data and aggregate existing emissions data from previous studies. These data will serve as the beginning of a database to which new data can be added as emissions and against which control technologies can be compared.

Objectives: New data will be collected to create tools ( i. e. look up tables, charts, or models) to meet the following objectives.

  Determine whether individual dairy farms are likely to emit particulate matter ( both total suspended particulate [ TSP], particles smaller than 10 and 2.5 microns [ PM10 & PM2.5]), and volatile organic compounds ( VOC) in excess of applicable Clean Air Act ( CAA) thresholds.   Determine whether individual dairy farms are likely to emit ammonia ( NH3) and hydrogen sulfide ( H2S) in excess of applicable Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ( CERCLA) reporting requirements.

BACKGROUND Dairy operations are naturally ventilated buildings with different manure handling systems. Measurement of the emission from these operations is to be conducted with a series of measurement systems that provide a concentration measurement along a path that would be representative of the emission plume from the building. In order to estimate the emission rate it is necessary to couple the concentration with a measurement of the wind flow through the building or facility.

Manure storage sites could be either liquid ( lagoons or slurry store) or piles of solid materials. These sites represent a different source area for emissions than buildings and will have to be considered separately in the measurement scheme.

The protocols that are developed for these studies are based on the following assumptions.

1. The buildings are naturally ventilated and require a measurement method that captures the entire plume leaving the building. Mechanically ventilated facilities are beginning to enter the industry. 2. Manure storage is separate from the building and will have to be measured as a distinct entity as part of the farm emission factor. 3. The primary emission sources are the housing and feeding areas and manure storage. 4. There is a large diversity among dairy operations across the United States and although there are similar characteristics in general structure, the difference in building design, management, and climate require measurements of facilities that represent these factors. 5. Measurements will be conducted at facilities which represent a diversity of systems in three general areas; California and southern US, Northeast US, and Upper Midwest.

SITE SELECTION Milk production facilities include cattle ( dry cows, lactating cows, and replacement heifers) and calves. The partially open barns range from those with windows and flaps to fully open free stalls. The buildings are most typically naturally ventilated except for some mechanically ventilated freestall and tie stall houses. The naturally ventilated barns range from partially open barns with windows and flaps to fully open free stalls. External manure storages generally consist of either earthen basins that store undiluted manure collected from the barn, or anaerobic treatment lagoons that treat manure that is diluted by a factor of about 5: 1. Manure collection systems generally are either scrape or flush. Four dairy sites that consider climate, and types of ventilation, manure collection, and manure storage have been identified by the dairy industry for collecting the comprehensive air emission data required by this study ( Table 1). Final site selections will also depend on site specific factors including: representativeness of facility age, size, design and management, and cow diet and genetics. The facility should be isolated from other potential air pollution sources and have potential for testing mitigation strategies. Producers should be willing to make changes and keep extra records to facilitate a quality study.

Table 1. Recommended types and locations of dairy facilities to be monitored in this study. Region Site type Ventilation Manure collection Manure storage Midwest Freestall Natural Flush Lagoon Northea st Freestall Natural Scrape Basin West Open* freestall Natural Flush Lagoon South Open freestall Natural Scrape Basin * Cattle are free to walk outside in open freestall barns.

MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS Naturally Ventilated Buildings To achieve the most representative measurements of the emissions of the gases, it is recommended that a FTIR system be used to quantify the concentration of NH3, CO2, and, at levels above 50 ppb, H2S in various paths through the atmosphere. A variation of the horizontal gradient method called radial plume mapping utilizing multiple paths through the airflow from the building measures the concentrations. The FTIR method is selected because of the extreme turbulence adjacent to the building and the lack of a defined plume in this area of the facility. A scanning system rotates among the paths to provide a serial measurement of the paths utilizing horizontally and vertically located retro reflectors. A computer calculates the concentration gradients in real time. FTIR measurements would be coupled to two sonic anemometers positioned at two locations along the length of the building. This will provide the wind flow measurements needed to estimate the flux from the measured concentrations.

Particulate load would be sampled using a series of particle samplers located with a sampling height of 5 m adjacent to one of the sonic anemometer towers. These units would be designed to collect 2.5 µ m, 10 µ m and TSP values Volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) would be sampled at the same position as the particulate samples for the building emissions. VOC emissions from the manure storage would be sampled with a system located both upwind and downwind of the manure storage system. These units would be positioned at a height of 2 m.

Mechanically Ventilated Buildings Mechanically ventilated buildings have begun to be used in the dairy industry. If warranted by current or future use, a mechanically ventilated facility will be included in this project. An on site instrument shelter ( OSIS) will house the equipment for monitoring pollutant concentrations at representative air inlets and outlets ( primarily by air extraction), barn airflows, and operational processes and environmental variables. Sampling will be conducted for 24 months with data logged every 60 s. Data will be retrieved with network connected PCs, formatted, validated, and delivered to EPA as hourly averages for subsequent calculations of emission factors. A multipoint air sampling system in the OSIS will draw air sequentially from representative locations ( including ambient) at the barns and deliver selected streams to a manifold from which on line gas monitors draw their sub samples. The pollutants targeted for measurement will be evaluated as follows:   Ammonia will be measured using chemiluminescence or photoacoustic infrared.   Hydrogen sulfide will be measured with pulsed fluorescence.   Carbon dioxide will be measured using photoacoustic infrared.   TSP will be measured using an isokinetic multipoint gravimetric method.   PM2.5 will be measured gravimetrically with a federal reference method for PM2.5 at least for one month per site. It will be shared among sites.   PM10 concentrations will be measured in real time using the tapered element oscillating microbalance ( TEOM) at representative exhaust locations in the barn and ambient air.   An initial characterization study of barn volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) will be conducted on one day during the first month at the first site ( site 1). While total nonmethane hydrocarbons ( NMHC) are continuously monitored using a dual channel FID analyzer ( Method 25A) along with building airflow rate, VOCs will be sampled with replication at two barns using Silcosteel canisters, and all glass impingers ( EPA Method 26A). Each sample will be evaluated using concurrent gas chromatography   mass spectrometry ( GC MS) and GC/ FID for TO 15 and other FID responding compounds. VOC mass will be calculated as the sum of individual analytes. The 20 analytes making the greatest contribution to total mass will be identified during the initial characterization study. A sampling method that captures a significant fraction of the VOC mass will be chosen for the remainder of the study.   The Method 26A sampling train is suitable for collecting samples for analysis of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde using NCASI 94.02, requiring only the addition of spectrophotometry for the detection of formaldehyde. These compounds will be measured during the initial characterization study and, if not found, will not be analyzed during subsequent measurements.   Total VOC mass may be estimated ( scaled) by multiplying the total carbon as determined by Method 25A by the molecular weight/ carbon weight ratio derived from GC MS or GC FID speciation. This should account for the VOCs that are not identified by GC methods due either to sampling bias or the analytical procedures used, although some error is anticipated due to the imprecise response of the Method 25A FID to oxygenated compounds. Acceptance of a scaling factor will depend on whether the Method 25A analyzer response is reasonable based on the manufacturer's stated response factors, bench scale verification, or judgmental estimation of the mass of unaccounted for VOCs.   By the middle of the second month, FASS will report results of the initial VOC characterization to EPA with recommendations on the appropriateness and validity of the selected methodologies.   Quarterly VOC samples using the selected VOC sampling method will occur at all sites, along with continuous Method 25A monitoring at site 1 throughout the study.

  Method 25A measurements will be corrected from an " as carbon" basis to a total VOC mass basis by multiplying them by the mean molecular weight per carbon atom established by GC MS evaluations during applicable intervals of time.

Manure Storage Systems Micrometeorological techniques will be used to estimate emissions of NH3, H2S, and a limited number of VOCs from manure storage systems and storages. Fundamentally, this approach will use optical remote sensing ( ORS) downwind and upwind of the storage coupled with 3 dimensional ( 3D) wind velocity measurements at heights of 2 and 12 m. The concentrations of NH3 and the various hydrocarbons will be made using open path Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy ( FTIR). Measurements of H2S ( and NH3) will be made using collocated open path UV differential optical absorption spectroscopy ( UV DOAS) systems. A team of two persons with two scanning FTIR systems, two single path UV DOAS systems, and two 3D sonics with supplementary meteorological instruments will move sequentially from farm to farm.

Each of two ORS systems will be oriented parallel to the storage side and approximately 10 m from the storage edge. Each monostatic FTIR system will scan five retroreflectors; three mounted at 1m height equally dividing the length of the open path along the storage side and two mounted on a tower at heights of 6 and 12 m located at the corners down the adjacent sides of the storage, resulting in scan lines down each of the four sides of the storage. Two bistatic single path UVDOAS systems will be located at a nominal 2 m height within 2 m laterally of the FTIR scan lines on the two sides of the storage oriented most closely with prevailing winds.

Emissions will be determined from the difference in upwind and downwind concentration measurements using two different methods an Eulerian Gaussian approach and a Lagrangian Stochastic approach. The Lagrangian approach is based on an inverse dispersion analysis using a backward Lagrangian stochastic method ( bLS). This approach will be used to estimate NH3 emissions from concentration measurements made using the FTIR and UV DOAS systems and the H2S emissions from concentration measurements made using the UV DOAS systems. The emission rate for NH3 will be the ensemble average of the estimated emissions for each of the five FTIR scans with a corresponding error of the emission estimate. The Eulerian approach is based on a computed tomography ( CT) method using Eulerian Gaussian statistics and a fitted wind profile from the two 3D sonics. Measurements of air and storage temperatures, wind speed and direction, humidity, atmospheric pressure, and solar radiation will be also be conducted.

The bLS and CT emission estimates will be quality assured using tests of instrument response, wind direction and wind speed, stability, turbulence intensity, differences between the storage and the surrounding surface temperatures, differences in the mean and turbulent wind components with height, and the temporal variability in emission. Emission estimates using the CT method will be qualified by the measured fraction of the estimated plume.

To estimate VOC emissions from lagoons, samples of the lagoon liquid will be collected and analyzed for VOCs, and the EPA model WATER9 will be used to estimate emissions based on measured VOC concentrations, pH, and other factors.

Alternate Techniques 1. For the circuit rider system, an instrumental system such as the DustTrak by TSI could be used for continuous particle data for PM2.5 and PM10. These systems provide optical light scattering measurements of the concentration in mg/ m3 and cost about $ 5000 per point including an environmental shelter.

2. A radial plume mapping approach could be applied to the manure storage systems using a TDL system that has been approved by EPA for use in the aluminum industry in a single path mode. 1 upwind and 3 downwind paths provide the same type of data as the FTIR except for a single compound. The single laser is scanned via fiberoptic cables to the individual paths with a complete scan taking 40 seconds. It provides a fast, direct measurement of the flux of ammonia from these manure systems. A single 4 channel system costs $ 68,000.

3. It is recommended that one short term ( 2 week) measurement of each facility be made with a LIDAR system to measure and quantify the plume dynamics of particles, water vapor, and ammonia surrounding the facility. This recommendation is made because the short term measurements will be made at different times throughout the year and will be placed at a series of heights based on experience. These associated data of the plume structure will provide evidence of representativeness of the micrometeorological measurements for the emission rates.

4. It is recommended that each building site be instrumented with temperature and associated sensors to provide a continuous measurement record of the microclimate within and adjacent to the building. These systems can be linked with sensors to measure and record animal activity and floor temperature. A similar system would be located to measure the microclimate of the manure storage system and would include air temperature, wind speed, wind direction, surface temperature, and relative humidity of the manure storage system. The continuous record from these manure storage units and buildings would provide a reference for the short term measurements made with the FTIR systems. Costs Table 2. Estimated costs of various monitoring configurations. The costs do not include university overhead charges. Scenario Total Study Cost Two barns ( 24 months) $ 545,000 Micromet system on manure storage/ lagoon $ 301,000 * Setup and operation of the non profit organization, FASS charges, outside auditor fees, and science advisor fees. The administrative costs are estimated to be $ 1.2M for the overall project. Assuming three species, the likely cost per species will be $ 1.2M/ 3=$ 0.4M.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72495-72496]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0318]

Alabama Metal Coil Securement Act; Petition for Determination of
Preemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of petition for determination of preemption; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA requests comments on a petition submitted by the
American Trucking Associations (ATA) requesting a determination that
the State of Alabama's Metal Coil Securement Act is preempted by
Federal law. FMCSA requests comments on what effect, if any, Alabama's
metal coil load securement certification requirements may have on
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments are due on or before January 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System Number in the heading of this document by any of the
following methods. To allow effective public participation before the
comment deadlines, however, the Agency encourages use of the Web site
that is listed first. It will provide the most efficient and timely
method of receiving and processing your comments. Do not submit the
same comments by more than one method.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this action. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Refer to the Privacy Act heading on
http://www.regulations.gov for further information.
    Public Participation: The regulations.gov system is generally
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can find
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``help'' section of the Web site. For notification that FMCSA received
the comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or
postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that appears after
submitting comments on line. Copies or abstracts of all documents
referenced in this notice are in this docket. For access to the docket
to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. All comments received before
the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will
be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at
the above address. FMCSA will continue to file in the public docket
relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing
date. Interested persons should monitor the public docket for new
material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Genevieve D. Sapir, Office of the
Chief Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Metal Coil Securement Act

    Alabama's Metal Coil Securement Act (the Act), enacted in 2009,
prohibits a motor carrier from transporting metal coils in a movement
that originates or terminates in Alabama unless the driver is certified
in load securement (Ala. Code 32-9A-2(a)(4)a.). The law, as originally
enacted, also required the driver to carry a copy of the certification
in the vehicle and produce it upon demand (Ala. Code 32-9A-2(a)(4)b.).
Maximum penalties for violating these requirements include fines of
between $5,000 and $10,000, jail time and/or a court order prohibiting
the driver from operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in the State
(Ala. Code 32-9A-4(d)--(g)). Alabama Promulgated Rule No. 760-X-1-.16,
adopted on April 5, 2011, offers CMV drivers three options to become
certified in load securement: (1) Obtain a Metal Coil Certificate by
taking and passing the ``Securing Metal Coils Course'' available for
$25.00 on the web site, www.metalcoiltraining.com; (2) obtain a
commercial driver's license (CDL) endorsement that allows the driver to
haul metal coils in the issuing State; or (3) obtain a Metal Coil
Certificate from a motor carrier authorized by the Alabama Department
of Public Safety (ADPS) to issue the Certificate, which would require
the carrier's safety compliance officer to submit a notarized affidavit
that he/she has personal knowledge that the carrier requires every
driver to be trained in the requirements of 49 CFR 393.120 before
hauling metal coils. Federal regulations for securing metal coil loads,
codified in 49 CFR 393.120, do not require any such driver
certification.
    In June 2011, Alabama amended the Act, rescinding the requirement
that drivers carry copies of their metal coil load securement
certification in their vehicles. Currently, the Act continues to
require drivers to obtain certification, as specified in Alabama
Promulgated Rule No. 760-X-1-.16, but drivers are no longer required to
produce the certification upon demand.

FMCSA and ATA responses

    On June 26, 2009, FMCSA sent a letter to then-Governor Bob Riley of
Alabama stating that the Act appeared to be incompatible with the
requirements of FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. FMCSA
also drew attention to two Federal laws authorizing preemption of State
legislation (49 U.S.C. 14506 and 31141) and indicated that they might
be applicable. The Agency urged State officials to work together with
FMCSA officials to resolve any conflict between State and Federal law.
Governor Riley responded on August 26, 2009, explaining that the Act
was adopted in response to a number of accidents in Alabama involving
the transport of metal coils. Governor Riley took the position that
Alabama's metal coil load securement certification requirements were
not preempted by Federal law.
    On December 22, 2010, ATA petitioned FMCSA for a determination that
Alabama's metal coil load securement certification requirements and
penalties create an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce and are
preempted under 49 U.S.C. 31141. ATA contends that Alabama's
requirement that drivers obtain certification in metal coil load
securement is more stringent than and incompatible with Federal metal
coil safety regulations.
    In its December 22, 2010 letter, ATA also requested a determination
that the requirement that the driver carry the certification and
display it upon

demand is preempted by 49 U.S.C. 14506. The recent amendment to the
Act, however, removed this requirement, rendering ATA's request moot.
As a result, FMCSA does not address this issue.
    By letter dated January 25, 2011, the ADPS responded to ATA's
petition. ADPS acknowledged that the requirements of the Act are more
stringent than Federal regulations, but stated that the requirements
should not be preempted because they have safety benefits and do not
place an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

Applicable law

    Section 31141 of title 49, United States Code, prohibits States
from enforcing a law or regulation on CMV safety that the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) has determined to be preempted. To determine
whether a State law or regulation is preempted, the Secretary must
decide whether a State law or regulation: (1) Has the same effect as a
regulation prescribed under 49 U.S.C. 31136, which is the authority for
much of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs); (2) is
less stringent than such a regulation; or (3) is additional to or more
stringent than such a regulation (49 U.S.C. 31141(c)(1)). If the
Secretary determines that a State law or regulation has the same effect
as a regulation based on 31136, it may be enforced (49 U.S.C.
31141(c)(2)). A State law or regulation that is less stringent may not
be enforced (49 U.S.C. 31141(c)(3)). And a State law or regulation the
Secretary determines to be additional to or more stringent than a
regulation based on 31136 may be enforced unless the Secretary decides
that the State law or regulation (1) Has no safety benefit; (2) is
incompatible with the regulation prescribed by the Secretary; or (3)
would cause an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce (49 U.S.C.
31141(c)(4)). To determine whether a State law or regulation will cause
an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, the Secretary may
consider the cumulative effect that the State's law or regulation and
all similar laws and regulations of other States will have on
interstate commerce (49 U.S.C. 31141(c)(5)). The Secretary's authority
under 31141 is delegated to the FMCSA Administrator by 49 CFR 1.73(g).

Request for Comments

    Although preemption under 31141 is a legal determination reserved
to the judgment of the Agency, FMCSA seeks comment on what effect, if
any, Alabama's metal coil load securement certification requirement has
on interstate motor carrier operations. Commenters are also encouraged
to submit information on similar requirements imposed by States other
than Alabama. In requesting comments, FMCSA does not seek legal
conclusions. FMCSA also seeks information on the safety, economic, and
operational effects, including cumulative effects, of Alabama's and
other States' requirements. FMCSA requests commenters to limit their
submissions to these issues and to submit data supporting their
positions. The Agency has placed in the docket for inspection: FMCSA's
June 26, 2009 letter, Governor Riley's August 26, 2009 reply, ATA's
December 22, 2010 petition, ADPS's January 25, 2011 response, the
Alabama Metal Securement Act, the ADPS April 5, 2011 rule implementing
the Metal Coil Securement Act, and the June 2011 amendments to the
Metal Coil Securement Act.

    Issued on: November 2, 2011.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-30237 Filed 11-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

09/29/2008 05:25 PM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Brian Heninger/DC/USEPA/US@epa, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@epa, Charles Fulcher/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@epa, Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@epa, <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Al McGartland<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman, rosalina rodriguez, <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

counties not in attainment for Pb NAAQS RIA

Heidi, this morning Kathy offered to share information about what we know about the sources in the 9 counties which do not attain a 0.15 microgram/m3 standard with identified controls.  The data is shown in the attached.  In summary:

o	Every county has a metal processing facility, these are largely small facilities.   Some of which have existing controls (like a baghouse).  Others do not have control information in the NEI.

o	4 of the counties have known land contamination, 3 of which have Superfund sites.

We will be happy to discuss these once you have had a chance to review the enclosed.  Have a good evening.

Ron


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 84 (Monday, May 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 20477]
[FR Doc No: E9-10104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-48-000]

The Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control and the
Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, Complainant v. ISO New England
Inc. and Unidentified Installed Capacity Resources Committed To Import
Over the Northern New York AC Interface, Respondent; Notice of
Complaint Requesting Fast Track

April 24, 2009.
    Take notice that on April 23, 2009 the Connecticut Department of
Public Utility Control and the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel
(collectively, Connecticut Representatives) filed a formal complaint
against ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) and Unidentified Installed
Capacity Resources Committed to Import over the Northern New York AC
Interface (NNY Capacity Resources) pursuant to sections 206, 222, and
309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 824v, and 825h (2006),
and Rule 206 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.206 (2009), seeking a Commission investigation and hearing into
installed capacity resources who received capacity payments but never
provided any capacity services when called upon.
    Connecticut Representatives certify that copies of the complaint
were served on the contacts for ISO-NE and New England Power Pool, Inc.
(NEPOOL), as a representative of the Unidentified NNY Capacity
Resources, as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Connecticut Representatives requests that NEPOOL post this complaint.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is 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 e-mail
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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10104 Filed 5-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P