CRWI's HANDOUTS OF OMB MEETING OF 8 26 2005 Summary We agree with the way EPA is handling the following issues.

1. The proposed methods for developing the standards. 2. The use of the Maximum Deviation concept. 3. CRWI supports a flexible approach for setting standards for liquid fuel fired boilers. 4. CRWI supports the use of chlorine as a surrogate for metals in the HAF subcategory. 5. CRWI supports EPA's decision not to go beyond thefloor for the chlorine standard for solid fuel fired boilers. 6. CRWI supports the use of a health based alternative standard for chlorine and hydrochloric acid.

We have concerns about how EPA is handling the following issues.

7. CRWI believes that the health based alternative standard for chlorine ( Cl2) and hydrochloric acid ( HCl) should be self implementing. 8. Unless at least one source is able to meet all new source standards, the new source standards are not achievable. 9. The top performers used to determine the new source standards must be similar to the other sources within the category. 10. EPA should not incorporate data from facilities that have already upgraded to meet the interim standards into the calculations for the permanent replacement standards. 11. EPA should make sure that data used to develop the standards, especially for new sources, meet the requirements for data quality. 12. EPA needs to ensure that the current EPA approved methods can be used to show compliance with the proposed standards. 13. EPA should ensure, especially for new sources, that all aspects of data uncertainty are considered. 14. EPA needs to justify any beyond the floor standards. 15. EPA should not require site specific risk assessments ( SSRA) as a part of the permanent replacement standards rulemaking. OMB paper  2  8/ 26/ 05  2  Detailed discussion Issues where we agree with EPA 1. The proposed methods for developing the standards.

  The Hazardous Waste Combustion ( HWC) source category is comprised of a diverse mix of industrial activities, ranging from commercial and non commercial incinerators utilizing thermal treatment to reduce the volume and toxicity of hazardous waste, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, industrial boilers, and halogen acid recovery furnaces combusting hazardous waste primarily for fuel value, and the specialty facilities for munitions and chemical weapons destruction.   Individual categories of HAPs   dioxins and furans ( D/ F), semi volatile ( SVM) and low volatile metals ( LVM), particulate matter ( PM), chlorine and hydrochloric acid ( Cl2/ HCl))   require different control technologies. There is no one size fits all methodology for judging the performance of the HWC source category.   EPA proposed to use straight emissions to develop D/ F emission standards, a technology approach to develop PM emission standards, and a SRE/ Feed approach to develop most of the rest of the emission standards.   CRWI continues to support these proposed methods for developing the HWC MACT standards.

2. The use of the Maximum Deviation concept.

  We agree that, in setting emission standards, using the detection limit as the default emissions rate for non detects underestimates run to run variability. It appears that EPA has found a reasonable solution in the Maximum Deviation concept ( Max Dev) that can be applied uniformly to all cases where non detect data are used to provide a consistent method of estimating variability.   Our most immediate concern with the concept is our inability to independently verify this concept on the actual data used to develop the standards. These data will not be released until the final rule is published. When the method is applied to the selection of the top performers and to development of the floor values for each HAP in each sub category, problems may be encountered that could not be anticipated from a theoretical evaluation.   We also have concerns about using non detect data to develop emission standards. When the agency is forced to use non detect data to develop OMB paper  3  8/ 26/ 05  3  standards, we believe that EPA should follow their own guidance and use the reliable detection limit ( RDL) rather than the method detection limit ( MDL)   ( RDL= 2.623 x MDL). See Developments of Compliance Levels from Analytical Detection and Quantification Levels, USEPA, NTIS, PB95 216321.

3. CRWI supports a flexible approach for setting standards for liquid fuelfired boilers.

  In our comments, CRWI suggested finalizing the liquid fuel fired boiler standards as either a thermal based emission limit or as a concentration based emission limit.   EPA has indicated that the final rule will allow flexibility in how the heatrecovery units meet their standards. We support the use of flexibility but cannot specifically endorse this new concept without having seen it.

4. CRWI supports the use of chlorine/ hydrochloric acid as a surrogate for metals in the HAF subcategory.

  CRWI supports the proposal that total chlorine ( Cl2 + HCl) can be used as a surrogate for particulate matter, mercury, semi volatile metals, and low volatile metals standards for the halogen acid recovery furnaces subcategory for both existing and new sources.   Most hydrochloric acid production furnaces use wet scrubbers to recover HCl as a product. These scrubbers will also remove the small amounts of metals and particulate that may be present in the waste feeds.   We agree that controlling CL2/ HCl emissions will also ensure control of metal HAPs and particulates.

5. CRWI supports EPA's decision not to go beyond the floor for the chlorine standard for solid fuel fired boilers.

  CRWI supports EPA's decision not to go beyond the floor for Cl2 and HCl for solid fuel fired boilers 6. CRWI supports the use of a health based alternative standard for chlorine ( Cl2) and hydrochloric acid ( HCl).

  Congress gave EPA the authority in Section 112( d)( 4) to establish health based alternative standards for HAPs with established healthbased thresholds. In the report language, Congress encouraged EPA to use its discretion to avoid compliance costs that secure no public health or environmental benefit. OMB paper  4  8/ 26/ 05  4    HCl is a threshold pollutant. The reference dose ( RfC) is listed in the IRIS database.   The RfC for HCl has an uncertainty factor of 300, thus already meeting the ample margin of safety requirement for 112( d)( 4).   EPA properly noticed and should promulgate the health based alternative for chlorine and HCl as proposed with one exception as discussed below.

Issues of concern 7. CRWI believes that the health based alternative standard for chlorine ( Cl2) and hydrochloric acid ( HCl) should be self implementing.

What are our concerns?

  As proposed, EPA would require agency approval of a facility's eligibility demonstration prior to the compliance date. Should the Agency fail to approve the demonstration prior to the compliance date, the facility is required to comply with the technology based standard.   The Agency's past record for other HWC MACT approvals, such as CPT plans, alternative monitoring applications, etc., has not given us much faith that these eligibility demonstrations will be promptly acted upon. Timeliness of agency review is further complicated by state/ regional interactions and by what authority will or will not have been delegated by the time approvals are needed.

Why is this a problem?

  We do not object to submitting the eligibility determination to the Agency for approval.   Our only concern is that the permitting authority can effectively remove this option by failing to approve the eligibility demonstration in a timely manner. While the proposed rule allows the Agency 6 months to make a decision, there are no provisions for any extensions nor are there any penalties on the permitting agency for a failure to act. This could force eligible facilities to expend resources to reduce emissions that would have no benefit to human health and the environment simply because the Agency failed to act on a timely basis.   We do not believe that facilities should be punished because the permitting agencies fail to approve these demonstrations in a timely manner. This is contrary to Congress' intent when allowing these types of standards. OMB paper  5  8/ 26/ 05  5  What do we want OMB to do?

  If the health based Cl2/ HCl standard is self implementing in the final rule, no action by OMB is needed   If the health based Cl2/ HCl eligibility demonstration requires prior approval in the final rule, we suggest that EPA develop a method that allows for extensions of the compliance date for facilities that have submitted complete eligibility demonstrations but are waiting on agency approval.

8. Unless at least one existing source is able to meet all new source standards, the new source standards are not achievable.

What are our concerns?

  The " A" in MACT stands for " achievable." When Congress imposed the technology based MACT regimen in 1990, the first step for dealing with HAPs was to determine what HAP emitting source categories were actually achieving, then setting emission standards based on the best level of industry performance.   In making this determination for the HWC MACT, EPA has proceeded on a HAP by HAP basis, calculating an average for the best performing existing sources. In the proposed rule, EPA stated that at least 6% of existing facilities could simultaneously meet all of the proposed standards for existing sources.   In setting the significantly more stringent MACT standards for new sources, however, EPA did not consider whether any single existing source can actually meet the new source standards for each HAP.   In our comments, we showed that no one source could meet all the new source standards.   We consider that this renders the proposed new source standards unachievable.

Why is this a problem?

  EPA has chosen to use a HAP by HAP process to develop existing standards.   This works for existing sources because the method averages emissions for the top performers and many of the top performers in the HAP categories overlap.   When EPA chooses the best top performer for each HAP category to set the new source standards, each standard comes from a different facility. OMB paper  6  8/ 26/ 05  6  For example, the chlorine standard is from source 349, the mercury standard is from source 3019, the LVM standard is from source 341, the SVM standard is from source 810, the PM standard is from source 3011, and the dioxin/ furan standard is from source 222.   As a result, no single source can simultaneously meet all the new source standards.   In addition, technologies are incompatible. For example the best technology to control PM, SVM, and LVM is fabric filters, the best technology to control mercury and dioxin/ furan is activated carbon, and the best technology to control chlorine is wet scrubbing. Fabric filters and activated carbon can work well together. However, neither fabric filters nor activated carbon works well with wet scrubbing systems without some method to remove the water in the gas stream ( not impossible but not easy and requires additional energy input).   Congress anticipated this problem and addressed it during a colloquy between Senators Dole and Durenberger during the Senate debate on the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 conference report ( Leg History Vol. 1: 1129). See text of exchange below.

" Mr. DOLE. This section also requires the development of standards for a variety of pollutants. It is entirely possible that different technologies may reduce one pollutant better than another. For example, technology A may reduce heavy metals better than technology B while technology B may reduce particulates better than technology A; yet, one would not be compatible with the other. I would assume that EPA would have adequate discretion to balance environmental benefits to determine which technology on the whole represents a better MACT. I would appreciate some discussion on this point as well from my distinguished colleague from Minnesota.

Mr. DURENBERGER. The Senator is correct. Where differing air pollution control technologies result in one technology producing better control of some pollutants and another producing better control of different pollutants but it is technically infeasible according to the MACT definition to use both, EPA should judge MACT to be the technology which best benefits human health and the environment on the whole."

What do we want OMB to do?

  To make the standards for new sources " achievable," at least one existing facility has to be able to meet all standards simultaneously. If OMB paper  7  8/ 26/ 05  7  this is not done, the standards for new sources are not achievable and are vulnerable to challenge.   Direct EPA to address the statutory requirement that new source standards be based on actual performance of the best performing single source. To do this, EPA has to show that at least one existing facility can meet the all new source standards simultaneously.

9. The top performers used to determine the new source standards must be similar to the other sources within the category.

What are our concerns?

  Based on the database used for the proposed permanent replacement standards for PM, the database contains 38 rotary kilns, 39 liquid injection units, 6 fixed hearths, 5 fluidized beds, 3 rotary hearths, 2 roller hearths, 2 controlled air units, and 1 moving hearth.   The two most common configurations are rotary kilns and liquid injection units. A rotary kiln will typically be 40 60 feet long, 12 16 feet in diameter, feed 10,000 15,000 pounds per hour, and have a thermal rating of 60 120 MM BTU/ hr.   The top performers are as follows:

Chlorine   Unit 349, rotary kiln, 5 feet inside diameter, thermal rating of 4.9 MM BTU/ hr, reported Cl2/ HCl emissions of 0.18 ppmv.

Mercury   Unit 3019, vertical fired, liquid injection, reported mercury emissions of 8.1 ug/ dscm.

LVM   Unit 341, fixed hearth, feed 900 pounds per hour, thermal rating of 6.4 MM BTU/ hr, reported LVM emissions of 8.9 ug/ dscm.

SVM   Unit 810, liquid injection, reported SVM emissions of 6.5 ug/ dscm.

PM   Unit 3011, rotary hearth, small arms munitions furnace, 2080 pounds per hour feed rate, reported PM emissions of 0.0007 gr/ dscf (< 2 mg/ dscm).

Why is this a problem?

  Section 112( d)( 3) of the Clean Air Act requires that the standards for new sources be developed based on " the emissions control that is achieved in practice by the best control similar source " ( emphasis added).   When setting MACT standards for existing sources, the average of several sources is used, thus diffusing the effect of one anomalous facility on the eventual standard. When the regulatory task is selecting one facility to use as the benchmark to set new source MACT standards, OMB paper  8  8/ 26/ 05  8  however, special attention must be paid to how representative that " top performer" is of the overall source category.   For the following reasons, CRWI submits that the " top performers" used as the models for EPA's new source MACT standards are not representative of the overall HWC source category.

The chlorine standard for new sources is based on a facility that is much smaller than the typical hazardous waste combustor. It is less than half the diameter ( 5 feet) of a typical rotary kiln ( 12 16 feet) and has a significantly lower thermal rating ( 4.9 MM BTU/ hr vs. 60 MM BTU/ hr).

The mercury standard is based on what could be considered a representative unit   however, the unit did not feed significant amounts of mercury based on a strategy to develop an annualized permit limit, and a need to show only 40% SRE. Furthermore, the testing protocol employed a non standard sampling rate with the BIF metals sampling method in Part 266 Appendix IX, which has a potential low bias for mercury if precipitate forms in the KMnO4 impingers ( Method 29 is required to show compliance under the HWC MACT and has procedures to avoid the bias.).

The LVM standard is based on a small, fixed hearth unit, atypical of common HWC technology. In addition, this unit feeds significantly less waste ( 900 lb/ hr vs. 10,000 lbs/ hr) and has a much lower thermal rating ( 6.4 MM BTU/ hr vs. 60 MM BTU/ hr) than does typical rotary kilns. Furthermore, seven of the nine measurements in the database were non detects, and 80% of the waste profile is nonhazardous ( Note: CRWI commented that there were several errors in the test report and reporting methodology for this facility, making it questionable for use).

The PM standard is based on a small rotary hearth unit, also atypical of common HWC technology. In addition, the feed rate of this unit is significantly less than typical rotary kilns ( 2080 lb/ hr vs. 10,000 lb/ hr) and its feed type ( small arms munitions) is not similar to typical rotary kilns combusting organic waste.

The SVM standard is based on what could be considered a typical unit   however, this unit had already upgraded to meet the interim standard prior to testing.

What do we want OMB to do?

  EPA's methodology for setting HWC MACT standards for new sources does not meaningfully address the statutory requirement that benchmark performers must be similar to the overall source category and likely proposed new facilities. Ask EPA to modify their technique for setting OMB paper  9  8/ 26/ 05  9  new standards to include some mechanism to ensure that the best performing source for each HAP is actually similar to the units in each source category.

10. EPA should not incorporate data from facilities that have already upgraded to meet the interim standards into the calculations for the permanent replacement standards.

What are the concerns with the revised database?

  After the court vacated the 1999 HWC MACT standards, EPA initiated a data gathering effort to update the database.   EPA appropriately removed facilities that have shut down or no longer burn hazardous waste.   In addition, EPA added data that was gathered from facilities after they had upgraded to meet the interim standards. We believe that including data from upgraded sources is not appropriate.

Why is this a problem?

  We believe that including facilities that have already upgraded to meet the interim standards no longer measures the state of the art as it existed at the time mandated by Congress, but rather the performance of a source category already affected by the MACT regulatory initiative. The result of such a modified MACT pool is an inevitable downward ratchet of emission requirements not anticipated or intended by Congress. The shorthand description for this unique regulatory phenomenon is " MACT of MACT," a MACT standard derived from performance data of facilities that have already modified their operations to meet the MACT standards.   EPA has partially acknowledged this and has already removed data from a new cement kiln because the new kiln was designed to meet the interim standards.

Would removing data from upgraded facilities make any difference when developing the standards?

  This will only matter if one of the facilities that has upgraded or completed its comprehensive performance test is included in the top performers ( EPA's way of designating the top 12% as required by Section 112 of the Clean Air Act).   The top performing facility for SVM ( 810   Eastman Chemical, Kingsport, TN) had already upgraded to meet the interim standards. OMB paper  10  8/ 26/ 05  10    Not only will this have an impact on the existing source SVM standards, it will set the new source standard for SVM. Thus, the new source standard will be set by a facility that has already upgraded to meet the interim standard.

What do we want OMB to do?

  If data from upgraded facilities is included in the top performers, we believe that data should be removed and the data from the facility that is ranked next should be substituted. This would not require EPA to completely redo the analysis   only that they substitute one or more facilities and recalculate the second step of the standards setting process.

11. EPA should make sure that data used to develop the standards, especially for new sources, meets the requirements for data quality.

What are our concerns?

  The data used to develop the standards was developed for a totally different purpose.   There is nothing wrong with using data developed for another purpose. However, to do this, the suitability of the data should be examined in light of the new use for the data. For example, when a facility is testing to show compliance with a 0.08 gr/ dscf PM limit under RCRA, there is no reason for the permitting agency to question data quality of a test that showed 0.008 gr/ dscf in PM emissions, simply because the test results were so far below the required limit. When this data is used for a different purpose ( to set emissions standards under MACT), additional scrutiny of this data is appropriate.

Why is this a problem?

  One way to show this is to look at the top performers for PM.   EPA's Emissions Measurement Center developed a report in 1996 that concluded that the minimum catch for a ± 10% accuracy for PM would be 7.2 mg.   Based on the data from the 2002 database, a member company ( Lilly) estimated the catch from the top performers for PM. The catch ranged from 0.9 mg to 1.9 mg, far below the minimum catch determined by EPA to achieve reasonable accuracy. Again, for the purpose of showing compliance with a RCRA limit of 0.08 gr/ dscf, the quality of the data was more than adequate since resulted in PM emissions ranging from 0.0007 OMB paper  11  8/ 26/ 05  11  to 0.0012 gr/ dscf. However, data quality objectives did not exist to validate the result at the much lower concentrations ( two orders of magnitude below the 0.08 gr/ dscf limit). Without an adequate data quality determination, these results should not be considered as adequate for setting standards in the 0.0007 range. These analyses were provided to EPA during the comment period.   From this, one could conclude that the proposed PM standard for new sources is based on data of questionable quality.

What do we want OMB to do?

  OMB should require EPA to reanalyze the database in the following manner.

Select representative sources.

Exclude facilities that have already upgraded to meet MACT.

Follow the data quality program recommended by EPA's Office of Environmental Information.

12. EPA needs to ensure that the current EPA approved methods can be used to show compliance with the proposed standards.

What are our concerns?

  EPA committed in a response to previous comments that " MACT standards will not be set below levels which are not consistently or accurately achievable using established ( and required) sampling methods."   Most of the methods used to show compliance have never been evaluated at the levels being considered for some existing and all new source standards.   For example, Section 1.2 of SW 846 Method 0050 states that " This method is not acceptable for demonstrating compliance with HCl emissions standards less than 20 ppm," but both the proposed existing and new source standards are below 20 ppm.

Why is this a problem?

  While the laboratory techniques themselves can be very accurate, the accuracy and precision of the sampling train may not be capable of consistently delivering results to show that new sources are in compliance with the standards.   When standards were fairly high, the variability relative to the actual standard was not a significant issue. As standards get more stringent, OMB paper  12  8/ 26/ 05  12  the variability becomes relatively higher and designing a test to show compliance with these more stringent standards becomes more complicated ( e. g., target measurement levels must be set further below the emission standards).   For example, Method 5i for PM states a practical quantification limit of 3 mg. DOE funded research has shown that the 95% confidence interval for a 3 mg/ dscm PM measurement is bounced by 2 and 4 mg/ dscm. A 99% confidence interval ( one chance in a hundred for random failure) would be even broader. The new source PM standard is less than 2 mg/ dscm.

What do we want OMB to do?

  Require EPA to document method performance as necessary to demonstrate compliance.

13. EPA should ensure, especially for new sources, that all aspects of data uncertainty are considered.

What are our concerns?

  EPA has not considered all the uncertainties associated with the feed MTEC calculation that it uses in its rankings. EPA is only accounting for run to run variability which is an assessment of precision only, not accuracy.   Even in accounting for run to run variability in the feed MTEC calculation, EPA has apparently excluded the uncertainties associated with stack flow measurements and stack oxygen measurements, both of which are part of the MTEC calculation.   Trial Burn quality assurance plans typically specify an acceptable accuracy for metals in waste feeds as +/ 35%. Accuracy of metals assays in organic matrices is typically poor, but precision may be good.

Why is this a problem?

  For example, take source 341 which is reportedly the best performer for LVM. Its feed MTEC ranking is 11th. Is the feed MTEC ranking of the 13th ranked source statistically different? The 13th ranked source's feed MTEC ( source 3016) is only 11% higher which is certainly within the typical +/ 35%. Furthermore, the measured average MTEC for the 13th ranked source ( without the run to run variability factor) is actually less than the 11th ranked source. How can the performance of these sources be considered different? OMB paper  13  8/ 26/ 05  13    The calculation of the feed rate MTEC is a function of the metals being fed, the stack flow, and the oxygen concentration ( the later because the MTEC is corrected to 7% oxygen). There are several measurements of stack flow and oxygen taken during a trial burn, but the EPA's calculation apparently uses a constant value for both when calculating feed MTEC. This artificially dampens the apparent run to run variation. What is the potential affect? Recalculating the feed rate MTEC for source 341 using the highest variation of stack flow and oxygen resulted in a 31 % increase in feed rate MTEC, moving its ranking two places down on the list.   A more comprehensive assessment of uncertainty, using one or both of the examples above, would change source 341' s overall performance ranking from uniquely # 1 to tied for # 1 with the next two sources. Accordingly, the new source LVM standard would potentially change from 8.9 ug/ dscm to something close to the interim standard of 97 ug/ dscm.

What do we want OMB to do?

  OMB should require EPA to assess all aspects of uncertainty in its calculations and rankings, and not just run to run precision.

14. EPA needs to justify any beyond the floor standards.

What are the concerns?

  We have concerns about a dioxin/ furan beyond the floor standard for halogen acid furnaces

In the proposed rule, EPA justified a beyond the floor standard for this sub category based on reducing dioxin/ furan emissions by 2.3 grams per year.

About a third of the units in the database used to propose the standard were either misclassified or have ceased operations. CRWI or member companies have pointed this out to the Agency during the comment period.

When the database is updated, the dioxin/ furan emissions reduction will be reduced to 1.3 grams per year.

Why is this a problem?

  It seems like a lot of effort and expense for a small amount of reduction in dioxin/ furan emissions. OMB paper  14  8/ 26/ 05  14  What do we want OMB to do?

  Ask EPA to re examine this beyond the floor decision to determine if the calculated reduction in dioxin/ furan emissions is worth considering.

15. EPA should not require site specific risk assessments ( SSRA) as a part of the permanent replacement standards rulemaking.

What is the history of SSRAs?

  EPA's Hazardous Waste Minimization and Combustion Strategy ( 1994) recommended that site specific risk assessments ( SSRA) become a part of the RCRA permitting process for hazardous waste combustors where necessary to protect human health and the environment.   In 1998, EPA released draft guidance on conducting SSRAs.   The preamble of the 1999 HWC MACT rule ( see the discussion beginning at 64 FR 52840) recommended that for facilities subject to the new standards, permit writers evaluate the need for a SSRA on a caseby case basis. EPA went on to state that " SSRAs are not anticipated to be needed for every facility, but should be conducted for facilities where there is reason to believe that operations in accordance with the MACT standards alone may not be protective of human health and the environment."   These instructions left considerable room for interpretation by the states and the regions. Some states and regions were using the policy statements made in 1994 as the justification for requiring SSRAs.   CKRC petitioned EPA to withdraw the SSRA guidance, suggesting that it was a rule in the form of guidance and suggesting that if EPA believes that SSRAs are necessary, they should initiate the rulemaking process to make them mandatory.   In partial response to the CKRC petition, a memo from the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Assistant Administrator Marianne Horinko was sent to the Regions on April 10, 2003 ( copy attached). This memo made it clear that the only authority to require a SSRA is the RCRA omnibus authority which requires a fully documented finding in the administrative record.   In the 2004 Federal Register notice rule, EPA proposed to add two new paragraphs ( 270.10( l) and 270.32( b)( 3)) in response to the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition's petition.   EPA has stated at public meetings that these two paragraphs do not make any changes in their authority to require site specific risk assessments and has reiterated that these provisions do not change current EPA policy. OMB paper  15  8/ 26/ 05  15  What do we want OMB to do?

  Since, in the Agency's opinion, these two paragraphs do not add to their authority or make any changes in current policy, we see no real reason to keep them in the final rule. OMB should suggest that EPA remove these two paragraphs from the final rule.   If the Agency believes that additional explicit language must be added to make it clear that permit writers have the authority to require site specific risk assessments, then OMB should request that the following language is necessary to define how this process will proceed.

" The factual and technical basis for any decision under this paragraph should be included in the administrative record for the facility according to the requirements in 40 CFR 124."

  This change is required to be consistent with the Horinko memo, dated April 10, 2003, which defines current EPA policy on when and how to require risk assessments. OMB paper  16  8/ 26/ 05  16  SLIDE PRESENTATION SLIDE # _ 1_

The Hazardous Waste Combustion ( HWC) MACT Rule Continuing Concerns of the Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration August 26, 2005 SLIDE # 2__

Who We Are

The Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration ( CRWI) is a trade organization representing virtually all facets of the Hazardous Waste Combustion ( HWC) source category affected by this proposed MACT Rule.

CRWI members include companies engaged in commercial and captive hazardous waste incinerators, cement kilns, halogen acid recovery furnaces, and chemical weapon disposal facilities, as well as consulting experts and academic programs supporting hazardous waste combustion as a responsible waste disposal alternative.

The membership of CRWI is currently implementing the interim MACT standards and will be impacted by this proposed rule.

SLIDE # 3__

Why We Are Here

The HWC MACT source category includes diverse industrial activities affecting CRWI members, all addressed in previous dialogue with EPA.

EPA's currently proposed HWC standards leave some of these issues unresolved, particularly as they will impact new sources.

The Comparison Table attached illustrates the history of the HWC MACT standards and how EPA's proposed regulatory approach to this Rule will impact the MACT emission standards for the subcategory of hazardous waste incinerators. OMB paper  17  8/ 26/ 05  17  SLIDE # _ 4_

Comparison Tables Original MACT Standards Interim MACT Standards Proposed MACT Standards HAPs Existing New Existing New Existing New Dioxins/ Furans ( expressed in TEQ) 0.20 ng/ dscm or 0.40 ng/ dscm 0.20 ng/ dscm 0.20 ng/ dscm or 0.40 ng/ dscm 0.20 ng/ dscm 0.28 ng/ dscm or 0.40 ng/ dscm 0.11 ng/ dscm or 0.2 ng/ dscm Particulate Matter 34 mg/ dscm 34 mg/ dscm 34 mg/ dscm 34 mg/ dscm 0.015 gr/ dscf 0.00070 gr/ dscf Semivolatile Metals 240 µ g/ dscm 24 µ g/ dscm 240 µ g/ dscm 120 µ g/ dscm 59 µ g/ dscm 6.5 µ g/ dscm Low Volatile Metals 97 µ g/ Dscm 97 µ g/ Dscm 97 µ g/ dscm 97 µ g/ dscm 84 µ g/ dscm 8.9 µ g/ dscm OMB paper  18  8/ 26/ 05  18  SLIDE # 5__

Comparison Tables ( cont.)

Original MACT Standards Interim MACT Standards Proposed MACT Standards HAPs Existing New Existing New Existing Mercury 130 µ g/ dscm 45 µ g/ dscm 130 µ g/ dsc m 45 µ g/ dsc m 130 µ g/ dsc m HCl/ Cl 77 ppmv 21 ppmv 77 ppmv 21 ppmv 1.5 ppmv Hydrocarbons 10 ppmv or 100 ppmv CO 10 ppmv or 100 ppmv CO 10 ppmv or 100 ppmv CO 10 ppmv or 100 ppmv CO 10 ppmv or 100 ppmv CO 99.99% 99.99% DRE 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% OMB paper  19  8/ 26/ 05  19  SLIDE # 6__

Concurrence: Methods for Deriving Standards

There is no one size fits all methodology for judging the performance of the HWC source category. Individual categories of HAPs  dioxins and furans ( D/ F), Semi volatile ( SVM) and Low volatile Metals ( LVM), particulate ( PM), Total Chlorine and Hydrochloric Acid ( CL/ HCl))   require different control technologies.

CRWI concurs in EPA's chosen methodologies for setting technology based MACT standards.

SLIDE # _ 7_

Concurrence: The Maximum Deviation Approach

The database used to set the HWC MACT standards includes many instances of " non detect" of a particular pollutant.

EPA acknowledges that using an analytical detection limit in lieu of actual emission data tends to bias the statistical variability values used to set MACT standards.

The Maximum Deviation concept is a reasonable approach for more accurately estimating variability.

SLIDE # 8__ A Caveat to The Maximum Deviation Approach

CRWI has not been able to test this approach on the actual data being used.

CRWI continues to have reservations about using " non detect" data points for setting emission standards. If non detect data are used, the Agency should follow their own guidelines and use the Reliable Detection Limit ( RDL) rather than the Method Detection Limit ( MDL).

SLIDE # 9__ Concurrence: Flexibility for HWC Subcategories

CRWI supports the options for setting standards for liquid fuel fired boilers.

CRWI supports using chlorine as a surrogate for metals in the halogen acid furnace subcategory.

CRWI supports EPA's decision to not develop beyond the floor chlorine standards for solid fuel fired boilers. OMB paper  20  8/ 26/ 05  20  SLIDE # 10__

Concurrence: The Health Based Chlorine/ HCl Standard Alternative

Section 112( d)( 4) authorizes EPA to set HAP emission standards based on established health thresholds.

HCl is a threshold pollutant with an established reference dose that incorporates a conservative uncertainty factor, satisfying the " ample margin of safety" requirement of the CAA.

CRWI supports EPA's proposed Chlorine/ HCl standard as reasonable and consistent with the CAA, with one exception.

SLIDE # 11__

Concern: Implementation of the Health Based Alternative Standard

As proposed, the permitting agency is given 6 months to review an eligibility determination. Such eligibility applications are necessarily time sensitive because of imminent MACT compliance dates. If approval is not timely, the facilities are obliged to implement costly technology based controls of little discernible benefit to public health or the environment.

Six months should be enough time for an agency to determine whether an eligibility application is submitted in good faith. At that time, the burden should shift to the agency for a prompt, decisive, and reasonable action on the eligibility application.

SLIDE # 12__

Implementation of the Health Based Alternative Standard: Proposed Resolution

If EPA's final HWC MACT Rule does not require prior agency approval of an eligibility demonstration before of a health based alternative standard can be implemented, no action by OMB is necessary.

If the final Rule requires agency approval before health based MACT standards can be implemented, CRWI suggests the following:

Provisions for a compliance date extension; or

Default approval after agency review for six months with no action. OMB paper  21  8/ 26/ 05  21  SLIDE # 13 __

Concern: Achievability of New Source Standards

Section 112( d)( 3) of the CAA states that new source MACT standards should be set based on " the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the Administrator" ( emphasis added).

Note, in the Table provided, how many of the new source standards are much more stringent than existing source standards. This stems from the HAP by HAP approach used by EPA in setting the new source standards.

SLIDE # _ 14_

Concern: Achievability of New Source Standards

The HAP by HAP approach works for existing sources in the HWC source category because the top performers are averaged. In setting the new source standards, EPA chooses the top performer for each individual HAP as the standard setter; in the HWC source category, however, no one facility is the top performer for each HAP.

Emission performance of existing facilities: Of the six HWC MACT HAPs, the best any facility can demonstrate is compliance with four new source standards ( see provided spreadsheet).

SLIDE # 15_

Concern: Achievability of New Source Standards

Congress expressly addressed this issue in a colloquy between Senators Dole and Durenberger during the Senate Conference Report on the 1990 CAA Amendments. Senator Durenberger stated that if it is technically infeasible to combine incompatible technologies for HAP controls, " EPA should judge MACT to be the technology which best benefits human health and the environment on the whole."

CRWI respectfully submits that EPA has skipped this step in setting new source MACT standards for the HWC source category. OMB paper  22  8/ 26/ 05  22  SLIDE # _ 16_

Achievability of New Source Standards: Proposed Resolution

In order to meet the statutory mandate of the CAA, at least one existing HWC facility must be able to meet EPA's proposed new source standards. To assure that this mandate is honored, CRWI suggests OMB:

Require EPA to show that at least one existing facility can meet all new source standards simultaneously.

Further require EPA to assure that the benchmark " top performer" is comparable to the new HWC facility ( see next concern below).

SLIDE # 17 Concern: Comparability of " Top Performers"

  The accompanying CRWI Position Paper identifies the" top performers" for five of the six HAPs regulated by the MACT Rule ( Position Paper at page 8).

  None of the five " top performers" are representative of the typical hazardous waste combustors, based on differences in physical configuration, feed rate, or pre MACT performance.

SLIDE # _ 18 Comparability of " Top Performers:" Proposed Resolution

Ask EPA to clarify their techniques for setting new source standards to include some means to assure that the benchmark existing facility is actually similar as required by Section 112( d)( 3) of the CAA.

SLIDE # 19 Concern: " MACT of MACT"

" MACT of MACT" is shorthand for a concern arising from the legal history of this particular MACT Rule.

The original HWC MACT Rule was proposed in 1996, promulgated in 1999, and judicially vacated in 2001. Interim Standards were put into place in 2002.

In 2002, EPA reopened the " MACT Pool" as a prelude to setting new replacement standards. This updated " Pool" reflects the following new performance data:

Facilities that had ceased combustion of hazardous waste were removed ( which CRWI supported); and

Facilities that had upgraded to meet the Interim Standards were included ( which CRWI strenuously opposed). OMB paper  23  8/ 26/ 05  23  SLIDE # 20_ Concern: " MACT of MACT"

CAA Section 112( e) of the CAA clearly expresses Congressional intent to set technology based performance standards by a date certain.

As a result of the EPA's decision to re open the HWC MACT Pool in 2002, a proactive facility modifying its technology to meet the Interim Standards became a HWC " top performer," ratcheting existing and new source HWC MACT standards downward.

This more stringent standard was derived, not from the state of the art technology at the time Congress intended, but rather a facility's good faith effort to comply with post MACT standards ( i. e., " MACT of MACT").

SLIDE # _ 21_

" MACT of MACT:" Proposed Resolution

Suggest to EPA that any facility that has upgraded to meet MACT standards should not be included in the MACT Pool for setting technology standards.

SLIDE # 22_

Concern: Data Quality Issues

As emission standards become more stringent, data quality becomes suspect. For instance, the PM standards may be set at lower than acknowledge accuracy levels.

Also, it will be more difficult for facilities to demonstrate compliance. The proposed standard for chlorine is set lower than the confidence level of established test methods.

SLIDE # 23__

Data Quality Issues: Proposed Resolution

EPA should re analyze the MACT database to assure that data quality guidelines are followed.

EPA should assure that compliance testing methods that yield consistent and accurate data are available. OMB paper  24  8/ 26/ 05  24  SLIDE # 24 __

Concern: Beyond the Floor Standards

EPA has proposed a beyond the floor standard for dioxins/ furans for the halogen acid furnace subcategory. This will result in added compliance costs to achieve a reduction of only 1.3 grams per year of dioxin/ furan emissions.

Proposed Resolution:

Ask EPA to re examine the cost effectiveness of this beyond the floor decision.

SLIDE # 25__

Concern: Site Specific Risk Assessments ( SSRAs)

In response to a petition by the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, EPA is proposing amendments to RCRA regulations clarifying its authority to require SSRAs.

CRWI does not believe that risk assessment guidance should be promulgated as a rule.

CRWI does believe that any clarification of SSRA authority should also include strictures on when risk assessments should be performed.

SLIDE # 26__

SSRAs: Proposed Resolution

Either delete the amendments regarding SSRA authority; or

Add specific language making the amendments consistent with the April 10, 2003, policy memo from Marianne Horinko.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 116 (Friday, June 16, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39344-39346]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12914]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0425; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00980-A;
Amendment 39-22458; AD 2023-11-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DAHER AEROSPACE (Type Certificate
Previously Held by SOCATA) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain DAHER AEROSPACE (type certificate previously held by SOCATA)
Model TBM 700 airplanes. This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI identifies the unsafe condition as
interference between the emergency exit trim panel and the upholstery
panel, which could result in additional effort required to open the
emergency exit door. This AD requires modification of the gripping
strap, which maintains the upholstery panel on the emergency exit trim
panel. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 21, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 21,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0425; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the MCAI, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact DAHER AEROSPACE, Customer Support, Airplane Business Unit,
Tarbes Cedex 9, France 65921; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
daher.com">[email protected]daher.com; website: daher.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0425.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 206-
231-2346; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain DAHER AEROSPACE
Model TBM 700 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
March 8, 2023 (88 FR 14301). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0149,
dated July 21, 2022 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), issued by
the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union.
    The MCAI was prompted by a report that, due to interference between
the emergency exit trim panel and the upholstery panel, additional
effort may be required to open the emergency exit door. An
investigation revealed that the gripping strap, which maintains the
upholstery panel on the emergency exit trim panel, is not properly
sized. The MCAI requires inserting a temporary revision (TR) into the
emergency procedures section of the applicable pilot's operating
handbook (POH), informing all flight crews, operating the airplane
accordingly, and modifying the gripping strap, at which time the TR can
be removed from the POH. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
lead to failure of the emergency exit door to perform its intended
function during an emergency opening, possibly resulting in reduced
evacuation capacity from the airplane and injury to occupants.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require modification of the
gripping strap, which maintains the upholstery panel on the emergency
exit trim panel. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0425.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and
determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed.
Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is
adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Daher Aerospace Service Bulletin SB 70-304, dated
July 2022, which specifies procedures for modifying the gripping strap
on the emergency exit trim panel.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    The MCAI requires inserting a TR into the emergency procedures
section of the applicable POH, informing all flight crews, and
thereafter, operating the airplane accordingly until the modification
of the gripping strap, at which time the TR can be removed from the
POH. This AD requires modifying the gripping strap because FAA
regulations mandate compliance with only the operating limitations
section of the POH and not the emergency procedures section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 841 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification of the gripping strap..  1 work-hour x $85 per              $300             $385         $323,785
                                       hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2023-11-12 DAHER AEROSPACE (Type Certificate Previously Held by
SOCATA): Amendment 39-22458; Docket No. FAA-2023-0425; Project
Identifier MCAI-2022-00980-A.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 21, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to DAHER AEROSPACE (type certificate previously
held by SOCATA) Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 434 through
1424 inclusive, except serial numbers 1408 and 1420, certificated in
any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 5220, Emergency
Exits.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI identifies the unsafe condition as interference
between the emergency exit trim panel and the upholstery panel,
which could result in additional effort required to open the
emergency exit door. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this
condition. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to
failure of the emergency exit door to perform its intended function
during an emergency opening, resulting in reduced evacuation
capacity from the airplane and injury to occupants.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the
gripping strap on the emergency exit trim panel by following, as
applicable for your serial-numbered airplane, sections A, B, and C
in the Description of Accomplishment Instructions in Daher Aerospace
Service Bulletin SB 70-304, dated July 2022 (Daher SB 70-304),
except where Daher SB 70-304 specifies to discard certain parts,
this AD requires removing those parts from service. If the
operational check of the emergency exit fails, before further
flight, re-modify the gripping strap on the emergency exit trim
panel by following, as applicable for your serial-numbered airplane,
sections A, B, and C in the Description of Accomplishment
Instructions in Daher SB 70-304 until it passes this operational
check, except where Daher SB 70-304 specifies to discard certain
parts, this AD requires removing those parts from service.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in Sec.  39.19. In accordance with Sec.  39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, mail
it to the address identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD or email
to: [email protected]. If mailing information, also submit
information by email. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.

(i) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2022-0149, dated July 21, 2022, for related information. This EASA
AD may be found in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No.
FAA-2023-0425.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Fred Guerin,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Daher Aerospace Service Bulletin SB 70-304, dated July 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact DAHER
AEROSPACE, Customer Support, Airplane Business Unit, Tarbes Cedex 9,
France 65921; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: daher.com">[email protected]daher.com;
website: daher.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 12, 2023.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-12914 Filed 6-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 23914-23915]
[DOCID:fr25ap06-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

April 14, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER00-2093-005; ER00-2093-004.
    Applicants: Elkem Metals Company-Alloy LP.
    Description: Elkem Metals Co-Alloy, LP submits an amendment to its
notice of a change in status filed 9/15/05.
    Filed Date: 4/5/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060412-0112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 26, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-2134-003.
    Applicants: Just Energy, LLC.
    Description: Just Energy, LLC submits its Triennial Market Analysis
Report.
    Filed Date: 4/5/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060405-5011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 26, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-2151-001.
    Applicants: Just Energy Ohio, LLC.
    Description: Just Energy Ohio, LLC submits its Triennial Market
Analysis Report.
    Filed Date: 4/5/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060405-5014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 26, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-99-001.
    Applicants: Just Energy New York, LLC.
    Description: Just Energy New York, LLC submits its Triennial Market
Analysis Report.
    Filed Date: 4/5/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060405-5015.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 26, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-100-001.
    Applicants: Just Energy Texas, LLC.
    Description: Just Energy Texas, LLC submits its Triennial Market
Analysis Report.
    Filed Date: 4/6/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060405-5091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 27, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-15-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc;
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. and the Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc submit its response to the
Commission's 3/3/06 letter order.
    Filed Date: 4/4/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060414-0123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 25, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-189-001.
    Applicants: Electric Energy, Inc.
    Description: Electric Energy, Inc submits an amended and restated
Power Supply Agreement, First Revised Rate Schedule No. 11, effective
1/1/03.
    Filed Date: 4/5/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060410-0048.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 26, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-706-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Services.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc, on behalf of Entergy Arkansas,
Inc submits corrected sheets A.1, B.1, and B.8 of its 2006 Wholesale
Formula Rate Update, effective 3/1/06.
    Filed Date: 3/23/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060327-0091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-775-001.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Tucson Electric Power Co's Certificate of Concurrence
in connection with the 2006 Interim Invoicing Agreement for the San
Juan Generating Station dated as of 12/31/05.
    Filed Date: 4/6/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060412-0479.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 27, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-821-001.
    Applicants: PPM Companies.
    Description: Moraine Wind LLC et al submit corrections to its
proposed amendments filed 3/23/6 and 3/29/06.
    Filed Date: 3/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060412-0077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-831-000.
    Applicants: Union Electric Company; Ameren Energy Marketing
Company; Central Illinois Public Service Company; Central Illinois
Light Company; Illinois Power Company; and Union Electric Company.
    Description: Application of Central Illinois Public Service Co,
Central Illinois Light Co et al seeking authorization for AmerenUE et
al to make power sales to their affiliates.
    Filed Date: 4/5/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060412-0354.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 26, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-834-000.
    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Co., LLC.
    Description: Michigan Electric Transmission Co, LLC submits a
notice of cancellation of the Facilities

Agreement b/w Consumers Energy Co and Alpena Power Generation, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/5/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060412-0067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 26, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-838-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: AEP Texas North Co submits two fully executed
interconnection agreements with FPL Energy Horse Hollow Wind II, LP.
    Filed Date: 4/6/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060412-0483.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 27, 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 e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(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. E6-6160 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P