Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-04-24 · Department of the Navy, DOD · Notices

Notices. Notice of open meeting

21,658 words·~98 min read·/register/2006/04/24/06-3808·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Meeting of the Naval Research Advisory Committee AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: The Naval Research Advisory Committee
(NRAC)will meet on May 5, 2006. The meeting will be an Executive Session and will discuss a study undertaken by NRAC. DATES: The meeting will be held on Friday, May 5, 2006, from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. All sessions of the meeting will be open to the public. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via telephone conference. Public access to the telephone conference will be available at the Office of Naval Research, 875 North Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203-1995. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Sujata Millick, Program Director, Naval Research Advisory Committee, 875 North Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203-1995, telephone 703-696-6769. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is provided in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). All sessions of the meeting will be devoted to executive sessions to include discussions of the NRAC study on Ocean Sciences Research Vessel Support. Dated: April 13, 2006. Eric Mcdonald, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E6-6059 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The Director, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Rachel Potter, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or faxed to
(202)395-6974. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Director, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: April 18, 2006. Jeanne Van Vlandren, Director, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Vocational and Adult Education *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Adult Education Annual Performance and Financial Reports. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 57. *Burden Hours:* 5,700. *Abstract:* The information contained in the Annual Performance Reports for Adult Education is needed to monitor the performance of the activities and services funded under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998, Report to Congress on the Levels of Performance Achieved on the core indicators of performance, provide necessary outcome information to meet OVAE's Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA)goals for adult education, and provide documentation for incentive awards under Title V of the Workforce Investment Act. The respondents include eligible agencies in 59 states and insular areas. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2971. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to IC *DocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to IC *DocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E6-6061 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ES06-31-000] Detroit Edison Company; Notice of Filing April 13, 2006. Take the notice that March 31, 2006, Detroit Edison Company filed an application pursuant to section 204 of the Federal Power Act seeking authorization to issue from time to time long-term debt securities in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $1.0 billion. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. 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 *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 19, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6035 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP06-45-001] Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Application April 17, 2006. Take notice that on April 5, 2006, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158 filed in Docket No. CP06-45-001, an amendment to the pending application, filed January 4, 2006, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)and part 157 of the Commission's regulations for its “Parachute Lateral Project” in Docket No. CP06-45, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at (866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Steven W. Snarr, General Counsel, Northwest Pipeline Corporation, P.O. Box 58900, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158-0900 at
(801)584-7094 or by fax at
(801)584-7862 or Gary K. Kotter, Manager, Certificates and Tariffs, Northwest Pipeline Corporation, P.O. Box 58900, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158-0900, at
(801)584-7117 or by fax at
(801)584-7764. The proposed Parachute Lateral project, designed to move natural gas production from the Parachute area of the Piceance Basin to the Greasewood Hub, consists of approximately 37.6 miles of 30-inch pipeline and appurtenant facilities in Garfield and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado, one receipt meter station located in Garfield County and two delivery interconnects located in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. By this amendment to the pending application, Northwest now proposes to add an 8-inch tap and valve assembly at approximately milepost 27.41 in Section 9, Township 6S, Range 97W, Garfield County, Colorado, to the originally filed scope of work for the Parachute Lateral project. There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order. Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 8, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6048 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP06-115-000] Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Application April 17, 2006. Take notice that on April 4, 2006, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056-5310 filed in Docket No. CP06-115-000, an application pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)for authorization to construct a new pipeline loop in Ohio, abandon and replace pipeline facilities in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and to install new compression facilities in Pennsylvania for incremental shippers (TIME II Project), all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be also viewed on the Web at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call
(866)208-3676 or TTY,
(202)502-8659. Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Steven E. Tillman, General Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642; Phone: 713-627-5113; Fax: 713-627-5947. There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, before the comment date of this notice, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. *Comment Date:* May 8, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6051 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 April 17, 2006. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-1047-001. *Applicants:* Mirant Las Vegas, LLC. *Description:* Mirant's letter to the Commission concerning its compliance filing submitted July 9, 2003. *Filed Date:* March 27, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060327-5032 *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 24, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1497-002. *Applicants:* Dearborn Industrial Generation, LLC. *Description:* Dearborn Industrial Generation, LLC submits an Erratum to its February 21, 2006, Late Filed Compliance Filing. *Filed Date:* April 7, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060411-0028. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 21, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-580-002. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* The Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. submits an amended coversheet to its First Revised Network Integration Service Agreement filed February 22, 2006. *Filed Date:* April 11, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0182. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 24, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-650-001. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, LLC. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits a substitute interconnection service agreement with Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. *Filed Date:* April 11, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060414-0117. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 2, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-679-001. *Applicants:* Louisville Gas & Electric Company. *Description:* LG&E Energy submits a revised executed letter agreement with East Kentucky Power Cooperative which will be designated as Original Sheets 17 and 18 in 1st Revised Rate Schedule 25. *Filed Date:* April 10, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060414-0120. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-746-001. *Applicants:* Equilon Enterprises LLC. *Description:* Equilon Enterprises, LLC dba Shell Oil Products U.S. submits an amendment to its March 16, 2006 filing, correcting typographical errors to its proposed tariff. *Filed Date:* April 10, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060414-0116. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-747-001. *Applicants:* Equilon Enterprises LLC. *Description:* Equilon Enterprises, LLC dba Shell Oil Products U.S. submits an amendment to its March 16, 2006 filing, correcting typographical errors to its proposed tariff. *Filed Date:* April 10, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060414-0114. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-748-001. *Applicants:* Shell Chemical LP. *Description:* Shell Chemical LP submits an amendment to its March 16, 2006 filing. *Filed Date:* April 10, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060414-0122. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-763-001. *Applicants:* Motiva Enterprises LLC. *Description:* Motiva Enterprises, LLC submits an amendment to its March 16, 2006 proposed market-based rate tariff filing. *Filed Date:* April 10, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060414-0115. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-770-001. *Applicants:* PPM Energy, Inc. *Description:* PPM Energy, Inc submits corrections to their proposed amended, respective, market-based rate schedules filed on March 20, 2006. *Filed Date:* April 11, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060414-0118. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 21, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-841-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Services Inc. *Description:* Entergy Services Inc, agent and on behalf of the Entergy Operating Companies submits amendments to the Entergy System Agreement. *Filed Date:* April 10, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060414-0314. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-842-000. *Applicants:* Palomar Energy, LLC. *Description:* Palomar Energy LLC submits a notice of termination of its FERC Electric Rate Schedule 1. *Filed Date:* April 10, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060414-0308. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-844-000. *Applicants:* LSF Limited. *Description:* LSF Limited submits its Petition of Initial Rate Schedule, Waivers and Blanket Authority under ER06-844. *Filed Date:* April 11, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0186. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 2, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-845-000. *Applicants:* Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Company. *Description:* Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Co submits a proposed rate change to its original FERC Rate Schedule No. 2, effective May 1, 2006. *Filed Date:* April 11, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0187. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 2, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-846-000. *Applicants:* Public Service Company of Colorado. *Description:* Xcel Energy Services Inc on behalf of Public Service Co of Colorado submits an amended and restated version of its October 28, 1992 Contract for Transmission Service w/ Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc, effective April 12, 2006. *Filed Date:* April 11, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0188. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 2, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER96-795-013. *Applicants:* Gateway Energy Marketing. *Description:* Gateway Energy Marketing submits its amended and updated market power analysis and revised tariff sheets pursuant to the Commission's May 31, 2005 order. *Filed Date:* April 10, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060414-0306. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER98-4333-002. *Applicants:* Primary Power Marketing, L.L.C. *Description:* Primary Power Marketing LLC submits a revised updated power market analysis out-of time, pursuant to the Commission's May 31, 2005 order. *Filed Date:* April 10, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060411-0147. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6052 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 April 18, 2006. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-478-011. *Applicants:* PPM Energy, Inc. *Description:* PPM Energy, Inc. submits its motion to terminate refund liability to reflect PPM's recent corporate disaffiliation with PacifiCorp. *Filed Date:* April 10, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0205. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-20-002. *Applicants:* Louisville Gas & Electric Company. *Description:* LG&E Energy, LLC submits revisions to its proposed open-access transmission tariff to implement the “hold harmless commitment” under the MISO Transmission Owner Agreement etc., pursuant to March 17, 2006 order. *Filed Date:* April 11, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0225. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 2, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-278-003. *Applicants:* The Nevada Hydro Company, Inc. *Description:* Nevada Hydro Company, Inc. submits a supplemental response to FERC's February 17, 2006 request for additional information. *Filed Date:* April 7, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0190. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 28, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-313-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. submits an informational filing regarding suspension of the monthly financial transmission rights auction for June 2006, *et al.* *Filed Date:* April 11, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060413-0142. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 2, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-561-001. *Applicants:* Southern Company Services, Inc. *Description:* Southern Company Services Inc. agent for Alabama Power Co. *et al.* submits its response to FERC's March 8, 2006 deficiency letter. *Filed Date:* April 7, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0189. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 28, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-576-001. *Applicants:* Southern Company Services, Inc. *Description:* Southern Company Services Inc. agent for Alabama Power C.o *et al.* submits its response to FERC's March 8, 2006 deficiency letter. *Filed Date:* April 7, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0191. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 28, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-843-000. *Applicants:* Northeast Utilities Service Company. *Description:* Northeast Utilities Service Company submits a notice of Cancellation of Service Agreement 8 for Firm Transmission Service with Unitil Power Corp. *Filed Date:* April 11, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0185. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 2, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-847-000; ER05-1235-001. *Applicants:* MidAmerican Energy Company. *Description:* MidAmerican Energy Co submits First Revised Sheet 497 *et al.* to Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 8 to their OATT in compliance with FERC's December 16, 2005 order. *Filed Date:* April 7, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0216. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 28, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-848-000. *Applicants:* Appalachian Power Company. *Description:* AEP on behalf of Appalachian Power Co submits a cost-based formula rate agreement for full requirements electric service between AEP Service Corp and Black Diamond Power Co *et al.* *Filed Date:* April 6, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0183. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 25, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-849-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc. submits the proposed revisions to Attachment L (Credit Policy) of its Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff, *et al.* *Filed Date:* April 7, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0184. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 28, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-850-000. *Applicants:* Northeast Utilities Service Company. *Description:* Northeast Utilities Service Co. submits a Notice of Cancellation of NU Companies Service Agreement 16 under ISO New England's Electric Tariff 3 Attachment E, Schedule 21-NU. *Filed Date:* April 6, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0176. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 27, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-851-000. *Applicants:* Northeast Utilities Service Company. *Description:* Northeast Utilities Service Co. submits a Notice of Cancellation of NU Companies Service Agreement 22 under ISO New England's Electric Tariff 3 Attachment E, Schedule 21-NU. *Filed Date:* April 6, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0177. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 27, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-852-000. *Applicants:* Northeast Utilities Service Company. *Description:* Northeast Utilities Services Co. submits a notice of cancellation of NU Companies Services Agreement 17 under ISO New England's Electric Tariff 3 Attachment E, Schedule 21-NU. *Filed Date:* April 6, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0178. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 27, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-853-000. *Applicants:* Northeast Utilities Service Company. *Description:* Northeast Utilities Services Co. submits s a notice of cancellation of NU Companies Service Agreement 28, 29 & 30 under ISO New England's Electric Tariff 3 Attachment E, Schedule 21-NU. *Filed Date:* April 6, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0179. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 27, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-854-000. *Applicants:* Northeast Utilities Service Company. *Description:* Northeast Utilities Service Co. submits a notice of cancellation of NU Companies Service Agreement 19 under ISO New England Inc. Electric Tariff No. 3 Attachment E, Schedule 21-NU. *Filed Date:* April 6, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0180. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 27, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-855-000. *Applicants:* Northeast Utilities Service Company. *Description:* Northeast Utilities Service Co. submits a notice of cancellation of NU Companies Service Agreements 24 & 25 under ISO New England's Electric Tariff No. 3 Attachment E. Schedule 21-NU. *Filed Date:* April 6, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060417-0181. *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 *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6053 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests April 13, 2006. Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Application Type:* Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters. b. *Project No.:* 349-106. c. *Date filed:* March 22, 2006. d. *Applicant:* Alabama Power Company. e. *Name of Project:* Martin Dam Project. f. *Location:* The project is located on the Tallapoosa River in Coosa and Elmore Counties, Alabama. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r) and 799 and 801. h. *Applicant Contact:* Keith E. Bryant, 600 18th Street North, Birmingham, AL 35203,
(205)257-1403. i. *FERC Contact:* Rebecca Martin at 202-502-6012, or e-mail *Rebecca.martin@ferc.gov.* j. *Deadline for filing comments and or motions:* May 15, 2006. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-349-106) on any comments or motions filed. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages e-filings. k. *Description of Application:* The licensee requests Commission approval of a permit application, filed by the North Lake Condo Club, to build three uncovered floating boat dock structures providing a total of 42 bays for boats. Each bay will measure approximately 10 feet wide by 23 feet long. There will be no dredging associated with this project. l. *Location of Application:* The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “e-Library” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free
(866)208-3676 or TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene:* Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents:* Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. p. *Agency Comments:* Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6036 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests April 17, 2006. Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Application Type:* Amendment of License to Increase its Authorized Generating Capacity. b. *Project No.:* 5984-055. c. *Date Filed:* March 15, 2006. d. *Applicant:* Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. e. *Name of Project:* Oswego Falls Project. f. *Location:* The project is located on the Oswego River in Oswego and Onondaga Counties in New York. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r. h. *Applicant Contact:* David W. Culligan, P.E., Licensing Coordinator, Brookfield Power, New York Operations, 225 Greenfield Parkway, Suite 201, Liverpool, NY 13088, Tel:
(315)413-2792, Fax:
(315)461-8577. i. *FERC Contact:* Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Mr. Jake Tung at
(202)502-8757, or e-mail address: *hong.tung@ferc.gov.* j. *Deadline for filing comments and or motions:* May 1, 2006. k. *Description of Request:* The licensee proposes to perform a maintenance upgrade to its existing 400 kW generating unit #3 at the West Side Development. The upgrade of unit #3 consists of:
(1)Replacing the unit's horizontal quadruplex Francis turbine unit with two new, vertical propeller units, each rated 800 horsepower (600 kW) at 16.7 feet net head;
(2)replacing the unit's horizontal generator with two new vertical generators, each rated 550 kW;
(3)retiring the existing 400 kW generating unit #3 in place in the powerhouse; and
(4)modifying the existing intake flume floor to accommodate the installation of the new units. When the unit upgrade is complete, the licensee states that the project's installed capacity would increase from 6,760 kW to 7,360 kW, or 8.8%, and turbine hydraulic discharge from 6,490 cfs to 6,922 cfs, or 6.6%. l. *Locations of Applications:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h)above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene:* Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents:* Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. p. *Agency Comments:* Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6047 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments April 17, 2006. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Type of Application:* Preliminary Permit. b. *Project No.:* 12656-000. c. *Date filed:* February 22, 2006. d. *Applicant:* Samaria Water and Irrigation Company. e. *Name of Project:* Samaria Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* Dry Pine Canyon, Rose Bud Canyon, Thomas Davis Canyon Tributary to Samaria Creek in Oneida County, Idaho. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. David Reel, Samaria Water and Irrigation Company, 5176 South 4400 West, Malad, ID 83252,
(208)766-2828, *drr@atcnet.net* . i. *FERC Contact:* Patricia W. Gillis at
(202)502-8735. j. *Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene:* 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. k. *Description of Project:* The proposed project would consist of:
(1)Replacing the existing drop, divert the flows from Dry Pine Canyon, Rose Bud Canyon and Thomas Davis Canyon through approximately 9,000 feet of 12-inch diameter pipe, into a common 15 to 18 inch diameter penstock approximately 13,300 feet in length,
(2)one proposed generating unit with an installed capacity of 350 kilowatts,
(3)proposed 0.1 mile tail race canal to Samaria Creek,
(4)proposed 1000 feet of 12.5 kV transmission lines, and
(5)appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of 1,200,000 kilowatt-hours, which would be sold to a local utility. l. *Locations of Applications:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Competing Preliminary Permit:* Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. o. *Competing Development Application:* Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. p. *Notice of Intent:* A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice. q. *Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit:* A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project. r. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene:* Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under “e-filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. s. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents:* Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. t. *Agency Comments:* Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6049 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments April 17, 2006. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Type of Application:* Preliminary Permit. b. *Project No.:* 12662-000. c. *Date filed:* March 21, 2006. d. *Applicant:* Renewable Resources, Inc. e. *Name of Project:* Swift River Mill Project. f. *Location:* The project would be located on the Pawcatuck River, in Washington County, Rhode Island. The project would not occupy Federal or Tribal lands. The existing dam is owned by the applicant. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. John R. Lavigne, Renewable Resources, Inc., c/o The H.L. Turner Group, Inc., 27 Locke Road, Concord, NH 03301-5417,
(603)228-1122. i. *FERC Contact:* Robert Bell,
(202)502-6062. j. *Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene:* 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. k. *Description of Project:* The proposed project would consist of:
(1)The existing 112-foot-long, 10-foot-high concrete gravity dam,
(2)an existing impoundment having a surface area of 36 acres, with a storage capacity 204 acre-feet and normal water surface elevation of 9,800 feet national geographic vertical datum,
(3)two existing 10-foot-wide, 40-foot-long concrete flumes, which join to form a 16.5-foot wide, 100-foot-long concrete flume,
(4)an existing powerhouse containing two new generating units having a total installed capacity of 339 kilowatts,
(5)an existing granite tailrace,
(6)a proposed underground transmission line 300 feet long, and
(7)appurtenant facilities. The project would have an annual generation of 2.97 gigawatt hours, which would be sold to a local utility. l. *Locations of Applications:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h. above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Competing Preliminary Permit:* Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. o. *Competing Development Application:* Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. p. *Notice of Intent:* A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice. q. *Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit:* A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project. r. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene:* Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under “e- filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. s. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents:* Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. t. *Agency Comments:* Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6050 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PF06-23-000] Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Site Visit for the Proposed Mississippi Expansion Project April 13, 2006. The Gulf South Pipeline Company (Gulf South) is proposing to construct approximately 88 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline and a new 39,990 horsepower compression station in Madison Parish, Louisiana, and Warren, Hinds, Copiah and Simpson Counties, Mississippi. On April 25 and 26, 2006, staff from the Office of Energy Projects
(OEP)as part of its Pre-Filing Review will visit the proposed pipeline route and potential compression station sites and will attend open house meetings sponsored by the applicant to answer questions about the Pre-Filing Review process. All interested parties are welcome to attend the site visits and open houses. Those wishing to attend the site visits must provide their own transportation. The schedule for the site visits and open houses is as follows: Tuesday, April 25th Site Visit: Meet at 8 a.m. (CST). Eagle Ridge Conference Center Parking Lot, 1500 Raymond Lake Road, Raymond, MS 39154. 601-857-7100. Open House: 5 p.m.-6:30 p.m. (CST). Eagle Ridge Conference Center, Talon Room, 1500 Raymond Lake Road, Raymond, MS 39154. 601-857-7100. Wednesday, April 26th Site Visit: Meet at 8 a.m. (CST). Tallulah Country Club Parking Lot, 762 Old Highway 65 South, Tallulah, LA 71282. 318-574-4173. Open House: 5 p.m.-6:30 p.m. (CST). Tallulah Country Club, 762 Old Highway 65 South, Tallulah, LA 71282. 318-574-4173. These events are posted on the Commission's calendar located on the internet at *http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx.* For additional information regarding these events, please contact the Commission's Office of External Affairs at 202-502-8004. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6034 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD06-4-000] Resource Reports 11 and 13 Guidance; Notice of Technical Conference April 13, 2006. On Tuesday, May 9, 2006, the staff of the Office of Energy Projects of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will convene a technical conference to discuss the engineering and safety information required in applications for liquefied natural gas
(LNG)facilities. Filings that are complete expedite staff detailed review to ensure that all areas of the proposed design are safe and reliable. The technical conference will convene at 10 a.m.
(EST)at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in Conference Room 3M-02. On December 15, 2005, the Commission issued Draft Guidance for Filing Resource Reports 11 & 13 for LNG Facility Applications to assist applicants by identifying the specific information and level of detail required for filing these resource reports as specified by Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 380.12
(m)and (o). This document addresses recent initiatives, as well as several requests for specific guidance, including: • The level of detail, including a requirement for a hazard design review, necessary for the front-end engineering design submitted to the FERC; • Critical energy infrastructure information
(CEII)classification; • LNG spill containment sizing and design criteria for impoundments, sumps, sub-dikes, troughs or trenches; • Design spills to be used in the calculation of thermal and flammable vapor exclusion zones; • Waterway suitability assessments required by the U.S. Coast Guard's Navigation and Inspection Circular 05-05; and • Compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The technical conference will allow the public and the engineering community the opportunity to provide comments on the required information for Resource Report 11: Reliability and Safety, and Resource Report 13: Engineering and Design Material for LNG facility applications. In addition, the conference will solicit comments on our Draft Preferred Submittal Format Guidance for better organizing the engineering information in Resource Report 13. This document is available on the Commission Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp* under Docket No. AD06-4 or by accessing the following link: *http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=4394249.* Information related to specific projects before the Commission will not be discussed. The conference is open to the public. Pre-registration is required and may be submitted either online at *http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/cryo-conf-form.asp* or by faxing a copy of the form (found at the referenced online link) to 202-208-0353. FERC conference and meetings are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to *accessibility@ferc.gov* or call toll free
(866)20803372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations. For information about this conference, please contact Chris Zerby 202-502- 6111, Kareem Monib 202-502-6265, or Ghanshyam Patel 202-502-6431. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6037 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8160-7] Recent Posting to the Applicability Determination Index
(ADI)Database System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete document posted on the Applicability Determination Index
(ADI)database system is available on the Internet through the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA)Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html.* The document may be located by date, author, subpart, or subject search. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at:
(202)564-7027, or by e-mail at: *malave.maria@epa.gov.* For technical questions about the individual applicability determinations or monitoring decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the individual documents, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to the author of the document. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The General Provisions to the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although part 63 NESHAP and section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act regulations contain no specific regulatory provision that sources may request applicability determinations, EPA does respond to written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping which are different from the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements contained in the regulation. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed regulatory interpretations. EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations, and posts them on the Applicability Determination Index
(ADI)on a quarterly basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic index on the Internet with more than one thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP. The letters and memoranda may be searched by date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, and control number or by string word searches. Today's notice comprises a summary of 95 such documents added to the ADI on February 28, 2006. The subject, author, recipient, date and header of each letter and memorandum are listed in this notice, as well as a brief abstract of the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from the ADI through the OECA Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html.* Summary of Headers and Abstracts The following table identifies the database control number for each document posted on the ADI database system on February 28, 2006; the applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) covered by the document; and the title of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject matter. We have also included an abstract of each document identified with its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as substitutes for the full text of the documents. ADI Determinations Uploaded on February 24, 2006 Control Category Subpart Title A050001 Asbestos M Demolition of Residential Trailer Homes. M050030 MACT A, EEE Stack Test Waiver for a Portland Cement Plant Kiln. M050036 MACT G Alternative Monitoring of Orthoxylene Unit. M050037 MACT G Waiver of Additional Performance Testing. M050038 MACT U Alternative Reporting Period. M050039 MACT A Waiver of Flare Performance Testing. M050040 MACT CC, G Alternative Reporting Period. M050041 MACT CC Alternative Reporting Period. M050042 MACT S Alternative Test Method for Pulp and Paper Mill. M050043 MACT S, VVV Cluster Rule Compliance Plan. M050044 MACT PPP, FFFF Primary Product Determination for Production Vessels. M050045 MACT S Cluster Rule Compliance Plan. M050046 MACT KK, QQQQ Finishing of Architectural Elements. M050047 MACT Hon R C-12 Chemical Manufacturing Process Units. Z050007 NESHAP FF, V Alternative Monitoring of Pressure/Vacuum Relief Valves. 0500048 NSPS D Alternative Opacity Monitoring. 0500060 NSPS Db Alternative Monitoring of Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit. 0500061 NSPS GG Alternative Monitoring of Gas Turbines. 0500062 NSPS Db Compliance Monitoring Plan for Gas-Fired Boiler. 0500063 NSPS J, Dc Alternative Monitoring of Gasoline Loading Rack. 0500064 NSPS Dc Alternative Recordkeeping of Fuel Usage. 0500065 NSPS Da Alternative Monitoring of Duct Burners. 0500066 NSPS NNN Alternative Monitoring of Catalytic Incinerators. 0500067 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring of Gasoline Loading Rack. 0500068 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring of Platformer Lock Hopper. 0500069 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring of Vacuum Charge Heater. 0500070 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring of Marine Dock Thermal Oxidizer. 0500071 NSPS Dc Alternative Recordkeeping of Fuel Usage. 0500072 NSPS NNN Alternative Monitoring of Distillation Units. 0500073 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring of Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit. 0500074 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring of Refinery Unit. 0500075 NSPS GG Alternative Monitoring of New Replacement Turbine. 0500076 NSPS Db, GG, Dc Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule. 0500077 NSPS UUU Kyanite Processing. 0500078 NSPS Db, GG Alternative Monitoring of Gas Turbines. 0500079 NSPS GG, Db Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule. 0500080 NSPS GG, Db Alternative Monitoring of Gas Turbines. 0500081 NSPS Da, GG Alternative Monitoring of Gas Turbines. 0500082 NSPS Dc, GG Alternative Monitoring of Gas Turbines. 0500083 NSPS Db Alternative Opacity Monitoring. 0500084 NSPS UUU, WWW Alternative Opacity Monitoring. 0500085 NSPS Da Stack Testing Waiver. 0500086 NSPS WWW Tier 2 Sampling. 0500087 NSPS WWW Alternative Monitoring Proposals for Landfill. 0500088 NSPS CC Alternative Opacity Monitoring. 0500089 NSPS RRR, NNN Alternative Monitoring of Distillation Operations. 0500090 NSPS GG Alternative Monitoring of Combustion Turbines. 0500091 NSPS Dc Alternative Recordkeeping of Fuel Usage. 0500092 NSPS LL Waiver of Visible Emission Test Requirements. 0500093 NSPS D Alternative Opacity, SO <sup>2</sup> , and NO <sup>X</sup> Monitoring. 0500094 NSPS Db Alternative Monitoring Plan Modification Request. 0500095 NSPS WWW Passive Flares and Waiver of Testing Requirements. 0500096 NSPS GG Alternative Monitoring Plan for Gas Turbines. 0500097 NSPS WWW Temporary Disconnection of Gas Collection Wells. 0500098 NSPS Cc Tier 2 Testing Deadline. 0500099 NSPS Y, OOO Initial Opacity Performance Testing. 0500100 NSPS Dc Opacity Monitor Certification. 0500101 NSPS III, NNN Waiver of Performance Test of Flare. 0500102 NSPS WWW Waiver of Installation of Gas Collection Wells. 0500103 NSPS Db Initial Performance Test Waiver and Recordkeeping Waiver. 0500104 NSPS Dc Initial Opacity Performance Testing. 0500105 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring of Refinery Fuel Gas Streams. 0500106 NSPS D Alternative Span Value. 0500107 NSPS OOO Waiver of Initial Performance Test for Baghouses. 0500108 NSPS Db Alternative Opacity Monitoring. 0500109 NSPS H, T, U, V Use of English Units for Monitoring and Recordkeeping. 0500110 NSPS XX VRU Bypass During Diesel Loading. 0500111 NSPS UU Alternative Opacity Monitoring and Performance Testing. 0500112 NSPS A, D, Db, Dc, Kb, DDD, III, NNN, RRR Alternative Monitoring of Startups, Shutdowns, Malfunctions. 0500113 NSPS VV, Y, OOO Alternative Monitoring for Leak Detection. 0500114 NSPS OOO, Y, Dc Alternative Monitoring for Visible Emissions. 0500115 NSPS WWW, III, NNN Alternative Monitoring of Surface Methane. 0500116 NSPS WWW Landfill Testing and Emission Rate Calculation Issues. 0500117 NSPS WWW Alternative Monitoring Plan for Landfill Gas. 0500118 NSPS CC Alternative Opacity Monitoring. 0500119 NSPS XX, J Re-Test Requirements After Adding Equipment. 0500120 NSPS TT Alternative Test Method. 0500121 NSPS VV Alternative Monitoring Plan for Leak Detection. 0500122 NSPS Db, Dc Boiler Derate Proposal. 0500123 NSPS UUU Alternative Monitoring Plan for Fluidized Bed Dryer. 0500124 NSPS GG Modification of Initial Performance Testing. 0500125 NSPS J, A, I Performance Test Extension Request. 0500126 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring Plan for CEM Span Setting. 0500127 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring Plan for Refinery Unit. 0500128 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring Plan for Refinery Unit. 0500129 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring Plan for Refinery Combustion Unit. 0500130 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring Plan for Refinery Unit. 0500131 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring Plan for Vent Gas Stream. 0500132 NSPS NNN, RRR Alternative Opacity Monitoring. 0500133 NSPS NNN, RRR Alternative Monitoring Plan for Distillation Units. 0500134 NSPS B Alternative Performance Specification Procedure. 0500135 NSPS Db Alternative Monitoring Plan for Cogeneration Unit. 0500136 NSPS NNN SOCMI Distillation Operations. 0500137 NSPS J Fuel Gas Combustion Devices and Process Gas Exemption. 0500138 NSPS J Fuel Gases and Fuel Gas Combustion Devices. Abstracts Abstract for [A050001] Q1: Are trailer homes with different owners located in the state of Delaware that are recycled using two different processes through the Delaware Solid Waste Authority subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A1: No. 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, the asbestos NESHAP regulation, does not apply to demolition of single residential trailer homes because they are classified as single dwelling units and ownership remains with the trailer owner, not the state. A single dwelling unit that is being demolished is exempt from the NESHAP regulation throughout the entire recycling process. However, when two or more residential homes are located at the same demolition site and are under control of the same owner or operator, then the trailer homes become a residential installation subject to the NESHAP regulation. Q2: Would 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, apply if the residential trailer home were purchased by a commercial entity rather than being sent to the Delaware Solid Waste Authority? A2: No. A residential trailer home and its recycling process are exempt from the asbestos NESHAP regulation if at the time of demolition, it can be classified as single dwelling unit and does not meet the definition of a residential installation in 40 CFR 61.141. Q3: Given the inapplicability of 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, what might the State of Delaware do to minimize public exposure to asbestos from the demolition of residential trailer homes? A3: EPA suggests that the State of Delaware encourage inspection and removal of asbestos-containing material at the Delaware Solid Waste Authority compaction site. The state might also consider the addition of a permit condition in the Delaware landfills operating permits that would prohibit landfills from accepting asbestos-containing material as landfill cover. Abstract for [0500060] Q: Does EPA approve a request to discontinue calibrating a carbon monoxide continuous emission monitor
(CEM)with a 1,000-ppmv span gas for a fluid catalytic cracking unit, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, at Flint Hill Resources Pine Bend petroleum refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota? A: Yes. EPA approves this request because, based on information submitted to EPA, Flint Hills Resources meets the criteria for the exemption set forth at 40 CFR 60.105(a)(2)(ii). However, a State permit requires the facility to calibrate its carbon monoxide continuous emission monitor with a 100 ppmv span gas. Abstract for [0500061] Q1: Does EPA waive the multi-load testing requirement, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for Tristate's Pyramid Generating Station near Lordsburg, New Mexico? A1: Yes. EPA waives the multi-load testing requirement under NSPS subpart GG because the facility has a nitrogen oxides continuous emissions monitor (NO <sup>X</sup> CEM). Q2: Does EPA approve the use of monitoring conducted in accordance with Part 75 in lieu of certain monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, at Tristate's Pyramid Generating Station near Lordsburg, New Mexico? A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of certain monitoring of part 75 in lieu of certain monitoring requirements of NSPS subpart GG. Abstract for [0500062] Q: Does EPA approve a compliance monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for a 185-mmBTU/hr natural gas-fired boiler at Flint Hills Resources
(FHR)petroleum refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota? A: Yes. On April 12, 2000, the company supplemented its request in accordance with EPA's initial response. The plan that Koch Fuels (FHR's former name) submitted included all of the information required by 40 CFR 60.49b(c)(1),
(2)and (3). Based upon a review of the information that the company submitted, EPA approves the proposed compliance monitoring plan under NSPS subpart Db. Abstract for [Z050007] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 61, subparts V and FF, for pressure/vacuum relief valves in the wastewater treatment plant tanks and oil-water separator located at Flint Hills Resources
(FHR)petroleum refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota? A: Yes. EPA concludes that the pressure/vacuum relief valves function as both pressure relief devices and dilution air openings under NESHAP subparts V and FF. EPA did not promulgate a definition of “dilution air opening” in NESHAP subpart FF. NESHAP subpart V infers that a pressure relief device is designed to release pressure but is not designed to function as a dilution air opening. Since the pressure/vacuum relief valves relieve excess pressure in the closed vent system and allow dilution air to enter the closed vent system, the pressure/vacuum relief valves are both pressure relief devices and dilution air openings. EPA recognizes that the requirements of 40 CFR 61.343(a)(1)(i)(B) and
(C)do not account for this dichotomy, and thus approves FHR's request for an alternative monitoring plan to resolve the ambiguity. Abstract for [0500063] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, to address a new refinery fuel gas that Flint Hills Resources
(FHR)loads at a gasoline loading rack at its Pine Bend Refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota? A: Yes. EPA finds FHR has demonstrated that this refinery fuel gas meets the criteria in EPA's August 14, 1987 guidance for refinery fuel gas stream alternative monitoring plans, and thus it approves the alternative monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J. Abstract for [0500064] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative fuel usage recordkeeping method, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for two heaters at Devon Energy's Bridgeport Gas Processing Plant near Bridgeport, Texas? A: Yes. EPA approves the changes in the fuel usage recordkeeping frequency for NSPS subpart Dc boilers that are fired with only natural gas and/or low sulfur oil. Abstract for [M050036] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative control method, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, using dual carbon canisters to reduce HAP emissions at the Chalmette Refinery in Chalmette, Louisiana? A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative method under MACT subpart G, conditioned on Chalmette's daily monitoring of the HAPs concentration after the primary canister until breakthrough has occurred three times. Abstract for [0500065] Q: Does EPA waive the monitoring requirement, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da, to use a sulfur dioxide continuous emission monitor (SO <sup>2</sup> CEM) for duct burners located at Calpine's Channel Energy Center facility in Houston, Texas? A: No. EPA does not waive the requirement under NSPS subpart Da. However, EPA will consider the approval of an alternative monitoring plan in lieu of an SO <sup>2</sup> CEM. Abstract for [0500066] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, for the catalytic incinerator at BASF's Freeport, Texas facility, which operates at varying flowrates and must add hydrocarbons to the stream to generate the required delta T established by the performance test? A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative monitoring plan under NSPS subpart NNN for BASF's R-170 Catalytic Incinerator provided that:
(1)The minimum outlet temperature will be 550 degrees C;
(2)the minimum delta T across the bed will be 287 degrees C;
(3)the minimum organic loading to the bed will be 89,380 lb/hr; and
(4)the facility establishes alarms at a 15 degrees C differential to allow time for corrective action. In addition, BASF will keep records of organic flow rate to R-170 in lb/hr. Any hourly flow rates that are below the approved minimum will be considered a violation of NSPS subpart NNN and must be reported as excess emissions. Abstract for [M050037] Q: Will EPA waive, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, additional performance testing if the scrubber/absorption system organic absorption medium is changed from utility water to recycle process wastewater at a BP Chemicals Green Lake facility in Port Lavaca, Texas? A: Yes. EPA will waive additional testing under MACT subpart G because the change in medium at the scrubber/absorption system would lead to only a slight increase in emissions and the total emissions remain below the permitted emissions limit of 0.37 lb/hr. Abstract for [0500067] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP), under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, for a flare used by Flint Hills Resources
(FHR)during periods of maintenance or malfunction of a vapor recovery unit at a gasoline loading rack at its Pine Bend Refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota? A: Yes. EPA finds that FHR has demonstrated that this refinery fuel gas meets the criteria in EPA's guidance, “Alternative Monitoring Plan for NSPS Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas” for refinery fuel gas stream alternative monitoring plans (see AMP attached to ADI Control Number 0500138) and thus it approves the alternative monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J. Abstract for [0500068] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP), under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, for the platformer lock hopper and switch valve vent refinery fuel gas stream at Flint Hills Resources
(FHR)petroleum refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota? A: Yes. EPA finds that FHR has demonstrated that this refinery fuel gas meets the criteria in EPA's guidance, “Alternative Monitoring Plan for NSPS Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas” for refinery fuel gas stream alternative monitoring plans (see AMP attached to ADI Control No. 0500138), and thus it approves the alternative monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J. Abstract for [0500069] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, in lieu of a hydrogen disulfide continuous emission monitor (H <sup>2</sup> S CEM) for the disulfide separator off-gas in Atofina's facility in Port Arthur, Texas? A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J based upon the data submitted, and provided that the proposed alternative monitoring plan correctly applies the stipulated guidance in EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and February 13, 2001 (see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 0100037). Abstract for [0500070] Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, in lieu of a hydrogen disulfide continuous emission monitor (H <sup>2</sup> S CEM) for the dock thermal oxidizer vent gases in Atofina's facility in Port Arthur, Texas? A1: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J based upon the data submitted, and provided that the proposed alternative monitoring plan correctly applies the stipulated guidance in EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and February 13, 2001 (see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 0100037). Q2: Does EPA approve alternative recordkeeping requirements for boilers, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at the Frito-Lay facility in Mission, Texas? A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative recordkeeping requirements under subpart Dc based upon the information submitted by the facility. Abstract for [M050038] Q: Does EPA approve a request to align the periodic reporting requirements of non-leak detection and reduction
(LDAR)and LDAR to a single semiannual report, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart U, for the hypalon elastomer unit at the DuPont Dow facility in Beaumont, Texas? A: Yes. EPA approves the request to align the periodic reporting requirements of non-LDAR and LDAR to a single semiannual report under MACT subpart U as long as the reports are submitted in such a manner that there are no missing days of reporting. Abstract for [M050039] Q: Does EPA waive a performance test requirement for vent streams that contain hydrogen cyanide
(HCN)and allow the use of an alternative method of demonstrating compliance, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, at DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise's facility in Beaumont, Texas? A: Yes. EPA grants the waiver of performance testing under MACT subpart A for flow measurement and heat content because the facility has demonstrated compliance using alternate means. Abstract for [0500071] Q: Does EPA approve alternative recordkeeping requirements, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for natural gas burning boilers at the Frito-Lay facility in Mission, Texas? A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative recordkeeping requirements under subpart Dc based upon the condition that it is not necessary to keep daily fuel usage records for units fired only with natural gas since the emission standards in subpart Dc are not applicable to these units. Abstract for [0500072] Q: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, an alternative plan to monitor the total flow to the combustion device instead of monitoring the flow of each vent stream from several distillation units to the combustion device at ExxonMobil's Baytown Chemical Plant in Baytown, Texas? A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring request under NSPS subpart NNN with additional conditions to ensure which combustion devices are associated with which vent gas streams. Abstract for [0500073] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for a refinery generated fuel gas stream, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at Motiva Enterprises' Convent Refinery in Convent, Louisiana? A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J, provided the facility follows the stipulated guidance in EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and February 13, 2001 (see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 0100037). Abstract for [M050040] Q: Does EPA align the 40 CFR part 63, subparts G and CC reporting periods for Motiva Enterprises' facility in Norco, Louisiana? A: Yes. EPA aligns the reporting periods under MACT subparts G and CC, provided that the facility submits a shortened report such that no days of recordkeeping and reporting are missed. Abstract for [0500074] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for the regenerative catalytic cracking unit (RCCU), under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at Motiva Enterprises' facility in Norco, Louisiana? A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J, provided that the monitored parameters and ranges at the facility have supporting data. Abstract for [M050041] Q: Does EPA allow aligning the reporting period to a semi-annual calendar year, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, for the Shell Norco Chemical Plant in Norco, Louisiana? A: Yes. EPA allows the aligning of the reporting period under MACT subpart CC, provided that the facility submits a shortened report such that no days of recordkeeping and reporting are missed. Abstract for [M050042] Q: Does EPA approve the use of National Council for Air and Stream (NCASI) hazardous air pollutants
(HAPS)Test Method 99.01, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, to analyze condensate samples collected at Appleton Papers' Spring Mill in Roaring Spring Borough, Pennsylvania? A: Yes. EPA allows the alternative method under MACT subpart S, provided that the appropriate correction factors are used. Abstract for [0500075] Q1: Does EPA approve the continuation of the current custom fuel monitoring plan for the new replacement turbine, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, at East Tennessee Natural Gas Company's Compressor Station 3313 in Rural Retreat, Virginia? A1: Yes. EPA approves this request under NSPS subpart GG because it understands that there will be no change in fuel quality since there is no change in fuel source. Q2: Does EPA approve a sampling location, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, where the system's three major lines connect? A2: Yes. Because the ownership of East Tennessee Natural Gas Company was transferred from El Paso Energy Corporation
(EPE)to a subsidiary of Duke Energy Gas Transmission, EPA approves a new sampling location at Topside Junction Metering and Control Station in Knoxville County, where the system's three major lines connect. Abstract for [M050043] Q: Does EPA approve alternative monitoring parameters and parameter values for “closed” biological treatment systems, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, at the Smurfit (formerly Stone Container Corporation) pulp and paper mill in Hopewell, Virginia? A: Yes. EPA approves the request because the facility has adequately demonstrated it meets the requirements of MACT subpart S through both continuous monitoring of the proposed four parameters and continuous monitoring to ensure that UNOX oxygen purity is maintained at 96 percent maximum. Abstract for [M050044] Q1: Does EPA approve the primary product determination for specific production vessels and precompliance report for pilot vessels, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPP, for the CRODA Manufacturing facility in Mill Hall, Pennsylvania? A1: Yes. EPA approves the request under MACT subpart PPP because it accepts CRODA's conclusion that specific production vessels that do not manufacture a polyether polyol as the primary product are not polyether polyol manufacturing units. Q2: Does EPA agree that products manufactured with epoxides do not meet the definition of a polyether polyol in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPP? A2: Yes. EPA agrees that products that do not meet the definition of polyether polyol in MACT subpart PPP are not subject to the requirements of that subpart. Abstract for [M050045] Q: Does EPA approve the use of alternative monitoring parameters and parameter values to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart S for “closed” biological treatment systems at the St. Laurent Paperboard facility in West Point, Virginia? A: Yes. EPA approves the request because the facility has adequately demonstrated that the alternative monitoring parameters meet the requirements of MACT subpart S. Abstract for [0500076] Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for Millennium Inorganic Chemicals' Hawkins Point plant in Baltimore, Maryland? A: Yes. EPA approves this request in accordance with its August 14, 1987 custom fuel monitoring schedule memorandum, and provided that pipeline quality natural gas is the only fuel being burned. Abstract for [0500077] Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, apply to rotary calciners that are used in the production of mullite with kyanite as the raw material at Kyanite Mining Corporation
(KMC)facilities? A: No. NSPS subpart UUU applies to calciners and dryers at “mineral processing plants,” i.e., a facility that processes or produces one or more of the seventeen specifically named minerals listed in 40 CFR 60.731, their concentrates, or mixtures which contain greater than 50 percent of any of these listed minerals. EPA understands that silica is formed as a by-product during the kyanite calcining process at KMC in quantities that do not constitute the majority (greater than 50 percent) of any of the minerals processed or produced at KMC. Abstract for [M050046] Q: Is a facility which primarily applies finishing to architectural wood molding materials subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK? A: No. While EPA believes that the definitions in 40 CFR 63.822 are intended to be broadly applied and inclusive, we have determined that rotogravure printing on wood molding was not intended to be regulated under this rule. The facility does not produce saleable paper products and does use a flexographic press in its finishing operations. It therefore does not qualify as “publication rotogravure printing” as that term is defined in 40 CFR 63.822. However, EPA has determined that the molding finishing operations at the facility would be regulated under 40 CFR 43 Subpart QQQQ, the Wood Building Products MACT, if the molding products “finished” at the facility are not included within the category of surface coating (or other operations specifically excluded under 40 CFR 63.4681(c)(1)-(5)) and are more than 50 percent by weight wood. Abstract for [0500078] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for the Liberty Electric Power facility in Eddystone Borough, Pennsylvania? A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring plan request under NSPS subpart GG, consistent with previous determinations that provide for the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems
(CEMS)equipment to continuously monitor compliance with the standard for nitrogen oxides. Abstract for [0500079] Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for the Liberty Electric Power facility in Eddystone Borough, Pennsylvania? A: Yes. EPA approves this custom fuel monitoring schedule under NSPS subpart GG in accordance with its August 14, 1987 custom fuel monitoring schedule memorandum, and provided that natural gas is the only fuel fired in the gas turbine. Abstract for [0500080] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative test method request for performance testing of (nitrogen oxides) NO <sup>X</sup> emission limitations for two gas turbine/duct burner combined cycle units, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, at the Liberty Electric Power facility in Eddystone Borough, Pennsylvania? A: Yes. EPA approves this request under NSPS subpart GG based on a review by the Emission, Monitoring, and Analysis Division
(EMAD)of the Office on Air Quality, Planning and Standards, and subject to the conditions specified in the EMAD memorandum (C304-02) dated April 5, 2002. Abstract for [0500081] Q1: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for the Tenaska Virginia Generating Station in Fluvanna County, Virginia? A1: Yes. EPA approves this custom fuel monitoring schedule under NSPS subpart GG in accordance with its August 14, 1987 custom fuel monitoring schedule memorandum, and provided that pipeline quality natural gas is the only fuel being burned (see ADI Control Number NS33). Q2: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, that provides for the use of CEMS equipment to continuously monitor compliance with the standards for nitrogen oxides for the Tenaska Virginia Generating Station in Fluvanna County, Virginia? A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan request under NSPS subpart GG, based upon its consistency with previous determinations made by the Agency and conditions necessitating specific additional requirements for recordkeeping and monitoring. Abstract for [0500082] Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR part 60 subpart GG, for Energy System North East's Cogeneration Plant in North East, Pennsylvania? A: Yes. EPA approves this custom fuel monitoring schedule under NSPS subpart GG in accordance with its August 14, 1987 custom fuel monitoring schedule memorandum, and provided that pipeline quality natural gas is the only fuel being burned. Abstract for [0500083] Q: Does EPA waive the opacity monitoring requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db for a wood-fired boiler at the Homanit USA plant in Montgomery County, North Carolina? A: No. EPA finds that neither NSPS subpart Db nor the NSPS general provisions in subpart A provide the authority to completely waive the applicable opacity monitoring requirement of NSPS subpart Db. However, based upon the low probability that there will be any opacity in the regenerative thermal oxidizer stack downstream of the boiler, EPA would be willing to consider an opacity monitoring alternative. Abstract for [0500084] Q: Does EPA approve use of an alternative path length correction factor, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, based on width rather than equivalent diameter for the continuous opacity monitoring system on three rectangular exhaust stacks at the 3M facility in Moncure, North Carolina? A: Yes. EPA approves this request. EPA finds the alternative path length correction factor is acceptable under NSPS subpart UUU because of the high bias in the opacity data created by using equivalent diameter. Abstract for [0500085] Q: Does EPA waive the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da requirement to conduct a stack test in order to determine compliance with the applicable sulfur dioxide limit for a duct burner at Cogentrix Energy's Caledonia Power Station? A: Yes. EPA waives the NSPS subpart Da requirement based upon the margin of compliance, provided that the unit is fired with only pipeline quality natural gas. Abstract for [0500086] Q: Does EPA allow collection of Tier 2 samples from the active gas collection systems, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the Prairie Bluff Landfill in Chickasaw County, Mississippi, and the Little Dixie Landfill in Madison County, Mississippi? A: Yes. Based upon NSPS subpart WWW revisions promulgated on October 17, 2000, EPA finds the proposed Tier 2 sampling sites to be acceptable, provided that they are located prior to any gas moving or condensate removal equipment. In addition, at least three samples must be collected from the proposed sampling site at each of the landfills in question. Abstract for [0500087] Q1: Does EPA approve the proposed alternative oxygen concentration limit for 16 wells, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the Deans Bridge Road Landfill operated by the Augusta, Georgia Public Works and Engineering Department? A1: Yes. EPA approves the proposed alternative concentration limit under NSPS subpart WWW because the temperature monitoring data for the wells in question indicate that oxygen levels greater than five percent have not poisoned methane producing bacteria. Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW to conduct methane surface concentration monitoring in a closed 52-acre section of the landfill? A2: No. Because NSPS subpart WWW requires that methane surface concentration monitoring in closed areas be conducted at least annually, EPA concludes that the requirement to conduct this monitoring cannot be waived. However, the monitoring frequency can be reduced from a quarterly to an annual basis if none of the methane concentration readings in the closed section of the landfill were 500 parts per million or more during the June 2003 monitoring period. Abstract for [0500088] Q: Does EPA approve an opacity monitoring alternative for two glass melting furnaces, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart CC, at the Anchor Glass Company's Warner Robbins, Georgia plant? A: No. EPA does not approve this request under NSPS subpart CC. Based upon the results of testing conducted on both furnaces, there does not appear to be a consistent relationship between particulate emission rates and the operating parameter (bridgewall temperature) that Anchor Glass proposed to monitor in lieu of installing, certifying, and operating a continuous emission monitoring system. Abstract for [0500089] Q: Does EPA find that the 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR monitoring procedures are an acceptable alternative to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN requirements for volatile organic compound
(VOC)excess emission monitoring at the distillation operation in Celanese Acetate's plant in Rock Hill, South Carolina? A: Yes. EPA finds that the NSPS subpart RRR monitoring procedures are an acceptable alternative to the monitoring procedures required under NSPS subpart NNN in this case. The NSPS subpart RRR requirement to monitor diversions from the control device accomplishes the same end as the NSPS subpart NNN requirement to monitor the flow to the control device. In addition, based upon information in the preamble to the final rule promulgating NSPS subpart RRR, monitoring the combustion temperature for boilers and process heaters, although required under NSPS subpart NNN, is not necessary when a VOC vent stream is introduced with the primary fuel for the boiler or heater. Abstract for [0500090] Q: Does EPA approve the use of Gas Producers Association
(GPA)Method 2265, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, to measure the sulfur content of natural gas burned in turbines at the Clarksdale Public Utilities Crossroads Power Plant? A: Yes. EPA approves this request to use GPA Method 2265 for monitoring natural gas sulfur content under NSPS subpart GG because it is an acceptable alternative similar to American Society for Testing Materials
(ASTM)methods for measuring sulfur content and consistent with several other past determinations. Abstract for [0500091] Q: Does EPA require requests for approval of an alternative fuel usage recordkeeping schedule to be submitted to EPA for review, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, especially routine requests for natural gas and distillate oil-fired boilers? A: No. Requests of this type do not have to be submitted exclusively to EPA for review. Because of the routine nature of such requests, review on a case-by-case basis at the Regional level slows down the approval without providing any environmental benefit. The low fuel emissions from natural gas and distillate oil-fired boilers means that monthly fuel usage recordkeeping frequencies are typically appropriate to verify these sources' compliance. Additionally, proposals to apportion total fuel usage between multiple units with a common fuel flow meter do not have to be submitted to EPA for review if the apportionment approach is at least as accurate as one that EPA approved for several plants operated by Tyson Foods in Region 5 in a determination dated May 1, 2001 (ADI control number 010005), which was attached to EPA's response. Abstract for [0500092] Q: Does EPA waive the requirement, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart LL, to perform visible emissions tests on several affected facilities located inside a building at the Treibacher Schleifmittal grit plant in Andersonville, Georgia? A: Yes. EPA waives the NSPS subpart LL requirement to conduct separate visible emission tests on each of the fugitive emission sources inside the facility because the results of EPA Method 22 observations conducted on the exterior of the building provide adequate assurance of compliance for the facilities located inside. Abstract for [0500093] Q: Does EPA approve the opacity, sulfur dioxide (SO <sup>2</sup> ), and nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) alternative monitoring proposals, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart D, for the Number 2 Bark Boiler at Riverwood International's kraft pulp mill in Macon, Georgia? A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring proposals concerning opacity, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides under NSPS subpart D. EPA finds monitoring of the scrubber liquor flow rate and scrubber pressure drop to be an acceptable alternative to using continuous opacity monitors (COMS). Additionally, monitoring the pH of the scrubber liquor when coal is fired is an acceptable alternative to an SO <sup>2</sup> CEMS. Furthermore, performing annual boiler tune-ups and conducting annual NO <sup>X</sup> performance tests is reasonable assurance of compliance with the applicable NO <sup>X</sup> emission limits in subpart D in lieu of a NO <sup>X</sup> CEMS. Abstract for [0500094] Q: Does EPA approve a request to modify the current opacity monitoring alternative, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for a boiler at Georgia Pacific's plywood plant in Monticello, Georgia, by deleting one of the three parameters currently monitored as an indicator of scrubber performance? A: Yes. EPA approves the request under NSPS subpart Db to drop the water supply pressure monitoring requirement. Based on facts submitted to EPA, monitoring both water flow rate and supply pressure at this plant is unnecessary. In addition, several other NSPS subparts, including OOO and UUU, require only pressure drop and water flow rate monitoring. Abstract for [0500095] Q1: Does EPA approve a proposal to use passive flares on a temporary basis (not to exceed 18 months), under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at Waste Management's Live Oak Landfill in DeKalb County, Georgia? A1: Yes. EPA approves the proposed flares under NSPS subpart WWW, provided that they are used only in areas where liners have been installed on the sides and bottom of the landfill in accordance with 40 CFR 258.40. This determination is based upon the design of the proposed flares, each of which must include a pilot flame, thermocouple, a thermocouple to monitor the temperature at the flare tip, and a data logger to record the thermocouple data. Q2: Does EPA waive the 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW performance testing requirement for the passive flares at Waste Management's Live Oak Landfill in DeKalb County, Georgia? A2: No. EPA does not waive the NSPS subpart WWW performance testing requirement for the passive flares because flare design flow rate data and information regarding typical landfill gas composition do not provide a sufficient basis for a waiver. To obtain such a waiver, the facility must test a portion of the flares that it installs and submit the results of the test to EPA for review. Abstract for [0500096] Q: Does EPA approve American Society for Testing Materials
(ASTM)Method D 6667-01 as an alternative method, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for monitoring the sulfur content of natural gas burned in three gas turbines at the Williams Pipeline site in Coden, Alabama? A: Yes. EPA has previously approved the proposed alternative method under NSPS subpart GG for measuring natural gas sulfur content at more than twenty separate turbine installations nationwide in lieu of the four ASTM methods for determining the sulfur content of gaseous fuels listed in 40 CFR 60.335(d). Abstract for [0500097] Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to temporarily abandon gas collection wells during vertical expansion in active areas that have held waste for five years or more, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at Waste Management's Live Oak Landfill in DeKalb County, Georgia? A: No. EPA does not approve under NSPS subpart WWW the proposal to disconnect the wells for a six to twelve month period while a vertical expansion is taking place because it would constitute a relaxation of the applicable emission standard. Abstract for [0500098] Q1: Does EPA allow Clayton County, Georgia, which missed the deadline for a Tier 2 retest at its SR3 Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, to have the option of conducting another Tier 2 test prior to the deadline for submittal of a gas collection and control
(GCCS)system design plan under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc? A1: Yes. EPA has determined that additional Tier 2 testing can be conducted any time prior to the deadline for installation of a GCCS (30 months after the landfill's nonmethane organic compound emission rate exceeds 50 megagrams per year), provided that a design plan is submitted by the applicable deadline (12 months after the landfill's nonmethane organic compound emission rate exceeds 50 megagrams per year). Q2: Could EPA clarify whether the results of initial Tier 2 testing in 1998 or of a Tier 2 retest in 2003 should be used for calculating the 2003 nonmethane organic compound
(NMOC)emission rate, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc, at the Clayton County, Georgia, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill? A2: Once the deadline for Tier 2 retesting has passed, NMOC emission rates under NSPS subpart WWW must be calculated using the 4000 part per million default value, unless additional Tier 2 testing is done. If additional testing is done, the NMOC concentration results from this retest, rather than the default value, would apply for calculating the NMOC emission rate for year 2003. Abstract for [0500099] Q: Does EPA approve a proposal for shortening the visible emission
(VE)observation from three hours to one hour for conveyor drop points, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y, at DTE Energy Services' coal preparation plant in Belews Creek, North Carolina? A: Yes. EPA approves the request to shorten the VE observation time to one hour when no individual opacity readings exceed 15 percent during the first hour of readings. Demonstrating that opacity levels do not exceed 15 percent of the applicable limit for an entire hour will provide adequate assurance of compliance with the opacity limit in NSPS subpart Y. Abstract for [0500100] Q: Could EPA verify whether a continuous opacity monitoring system
(COMS)located on a replacement stack for a boiler at Trigen Biopower in Caldwell, North Carolina, should be subject, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, to certification requirements in the latest version of Performance Specification 1 (PS-1)? A: Yes. EPA finds that under NSPS subpart Dc, the COMS is subject to the latest PS-1 certification requirements. Installing the monitor on the replacement stack constitutes relocation because a replacement stack is likely to differ in some respects from the original stack, and there is no way to be absolutely sure two stacks are completely identical. Relocating a COMS is one of the conditions requiring monitor certification in the August 10, 2000 version of PS-1. Abstract for [0500101] Q: Does EPA waive the requirement to conduct a performance test on a flare that controls volatile organic compound
(VOC)emissions from air oxidation and distillation operations, under 40 CFR part, 60 subparts III and NNN, at Albemarle Corporation's chemical plant in Orangeburg, South Carolina? A: Yes. EPA waives the performance requirement under NSPS subparts III and NNN. Information supplied by the company demonstrates that the flare tip velocity will be less than 50 percent of the applicable limit even if the total volume of reactants for the hydrogen cyanide production unit were vented through the control device. Hence, the velocity limit promulgated in 40 CFR 60.18(c)(3)(i)(A) will not be exceeded. Abstract for [0500102] Q: Does EPA waive the requirement to install gas collection wells in active landfill areas that have held waste for five years or more, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the Central Disposal Facility in Brevard County, Florida? A: No. EPA does not waive this requirement. Such a waiver would constitute an unacceptable relaxation of the emission standards of NSPS subpart WWW because landfill gas that would be collected and routed to control equipment under the rule's provisions would instead be released to the atmosphere without controls. Abstract for [0500103] Q1: Does EPA waive the requirement to conduct an initial performance test, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, on two of the three combustion turbines at Forsyth Energy Project's
(FEP)plant in Forsyth County, North Carolina? A1: Yes. EPA grants this waiver request. Under the conditions proposed by FEP, EPA finds the test results for one of the three identical turbines will provide adequate assurance that the other two units also comply with NSPS subpart GG. Additionally, the use of nitrogen oxides continuous emissions monitors (NO <sup>X</sup> CEMS) at FEP provides a further source of credible evidence regarding the compliance for all three turbines following the initial testing. Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement to keep records of the annual capacity factor, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for FEP's auxiliary boiler? A2: Yes. EPA waives this requirement. EPA finds that since the company is not seeking an exemption from the nitrogen oxides limit under NSPS subpart Db, there is no regulatory need for information regarding the auxiliary boiler's annual capacity factor. Abstract for [0500104] Q: Does EPA approve the shortening in duration of the initial opacity performance test, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, from three hours to one hour if there are no opacity readings greater than ten percent during the initial hour of observations on three oil-fired boilers at the RJ Reynolds plant in Tobaccoville, North Carolina? A: Yes. EPA approves the request under NSPS subpart Dc based upon the expectation that there will be a low variability in opacity levels when oil is used to fire these boilers. The test duration can be shortened to one hour for any of the boilers that does not have individual opacity readings exceeding 10 percent for each of the 15-second visible emissions readings taken during the first hour of observations. Abstract for [0500105] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative hydrogen sulfide (H <sup>2</sup> S) monitoring proposal, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, submitted for refinery fuel gas burned in a reformer furnace at the Air Products and Chemicals Catlettsburg, Kentucky hydrogen plant? A: Yes. EPA approves under NSPS subpart J the proposed H <sup>2</sup> S alternative monitoring plan. The hydrogen sulfide content of the reformer's fuel gas and fuel gas streams is inherently low, and Air Products has an economic incentive to keep these levels low in order to prevent poisoning the hydrogen reformer catalyst. Abstract for [0500106] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative span value of 70 percent, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart D, proposed for two hog fuel boilers at Weyerhaeuser's Kraft pulp mill in Plymouth, North Carolina? A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed alternative span value under NSPS subpart J because it will not interfere with the facility's ability to identify and report emissions' exceedances for opacity as stated in 40 CFR 60.45(g)(1). In addition, the proposed alternative span value for the hog fuel boilers will improve the overall effectiveness of Weyerhaeuser's continuous opacity monitoring systems
(COMS)quality assurance program by ensuring that all five units with COMS at the Plymouth mill have the same span value. Abstract for [0500107] Q: Does EPA waive the requirement to conduct an initial performance test on two existing baghouses used to control particulate emissions from materials handling equipment, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO, at the Monarch Ceramic Tile plant in Florence, Alabama? A: No. EPA does not approve this request under NSPS subpart OOO. Given the increase in particulate loading at the baghouse inlet and the amount of time elapsed since the last performance test, prior test results do not provide adequate assurance of compliance for new equipment being added to the plant. Abstract for [0500108] Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring plan for opacity as proposed for a backup package boiler for additional steam generation, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, at the Jefferson Smurfit linerboard mill in Fernadina Beach, Florida? A: No. Although EPA has approved proposals for the monitoring of opacity using visible emissions data collection instead of using a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS), the proposed alternative monitoring plan includes provisions which are not acceptable to ensure continuous compliance. The specific provisions that must be removed from this proposal before it can be approved by EPA include requests for making opacity readings only on days when the boiler operates for more than six hours, and those provisions that eliminate opacity readings on weekends and holidays. Also, if the company seeks an exemption from monitoring during periods when weather conditions make it impractical to collect opacity data, the proposal must be revised to identify the very specific conditions under which such an exemption could be justified. Abstract for [0500109] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring proposal, under 40 CFR part 60, subparts H, T, U and V, using English units of measure, rather than metric units of measure, for facilities at the U.S. Agri-Chemicals plant in Polk County, Florida? A: Yes. With regard to NSPS subpart H; EPA approval for the use of English units is not required, as the applicable monitoring provisions in the rule do not specifically require the use of metric units. Although the monitoring provisions in NSPS subparts T, U, and V require that feed rate data be expressed in metric units (i.e., megagrams per hour), EPA approves using English units (tons per hour) to satisfy these requirements because the fluoride emission limits in these rules are expressed in both metric and English units, and this does not hinder a compliance determination. Abstract for [0500110] Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to use an automated system to distinguish between gasoline truck tanks and diesel truck tanks, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX, in order to bypass the vapor recovery unit
(VRU)during diesel loading at the Marathon Ashland Petroleum
(MAP)bulk gasoline terminal in Knoxville, Tennessee? A: Based on the information submitted, EPA cannot approve the proposed alternative monitoring plan at this time. However, the concept behind the proposal has merits. For further consideration of the alternative monitoring plan, MAP must submit to EPA additional information including: A demonstration that volatile organic compound
(VOC)concentrations differ enough between different loading scenarios for a continuous monitor to tell when diesel trucks are being loaded; data regarding VOC monitor response time; and details regarding the quality assurance/quality control procedures for the continuous monitor. Abstract for [0500111] Q1: Does EPA approve the use of EPA Method 22, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UU, as an alternative to EPA Method 9 for determining compliance with the opacity standard for mineral handling and storage facilities at the TAMKO Roofing Products plant in Clay County, Florida? A1: No. EPA Method 22 is not an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 because it determines the total duration of visible emissions during the test period but does not record opacity levels when visible emissions are present. Therefore, the use of EPA Method 22 makes it impossible to determine the magnitude of any violations under NSPS subpart UU. Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement to conduct opacity performance testing, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UU, on mineral surge tanks and limestone surge tanks located inside a building at the TAMKO Roofing Products plant in Clay County, Florida? A2: No. EPA denies this waiver request. The applicable opacity standard in NSPS subpart UU applies to tanks located inside a building. EPA Method 9 can be performed inside buildings. Furthermore, in order to obtain approval for an opacity performance test waiver, the facility must supply information that could be used to demonstrate compliance through other means. No such information was provided in this request. Abstract for [0500112] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring proposal, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, for maintaining records of startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions periods only when there are occurrences of excess emissions at the Eastman Chemical plant in Kingsport, Tennessee? A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative recordkeeping proposal under NSPS general provisions, subpart A, because the primary use for these records is to determine the applicability of the provisions in 40 CFR 60.8(c). Thus, limiting recording of emissions data at this type of facility during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction only when there are occurrences of excess emissions is acceptable and should not affect identifying compliance violations. Abstract for [0500113] Q: Does EPA approve the use of sensory means (i.e., sight, sound, and smell) as an acceptable alternative, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, to using EPA Method 21 for detecting leaks from equipment in acetic acid service at the Eastman Chemical plant in Kingsport, Tennessee? A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative under NSPS subpart VV because prior monitoring results submitted by the facility show that the number of leaks identified using sensory methods for equipment in acetic acid service has been significantly higher than the number detected using solely EPA Method 21. Also, all of the previous leaks found using EPA Method 21 would have been detected if only sensory methods had been used. Abstract for [0500114] Q1: Does EPA approve a reduction in the duration of visible emission testing, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y, for conveyor belt transfer points at Eastman Chemical Company's (Eastman) plant in Kingsport, Tennessee? A1: Yes. EPA approves the request under NSPS subpart Y to shorten the test duration from three hours to one hour if no individual readings exceed 20 percent and no more than three individual readings equal 20 percent during the first hour of observations. Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement to enter a building and conduct separate visible emission tests, under 40 CFR part 60, subparts Y and OOO, on several conveyor belt transfer points if 75 minutes of EPA Method 22 observations indicate that there are no fugitive emissions from the building? A2: Yes. EPA waives the requirement under NSPS subparts Y and OOO to conduct separate visible emission tests for the conveyor belt transfer points because the use of Method 22 to verify that there are no fugitive emissions from the building offers adequate assurance of compliance for the facilities inside. Abstract for [0500115] Q: Does EPA approve a proposed alternative surface methane concentration monitoring frequency, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, for a Class III area at the North County Resource Recovery Facility operated by the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Florida? A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative under NSPS subpart WWW because methane generation rates in the Class III area are expected to be low given the types of waste (construction demolition debris, trash, paper, and glass) placed there, and because no methane was detected during five successive quarterly monitoring periods. However, as this landfill is still active, the condition for this approval is that a methane concentration of 250 ppm, rather than 500 ppm, will be used as a trigger for reverting back to a quarterly methane surface monitoring frequency. Abstract for [0500116] Q1: Does EPA approve the option for landfill facilities to conduct additional Tier 2 testing, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, if an annual report indicates that the nonmethane organic compound
(NMOC)emission rate calculated with previous Tier 2 results exceeds 50 megagrams/year? A1: Yes. EPA approves this request because, as Tier 2 testing is conducted every five years and NSPS subpart WWW requires periodic retesting, it would be inconsistent and unreasonable to deny facilities the option of conducting additional testing that might improve the accuracy of test data. With additional testing, NMOC emission rates calculated with new Tier 2 data will be more representative of current conditions than results calculated using older data. Q2: Does the presence of an existing gas collection and control system
(GCCS)affect NMOC emission rate calculations under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW? A2: No. The presence of an existing GCCS does not affect the NMOC emission rate calculations under NSPS subpart WWW. The variables specified in 40 CFR 60.754(a)(1) for calculating NMOC emission rates are not associated with GCCS operation. Depending on the calculated NMOC emissions rate, the facility may be required to submit a design plan for existing or planned control systems for gas emission within a specified timeframe. Abstract for [0500117] Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to conduct monthly oxygen concentration monitoring at the inlet to the flare, rather than at each individual well, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart CC, at Onyx Waste Services' Pecan Road Landfill in Valdosta, Georgia. A: No. EPA does not approve the proposed alternative monitoring location under NSPS subpart CC because it is downstream of the point where the gas from all the wells in the collection system combines. No conclusions regarding the performance of individual wells can be drawn from the results at this monitoring location. In addition, maintaining an oxygen concentration of 5 percent or less at the flare inlet will not provide assurance that all wells comply with subpart CC. Abstract for [0500118] Q: Does EPA approve the alternative opacity monitoring proposed, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart CC, for two glass melting furnaces at the Anchor Glass Company plant in Warner Robbins, Georgia? A: EPA may approve the proposal if remaining issues can be resolved. Although the proposal to monitor furnace bridgewall temperature as an alternative to installing a continuous opacity monitoring system
(COMS)under NSPS subpart CC appears reasonable, there are several issues that need to be resolved before the proposal can be approved. These issues include: the appropriate margin of compliance with the applicable particulate emission standard if a COMS is not used; the possibility that natural gas usage rates will need to be monitored in addition to bridgewall temperatures, and what constitute excess emissions. Abstract for [0500119] Q: Could EPA clarify whether the addition of in-line blending equipment to a loading rack at the Magellan Midstream Partners (Magellan) bulk gasoline terminal in Greensboro, North Carolina, would trigger the requirement for a retest, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX, on the vapor recovery unit
(VRU)that controls emissions during loading? A: No. EPA has determined that adding the in-line blending equipment does not automatically trigger VRU retest. The initial VRU test that the company conducted in February 2000 is the only test specifically required for sources subject to NSPS subpart XX. Although the Administrator can ask for a retest at anytime, EPA does not find it necessary to require a new test following the installation of the in-line blending equipment at Magellan's Greensboro terminal. Adding the in-line blending equipment did not increase the number of trucks that can be loaded simultaneously at the terminal. Also, there was a significant margin of compliance during the initial test. Abstract for [0500120] Q: Does EPA approve EPA Method 25A as an alternative to EPA Method 25, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart TT, for carbon absorber efficiency testing on a metal coil coating line at the Thermalex plant in Montgomery, Alabama? A: Yes. EPA approves EPA Method 25A as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 25 for control device efficiency testing where VOC concentrations in the control system exhaust are expected to be 50 ppm or less. In this case, the VOC concentration is expected to be approximately 10 ppm at the carbon absorber outlet which is acceptable. Abstract for [0500121] Q: Does EPA approve as an alternative to EPA Method 21, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, sensory means (i.e.>, sight, sound, smell) to identify leaks from equipment in acetic acid and/or acetic anhydride service at the Eastman Chemical Company facility in Kingsport, Tennessee? A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed alternative monitoring under NSPS subpart VV because monitoring results provided indicate that leaks from equipment are more easily identified through sensory methods than through EPA Method 21. The physical properties ( *i.e.* , high boiling points, high corrosivity, and low odor threshold) of acetic acid and acetic anhydride and the process conditions at the facility in question make sensory means preferable. Abstract for [0500122] Q: Does EPA approve a boiler derate proposal, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, based on changes made to the natural gas burner at North Carolina Baptist Hospital in Winston-Salem, North Carolina? A: Yes. EPA approves this proposal under NSPS subpart Db because it has determined that the proposed derate method, which includes installing new boiler tips limiting the heat input capacity to 100 mmBtu/hr and eliminating the burning of fuel oil, will reduce the capacity of the boiler and will comply with EPA's policy on derates. Abstract for [0500123] Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring procedure, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, for a spray tower scrubber at the Short Mountain Silica Company in Mooresburg, Tennessee? A1: Yes. EPA approves the proposed alternative under NSPS subpart UUU to monitor the scrubbing liquid supply pressure and scrubbing liquid flow rate rather than measuring the pressure loss of the gas stream through the scrubber and the scrubbing liquid flow rate. Because there is little pressure drop of the gas stream as it passes through the spray tower, pressure drop is not a good indicator of spray tower efficiency. Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, to conduct a performance test for a rotary dryer which serves as a backup for the fluidized bed dryer at the Short Mountain Silica Company in Mooresburg, Tennessee? A2: Yes. EPA approves the performance test waiver under NSPS subpart UUU because demonstration of compliance for the fluidized bed dryer also shows an acceptable level of compliance assurance for the rotary dryer. Abstract for [0500124] Q: Does EPA approve the use of nitrogen oxides continuous emission monitors (NO <sup>X</sup> CEMs), under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, as an alternative to the four-point load test for gas turbines at Cinergy's South Houston Green Power Site facility in Houston, Texas? A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring proposal under NSPS subpart GG, provided that the CEMs for NO <sup>X</sup> is capable of calculating a one-hour average NO <sup>X</sup> emissions concentrations corrected to 15 percent oxygen, and the facility submits reports of excess emissions and summary reports. Abstract for [0500125] Q: Does EPA approve a 90-day extension of the performance testing deadline, under 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and I, in light of weather conditions and material shortages that made it impossible for the Pavers Supply facility in Conroe, Texas, to run at full rates? A: No. EPA denies the request for a 90-day extension under NSPS subpart I. Concurring with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), EPA grants a 60-day extension pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(d). Abstract for [0500126] Q: Does EPA approve a span setting of 100 ppmv on an outlet continuous emission monitor (CEM), under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, for the sulfur dioxide (SO <sup>2</sup> ), CEMs for the fluid catalytic cracking unit wet gas scrubber
(WGS)at the Shell Oil Products refining facility in Deer Park, Texas? A: Yes. EPA approves under NSPS subpart JJ the span setting of 100 ppmv for the WGS outlet SO <sup>2</sup> CEMs, as it will be acceptable with respect to the 50 ppmv rolling seven day average. Abstract for [0500127] Q: Does EPA waive continuous emission monitor for the hydrogen sulfide (CEM H <sup>2</sup> S) stream monitoring, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, for the steam methane reformer unit pressure swing adsorption
(PSA)at Valero's Corpus Christi-West Plant, in Corpus Christi, Texas? A: Yes. EPA grants this waiver request under NSPS subpart J because it has determined that no CEM H <sup>S</sup> needs to be installed for the purpose of monitoring the H <sup>2S</sup> in the off-gas vent streams in the PSA routed to the reformer heater. Instead, the alternative parameter will be the total sulfur content of the combined feed to the sulfur vapor recovery
(SVR)unit. Abstract for [0500128] Q: Does EPA waive continuous emission monitor for the hydrogen sulfide (CEM H <sup>2</sup> S) stream monitoring, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, for the catalytic reformer unit heater fuel gas from fuel gas drums numbers 1 and 2 (which is a refinery and generates gas stream) at Valero's Corpus Christi-West Plant, in Corpus Christi, Texas? A: Yes. EPA grants this waiver request under NSPS subpart J because it has determined that no CEM H <sup>2</sup> S needs to be installed for the purpose of monitoring the H <sup>2</sup> S in the off-gas vent streams from fuel gas mixing drum #1 or #2 routed to the reformer heater. Instead, the alternative parameter will be the total sulfur content of the combined feed to the CRU unit. Abstract for [0500129] Q: Does EPA approve the use of an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, for the soil vapor extraction system
(SVE)at Western Refining's facility in El Paso, Texas? A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring proposal under NSPS subpart J to measure H <sup>2</sup> S content directly at the inlet to the internal combustion engine (ICE), which are components of the SVE system. Abstract for [0500130] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, for the catalytic reformer 1 unit (CR-1) at Motiva Enterprises' facility in Norco, Louisiana? The company proposes waiving the continuous monitoring system
(CMS)requirement for hydrogen sulfide (H <sup>2</sup> S) steam monitoring and instead monitoring the gas stream using EPA guidance on alternative monitoring plans for low sulfur refinery fuel gas streams. A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring under NSPS subpart J. No CMS needs to be installed for the purpose of monitoring the H <sup>2</sup> S in the make gas stream to the unit's heaters. Instead, H <sup>2</sup> S concentrations will be monitored using detection tubes. This determination is subject to the conditions set forth in the stipulated guidance in EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and February 13, 2001 (see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 0100037). Abstract for [0500131] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring for the hydrogen generation unit
(HGU)torvex catalytic converter, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at Motiva Enterprises' facility in Convent, Louisiana? A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring under NSPS subpart J. No CEM needs to be installed for the purpose of monitoring the H <sup>2</sup> S in the H <sup>2</sup> S Concentration Column overhead vent stream. Instead, the H <sup>2</sup> S concentration will be measured daily using detection tubes, with ranges and frequency as set forth in the stipulated guidance in EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and February 13, 2001 (see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 0100037). Abstract for [0500132] Q: Does EPA approve certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR, as alternative monitoring requirements, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, for DuPont's Sabine River Works facility in Orange County, Texas? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves use of the proposed provisions in NSPS subpart RRR as an alternative means of demonstrating compliance under NSPS subpart NNN for the specified distillation unit. As conditions of approval, the facility must comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for flow indicators in NSPS subpart RRR, and must maintain a schematic diagram for all related affected vent streams, collection system(s), fuel systems, control devices, and bypass systems as stated in 60.705(s). Abstract for [0500133] Q: Does EPA approve certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR, as alternative monitoring requirements, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, for DuPont's facility in La Porta, Texas? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves use of the proposed provisions in NSPS subpart RRR as an alternative means of demonstrating compliance under NSPS subpart NNN. As conditions of approval, the facility must comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for flow indicators in NSPS subpart RRR, and must maintain a schematic diagram for all related affected vent streams, collection systems, fuel systems, control devices, and bypass systems as stated in 40 CFR 60.705(s). Abstract for [0500134] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative performance specification procedure, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, allowing the use of seven consecutive unit operating days instead of seven consecutive calendar days for the calibration drift test period at Cottonwood Energy's facility in Deweyville, Texas? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use under NSPS subpart B of seven consecutive operating days for the calibration drift test period, based on previous EPA determinations and guidance that a seven consecutive operating day test is more stringent than a seven consecutive calendar day test. As a condition of this approval, if the continuous monitoring system CMS fails the seventh day test, the facility will repeat the entire test. Abstract for [0500135] Q1: Does EPA approve alternative monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for a cogeneration unit at Shell Chemical Company's facility in Geismar, Louisiana commensurate with past determinations? A1: No. EPA does not approve the alternative monitoring plan under NSPS subpart Db because the determination letter (ADI Control Number PS15), referenced in Shell's proposal, does not apply to the fuel records required by 40 CFR 60.49b. Q2: Does EPA approve an alternative reporting of nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) emissions requirements, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, where the NO <sup>X</sup> emission limit and excess emissions are reported on an average “steam generating unit operating day” basis, instead of a 30-day average for Shell Chemical Company's facility in Geismar, Louisiana? A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative reporting plan under NSPS subpart Db, provided that the records for the units specified in 40 CFR 60.49(b) are maintained on-site and are available at the request of any state or Federal agency inspector. Abstract for [M050047] Q: Does EPA consider the C-12 process area of INVISTA's Victoria Plant and its component chemical manufacturing process units (CMPUs) subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, the HON rule? A: No. As none of these units qualify for regulation under both 40 CFR 63.100(b) and 40 CFR 63.100(b)(1)-(2), the only way likely for the C-12 process area to qualify for regulation under 40 CFR 63.100 would be to conflate all CMPUs into a single CMPD. Since these units are not conflated into a single CMPD unit, these units are not subject to the HON Rule. This finding is consistent with a previous determination, ADI Control Number M960028. Abstract for [0500136] Q1: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, apply to the SP-1 and SP-2 distillation units at INVISTA's Victoria Plant? A1: No. Since the SP-1 and SP-2 units produce no products, by-products, or co-products, or intermediates listed in 40 CFR 60.667, NSPS subpart NNN does not apply to these two units. Q2: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, apply to a concentrated water wash
(CWW)system at INVISTA's Victoria Plant? A2: Yes. Since the CWW vents into the atmosphere, it is subject to NSPS subpart NNN. Abstract for [0500137] Q1: How does 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, apply to the fuel gas combustion devices (FGCDs) and fuel gases involved with operations at Koch Refining's Rosemount, Minnesota, refinery? A1: NSPS subpart J apply to an affected FGCD if the device combusts a “fuel gas,” that is, any gas that is generated at a petroleum refinery. To control sulfur oxide (SO <sup>X</sup> ) emissions into the atmosphere from affected FGCDs, NSPS subpart J limits the amount of hydrogen sulfide (H <sup>2</sup> S) allowed in the fuel gas burned in these devices. Except for fuel gas released to a flare as a result of relief valve leakage or other emergency malfunctions, a facility may not burn fuel gas containing greater than 230 mg/dscm of H <sup>2</sup> S in any affected FGCD. Q2: How does the process upset gas exemption of 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, apply to the flare gas recovery system in operation at Koch Refining's Rosemount, Minnesota, refinery? A2: The process upset gas exemption under NSPS subpart J applies only to extraordinary, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable upsets. Any gases released as a result of normal operations are not considered upset gases. The routine combustion of refinery gases in a FGCD, including flares and other waste gas disposal devices, do not qualify for the process upset gas exemption of the rule. Based on the background information of the rule, the term upset does not apply to normal operations. Therefore, the rule exempts the combustion of process upset gases in a FGCD, including the combustion in a flare of fuel gas that is released to the flare as a result of relief valve leakage or other emergency malfunction. However, the combustion/flaring of those exempted gases in an NSPS affected FGCD is still required to comply with the good air pollution control practices of 40 CFR 60.11(d), even when such FGCDs are exempt from the sulfur dioxide limit. Q3: How does NSPS subpart J apply to the various gas streams Koch Refining's Rosemount, Minnesota, refinery? A3: EPA has analyzed the 26 gas streams identified at the Koch Refining facility and has provided a finding for each of these streams based on the Agency's responses in A1 and A2, above. Abstract for [0500138] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR, part 60, subpart J, for fuel gases and fuel gas combustion devices (FGCDs) at Koch Refining's Rosemount, Minnesota, refinery? A: No. Based on the information submitted, EPA does not approve the proposed alternative monitoring plan for fuel gases and FGCDs since it needs to provide for good air pollution control practices to minimize flaring events. Dated: April 10, 2006. Michael M. Stahl, Director, Office of Compliance. [FR Doc. 06-3808 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 24
Traces to 24 documents
CFR
10 references not yet in our index
  • 16 USC 791a-825r
  • 40 CFR 60
  • 40 CFR 61
  • 40 CFR 82
  • 40 CFR 60.49
  • 40 CFR 63
  • 40 CFR 43
  • 40 CFR 63.4681(c)(1)
  • 40 CFR 258.40
  • 40 CFR 60.49(b)
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of open meeting
C.F.R.§ 385.211
C.F.R.§ 385.214
C.F.R.§ 157.10
C.F.R.§ 385.2001
U.S.C.§ 791
C.F.R.§ 385.210
C.F.R.§ 4.36
C.F.R.§ 4.30
C.F.R.§ 60.5
Cite16 USC 791a-825r
Cite40 CFR 60
Cite40 CFR 61
Cites 34 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.