Notices. Notice of Denial of a Petition for Waiver from Federal Preemption
51,879 words·~236 min read·
/register/2006/12/28/06-9937A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [Docket No. EE-RM-PET-100] Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products: California Energy Commission Petition for Exemption From Federal Preemption of California's Water Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of Denial of a Petition for Waiver from Federal Preemption. SUMMARY:
The Department of Energy (hereafter “DOE”) announces its denial, and the reasons therefore, of the California Energy Commission's Petition for Exemption from Federal Preemption of California's Water Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers (hereafter “California Petition”). DATES: A request for reconsideration of the denial must be received by DOE not later than January 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: A request for reconsideration must submitted, identified by docket number EE-RM-PET-100, by one the following methods: • Mail:
Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, Room 1J-018, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed original paper copy. • Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Room 1J-018, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this proceeding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121,
(202)586-0371, or e-mail: *Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov* ; or Francine Pinto, Esq., or Chris Calamita, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,
(202)586-7432 or
(202)586-1777, e-mail: *Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov* or *Christopher.Calamita@hq.doe.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Summary of Today's Action II. Background A. Energy Conservation Standards under EPCA B. Preemption of State Standards 1. DOE Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers 2. Waiver of Preemption 3. Legislative History C. California Petition III. Effective Date Requirements of EPCA IV. Analysis of the California Petition A. Necessity of State Regulation to Address Unusual and Compelling State Water Interests 1. Interests Substantially Different in Nature and Magnitude from those Prevailing in the United States Generally a. Consideration of “U.S. generally” b. Substantially different in nature or magnitude—analysis of California's water interests 2. Costs, Benefits, and Burdens of the State Regulation as Compared to Alternative Measures a. Cost benefit analysis b. Analysis of alternatives 3. Unusual and Compelling State Water Interests B. Impacts of California's Standards on Manufacturing, Marketing, Distribution, Sale or Servicing 1. Manufacturing and Distribution Costs 2. Effect on Competition and Smaller Entities 3. Redesign and Production 4. Proliferation of State Standards 5. Significant Impact on Manufacturing, Marketing, Distribution, Sale, or Servicing C. Availability of Product Performance Characteristics and Features 1. Top-Loading Residential Clothes Washers 2. Other Product Classes V. Denial VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Summary of Today's Action DOE is denying a petition submitted by the California Energy Commission
(CEC)for a waiver from Federal preemption of its residential clothes washer regulation contained in section 1605.2(p)(1) of the California Code of Regulations. 1 DOE is denying the petition for three separate and independent reasons. First, DOE is denying the petition because DOE does not have the statutory authority to prescribe a rule for California that would become effective by January 1, 2007, the first of two compliance dates contained in Title 20, section 1605.2(p)(1) of the California Code of Regulations. Section 327(d)(5)(A) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94-163, as amended)
(EPCA)requires that a final rule prescribed by DOE to grant a petition such as the California Petition must have an effective date at least three years following publication of the final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(5)(A)) The California Petition does not comply with the effective date criteria in EPCA, and CEC has not petitioned for an effective date other than that provided in the California regulation. CEC has provided information only in the context of the compliance dates of the California regulation, and has not provided the information necessary for DOE to promulgate a rule with an effective that would be compliant under EPCA, i.e., a rule with an effective date three years following the date of issuance. Therefore, DOE denies the California Petition's waiver request. 1 The Appliance Efficiency Regulations, (California Code of Regulations, Title 20, sections 1601 through 1608) dated January 2006, were adopted by the California Energy Commission on October 19, 2005, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 30, 2005. The Appliance Efficiency Regulations include standards for both federally-regulated appliances and non-federally-regulated appliances. Second, CEC has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the State of California has unusual and compelling water interests, a condition required by EPCA for DOE to grant California a waiver from Federal preemption. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(1)(B)) CEC did not provide sufficient support for what CEC alleges to be the costs and benefits of the California regulation presented in the petition. Further, CEC did not provide an appropriate analysis of non-regulatory alternatives for comparison to the California regulation. Without support for the likely costs and benefits associated with the California regulation and an appropriate alternatives analysis, DOE was unable to evaluate if the California regulation is “preferable or necessary” as compared to non-regulatory alternatives, which is a required showing in order for DOE to determine that an unusual and compelling water interest exists. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(1)(C)(ii)) Therefore, DOE cannot find that the California regulation is preferable or necessary as compared to non-regulatory alternatives, and denies the California Petition's waiver request. Third and finally, interested parties demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that the State of California regulation would likely result in the unavailability of a class of residential clothes washers in California. Commenters submitted to DOE information demonstrating that the 2010 water factor
(WF)standard would likely result in the unavailability of top-loader residential clothes washers in California. Thus, even if DOE had the authority to ignore or override the first effective date of the California regulation (i.e., 2007) and promulgate a rule that complied with the EPCA requirement that the rule not take effect for another three years, the rule would violate EPCA in another way, i.e., it would mandate the 6.0 WF standard in 2010, which would likely result in the unavailability of top-loader residential clothes washers. Therefore, under section 327(d)(4) of EPCA, DOE denies the California Petition's waiver request. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(4)) II. Background A. Energy Conservation Standards Under EPCA Part B of Title III of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) Products covered under the program, including residential clothes washers, are listed in section 322(a) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)) Section 325(g) of EPCA establishes energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers and authorizes DOE to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)) B. Preemption of State Standards Generally under the provisions of EPCA, where an energy efficiency standard is effective for a “covered product” under EPCA, including a standard for residential clothes washers, a State regulation concerning the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use of that product is preempted and is not effective. (42 U.S.C. 6297(c)) Section 322(a)(7) lists residential clothes washers as a product covered under Part B of Title III of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) DOE has established energy efficiency standards for residential clothes washers as a covered product under section 325(g)(4)(A), and those standards are currently in effect (10 CFR 430.32(g)). (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)(A)) Therefore, State regulations concerning the water use of residential clothes washers are preempted by the Federal standards. EPCA provides several provisions in which the Federal standards do not preempt State regulation, but for residential clothes washers the only applicable exception from the preemption provision is if a waiver is granted under section 327(d). (42 U.S.C. 6297(c)(2)) 1. DOE Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers The initial Federal efficiency standards prescribed in EPCA, as amended by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (Pub. L. No. 100-12) (NAECA), required an unheated rinse water option for residential clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 1988. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)) On January 12, 2001, DOE issued a final rule establishing energy efficiency standards for five product classes of residential clothes washers (hereafter referred to as “the January 2001 final rule”): top-loading compact; top-loading, standard; front-loading; top-loading, semi-automatic; and top-loading, suds-saving. 66 FR 3314. The January 2001 final rule established minimum energy efficiency standards, set forth in Table II.1, below, to become effective on January 1, 2004, and January 1, 2007. The January 2001 final rule constituted the second residential clothes washer rulemaking required by EPCA. DOE's standards for residential clothes washers are energy efficiency standards only; DOE has not set a water use requirement for residential clothes washers. 2 (10 CFR 430.32(g)) 2 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) amended EPCA with new energy efficiency and water conservation standards for commercial clothes washers. These new standards require products manufactured on or after January 1, 2007, to have a modified energy factor of at least 1.26 and a water consumption factor2 of not more than 9.5. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)) Table II.1.—Federal Residential Clothes Washer Standard Levels Product class Capacity (ft. 3 ) Modified energy factor (ft. 3 / kWh / cycle) Effective date 1/1/2004 Effective date 1/1/2007 Top-Loading, compact < 1.6 0.65 0.65 Top-Loading, standard ≥ 1.6 1.04 1.26 Front-Loading — 1.04 1.26 Top-Loading, Semi-automatic — Unheated rinse water option Unheated rinse water option Suds-saving — Unheated rinse water option Unheated rinse water option 2. Waiver of Preemption As stated above, Federal energy efficiency standards for residential products generally preempt State laws, regulations and other requirements concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and efficiency standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) Section 327(d) of EPCA sets forth the procedures and provisions for granting waivers from Federal preemption (hereafter “waiver”) for particular State laws or regulations. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) Section 327(d)(1)(A) of EPCA provides that any State or river basin commission with a State regulation regarding energy use, energy efficiency, or water use requirements for products regulated by DOE may petition for a waiver of Federal preemption and seek to apply its own State regulation. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(1)(A)) Regulations implementing the statutory provisions regarding petitions for waiver from Federal preemption are codified at 10 CFR part 430 subpart D. Section 327(d)(1)(B) of EPCA requires a petitioner to establish “by a preponderance of the evidence” that its proffered regulation “is needed to meet unusual and compelling State or local energy or water interests.” (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(1)(B)) “[U]nusual and compelling” interests are defined as interests which:
(i)Are substantially different in nature or magnitude than those prevailing in the United States generally; and
(ii)Are such that the costs, benefits, burdens, and reliability of energy or water savings resulting from the State regulation make such regulation preferable or necessary when measured against the costs, benefits, burdens, and reliability of alternative approaches to energy or water savings or production, including reliance on reasonably predictable market-induced improvements in efficiency of all products subject to the State regulation.” (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(1)(C)(i) and (ii)) The Secretary may not grant a waiver if he finds “that interested persons have established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that” the State regulation would “significantly burden manufacturing, marketing, distribution, sale, or servicing of the covered product on a national basis.” (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(3)) This is the case even if a State has sufficiently demonstrated the existence of “unusual and compelling interests.” To evaluate whether the State regulation will create a significant burden, the Secretary must consider “all relevant factors,” including the following:
(A)The extent to which the State regulation will increase manufacturing or distribution costs of manufacturers, distributors, and others;
(B)The extent to which the State regulation will disadvantage smaller manufacturers, distributors, or dealers or lessen competition in the sale of the covered product in the State;
(C)The extent to which the State regulation would cause a burden to manufacturers to redesign and produce the covered product type (or class), taking into consideration the extent to which the regulation would result in a reduction—
(i)In the current models, or in the projected availability of models, that could be shipped on the effective date of the regulation to the State and within the United States; or
(ii)In the current or projected sales volume of the covered product type (or class) in the State and the United States; and
(D)The extent to which the State regulation is likely to contribute significantly to a proliferation of State appliance efficiency requirements and the cumulative impact such requirements would have. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(3)(A) through (D)) The Secretary also may not grant a waiver if interested persons have established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that [T]he State regulation is likely to result in the unavailability in the State of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the State at the time of the Secretary's finding[.]” (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(4)) The failure of some classes (or types) to meet these statutory criteria shall not affect the Secretary's determination of whether to prescribe a rule for other classes (or types). ( *Id.* ) The phrase “any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics” is not clear on its face. (42 U.S.C. 6297(o)(4)) Grammatically, the phrase “of performance characteristics” appears to modify the term “product type” and the term “class.” While that phrase fits with the term “class,” it is ambiguous at best when read with the term “product type.” DOE interprets section 327(d)(4) consistent with a parallel provision in section 325(o)(4) which reads, [T]he standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) The similarity of the language regarding “covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics” in section 327(d)(4) and section 325(o)(4) indicates that this language should be read consistently between the two sections. Further, the similarity in function between these two sections supports a consistent reading. Section 325(o) establishes the criteria for prescribing new or amended Federal standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) In past discussions of section 325(o)(4), DOE has stated that it is prohibited from establishing a standard that the Secretary finds will result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretary's finding. 61 FR 36974, 36984 (July 15, 1996). Section 327(d) establishes the criteria for prescribing a rule that grants a waiver from preemption for a State regulation. Section 327(d)(4) prohibits DOE from prescribing such a rule if the rule would impact the availability of covered products. Concern with the impact of an efficiency standard on product availability is equally applicable for a State standard for which a waiver from preemption is requested, as it is with a Federal standard. Therefore, DOE sees no need or reason to interpret the “covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics” language differently in section 327(d)(4) than in section 325(o)(4). Furthermore, this interpretation of 327(d)(4) is consistent with the balance Congress apparently meant to strike between more stringent efficiency standards and consumer product choice. The Senate report accompanying NAECA states that DOE shall not “grant a waiver if interested persons show that the State regulation is likely to result in the unavailability in the State of a product type or of products of a particular performance class, such as frost-free refrigerators.” (S. Rep. No. 100-6, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987). at 2) A final reason for choosing this interpretation of section 327(d)(4) is that in response to the notice of receipt of the California Petition and request for comment (71 FR 6022; February 6, 2006) neither California nor any commenter in response to the California petition has suggested that DOE has misconstrued section 327(d)(4). If a petition for a waiver from Federal preemption is denied, the petitioner may “request reconsideration within 30 days of denial.” 10 CFR 430.48. The request must contain a statement of facts and reasons supporting reconsideration. DOE will only reconsider a denial of a petition where it is alleged and demonstrated that the denial was based on an error of law or fact and that evidence of the error is found in the record of proceedings. 10 CFR 430.48(b). 3. Legislative History The current waiver provisions are, in part, the result of amendments to EPCA under NAECA. In 1987, Congress passed NAECA which amended EPCA's provisions on petitions for waiver from Federal preemption under section 327(d). Under the original provisions, DOE could grant a petition only if it found that there was a “significant State or local interest to justify such State regulation” and that “such State regulation contains a more stringent energy efficiency standard than such Federal standard.” (S. Rep. No. 100-6, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987). at p. 40) Furthermore, DOE could not prescribe a rule if DOE found that “the State regulation would unduly burden interstate commerce.” ( *Id.* ) Under the NAECA revisions, the preemption provisions allow States to “petition DOE to be waived from Federal preemption, but achieving the waiver is difficult.” (S. Rep. No. 100-6, 100th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1987)at p. 2.) In addition, according to the Senate Report, the amended provision “provides new and more stringent criteria that a State must establish by a preponderance of the evidence in order to receive an exemption.” (S. Rep. No. 100-6, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987). at p. 9) For all of the above-mentioned criteria that DOE must consider in evaluating a petition, Congress placed the burden on the petitioner, interested parties supporting the petition, and interested parties opposing the petition, depending on the criteria, to establish facts and to meet the statutory criteria “by a preponderance of the evidence.” The California Petition is the first petition for a waiver of Federal preemption submitted under section 327(d) since Congress amended the preemption provisions in 1987. C. California Petition California Assembly Bill 1561, passed by the California legislature and signed into law in 2002, required CEC to adopt water efficiency standards for residential clothes washers by January 2004, and to file a petition with DOE for a waiver by April 2004. The California legislation also requires that residential clothes washers “be at least as water-efficient as commercial clothes washers.” (California Public Resources Code section 25402(e)) California currently requires that commercial clothes washers meet a maximum water factor
(WF)3 of 9.5 by January 1, 2007, the same standard as prescribed by Section 342 of EPCA. (20 C.C.R. 1605.3(p) and 42 U.S.C. 6313(e)) In 2004, CEC adopted water efficiency standards for top- and front-loading residential clothes washers, setting a two-tier standard of 8.5 WF effective January 1, 2007, and 6.0 WF effective January 1, 2010. (20 C.C.R 1605.2(p)(1)) (CEC, No. 1 at p. 3) 3 According to the California Code of Regulations (CCR); “Water factor” means the quotient of the total weighted per-cycle water consumption divided by the capacity of the clothes washer, determined using the applicable test method *** which is the same test method as prescribed by DOE (i.e., 10 CFR Part, 430 Subpart B, Appendix J1 for residential clothes washers). (20 C.C.R. 1602(p) and 1604(p)) On September 16, 2005, DOE received from CEC a petition dated September 13, 2005, for a waiver from Federal preemption pursuant to the requirements of section 327(d) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart D. However, by letter dated November 18, 2005, DOE notified CEC that its petition had failed to comply with certain requirements set out in 10 CFR 430.42(c). 4 In particular, the original petition had not included the statement required by 10 C.F.R. 430.42(c), on whether “[to the best knowledge of the petitioner] the same or related issue, act or transaction has been or presently is being considered or investigated by any State agency, department, or instrumentality.” CEC responded on December 5, 2005, and provided the required information, stating that it was aware of only its petition and the California standard the CEC adopted in 2004. (CEC, No. 2 at p. 2) By letter dated December 23, 2005, DOE notified CEC that it had accepted as complete the California Petition as supplemented. 5 4 Faulkner, D.L. Letter to Jonathan Blees. November 18, 2005. 5 Faulkner, D.L. Letter to Jonathan Blees. December 23, 2005. On February 6, 2006, DOE published a notice of receipt of the California Petition in the **Federal Register** (hereafter referred to as the “February 2006 notice”) and requested comments on the California Petition. (71 FR 6022) DOE received 78 comments on the California Petition, including more than 50 from California utilities, agencies, districts, water service districts, and cities. III. Effective Date Requirements of EPCA Section 327(d)(5)(A) of EPCA requires minimum lead times for any rule prescribed by DOE under the waiver provisions. In general, EPCA requires that, [N]o final rule prescribed by the Secretary under [the waiver provisions] may permit any State regulation to become effective with respect to any covered product manufactured within three years after such rule is published in the **Federal Register** or within five years if the Secretary finds that such additional time is necessary due to the substantial burdens of retooling, redesign, or distribution needed to comply with the State regulation. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(5)(A)) EPCA also establishes separate lead time requirements if a State regulation were to become effective prior to the earliest possible effective date for the initial amendment of the energy conservation standard established by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(5)(B)) This separate provision is not applicable to the case at hand, as the earliest possible effective date for the initially amended standard for residential clothes washers was January 1, 1993. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)(A)) As noted above, the California Petition requests a two-tier regulation with two effective dates: 8.5 WF effective January 1, 2007, and 6.0 WF effective January 1, 2010. (20 C.C.R 1605.2(p)(1)) The requested effective date of 2007 would not allow for the minimum three-year lead time required by EPCA. Further, it is not clear what impact a revised effective date would have on the analyses provided by CEC and interested parties. If the effective dates of the two-tiered standard were each set three years beyond that of the California regulation, or if the first tier were eliminated, the water savings and costs could be different from that presented in the California petition as well as in comments provided by interested parties. IV. Analysis of the California Petition A. Necessity of State Regulation To Address Unusual and Compelling State Water Interests As indicated above, in order for DOE to grant CEC's petition for a waiver from preemption, the State must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that its regulation is needed to meet unusual and compelling water interests. For such interests to exist, California's water interests must, first, be substantially different in nature or magnitude from those prevailing in the U.S. generally, and, second, be such that the State regulation is necessary or preferable to alternative approaches, evaluated in light of several specified factors. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(1)(C)) 1. Interests Substantially Different in Nature or Magnitude From Those Prevailing in the United States Generally a. Consideration of “U.S. generally”. In the February 2006 notice requesting comments on the California Petition, DOE asked whether it should interpret the phrase “in the United States generally” to include a comparison to both regional and national averages. 71 FR 6025. DOE received several comments on this issue, with differing opinions on whether simply a national comparison or also regional and local comparisons were appropriate. In its comments, the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and CEC (in its rebuttal comment) asserted that DOE should not use regional comparisons to assess whether California's water interests are substantially different. The SDCWA commented that “if Congress had intended for regional comparisons to apply, it would have stated this in [EPCA].” (SDCWA, No. 29 at p. 3) CEC emphasized that section 327(d)(1)(C)(i) of EPCA refers to “the United States generally.” (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(1)(C)(i)) CEC also challenged the relevancy of a comparison to individual States or cities and asserted that examining California's interests in the context of regions does not negate the unique water and energy costs experienced by the State of California. (CEC, No. 79 at pp. 3-4) The National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA)commented that it believes DOE should consider water use issues faced by other States on an individual basis or regions of the United States. Further, NEMA asserted that a comparison to other States on an individual basis and regions would help DOE to assess how unusual and compelling California's water interests are and the potential for the proliferation of State standards. (NEMA, No. 36, at p. 4) The Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association
(GAMA)and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
(AHAM)commented that a decision by DOE to grant the California standards could result in a proliferation of State waiver requests, if other States have similar situations to California's. In its comment, GAMA questioned whether California's water concerns are so substantially different in nature or magnitude from those of many other States. (GAMA, No. 38 at p. 2) In addition, AHAM argued that California's situation is similar to that in other regions, including other western States, and could thus result in a proliferation of State standards. (AHAM, No. 52 at p. 50) DOE interprets the term “U.S. generally” in section 327(d)(1)(C)(i) of EPCA as necessitating a comparison of a State's interests to national averages. The Webster's II, New Riverside University Dictionary
(1994)defines “generally” as “widely,” “usually,” and “in disregard of particular instances, and details.” The Random House College Dictionary
(1980)defines “generally” as “with respect to the larger part,” “usually, commonly,” and “without reference to or disregarding particular * * * situations * * * which may be an exception.” Based on the dictionary definition and plain meaning of “generally,” an evaluation of whether a State's interest is substantially different in nature or in magnitude calls for a comparison of the State's interests to the U.S. as a whole, instead of a comparison with discrete regions or specific States. Further, comparison of a State's interests to national averages is reasonable given the purpose of a waiver from preemption provisions in EPCA. The waiver of Federal preemption provisions provide for the establishment, in limited instances, of a State standard that is more stringent than a Federal, i.e., national standard. Essentially, the State must demonstrate that its energy or water interests are not adequately addressed by the Federal standard. Federal efficiency standards address, in part, the need for national energy conservation. (42. U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) Consideration of the need for national energy conservation requires DOE to analyze the interests of the Nation as a whole. DOE believes that in order for a State to demonstrate the State's need for a waiver, the State must demonstrate that State or local energy or water interests are substantially different in nature or magnitude than the national energy or water interests considered by DOE in establishing the Federal standard. Therefore, a State's interests must be compared to national averages, as opposed to regional averages or averages specific to sister States. While under the terms of EPCA the potential proliferation of State standards is an issue that DOE must consider, this issue is better addressed when conducting the necessary analysis of costs and burdens, not when considering the nature and magnitude of a State's water interests. When analyzing the costs and burdens, DOE must consider: The extent to which the State regulation is likely to contribute significantly to a proliferation of State appliance efficiency requirements and the cumulative impact such requirements would have. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(3)(D)) Additionally, if DOE were to grant a request for a waiver from Federal preemption, DOE believes that the potential burden from multiple State standards could be addressed, in part, through responses to individual waiver petitions. b. Substantially different in nature or magnitude—analysis of California's water interests. In its petition and its rebuttal to comments, CEC stated that California's water interests are substantially different in both nature and magnitude from those prevailing in the United States generally. (CEC, No. 1 at p. 5; CEC, No. 79 at p. 4) Several interested parties provided statements in support of CEC on this point. (CUWCC, No. 61 at p. 3; SDCWA, No. 29 at p. 4) CEC asserted that California's water interests are substantially different in nature than those prevailing in the U.S. generally. CEC stated that its water supplies are limited, noting that existing reservoirs are being drawn down in the face of drought, streams and groundwater supplies face overdraft, and under the terms of the Colorado River Agreement California will be able to draw less water from the Colorado River. (CEC, No. 1 at p. 11) CEC also stated that California has higher water rates than the U.S. in general, stating that a thousand gallons of water saved in California is valued on average at $3.15, compared to a national average of $2.88. (CEC, No. 1 at pp. 13) CEC stated that California's water distribution has one of the highest associated energy costs in the nation, and cited a report stating that California's water systems are uniquely energy intensive due to the pumping requirements for the major conveyance systems. (CEC, No. 1 at p. 14) CEC stated that associated energy values (e.g., the energy required to transport water) average 8.4 KWh per 1,000 gallons in Southern California and can be as high as 11 kWh per 1,000 gallons in California for marginal water supplies. CEC did not provide national averages for the associated energy, generally. However, CEC stated that the average rural household well in the U.S. requires 2.61 kWh per 1,000 gallons of delivered water, whereas California estimates range from 4.1 kWh to 6 kWh per 1,000 gallons. (CEC, No. 1 at pp. 14-15) Additionally, CEC asserted in its petition that the magnitude of California's water use is substantially different than that prevailing in the U.S. generally. CEC stated that California's total (fresh and saline) withdrawals exceed that of all other States at 51 billion gallons per year. CEC cited U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1268, “Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000-Table 2,” (revised February 2005), which estimates the average State withdrawal at 8.1 billion gallons per year. (CEC, No. 1 at pp. 5-6) CEC also stated that its projected population growth through 2025 is expected to be above the national median. (CEC, No. 1, at p. 6) CEC stated that U.S. Bureau of Census figures estimate the median growth rate for all States to be 20 percent through 2025. (Id.) Relying again on U.S. Bureau of Census figures, CEC stated that California's population is expected to increase by approximately 36 percent through 2025; increase from the current population of 36 million to 49 million in 2025. (Id.) CEC indicated that in addition to the water demands generated by its increasing population, the State's agricultural economy requires more water than compared to the U.S. generally. CEC stated that California has the highest amount of irrigated farm land of any State in the country—8.7 million acres, and that California has the largest proportion of irrigated farm land to total farm land (32 percent) in the country. (CEC, No. 1 at p. 7) While CEC presented information indicating that its water supplies are becoming limited and that the State faces high energy costs associated with water distribution, most of this information was not placed in the context of supply and costs on a national level. It may well be as CEC asserts that California is facing a drought and that reservoirs are being overdrawn, and that under the Colorado River Agreement California is required to decrease the amount of water it draws from the river. However, CEC failed to provide DOE with a comparison of California's supply problems to the Nation in general. Without such information, DOE is unable to determine if the nature of California's interests is different than the Nation in general. If the Nation on average, or substantial portions thereof, was facing a drought and water supplies were being overdrawn, California's interests would not be substantially different than the U.S. generally. Similarly, neither CEC nor comments supporting its petition, provided information regarding energy costs associated with water distribution on the national level. CEC did provide a comparison of energy costs for water drawn from rural wells, but this limited comparison was not sufficient to meet the “preponderance of evidence” burden established by EPCA. The water interests CEC is seeking to address through the proposed California regulation are much broader than those related to water demand from rural wells; i.e., the proposed California regulation would impact all consumers of residential clothes washers, not just those that rely on rural wells. With regard to the magnitude, DOE has determined that the California Petition demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that California's water interests are substantially different in magnitude from those faced by the U.S. generally. In analyzing the magnitude, as well as the nature, of a State's energy or water interests, DOE does not rely on any single factor in making a determination, but instead balances all of the relevant information presented. CEC presented evidence that the volumetric total demand for water in California is substantially greater than that of other States in the U.S. in general. As evidenced by data submitted by CEC, California's water withdrawal is over six times that of the national per-State average, 51 billions gallons per year as compared to 8.1 billion gallons per year. (CEC, No. 1 at pp. 5-6) The California Petition also indicated that water demand would likely increase as a result of population growth which is above the national median. (CEC, No. 1 at p. 6) Volumetric total demand in and of itself does not demonstrate a substantial difference in magnitude for the purpose of EPCA, but the total demand considered in conjunction with the likely increase in demand that will accompany California's projected population growth and the value of water saved demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that California's water interests are substantially different in magnitude than in the U.S. generally. If DOE were to consider only a State's total water demand in determining whether a State's water interests were substantially different in magnitude, more populous States would likely be able to demonstrate that their interests are substantially different in magnitude from the U.S. generally simply due to the fact that the State's population is greater than the average State population. This would be contrary to the general intent of the waiver provision, which is that it establishes a high bar for granting a waiver request. (See S. Rep. No. 100-6, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987). at p. 2) CEC has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that California's water interests are substantially different in magnitude from the U.S. generally by demonstrating that it has a volumetric total demand far greater than the national average—by far the largest demand in the Nation—and this demand is accompanied by a projected population increase that is above the median growth rate for all States, and an average value of water saved in California that is greater than the national average value of water saved. As stated above, CEC reported that California has higher water rates than the U.S. in general, an average of $ 3.15 per thousand gallons of water saved in California versus a national average of $2.88 per thousand gallons of water saved. (CEC, No. 1 at pp. 13) Conversely, the California Petition asserted that California's per capita water use (for all uses) is relatively low (CEC, No. 1 at p. 5) and according to the CUWCC, California consumers use less indoor water per capita than many other States. (CUWCC, No. 61 at p. 3) The per capita demand for water by the California residential sector would indicate that California's demand is not substantially different in magnitude from the U.S. in general, on a per capita basis. While per capita demand may be low in comparison to the national average, this fact alone is too narrow a basis to reject CEC's assertion that California's water interest is greater in magnitude than that of the U.S. generally. As stated above, DOE balances all of the factors presented by the petitioner and comments provided by interested parties in support of the petition. A per capita demand in California that was substantially higher than the average per capita demand for the U.S. generally would support a substantial difference in magnitude. However, a per capita demand in California that is lower than the national average per capita demand does not negate the fact that California faces a higher than average total volumetric demand, a projected population increase that is higher than generally projected for all of the States, and higher than average water rates. DOE based its determination on the full spectrum of information provided by CEC and various interested parties. As stated above, on balance with all of the water demand information provided, DOE has determined that the California Petition has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the magnitude of California's water interest is substantially different from the U.S. generally. The data regarding California's greater than average volumetric total demand, the likely increase in demand that will accompany a projected population growth that is higher than the median for all States, and the greater than average value of water saved (per thousand gallons of water) demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that California's water interests are substantially different in magnitude from the U.S. generally. The Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute
(ARI)asserted that the Senate provided direction on the meaning of “substantial” in the phrase “substantially different in nature or magnitude than those prevailing in the United States generally” in the 1987 Senate Report on NAECA. In particular, ARI cites the Senate's reference to a “3 to 10 year 'lock-in' period for the Federal standards except if the State can show that an 'energy emergency condition' exists within the State[.]” (S. Rep. No. 100-6, 100th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1987)at p. 2) (ARI, No. 35 at pp. 2-3) DOE does not agree with the assertion that a State must demonstrate that an emergency exists in order for DOE to find that a State's interests are substantially different in nature or magnitude from the U.S. generally. Section 327(d)(5)(B)(i) explicitly requires a showing of an emergency condition if DOE were to prescribe by final rule that a State regulation is to become effective prior to the earliest possible effective date of a Federal standard. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(5)(B)(i)) The statute establishes no such requirement for determining whether a State's water interests are “unusual and compelling.” DOE declines to read into section 327 an additional requirement, i.e., the existence of an emergency as an element of the “unusual and compelling” provision—that does not appear in the text. 2. Costs, Benefits, and Burdens of the State Regulation as Compared to Alternative Measures In addition to demonstrating that the nature or magnitude of a State's interests are different from those in the U.S. generally, CEC must also demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the costs, benefits, burdens, and reliability of the water savings resulting from its regulation make such regulation preferable or necessary when measured against alternative approaches. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(1)(C)(ii)) If the petitioner fails to make such a showing, DOE cannot determine that California's water interests are “unusual and compelling.” In the present instance, CEC and commenters supporting the California Petition failed to satisfy their burden of providing sufficient information to allow DOE to make such a determination. a. Cost benefit analysis. CEC estimated the energy, water, and dollar savings of the California regulation for individual consumers and for the State, and summarized these savings and a simple payback period 6 calculation in the California Petition. (CEC, No. 1 at pp. 19-26 and 36) Savings estimates presented by CEC were both annual and cumulative and calculated per standard level. CEC presented its individual consumer savings estimate as annual and as cumulative over what CEC estimated was the average lifetime of a residential clothes washer. CEC presented annual statewide estimates in the regulation's first-year and once the entire stock of products had become compliant. (CEC, No. 1 at pp. 21-24) CEC also presented a cumulative statewide savings estimate for products operated between 2010 and 2054. (CEC, No. 1 at p. 36) The simple payback period presented by CEC considered the payback to an individual consumer from the California regulation as a whole. 6 Payback period is the length in time it would take the purchaser of the appliance to recoup the increase in sales price through annual savings in operating costs. In the case of clothes washers, the operating cost savings include the savings in both energy consumption and water consumption. While CEC provided its estimates of the costs and benefits associated with the California regulation, it did not provide a sufficient explanation of the analysis supporting its estimates. CEC stated that the “the economic assumptions and data inputs used in this analysis were vigorously tested in the Commission's public rulemaking process that led to the adoption of this standard.” (CEC, No. 1 at p. 19) However, CEC did not indicate where its rulemaking record could be located and where within the record the relevant assumptions, data, and analysis could be located; nor did CEC submit any of that information to DOE. Further, CEC did not provide sufficient explanation of the underlying assumptions and data in its petition. For example, CEC states that “perhaps the most important driver of the economic analysis is the estimate of the increased first cost of washing machines that would result from the standards.” (CEC, No. 1 at pp. 19-20) However, CEC did not provide a sufficient explanation of how it derived its estimates of incremental first costs; in fact, CEC did not even attempt to do so. CEC simply presented its estimates of incremental first costs, by standard level, and asserted that they were consistent with (though different than) DOE's incremental first cost estimate for its 2000 rulemaking. (CEC, No. 1 at p. 20) Without the underlying analysis of CEC's assumptions and data inputs, DOE is unable to determine whether the cost and benefit estimates provided are reasonable, and is unable to determine that the California Petition meets EPCA requirements. b. Analysis of alternatives. CEC discussed several alternatives to the State regulation in the California petition—specifically, rebates, other non-regulatory programs, and “reasonably predictable market-induced improvements in efficiency.” CEC estimated the cost to utilities and consumers of achieving water savings through rebates for highly efficient residential clothes washers and asserted that rebates would be much more expensive for utilities and consumers than regulations. (CEC, No. 1 at pp. 27-32) In particular, CEC estimated participation rates and the cost of providing rebates and purchasing compliant products to develop weighted average costs per eligible washer for the utilities and the consumer. CEC then compared this estimate to its estimate of the increased cost of residential clothes washers under the California standard. (CEC, No. 1 at pp. 30-31) Finally, CEC concluded that rebate and educational programs would be much more expensive for utilities and consumers than standards and that such savings would not persist after the rebates terminated. (CEC, No. 1 at p. 32) With regard to other non-regulatory programs, CEC cited DOE's 2000 analysis of alternatives to DOE's own energy efficiency standards for residential clothes washers as an approximate assessment of the cost of the proposed State standards versus alternatives. (CEC, No. 1 at pp. 32-34) DOE's 2000 analysis reviewed enhanced public education and information, six-year financial incentives (including tax credits to consumers and manufacturers, consumer rebates and subsidies), voluntary efficiency targets, mass government purchases, early replacement programs, and performance standards. (DOE, “Regulatory Impact Analysis for Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers,” September 2000) From this, CEC concluded that there is no “close alternative” to the California standards for “cost-effectively acquiring water savings and ensuring that the savings are persistent over time.” (CEC, No. 1 at p. 34) CEC discussed the potential impact of other non-regulatory programs on the market penetration of residential clothes washers with higher water efficiency, as compared to the current market. However, CEC's reliance on DOE's 2000 analysis to address the costs and benefits of non-regulatory programs is inappropriate, and does not satisfy CEC's burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the costs, benefits, burdens and reliability of water savings resulting from the State regulation would make such regulation preferable or necessary when measured against alternative approaches. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(1)(C)(ii)) The cost and benefit estimates provided in the DOE analysis are national estimates (CEC, No. 1 at p. 33) and do not consider the costs and benefits of alternative California-based programs; the estimates certainly do not evaluate the standards being advocated in the California Petition. For example, CEC provided estimated water savings, energy savings and the net present value for a national voluntary efficiency target. (CEC, No. 1 at p. 33) CEC made no assertion, or demonstration, concerning whether the estimate of water savings, energy savings and the net present value would be comparable if voluntary efficiency targets were set by California. In addition, we note that the voluntary consensus alternative presented by CEC was for a voluntary energy efficiency target, rather than a voluntary water use reduction target. Comparison of the costs and benefits of the California regulation to non-regulatory alternatives available to California requires estimates of the costs and benefits of those alternatives as implemented by California. While the analysis of the nature and magnitude of California's water interests are in the context of the nation in general, the analysis of the costs and benefits of alternatives must be in the context of the “products subject to the State regulation.” (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(1)(C)(ii)) As such, the costs and benefits presented in the DOE analysis cited by CEC do not allow for a comparison of the costs and benefits of alternatives in California. Interested parties provided additional information on water saving strategies also being pursued within California. For example, CUWCC listed some of the water saving strategies its members have implemented, and cited their total savings and expenditures. (CUWCC, No. 61 at pp. 1-3) Also, SDCWA cited a variety of strategies to increase supply and limit demand. SDCWA also noted a range of costs in $/acre-foot for various supply sources it uses and estimates the cost it pays in $/acre-foot for conservation measures it uses (SDCWA, No. 29 at pp. 4-5) However, the information provided was not specific to the product “subject to the State regulation” (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(1)(C)(ii)); *i.e.* , residential clothes washers. As stated above, EPCA requires that the consideration of alternatives be specific to the product (or products) subject to the State regulation. Comments from other interested parties in support of the petition did not provide enough detail for DOE to assess the relative benefits and costs of alternative approaches to the proposed California regulation for residential clothes washers. 3. Unusual and Compelling State Water Interests CEC, and the comments supporting its petition, have failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that California has an “unusual and compelling” water interest, within the meaning of that term as defined by EPCA. As stated above, CEC has established that the magnitude of California's water interest is substantially different than that prevailing in the U.S. generally. However, CEC and other commenters supporting the California Petition have failed to establish that the State regulation proposed in the California Petition is necessary or preferable as compared to other alternatives. EPCA places the burden on CEC of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the costs and benefits of its proposed standard make the standard preferable or necessary when compared to alternatives. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(1)(C)(ii)) CEC did not provide data and several of the assumptions underlying its cost and benefit estimates associated with the California regulation. CEC did not provide an evaluation of the costs and benefits of other non-regulatory programs, beyond rebates ( *e.g.* , voluntary efficiency targets, mass government purchases, early replacement programs), in California. Without the ability to review and analyze the assumptions, analysis, and data underlying CEC's cost and benefit estimates and without information on the potential costs and benefits of non-regulatory programs in California, beyond rebates, DOE is unable to conclude that the California regulation is necessary or is preferable to these alternatives. By not demonstrating the necessity or preference of the proposed State regulatory action as opposed to other possible alternatives, CEC has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the State regulation is necessary or preferable to alternatives, and therefore has failed to meet the EPCA requirement that it demonstrate that California's water interests are “unusual and compelling.” DOE has not evaluated whether CEC has met the EPCA requirement of establishing that the proposed State regulation is “needed” to address an unusual and compelling State interest. DOE has no occasion to consider the “need” issue because the existence of “unusual and compelling interests” has not been established. B. Impacts of California's Standards on Manufacturing, Marketing, Distribution, Sale or Servicing As indicated above, under section 327(d)(3) of EPCA DOE is prohibited by law from granting the California Petition if interested parties establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the California regulation will significantly burden the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, sale or servicing of residential clothes washers on a national basis. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(3)) In considering this prohibition, EPCA requires DOE to consider “all relevant factors” including the extent to which the State regulation will:
(1)Increase manufacturing or distribution costs;
(2)Disadvantage smaller manufacturers, distributors or dealers, or lessen competition;
(3)Cause a burden on manufacturers to redesign and produce the product covered by the State regulation; and
(4)likely contribute significantly to a proliferation of State appliance efficiency requirements and the cumulative impact such requirements would have. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(3)(A)-(D)) As discussed below, DOE has not made a determination as to whether the California regulation would significantly burden the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, sale or servicing of residential clothes washers on a national basis. 1. Manufacturing and Distribution Costs DOE received comments from manufacturers stating that the burden of the proposed California regulation on manufacturing would be such that the manufacturers would be required to remove several of their current product offerings from the California market (ALS, No. 50 at p. 1; F&PA, No. 30 at p. 2; GE, No. 55 at pp. 3 and 7; Maytag, No. 53 at p. 3; and Whirlpool, No. 17 at pp.2) Some manufacturers claimed that this would reduce their presence in the California market (ALS, No. 50 at p. 1; and GE, No. 55 at pp. 3-4) or result in their exit from it. (ALS, No. 50 at p. 1). (Section IV.B.2. further evaluates such comments) Most manufacturers commented that this would limit their ability to recoup prior investments. (F&PA, No. 30 at p. 2; GE, No. 55 at p. 7; Maytag, No. 53 at p. 3; and Whirlpool, No. 17 at p.3) Maytag stated that the California regulation would increase distribution complexity and costs because products that would not comply with the California regulation would still be shipped to distribution centers in California that service other West Coast States. (Whirlpool, No. 17 at p. 3) Comments from individual manufacturers on the impact to manufacturing and distribution were presented in general terms and did not provide specific estimates of the cost burden resulting from the potential elimination of products from the California market. To demonstrate the industry-wide financial impacts of attempting to meet the California regulation, AHAM modeled industry cash flows with the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), a tool used in several of DOE's energy conservation rulemaking analyses. AHAM commented that manufacturers could divert shipments or invest in new capacity to meet the 8.5 WF. To meet the 6.0 WF standard AHAM stated that it believes its member companies would have to invest in new manufacturing capacity. (AHAM, No. 52 at pp. 34 and 40) According to AHAM, if manufacturers invested in new manufacturing capacity to meet the standard, the proposed California regulation would necessitate $150 million of additional manufacturer investment. (AHAM, No. 52 at p. 38) AHAM's GRIM analysis modeled the effect of capital investments to meet the 8.5 WF level in 2007 and the 6.0 WF level in 2010. According to AHAM's GRIM analysis, the proposed California regulations would result in a decline in industry value 7 of $100 to $641 million dollars, depending on assumptions regarding gross margins. According to AHAM estimates, these numbers reflect 16 to 103 percent share of total industry value, respectively. (AHAM, No. 52 at p. 39) In addition, AHAM commented that additional costs would be required for spending on “engineering, product development, product introduction and marketing to support the introduction of new models for California consumers.” (AHAM, No. 52 at p. 38) 7 Industry value refers to the net present value of cash flows for the industry due to manufacturers' sale of products in the U.S. market. DOE uses change in industry value as a metric for measuring the potential impacts of an energy efficiency standard on manufacturers. See, for example, “Final Rule Technical Support Document (TSD): Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Clothes Washers”, Manufacturer Impact Analysis, Chapter 11, December 2000). AHAM's methodology of using GRIM to assess the magnitude of manufacturer impacts resulting from the California regulation is a useful tool for DOE to evaluate the California petition. However, DOE notes that the results from GRIM are very sensitive to three cost elements factored into the model: conversion capital expenditures, product conversion expenses, and variable production costs. Given the importance of these data inputs to the model DOE must evaluate the reasonableness of these estimates before it can draw conclusions about the significance of the results projected by GRIM. AHAM did not provide sufficient substantiation of the values it assigned these cost inputs for DOE to evaluate appropriately the model's results. AHAM provided aggregated figures of $150 million for conversion capital expenditures (AHAM, No. 52 at p. 38) and $105 million for product conversion expenses (AHAM, No. 52 at pp. 46 and 48). According to AHAM's presentation of its analysis, it appears that conversion capital expenditures represent the capital needed for three manufacturers to prepare a total production capacity of 1.5 million residential clothes washers per year. (AHAM, No. 52 at pp. 46 and 48) AHAM did not provide a basis for the total production capacity value. In fact, the value relied on by AHAM , according to AHAM's own projected shipment numbers, appears to exceed the expected annual demand of the California market. (AHAM, No. 52 at pp. 44-45) Moreover, AHAM's comment would have benefited from including separate estimates for manufacturing equipment, tooling, and buildings and a quantification and description of the stranded assets; information that could support the conversion capital costs projected by AHAM. Justification of the estimates along with references to source data, where appropriate, would also have been useful. Similarly, for product conversion costs DOE would have benefited from disaggregated estimates and descriptions of engineering, product development, product introduction, and marketing costs. Additionally, AHAM was not clear as to whether current products which meet the California regulation would need to undergo substantial redesign, and if so why that would be required. Estimates of the incremental variable product costs are also a major element contributing to the magnitude and uncertainty of GRIM results. AHAM and CEC have vastly different estimates for the incremental consumer prices of lower water factor residential clothes washers. In its GRIM analysis AHAM calculated Costs of Goods Sold
(COGS)as a percentage of estimated future residential clothes washer prices. (AHAM, No. 52 at p. 46) AHAM stated in its comments that “the basic bill of materials needed to achieve low water usage at acceptable wash and rinse performance adds significant costs that can not be avoided through experience or productivity improvement.” (AHAM, No. 52 at p. 32) However, AHAM did not present a breakdown of the basic bill of materials that underlies its estimated incremental production costs. AHAM provided DOE with a detailed model to estimate the cost implications to manufacturers resulting from the California regulation. However, AHAM failed to provide sufficient discussion of the assumptions and inputs employed in the model. Without an understanding of the model's assumptions and inputs DOE is unable to appropriately evaluate the results, and therefore AHAM has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence the extent to which the proposed California standard would increase the manufacturing and distribution costs of manufacturers and distributors. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(3)(A)) 2. Effect on Competition and Smaller Entities AHAM and several manufacturers commented that the California standards would affect different types of manufacturers differently. In particular, AHAM commented that the engineering, product development, and product introduction costs plus capital conversion investments of introducing a new model will exceed $40-50 million for most manufacturers, regardless of actual production volume.” (AHAM, No. 52 at p. 41) AHAM also stated that manufacturers with smaller market shares might not be able to support investment in the design and production of residential clothes washers with WF levels capable of meeting the standard. (AHAM, No. 52 at p. 41) AHAM did not provide a basis for its $40-50 million dollar estimate and did not provide a discussion of the level of investment manufacturers with smaller market shares would be unable to support. ALS commented that production volume lost from the removal of its non-compliant top-loading washers in California would not be fully replaced by the sale of its compliant front-loading washer. It stated that foreign manufacturers with lower manufacturing costs, due to “lower labor costs and unequal or non-existent employee benefit costs,” would have a competitive advantage by being able to offer compliant products at a lower cost. (ALS, No. 50 at pp. 2 and 6) GE claimed that its sales volume would fall because its limited product offerings would not be able to compete with “larger and specialty marketers.” (GE, No. 55 at p. 4) Maytag commented that competitors larger than itself would have a better ability to absorb additional costs. (Maytag, No. 53 at p. 3) AHAM commented that several manufacturers would likely continue to sell in California only if their current products ( *i.e.* , those products already in the market place) met the proposed California standard. Furthermore, it stated that it believes that some low-volume manufacturers would likely leave the California market instead of making additional investments in new products. (AHAM, No. 52 at p. 41) Though they did not specify their market volumes, both GE and ALS commented that they currently have limited product offerings that comply with the proposed California standards and that they believe their market presence in California would be reduced as a result of the California regulation. (GE, No. 55 at pp. 3-4; ALS, No. 50 at pp. 1-2) In particular, GE commented that it “does not have a large enough marketshare over which to spread the huge costs of investment to develop a more complete line of laundry product offerings[.]” (GE, No. 55 at p. 4) Fisher & Paykel Appliance commented that it has experience with developing residential clothes washers to meet water factor criteria in Australia. (F&PA, No. 30 at p. 1) Furthermore, it commented that it currently produces high efficiency washers for a niche market and that the 8.5 WF standard would likely have a small impact on it (though its current product does not meet the 6.0 WF level). (F&PA, No. 30 at p. 2) Maytag commented that it believes small retailers could be adversely impacted by the California proposed regulations, bearing an uneven burden compared to larger retailers. It commented that the short time-period to the proposed effective dates would “shock” smaller retailers” business models and “force them out of business.” (Maytag, No. 53 at p. 5) CEC commented that the California regulation would not likely have an adverse affect on small businesses or on sales competition. (CEC, No. 1 at p. 40) In particular, CEC correlated DOE 2001 energy standards with a growth in the types of residential clothes washer technologies and features, and in the number of qualifying models on the market. Furthermore, CEC commented that the number of manufacturers selling in the U.S. has grown in the past five years despite concentration in many business sectors. 8 According to CEC, both the growth in residential clothes washer technologies and the growth in the number of manufacturers selling residential clothes washers in the U.S. indicate that there would be no reason to expect that the California standard would have a negative impact. (CEC, No. 1 at p. 40). 8 DOE notes, however, that since this proceeding started, Maytag Company has been purchased by the Whirlpool Corporation, further concentrating the clothes washer industry. Based on DOE estimates of data reported in Appliance Magazine, DOE estimates that Whirlpool Corporation accounts for approximately 71 percent of clothes washer sales, GE 17 percent and the remaining 12 percent is spread over the remaining manufacturers, nationally. DOE is concerned about the ability of smaller manufacturers to spread their investment costs over lower production volumes. Analysis from DOE's January 2001 final rule indicated that cost structures did vary between small and large manufacturers. 66 FR 3314. In the TSD that accompanied the January 2001 final rule, DOE noted that “manufacturing large volumes and optimizing production for these levels can create a significant cost advantage. Smaller manufacturers of clothes washers could thus be affected more negatively than other manufacturers by any proposed standard because of their need to spread fixed costs over smaller production volumes.” (DOE, “Final Rule Technical Support Document (TSD): Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Clothes Washers”, Manufacturer Impact Analysis, pp. 11-53 and 11-54, December 2000) Manufacturers did not provide cost estimates for redesigning their products to meet the WF levels of the California regulation. Further, manufacturers did not provide analysis of spreading such costs across production volumes. DOE recognizes that smaller manufacturers may have a significantly more difficult time in responding to the WF levels in the California regulation. However, manufacturers did not provide cost data that would allow DOE to determine the extent of this difficulty and its significance to smaller manufacturers, and therefore comments opposed to the California Petition did not adequately demonstrate the extent to which the proposed California regulation would disadvantage smaller manufacturers, distributors, or dealers, or lessen the competition in the sale of residential clothes washers in California. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(3)(B)) 3. Redesign and Production In assessing the impacts of a State regulation if a waiver were to be granted, EPCA requires DOE to consider the extent to which the State regulation would cause a burden on manufacturers to redesign and produce the covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(3)(C)) While this analysis is similar to the evaluation of the resulting manufacturing and production costs, EPCA directs DOE to specifically consider the extent to which the regulation would result in a reduction—
(i)In the current models, or in the projected availability of models, that could be shipped on the effective date of the regulation to the State and within the United States; or
(ii)in the current or projected sales volume of the covered product type (or class) in the State and the United States[.] (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(3)(C)(i) and (ii)) Evaluation under section 327(d)(3)(C) considers the availability of compliant units by the effective date and any impact on the total number of sales for the covered product. Essentially, DOE must consider whether compliant residential clothes washers would be available by the effective date and whether the California standard would impact the overall sale of residential clothes washers. AHAM commented that manufacturers could respond to the 8.5 WF by producing redesigned compliant units, shifting production in favor of compliant front-loaders and non-conventional top-loaders, shifting distribution of compliant front-loaders and non-conventional top-loaders to California and away from the general U.S. market, or, presumably, through a combination of these responses. (AHAM, No. 52 at pp. 34 and 40) AHAM stated that for the 8.5 WF level, it is possible that there is sufficient U.S. capacity to meet California demand under the California regulation by largely eliminating shipments of compliant units to other States. (AHAM, No. 52 at p. 34) AHAM also stated, however, that the design of such products is targeted towards specialty customers and is not geared towards the demands of the average consumer; *i.e.* , current unit designs that would comply with the proposed California regulation are typically higher cost models not “optimized for the vast majority of the market that wishes simple, reliable, low cost washers.” (AHAM, No. 52 at p. 40) With regard to demand for residential clothes washers, AHAM stated that due to price elasticity and what it asserted where necessary design changes, shipments to California will decline as consumers choose to repair current washers as opposed to purchasing new, more expensive washers. (AHAM, No. 1 at p. 38) Based on its analysis, AHAM projected that shipments of washers would decline by 10 percent from 2007 through 2009, by 20 percent in 2010 through 2012, and recover between 2013 and 2015. (AHAM, No. 52 at p. 39) AHAM did not provide a breakdown of the costs associated with shifting production in favor of compliant front-loading and non-conventional top-loading residential clothes washers or redistributing compliant residential clothes washers to California. Further, AHAM did not indicate whether or why such changes to manufacturing and distribution could be accomplished in the lead times provided for under the California regulation. The comments received did not provide specific information indicating whether manufacturers would have difficulty in shifting production and distribution within the lead time provided by the California regulation in order to provide sufficient products for the U.S. market in 2007. Therefore, commenters opposed to the California Petition have not provided sufficient evidence or analysis for DOE to determine the extent to which the proposed California regulation would cause a burden to manufacturers to redesign and produce residential clothes washers that would comply with the proposed California regulation. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(3)(C)) 4. Proliferation of State Standards Currently, no other State has petitioned DOE for a waiver of preemption regarding the water efficiency of residential clothes washers. If other States petitioned for a waiver, DOE would consider the extent to which other States chose standards levels identical to those proposed by California, as well as levels proposed by any other States. Furthermore, DOE would consider whether the cumulative impact of similar or differing State standards would burden the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of residential clothes washers nationally. However, DOE did not consider the impact of other State petitions because currently California is the only State to have submitted a petition under section 327 of EPCA. 5. Significant Impact on Manufacturing, Marketing, Distribution, Sale, or Servicing Interested parties have not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the California regulation would significantly burden manufacturing, marketing, distribution, sale or servicing of the covered product on a national basis. Interested parties asserted that the California regulation would increase manufacturing and distribution costs, would negatively impact smaller manufacturers, and that the California regulation could result in redistribution of product. As discussed above, however, the interested parties did not provide adequate justification to support these assertions. Manufacturers did not provide detailed cost estimates and AHAM's analysis did not provide justification for its underlying assumptions. Therefore, the interested parties opposed to the California Petition did not satisfy their burden of providing sufficient information to allow DOE to determine that, if the California Petition were granted, the proposed California regulation would significantly burden manufacturing, marketing, distribution, sale or servicing of the residential clothes washers on a national basis. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(3)) C. Availability of Product Performance Characteristics and Features 1. Top-Loading Residential Clothes Washers Under EPCA section 327(d)(4), DOE is prohibited by law from granting California a waiver of preemption if interested persons have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that California's proposed regulation is likely to result in the unavailability in California in any covered product type (or class) with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the State at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(4)) Manufacturers' comments indicated that the design changes necessary to comply with the 6.0 WF level would eliminate traditional top-loading residential clothes washers from the California market. (AHAM, No. 52 at pp. 1 and 32; ALS, No. 50 at pp. 2 and 6; Whirlpool, No. 17 at p. 1; Maytag, No. 53 at p. 3; GE, No. 55 at p. 3) Maytag stated that traditional top-loading residential clothes washers currently represent at least 60 percent of California's residential clothes washer sales. (Maytag, No. 53 at p. 3) Data submitted by AHAM, including ENERGY STAR data, indicate that only front-loading residential clothes washers currently meet the 6.0 WF level; current models of top-loading residential clothes washers, regardless of design, have a WF level of greater than 6.0. (AHAM, No. 52 at p. 22) In its comments, CEC identified a top-loading, horizontal-axis residential clothes washer as a potential design to meet the 6.0 WF level. (CEC, No. 1 at p. 46; CEC, No. 79 at p. 13) However, the model to which CEC referred (CEC, No. 1 at p. 46) does not currently meet the 6.0 WF level, and would require redesign. Moreover, the residential clothes washer identified by CEC appears to represent a small portion of the market. A number of stakeholders, including the CUWCC, PG&E, NRDC, Consolidated Smart Systems
(CSS)and several California entities commented that the California market currently offers a variety of models that can meet the 8.5 and 6.0 WF levels. (CUWCC, No. 61 at p. 5; NRDC, No. 41 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 44 at pp. 6-7 and 9; CSS, No. 77 at p. 2) DOE is aware that several models of residential clothes washers in the market today can meet the 8.5 WF and 6.0 WF levels. However, DOE also notes that this discussion of the availability of products, generally did not distinguish between front- and top-loading residential clothes washers. DOE knows of no top-loading residential clothes washers on the market that meet a 6.0 WF. Neither CEC nor any other commenter has asserted or demonstrated that such a product exists. As noted above, several stakeholders commented that, while existing residential clothes washers can currently meet the 6.0 WF level, there is no indication that any of these residential clothes washers are top-loading. For example, according to data on ENERGY STAR products submitted by AHAM, the lowest WF of a top-loading washer currently on the market is approximately 6.3. (AHAM, No. 52 at p. 22; and CEC, No. 1 at p. 46) DOE finds that it has been established by a preponderance of the evidence that there are no top-loading residential clothes washer in the current market that would comply with the 6.0 WF level of the proposed California regulation, and that therefore the proposed California standard would result in the unavailability of top-loading residential clothes washers in the California market. Therefore, even had CEC met its requirements under EPCA, the California Petition should be rejected on this additional ground. 2. Other Product Classes EPCA states that the failure of some classes (or types) to meet the criterion of the State regulation shall not affect DOE's determination on whether to prescribe a rule for other classes (or types). (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(4)) As noted above, DOE has established energy efficiency standards for five classes of residential clothes washers, including top-loading residential clothes washers. (10 CFR 430.32(g)) However, the California Petition in its discussion of the impact of the California regulation does not distinguish between classes of residential clothes washers and therefore, the question of whether such levels would be appropriate for individual classes of residential clothes washers is not at issue. Even if it were, however, DOE would be concerned that differing maximum WF levels established for specific classes of residential clothes washers could have negative consequences for water savings in California. Regulating more efficient residential clothes washers like front-loading residential clothes washers to a 6.0 WF, while allowing a significantly less stringent WF level for top-loader washers, would likely further increase the existing price differential between top- and front-loading washing machines. (AHAM, No. 52 at pp. 32 and 35) The result of this change in price difference could well increase purchases of less water efficient residential clothes washers, and potentially offset the intended benefit from setting a water efficiency standard for certain but not all classes of residential clothes washers. (See, AHAM, No. 52 at pp. 32 and 35) V. Denial As discussed above, the California Petition requests a waiver of Federal preemption for a State regulation that establishes effective dates not permitted under EPCA. Therefore, DOE denies the requested waiver. Second, in order to grant a petition for a waiver from Federal preemption, a State must show by a preponderance of the evidence that its regulation is needed to address unusual and compelling State or local water or energy interests. Such a showing requires that a State demonstrate that its interests are substantially different in nature or magnitude compared to those in the United States generally and that the State standards are “preferable or necessary” when compared to alternatives, including market-induced ones. As discussed above, DOE has determined that the California Petition has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the State's water interests are substantially different in magnitude from those present in the United States generally. CEC and comments supporting the California Petition, however, failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed State standard is preferable or necessary when compared to alternative approaches. Since CEC has established only one of the two elements necessary to show an unusual and compelling State interest, DOE denies the waiver request. Third and finally, even if CEC had established by a preponderance of the evidence that California's water interests are unusual and compelling, DOE is denying the waiver request because interested parties have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the California regulation would likely result in the unavailability of top-loading residential clothes washers in California. Therefore, DOE is prohibited from prescribing a rule that would grant the California Petition. VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice. Issued in Washington, DC, on December 20, 2006. Alexander A. Karsner, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. E6-22270 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Information Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Agency information collection activities: submission for OMB Review; comment request. SUMMARY: The EIA has submitted the Oil and Gas Reserves System Surveys to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and a three-year extension under section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). The EIA requests that the EIA-23P, “Oil and Gas Well Operator List Update Report” be discontinued, as it is no longer necessary. DATES: Comments must be filed by January 29, 2007. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within that period, you should contact the OMB Desk Officer for DOE listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sarah P. Garman, OMB Desk Officer for DOE, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. To ensure receipt of the comments by the due date, submission by FAX (202-395-7285) or e-mail ( *Sarah_P._Garman@omb.eop.gov* ) is recommended. The mailing address is 726 Jackson Place NW., Washington, DC 20503. The OMB DOE Desk Officer may be telephoned at
(202)395-4650. (A copy of your comments should also be provided to EIA's Statistics and Methods Group at the address below.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to Kara Norman. To ensure receipt of the comments by the due date, submission by FAX (202-287-1705) or e-mail ( *kara.norman@eia.doe.gov* ) is also recommended. The mailing address is Statistics and Methods Group (EI-70), Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585-0670. Kara Norman may be contacted by telephone at
(202)287-1902. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section contains the following information about the energy information collection submitted to OMB for review:
(1)The collection numbers and title;
(2)the sponsor (i.e., the Department of Energy component);
(3)the current OMB docket number (if applicable);
(4)the type of request (i.e., new, revision, extension, or reinstatement);
(5)response obligation (i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain benefits);
(6)a description of the need for and proposed use of the information;
(7)a categorical description of the likely respondents; and
(8)an estimate of the total annual reporting burden (i.e., the estimated number of likely respondents times the proposed frequency of response per year times the average hours per response). 1. Forms EIA-23L, 23S, and 64A, “Oil and Gas Reserves System Surveys” 2. Energy Information Administration 3. OMB Number 1905-0057 4. Three-year extension 5. Mandatory 6. EIA's Oil and Gas Reserves Systems Surveys collect data used to estimate reserves of crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids, and to determine the status and approximate levels of production. Data are published by EIA and used by public and private analysts. Respondents are operators of oil wells, natural gas wells, and natural gas processing plants. 7. Business or other for-profit 8. 49,120 hours. Please refer to the supporting statement as well as the proposed forms and instructions for more information about the purpose, who must report, when to report, where to submit, the elements to be reported, detailed instructions, provisions for confidentiality, and uses (including possible nonstatistical uses) of the information. For instructions on obtaining materials, see the For Further Information Contact section. Statutory Authority: Section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , at 3507(h)(1)). Issued in Washington, DC December 21, 2006. Jay H. Casselberry, Agency Clearance Officer, Statistics and Methods Group, Energy Information Administration. [FR Doc. E6-22266 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER07-239-000] BG Energy Merchants, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order December 19, 2006. BG Energy Merchants, LLC (BG Energy) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. BG Energy also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, BG Energy requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by BG Energy. On December 19, 2006, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by BG Energy should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004). Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest is January 18, 2007. Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, BG Energy is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of BG Energy, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes. The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of BG Energy's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability. Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order 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 filed to access the document. 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 electronic filings. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22210 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP96-200-163] CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing December 19, 2006. Take notice that on December 15, 2006, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company
(CEGT)tendered for filing and approval a negotiated rate agreement between CEGT and Marabou Midstream Services, LP. CEGT states that it has entered into an agreement to provide firm transportation service to this shipper under Rate Schedule FT and requests the Commission accept and approve the transaction under which transportation service will commence upon the “in-service” date following completion of certain Line CP facilities. 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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not 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. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22209 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP96-200-156] CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing December 19, 2006. Take notice that on December 15, 2006, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company
(CEGT)tendered for filing and approval a negotiated rate agreement between CEGT and BP Energy Company. CEGT states that it has entered into an agreement to provide firm transportation service to this shipper under Rate Schedule FT and requests the Commission accept and approve the transaction under which transportation service will commence upon the “in-service” date following completion of certain Line CP facilities. 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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not 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. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22220 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP96-200-157] CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing December 19, 2006. Take notice that on December 15, 2006, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company
(CEGT)tendered for filing and approval a negotiated rate agreement between CEGT and CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. CEGT states that it has entered into an agreement to provide firm transportation service to this shipper under Rate Schedule FT and requests the Commission accept and approve the transaction under which transportation service will commence upon the “in-service” date following completion of certain Line CP facilities. 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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not 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. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22221 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP96-200-158] CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing December 19, 2006. Take notice that on December 15, 2006, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company
(CEGT)tendered for filing and approval a negotiated rate transaction between CEGT and XTO Energy Company. CEGT states that it has entered into an agreement to provide firm transportation service to this shipper under Rate Schedule FT and requests the Commission accept and approve the transaction under which transportation service will commence upon the “in-service” date following completion of certain Line CP facilities. 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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not 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. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22222 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP96-200-159] CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing December 19, 2006. Take notice that on December 15, 2006, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company
(CEGT)tendered for filing and approval a negotiated rate agreement between CEGT and EOG Resources, Inc. CEGT states that it has entered into an agreement to provide firm transportation service to this shipper under Rate Schedule FT and requests the Commission accept and approve the transaction under which transportation service will commence upon the “in-service” date following completion of certain Line CP facilities. 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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not 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. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22223 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP96-200-160] CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing December 19, 2006. Take notice that on December 15, 2006, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company
(CEGT)tendered for filing and approval a negotiated rate agreement between CEGT and Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc. CEGT states that it has entered into an amended agreement to provide firm transportation service to this shipper under Rate Schedule FT and requests the Commission accept and approve the transaction under which transportation service will commence upon the “in-service” date following completion of certain Line CP facilities. 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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not 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. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22224 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP96-200-161] CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing December 19, 2006. Take notice that on December 15, 2006, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company
(CEGT)tendered for filing and approval a negotiated rate agreement between CEGT and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. CEGT states that it has entered into an agreement to provide firm transportation service to this shipper under Rate Schedule FT and requests the Commission accept and approve the transaction under which transportation service will commence upon the “in-service” date following completion of certain Line CP facilities. 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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not 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. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22225 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP96-200-162] CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing December 19, 2006. Take notice that on December 15, 2006, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company
(CEGT)tendered for filing and approval a negotiated rate agreement between CEGT and Enbridge Marketing (U.S.), LP. CEGT states that it has entered into an agreement to provide firm transportation service to this shipper under Rate Schedule FT and requests the Commission accept and approve the transaction under which transportation service will commence upon the “in-service” date following completion of certain Line CP facilities. 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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not 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. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22226 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP07-31-000] Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Application December 18, 2006. Take notice that on December 8, 2006, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI), 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, filed in docket CP07-31-000 an application pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, seeking authority to construct, install, own, operate, and maintain certain facilities located in the States of Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York that comprise the USA Storage 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 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
(202)502-8659 or TTY,
(202)208-3676. Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Matthew R. Bley, Manager, Gas Transmission Certificates, Dominion Transmission, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, or call
(804)819-2877 or fax
(804)819-2064. 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 comment date stated below, 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 commentors 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 commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors 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. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments protests and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)
(iii)and the instructions on the Commission's Web ( * http:// www.ferc.gov * ) site under the “e-Filing” link. *Comment Date:* January 8, 2007. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22205 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. RP00-469-012; RP01-22-014 and RP03-177-009] East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing December 19, 2006. Take notice that on December 14, 2006, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC (East Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the pro forma tariff sheets listed in Appendix A of the filing. East Tennessee states that the purpose of this filing is to submit pro forma tariff sheets that establish an enhanced segmentation program to become effective on October 1, 2007. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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. *Protest Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 4, 2007. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22213 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-108-000] El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request for Waiver December 19, 2006. Take notice that on December 13, 2006, El Paso Natural Gas Company
(EPNG)tendered for filing a request to the Commission to permit EPNG to waive and/or reduce certain penalties and charges under its tariff for the time period of November 30 through December 3, 2006. 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 and 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 date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not 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 December 29, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22217 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL01-88-006] Entergy Services, Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing December 20, 2006. Take notice that on December 18, 2006, Entergy Services, Inc. (ESI), as agent on behalf of the Entergy Operating Companies tendered for filing in accordance with the Commission's November 17, 2006 Order, proposed changes to the Entergy System Agreement that were filed on April 10, 2006. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding. 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 January 17, 2007. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22231 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP04-274-008] Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing December 19, 2006. Take notice that on December 18, 2006, Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A submitted with the filing. Kern River states that it has served an electronic notice of this filing on all parties on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding. The complete filing can be viewed on Kern River's Web site. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22214 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP07-33-000] Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC; Notice of Application December 19, 2006. Take notice that on December 13, 2006, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC (KMIGT), 370 Van Gordon Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80228-8304, filed in Docket No. CP07-33-000 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)for permission and approval to abandon, by removal, the Otis Compressor Station located in Rush County, Kansas, all as more fully set forth in the application. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be 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, 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 concerning this request may be directed to Skip George, Manager of Regulatory, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC, P.O. Box 281304, Lakewood, Colorado 80228-8304, or call
(303)914-4969. Specifically, KMIGT proposes to abandon One 660 hp Worthington SLHC-7 compressor unit and one 300 hp Worthington LCE-8 compressor unit, with appurtenances. KMIGT states that the Otis Compressor Station has not been utilized since 1994 and it is uneconomical for KMIGT to continue to operate this Compressor Station. KMIGT states further that the abandonment would have no material impact on KMIGT's cost of service nor would it result in or cause any interruption, reduction, or termination of the transportation service presently rendered by KMIGT. 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 comment date stated below, 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. The Commission strongly encourages filings of comments, protests and interventions electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the “e-filing” link. If the Commission decides to set the application for a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Commission will issue another notice describing that process. At the end of the Commission's review process, a final Commission order approving or denying a certificate will be issued. *Comment Date:* January 8, 2007. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22227 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-110-000] Mojave Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff December 19, 2006. Take notice that on December 15, 2006, Mojave Pipeline Company (Mojave) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 11, to become effective January 1, 2007. 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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not 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. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22219 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-109-000] Trunkline LNG Company, LLC; Notice of Tariff Filing December 19, 2006. Take notice that on December 15, 2006, Trunkline LNG Company, LLC
(TLNG)tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1-A, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A, to the filing to become effective January 15, 2007. 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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not 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. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22218 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-200-017] Rockies Express Pipeline LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing and Negotiated Rate December 19, 2006. Take notice that on December 15, 2006, Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (Rockies Express) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of January 15, 2007: Thirteenth Revised Sheet No. 22 Third Revised Sheet No. 23 Rockies Express states that a copy of this filing has been served upon all parties to this proceeding, Rockies Express's customers, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission and the Wyoming Public Service Commission. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22215 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice Of Filings # 1 December 18, 2006. Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings: *Docket Numbers:* EG07-20-000. *Applicants:* Wayzata California Power Holdings, LLC. *Description:* Wayzata California Power Holdings submits a Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status. *Filed Date:* 12/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061213-5063. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 3, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER00-3562-004. *Applicants:* Calpine Energy Services L.P. *Description:* Calpine Energy Services, LP submits revised affidavit of Julie R Solomon and certain revised exhibit sheets in support of the 10/30/06 triennial market analysis. *Filed Date:* 12/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061215-0105. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 26, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-1316-003. *Applicants:* Palama, LLC. *Description:* Palama, LLC submits its triennial updated market analysis. *Filed Date:* 12/12/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0125. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 2, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-6-091; EL04-135-094; EL02-111-111; EL03-212-107. *Applicants:* Exelon Corporation. *Description:* Exelon Corporation submits a compliance Electric Refund Report pursuant to the Commission's 10/27/06 Order. *Filed Date:* 12/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061213-5060. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 3, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-133-002. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, LLC. *Description:* PJM Interconnection LLC submits a compliance Electric Refund Report pursuant to the Commission's 11/3/06 Order. *Filed Date:* 12/12/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061212-5026. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 2, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-451-014. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits Exhibit I and II clean and redlined versions of the correct Substitute Third Revised Sheet 627 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 12/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0141. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 4, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-826-004. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, LLC. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits its First Revised Sheet 448B to its FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 12/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0124. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 3, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-16-001. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits First Revised Thirteenth Revised Sheet 58 to its FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 12/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0123. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 3, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-174-002. *Applicants:* Osceola Windpower, LLC. *Description:* Osceola Windpower, LLC submits an amendment to its Market-Based Tariff effective 1/2/07. *Filed Date:* 12/08/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061212-0101. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 29, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-212-001; ER01-1558-004. *Applicants:* Wayzata California Power Holdings, LLC; NEO California Power LLC. *Description:* Wayzata California Power Holdings, LLC and NEO California Power LLC submit their proposed FERC Electric Rate Schedule 1. *Filed Date:* 12/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0119. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 26, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-264-001. *Applicants:* MMC Mid-Sun, LLC. *Description:* MMC Mid-Sun, LLC submits an errata to the application for market based rates authority. *Filed Date:* 12/01/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061215-0272. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 22, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-281-000. *Applicants:* MidAmerican Energy Company. *Description:* MidAmerican Energy Company submits an amended Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement and an amended Interconnection and Network Operating Agreement w/Indianola Municipal Utilities. *Filed Date:* 12/01/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061205-0022. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 22, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-318-000. *Applicants:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. *Description:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation submits an Original Service Agreement 923 with New Athens Generating Company, LLC. *Filed Date:* 12/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0140. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 3, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-319-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits its compliance filing of revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff to modify real-time energy imbalance market pursuant to FERC's order issued on 10/31/06, effective 2/1/07. *Filed Date:* 12/12/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0139. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 2, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-322-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits a Facilities Construction Agreement with Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc *et al.* Filed Date: 12/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0145. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 4, 2007 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. E6-22203 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 December 19, 2006. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC07-35-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC. *Description:* Entergy Nuclear Fitzpatrick, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC submits an application for authorization to transfer Power Sales Agreement. *Filed Date:* 12/12/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0137. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 2, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings *Docket Numbers:* ER00-3251-013; ER99-754-015; ER98-1734-013; ER01-1919-010; ER01-1147-004; ER01-513-020; ER99-2404-010 *Applicants:* Exelon Generating Company, LLC; AmerGen Energy Company, LLC; Commonwealth Edison Company; Exelon Energy Company, LLC; PECO Energy Company; Exelon West Medway, LLC; Exelon Wyman, LLC; Exelon New Boston, LLC; Exelon Framingham, LLC; Exelon New England Power Marketing, L.P. *Description:* Exelon Generation Company, LLC et submits a notice of non-material change in status. *Filed Date:* 12/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0088. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-205-016; ER98-2640-014; ER98-4590-012; ER99-1610-020; EL05-115-000. Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.; Northern States Power Company and Northern States Power Company (Wisconsin); Public Service Company of Colorado; Southwestern Public Service Company. *Description:* Xcel Energy Services, Inc et al submit a compliance filing in order to incorporate certain revisions into their market-based rate tariffs required by FERC's 11/9/06 Order. *Filed Date:* 12/11/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0129. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 2, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-1385-015. *Applicants:* Consolidated Edison Company of New York. *Description:* Ninth Quarterly Report by NYISO regarding its efforts to efficiently utilize combined cycle units in the NYISO markets, under ER04-230, *et al.* *Filed Date:* 12/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061215-5019. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-1403-005; ER01-2968-006; ER01-845-005; ER05-1122-003; ER04-366-004; ER04-372-006. *Applicants:* FirstEnergy Operating Companies; FirsEnergy Solutions Corp.; FirstEnergy Generation Corporation; FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corporation; Jersey Central Power & Light Company; Metropolitan Edison Company. *Description:* FirstEnergy Operating Companies et al., submit a non-material change in status of generation capacity. *Filed Date:* 12/12/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0126. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 2, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-821-003. *Applicants:* One Nation Energy Solutions, LLC. *Description:* One Nation Energy Solutions, LLC submits a First Revised Original Sheet 1 to its FERC Electric Tariff, Rate Schedule 1st Revised. *Filed Date:* 12/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0086. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-451-015. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff, pursuant to the Commission's 11/17/06 order. *Filed Date:* 12/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0085. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1094-002. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Op, Inc. submits an additional Information and Partial Waiver Withdrawal request. *Filed Date:* 12/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061213-5054. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 26, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1545-001. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc submits a compliance filing to confirm that the current version of the North American Electric Reliability Council Transmission Loading Relief are incorporated in Attachment Q, pursuant to the Commission's 11/30/06 order. *Filed Date:* 12/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0138. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 3, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-64-001. *Applicants:* ALLETE, Inc. *Description:* ALLETE, Inc submits an amendment to its 10/23/06 filing to establish a distribution wheeling rate for Central MN Ethanol Co-op interconnection to MP's distribution Facilities. *Filed Date:* 12/12/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0127. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 2, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-109-002. *Applicants:* BTEC Southaven LLC. *Description:* BTEC Southaven LLC submits its Second Substitute Original Sheet 2 to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 12/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0149. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-110-002. *Applicants:* BTEC New Albany LLC. *Description:* BTEC New Albany LLC submits its Second Substitute Original Sheet 1 et al to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 12/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0150. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-300-001. *Applicants:* Connecticut Central Energy, LLC. *Description:* Connecticut Central Energy, LLC submits Section VII to the petition of initial rate schedule to correct the company's name. *Filed Date:* 12/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0089. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-323-000. *Applicants:* Dynegy Power Marketing Inc.; Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. *Description:* Dynegy Power Marketing Inc. et al request waiver of certain provisions of respective market-based tariffs so DYPM can make market-based rate sales, *et al.* *Filed Date:* 12/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0142. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 4, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-324-000. *Applicants:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company; PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* Wisconsin Electric Power Co and PJM Interconnection jointly submits a clean rate schedule sheets of the Balancing Authority Operations Coordination Agreement designated as Rate FERC 117 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 12/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0128. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-325-000. *Applicants:* Allegheny Energy Supply Gleason Generating Facility, LLC. *Description:* Allegheny Energy Supply Gleason Generating Facility, LLC submits a notice of cancellation of its market-based rate tariff. *Filed Date:* 12/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0130. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-326-000. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corporation submits amendments to its Tariff to reflect Order 676 Waivers. *Filed Date:* 12/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0090. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-327-000. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits revisions to its Transmission Access Charge Balancing Account Rate to its Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 5. *Filed Date:* 12/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0087. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 4, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-328-000. *Applicants:* Alcoa Power Generating Inc. *Description:* Alcoa Power Generating Inc addresses numerous issues concerning its rate schedule currently on file. *Filed Date:* 12/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061218-0148. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 5, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings: *Docket Numbers:* ES07-11-000. *Applicants:* Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. *Description:* Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc submits an application for Authorization of the Assumption of Liabilities pursuant to Section 204(a) of the FPA. *Filed Date:* 12/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061215-5024. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ES07-12-000. *Applicants:* Consolidated Edison Company of New York. *Description:* Consolidated Edison Company of New York submits an application of requesting authorization to Issue and Sale of Short-term Debt pursuant to section 204 of the FPA. *Filed Date:* 12/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061215-5103. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 5, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov* . To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed 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. E6-22208 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP06-433-001] Northern Natural Gas Company; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Palmyra North Expansion Project Amendment and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues December 18, 2006. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment
(EA)that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Palmyra North Expansion Project involving construction and operation of new facilities by Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) in Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and South Dakota. 1 On August 29, 2006, Northern filed an application with the FERC, in Docket No. CP06-433-000, for authorization under sections 7(c) and 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) to expand the capacity of its Palmyra North Facilities (Palmyra). On December 6, 2006, Northern filed an amendment to their application with the FERC, in Docket No. CP06-433-001, for authorization to include two additional meter stations in Clay and Sioux Counties, Iowa; the subject of this Notice. The EA will encompass all proposed facilities and be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity. 1 The Commission issued a Notice of Application on September 6, 2006 for Northern's August 29, 2006 application. On December 12, 2006, the Commission issued a Notice of Application for Northern's December 6, 2006 amendment. On September 12, 2006, the FERC issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Palmyra North Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was published in the **Federal Register** and was also mailed to 114 interested parties, including Federal, State, and local officials; agency representatives; conservation organizations; Native American groups; local libraries and newspapers; and property owners affected by the proposed facilities. This NOI is requesting comments on the two additional meter stations that Northern has proposed. If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law. A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” was attached to the project notice Northern provided to landowners. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ). Summary of the Proposed Project Northern proposes to expand the capacity of its Palmyra North Facilities in Clay and Sioux Counties, Iowa in order to transport an additional 12,100 dekatherms per day of natural gas in order to meet agricultural and ethanol customer demand and to increase incremental winter peak day service. By this Application Amendment, Northern seeks authority to also: • Install a new meter station to an existing Northern line at MP 21.9 in Clay County, Iowa; and • install a new meter station to an existing Northern line at MP 28.3 in Sioux County, Iowa. Two nonjurisdictional facilities, a new ethanol plant and an ethanol plant expansion, have been proposed in association with the Palmyra North Expansion Project. We have made a preliminary decision to not address the impacts of these facilities. We will briefly describe their location and summarize the status of state and local environmental reviews in the EA. The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1. 2 2 The appendices referenced in this notice are not being printed in the **Federal Register** . Copies of all appendices, other than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site at the “eLibrary” link or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202)502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail. Land Requirements for Construction Construction of the proposed facilities would impact about 1.8 acres of land. Following construction, approximately 0.4 acre of new land would be maintained for operation. The remaining 1.4 acres of land would be restored and allowed to revert to its former use. The EA Process The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. In the EA, we 3 will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings: 3 “We”, “us”, “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP). • Soils. • Land Use. • Water Resources and Wetlands. • Cultural Resources. • Vegetation and Wildlife. We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners, newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the public participation section below. Public Participation You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative locations), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded: • Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. • Label one copy of the comments for the attention of OEP/DG2E, Gas Branch 3. • Reference Docket No. CP06-433-001. • Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before January 19, 2007. We will include all comments that we receive within a reasonable time frame in our environmental analysis of this project. However, the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding. 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 and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can file comments you will need to create a free account which can be created on-line. We may mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in receiving it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 2). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be taken off the mailing list. Becoming an Intervenor In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an official party to the proceeding, or “intervenor”. To become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214). Intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. Motions to Intervene should be electronically submitted using the Commission's eFiling system at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons without Internet access should send an original and 14 copies of their motion to the Secretary of the Commission at the address indicated previously. Persons filing Motions to Intervene on or before the comment deadline indicated above must send a copy of the motion to the Applicant. All filings, including late interventions, submitted after the comment deadline must be served on the Applicant and all other intervenors identified on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. Persons on the service list with e-mail addresses may be served electronically; others must be served a hard copy of the filing. Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your environmental comments considered. Environmental Mailing List An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project additions. This includes all landowners who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes. Additional Information Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. Go to *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.* Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at *http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx* along with other related information. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22207 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No.: P-12751-000] AquaEnergy Group, Ltd.; Notice of Application and Applicant-Prepared EA Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, and Terms and Conditions, Recommendations, and Prescriptions December 18, 2006. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application and applicant-prepared environmental assessment has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. a. *Type of Application:* Minor License. b. *Project No.:* P-12751-000. c. *Date Filed:* November 8, 2006. d. *Applicant:* AquaEnergy Group, Ltd. e. *Name of Project:* Makah Bay Offshore Wave Energy Pilot Project. f. *Location:* Pacific Ocean in Makah Bay, Clallam County, Washington near the city of Neah Bay, Washington. The project would occupy about one acre of land on the Makah Indian Reservation and about seven acres of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Flattery Rocks National Wildlife Refuge administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* Mary Jane Parks, P.O. Box 1276, Mercer Island, WA 98059,
(626)568-0798. i. *FERC Contact:* Nick Jayjack,
(202)502-6073, *Nicholas.Jayjack@ferc.gov* . j. *Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions:* 60 days from the issuance of this notice. All reply comments must be filed with the Commission within 105 days from the date of this notice. 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. The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on 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. Motions to intervene, protests, comments, terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis. l. The project would consist of:
(1)Four, 250-kilowatt wave energy conversion buoys (“AquaBuOYs”) and an associated mooring/anchoring and electrical connection system placed 3.7 miles offshore in water depths of about 150 feet over a rectangular area about 625 feet by 450 feet of ocean floor;
(2)a metal shore station that would be about 15 feet long by 15 feet wide by 10 feet high and located just inland of Hobuck Beach (on the Makah Indian Reservation near Neah Bay, Washington) adjacent to an existing power line for interconnection—the shore station would contain equipment necessary to connect to the electrical grid;
(3)a driveway and parking area at the metal shore station; and
(4)a 3.7-mile long submarine cable anchored to the ocean floor and connecting from one of the buoy's (“collector buoy”) power cable to the metal shore station. The total installed capacity of the project would be 1 megawatt, and the project would generate about 1,500,000 kilowatt-hours annually. AquaEnergy proposes to provide the power generated by the project to the Clallam County PUD for use in its service area. m. A copy of the application is 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, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. 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, contact FERC Online Support. n. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified deadline date for the particular application. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice. 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. 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, 385.211, 385.214. 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. All filings must
(1)bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” “COMPETING APPLICATION,” “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;”
(2)set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds;
(3)furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and
(4)otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010. o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this notice:
(1)A copy of the water quality certification;
(2)a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or
(3)evidence of waiver of water quality certification. p. *Procedural schedule:* The application will be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate. *Notice of the availability of the EA (single EA):* May 2007. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22204 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12667-003] City of Hamilton, OH; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests December 18, 2006. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. a. *Type of Application:* Original Major License. b. *Project No.:* 12667-003. c. *Date filed:* October 6, 2006. d. *Applicant:* City of Hamilton, Ohio. e. *Name of Project:* Meldahl Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* On the Ohio River, near the City of Augusta, Bracken County, Kentucky. The existing dam is owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The project would occupy approximately 81 acres of United States lands administered by the Corps. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)—825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. Michael Perry, Director of Electric, City of Hamilton, OH, 345 High Street, Hamilton, OH 45011,
(513)785-7229. i. *FERC Contact:* Peter Leitzke at
(202)502-6059; or e-mail at *peter.leitzke@ferc.gov.* j. *Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests:* 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. 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. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on 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. Motions to intervene and protests may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. k. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time. l. The proposed project would utilize the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Captain Anthony Meldahl Locks and Dam, and would consist of:
(1)An intake approach channel;
(2)an intake structure,
(3)a 248-foot-long by 210-foot-wide powerhouse containing three generating units having a total installed capacity of 105 megawatts,
(4)a tailrace channel;
(5)a 5-mile-long, 138-kilovolt transmission line; and
(6)appurtenant facilities. The City of Hamilton (Hamilton) is a municipal entity that owns and operates an electrical system. The project would have an estimated annual generation of 489 gigawatt-hours, which would be used to serve the needs of the customers of Hamilton's electric system. m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website 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, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. n. Competing development applications, notices of intent to file such an application, and applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests 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 protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application. When the application is ready for environmental analysis, the Commission will issue a public notice requesting comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions. All filings must:
(1)Bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE;”
(2)set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds;
(3)furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and
(4)otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. o. *Procedural schedule:* The application will be processed according to the following revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made if the Commission determines it necessary to do so: Action Tentative date Scoping Document for comments March 2007 Notice of application is ready for environmental analysis June 2007 Notice of the availability of the draft EA December 2007 Notice of the availability of the final EA June 2008 Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22206 Filed 12-27-06; 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 December 19, 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.:* 12748-000. c. *Date filed:* November 1, 2006. d. *Applicant:* The City of Corpus Christi (City). e. *Name of Project:* City of Corpus Christi Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* The project would be located at the City's existing Wesley E. Seale Dam, on the Nueces River in Nueces County, Texas. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contacts:* Mr. George “Skip” Noe, City Manager, City of Corpus Christi, 1201 Leopard Street, Corpus Christi, TX 78401,
(361)826-3220. Ms. Mary Kay Fischer, City Attorney, City of Corpus Christi, 1201 Leopard Street, Corpus Christi, TX 78401,
(361)826-3360. Ms. Nancy J. Skancke, Law Offices of GKRSE, 1500 K Street, N.W., Suite 330, Washington, DC 20005,
(202)408-5400. i. *FERC Contact:* Etta Foster,
(202)502-8769. 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 5,970-foot-long, gated, concrete-gravity Wesley E. Seale Dam;
(2)an existing impoundment, Lake Corpus Christi, with a surface area of 18,256 acres and a storage capacity of 257,260 acre-feet at normal maximum water surface elevation of 94.0 feet above mean sea level;
(3)two 2.5 MW turbine generating units with a total installed capacity of 5 megawatts;
(4)an existing 69 kV transmission line, and
(5)appurtenant facilities. The project would have an average annual generation of 5.2 gigawatt-hours. 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, 385.211, 385.214. 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. E6-22211 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No.: P-2301-022] PPL Montana; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing with the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments December 19, 2006. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. a. *Type of Application:* New Major License. b. *Project No.:* P-2301-022. c. *Date Filed:* December 15, 2006. d. *Applicant:* PPL Montana. e. *Name of Project:* Mystic Lake Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* The existing project is located on West Rosebud Creek in Stillwater and Carbon Counties, Montana. The project occupies about 674 acres of federal lands in the Custard National Forest managed by the U.S. Forest Service. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r). h. Applicant Contact: Jon Jourdonnais, PPL Montana, 45 Basin Creek Road, Butte, MT 59701; Telephone
(406)533-3443; email *jhjourdonnais@pplweb.com.* Additional information on this project is available on the applicant's web site: *http://www.mysticlakeproject.com.* i. FERC Contact: Steve Hocking, Telephone
(202)502-8753; email *steve.hocking@ferc.gov* Additional information on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC)hydroelectric projects is available on FERC's web site: *http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower.asp.* j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time. k. Project Description: The existing project consists of the following:
(1)a 368-foot-long, 45-foot-high, concrete arch dam/spillway;
(2)42-inch high timber flashboards on top of the arch spillway;
(3)a 145-foot-long, 15-foot-high concrete core and earthfill dike with 1-foot-high flashboards;
(4)Mystic Lake with a storage capacity of 47,000 acre-feet and a surface area of 446.7 acres at its normal maximum surface elevation of 7,673.5 feet above msl;
(5)a 33-foot-long, 7-foot-high, by 9-foot-wide concrete intake structure at the left abutment of the dike;
(6)a conduit from the intake structure to the powerhouse consisting of a 1,005-foot-long rock tunnel, a 9,012-foot-long, 57-inch steel pipeline with an inverted siphon near the mid-point of the pipeline, a surge tank, and a 2,566-foot-long by 42 to 48-inch diameter steel penstock;
(7)a 60-foot-wide by 85-foot-long concrete powerhouse with two turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 11.25 megawatts;
(8)two concrete tunnels that extend from the powerhouse into West Rosebud Creek;
(9)a re-regulation dam about 1.5 miles downstream from the Mystic Lake powerhouse consisting of a 19-foot-high, 420-foot-long earthfill dike with a concrete spillway with flashboards;
(10)West Rosebud Lake with a storage capacity of 470 acre-feet and a surface area of 49 acres at its normal maximum surface elevation of 6,397.4 feet above msl;
(11)two 5.3-mile-long, 50-kilovolt transmission lines;
(12)a 9,363-foot-long distribution line from the powerhouse to the arch dam and a 2,068-foot-long distribution line from the powerhouse to the surge tank;
(13)an operator village adjacent to the powerhouse with four homes and three maintenance buildings; and
(14)appurtenant facilities. PPL Montana currently operates the project in both base load and peaking modes depending on water availability, electric demands, and existing license constraints. Typically, from mid-May to mid-August, inflows exceed the project's hydraulic capacity and the project is operated as a base load plant, continuously generating at maximum capacity. During this time, flows above the project's hydraulic capacity are captured in Mystic Lake which is gradually raised about 15 to 20 feet per month until it exceeds the project's current minimum recreation elevation of 7,663.5 feet msl. In most years, Mystic Lake is maintained about ten feet higher than the minimum recreation elevation during July and August. After Labor Day, PPL Montana begins to slowly draft Mystic Lake, reducing its elevation by an average of 8 to 9 feet per month, until the lake is at or near its lowest elevation of 6,512.0 feet msl by the end of March. Drafting the lake permits PPL Montana to release more water into West Rosebud Creek than otherwise would be available from inflows from August through March. During the fall and early winter, PPL Montana employs limited peaking to maximize generation during high use periods, generally from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily. In general, flow changes caused by peaking do not extend further than the project's re-regulation dam which creates West Rosebud Lake located about one mile downstream of the powerhouse. l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is 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, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at
(866)208-3676, or for TTY,
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h)above. m. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm* to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. n. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. Milestone Target date Notice of Acceptance/ Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis January 12, 2007 1 Filing of interventions, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and fishway prescriptions March 13, 2007 Reply comments due April 27, 2007 FERC issues single EA (without a draft) July 11, 2007 Comments on EA due August 10, 2007 Filing of modified terms and conditions October 9, 2007 Ready for Commission decision November 15, 2007 o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22212 Filed 12-27-06; 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 December 20, 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.:* 12749-000. c. *Date Filed:* November 2, 2006. d. *Applicant:* Oregon Wave Energy Partners, LLC. P>e. *Name of Project:* Coos Bay OPT Wave Park Project. f. *Location:* The project would be located in the Pacific Ocean about 2.5 miles off shore in Coos County, Oregon. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)—825(r). h. *Applicant Contacts:* Charles F. Dunleavy, Oregon Wave Energy Partners, LLC, 1590 Reed Road, Pennington, NJ 08534, phone: (609)-730-0400. 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)200 to 400 Power Buoys having a total installed capacity of 100 megawatts,
(2)a proposed 13.8 kilovolt transmission line; and
(3)appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to have an annual generation of 306.6 gigawatt-hours per-unit per-year, 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, 385.211, 385.214. 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. E6-22229 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests December 20, 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:* 12750-000. c. *Date Filed:* November 2, 2006. d. *Applicant:* Oregon Wave Energy Partners, LLC. e. *Name of Project:* Newport OPT Wave Park Project. f. *Location:* The proposed tidal project would be located in the Pacific Ocean about 3 to 6 miles off shore in Lincoln County, Oregon. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contacts:* Charles F. Dunleavy, Oregon Wave Energy Partners, LLC, 1590 Reed Road, Pennington, NJ 08534, phone: (609)-730-0400. i. *FERC Contact:* Mr. Robert Bell,
(202)502-6062. j. *Deadline for filing motions to intervene, protests and comments:* 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. 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. 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 electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-12750-000) on any comments or motions filed. 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. Competing Application: Project No. 12727-000, Date Filed: August 17, 2006, Date Issued: October 11, 2006, Due Date: December 11, 2006. l. *Description of Project:* The proposed project would consist of:
(1)200 to 400 Power Buoys having a total installed capacity of 100 megawatts,
(2)a proposed 13.8 kilovolt transmission line, and
(3)appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to have an annual generation of 306.6 gigawatt-hours per-unit per-year, which would be sold to a local utility. m. *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. n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission(s mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. o. 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. p. 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, 385.211, 385.214. 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. q. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “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. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in 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 the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. r. 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. E6-22230 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2301-022] PPL Montana; Notice of Teleconference to Discuss Additional Information Needs for the Mystic Lake Hydroelectric Project December 20, 2006. a. *Date and Time of Teleconference:* January 8, 2007; 9 a.m. MST (11 a.m. EST). b. *Teleconference Call:* Call-in procedures and an agenda will be posted to the Commission's Web site soon at: *http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx?Date=1/6/2007&CalendarID=0.* c. *FERC Contact:* Steve Hocking at
(202)502-8753 or *steve.hocking@ferc.gov.* d. *Purpose of Teleconference:* PPL Montana filed an application to relicense the Mystic Lake Hydroelectric Project on December 15, 2006. Commission staff may include a “Wilderness Avoidance Alternative” in our NEPA analysis to analyze lowered lake levels in both Mystic and West Rosebud Lakes, if needed, to prevent these two lakes from encroaching upon the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area. This teleconference is to help Commission staff determine whether any additional information is needed to analyze a “Wilderness Avoidance Alternative” in our NEPA document. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22228 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-614-000] Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Informal Settlement Conference December 19, 2006. Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened in this proceeding commencing at 10 a.m.
(EST)on Tuesday, January 9, 2007, at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, for the purpose of exploring the possible settlement of the above-referenced docket. Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214). FERC conferences 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 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-208-1659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations. For additional information, please contact Tom Burgess at
(202)502-6058, *thomas.burgess@ferc.gov* or Lorna Hadlock at
(202)502-8737, *lorna.hadlock@ferc.gov.* Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22216 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Southwestern Power Administration Robert D. Willis Hydropower Rate Schedules AGENCY: Southwestern Power Administration, DOE. ACTION: Notice of Rate Order. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Delegation Order Nos. 00-037.00, effective December 6, 2001, and 00-001.00B, effective July 28, 2005, the Deputy Secretary has approved and placed into effect on an interim basis Rate Order No. SWPA-57, which increases the power rate for the Robert Douglas Willis Hydropower Project (Willis) pursuant to the following Willis Rate Schedule: Rate Schedule RDW-06, Wholesale Rates for Hydro Power and Energy Sold to Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency (Contract No. DE--PM75-85SW00117) The effective period for the rate schedule specified in Rate Order No. SWPA-57 is January 1, 2007, through September 30, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Forrest E. Reeves, Assistant Administrator, Office of Corporate Operations, Southwestern Power Administration, Department of Energy, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103,
(918)595-6696, *gene.reeves@swpa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The existing hydroelectric power rate for the Robert Douglas Willis project is $648,096 per year. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved this rate on a final basis on June 21, 2006, for the period January 1, 2006, through September 30, 2009. The 2006 Willis Power Repayment Studies indicate the need for an increase in the annual rate by $167,484 or 25.8 percent beginning January 1, 2007. The Administrator, Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) has followed Title 10, Part 903 Subpart A, of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions” in connection with the proposed rate schedule. On August 10, 2006, Southwestern published notice in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 45820), of a 60-day comment period, together with a combined Public Information and Comment Forum, to provide an opportunity for customers and other interested members of the public to review and comment on a proposed rate increase for the Willis project. The public forum was canceled when no one expressed an intention to participate. Written comments were accepted through October 10, 2006. One comment was received from Gillis & Angley, Counsellors at Law, on behalf of Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency and the Vinton Public Power Authority, which stated that they had no objection to the proposed rate adjustment. Information regarding this rate proposal, including studies and other supporting material, is available for public review and comment in the offices of Southwestern Power Administration, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103. Following review of Southwestern's proposal within the Department of Energy, I approved Rate Order No. SWPA-57, on an interim basis, which increases the existing Robert D. Willis rate to $815,580, per year, for the period January 1, 2007, through September 30, 2010. Dated: December 21, 2006. Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary. United States of America Department of Energy, Deputy Secretary of Energy In the Matter of: Southwestern Power Administration; Robert D. Willis Hydropower Project Rate Rate Order No. SWPA-57 Order Confirming, Approving and Placing Increased Power Rate Schedule in Effect on an Interim Basis Pursuant to sections 302(a) and 301(b) of the Department of Energy Organization Act, Public Law 95-91, the functions of the Secretary of the Interior and the Federal Power Commission under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. 825s, relating to the Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) were transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy. By Delegation Order No. 0204-108, effective December 14, 1983, the Secretary of Energy delegated to the Administrator of Southwestern the authority to develop power and transmission rates, delegated to the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy the authority to confirm, approve, and place in effect such rates on an interim basis and delegated to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC)the authority to confirm and approve on a final basis or to disapprove rates developed by the Administrator under the delegation. Delegation Order No. 0204-108, as amended, was rescinded and subsequently replaced by Delegation Orders 00-037.00 (December 6, 2001) and 00-001-00B (July 28, 2005). The Deputy Secretary issued this rate order pursuant to said delegations. Background Dam B (Town Bluff Dam), located on the Neches River in eastern Texas downstream from the Sam Rayburn Dam, was originally constructed in 1951 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and provides streamflow regulation of releases from the Sam Rayburn Dam. The Lower Neches Valley Authority contributed funds toward construction of both projects and makes established annual payments for the right to withdraw up to 2000 cubic feet of water per second from Town Bluff Dam for its own use. Power was legislatively authorized at the project, but installation of hydroelectric facilities was deferred until justified by economic conditions. A determination of feasibility was made in a 1982 Corps study. In 1983, the Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency (SRMPA) proposed to sponsor and finance the development at Town Bluff Dam in return for the output of the project to be delivered to its member municipalities and participating member cooperatives of the Sam Rayburn Dam Electric Cooperative. Since the hydroelectric facilities at the Town Bluff Dam have been completed, the facilities have been renamed the Robert Douglas Willis Hydropower Project (Willis). The Willis rate is unique in that it excludes the costs associated with the hydropower design and construction performed by the Corps, because all funds for these costs were provided by SRMPA. Under the Southwestern/SRMPA power sales Contract No. DE-PM75-85SW00117, SRMPA will continue to pay all annual operating and marketing costs, as well as expected capital replacement costs, through the rate paid to Southwestern, and will receive all power and energy produced at the project for a period of 50 years. In the FERC Docket No. EF06-4081-000, issued June 21, 2006, for the period January 1, 2006, through September 30, 2009, the FERC confirmed and approved the current annual Willis rate of $648,096. Discussion Southwestern's 2006 Current Power Repayment Study
(PRS)indicates that the existing annual power rate of $648,096 does not represent the lowest possible rate needed to meet cost recovery criteria. The increased revenue requirement is due to an increase in the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) projected future replacement investment. The Revised PRS indicates that an increase in annual revenues of $167,484 beginning January 1, 2007, is sufficient to accomplish repayment of the Federal investment in the required number of years. Accordingly, Southwestern developed a proposed rate schedule based on that increased revenue requirement. Title 10, Part 903, Subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions,” has been followed in connection with the proposed rate adjustment. More specifically, opportunities for public review and comment during a 60-day period on the proposed Willis power rate were announced by a **Federal Register** (71 FR 45820) notice published on August 10, 2006. A combined Public Information and Comment Forum was scheduled for September 14, 2006, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The forum was canceled as no one expressed an intent to participate. Written comments were due by October 10, 2006. Southwestern provided the **Federal Register** notice, together with requested supporting data, to the customer and interested parties for review and comment during the formal period of public participation. In addition, prior to the formal 60-day public participation process, Southwestern discussed with the customer representatives the preliminary information on the proposed rate adjustment. Only one formal comment was received during the public process. That comment, on behalf of SRMPA and the Vinton Public Power Authority, expressed no objection to the final proposed rate. Upon conclusion of the comment period in October 2006, Southwestern finalized the PRS and rate schedule for the proposed annual rate of $815,580 which is the lowest possible rate needed to satisfy repayment criteria. This rate represents an annual increase of 25.8 percent. Availability Of Information Information regarding this rate increase, including studies and other supporting material, is available for public review and comment in the offices of Southwestern Power Administration, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103. Comments And Responses Southwestern received one written comment in which the customer representative expressed no objection to the proposed rate adjustment. Other Issues There were no other issues raised during the informal meeting or during the formal public participation period. Administrator's Certification The 2006 Revised Willis PRS indicates that the annual power rate of $815,580 will repay all costs of the project, including amortization of the power investment consistent with provisions of the Department of Energy
(DOE)Order No. RA 6120.2. In accordance with Delegation Order Nos. 00-037.00 (December 6, 2001) and 00-001.00B (July 28, 2005), and section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, the Administrator has determined that the proposed Willis power rate is consistent with applicable law and the lowest possible rate consistent with sound business principles. Environment The environmental impact of the rate increase proposal was evaluated in consideration of DOE's guidelines for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 10 CFR part 1021, and was determined to fall within the class of actions that are categorically excluded from the requirements of preparing either an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment. Order In view of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority delegated to me, I hereby confirm, approve and place in effect on an interim basis, for the period January 1, 2007, through September 30, 2010, the annual Robert Douglas Willis Hydropower Rate of $815,580 for the sale of power and energy from Robert Douglas Willis project to the Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency, under Contract No. DE-PM75-85SW00117, as amended. This rate shall remain in effect on an interim basis through September 30, 2010, or until the FERC confirms and approves the rate on a final basis. Dated: 12/21/06. Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22269 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie Project—Rate Order No. WAPA-133 AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE. ACTION: Notice of Order Extending Transmission Service Rates and Notice of Extension of Public Process for Rate Adjustment. SUMMARY: This action is to extend the existing Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie Project (Intertie) transmission service rates through December 31, 2007. Simultaneously, the Western Area Power Administration (Western) is extending the public process for a rate adjustment that was initiated in July 2006 under Rate Order No. WAPA-130. Without this action, the existing transmission service rates will expire December 31, 2006, and no rates will be in effect for these services. Western initiated a public process to modify the transmission service rates for the Intertie, via a notice published in the **Federal Register** on July 12, 2006. Western is extending the comment and consultation period to allow sufficient time to evaluate additional alternatives to the proposed rates. In conjunction with extending the comment and consultation period, Western will hold an additional public information forum and public comment forum. DATES: The extended consultation and comment period begins today and will end March 28, 2007. A public information forum will be held on February 8, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. MST in Phoenix, AZ. A public comment forum will be held February 27, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. MST in Phoenix, AZ. Western will accept written comments any time during the consultation and comment period. ADDRESSES: The public information forum and public comment forum will be held at the Desert Southwest Region Customer Service Office, 615 South 43rd Avenue, Phoenix, AZ, on the dates cited above. Send written comments to Mr. J. Tyler Carlson, Regional Manager, Desert Southwest Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457, e-mail *carlson@wapa.gov* . Written comments may also be faxed to
(602)605-2490, attention: Jack Murray. Western will post information about the rate process on its Web site at *http://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/Intertie/RateAdjust.htm* . Western will post official comments received via letter, fax, and e-mail to its Web site after the close of the comment period. Western must receive written comments by the end of the consultation and comment period to ensure they are considered in Western's decision process. As access to Western facilities is controlled, any U.S. citizen wishing to attend any meeting held at Western must present an official form of picture identification, such as a U.S. driver's license, U.S. passport, U.S. Government ID, or U.S. Military ID, at the time of the meeting. Foreign nationals should contact Western at least 45 days in advance of the meeting to obtain the necessary form for admittance to Western. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jack Murray, Rates Team Lead, Desert Southwest Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457,
(602)605-2442, e-mail *jmurray@wapa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy delegated:
(1)The authority to develop power and transmission rates to Western's Administrator;
(2)the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and
(3)the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The existing Rate Schedules consist of separate firm transmission service rates for the 230/345-kilovolt
(kV)and 500-kV transmission systems and a nonfirm transmission service rate for the 230/345/500-kV transmission system. Rate Schedules INT-FT2 and INT-NFT2, Rate Order No. WAPA-71 1 , were approved for a 53-month period, beginning February 1, 1996, and ending September 30, 2000. Rate Order No. WAPA-91 2 extended these rate schedules for a 39-month period, beginning October 1, 2000, through December 31, 2003. Rate Order No. WAPA-108 3 extended these rate schedules again beginning January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2006. Rate Schedule INT-FT3, contained in Rate Order No. WAPA-76, 4 was approved for a 5-year period, beginning January 1, 1999, and ending December 31, 2003. Rate Order No. WAPA-108 extended this rate schedule beginning January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2006. 1 WAPA-71 (published 2/7/96, 61 FR 4650) was approved by FERC on a final basis on July 24, 1996, through September 30, 2000, in Docket No. EF96-5191-000 (76 FERC ¶62,061). 2 WAPA-91 (published 8/29/00, 65 FR 52423) (which extended the WAPA-71 rates from October 1, 2000, through December 31, 2003) was approved by the Deputy Secretary on August 15, 2000. FERC “accepted” this extension pursuant to a letter order from Michael A. Coleman, Director, Division of Tariffs and Rates—West dated October 19, 2000 (Docket EF00-5191-000). 3 WAPA-108 (published 11/7/03, 68 FR 63083) (which extended the WAPA-76 and WAPA-71/91 rates) was approved by FERC on a final basis on March 25, 2004, through December 31, 2006, in Docket No. EF04-5191-000 (106 FERC ¶62,227) 4 WAPA-76 (published 2/9/99, 64 FR 6344) was approved by FERC on a final basis on June 22, 1999, through December 31, 2003, in Docket No. EF99-5191-000 (87 FERC ¶61,346). Western's Desert Southwest Customer Service Region entered into a rate adjustment process with a **Federal Register** notice published on July 12, 2006, (71 FR 39310), which began the initial public consultation and comment period that ended on October 10, 2006. Western seeks this extension to provide more time to evaluate additional alternatives to the proposed rates. During the original consultation and comment period, Western was evaluating the impacts of a transmission sale arrangement that would have mitigated the proposed rate increase. However, a deferral of that transaction requires Western to assess the impact on the proposed rates as presented in the public process. The evaluation period and public process will take approximately 6 months to complete, including additional formal public forums. This makes it necessary to extend the current rates under 10 CFR 903.23(b). Upon its approval, Rate Order No. WAPA-71 and Rate Order No. WAPA-76, previously extended under Rate Order No. WAPA-91 and Rate Order No. WAPA-108, will be extended under Rate Order No. WAPA-133. Rate Order No. WAPA-133 will be submitted to FERC for confirmation and approval on a final basis. Following review of Western's proposal within DOE, I approve Rate Order No. WAPA-133, which extends the existing Intertie firm and nonfirm transmission service rates, Rate Schedules INT-FT2, INT-FT3, and INT-NFT2, through December 31, 2007. Dated: December 21, 2006. Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, DEPUTY SECRETARY In the Matter of: Western Area Power Administration Rates Extension for the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie Project Transmission Service Rates Order Confirming and Approving an Extension of the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie Project Transmission Service Rates These transmission service rates were established following section 302 of the Department of Energy
(DOE)Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152). This Act transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy the power marketing functions of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation under the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent laws, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)), and other Acts that specifically apply to the project system involved. By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy delegated:
(1)the authority to develop power and transmission rates to the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration (Western);
(2)the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and
(3)the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Background The existing Rate Schedules consist of separate firm transmission service rates for the 230/345-kilovolt
(kV)and 500-kV transmission systems and a nonfirm transmission service rate for the 230/345/500-kV transmission system. Rate Schedules INT-FT2 and INT-NFT2, Rate Order No. WAPA-71, were approved for a 53-month period, beginning February 1, 1996, and ending September 30, 2000. Rate Order No. WAPA-91 extended these rate schedules for a 39-month period, beginning October 1, 2000, through December 31, 2003. Rate Order No. WAPA-108 extended these rate schedules again beginning January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2006. Rate Schedule INT-FT3, contained in Rate Order No. WAPA-76, was approved for a 5-year period, beginning January 1, 1999, and ending December 31, 2003. Rate Order No. WAPA-108 extended this rate schedule beginning January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2006. Discussion Western's Desert Southwest Customer Service Region entered into a rate adjustment process with a **Federal Register** notice published on July 12, 2006, (71 FR 39310), which began the initial public consultation and comment period that ended on October 10, 2006. Western seeks an extension of the public process to provide more time to evaluate additional alternatives to the proposed rates. During the original consultation and comment period, Western was evaluating the impacts of a transmission sale arrangement that would have mitigated the proposed rate increase. However, a deferral of that transaction requires Western to assess the impact on the proposed rates as presented in the public process. The evaluation period and public process will take approximately 6 months to complete, including additional formal public forums. This makes it necessary to extend the current rates pursuant to 10 CFR part 903.23(b). Upon its approval, Rate Order No. WAPA-71 and Rate Order No. WAPA-76, previously extended under Rate Order No. WAPA-91 and Rate Order No. WAPA-108, will be extended under Rate Order No. WAPA-133. ORDER In view of the above and under the authority delegated to me by the Secretary, I hereby extend the existing Rate Schedules INT-FT2, INT-FT3, and INT-NFT2 for firm and nonfirm transmission service from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. Dated: 12/21/06. Clay Sell, *Deputy Secretary* . [FR Doc. E6-22268 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8263-2] California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Notice of Within-the-Scope Determination for Amendments To California's Zero-Emission Vehicle
(ZEV)Standards and Notice of Waiver of Federal Preemption Decision for Other ZEV standards AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice Regarding Confirmation of Within-the-Scope Finding and Waiver of Federal Preemption for Amendments to California's Emission Regulations for Zero Emission Vehicles. SUMMARY: By this decision, issued under section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, (hereafter “Act”), 42 U.S.C. 7543(b), the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)today has determined that provisions of the California Air Resources Board‘s (CARB’s) 1999-2003 amendments to the California Zero-Emission Vehicle
(ZEV)regulations as they affect 2006 and prior model years
(MYs)are within-the-scope of previous waivers of federal preemption granted to California for its ZEV regulations. In the alternative, EPA is also granting a waiver of federal preemption for these MYs. EPA is also granting California(s request for a waiver of federal preemption to enforce provisions of the ZEV regulations as they affect 2007 through 2011 MYs. As explained below, EPA is also making a finding that although we believe it appropriate to grant a full waiver of federal preemption for the 2007 MY, we also believe it appropriate to consider the 2007 MY regulations within-the-scope of previous waivers of federal preemption as they apply to certain vehicles that were already subject to the preexisting ZEV regulations, with the exception that requirements pertaining to heavier light-duty trucks (LDT2s) are subject to a full waiver of federal preemption. EPA, by this decision, is not making any findings or determinations with regard to the 2012 and later model years under CARB's ZEV regulations. DATES: Any objections to the findings in this notice regarding EPA's confirmation that CARB's ZEV amendments, as they affect the 2007 MY, are within-the-scope of previous waivers must be filed January 29, 2007. Otherwise, at the end of the 30-day period, these findings will become final. Upon receipt of any timely objection, EPA will consider scheduling a public hearing to reconsider these finding in a subsequent **Federal Register** Notice. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be filed February 26, 2007. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, judicial review of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings. ADDRESSES: Any objections to the within-the-scope findings in this notice, applicable to the 2007 MY, should be filed with David Dickinson at the address noted below. The Agency's Decision Document, containing an explanation of the Assistant Administrator's decision, as well as all documents relied upon in making that decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are available at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket). Materials relevant to this decision are contained in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0437. The docket is located at The Air Docket, room B-108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and may be viewed between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The telephone is
(202)566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket material. Additionally, an electronic version of the public docket is available through the Federal government's electronic public docket and comment system. You may access EPA dockets at *www.regulations.gov.* After opening the *www.regulations.gov* Web site, select “Environmental Protection Agency” from the pull-down Agency list, then scroll to “Keyword or ID” and enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0437 to view documents in the record of this California request. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dickinson, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building (6405J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202)343-9256. E-Mail Address: *Dickinson.David@EPA.GOV.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this decision, EPA has determined that the California Air Resources Board(s (CARB’s) 1999-2003 amendments to the California Zero-Emission Vehicle
(ZEV)regulations as they affect 2006 and prior model years
(MYs)are within-the-scope of previous waivers of federal preemption granted to California for its ZEV regulations pursuant to section 209(b) of the Act. In the alternative, EPA is also granting a waiver of federal preemption for such MYs. EPA is also granting California’s request for a waiver of federal preemption to enforce certain provisions of the ZEV regulations as they affect 2007 through 2011 MY vehicles. Because the 2007 MY provisions are similar to the provisions for previous model years (with the exception of new requirements for LDT2s) EPA is also confirming that such provisions are within-the-scope of previous waivers of federal preemption. By letter dated September 23, 2004, CARB submitted a request seeking confirmation that the amendments as they pertain to the 2003-2006 model years are within-the-scope of previous waivers and seeking a waiver of Federal preemption as the amendments pertain to the 2007 and subsequent model years. The first set of amendments, the “1999 ZEV amendments,” amended the existing requirement that at least 10 percent of a manufacturer(s 2003 and subsequent MY passenger cars and lightest light-duty trucks (the LDT1 category) delivered for sale in California be ZEV vehicles with no emissions. The 1999 ZEV amendments added a new option for meeting the 10 percent requirement, including up to 60 percent of the ZEV obligation of a large-volume manufacturer—and 100 percent of the obligations of an intermediate-volume manufacturer—that could be met with allowances from partial ZEV allowance vehicles (PZEVs). The “2001 ZEV amendments” maintained a core ZEV component but reduced the numbers of vehicles required in the near-term and broadened the scope of vehicle technologies allowed and provided a variety of multipliers to earn credits for the early introduction of ZEVs. The third set of amendments to the ZEV regulation, the “2003 ZEV amendments,” delayed the start of the percentage of ZEV requirements from MY 2003 to MY 2005, added the heavier light-duty trucks (LDT2s) into a manufacturers fleet population count, established an alternative compliance path for large-volume manufacturers that choose to focus on the development of fuel cell ZEVs, eliminated all references to fuel economy and vehicle efficiency from the 2001 ZEV amendments, and adjusted the credit structure for the various vehicles types. Finally, the fourth set of amendments include a requirement that 2006 and later MY battery EVs other than neighborhood electric vehicles
(NEVs)be equipped with a conductive charger inlet port and an on-board charger, and a separate minor element from CARB's LEV II regulations which revised the standards for alternative fuel vehicles qualifying as partial ZEV allowance vehicles and for which CARB seeks a within-the-scope confirmation. On January 18, 2005, a **Federal Register** notice was published announcing an opportunity for hearing and comment on CARB's request. 1 EPA received a request for a public hearing and conducted a hearing on February 17, 2005. The written comment period expired on March 29, 2005. After the close of the written comment period EPA also received a series of letters for the 2007 MY since EPA had not acted upon CARB's request at the time of the letters. Included in these letters, regarding the 2007 MY, was a new request from CARB to EPA seeking EPA's confirmation that the ZEV amendments as they affect the 2007 MY are within-the-scope of previous waivers. CARB did not include the requirements applicable to LDT2s that commence in the 2007 MY as part of this within-the-scope request. 1 70 FR 2860 (January 18, 2005). Section 209(b) of the Act provides that, if certain criteria are met, the Administrator shall waive Federal preemption for California to enforce new motor vehicle emission standards and accompanying enforcement procedures. The criteria include consideration of whether California arbitrarily and capriciously determined that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as the applicable federal standards; whether California needs state standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; and whether California's amendments are consistent with section 202(a) of the Act. If California acts to amend a previously waived standard or accompanying enforcement procedure, the amendment may be considered within-the-scope of a previously granted waiver provided that it does not undermine California's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards, does not affect its consistency with section 202(a) of the Act, and raises no new issues affecting EPA's previous waiver decisions. In its request letter to EPA, CARB stated that the amendments to its ZEV requirements will not cause the California standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of public health and welfare than the applicable Federal standards. EPA received information during this proceeding that questioned whether the CARB ZEV amendments may be less protective for various reasons. EPA finds that the party opposing the within-the-scope determination and the waiver have not meet their burden of proof to demonstrate that the ZEV amendments undermine CARB's previous protectiveness determination or that CARB was arbitrary and capricious in its protectiveness determination. I cannot find that CARB's ZEV regulations would cause the California motor vehicle emission standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of public health and welfare than applicable Federal standards. CARB also demonstrated continuing existence of compelling and extraordinary conditions, justifying the state's need for its own motor vehicle pollution control program. Because EPA has not received adverse public comment challenging the need for CARB's own motor vehicle pollution control program, I cannot deny the waiver based on a lack of a compelling and extraordinary conditions. CARB stated in its request letters that the amendments do not raise any concerns of inadequate leadtime or impose any inconsistent certification requirements. EPA received information during this proceeding that questioned: whether the advance-technology partial-zero-emission vehicles (ATPZEVs) provisions of the ZEV requirements were of a type not consistent with § 202(a), and whether the partial-zero-emission vehicle
(PZEV)and fuel-cell vehicle
(FCV)provisions of the ZEV requirements were not consistent with § 202(a) due to considerations of technological feasibility, lead time, and cost. EPA finds that the party opposing the within-the-scope confirmation and the waiver of federal preemption has not met its burden of proof that the ZEV amendments are inconsistent with § 202(a). I cannot find that CARB's ZEV regulations, as noted, would cause the California motor vehicle emission standards to be inconsistent with § 202(a). As explained further in the Decision Document, EPA also received comment that CARB's ZEV regulations raise “new issues” which require EPA to consider CARB's within-the-scope request under the criteria for a full waiver of federal preemption. EPA finds that the party opposing the within-the-scope confirmation has not met its burden of proof that the ZEV amendments raise new issues and therefore I cannot find that the within-the-scope confirmation should be denied on this basis. Therefore I confirm that CARB's ZEV amendments as they affect the 2006 and earlier MYs, as noted above, are within-the-scope of existing waivers of federal preemption. I also find that the ZEV amendments as they affect the 2006 and earlier MYs meet the criteria for a full waiver and thus I alternatively grant a waiver of federal preemption for these MYs. I also grant a waiver of federal preemption of CARB's ZEV amendments as they affect the 2007 through 2011 MYs. As explained further in the Decision Document, EPA is not making any determinations regarding a waiver of federal preemption applicable to 2012 and later MYs. CARB did not seek a within-the-scope confirmation of the 2007 MY as part of its initial request to EPA. However, CARB later requested EPA to consider the 2007 MY provisions (with the exception of the LDT2 requirement) as within-the-scope. While EPA did request comment regarding CARB's within-the-scope request for the 2003-2006 MYs, EPA has not done so for the 2007 MY. As explained in the Decision Document, EPA does not believe that a further official request for comment is needed at this time. Because the 2007 MY provisions are very similar to the 2005-2006 MY provisions, I confirm that the 2007 MY requirements (with the exception of the LDT2 requirement) are within-the-scope of previous waivers of federal preemption. However, any party that wishes to object to this determination may file such objection as indicated in the DATES and ADDRESSES section above. Upon receipt of a timely objection, EPA will consider scheduling a public hearing to reconsider these findings in a subsequent **Federal Register** Notice. A full explanation of EPA's decision, including our review of comments received in opposition to CARB's request, is contained in a Decision Document which may be obtained as explained above. My decision will affect not only persons in California but also the manufacturers outside the State who must comply with California's requirements in order to produce nonroad engines and vehicles for sale in California. For this reason, I hereby determine and find that this is a final action of national applicability. As with past waiver decisions, this action is not a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866. In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of this action on small business entities. Finally, the Administrator has delegated the authority to make determinations regarding waivers under section 209(b) of the Act to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Dated: December 21, 2006. William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E6-22314 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0340; FRL-8262-6] Boutique Fuels List under Section 1541(b) of the Energy Policy Act AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) includes a number of provisions addressing state boutique fuel programs. Section 1541(b) of this Act requires EPA, in consultation with the Department of Energy, to determine the total number of fuels approved into all state implementation plans
(SIPs)as of September 1, 2004, under section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPAct also requires us to publish a list of such fuels, including the states and Petroleum Administration for Defense District
(PADD)in which they are used, for public review and comment. On June 6, 2006, we published a draft list based upon a “fuel type approach” along with an explanation of our rationale in developing it. We also published an alternative list based upon a “state specific approach.” In this notice we are finalizing the list of total number of fuels approved into all SIPs as of September 1, 2004, based upon the fuel type approach. This notice also addresses comments that we received on the proposed draft notice and list. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Pastorkovich, Environmental Protection Agency, MC 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9623; fax number: 202-343-2801; email address: *pastorkovich.anne-marie@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), state fuel programs respecting a fuel characteristic or component that we have regulated under section 211(c)
(1)are preempted. 1 EPA may waive preemption through approval of the fuel program into a State Implementation Plan (SIP). Approval into the SIP requires a demonstration that the state fuel program is necessary to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that the plan implements. 2 “Necessary” means that no other measures exist that would bring about timely attainment or that other measures exist and are technically possible to implement, but are unreasonable or impracticable. 3 These state fuels programs, which are often referred to as “boutique” fuel programs because they differ from the federal fuel required in the area, have been adopted by the state to address a specific local air quality issue. One issue presented by boutique fuels is that when events (such as hurricanes or pipeline and refinery breakdowns) lead to fuel supply shortages, varying fuel standards can complicate the process of quickly solving the supply interruption. 1 See CAA section 211(c)(4)(A), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(A). 2 NAAQS are standards for ambient levels of certain air pollutants (e.g. ground-level ozone) and are designed to protect public health and welfare. 3 *See* CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(i), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(i). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) amends the CAA by placing additional restrictions on our authority to waive preemption by approving a state fuel into the SIP. These restrictions are: • We cannot approve a state fuel if it would cause the total number of fuels approved into SIPs to increase above the number approved as of September 1, 2004. • In cases where our approval would not increase the total number of such fuels, because the total number of fuels in SIPs at that point is below the number of fuels as of September 1, 2004, then our approval requires a finding, after consultation with the Department of Energy (DOE), that the new fuel will not cause supply or distribution interruptions or have a significant adverse impact on fuel producibility in the affected or contiguous areas. 4 4 *See* CAA section 211(v)(4)(C)(v)(IV), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(IV). • We cannot approve a state fuel into a SIP unless the fuel is already in an existing SIP within that PADD, with the exception of a 7.0 psi RVP fuel. 5 EPA's approval of a 7.0 psi RVP fuel would, however, be subject to the other EPAct restrictions. 5 *See* CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(V). For a pictorial depiction of the PADD map, please refer to “Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts” at *http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/paddmap.htm.* As these restrictions make clear, how we determine the total number of fuels on the list may greatly affect states' ability to have future boutique fuels programs approved into SIPs. Section 1541(b) of the EPAct also requires us, in consultation with the Department of Energy (DOE), to determine the total number of fuels approved into all state implementation plans
(SIPs)as of September 1, 2004, under section 211(c)(4)(C), and publish a list of such fuels, including the state and PADD in which they are used for public review and comment. On June 6, 2006, we published a draft list of state fuels approved into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004 for public review and comment. 6 The notice included our draft interpretation of the various EPAct boutique fuels provisions described above. As we discussed in the notice, the EPAct is ambiguous as to the meaning of “total number of fuels.” We provided two proposed interpretations for developing the list. The first proposed approach was the “fuel type approach.” As explained in the notice, this approach would treat each type or kind of fuel as a separate fuel, without respect to the number of different state implementation plans that include this fuel type. For example, all state fuels with a Reid Vapor Pressure of 7.8 pounds per square inch
(psi)would be considered as one fuel in determining the total number of fuels approved as of September 1, 2004. 7 While several states had a 7.8 psi RVP program on that date, they would not be treated as different fuels in determining the “total number of fuels,” but as different states using a single fuel type. This approach resulted in a draft list with seven different fuel types. 71 FR 32533. 6 *See* “Draft Boutique Fuels List Under Section 1541(b) of the Energy Policy Act and Request for Public Comment—Notice.” 71 FR 32532, 32533 (June 6, 2006). 7 Reid Vapor Pressure is the common measure of fuel volatility. Volatility is the tendency of fuel to evaporate. We also provided an alternative interpretation, called the “state specific approach.” Under this approach, each individual state using a type or kind of fuel in a SIP would be considered a separate fuel. For example, each state having a 7.8 psi RVP fuel in its SIP could be treated as having a separate fuel for purposes of determining the “total number of fuels.” The state specific interpretation would lead to as many fuels as there are state fuel programs in the various PADDs and, as proposed, would have resulted in 15 different fuels. 8 71 FR 32533-34. 8 For a more detailed description of the “fuel type approach” and the “state specific approach,” see 71 FR 32532, 32533-34. Also see the tables corresponding to these approaches on pages 32535-36 of that notice. A. Our Final Interpretation of the EPAct Boutique Fuel Provisions In today's notice, we are adopting the fuel type interpretation. We are determining the total number of state fuels approved into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004 based on the fuel type interpretation. We will use both the fuel type interpretation and the final list of fuels in implementing the three EPAct criteria for future decisions on approval of a state fuel into a SIP. Specifically, these criteria present the following restrictions on our ability to approve future state fuels into SIPs: • We cannot approve a state fuel into a SIP under section 211(c)(4)(C) if it would cause the total number of fuel types on the list to increase above the number approved on September 1, 2004. 9 Under the fuel type interpretation, our approval of a state 7.8 psi RVP program, for example, would not cause an increase in the number of fuel types on the list because that type of RVP program is already on the list. 9 *See* CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(I), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(I). • In cases where our approval of a fuel would increase the total number of fuels types on the list but not above the number approved as of September 1, 2004, because the total number of fuel types in SIPs is below the number of fuels types as of September 1, 2004, we are required to make a finding after consultation with the DOE that the fuel does not cause supply or distribution interruptions or have a significant adverse impact on fuel producibility in the affected or contiguous areas. Under the fuel type interpretation, where there is “room” on the list, we may approve a state fuel program, after consultation with the DOE, and a finding that the state fuel will not cause either supply or distribution interruptions or have a significant adverse impact on fuel producibility in either the affected or contiguous areas. • We cannot approve a state fuel into a SIP unless that fuel type is already in a SIP in the applicable PADD, with the exception of the 7.0 psi RVP fuel type. 10 Under the fuel type interpretation that we are adopting today, the PADD restriction would not extend to our approval of a 7.0 psi RVP fuel, although our approval of a 7.0 psi RVP fuel would remain subject to the other EPAct restrictions, discussed above. See also Section I.C. below for a further discussion of our interpretation and implementation of the PADD restriction provision in PADD 5. 10 *See* CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(V). B. List of Fuel Types We have also modified the draft list in response to comments that we received on the proposed notice, and it now contains a total of 8 different fuel types. See Section III, below, for the final List of State Fuels approved under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004.
(i)9.0 psi RVP Fuel Type In proposing the draft list of boutique fuels, we recognized that there were a few states that had 9.0 psi RVP fuel programs approved into their SIPs as of September 1, 2004. We explained, however, that we do not believe that we should include a 9.0 psi RVP fuel type on the boutique fuels list required by EPAct. We explained that we were obligated to publish a list based on the total number of fuels approved into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004, and also required to remove a fuel that is “identical to a Federal fuel formulation implemented by the Administrator,” from the list. 11 Because the current federal RVP requirement in all of these northeastern states is 9.0 psi RVP, and was as of September 1, 2004, reading the EPAct provisions literally would require EPA to include a 9.0 psi RVP fuel type on the list but to remove it from the list at the same time. We proposed to exclude the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type from the list in order to avoid this illogical outcome. As we further explained in the notice, we do not believe that the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type would be viewed as contributing to the proliferation of “fuel islands” that Congress was concerned about. 12 We continue to believe that the appropriate way to reconcile these apparently conflicting provisions is to exclude the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type from the list. We do not believe that adoption of the fuel type interpretation affects our decision not to list the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type. 11 See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(III), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(III). 12 See 71 FR 32532, 32534. We received two comments concerning our treatment of the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type. Our response to these comments can be found in “Section II. Comment Summary and Response,” below.
(ii)Arizona Clean Burning Gasoline
(CBG)Under our proposed fuel type interpretation, we listed the total number of fuels based on the kind or type of fuel approved into a SIP as of September 1, 2004. 71 FR 32533. We also determined the fuel type or kind based on the required specific fuel components, specifications, or limits of each fuel type (for example, 7.8 psi RVP, 7.2 psi RVP or 7.0 psi RVP). At proposal therefore, we listed 7.0 psi RVP as a fuel type with Arizona as one of the 5 states that uses this fuel type. We also listed Arizona Clean Burning Gasoline
(CBG)as a separate fuel type. We received two comments on our proposal. Both commenters recommended that we list Arizona CBG as two types of fuels, namely summertime and wintertime CBG. Both commenters said that specifications for CBG were different in winter, which was described as the period beginning November 2-March 31, and summer, which was described as the remaining portions of the calendar year. Also one commenter stated that both summer and winter CBG have different specifications for RVP, sulfur, aromatics, olefins, E200 and E300. In today's notice, we are listing Arizona CBG as two fuel types—summer CBG and non-summer CBG. (See section III below for our final list of the fuel types). We agree with the commenters that Arizona's CBG program has several components, specifications or limits for summer CBG, such as the 7.0 psi RVP requirement, that are different from non-summer CBG. We also believe summer CBG requirements, which have been adopted by Arizona to address ozone nonattainment, include the 7.0 psi RVP requirement. We are therefore listing summer CBG as one fuel type, because it has specifications that are different from non-summer CBG. We have removed Arizona from the list as one of the states that uses the 7.0 psi fuel type. We believe that our decision to list CBG as two fuel types is similar to our listing of the Atlanta 7.0 psi RVP with sulfur provisions as a separate fuel type. At proposal we also specified the control period for Arizona's 7.0 psi RVP program as June 1-September 30. In today's notice, we are specifying May 1-September 30 as the time period for the CBG summer control period, in order to correspond with the start date of Arizona's summer CBG control period (May 1) and the end date of Arizona's 7.0 psi RVP control period (September 30). One consequence of our decision to list Arizona CBG as two fuel types is that states in PADD 5 seeking to adopt state fuel programs would now have a wider choice of fuel types for purposes of addressing local air quality problems.
(iii)RVP Fuel Types that Do Not Provide a 1.0 psi Waiver for Ethanol-Blended Gasoline In our draft list published June 6, 2006, we did not list any of the RVP programs that do not provide a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline as separate fuel types. More specifically, we proposed listing the 7.8 psi RVP program for western Pennsylvania, and the 7.0 psi RVP program for El Paso, Texas as part of the 7.8 psi and 7.0 psi fuel types respectively. Both programs explicitly do not provide a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blends, and we have approved this requirement into the respective SIPs. 13 We received two comments supporting our proposed decision not to list these fuel programs as separate fuel types, and one comment inquiring as to why EPA made no mention of RVP waivers for 10% ethanol-gasoline blends. Our response to these comments can be found in “Section II. Comment Summary and Response,” below. 13 Most SIPs explicitly allow the 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline. However, some SIPs are silent regarding the 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline, and our understanding is that these SIPs do not allow for such a waiver. Listing fuel programs as separate fuel types depending on whether they allow or do not allow a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline would have several consequences. First, states in the same PADD as either Pennsylvania and Maine (PADD 1), or Texas (PADD 3), that want to adopt 7.8 psi RVP programs, would not be able to adopt a 7.8 psi RVP program in their SIP that allows a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline, because there is no 7.8 psi RVP program approved in any SIP in either PADD 1 or 3 that allows a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blends. Conversely, states in PADD 2 that want to adopt a 7.8 psi RVP program would only be able to adopt a 7.8 psi RVP program that allows a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline, because there is no RVP program approved in a SIP in PADD 2 that does not allow a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blends. Another consequence of listing separate fuel types for areas that do not allow a 1.0 psi ethanol waiver is that we would have to decide how to treat the 7.0 psi RVP fuel type under EPAct. The EPAct treats the 7.0 psi RVP fuel type differently from other fuel types by allowing EPA to approve a state 7.0 psi RVP fuel even if no other states in the same PADD already have a 7.0 psi RVP fuel approved in their SIP (see Section I.C. below). The EPAct does not specify whether future approvals of 7.0 psi RVP SIP fuels should be allowed with a 1.0 psi ethanol waiver, without a 1.0 psi ethanol waiver, or whether states should be able to choose whether or not they want to allow a 1.0 psi ethanol waiver. 14 14 It is important to note that this discussion of approval of state fuel programs with or without a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blends has no impact on EPA's federal RVP program. In the federal RVP program there is a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blends, subject to the provisions for exclusion of the 1.0 psi waiver adopted in EPAct. Section 211(h)(4), (5). EPA's interpretation of the section 211(c)(4)(C) boutique fuels provisions above has no impact on the federal RVP program adopted under the provisions of section 211(h). We are not listing RVP programs as separate fuel types according to whether or not they allow the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver. We believe that listing SIP fuels in this manner would reduce fuel fungibility and reduce states' flexibility, which are contrary to Congressional intent. As explained above, one consequence of such a listing is that a state in PADD 1 that wants to adopt a 7.8 psi RVP program into their SIP could not allow the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver because there is no RVP program in a SIP in PADD 1 that allows a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline. We believe that if a state in PADD 1 adopts a 7.8 psi fuel program that does not allow a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline, refiners would be required to either not blend ethanol into gasoline in the area covered by the new SIP, or supply a special sub-RVP blendstock which, when blended with ethanol, would meet the 7.8 psi RVP standard. If refiners choose to supply a special blendstock, which meets the 7.8 psi RVP standard when blended with ethanol, the blendstock would have to be produced and transported separately from all other fuels. We believe this would run counter to EPAct's intention of promoting fuel fungibility. Additionally, because the exception allowed for 7.0 psi RVP fuel programs makes no mention as to whether new 7.0 psi RVP fuel programs should be permitted with or without the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver, we believe that Congress was primarily concerned with classifying fuel types according to RVP limits, instead of whether or not they allowed the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver. We therefore, believe that listing fuel types solely according to RVP limits is most consistent with Congress's intent to improve fuel fungibility. C. Removal of Fuel Types from the List We are required to remove a fuel from the published list of fuels if the fuel is either identical to a federal fuel or is removed from the SIP into which it is approved. 15 At proposal we explained that under the fuel type interpretation, a fuel type would be removed from the list only if that fuel type was either identical to a federal fuel or removed from all SIPs with that type of fuel program. 71 FR 32534. We also proposed how we would implement the provision relating to removal of a fuel from the published list. 16 71 FR 32535. We received two comments on our proposed implementation of this provision to remove a fuel from the published list. Our response to these comments can be found in “Section II. Comment Summary and Response,” below. 15 See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(III), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(III). 16 See 71 FR 32532, 32534. In today's notice we are adopting the fuel type interpretation, and as proposed we will be removing a fuel from the list if it is either identical to a federal fuel or if it is removed from all SIPs into which it is approved. Our removal of a fuel type that either ceases to exist in any SIP or that is identical to a federal fuel formulation may create “room” on the list, and subsequently, subject to the three restrictions discussed above, we can approve a “new fuel” type into a SIP. D. Approval of a “New Fuel” The EPAct provides that before approving a “new fuel” into a SIP, where there is room on the list for additional fuels, we must make a finding, after consultation with the DOE, on the impact of the “new fuel” on fuel supply, distribution, and producibility. We also addressed the EPAct use of the term “new fuel”, under the fuel type interpretation. 17 We explained that the term “new fuel” may be somewhat problematic under the fuel type interpretation. A new fuel type would be a fuel type that is not already on the list, however, the PADD restriction would preclude the approval of a new fuel type if that fuel type is not already approved into a SIP in the applicable PADD. 18 At proposal, we explained that because there is an exception to the PADD restriction for a 7.0 psi RVP program, we could under limited circumstances give meaning to the term “new fuel” under the proposed fuel type interpretation. 19 We received one comment on our proposed implementation of this provision for the addition of a “new fuel” to the published list. Our response to this comment can be found in “Section II. Comment Summary and Response,” below. 17 See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(IV), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(IV). 18 See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(IV), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(V) and 71 FR 32532, 32534. 19 Congress exempted 7.0 psi RVP programs from the PADD restriction. While the other EPAct provisions on boutique fuels do apply to 7.0 psi RVP programs, the specific limitation on PADD usage in section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V) does not apply. Also see 71 FR 32532, 32534. In today's notice, we are adopting the fuel type interpretation, and as proposed, we will give meaning to the term “new fuel” under the limited circumstances where a state seeks to adopt a 7.0 psi RVP program. At such a time, we also expect to make a finding on the impact of the “new fuel” on fuel supply, distribution, and producibility, after consultation with the DOE. We also believe that we could give meaning to the term “new fuel” where states within PADD 5 seek our approval to adopt a fuel program that has been approved into California's SIP. See our discussion of the PADD restriction, California Air Resources Board
(CARB)fuels, and states in PADD 5 in Section I.D. below. We believe that under this additional limited circumstance, where states in PADD 5 are seeking to adopt CARB fuels approved into California's SIP, and there is room on the list for a new fuel type, we could give meaning to the term “new fuel” to include a CARB fuel program, under the fuel type interpretation that we are adopting today. At such a time, we will also make a finding on the impact of the “new fuel” on fuel supply, distribution, and producibility, after consultation with the DOE. E. The PADD Restriction The EPAct constrains our approval of “any fuel unless that fuel” was already approved into at least one SIP in the applicable PADD as of the date of our consideration of a state's request. 20 At proposal we explained that for a state fuel program to be approved into a SIP in the future, the effect of the PADD restriction is that the fuel type must have been approved into a SIP in that PADD as of the date of our consideration of a state's request (with the exception of 7.0 psi RVP programs). 21 We explained in the notice that the PADD restriction places a strong constraint on our future approval of “boutique fuels” because it effectively limits state fuels to both the types of fuels currently in existence, and to the PADDs in which they are currently found. 22 We also received several comments on our treatment of CARB fuels. Our response to these comments can be found below in section II.B. 20 See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(V). 21 See 71 FR 32532, 32534. 22 See 71 FR 32532, 32534-32535. In today's notice we are adopting the fuel type interpretation and finalizing a list of fuel types under this interpretation. Moreover, as proposed, we can approve a state fuel program if the fuel type (except for 7.0 psi RVP programs) has been approved into a SIP in the applicable PADD as of the date of our consideration of a state's request. Additionally, because we are allowed to approve a fuel if it is “approved in at least one [SIP] in the applicable [PADD],” we believe that there is a limited circumstance in PADD 5 where we could approve a fuel type that is in a SIP in that PADD although such a fuel type is not on the list that we have published today. 23 Our approval would however, be subject to the three restrictions we have listed and discussed earlier. If our approval will not cause an increase in the number of fuel types above those approved as of September 1, 2004, i.e., if there is “room on the list,” we could approve for states within PADD 5 a fuel program that is in California's SIP, without violating the PADD restriction. CARB fuels are approved into California's SIP, but because the approval is not under CAA section 211(c)(4)(C) we have not placed CARB fuels on the list of fuels we are publishing today. Under the PADD restriction provision, however, we are only required to approve a fuel if it is “approved in at least one [SIP] in the applicable [PADD].” We would, therefore, not be prohibited from approving CARB fuels for states within PADD 5, because CARB fuels are approved into a SIP in the applicable PADD. As earlier explained, adoption and approval of CARB fuels, however, remains subject to our meeting the three restrictions we have listed and discussed, above. 23 CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(V) We continue to believe that under the fuel type interpretation, states would generally adopt fuels programs but only in those limited cases where that fuel type is already found in their PADD. We also continue to believe that this interpretation addresses the “fuel islands” concerns, while continuing to preserve an important degree of flexibility and choice of states in developing air pollution control programs. II. Comment Summary and Response We received thirteen sets of comments on the boutique fuels notice. These comments were submitted to the public docket. Our responses to comments are as follows: A. Comments on the Fuel Type Approach versus the State Specific Approach. Comment: The Fuel Type Approach is Preferred. All commenters supported the fuel type approach except one who expressed no opinion. No commenter supported a state-specific approach. Response: We agree that the fuel type approach is preferable for several reasons. The fuel type approach will implement the intent of the EPAct, while preserving some choice for states in meeting the NAAQS. B. Comments Regarding State Fuel Programs Not Included on the Draft State Boutique Fuels List Comment: Arizona Clean Burning Gasoline
(CBG)should be listed as two separate fuel types. Two commenters suggested that we list Arizona CBG as two fuel types on the list—summer CBG and winter CBG. According to one commenter, this is because the Arizona CBG has specifications for RVP, sulfur, aromatics, olefins, E200 and E300 during summer that are different from the specifications for winter. The commenter also stated that the summer specifications address the ozone NAAQS, while the winter specifications address the CO NAAQS, and that the differing fuel specifications results in “unique supply and distribution issues.” Another commenter stated that we had failed to “adequately characterize Arizona CBG which is actually two different fuels depending on the time of year involved.” Response: We agree that Arizona CBG should be listed as two separate fuel types. Arizona requires winter CBG to meet a set of specific standards for RVP, sulfur, aromatics, olefins, T50, T90 and oxygen. Arizona, however, allows summer CBG to either meet the same set of specific standards (for sulfur, aromatics, olefins, T50, T90 and oxygen), or alternatively meet performance standards for emissions reductions in VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> . As explained in Section 1.A, above, summer CBG includes specification for 7.0 psi RVP. Thus, because CBG has components, specifications or limits for summertime that are different from non-summertime specifications, we are listing CBG as two fuel types. In today's notice, therefore, we are listing summertime CBG, which includes the 7.0 psi RVP requirement and non-summertime CBG. (See Section III, below, for our list of the fuels approved into all SIPs as of September 1, 2004). We have also changed the dates in the table to reflect compliance dates for these two fuel types. We believe that the practical effect of adding a second fuel type for Arizona CBG is small, although we note that for states in PADD 5 this changes one fuel type
(CBG)into two fuel types (summer and non-summer CBG) for consideration of approval to their SIPs for purposes of addressing local air quality issues. Comment: State RVP programs that do not provide a 1.0 psi RVP waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline should be listed as separate programs. Two state fuels programs (western Pennsylvania and El Paso, Texas) do not provide a 1.0 psi RVP waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline in their RVP fuel programs. Two commenters stated that these fuel programs should not be listed as separate fuel types. Also, one commenter stated that EPA made no mention of RVP waivers for 10% ethanol-gasoline blends and the impact these may have on the list of fuel types. Response: As explained above, we are not listing the 7.8 psi RVP western Pennsylvania program and 7.0 psi RVP El Paso, Texas programs that do not allow the 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blended gasoline as two separate fuel types. As also explained in the preamble, we believe that listing fuel types according to whether they do or do not allow a 1.0 psi ethanol waiver would run contrary to Congress's intention to improve fuel fungibility through the boutique fuel list. As further explained in the preamble, because the PADD restriction exception allowed for 7.0 psi RVP fuel programs makes no mention as to whether new 7.0 psi RVP fuel programs should be permitted with or without the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver, we do not believe that Congress intended use of this criteria for listing fuel types. Comment: “Historical” 9.0 psi RVP programs should be on the list. In 1989 we set nationwide RVP standards for gasoline sold during the summer, in two phases. Phase I applied to 1990 and 1991, and Phase II applied to 1992 and later years. Generally, we set the RVP level at 10.5 psi and 9.0 psi in the northern states, under Phase I and II, respectively. 24 Between 1989 and 1992, some northeastern states also adopted 9.0 psi RVP programs, which we approved into their SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C). These 9.0 psi RVP programs remain in the SIPs of several northeastern states. Two commenters supported our decision to not include these 9.0 psi RVP fuel programs on the list. However, one commenter suggested that we should include these programs on the boutique fuels list and that failure to include them would not fulfill Congressional intent. This commenter also stated that listing the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type and then subsequently removing the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type would provide “room” on the list for the adoption of another state fuel program for the northeastern states, or more specifically states in PADD 1. 24 See 40 CFR 80.27(a)(1) and (2). Response: We do not believe that the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type should be included on the list. We proposed not to list the 9.0 psi RVP programs as a way of reconciling the somewhat conflicting provisions requiring us to list fuels and to remove fuels that were identical to federal fuel programs. At proposal, we explained that we were obligated to publish a list based on the total number of fuels approved into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004, and also required to remove a fuel that is “identical to a Federal fuel formulation implemented by the Administrator” from the list. We further explained that reading these provisions literally would require us to simultaneously include 9.0 psi RVP on the list we are publishing today and at the same time to remove it from the list. We concluded that although several of these 9.0 psi RVP programs remain in the SIPs of some northeastern states, Congress would not have intended such an illogical approach, primarily because the 9.0 psi RVP program could not be viewed as contributing to the proliferation of 'fuel islands.” 25 We continue to believe that we should not list 9.0 psi RVP as a fuel type on the list, and in today's notice we are not including 9.0 psi RVP as a fuel type on the list. 25 See 71 FR 32534 for a more detailed discussion of our treatment of 9.0 RVP fuel programs. We also do not believe that listing and then removing the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type would provide for the adoption of a new state fuel type for states in PADD 1. As mentioned previously, the PADD restriction strongly constrains our future approval of “boutique fuels” because states are limited to the types of fuels already approved into SIPs in their PADDs, with the exception of the 7.0 psi RVP fuel type. Adding a 9.0 psi RVP fuel type to the list and then removing it would not change this. States in PADD 1 would still be limited to adopting a fuel already in a SIP in their PADD or a 7.0 psi RVP fuel. Therefore, we have not included 9.0 psi RVP programs in the boutique fuels list published today. Comment: CARB fuels should be included on the Boutique Fuels list. Some commenters indicated that the CARB reformulated gasoline (RFG), and diesel programs should be included on the list. One commenter believed that the list should include CARB RFG and diesel programs, and questioned our decision not to list these programs. Other commenters stated that although CARB RFG and diesel programs have not been approved into a SIP under section 211(c)(4)(C), they should be included on the list because they present the same logistical issues as boutique fuel programs. Another commenter urged us to inform Congress of our lack of authority to address CARB RFG and diesel programs under section 211(c)(4)(C) if we believed we lacked such authority. Response: CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(II) requires us to determine and publish the “total number of fuels” approved into all SIPs, under section 211(c)(4) as of September 1, 2004. We believe this provision specifically refers to state fuels programs “approved” into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C). With such specific language, we do not believe that Congress intended us to include CARB fuel programs that are approved into a SIP under section110, based upon the “allowance” from preemption provided under section 211(c)(4)(B), instead of “approved” under section 211(c)(4)(C). We also note that under limited circumstances, such as when there is room on the list, adoption by a state in PADD 5 of CARB RFG or diesel fuels programs would not violate the PADD restriction. See our discussion in Section 1.D, above. Such adoption and approval, however, would remain subject to the other restrictions on our authority to approve state fuels. Comment: State Oxygenated fuels should be included on the Boutique Fuels list Some commenters indicated that Congress intended that EPA should include state oxygenated fuels programs on the boutique fuels list, even though they acknowledged that these programs are not approved into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C). Similarly, a commenter noted that Nevada's oxygenated fuels program contains an ethanol mandate that should be included on the list. This commenter also noted that the Nevada program includes a 9.0 psi RVP cap in winter. Response: Section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(II) requires us to determine the total number of fuels we have approved into all SIPs, under section 211(c)(4)(C), as of September 1, 2004 and publish a list of such fuels. We believe this provision specifically refers to state fuels programs “approved” into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C). With such specific language, we do not believe that Congress intended us to include oxygenated fuels programs that were not approved into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C), but, rather, were approved under sections 110 and 211(m). Since the Nevada ethanol requirement is part of an oxygenated fuels program that we approved under sections 110 and 211(m), we do not believe it should be included on the boutique fuels list we are adopting today. Also, since there are no federal wintertime RVP controls, the Nevada wintertime RVP cap is not preempted and is not approved into the SIP under section 211(c)(4)(C), and we do not believe it should be included on the boutique fuels list we are adopting today. Comment: State biofuel mandates should be included on the Boutique Fuels list. Some commenters stated that the list should include fuels required by state biofuel mandates. Response: Section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(II) requires us to determine the total number of fuels we have approved into all SIPs, under section 211(c)(4)(C), as of September 1, 2004. We believe this provision is very specific in referring to state fuels programs “approved” into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C). Since the ethanol and biofuel mandates (including biodiesel) that the commenters reference were not approved into a SIP under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004, they should not be placed on the list. C. Addition and Removal of a Fuel Type From the List Comment: Two commenters noted that beginning in 2007 there should be an opportunity to consolidate the boutique fuel list by eliminating the unique gasoline sulfur requirements for Atlanta, Georgia. According to the commenters, beginning in 2007 early sulfur credits under the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program will have been exhausted and Atlanta and other parts of the country would be receiving the same gasoline with regard to sulfur content. The Atlanta program would simply be listed as one of the states using the 7.0 psi RVP fuel type. Response: As discussed above, we must remove a fuel from the list when the fuel type is “identical to a Federal fuel formulation implemented by the Administrator.” 26 Considering removal of the Atlanta program from the list, at this stage, however, would be premature. 26 See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(III), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(III) Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA clarify the procedure for adding a fuel to the list. The commenter inquired as to whether EPA would approve either a new fuel only for use in PADD 1 or one that could be used in any other PADD subsequent to removal of a fuel type such as the “summer 7.0 psi RVP gasoline with sulfur provisions,” which the commenter noted is currently in use only in PADD 1. The commenter also inquired as to whether a state in PADD 3 could substitute “summer 7.0 psi RVP gasoline with sulfur provisions” fuel type with another new fuel type. The commenter further inquired as to whether such a substitution would violate the PADD restriction in section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V). Response: In sections I.B. and C. of the preamble, we discussed how we may remove a fuel type from the list, and approve a “new fuel” into a SIP under EPAct. In section I.D. of the preamble we also discussed how the PADD restriction in section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V) places a strong constraint on our future approval of “boutique fuels” by effectively limiting state fuels to both the types of fuels currently in existence, and to the PADDs in which they are currently found, with the exception of 7.0 psi RVP fuel type. We expect that if the “summer 7.0 psi RVP gasoline with sulfur provisions” fuel type in PADD 1 is removed from the list, the only fuels types we may approve into a SIP in PADD 3 would be fuel types that are approved into SIPs in PADD 3 as of the date of our consideration of a state's request to approve a fuel type. D. Consultation with DOE Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's consultations with DOE should be part of the public record. Response: We agree with this comment. We did consult with DOE Staff as part of the development of the June 6, 2006 notice and the draft boutique fuels list it announced. We have docketed DOE's concurrence with the approach proposed. We have also consulted with DOE staff on developing today's notice and the list it adopts and we have docketed DOE's concurrence with this final notice. E. General Comments Comment: EPA should explain how the list will be affected by a request from a state governor not to allow the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver as permitted by section 211(h)(5) of EPAct. Response: As mentioned earlier in the preamble, our approval of state fuel programs with or without a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blended gasoline does not have any impact on federal RVP programs, which are authorized by section 211(h). For areas covered by federal RVP programs, section 211(h)(4) of the Clean Air Act allows a 1.0 psi RVP waiver for gasoline blends containing 10% ethanol. Section 211(h)(5) also permits the governor of a state to petition EPA to remove the 1.0 psi RVP waiver if the state provides documentation that the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver increases emissions. The EPA's interpretation of section 211(c)(4)(C) above, has no impact on such federal RVP programs. Comment: EPA should provide a more nuanced analysis of fuel categories that considers how fuel properties fall into a hierarchy of substitutability that affects supply flexibility, both from a perspective of vehicle impacts as well as legal constraints. For example, a state requiring gasoline with a 7.8 RVP limit also can legally allow gasoline with a 7.2 or 7.0 RVP limit. Response: Fuels that meet more stringent standards than those required by a SIP may be supplied as compliant fuel in any SIP covered area. Evaluating SIP fuels from a perspective of vehicle impacts is outside the scope of today's Notice. Comment: EPA approval of state fuels should include supply impacts of all unique fuels, such as California fuels, state winter oxygenate fuels, state-mandated biofuels, federal RFG, and federal RVP-controlled fuels. Several commenters recommended that, when reviewing the supply impacts of a proposed SIP fuel, EPA consider all unique fuels, such as California fuels, state winter oxygenate fuels, state-mandated biofuels, federal RFG, and federal RVP-controlled fuels, even if these fuels are not on the boutique fuel list that we are publishing in today's notice. Commenters also urged EPA to include these unique fuel requirements in the § 1509 Fuel Harmonization Study that EPA and DOE are currently preparing for Congress. Response: As explained above, before approving a “new fuel” into a SIP, where there is “room” on the list, EPA is required to make a finding, after consultation with the DOE, on the impact of the “new fuel” on fuel supply, distribution, and producibility. In reviewing the supply implications of a “new fuel,” EPA agrees that it is reasonable to consider all fuels in the area although such fuels are not on the boutique fuels list. The supply implications of a “new fuel” can best be understood by evaluating them in the context of the other fuel requirements applicable to fuel distributed in that area. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to consider “unlisted” fuels such as biofuels or oxygenated gasoline when determining whether or not a “new fuel” will present supply or distribution interruptions or will have a significant adverse impact on fuel producibility in the affected or contiguous areas. We also recognize that including these “unlisted” fuels in the EPAct section1509 fuel harmonization study is appropriate. Comment: One commenter said that EPA should allow more time for states to demonstrate attainment with the 8 hour ozone NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS. Allowing states more time will enable them to realize the benefits of federal fuels programs that have not yet been fully implemented (low sulfur gasoline and ultra-low sulfur diesel), and lessen the pressure on individual states to add motor fuel controls to their SIPs to demonstrate attainment. Response: Determining timelines for states to demonstrate attainment with the various NAAQS is outside the scope of today's Notice. III. Publication of the Boutique Fuel List A list of the eight
(8)fuel types approved into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004, the states, and the PADD they are used in is set forth in the following Table. Please note that this table varies from the draft table for the fuel type interpretation published in the June 6, 2006 notice, which contained seven fuel types. Specifically, we have divided the Arizona CBG program into summer and non-summer. The Arizona summer CBG program includes the 7.0 psi RVP requirement that appeared on the draft table, but covers all the CBG requirements applicable between May 1 and September 30. Total Number of Fuels Approved in State Implementation Plans
(SIPs)Under CAA Section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004 Type of fuel control PADD Region-state RVP of 7.8 psi 1 1 1-ME (May 1-Sept.15)* 1 3-PA 2 5-IN 2 5-MI 3 6-TX (May 1-Oct. 1)* RVP of 7.2 psi 2 5-IL RVP of 7.0 psi 2 7-KS 2 7-MO 3 4-AL 3 6-TX RVP of 7.0 with gasoline sulfur provisions 1 4-GA Low Emission Diesel 3 6-TX Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Summer) 5 9-AZ (May 1-Sept 30) Cleaner Burning Gasoline (non-Summer) 5 9-AZ (Oct 1-Apr 30) Winter Gasoline (aromatics & sulfur) 5 9-NV * Dates listed in parentheses refer to summer gasoline programs with different RVP control periods from the federal RVP control period, which runs from June 1 through September 15. Dated: December 21, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-22313 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL-8263-7] Request for Member Nominees to the Proposed Adaptation for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources Advisory Committee (ACSERAC) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; Request for nominations to the proposed Adaptation for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources Advisory Committee (ACSERAC). SUMMARY: As required by section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, we are giving notice that EPA is inviting nominations for membership on the proposed Adaptation for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources Advisory Committee (ACSERAC). The purpose of this proposed Committee is to provide advice on the conduct of a study titled, “Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources,” to be conducted as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). This assessment is part of a comprehensive set of assessments identified by the CCSP's Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Science Program. The proposed ACSERAC will advise on the specific issues that should be addressed in the assessment, appropriate technical approaches, the type and usefulness of information to decision makers, the content of the final assessment report, compliance with the Information Quality Act, and other matters important to the successful achievement of the objectives of the study. EPA has determined that this proposed federal advisory committee is in the public interest and will assist the Agency in performing its duties under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and the Global Climate Protection Act. The draft prospectus for the study is on the CCSP Web site at *http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-4/sap4-4prospectus-final.htm.* Proposed committee membership will total approximately ten
(10)persons, who will serve as Special Government Employees or Regular Government Employees. The membership of the proposed committee will include a balanced representation of interested persons with professional and personal qualifications and experience to contribute to the functions of the proposed committee. In selecting members EPA will consider individuals from the Federal Government, State and/or local governments, Tribes, the scientific community, non-governmental organizations and the private sector with expertise, experience, knowledge and interests essential to, or affected by, the successful completion of the study. Any interested person or organization may submit a nomination. Nominations should be identified by name, occupation, organization, position, address, and telephone number, and must include a complete resume of the nominee's background, experience and expertise, and any other information considered relevant. Additional avenues and resources will be utilized by EPA in the solicitation of nominees. Copies of the Committee Charter will be filed with the appropriate congressional committees and the Library of Congress. DATES: Nominations should be received by January 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit nominations to Joanna Foellmer (8601D), National Center for Environmental Assessment, Immediate Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; Telephone:
(202)564-3208; e-mail address: *Foellmer.joanna@epa.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanna Foellmer (8601D), National Center for Environmental Assessment, Immediate Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; Telephone:
(202)564-3208; e-mail address: *Foellmer.joanna@epa.gov.* The Agency will not formally acknowledge or respond to suggestions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the proposed committee is to provide advice on the conduct of the study titled, “Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources,” to be conducted as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). This study will focus on adaptation to anticipated impacts of climate change on federally owned and managed lands and waters. Within the context of the assessment's prospectus, the proposed ACSERAC will advise on the specific issues to be addressed, appropriate technical approaches, the type and usefulness of information to decision makers, the content of the final assessment report, compliance with the Information Quality Act, and other matters important to the successful achievement of the objectives of the study. Individuals and organizations interested in submitting nominations for membership should familiarize themselves with the final prospectus for this study, which is available at *http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-4/sap4-4prospectus-final.htm.* The proposed ACSERAC is expected to meet twice in 2007: once in a face-to-face meeting in the Washington, DC, area and a second time via conference call. Nominations should be sent preferably by e-mail. If sent by either fax or regular mail, the sender is encouraged to phone
(202)564-3208 in advance. Dated: December 21, 2006. George Alapas, Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment. [FR Doc. E6-22312 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL —8263-8] Request for Member Nominees to the Proposed Human Impacts of Climate Change Advisory Committee (HICCAC) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Request for nominations to the proposed Human Impacts and Climate Change Advisory Committee. SUMMARY: As required by section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, we are giving notice that EPA is accepting nominees for membership on the proposed Human Impacts of Climate Change Advisory Committee (HICCAC). The purpose of this proposed Committee is to provide advice on the conduct of a study titled, “Analyses of the effects of global change on human health and welfare and human systems,” to be conducted as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). This assessment is part of a comprehensive set of assessments identified in the CCSP's Strategic Plan. The proposed HICCAC will advise on the specific issues that should be addressed in the assessment, appropriate technical approaches, the nature of information relevant to decision makers, the content of the assessment report, and other scientific and technical matters that may be found to be important to the successful completion of the study. EPA has determined that this proposed federal advisory committee is in the public interest and will assist the Agency in performing its duties under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and the Global Climate Protection Act. The draft prospectus for the study is on the CCSP Web site at *http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-6/sap4-6prospectus-final.htm.* Proposed committee membership will total approximately eight persons who will serve as Special Government Employees or Regular Government Employees. The membership of the proposed committee will include a balanced representation of interested persons with professional and personal qualifications and experience to contribute to the functions of the proposed committee. In selecting members, EPA will consider individuals from the Federal Government, State and/or local and/or tribal governments, the scientific community, non-governmental organizations and the private sector, with expertise, experience, knowledge and interests essential to, or affected by, the successful completion of the study. Any interested person or organization may submit a nomination. Nominations should be identified by name, occupation, organization, position, address, and telephone number, and must include a complete resume of the nominee's background, experience and expertise, and any other information considered relevant. Additional avenues and resources will be utilized by EPA in the solicitation of nominees. Copies of the Committee Charter will be filed with the appropriate congressional committees and the Library of Congress. DATES: Nominations should be received by January 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit nominations to Joanna Foellmer (8601D), National Center for Environmental Assessment, Immediate Office, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone:
(202)564-3208; e-mail address: *Foellmer.joanna@epa.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanna Foellmer (8601D), National Center for Environmental Assessment, Immediate Office, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone:
(202)564-3208; e-mail address: Foellmer.joanna@epa.gov. The Agency will not formally acknowledge or respond to suggestions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the proposed committee is to provide advice on the conduct of a study titled, “Analyses of the effects of global change on human health and welfare and human systems,” to be conducted as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). This study will give particular attention to the impacts of climate change on human health, human welfare, and human settlements in the United States. Within the context of the assessment's prospectus, the proposed HICCAC will advise on the specific issues to be addressed, appropriate technical approaches, the nature of information relevant to decision makers, the content of the final assessment report, compliance with the Information Quality Act, and other matters important to the successful achievement of the objectives of the study. Individuals and organizations interested in submitting nominations for membership should familiarize themselves with the draft prospectus for this study, at *http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-6/sap4-6prospectus-final.htm.* The proposed HICCAC is expected to meet twice in 2007: once in a face-to-face meeting in the Washington, DC, area and a second time via conference call. Nominations should be sent preferably by e-mail. If sent by either fax or regular mail, the sender is encouraged to phone
(202)564-3208 in advance. Dated: December 21, 2006. George Alapas, Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment. [FR Doc. E6-22306 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0998'; FRL-8262-7] Human Studies Review Board; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA or Agency) Office of the Science Advisor
(OSA)announces a public meeting of the Human Studies Review Board
(HSRB)to advise the Agency on EPA's scientific and ethical reviews of human subjects' research. DATES: The public meeting will be held January 24, 2007 from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m., Eastern time. LOCATION: Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. The telephone number for the Sheraton Crystal City Hotel is 703-486-1111. MEETING ACCESS: Seating at the meeting will be on a first-come basis. To request accommodation of a disability please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 10 business days prior to the meeting, to allow EPA as much time as possible to process your request. PROCEDURES FOR PROVIDING PUBLIC INPUT: Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral comments for the HSRB to consider during the advisory process. Additional information concerning submission of relevant written or oral comments is provided in Unit I.D. of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wishes further information should contact Lu-Ann Kleibacker, EPA, Office of the Science Advisor, (8105R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)564-7189; fax:
(202)564 2070; e-mail addresses: *kleibacker.lu-ann@epa.gov.* General information concerning the EPA HSRB can be found on the EPA Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/.* ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0998, by one of the following methods: Internet: *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: *ORD.Docket@epa.gov.* Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), ORD Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20460. Hand Delivery: The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is located in the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington DC. The hours of operation are 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Please call
(202)566-1744 or email the ORD Docket at *ord.docket@epa.gov* for instructions. Updates to Public Reading Room access are available on the website ( *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).* Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0998. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Meeting A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who conduct or assess human studies, including such studies on substances regulated by EPA or to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? In addition to using regulations.gov, you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.* Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the ORD Docket, EPA/DC, Public Reading Room. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is located in the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington DC. The hours of operation are 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM EST, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Please call
(202)566-1744 or email the ORD Docket at *ord.docket@epa.gov* for instructions. Updates to Public Reading Room access are available on the website ( *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* ). EPA's position paper(s), charge/questions to the HSRB, and the meeting agenda will be available by late December 2006. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the regulations.gov website and the HSRB Internet Home Page at *http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/.* For questions on document availability or if you do not have access to the Internet, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: a. Explain your views as clearly as possible. b. Describe any assumptions that you used. c. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. d. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. e. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation. D. How May I Participate in this Meeting? You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this section. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-ORD-2006- 0998 in the subject line on the first page of your request. a. Oral comments. Requests to present oral comments will be accepted up to January 17, 2007. To the extent that time permits, interested persons who have not pre-registered may be permitted by the Chair of the HSRB to present oral comments at the meeting. Each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to the HSRB is strongly advised to submit their request (preferably via email) to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than noon, Eastern time, January 17, 2007 in order to be included on the meeting agenda and to provide sufficient time for the HSRB Chair and HSRB Designated Federal Officer
(DFO)to review the agenda to provide an appropriate public comment period. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead projector, LCD projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before the HSRB are limited to five minutes per individual or organization. Please note that this limit applies to the cumulative time used by all individuals appearing either as part of, or on behalf of an organization. While it is our intent to hear a full range of oral comments on the science and ethics issues under discussion, it is not our intent to permit organizations to expand these time limitations by having numerous individuals sign up separately to speak on their behalf. If additional time is available, there may be flexibility in time for public comments. Each speaker should bring 25 copies of his or her comments and presentation slides for distribution to the HSRB at the meeting. b. Written comments. Although you may submit written comments at any time, for the HSRB to have the best opportunity to review and consider your comments as it deliberates on its report, you should submit your comments at least five business days prior to the beginning of the meeting. If you submit comments after this date, those comments will be provided to the Board members, but you should recognize that the Board members may not have adequate time to consider those comments prior to making a decision. Thus, if you plan to submit written comments, the Agency strongly encourages you to submit such comments no later than noon, Eastern time, January 17, 2007. You should submit your comments using the instructions in Unit I.C. of this notice. In addition, the Agency also requests that person(s) submitting comments directly to the docket also provide a copy of their comments to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. There is no limit on the length of written comments for consideration by the HSRB. E. Background A. Topics for Discussion The EPA will present for HSRB review the results of two completed insect repellent efficacy studies on which it intends to rely in making registration decisions. In addition, EPA will present for HSRB review a proposal for new research involving a field study to evaluate the efficacy of a mosquito repellent. The Board may also discuss planning for future HSRB meetings. B. Meeting Minutes and Reports Minutes of the meeting, summarizing the matters discussed and recommendations, if any, made by the advisory committee regarding such matters will be released within 90 calendar days of the meeting. Such minutes will be available at *http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/* and *http://www.regulations.gov* In addition, information concerning a Board meeting report, if applicable, can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/* or from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Dated: December 21, 2006. George M. Gray, Science Advisor . [FR Doc. E6-22300 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8262-8] Science Advisory Board Staff Office; Notification of Six Public Teleconferences of the Science Advisory Board Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB)Staff Office announces six public teleconferences of the SAB Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services (C-VPESS) to discuss components of a draft report related to valuing the protection of ecological systems and services. DATES: The SAB will conduct six public teleconferences on February 5, 2007, February 13, 2007, February 27, 2007, March 6, 2007, March 20, 2007, and March 27, 2007. Each teleconference will begin at 12:30 p.m. and end at 2:30 p.m. (eastern standard time). LOCATION: Telephone conference call only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing to obtain general information concerning this public teleconference may contact Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), via telephone at:
(202)343-9981 or e-mail at: *nugent.angela@epa.gov* . General information concerning the EPA Science Advisory Board can be found on the EPA Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice, consultation, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. *Background:* Background on the SAB C-VPESS and its charge was provided in 68 Fed. Reg. 11082 (March 7, 2003). The purpose of the teleconference is for the SAB C-VPESS to discuss components of a draft advisory report calling for expanded and integrated approach for valuing the protection of ecological systems and services. The Committee will discuss draft assessments of methods for ecological valuation and application of those methods for valuing the protection of ecological systems and services. These activities are related to the Committee's overall charge: to assess Agency needs and the state of the art and science of valuing protection of ecological systems and services and to identify key areas for improving knowledge, methodologies, practice, and research. Availability of Meeting Materials: Agendas and materials in support of the teleconferences will be placed on the SAB Web Site at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab/* in advance of each teleconference. Procedures for Providing Public Input: Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information for the SAB to consider during the public teleconference and/or meeting. *Oral Statements:* In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public SAB teleconference will be limited to three minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of one-half hour for all speakers. To be placed on the public speaker list, interested parties should contact Dr. Angela Nugent, DFO, in writing (preferably via e-mail) 5 business days in advance of each teleconference. *Written Statements:* Written statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office 5 business days in advance of each teleconference above so that the information may be made available to the SAB for their consideration prior to each teleconference. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, WordPerfect, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format). Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Angela Nugent at
(202)343-9981 or *nugent.angela@epa.gov* . To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Dr. Nugent preferably at least ten days prior to the teleconference, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Dated: December 22, 2006. Anthony Maciorowski, Associate Director for Science, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office. [FR Doc. E6-22308 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8263-6] Total Coliform Rule / Distribution System Stakeholder Technical Workshop and Request for Nominations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice; public meeting. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)is holding a technical workshop in Washington, DC, to discuss available information on the Total Coliform Rule
(TCR)and available information regarding risks in distribution systems in support of revisions to the TCR. The TCR provides public health protection from microbial contamination in drinking water while indicating the adequacy of treatment and the integrity of drinking water distribution systems. As part of the technical workshop, EPA is seeking information and analytic approaches for characterizing risks posed by the distribution system. Subsequently, if results from the workshop indicate that a formal consensus building process is appropriate for the revision effort, the Agency will consider establishing a Committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide advice and recommendations on how best to utilize available information for potential revisions to the TCR and to address public health risks from contamination of distribution systems. In addition, such a Committee could provide recommendations to determine if further information is needed to be collected to address health risks associated with distribution systems. To prepare in advance for the potential establishment of a Federal Advisory Committee, EPA is soliciting nominations for membership on the Committee in this notice. DATES: The public meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 30, 2007, through Thursday, February 1, 2007, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Eastern time (ET). Attendees should register for the meeting by calling Jason Peller at
(202)965-6387 or by e-mail to *jpeller@resolv.org no later than January 20, 2006.* Submit nominations for a potential Federal Advisory Committee on or before January 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Capital Hilton, at 1001 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036. Nomination materials for the potential Federal Advisory Committee should be submitted to Jini Mohanty by email to *tcr@epa.gov* or by U.S. Mail to the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Office of Water, Mail Code 4607M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791 or go to the Internet site *http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/index.html.* For technical inquiries, contact Tom Grubbs, Standards and Risk Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)564-5262; fax number:
(202)564-3767; e-mail address: *grubbs.thomas@epa.gov.* For special accommodation questions, email Jini Mohanty, at *mohanty.jini@epa.gov* , or call
(202)564 5269. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Stage 2 Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts Federal Advisory Committee, as part of its recommendations concerning the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule, concluded in its Agreement in Principle (65 FR 83015, December 29, 2000) that EPA should evaluate available data and research on aspects of distribution systems that may create risks to public health as a part of the Six-Year Review of the TCR. They also concluded that EPA should work with stakeholders to initiate a process for addressing cross-connections and backflow prevention requirements, and for considering additional distribution system requirements related to significant health risks. The 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA)(Section 1412(b) (9)) require the Administrator to review and revise, as appropriate, each national primary drinking water regulation no less often than every six years. As indicated in the Six-Year Review Notice of Intent (67 FR 19030, April 17, 2002), EPA believes that an opportunity for implementation burden reduction exists in revising the TCR; the Agency plans to assess the effectiveness of the current TCR in reducing public health risk and what technically supportable alternative/additional monitoring strategies are available to reduce implementation costs while maintaining or improving public health protection. In July 2003, EPA published, as part of its final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) Review (i.e., Six-Year Review), its decision to revise the TCR (68 FR 42907, July 18, 2003). In that action, the Agency also stated that it plans to consider potential new requirements for ensuring the integrity of distribution systems. To initiate the revision process, EPA has compiled available information on the potential public health impacts of a range of distribution system issues and has also compiled information on issues with the existing TCR requirements where opportunities may exist for reductions in the implementation burden, while maintaining or improving public health protection. EPA has also compiled information and conducted workshops on determining the potential exposures resulting from contamination of the finished water in the distribution system. In this notice, EPA is announcing that the Agency is convening a technical workshop to discuss available data on understanding risks in drinking water distribution systems, as well as to discuss data to characterize potential TCR implementation problems. As part of this workshop, EPA is seeking information and analytic approaches for characterizing risks posed by the distribution system. Major topics of discussion in the workshop may include public health perspectives on distribution systems, distribution system physical integrity and water quality issues such as cross connections, backflow, intrusion, and biofilm, and TCR implementation and compliance analysis. Depending on the outcome of the workshop, EPA will consider convening a Federal Advisory Committee to provide advice and recommendations on how best to utilize available information for potential revisions to the TCR and to address public health risk from contamination of distribution systems. *Membership on Potential Federal Advisory Committee:* If EPA were to establish a Federal Advisory Committee, the Agency would consider for membership stakeholders with viewpoints on issues related to distribution systems and the TCR and the potential impact that could result from an Agency action on those issues including, but not be limited to, representatives of Federal, State and local public health and regulatory agencies, Native American tribes, large and small drinking water suppliers, consumer, environmental and public health organizations, and local elected officials. EPA encourages those organizations and individuals interested in participating in the potential Federal Advisory Committee to attend the workshop. EPA anticipates that, if a Federal Advisory Committee is established, the terms of the members would likely be two years. EPA anticipates that meetings would be held at least quarterly, with additional conference calls in between the meetings. *Nomination of a Member:* Any interested person or organization may nominate individuals for membership. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, address and telephone number. To be considered, all nominations must include a current resume providing the nominee's background, experience, and qualifications. If a Federal Advisory Committee were to be established, copies of the Committee Charter would be filed with the appropriate congressional committees and the Library of Congress and the establishment of a Committee would be announced in a separate **Federal Register** Notice (FRN). The Agency expects to address proposed revisions to the TCR and any additional distribution system requirements in a separate FRN. Special Accommodations Any person needing special accommodations at the technical workshop, including wheelchair access, should contact Jini Mohanty at the number or email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Requests for special accommodations should be made at least ten days in advance of the meeting. Dated: December 21, 2006. Cynthia C. Dougherty, Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. [FR Doc. E6-22302 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8262-4] Proposed NPDES General Permit for Discharges From the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category to Coastal Waters in Texas (TXG330000) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Proposed NPDES General Permit Reissuance. SUMMARY: EPA Region 6 today proposes to issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit regulating discharges from oil and gas wells in the Coastal Subcategory in Texas and regulating produced water discharges from wells in the Stripper and Offshore Subcategories which discharge into coastal waters of Texas. As proposed, the permit prohibits the discharge of drilling fluid, drill cuttings, produced sand and well treatment, completion and workover fluids. Produced water discharges are prohibited, except from wells in the Stripper Subcategory located east of the 98th meridian whose produced water comes from the Carrizo/Wilcox, Reklaw or Bartosh formations in Texas. Discharge of dewatering effluent is proposed to be prohibited, except from reserve pits which have not received drilling fluids and/or drill cuttings since January 15, 1997. The discharge of deck drainage, formation test fluids, sanitary waste, domestic waste and miscellaneous discharges is proposed to be authorized. We are proposing to reissue the existing NPDES General Permit for Discharges from the Oil and Gas Extraction Category to Coastal Waters of Texas with only one change, the addition of annual monitoring for dissolved solids from Stripper Subcategory produced water. DATES: Comments must be received by February 26, 2007. ADDRESS: Comments should be sent to: Ms. Diane Smith, Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted via e-mail to the following address: *smith.diane@epa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Diane Smith, Region 6, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (6WQ-CA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Telephone:
(214)665-2145. A copy of the proposed permit, the fact sheet more fully explaining the proposal, and a copy of the Agency's Supplemental Environmental Assessment prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act may be obtained from Ms. Smith. The Agency's current administrative record on the proposal is available for examination at the Region's Dallas offices during normal working hours after providing Ms. Smith 24 hours advance notice. Additionally, a copy of the proposed permit, fact sheet, and this **Federal Register** Notice may be obtained on the Internet at: *http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/6wq.htm* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated entities. EPA intends to use the proposed reissued permit to regulate oil and gas extraction facilities located in the coastal waters of Texas, e.g., oil and gas extraction platforms, but other types of facilities may also be subject to the permit. As proposed, the permit would also authorize some produced water discharges from Stripper Subcategory wells to coastal waters. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., may be affected by today's action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in Part I, Section A.1 of the draft permit. Questions on the permit's application to specific facilities may also be directed to Ms. Smith at the telephone number or address listed above. The permit contains limitations conforming to EPA's Oil and Gas extraction, Coastal and Stripper Subcategory Effluent Limitations Guidelines at 40 CFR part 435 as well as requirements assuring that regulated discharges will comply with Texas State Water Quality Standards. Specific information on the derivation of those limitations and conditions is contained in the fact sheet. Other Legal Requirements *State Certification.* Under section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, EPA may not issue an NPDES permit until the State in which the discharge will occur grants or waives certification to ensure compliance with appropriate requirements of the Act and State law. EPA will seek certification from the Railroad Commission of Texas prior to issuing a final permit. *National Environmental Policy Act.* EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 6, Subpart F, which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C., 4331, et seq., provide the procedures for carrying out the NEPA environmental review process for the issuance of new source NPDES permits. The purpose of this review process is to determine if any significant environmental impacts are anticipated by issuance of NPDES permits authorizing discharges from new sources. In order to make this determination, EPA prepared an environmental assessment in accordance with 40 CFR 6.604 when the current permit was drafted. Based on that environmental assessment document, EPA determined that there would be no significant impact as the result of issuing that permit. When the current permit was issued, a Statement of Findings documenting the completion of EPA's NEPA review process on this permit action was signed by the Regional Administrator. Since no new limits or changes in permit coverage are proposed, EPA has determined that reissuance of the permit does not rise to the level of a significant impact to the environment. Thus, EPA is not required to prepare another Environmental Assessment for this action. *Endangered Species Act.* When EPA issued the previous Permit TXG330000, effective October 21, 1993, covering existing sources, but not New Sources, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or the Service) concurred with EPA's finding that the permit was unlikely to adversely affect any threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. When EPA issued Permit TXG290000, effective February 8, 1995, the Service also concurred with EPA's finding that the permit was unlikely to adversely affect any threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. The Region found that adding New Source coverage to the permit is also unlikely to adversely affect any threatened or endangered species or its critical habitat. EPA received written concurrence from the FWS on May 2, 2001, and from the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)on May 1, 2001, on that determination. Since no significant changes are proposed to the permit, EPA again finds that the reissued permit is unlikely to adversely affect any listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. EPA will obtain concurrence with the determination from NMFS and FWS prior to issuing the final permit. *Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.* The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act set forth a new mandate to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fisheries habitats. The purpose of addressing habitat in this act is to further the goal of maintaining sustainable fisheries. Guidance and procedures for implementing these amendments are contained in NMFS regulations (50 CFR 600.805-600.930). These regulations specify that any Federal agency that authorizes or proposes to authorize an activity which would adversely affect an Essential Fish Habitat is subject to the consultation provisions of the Manguson-Stevens Act. The Texas Coastal Subcategory areas covered by this general permit include Essential Fish Habitat designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Based on the prohibitions and limitations and other requirements contained in this proposed general permit, as well as the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment prepared for this permit reissuance, the Region previously found that issuance of this permit would be unlikely to adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat. EPA received written concurrence from NMFS on that determination. Since there are very few changes proposed to the permit with this reissuance, EPA again finds that its issuance is unlikely to adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat. EPA is seeking concurrence with that decision from NMFS. *Coastal Zone Management Act.* The Coastal Zone Management Act and its implementing regulations (15 CFR part 930) require that any Federally licensed or permitted activity affecting the coastal zone of a state with an approved Coastal Zone management Program be consistent with that Program. EPA has concluded, based on the conditions, limitations and prohibitions of this permit that the discharges associated with this permit are consistent with the Texas Coastal Management Program goals and policies. EPA previously received a consistency determination from the Texas Coastal Coordination Council on February 13, 2001, and is seeking another consistency determination prior to issuing the final permit. *Historic Preservation Act.* Facilities which adversely affect properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historical Places are not authorized to discharge under this permit. *Economic Impact (Executive Order 12866).* Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. EPA has determined that this general permit is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to formal OMB review prior to proposal. *Paperwork Reduction Act.* The information collection required by this permit has been approved by OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., in submission made for the NPDES permit program and assigned OMB control numbers 2040-0086 (NPDES permit application) and 2040-0004 (discharge monitoring reports). *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq, requires that EPA prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for regulations that have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This permit is not a “rule” subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. EPA prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis, however, on the promulgation of the Coastal Subcategory guidelines on which many of the permit's effluent limitations are based. That analysis shows that compliance with the permit requirements will not result in a significant impact on dischargers, including small businesses, covered by this permit. EPA Region 6, therefore, concludes that the permit being proposed today will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. *Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.* Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, generally requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their “regulatory actions” on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. UMRA uses the term “regulatory actions” to refer to regulations. (See, e.g., UMRA section 201, “Each agency shall * * * assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions * * * (other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law)” (emphasis added)). UMRA section 102 defines “regulation” by reference to section 658 of Title 2 of the U.S. Code, which in turn defines “regulation” and “rule” by reference to section 601(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). That section of the RFA defines “rule” as “any rule for which the agency publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), or any other law * * *” NPDES general permits are not “rules” under the APA and thus not subject to the APA requirement to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. NPDES general permits are also not subject to such a requirement under the Clean Water Act (CWA). While EPA publishes a notice to solicit public comment on draft general permits, it does so pursuant to the CWA section 402(a) requirement to provide “an opportunity for a hearing.” Thus, NPDES general permits are not “rules” for RFA or UMRA purposes. EPA thinks it is unlikely that this permit issuance would contain a Federal requirement that might result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The Agency also believes that the permit issuance would not significantly nor uniquely affect small governments. For UMRA purposes, “small governments” is defined by reference to the definition of “small governmental jurisdiction” under the RFA. (See UMRA section 102(1), referencing 2 U.S.C. 658, which references section 601(5) of the RFA.) “Small governmental jurisdiction” means governments of cities, counties, towns, etc., with a population of less than 50,000, unless the agency establishes an alternative definition. The permit issuance also would not uniquely affect small governments because compliance with the permit conditions affects small governments in the same manner as any other entities seeking coverage under the permit. Dated: December 19, 2006. William K. Honker, Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6. [FR Doc. E6-22154 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P EXPORT-IMPORT BANK Sunshine Act Meeting Action: Notice of a Partially Open Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Time and Place: Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 9:30 AM. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571. Open Agenda Item: Ex-Im Bank Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee for 2007. Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public participation for Item No. 1 only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of the Secretary, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571 (Telephone 202-565-3957). Howard A. Schweitzer, General Counsel. [FR Doc. 06-9937 Filed 12-26-06; 2:37 pm]
Connectionstraces to 31
Traces to 31 documents
U.S. Code
- Effect on other law§ 6297
- Coverage§ 6292
- Energy conservation standards§ 6295
- Standards§ 6313
- Purposes§ 3501
- Repealed. Aug. 26, 1935, ch. 687, title II, § 212, 49 Stat. 847§ 791
- Sale of electric power from reservoir projects; rate schedules; preference in sale; construction of transmission lines; disposition of moneys§ 825s
- Transfers from Department of the Interior§ 7152
- New projects; sale of water and electric power; lease of power privileges§ 485h
- State standards§ 7543
- Definitions§ 601
- Regulation of fuels§ 7545
- Science Advisory Board§ 4365
- Definitions§ 658
CFR
- Energy and water conservation standards and their compliance dates.§ 430.32
- Request for reconsideration.§ 430.48
- Filing requirements.§ 430.42
- Protests other than under Rule 208 (Rule 211).§ 385.211
- Filings and Other Submissions.§ 385.2001
- Protests, interventions, and comments.§ 154.210
- Intervention (Rule 214).§ 385.214
- Interventions and protests.§ 157.10
- Method of notice; dates established in notice (Rule 210).§ 385.210
- Hearings on applications; consultation on terms and conditions; motions to intervene; alternative procedures.§ 4.34
- Competing applications: deadlines for filing; notices of intent; comparisons of plans of development.§ 4.36
- Applicability and definitions.§ 4.30
- Definitions (Rule 102).§ 385.102
- Rate extensions.§ 903.23
statutes-at-large
16 references not yet in our index
- Pub. L. 94-163
- 42 USC 6291-6309
- Pub. L. 100-12
- Pub. L. 109-58
- 10 CFR 430
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 18 CFR 34
- Pub. L. 95-91
- 10 CFR 1021
- 40 CFR 80.27(a)(1)
- 40 CFR 435
- 40 CFR 6
- 40 CFR 6.604
- 50 CFR 600.805-600
- 15 CFR 930
- Pub. L. 104-4
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Denial of a Petition for Waiver from Federal Preemption
Pub. L.Pub. L. 94-163
Cite42 USC 6291-6309
Pub. L.Pub. L. 100-12
Cites 47 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources