Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Notices 59337 

resources on a long-term firm basis. If a 

customer cannot self-supply or purchase 

this service from another provider, 

Western may obtain the reserves on the 

open market for a charge that covers the 

cost of procuring the service. The 

transmission customer will be 

responsible for the transmission service 

to get these reserves to their destination. 

Under Schedule DSW–SUR2, 

Operating Reserves-Supplemental 

Reserve Service is not available from 

DSWR resources on a long-term firm 

basis. If a customer cannot self-supply 

or purchase this service from another 

provider, at the customer’s request, 

Western may obtain the reserves on the 

open market for a charge that covers the 

cost of procuring the service. The 

transmission customer will be 

responsible for the transmission service 

to get these reserves to their destination. 

Spinning and Supplemental Reserve 

Services were handled in the same way 

in the previous rate methodology as in 

this proposal. 

Legal Authority 

Since the proposed rates constitute a 

major rate adjustment as defined by 10 

CFR part 903, Western will hold both a 

public information forum and a public 

comment forum. After review of public 

comments, and possible amendments or 

adjustments, Western will recommend 

the Deputy Secretary of Energy approve 

the proposed rates on an interim basis. 

Western is establishing network 

service for the PDP and the Intertie and 

ancillary services for the PDP, Intertie, 

CAP, and the part of the CRSP located 

in the WALC BATO under the 

Department of Energy Organization Act 

(42 U.S.C. 7152); 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 projects 

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 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 

Commission. Existing Department of 

Energy (DOE) procedures for public 

participation in power rate adjustments 

(10 CFR part 903) were published on 

September 18, 1985. 

Availability of Information 

All brochures, studies, comments, 

letters, memorandums, or other 

documents that Western initiates or uses 

to develop the proposed rates are 

available for inspection and copying at 

the Desert Southwest Regional Office, 

615 South 43rd Avenue, Phoenix, 

Arizona. Many of these documents and 

supporting information are also 

available on DSWR’s external Web site 

http://www.wapa.gov/dsw/dsw.htm. 

Regulatory Procedure Requirements 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires Federal 

agencies to perform a regulatory 

flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely 

to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, and there is a legal requirement 

to issue a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking. This action does not require 

a regulatory flexibility analysis since it 

is a rulemaking of particular 

applicability involving rates or services 

applicable to public property. 

Environmental Compliance 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.); 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508); 

and DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR 

part 1021), Western has determined this 

action is categorically excluded from 

preparing an environmental assessment 

or an environmental impact statement. 

Determination Under Executive Order 

12866 

Western has an exemption from 

centralized regulatory review under 

Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no 

clearance of this notice by the Office of 

Management and Budget is required. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

Western has determined that this rule 

is exempt from congressional 

notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 

801 because the action is a rulemaking 

of particular applicability relating to 

rates or services and involves matters of 

procedure. 

Dated: September 30, 2005. 

Michael S. Hacskaylo, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–20433 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[Petition IV–2002–1; FRL–7982–7] 

Clean Air Act Operating Permit 

Program; Petition for Objection to 

State Operating Permit for Oglethorpe 

Power Company—Wansley Combined 

Cycle Energy Facility; Roopville (Heard 

County), GA 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final order denying 

petition to object to a state operating 

permit in response to remand. 

SUMMARY: On September 15, 2005, the 

Administrator issued an Order 

Responding to Remand denying a 

petition to object to a state operating 

permit issued to Oglethorpe Power 

Company (Oglethorpe)—Wansley 

Combined Cycle Energy Facility (Block 

8) located in Roopville, Heard County, 

Georgia, pursuant to title V of the Clean 

Air Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 7661–7661f. 

On February 4, 2002, Sierra Club had 

filed a petition seeking EPA’s objection 

to the title V operating permit for Block 

8 issued by the Georgia Environmental 

Protection Division (EPD). The 

Administrator denied the petition in an 

Order dated November 15, 2002. 

Pursuant to Section 502(b) of the Act, 

Sierra Club appealed to the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the 

Court), arguing that Oglethorpe was not 

entitled to a permit for Block 8 (in 

accordance with Georgia’s Statewide 

Compliance Rule) because it owns part 

of another major stationary source that 

has been cited for non-compliance with 

the Act. On May 5, 2004, the Court 

granted Sierra Club’s petition for 

review, vacated the November 12, 2002, 

Order, and remanded to EPA for further 

explanation of the manner in which the 

Georgia rule should be applied in cases 

of partial ownership. After considering 

the issues raised by the Court, the Order 

Responding to Remand reaches the 

same conclusion as EPA’s original 

Order, but provides a more detailed 

explanation. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Order 

Responding to Remand, the petition, 

and all pertinent information relating 

thereto are on file at the following 

location: EPA Region 4, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, 61 

Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 

30303–8960. The remanded final order 

is also available electronically at the 

following address: http://www.epa.gov/ 

region7/programs/artd/air/title5/ 

petitiondb/petitions/ 

59338 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Notices 

opcwansley_decision2002(remanded) 

.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Art 

Hofmeister, Air Permits Section, EPA 

Region 4, at (404) 562–9115 or 

hofmeister.art@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Georgia Center for Law in the Public 

Interest originally submitted a petition 

on behalf of the Sierra Club (Petitioner) 

to the Administrator on February 4, 

2002, requesting that EPA object to a 

state title V operating permit issued by 

the EPD to Oglethorpe. Other 

inconsistencies (with the Act) alleged by 

the Petitioner were: (1) That the permit 

failed to require a case-by-case 

maximum achievable control 

technology determination for the 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants; 

(2) that the permit failed to include 

adequate monitoring of carbon 

monoxide; (3) that the permit 

impermissibly limited the enforceability 

of a federal stack height provision; and 

(4) that the permit failed to include 

short-term best available control 

technology limits. EPA’s responses to 

the above issues in the November 12, 

2002, Order were upheld by the Court; 

therefore, sections IV.B. through IV.E. of 

the November 12, 2002, Order are 

incorporated by reference into the Order 

Responding to Remand. 

Dated: October 5, 2005. 

J. I. Palmer, Jr., 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 05–20416 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[A–1–FRL–7982–5] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plan Commitment to Submit MidCourse Review; Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire and Rhode Island 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of commitment 

fulfillment. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the states of Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire and Rhode Island have 

fulfilled the enforceable commitment 

each state made to EPA to complete a 

mid-course review (MCR) assessing 

whether their respective nonattainment 

area was or was not making sufficient 

progress toward attainment of the onehour ozone standard under the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). EPA has reviewed the 

MCR documents submitted by 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire and 

Rhode Island and has determined that 

each state has adequately met its 

commitment to perform a MCR. EPA has 

sent a letter to each state approving their 

respective MCR as fulfilling the 

commitment made by each state in their 

1-hour ozone attainment demonstration. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of each state’s MCR 

submittal, EPA’s approval letters and 

EPA’s technical support document 

(TSD) are available for public inspection 

during normal business hours (9 a.m. to 

4 p.m.) at the following address: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 1 (New England), One Congress 

St., 11th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts, 

telephone (617) 918–1664, please 

telephone in advance before visiting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality 

Planning, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, One Congress Street, 

11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–

2023. Phone: 617–918–1664, Fax: (617) 

918–0664, E-mail: 

burkhart.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information-Copies of 

Documents 

EPA’s approval letters and TSD and 

each State’s MCR submittal are available 

at the Regional Office, which is 

identified in the ADDRESSES section 

above. Copies of these same items are 

also available for public inspection 

during normal business hours, by 

appointment at the respective State Air 

Agency Division of Air Quality Control, 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, 

Boston, MA 02108; Air Resources 

Division, Department of Environmental 

Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, 

Concord, NH 03302–0095; and Office of 

Air Resources, Department of 

Environmental Management, 235 

Promenade Street, Providence, RI 

02908–5767. 

II. Further Information 

A. Background 

EPA’s 1996 modeling guidance 

recognized the need to perform a midcourse review as a means for addressing 

uncertainty in the modeling results. In 

its December 16, 1999 proposed 

rulemakings on the 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstrations for ten ozone 

nonattainment areas (see one example at 

64 FR 70348), EPA stated that because 

of the uncertainty in long-term 

projections, it believes that an 

attainment demonstration that relies on 

weight of evidence needs to contain 

provisions for periodic review of 

monitoring, emissions, and modeling 

data to assess the extent to which 

refinements to emission control 

measures are needed. In those December 

16, 1999 proposed rulemakings, EPA set 

forth its framework for reviewing and 

processing 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstrations and one element of that 

framework was a commitment for a 

MCR. 

A MCR provides an opportunity for 

the state and EPA to assess if a 

nonattainment area is or is not making 

sufficient progress toward attainment of 

the one-hour ozone standard. The MCR 

should utilize the most recent 

monitoring and other data to assess 

whether the control measures relied on 

in a SIP’s attainment demonstration 

have resulted in adequate improvement 

of the ozone air quality. The EPA 

believes that a MCR is a critical element 

in any attainment demonstration that 

employs a long-term projection period 

and relies on a weight-of-evidence test. 

The commitment to perform a MCR was 

required before EPA would approve 

most 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstrations. Moreover, even though 

the 1-hour ozone standard has been 

revoked by EPA (70 FR 44470, June 15, 

2005), the anti-backsliding provisions of 

EPA’s 8-hour ozone implementation 

rule (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004) 

continue to require areas with 

outstanding commitments to perform a 

1-hour MCR to do so. 

The three 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas in New England 

that are the subject of this notice are as 

follows: (1) The Massachusetts portion 

of the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester, MA–

NH area, (2) the New Hampshire portion 

of the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester, MA–

NH area, and (3) the Providence, Rhode 

Island area. EPA’s final approval of the 

attainment demonstrations for both 

portions of the Boston-LawrenceWorcester, MA–NH 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, each with a 

commitment to perform a MCR, was 

published on December 6, 2002 (67 FR 

72574 and 67 FR 72576). EPA’s final 

approval of the attainment 

demonstration for the Providence, 

Rhode Island 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area with the 

commitment to perform a MCR was 

published on April 7, 2003 (68 FR 

16721). 

B. MCR Guidance 

On March 28, 2002, EPA issued a 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Mid-Course 

Review Guidance for the 1-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas that Rely on 

Weight-of-Evidence for Attainment 

Demonstration.’’ Attached to that