QUALITY ASSURANCE and QUALITY CONTROL DATA STANDARD Standard No.: 1 XXX Version 1   FINAL DRAFT July 26, 2005 This standard has been produced through the Environmental Data Standards Council ( EDSC).

The Environmental Data Standards Council ( EDSC) is a partnership among EPA, States and Tribal partners to develop and agree upon data standards for environmental information collection and exchange. More information about the EDSC is available at http:// www. envdatastandards. net. Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard Std No.: 1 XXX Version 1   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 2 Foreword The Environmental Data Standards Council identifies, prioritizes and pursues the creation of data standards for those areas where information exchange standards will provide the most value in achieving environmental results. The Council involves Tribes and Tribal Nations, state and federal agencies in the development of the standards and then provides the draft materials for general review. Business groups, non governmental organizations, and other interested parties may then provide input and comment for Council consideration and standard finalization. Draft and final standards are available at http:// www. envdatastandards. net.

1.0 INTRODUCTION This Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard ( QA/ QC) identifies quantitative statistics and qualitative descriptors that are used to interpret the degree of acceptability or utility of data to the user. The standard provides a common set of data components and data elements to specify Quality Control elements that may be acquired during field or laboratory analysis. These data components and data elements provide a reusable template for Quality Control Information. This standard does not establish a new reporting requirement for the regulated community or new data collection requirements for EPA programs. It does however require that EPA information exchanges of quality control information conform to the standard once EPA adopts and implements the standard.

1.1 Scope This standard provides and describes quantitative statistics and qualitative descriptors that are used to interpret the degree of acceptability or utility of data to the user.

1.2 References to Other Data Standards None.

1.3 Terms and Definitions For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.

Term Definition Quality Assurance ( QA) The system implemented by an organization which assures outside bodies that the data generated is of proven and known quality and meets the needs of the end user. This assurance relies heavily on documentation of processes, procedures, capabilities, and monitoring of such.

Quality Control ( QC) Those operations undertaken in the laboratory or field to ensure that the data produced are within known measures of accuracy and precision. These operations may include calibration, method blanks, matrix spikes, blank spikes, surrogates, duplicates, system checks, as well as others.

1.4 Implementation Users are encouraged to use the XML registry housed on the Exchange Network Web site to download schema components for the construction of XML schema flows ( http:// www. exchangenetwork. net). Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard Std No.: 1 XXX Version 1   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 3 1.5 Document Structure The structure of this document is briefly described below: a. Section 2.0 Diagram, illustrates the principal data groupings contained within this standard.

b. Section 3.0 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard Table, provides information on the high level, intermediate and elemental Quality Control and Quality Assurance data groupings. Where applicable, for each level of this data standard a definition, XML tag, note( s), example list of values and format are provided. The format column may list the number of characters for the associated data element, where " A" specifies alphanumeric and " N" designates numeric.

c. Data Standard Numbering: For purposes of clarity and to enhance understanding of data standard hierarchy and relationships, each data group is numerically classified from the primary to the elemental level. d. Code and Identifier metadata: Based on the business need, additional metadata may be required to sufficiently describe an identifier or a code. A note regarding this additional metadata is included in the notes column for identifier and code elements. Additional metadata for identifiers may include:

  Code List Identifier, which is a standardized reference to the context or source of the set of codes Additional metadata for codes may include:

  Code List Identifier, which is a standardized reference to the context or source of the set of codes   Code List Version Identifier, which identifies the particular version of the set of codes.

  Code List Version Agency Identifier, which identifies the agency responsible for maintaining the set of codes   Code List Name, which describes the corresponding name for which the code represents e. Appendix A, Quality Assurance and Quality control Data Standard Structure Diagram illustrates the hierarchical classification of the QA/ QC data standard. This diagram enables business and technical users of this standard to quickly understand its general content and complexity. Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard Std No.: 1 XXX Version 1   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 4 2.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL DATA STANDARD DIAGRAM This diagram specifies the major data groups that may be used to identify the characteristics and/ or to catalog quality assurance and quality control.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard 1.0 Data Quality Indicator Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard Std No.: 1 XXX Version 1   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 5 3.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTOL DATA STANDARD TABLE 1.0 Data Quality Indicator Definition: The quantitative statistics and qualitative descriptors that are used to interpret the degree of acceptability or utility of data to the user.

Relationships: None.

Notes: None.

XML Tag: DataQualityIndicator Data Element Name Data Element Definitions Notes Format XML Tags 1.1 Precision A measure of mutual agreement among individual measurements of the same property usually under prescribed similar conditions. This is the random component of error. Example: Relative Percent Difference ( RPD or di), where X is the primary value and Y is the duplicate: 100 2 /

)

( × +

= i i i i X Y X Y di A Measurement Precision 1.2 Bias The systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process which causes error in one direction. Bias will be determined by estimating the positive and negative deviation from the true value as a percentage of the true value. Example: Percent Difference, where X is the known or spiked amount, and Y is the measured concentration:

100 ×

= i i i X X Y di A Measurement Bias 1.3 Confidence Interval A range of values for a variable of interest, e. g., a rate, constructed so that this range has a specified probability of including the true value of the variable. The specified probability is called the confidence level, and the points of the confidence interval are called the confidence limit. Confidence limit may be calculated as:

( )

X t value stdev n ± _ * / A ConfidenceInt erval Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard Std No.: 1 XXX Version 1   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 6 Data Element Name Data Element Definitions Notes Format XML Tags 1.4 Upper Control Limit Value of the upper end of acceptable range. See 1.3 Confidence Interval A UpperControl Limit 1.5 Lower Control Limit Value of the lower end of acceptable range. See 1.3 Confidence Interval A LowerControl Limit 1.6 Upper Probability Limit Upper limit on a probability interval ( instead of a confidence interval),

which represents the expected upper limit, which should include 95% of all the individual measurements of a population. Probability limit is calculated as:

X z value stdev ± ( _ * )

( using 95% z value which is 1.96)

Example: " a reporting organization is said to be outside of the acceptable quality assurance limits if either of the upper probability limit or lower probability limit is outside of the acceptable quality assurance limit. A UpperProbabi lityLimit 1.7 Lower Probability Limit Lower limit on a probability interval ( instead of a confidence interval),

which represents the expected lower limit, which should include 95% of all the individual measurements of a population. Probability limit is calculated as:

X z value stdev ± ( _ * )

( using 95% z value which is 1.96)

Example: " a reporting organization is said to be outside of the acceptable quality assurance limits if either of the upper probability limit or lower probability limit is outside of the acceptable quality assurance limit. A LowerProbabi lityLimit Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard Std No.: 1 XXX Version 1   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 7 Appendix A Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard Structure Diagram 1.0 Data Quality Indicator 1.1 Precision 1.2 Bias 1.3 Confidence Interval 1.4 Upper Control Limit 1.5 Lower Control Limit 1.6 Upper Probability Limit 1.7 Lower Probability Limit Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard


1 8/ 1024/ 05 ver 8 hr O3 NAAQS implementation rule   phase 22: 00 pm version G. What requirements should apply for RACM and RACT for 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas? [ Section VI. K. of June 2, 2003 proposed rule ( 68 FR 32837); § 51.912 in draft and final regulatory text.] The first subsection of this section covers RACT and the second subsection covers RACM. 1. Reasonably Available Control Technology ( RACT) a. Background As described in more detail in the June 2 proposal, subpart 1 of part D includes a requirement that an attainment plan provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable, including such reductions that may be obtained through RACT. Under subpart 2, marginal areas are required to correct pre 1990 RACT requirements and new RACT requirements are specified for moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas. Additionally, States must adopt RACT for all areas in an ozone transport region ( OTR). The RACT requirement applies to both ozone precursors   NOx and VOC. Since 1990, we have issued guidance documents on the RACT requirements in subpart 2. Prior to enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA also issued detailed guidance documents on RACT for ozone nonattainment area SIPs. In the period prior to enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, only the general requirements for RACM and RACT existed. Also, prior to the 1990 Amendments, EPA had issued control technique guideline ( CTG) documents to provide presumptive norms for RACT for VOC controls for States to follow in adopting RACT for ozone nonattainment areas. In 1990, Congress specified more detailed RACT provisions and explicitly required RACT for NOx as well as for VOC. Also in 1990, section 183( c) required EPA to issue technical documents which identify alternative control techniques ( ACT documents) for large stationary sources of NOx and VOC. The EPA completed 12 ACT documents for VOC source categories. Over a 5 year period, 1991 94, EPA issued nine ACT guideline documents for large stationary sources of NOx. In 2000, updates to the NOx ACT documents were completed for stationary internal combustion engines and cement kilns. Although the ACT documents do not set a presumptive RACT level as do CTGs, they are intended to help States in making RACT determinations. In addition to the ACTs and CTGs, information developed as part of the process of determining BACT, BART, LAER, and MACT, can be very useful in supplementing or, in some cases, substituting for information to support a RACT determination. 1In addition, EPA is considering related recommendations from the Air Quality Management Work Group to the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee ( CAAAC) dated January 2005 [ available at: http:// www. epa. gov/ air/ caaac/ aqm. html# library ] in response to the recent National Research Council report on Air Quality Management in the United States ( January 2004) [ available for sale; individual pages available for viewing at http:// www. nap. edu/ books/ 0309089328/ html]. One of the recommendations to the CAAAQ is that " for the SIPs States are required to submit over the next several years, EPA and States, locals, and Tribes should promote the consideration of multipollutant impacts, including the impacts of air toxics, and where there is discretion, select regulatory approaches that maximize benefits from controlling key air toxics, as well as ozone, PM2.5 and regional haze." As part of this effort, EPA intends in the future to develop updated technology guidance with respect to source categories emitting multiple pollutants in large amounts. At this time, however, we think it is unlikely that updated technology guidance will be available in time for the RACT 2 Section 183( c) of the CAA also requires EPA to " revise and update such documents [ i. e., CTGsControl Techniques Guidelines and ACTsAlternative Control Techniques] as the Administrator determines necessary." As new or updated information becomes available States should consider the new information in their RACT determinations. States should consider the updated guidancenew information in any RACT determinations or certifications that have not been issued as of the time such an update becomes available. In addition, EPA is considering related recommendations from the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee that were sent to EPA in January 2005 in response to the recent National Research Council report on Air Quality Management in the United States ( January 2004). One of the CAAAC recommendations is that " for the SIPs States are required to submit over the next several years, EPA and States, locals, and Tribes should promote the consideration of multipollutant impacts, including the impacts of air toxics, and where there is discretion, select regulatory approaches that maximize benefits from controlling key air toxics, as well as ozone, PM2.5 and regional haze." As part of this effort, EPA intends in the future to develop updated technology guidance with respect to source categories emitting multiple pollutants in large amounts. At this time, however, we think it is unlikely that updated technology guidance will be available in time for the RACT SIPs due in 2006. In the1 SIPs due in 2006.

2This is generally expected with the submission of the attainment demonstration.

3 The June 2, 2003 proposal, we proposed addressed several requirements with respect to RACTaspects of the RACT requirement. For subpart 1 areas, we proposed several options. We proposed in one option to interpret the CAA in a manner similar to that under subpart 2 by requiring areas covered under subpart 1 to face different RACT requirements based on the magnitude of the ozone problem in the area ( i. e., the area's design value). In another option, we proposed that RACT would be met if the area were able to demonstrate attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable with emission control measures in the SIP. We also proposed as an early attainment incentive that RACT would be met in an area which demonstrates attainment within 3 years and submits the demonstration within 1 year. We proposed the RACT submittal dates for subpart 1 areas would be either the same as the submittal date for the attainment plan ( within 3 years) or the same as the deadline for subpart 2 areas ( within 2 years). For subpart 2 areas, we proposed to apply RACT as specified in subpart 2. We proposed the RACT submittal dates for subpart 1 areas would be either the same as the submittal date for the attainment plan ( within 3 years) or the same as the deadline for subpart 2 areas ( within 2 years)( in the draft regulatory text) to require that States submit their subpart 2 RACT SIPs within 2 years after the nonattainment designation. In addition, we proposed the date for affected sources to implement RACT in subpart 2 areas would be 30 months after the required submittal date. We also proposed that States may use current EPA guidance in making RACT determinations; consequently, in some cases, sources previously evaluated under the 1 hour ozone RACT requirement and sources subject to the NOx SIP Call cap and trade program could be determined to meet the 8 hour ozone RACT requirement. b. Summary of final rule For subpart 1 areas that do not request an attainment date extension ( i. e., an attainment date beyond 5 years after designation), RACT will be met with control requirements sufficient to demonstrate that the NAAQS is attained as expeditiously as practicable. The RACT submittal date for these areas is the same as the submittal date for the attainment plan. This submission date is no later than 3 years after designation. For subpart 1 areas that request an attainment date extension ( i. e., an attainment date beyond 5 years after designation), the State shall submit the RACT SIP with its attainment date extension request. 2 For subpart 2 moderate and 4 above areas, and areas within an OTR, RACT is required with the RACT submittal and is due 27 months after designation. States must require sources to implement RACT no later than the first ozone season or portion thereof which occurs 30 months after the required submittal date. Where RACT appliesa RACT SIP submission ( separate from the attainment demonstration) is required ( except certain subpart 1 areas, as described abovetwo paragraphs prior to this, and except certain sources subject to the NOx SIP Call or CAIR, as described below), State SIPs implementing the 8 hour standard must assure that RACT is met, either through a certification that previously required RACT controls represent RACT for 8 hour implementation purposes or through a new RACT determination. States may use existing EPA guidance in making RACT determinations. Where a State has adopted and EPA has approved a control measure as RACT for a specific major stationary source or source category for the 1 hour ozone NAAQS, and absent data indicating that the previous RACT determination is no longer appropriate in lieu of a RACT rule, the State may submit a certification that the source is subject to a SIP approved RACT requirement. Such certification shall be accompanied by appropriate supporting information, such as consideration of information received from public commenters. For purposes of meeting the NOx RACT requirement, the State need not perform ( or submit) a NOx RACT analysis for sources subject to the State's emission cap and trade program where the cap and trade program has been adopted by the State or approved by EPA1 meetingthat meets the NOx SIP Call requirements or, in States achieving CAIR reductions solely from EGUs, the CAIR NOx requirements. EPA believes that the SIP provisions for those sources meet the ozone NOx RACT requirement. Furthermore, analysis of the effects of the NOx SIP Call and CAIR ( see Technical Support Document) supports EPA's conclusion. A State that is relying on this conclusion for the affected sources should document this reliance in its RACT SIP.

Additionally, RACT is considered met for cement kilns and stationary internal combustion engines that are subject to a SIP approved obligation to install and operate controls that are expected to achieve at least a 30 percent and 82 percent reduction, respectively, from uncontrolled levels. States are free to conduct case by case RACT determinations   or RACT determinations or certifications for groups of sources   at their discretion. A State may meet the NOx RACT requirement by showing that the weighted average emission rate from a broad range of sources in the nonattainment area subject to RACT   including sources subject to the NOx SIP Call or CAIR NOx requirements   meet RACT requirements. As described inAt their discretion, States are free to 5 conduct case by case RACT determinations   or RACT determinations or certifications for groups of sources. As discussed below in greater detail, States may use information gathered from prior BACT or LAER analyses, to the extent it remains valid, to help complete a RACT determination. Similarly, emissions standards developed under 111( d) and NSR/ PSD settlement agreements may be considered. For VOC sources subject to MACT standards, States may streamline their RACT analysis by including a discussion of the MACT controls and considerations relevant to VOC RACT. We believe that this will allow States, in many cases, to rely on the MACT standards for purposes of showing that a source has met VOC RACT. Consistent with the proposed regulatory text for this rule [ section 51.912( b)( 1)], the final rule provides that, for purposes of meeting the RACT obligations under section 182( b)( 2)( C) of the CAA for major stationary sources of VOCs and under section 182( f) of the CAA for major stationary sources of NOx, the definition of major stationary source in section 302 of the CAA, as modified by the major source definition in either section 182( b), ( c), ( d) or ( e) of the CAA as applicable to the area's classification, applies. Although we drafted more extensive regulatory language for several aspects of the RACT program in the proposal, we believe it is sufficient to describe EPA's views on the details of the RACT program in today's preamble and in other guidance ( e. g., the NOx Supplement to the General Preamble, November 25, 1992 ( 57 FR 55620)). Thus, some detailed portions of the proposed regulatory text regarding RACT were not retained in the final rule ( in particular paragraph ( b)( 2) " Prior RACT Determinations"). A Note About Recommended Consultation. Based on our experience developing the NOx SIP call, CAIR, and the proposed Clear Skies legislation, we believe that many power companies will develop their strategies for complying with CAIR based, in part, on consultations with air quality officials in the areas in which their plants are located. Because power plants are generally major emission sources, the operators of those plants typically have ongoing relationships with sState and local officials that will be involved in developing air quality plans. We are aware that, in the past, companies have worked with air quality officials to meet their emission control obligations under a cap and trade approach such as the NOx SIP call while also addressing the concerns of air quality officials about the air quality impacts of specific plants. This has led to controlling emissions from power plants located in or near specific ozone nonattainment areas. A number of companies have indicated that such collaboration will be even more important as the States wherein which they are located address multiple air quality goals ( e. g., visibility, interstate air pollution, local 6 attainment of standards for multiple pollutants). EPA expects similar consultations between States and power sector companies on the location ofwhich plants towill be controlled under CAIR, considering local attainment needs in planning for CAIR compliance. This consultation might revealpromote opportunities to provide improved air quality earlier for large numbers of people in a nonattainment area, or to promote more expeditious attainment for the area. Power companies may identify economic advantages in situating CAIR controls to help the local area attain; for example, it might need to control fewer facilities for the area to reach attainment. These benefits may outweigh any additional marginal costs the company might incur by forgoing less costly controls on another more distant plant. In any event, the intent of these consultations would not be to upset market behavior or incentives. Rather, we anticipate that these consultations will affect individual control decisions for a few areas. In this regard, EPA notes that CAIR SIPs will be due in 2006, while local 8 hour ozone attainment plans will be due in 2007. EPA suggests that consultations on location of CAIR controls would be timely during sState development of the CAIR SIP. c. Comments and responses Comments: For subpart 2 ozone nonattainment areas, several States expressed agreement with the proposed approach for implementing RACT consistent with section 182 of the CAA. Response: The EPA agrees with these comments. Comments: For subpart 1 ozone nonattainment areas, EPA received several comments for and against the options proposed for addressing RACT. Several State and industry commenters supported EPA's proposed approach that RACT would be met if the area is able to demonstrate attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable with emission control measures in the SIP. The reasons provided by these commenters were generally as follows: States should be able to use their discretion in determining which control strategies are the most effective in addressing a particular area's air quality problem; flexibility is needed as areas differ in sensitivity to NOx and VOC reductions; EPA's regional modeling shows these requirements are unnecessary in many areas; and many of these areas violate the ozone standard primarily or entirely due to transport. The EPA also received comments, primarily from several States and environmental groups, opposing the approach that RACT would be met by control measures that are part of a SIP demonstrating attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable. These commenters made the following points: since section 172( c)( 1) of the CAA explicitly mandates RACT " at a 7 minimum" in all nonattainment areas, Congress plainly intended to require RACT as a floor level of control technology in addition to any measures needed to demonstrate timely attainment; even where RACT does not advance attainment, it is needed in order to reduce the severity and number of violations; under this approach, the statutory RACT provisions add nothing to the statutory attainment mandate   which violates basic canons of statutory interpretation; RACT in nonattainment areas will substantially reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors; for equity reasons, sources in similar areas should be subject to the same control; and RACT is a useful tool that should not be abandoned through flexibility mechanisms. Response: The general RACT provision under subpart 1 in the statute, is found in section 172( c)( 1). It is a portion of the RACM provision found in that same section. Our long standing interpretation of the RACM provision is that areas need only submit such RACM as will contribute to timely attainment and meet RFP, and that measures which might be available but would not advance attainment or contribute to RFP need not be considered RACM. This interpretation has been upheld in several recent court cases. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F. 39 155, 162 ( DC Circuit, 2002) ( concerning the Metropolitan Washington, D. C., attainment demonstration) and Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 01 60537 ( 5th Circuit, 2002) ( concerning the Beaumont attainment demonstration). Since subpart 1 RACT is a portion of RACM, these cases also support a conclusion that, where we are dealing only with section 172 RACT, it is reasonable to require only such RACT as will meet RFP and advance attainment. In view of these court cases, EPA disagrees with the comments listed above opposing the approach that, in subpart 1 areas, RACT would be met by control measures in a SIP demonstrating attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable and meeting RFP. The EPA generally agrees with comments that States should have flexibility to determine which control strategies are the most effective in reaching attainment as expeditiously as practicable and providing for RFP, and the CAA gives primary authority to States and local governments to select the mix of controls necessary to meet the NAAQS. In addition, EPA believes that section 172( c) is not the appropriate section of the CAA to address the transport of ozone and ozone precursors; EPA has conducted and is conducting rulemaking pursuant to sections 110 and 126 for that purpose. Finally, some commenters suggested, for equity reasons, that sources in similar areas should be subject to the same control. In the proposal, EPA suggested subpart 1 and 2 areas with the 8 hour ozone design values above 91 ppb should all be required to meet RACT subject to VOC and NOx RACT requirements. The EPA also proposed that RACT would be met in an area which demonstrates 8 attainment within 3 years and submits the demonstration within 1 year. In the final rule, EPA has addressed equity concerns by taking portions of these two proposals, such that subpart 1 and 2 areas with attainment deadlines longer than 5 years after designation must meet the same RACT requirements. We believe ( longer than) 5 years is more appropriate than the 3 years proposed for this requirement since this approximates the maximum attainment date for subpart 2 ( moderate) areas subject to RACT and since this approach is consistent with the manner in which ROP/ RFP requirements are treated in the final rule. Therefore, in subpart 1 areas that do not request an extension beyond the initial 5 years after designation, the final rule indicates that RACT would be met by the emission control measures in a SIP that demonstrates attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable and meets RFP. In addition, the final rule requires subpart 1 areas with maximum attainment deadlines longer than 5 years after designation to meet the same RACT requirements as subpart 2 areas. This approach minimizes the RACT inequity with subpart 2 areas and provides flexibility for subpart 1 areas demonstrating attainment within 5 years. Comment: One commenter believes that new marginal nonattainment areas should be subject to RACT under the 8 hour standard just as they would have been subject to RACT immediately prior to the CAA Amendments of 1990. Response: Section 182( a) provides that marginal and higher classified areas for the 1 hour standard with pre 1990 RACT obligations had to submit corrections to their RACT rules within 6 months after classification under the 1990 CAA Amendments. To the extent that any 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas did have this obligation, they already met it. See footnote 60 in the June 2, 2003 proposal. The CAA does not require RACT for marginal areas other than the obligation to " correct" pre 1990 RACT requirements. Comment: The EPA received several comments for and against the proposal that States may use a prior RACT determination with respect to the 1 hour ozone standard for purposes of meeting the RACT requirements for the 8 hour ozone standard. Further, EPA received comments on the proposal that a new RACT determination is required in cases where the initial RACT analysis under the 1 hour standard for a specific source or source category concluded that no additional controls were necessary. Several State and industry commenters supported EPA's proposed approach that a prior RACT analysis under the 1 hour ozone standard should meet RACT requirements under the 8 hour standard where major sources or source categories were previously reviewed and controls applied to meet RACT. These commenters stated that RACT is not specific to any particular ozone standard, such that once a source has met RACT, it has met RACT, 9 whether or not the ozone standard is revised to become more ( or less) stringent; just as with the 15 percent VOC requirement, the statute provides no basis for duplicative imposition of RACT; and there is no basis in the statute to read in a new requirement for RACT. In addition, some industry commenters stated that electric generating units which meet title IV NOx control requirements would also meet the NOx RACT requirement. The EPA also received comments from several States opposing EPA's proposed approach. These commenters believe the NOx and VOC guidance is too old, needs updating and, in the case of NOx controls, the improvement over the last three years has been dramatic with controls previously considered to be BACT ( and therefore generally considered at the time to be more stringent than RACT) are now considered to be merely RACT. In addition, one State suggested the presumptive RACT level should be revised to at least 85 percent control or that NOx RACT should be defined as up to $ 10,000/ ton of pollutant removed. Two States disagreed with EPA's proposal that a new RACT determination should be required in cases where the initial RACT analysis under the l hour NAAQS found that no additional controls were necessary for a specific source or source category. They indicated such re analysis would be an unwise use of resources because it would not yield significant benefits. Further, they do not agree that a RACT determination is warranted for major VOC or NOx sources not in existence during the previous RACT determination, because new sources in 1 hour nonattainment areas have been permitted pursuant to the requirements for NSR and, where applicable, have already been subject to more stringent control requirements. Several State and industry commenters recommended that RACT requirements apply for major sources in any portion of the 8 hour nonattainment area not subject to a RACT program for the 1 hour standard. Response: In 1992, EPA set presumptive NOx RACT for boilers as combustion modification, consistent with title IV acid rain requirements. For all other NOx stationary source categories, EPA guidance in 1994 indicated States should consider in their RACT determinations technologies that achieve 30 50 percent reduction within a cost range of $ 160 1300 per ton of NOx removed. In the NOx SIP Call Rule, we reviewed all major NOx source categories and stated in the final rule that the NOx SIP Call controls, at less than $ 2,000/ ton, represent reductions beyond those required by RACT. We cannot agree with tThe suggestion of one State that EPA's RACT guidance should be revised to reflect 85 percent control and $ 10,000/ ton of pollutant removed is inconsistent with EPA's previous conclusions regarding what level of control represents RACT and because the comment lacked supporting documentation that thesethe suggested 10 values represent feasible control levels for the many source categories affected by the RACT program. Many areas subject to the major source RACT requirement under the 8 hour ozone standard have previously addressed the RACT requirement with respect to the 1 hour ozone standard. For example, major sources located in States of the OTC were subject to the NOx RACT requirement in the mid 1990s. We believe that, in many cases, a new RACT determination under the 8 hour standard would result in the same or similar control technology as the initial RACT determination under the 1 hour standard because the fundamental control techniques, as described in the CTGs and ACTs, are still applicable. In cases where controls were applied due to the 1 hour ozone RACT requirement, we expect the incremental emissions reductions from application of a second round of controls would be small and would not be cost effective, therefore, the cost for advancing that small additional increment of reduction would not be reasonable. In such cases, EPA believes the cost per ton of NOx removed associated with installing a second round of RACT controls ( and perhaps the removal of initial RACT controls) is likely to be beyond the RACT levelscosts assumed in our current guidance noted above ($ 160 $ 1300/ ton). In contrast, a RACT analysis for uncontrolled sources would be much more likely to find that RACT level controls are economically and technically feasible. The CTGs and ACTs for VOC were completed over a period from the late 1970s to mid 1990s and have not been updated. The CTGs are still used to presumptively define VOC RACT. The EPA issued NOx ACT documents between 1992 and 1995. In September 2000, updates to the NOx ACT documents were completed for stationary internal combustion engines and cement kilns. The NOx and VOC ACTs describe available control techniques and their cost effectiveness, but do not define presumptive RACT levels as the CTGs do. Updating the ACTs would not, by itself, change EPA's NOx or VOC RACT guidance, but it could provide information that would lead to a new conclusion as to which control measures constitute RACT for a specific source or source category. Since RACT can change over time as new technology becomes available or the cost of existing technology decreases, EPA does not agree with comments that once a source has met RACT, it has met RACT whether or not the ozone standard is revised. We agree that progress has been made in improving the cost effectiveness of some NOx and VOC controls. States and other interested parties should consider available information that may supplement the CTG and ACT documents. In cases where additional information is presented, for example, as part of notice andcomment rulemaking on a RACT SIP submittal, States ( and EPA) would necessarily consider the additional data in reviewing what control obligation is consistent with RACT. Similarly, we 11 encourage States to use the latest information available in making RACT determinations, whether itthat information is in CTGs, ACTs, or elsewhere. The EPA agrees that it is more efficient for EPA to broadly assess what is RACT for a specific source category than for States to conduct source by source RACT determinations, especially considering that States need to initiate RACT programs in the near future ( as discussed in a separate comment/ response). The EPA's current RACT guidance may be used for purposes of the 8 hour standard. At the same time, we agree with comments that many of the CTGs/ ACTs have not been revised since issued and thus may not provide the most accurate picture of current control options. Therefore, we believe States must consider new information that has become available and certify that a 1 hour ozone RACT determination, even where controls were required, still represents an appropriate RACT level of control for the 8 hour ozone program. In the alternative, the State should revise the SIP to reflect a modified RACT requirement for specific sources or source categories. In summary, we believe the current NOx and VOC RACT guidance, including CTGs and ACTs, may continue to be used by States in making RACT determinations with respect to the 8 hour ozone standard. States should ensure that their SIPs accurately reflect RACT based on the current availability of technically and economically feasible controls. Therefore, in portions of 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas where major sources or source categories were previously reviewed and controls subsequently applied to meet the RACT requirement under the 1 hour standard, EPA allows States toshould review and, if appropriate, accept the initial RACT analysis as meeting the RACT requirements for the 8 hour standard. Absent data indicating that the previous RACT determination is no longer appropriate, the State need not submit in its SIP a new RACT SIPrequirement for these sources. In such cases, the State should submit a certification as part of its SIP revision, with appropriate supporting information, such as consideration of new data , that it previously met the RACT requirement for these sources and that the previous determination still represents an appropriate RACT level of control. Where, that these sources are already subject to SIP approved requirements that still meet the RACT obligation. There are cases where the initial RACT analysis under the 1 hour standard for a specific source or source category concluded that no additional controls were necessary, EPA believes a new RACT determination is needed. TheIn such cases, a new RACT determination is needed to consider whether more cost effective control measures have become available for sources that were not previously regulated. A re analysis may determine that controls are now economically and technically 12 feasible and should be required to meet RACT. Furthermore, in this situation, we expect the incremental emissions reductions to be significant, compared to the uncontrolled emissions levels. Thus, thereby reducing the cost per ton of emissions controlled and thereforeis more reasonably availablelikely to make controls " reasonably available" than where a source had already installed controls to meet RACT for the 1 hour standard. In all cases where additional information is presented as part of notice andcomment rulemaking, including a RACT SIP submittal for sources previously controlled, States ( and EPA) must consider the additional information as part of that rulemaking. We agree with several State and industry comments that RACT requirements apply for major sources in any portion of the 8 hour nonattainment area not subject to a RACT program for the 1 hour standard. Some commenters objected to EPA's proposal that any major VOC or NOx source that did not exist during a previous RACT determination must be subject to a RACT determination as part of the SIP for the 8 hour ozone standard. These commenters stated that the BACT or LAER provisions would assure at least RACT level controls on such sources. We agree this should be true in many cases, but not all. The BACT/ LAER analyses do not automatically ensure compliance with RACT since the regulated pollutant or source applicability may differ and the analyses may be conducted many years apart. States may, however, rely on information gathered from prior BACT or LAER analyses for a RACT analysis to the extent the information remains valid. We believe that the same logic holds true for emissions standards for municipal waste incinerators under CAA section 111( d) and NSR/ PSD settlement agreements. Where the State is relying on these standards to represent a RACT level of control, the State should providepresent the publicir analysis with a discussion of their determination during the SIP adoption process. For VOC sources subject to MACT standards, States may streamline their RACT analysis by including a discussion of the MACT controls and relevant factors such as whether VOCs are wellcontrolled under the relevant MACT air toxics standard, which units at the facility have MACT controls, and whether any major new developments in technologies or costs have occurred subsequent to the MACT standards. We believe that there are many VOC sources that are well controlled ( e. g., through add on controls or through substitution of non VOC non HAP materials for VOC HAP materials) because they are regulated by the MACT standards, which EPA developed under CAA section 112. Any source subject to MACT standards must meet a level that is as stringent as the best controlled 12 percent of sources in the industry. Examples of these HAP sources that may effectively control VOC emissions include organic chemical plants subject to the 3However, there are some MACT categories for which it may not be possible to determine the degree of VOC reductions from the MACT standard without additional analysis; for example, the miscellaneous metal parts and products ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM) due to the uncertainty of the compliance method that will be selected.

13 hazardous organic NESHAP ( HON), pharmaceutical production facilities, and petroleum refineries. 3 We believe that, in many cases, it will be unlikely that States will identify emission controls more stringent than the MACT standards without identifying control options that would cost many thousands of dollars per ton. We expect that often States maythat are not prohibitively expensive and are thus unreasonable. We believe this will allow States, in many cases, to rely on the MACT standards for purposes of showing that a source has met VOC RACT.

Comments: Other Some commenters pointed out that many companies have employed averaging programs for NOx SIP Call compliance and want this option preserved under the 8 hour ozone standard since requiring sources to individually meet NOx RACT requirements would greatly increase the costs of compliance at sources already subject to the NOx cap and trade program without achieving greater emissions reductions.

Text Moved Here: 1 Response: In some cases, a facility or a group of sources in a nonattainment area might choose to meet NOx RACT by adopting an emissions averaging concept within the area; e. g., over controlling one or more large units and not controlling other smaller units. We agree with comments that emission averaging and cap and trade programs such as the NOx SIP Call Rule achieve emission reductions at lower costs. The EPA's NOx RACT guidance, published on November 25, 1992 ( 57 FR 55625), was, in part, for the purpose of " enhancing the ability of States to adopt marketbased trading systems for NOx" and to encourage States to " structure their RACT requirements to inherently incorporate an emissions averaging concept ( i. e., installing more stringent controls on some units in exchange for lesser control on others)." Since the NOx SIP Call requires greater reductions, on average, than RACT, ( see proposal notice at 68 FR 32839 and discussion below) we believe the average emissions across the facilities ( in this example) would be less than emissions under application of a RACT program alone. We would also expect this scenario to be a short term case since facilities may choose later to install controls on the smaller units and sell any 14 excess allowances, depending on the projected cost of allowances. End Of Moved Text Comments: Several State and industry commenters supported EPA's proposed approach concerning RACT and the NOx SIP call. These commenters stated that the level of emissions reductions required by the NOx SIP Call is far greater than the level of reductions achieved by controls that have been determined to be NOx RACT. One State encouragesd EPA to provide this exemptionapproach to other areas subject to approved cap andtrade programs in addition to those areas affected by the NOx SIP Call. The EPA also received comments, primarily from several States and environmental groups, opposing the approach. These commenters stated that there are no exceptions to the RACT mandates in either subpart 1 or subpart 2 for sources subject to SIP call cap and trade programs, and EPA is without authority to invent such an exception. Because the NOx SIP Call's cap andtrade program does not require emission control technologies to be installed at a particular source, some commenters conclude that RACT requirements are necessary and appropriate to ensure that all sources implement at least a minimum level of control. One State indicated there have been numerous cases where sources subject to the NOx SIP Call have not had to install controls comparable to RACT. Commenters also suggested that RACT is intended to be a benchmark for control technology at individual stationary sources, not a level of regional reductions. In addition, some commenters noted that the NOx SIP Call requirements are specific to the ozone season, where RACT requirements are year round. Consequently, these commenters recommended that EPA should also consider non ozone related nitrogen issues, including fine particles, visibility, nitrification and acidification of watersheds and eutrophication of coastal waters all of which would be reduced with year round controls. Response: As described below, EPA believes that sources meet ozone NOx RACT requirements if they comply with the NOx SIP Call trading program or, in States where all CAIR reductions are achieved by EGUs, rules implementing CAIR. Accordingly, the State need not perform a NOx RACT analysis for sources subject to the State's emission cap and trade program where the cap andtrade program has been adopted by the State or approved by EPA or a Federal implementation plan is in place meeting the NOx SIP Call requirements or, that meets the NOx SIP call or in States achieving CAIR reductions solely from EGUs, under the CAIR NOx requirements. In addition, the State need not submit a new NOx RACT SIP for those sources. As noted above, the SIP should document that the State is relying on EPA's conclusion that these levels of control meet RACT for the covered sources. 4EPA analyzed data from IPM runs for the CAIR rulemaking which project electricity generating units that are expected to have NOx controls in 2010; in the CAIR base case as( reflecting the NOx SIP call but no CAIR controls) few as 3 11er than 10 EGUs are projected to be without NOx controls and subject to an 8 hour ozone NOx RACT requirement. ( See Response to Comments document in the docket.)

5In the 1998 NOx SIP Call Rule, average costs of compliance were estimated at about $ 1500/ ton and average RACT level costs are less than $ 1300/ ton. Recent estimates of the projected cost of allowances are about $ 2000 4000/ ton ( NOx Budget Trading Program, 2003 Progress and Compliance Report, August 2004, EPA 430 R 04 010).

15 The EPA believes the RACT mandate in subpart 1 and subpart 2 applies in specific geographic areas but does not necessarily require every major source to install controls. For example, as discussed in a separate comment/ response, where we are dealing only with subpart 1 RACT, we only require such RACT as will advance attainment or meet RFP. Thus, EPA does not agree with commenters who conclude that RACT requirements are necessary and appropriate to ensure that all sources implement at least a minimum level of control or that RACT is intended to be a benchmark for control technology at all individual stationary sources. Some commenters pointed out that the NOx SIP Call requirements are specific to the ozone season, yet RACT requirements are year round. While there are some exceptions, EPA agrees that RACT usually is an application of controls year round; thus, there would be non ozone related nitrogen benefits, including fine particles, visibility, nitrification and acidification of watersheds and eutrophication of coastal waters due to year round controls. However, since the NOx SIP call reductions will occur during the 5 months of the ozone season critical for high ozone concentrations for affected States, we believe that the RACT requirement will be satisfied for sources covered by the NOx SIP call. ( i) NOx SIP Call: We expect the vast majority of sources subject to RACT and rules implemented by the State under CAIR or the NOx SIP Call would choose to install RACT level control equipment rather than meet the NOx SIP Call requirements solely by purchasing allowances. 4 Most likely the cost for purchasing allowances will be higher than the cost for achieving a RACT level of control. 5 In addition, many units subject to CAIR or the NOx SIP Call will install beyond RACT controls, as discussed below. We believe the combination of RACT level controls on the 6The EPA's 1992 NOx RACT guidance sets title IV equal to RACTprovides that the controls required under title IV of the CAA are RACT controls and specifies emission rates three times larger than the rates later used for coal fired units in the NOx SIP Call ( 0.45 0.50 lb/ mmBtu versus 0.15). Base case refers to the situation absent NOx SIP call controls.

7 Memorandum of March 16, 1994, from D. Kent Berry re: " Cost Effective Nitrogen Oxides ( NOx) Reasonably Available Control Technology ( RACT)." U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

16 vast majority of sources and the installation of beyond RACT controls on many units will achieve at least a RACT level of control, on average, among sources subject to RACT. We believe that this conclusion is consistent with EPA guidance allowing RACT to be met in the aggregate within a nonattainment area, rather than by each individual source. The EPA's NOx RACT guidance ( NOx General Preamble at 57 FR 55625) encourages States to develop RACT programs that are based on " areawide average emission rates." Thus, EPA's existing policy allowedprovides for States to submit a demonstration as part of their RACT submittal showing that the weighted average emission rate from sources in the nonattainment area subject to RACT   including sources reducing emissions to meet the NOx SIP Call or CAIR NOx requirements   meet RACT requirements. We agree with comments indicating the overall emission reduction due to the NOx SIP Call would be greater overall than with a RACT program alone. All States submitting SIP revisions to meet the NOx SIP Call ( October 27, 1998, 63 FR 57356) elected to require large boilers and turbines to comply with an emissions cap and trade program consistent with EPA's model cap and trade rule. As a result, all these sources are already subject to stringent control requirements. As described in the June 2, 2003 proposal, these sources collectively achieve more emissions reductions than would be required by application of RACT requirements to each source. In the NOx SIP Call control case, electricity generating units ( EGUs) achieve a 64 percent reduction beyond the base case requirements. 6 The non EGUs subject to the States' cap and trade program achieve a 60 percent reduction from uncontrolled levels. These EGU and non EGU reductions are clearly beyond the 30 50 percent expected from a RACT program. 7 We stated in the final rule that the NOx SIP Call controls " representrule that the reductions achieved by that program ". . . represent reductions beyond those required by Title IV or Title I RACT." In addition, because the cap andtrade program covers units serving a 25 megawatt generator, it requires emission reductions for many units that are below the 17 general NOx RACT threshold of 100 tpy for sources in the East.

These factorsfacts noted above support EPA's judgment that sources in each nonattainment area that are subject to the SIP call trading program will, on average, achieve at least a RACT level of control. Whether our judgment that non EGU sources subject to the NOx SIP call trading system meet RACT will continue to apply in the future depends upon how the sState chooses to make the transition from the NOx SIP call trading system to the CAIR trading system. After 2008, EPA will no longer administer the NOx SIP call trading system and will only administer the CAIR trading system. A sState subject to the NOx SIP call has three choices for the transition. One, a sState can bring its non EGU sources that are subject to the NOx SIP call trading program into the CAIR trading program with the same emissions budget allowed by the sState's current NOx SIP call rules. Two, a sState can adopt a SIP that regulates those non EGU sources at least as stringently as the sState's current NOx SIP call rules, but does not move those sources into the CAIR trading program. Three, a sState can adopt a new SIP that meets its NOx SIP call responsibilities, in whole or in part, by regulating sources other than the non EGU sources regulated by the sState's current NOx SIP call trading program rules. We believe it is unlikely that sStates are likely to choose the third option, given that its non EGU sources already would have complied with the NOx SIP call requirements. Under the first two options, we believe that these non EGU sources would continue to satisfy RACT. Under the third option, the sState would need to determine whether non EGU sources that had participated in the NOx SIP call trading program continue to meet RACT ( either individually, or through averaging among sources within the non attainment area).

Text Moved Here: 2 Finally, as proposed, in cases where States have adopted controls for cement kilns consistent with the NOx SIP Call ( i. e., 30 percent reduction), the State may choose to accept the NOx SIP Call requirements as meeting the NOx RACT requirements for the 8 hour standard and need not submitperform a new NOx RACT SIPanalysis for those sources. In its RACT SIP submission, the State should identify the cement plants that are subject to NOx SIP Call controls and that, therefore, are already meetsubject to a SIP approved requirement consistent with RACT. The EPA received comments from States supporting the proposal. For the 8As described in the April 21, 2004 Phase II NOx SIP call rule ( 69 FR 21608).

18 same reasonsSimilarly, EPA believes a State may choose to accept the Phase II NOx SIP Call control level for stationary internal combustion engines8End Of Moved Text 78 as meeting the NOx RACT requirements and identify these obligations as RACT level controls in its RACT SIP. ( ii) CAIR: EPA believes that EGU sources complying with CAIR requirements meet ozone NOX RACT requirements in States where CAIR reductions are achieved from EGUs only. AWe have two independent bases for this conclusion. First, if states implement CAIR through EGU reductions, we believe that EGU sources in each 8 hour nonattainment area in the CAIR region would have a weighted average emission rate meeting RACT [ CHECKING THIS SENTENCE]. As noted above, EPA expects that the vast majority of EGU sources will control emissions rather than meet CAIR requirements solely by purchasing allowances. Our analyses for the CAIR rulemaking indicate that the cost of combustion controls is likely to be less than the price of allowances. In addition, our analysis of EGU controls in 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas in the CAIR region in 2010 indicates that most EGU sources would have either combustion controls, or controls that are more effective than combustion controls, without consideration of controls needed to comply with CAIR ( e. g., due to state rules implementing the NOx SIP call or other existing requirements). ( See footnotes 7 and 8 above and analysis in Response to Comments document.) Additional EGU controls are expected in response to CAIR. This bolsters our conclusion that on average, EGU sources within each 8 hour nonattainment area in the CAIR region would meet RACT. Further, we note that the CAIR 2009 seasonal NOx cap is more somewhat stringent than the NOx SIP call cap, which as discussed above results in EGU controls meeting RACT. Second, as discussed more fully in the CAIR final rulemaking notice, EPA has set the 2009 CAIR NOx cap at a level that, assuming the reductions are achieved from EGUs, willwould result in EGUs installing emission controls on the maximum total capacity on which it is feasible to install emission controls by those dates. The 2015 NOx cap is specifically designed to eliminate all NOx emissions from EGUs that are highly cost effective to control ( the first cap represents an interim step toward that end). In general, we expect that the largestemitting sources will be the first to install NOx control technology and that such control technology will gradually be installed on progressively smaller emitting sources until the ultimate cap is reached. 19 We do not believe that requiring source specific RACT controls on EGUs in nonattainment areas will reduce total NOx emissions from sources covered by CAIR below the levels that would be achieved under CAIR alone. In fact, if statesFurthermore, we believe that source specific RACT could result in more costly emission reductions on a per ton basis. If States chose to require smaller emitting sources in nonattainment areas to meet source specific RACT requirements by 2009 ( the required compliance timing for RACT), they would likely use labor and other resources that would otherwise be used for emission controls on larger sources. Because of economies of scale, more boiler makers and other resources may be required per megawatt of power generation for smaller units than larger units. In this case, the imposition of source specific RACT on smaller emitting sources by 2009 could increase costs as compared to the level that would result under CAIRThus, the cost of achieving such reductions would be greater on a per ton basis. In any event, the imposition of source specific control requirements on a limited number of sources also covered by a cap and trade program would not reduce the total emissions from sources subject to the program. Under a cap and trade program such as CAIR, there is a given number of allowances that equals a given emission level. Source specific control requirements may affect the temporal distribution of emissions ( by reducing banking and thus delaying early reductions) or the spatial distribution of emissions ( by moving them around from one place to another), but it does not affect total emissions. If source specific requirements were targeted at the units that can be controlled most costeffectively then the imposition of source specific controls would achieve the same result as the projected CAIR cap and trade program. If not, however, the imposition of source specific requirements would make any given level of emission reduction more costly than it would be under the cap and trade program alone. Thus, the imposition of source specific RACT on EGUs covered by CAIR would not reduce total emissions, but would likely achieve the same total emission reductions in a more costly way. The EPA believes the CAIR NOx requirements meet the definition of RACT for EGUs in sStates that require all CAIR NOx reductions from EGUs. The EPA defined RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility ( 44 FR 53762; September 17, 1979). We determined that CAIR's two phased schedule allows the implementation of as much of the NOx controls as feasible by 2009, with a later time 9This phased approach is consistent with EPA NOx RACT guidance issued March 9, 1994 by John Seitz, Director, OAQPS, " Nitrogen Oxides ( NOx) Reasonably Available Control Technology ( RACT) for the Repowering of Utility Boilers."

20 for the remaining controls ( 70 FR 25215). 9 Thus, we believe that EGUs subject to the CAIR NOx controls meet the definition of RACT for NOx ( in sStates that require all CAIR NOx reductions from EGUs). Under CAIR, a State may elect to meet its sState budget for NOx emissions solely through requiring reductions from EGUs or through requiring reductions from a combination of sources, including non EGUs. If the State requires reductions from sources other than EGUs, it is not eligible to participate in the EPA administered CAIR trading program. Additionally, separate provisions of the CAIR rule allow States to choose to allow large NOx sources that are not electric generating units to opt in to the program. If only part of the CAIR reductions are required from EGUs, and the balance of the reductions obtained from non EGU sources, then the stringency of CAIR EGU control would be diminished to some extent ( an amount that cannot currently be determined until a State submits a SIP indicating which sources are participating in the program). Therefore, in these cases, the rationale for our judgment that CAIR satisfies RACT would not apply if the state's CAIR SIP achieves CAIR required reductions from sources other than EGUs, or if the State allowed opt ins. In either event, the State would need to conduct RACT analyses for EGUs ( either on an individual basis, or using the averaging approach within the nonattainment area). For clarity, it should be noted that a sState has authority to conduct its own RACT analysis for any source. Also, this guidance in no way limits a State'sState has discretion to require beyond RACT NOx reductions from any source ( including CAIR or NOx SIP Call sources) in a plan to demonstrate attainment of the health based ozone standards. In certain areas, States may choose to require NOx controls based on more advanced control technologies to provide for attainment of the ozone standards. Comments: Several States expressed support for the proposed RACT submittal date of 2 years after designation for subpart 1 and 2 areas. Other commenters suggested the RACT submittal date for subpart 1 areas should be 3 years after designation in order to coincide with the attainment demonstration submittal deadline and to allow a more efficient use of resources. In addition, comments from industry suggested a 48 60 month period is needed for installation of controls, rather than the 30 month period proposed. Response: As described in an earlier comment/ response, in 10This assumes the ozone season in this example begins May 1. The maximum statutory timeframe for subpart 1 areas that do not seek an extension is June 15, 2009. Since the CAA requires attainment as expeditiously as practicable, some subpart 1 nonattainment areas may have an attainment date earlier than June 15, 2009.

11In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress specifically added RACT requirements for major sources in section 182.

21 subpart 1 areas that do not request an extension of their attainment date, RACT is met with the control requirements associated with a demonstration that the NAAQS is attained as expeditiously as practicable. The EPA agrees with commenters that it would be more efficient, in these areas, if the date for submittal of the RACT rules were to coincide with submittal of the attainment demonstration since RACT is closely tied to the attainment demonstration. Therefore, in the final rule, the RACT submittal date for these areas is the same as the submittal date for the attainment plan, which is 3 years after designation ( June 2007). Although EPA is not setting a specific RACT rule implementation deadline for these areas, as provided in the Phase 1 rule, all controls necessary for attainment must be implemented by the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. Thus, fFor example, States would need to require implementation no later than May 1, 2008 in order to help areas attain the ozone standard bywhere the area has a June 15, 2009 attainment date. 10 In some cases, the time from State rule adoption to installation of controls by sources may be relatively short; in other cases, sources may need more time. Therefore, EPA encourages States to adopt any necessary rules expeditiously ( prior to the June 2007 deadline, where possible) so that sources have more than sufficient time to install the controls prior to the start of the attainment year ozone season. For subpart 2 moderate and above areas and areas within an OTR, the final rule is similar to provisions in section 182 of the CAA which require States to submit RACT rules for these areas within 24 months after the designation. Several commenters supported this approach. Since some States may rely on submittal of SIP revisions meeting CAIR to also satisfy RACT for some sources, the final rule extends the proposed RACT submittal date of 24 months to 27 months after designation ( September 15, 2006), to be consistent with the date for submittal of the CAIR provisionsSIP ( September 10, 2006). For areas subject to the 27 month RACT submittal date, EPA believes the proposed 30 month period for installation of controls is reasonable, given that this is the statutorilyprescribed period11 ( for the areas covered under subpart 2) and Section 182 required the RACT rules to be implemented " as expeditiously as practicable" but no later than 30 months after the submittal deadline.

1257 months from June 15, 2004 effective date of designation ( 27 months to submission plus 30 months to implementation).

13Note, since the CAA requires attainment as expeditiously as practicable, some moderate nonattainment areas may have an attainment date earlier than June 15, 2010.

22 based on our prior experience with States adopting and implementing RACT requirements. SFor instance, subsequent to submission of the NOx RACT SIP revisions for the 1 hour standard subject to the 30 month CAA period, EPA approved NOx RACT SIP submittals in some areas which had been exempt from the requirements, including the Dallas and Houston areas, which required implementation within 2 years from the State adoption date. TAlso, the EPA recently determined that a 24 month period is adequate for stationary internal combustion engines to install low emission combustion controls ( April 21, 2004; 69 FR 21633). The 48 to 60 month period ( June 15, 2011) for installation of controls suggested by some commenters was not adequately supported, i. e., there was with a lack of detailed justification that more time is necessary. In addition, as described in an earlier comment/ response, EPA anticipates that many sources which applied controls due to RACT requirements with the 1 hour ozone standard will not need to install new controls for the 8 hour standard. Thus, because fewer sources will be subject to a new RACT requirement requirements to meet RACT for the 8 hour standard than were subject to the 1 hour standard, there will be less demand for control equipment. States and many sources face a reduced burden compared to the same CAA requirement in the 1990s. Since the ozone season ( 40 CFR part 58, appendix D) does not begin for many areas until May 1, however, for areas with an effective date of designation of June 15, 2004, the final rule allows sources until the beginning of the area's 2009 ozone season ( generally May 1, 2009) rather than March 15, 200912 to install controls. Installation of controls before the 2009 ozone season is sufficient to provide the benefits for timely attainment of the ozone standard in areas with a 2010 or later attainment date. 13 And the short delay ( generally between March 15, 2009 and May 1, 2009) will cause no harm since it is prior to the ozone season, which is when ozone levels are most likely to be at harmful levels. Sources meeting NOx RACT through 14" State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas" 44 FR 20372 at 20375. " Provide for implementation of all reasonably available control measures ( RACM) as expeditiously as practicable, insofar as necessary to assure reasonable further progress and attainment by the required date. . ."

" State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Proposed Rule." 57 FR 13498 at 13560 ( April 16, 1992). In part this guidance said, " The EPA . . . indicated that where measures that might in fact be available for implementation in the nonattainment area could not be implemented on a schedule that would advance the date for attainment in the area, EPA would not consider it reasonable to require implementation of such measures. The EPA continues to take this interpretation of the RACM requirement." As an example, with regard to one possible 23 compliance with CAIR would be subject to the CAIR NOx caps beginning January 1, 2009. Additionally, some areas have ozone seasons that begin earlier than March 15, 2009 and would need to ensure sources are complying by that earlier date. For subpart 1 areas that request an attainment date extension ( i. e., an attainment date beyond 5 years after designation), the final rule sets the RACT submittal and implementation dates the same as required for subpart 2 moderate and above areas, except subpart 1 areas shallare required to submit the RACT SIP with its attainment date extension request. The EPA believes this approach is reasonable and provides equity for subpart 1 and 2 areas with attainment dates beyond 5 years after designation.

2. Reasonably Available Control Measures ( RACM) a. Background As noted in the June 2, 2003 proposed rule, subpart 1 of part D includes general requirements for all designated nonattainment areas, including a requirement that a nonattainment plan provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable, including such reductions that may be obtained through RACT. We have also issued guidance for implementing the RACM provisions of the CAA that interprets thosethat provisions to require a demonstration that the State has adopted all reasonable measures to meet RFP requirements and to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and thus that no additional measures that are reasonably available will advance the attainment date or contribute to RFP for the area. 14 The list of measures ( TCMs under section 108( f) of the Act) that guidance said, ". . . based on experience with implementing TCM's over the years, EPA now believes that local circumstances vary to such a degree from city to city that it is inappropriate to presume that all section 108( f) measures are reasonably available in all areas. It is more appropriate for States to consider TCM's on an areaspecific not national, basis and to consider groups of interacting measures, rather than individual measures." " Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures ( RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas." John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. November 30, 1999. Web site: www. epa. gov/ ttn/ oarpg/ t1pgm. html. Memorandum of December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, re: " Additional Submission on RACM from States with Severe One Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs."

24 RACM requirement, which is set forth in section 172( c)( 1) of the CAA, applies to all nonattainment areas that are required to submit an attainment demonstration, whether covered under only subpart 1 or also subpart 2. The June 2, 2003 proposal impliednoted that the currentEPA had issued policies and procedures related to RACM would continue to apply for the 8 hour ozone standard. The draft regulatory text ( section 51.912( d)) provided that for each nonattainment area required to submit an attainment demonstration under § 51.908, the State would have to submit with the attainment demonstration a SIP revision demonstrating that it has adopted all control measures necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements. b. Summary of final rule Section 51.912( d) of the final rule reflects our proposal and draft regulatory text. For each nonattainment area required to submit an attainment demonstration under § 51.908, the State must submit with the attainment demonstration a SIP revision demonstrating that it has adopted all control measures necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements. Finally, inWe believe CAIR constitutes control as expeditious as practicable for EGUs for the area covered by the CAIR. In the CAIR rulemaking ( May 12, 2005 ( 70 FR at 25221 et seq.)) EPA concluded that the CAIR compliance dates represent an agressive schedule that reflects the limitations of the labor pool, and equipment/ vendor availability, and need for electrical generation reliability for installation of NOx emission controls. Thus, we believe CAIR constitutes control as expeditious as 15Ibid.

25 practicable for EGUs for the area covered by the CAIR. States should recognize these constraints in developing their own compliance schedules for NOx emission controls in meeting their CAIR and RACT responsibilities. c. Comments and responses Comment: One commenter asked that we clarify whether old SIP measures become RACM. Response: Under EPA's policy concerning RACM, there are no measures that are automatically deemed RACM. The determination of whether a SIP contains all RACM requires an area specific analysis that there are no additional economically and technologically feasible control measures ( alone or in conjunction with others) that will advance the attainment date. 15 The April 16, 1992, " General Preamble" provides some guidance on measures that the State should consider in making its RACM determination, including " any measure that a commenter indicates during a public comment period is reasonably available should be closely reviewed by the planning agency to determine if it is in fact reasonably available for implementation in the area in light of local circumstances." Such measures can be rejected as not being RACM if they will not advance attainment or provide for RFP or if they are not economically or technologically feasible. Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA revise its policy permitting SIPs to exclude otherwise feasible and potentially RACM that achieve emissions reductions in increments less than the amount necessary to advance the attainment date by a full year. The commenter believed this was an onerous standard that has stymied development of new control measures, particularly transportation control measures. The commenter believed EPA's RACM standard is especially harmful to the ability to provide SIP credit for Smart Growth land use, due to the long timeframe over which land is developed and redeveloped. The commenter believes that ever increasing suburbanization of our nation inflates the growth rate in VMT, thereby neutralizing improvements in vehicle emissions. The commenter claimed that a significant air quality improvement strategy for the 21st Century is compact mixed use pedestrian friendly development near frequent transit and believed that changing land use plans in this direction will benefit air quality by reducing the rate of growth in VMT and emissions. The commenter recommended that EPA be aware of this and revise its RACM standard to encourage local governments to alter their land use plans by providing a mechanism to give credit for air quality beneficial land use changes. Response: We do not believe our RACM policy has " stymied" 16Improving Air Quality Through Land Use Activities; Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA420 R 01 001. January 2001.

26 development of new control technologies. New emission reduction technologies have surfaced and continue to surface to meet market demands resulting in part from CAA requirements, which include the requirements to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to make RFP toward attainment. In addition, viable control measures that produce emissions reductions can be approved into SIPs whether or not such measures meet the definition of RACM. Our RACM policy merely interprets the CAA as not mandating measures that do not contribute to expeditious attainment and timely RFP. The policy does not limit the potential for States to develop any control measures they wish, including land use measures. In fact, we have prepared a separate guidance document on how areas can develop and receive SIP credit for land use control measures. 16 We conclude, however, that to require areas to adopt and implement as RACM every control technology or measure that obtains a small amount of emissions reductions   even if such measure would not advance the attainment date or is not required to meet RFP requirements   is not justified. Such a policy would be extremely burdensome to planning agencies, would detract from the effort to develop more reasonable and effective controls to meet the NAAQS, and would not be necessary to meet the statutory goal of expediting attainment. For these reasons, and because such a requirement is not mandated by the statute, we are not adopting such a policy. Comment: One commenter believed that the RACM requirements for subpart 1 areas should be designed so as to not require extensive and unneeded control due to the fact that in most or all cases these controls will not be needed for the area to attain. Response: We believe the current RACM guidance, which applies to both subpart 1 and 2 areas, works to avoid extensive and unneeded controls, while ensuring that areas meet the healthbased NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. Comment: One commenter believed our RACM guidance provides only minimum requirements to ensure attainment as expeditiously as practicable and believes that every nonattainment area must be required to consider adoption of measures that have been implemented in other areas, including the South Coast of California, so as to achieve progress and attainment as expeditiously as practicable. An area should be allowed to reject such measures only upon a showing that they are not practicable due to specified unique circumstances. The commenter 17In " State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Proposed Rule," we noted in the discussion of the RACM requirement that " In addition, any measure that a commenter indicates during the public commenter period is reasonably available for a given area should be closely reviewed by the planning agency to determine if it is in fact reasonably available for implementation in the area in light of local circumstances." The discussion of RACM in that document contains other relevant history concerning the RACM requirement. urged that given the importance of this issue to fair, expeditious and lawful implementation of the 8 hour standard, EPA's final 8 hour standard implementation rule must explicitly require compliance with this guidance. Response: To meet the RACM provision of the CAA, the State must determine as part of its attainment demonstration whether there are additional measures that are feasible that would expedite attainment. In addition, EPA's RACM policy indicates that areas should consider all candidate measures that are potentially available, including any that have been suggested for the particular nonattainment area. 17 Although areas should consider all available measures, including those being implemented in other areas such as California, areas need adopt measures only if they are both economically and technologically feasible and will advance the attainment date or are ncessary for RFP. This interpretation of the section 172 requirements has recently been upheld by several courts. See, e. g., Sierra Club v. EPA, et al., 294 F. 3d 155 ( D. C. Circuit, 2002). Comment: Several commenters agreed with our proposal to require that the RACM analysis and measures be submitted within 3 years after the effective date of designation for the 8 hour NAAQS. Response: We acknowledge the support of the comments on the submission timing of the RACM requirements.


[Federal Register: October 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 66371-66373]
[DOCID:fr28oc10-35]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

October 21, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC11-11-000
    Applicants: Champion Energy Marketing LLC, EDF Trading North
America, LLC
    Description: Section 203 Application of Champion Energy Marketing
LLC and EDF Trading North America, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/20/2010
    Accession Number: 20101020-5152
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 10, 2010

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER97-1481-013
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company
    Description: Supplemental information to Idaho Power Company's June
30, 2010 triennial update to its market power analysis in support of
its Market-Based Rates Tariff.
    Filed Date: 10/19/2010
    Accession Number: 20101019-5123
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 9, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1774-001
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company
    Description: Carolina Power & Light Company submits tariff filing
per 35: Revised OATT Section 23 of Carolina Power and Light Co. per
Order No. 739 to be effective 9/24/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2010
    Accession Number: 20101021-5026
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 12, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1775-002
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits tariff filing per
35: Revised OATT Section 23 of Florida Power Corp. per Order No. 739 to
be effective 9/24/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2010
    Accession Number: 20101021-5027
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 12, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3215-001
    Applicants: Eagle Power Authority, Inc.
    Description: Eagle Power Authority, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Eagle Power Authority Amendment Filing for ER10-3242 to be
effective 10/19/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2010
    Accession Number: 20101021-5041
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 12, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-40-002
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits tariff filing
per 35.17(b): Rate Schedule No. 217 Amendment to be effective 10/6/
2010.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2010
    Accession Number: 20101021-5062
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 12, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1841-000
    Applicants: GenConn Energy LLC
    Description: GenConn Energy LLC submits tariff filing per 35.15:
Cancellation of Tariff and Duplicate Company Tariff ID to be effective
9/24/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/20/2010
    Accession Number: 20101020-5060
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 10, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1842-000
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Company
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.12:
RI Genco LGIA-Original Service Agreement No. LGIA-ISONE/NEP-10-03 to be
effective 10/21/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/20/2010
    Accession Number: 20101020-5062
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 10, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1843-000
    Applicants: Ridgewind Power Partners, LLC
    Description: Ridgewind Power Partners, LLC submits tariff filing
per 35.12: Baseline Electric Market-Based Rates to be effective 11/30/
2010.
    Filed Date: 10/20/2010
    Accession Number: 20101020-5067
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 10, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1844-000
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 10-20-10 to be effective 1/
1/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/20/2010
    Accession Number: 20101020-5068
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 10, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1845-000
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Section 23.1 Filing to be
effective 10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/20/2010
    Accession Number: 20101020-5079
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 10, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1846-000
    Applicants: Direct Energy Services, LLC
    Description: Direct Energy Services, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.12: Direct Energy Services, LLC Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to be
effective 10/20/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/20/2010
    Accession Number: 20101020-5080
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 10, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1847-000
    Applicants: Direct Energy Marketing Inc.
    Description: Direct Energy Marketing Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.12: Direct Energy Marketing Inc. Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to be
effective 10/20/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/20/2010
    Accession Number: 20101020-5083
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 10, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1848-000
    Applicants: Energy America LLC
    Description: Energy America LLC submits tariff filing per 35.12:
Energy America LLC FERC Electric Tariff to be effective 10/20/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/20/2010
    Accession Number: 20101020-5084
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 10, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1849-000
    Applicants: PacifiCorp
    Description: Cancellation of PacifiCorp Service Agreement FERC No.
475 for Ancillary Services Related to Short-Term Transmission between
PacifiCorp and PPM Energy, Inc., predecessor to Iberdrola Renewables,
Inc.
    Filed Date: 10/20/2010
    Accession Number: 20101020-5085
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 10, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1850-000
    Applicants: Direct Energy Business, LLC
    Description: Direct Energy Business, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.12: Direct Energy Business, LLC Electric Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to
be effective 10/20/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/20/2010
    Accession Number: 20101020-5087
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 10, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1851-000
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Ameren-Kirkwood WDS to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 10/20/2010
    Accession Number: 20101020-5105
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 10, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1852-000
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company
    Description: Alabama Power Company submits tariff filing per 35:
Capacity Reassignment--Section 23.1 Compliance Filing to be effective
10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/20/2010
    Accession Number: 20101020-5117
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 10, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1853-000
    Applicants: Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC

    Description: Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC submits tariff filing
per 35: Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER09-1650-001 and OA09-32-001 to
be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 10/20/2010
    Accession Number: 20101020-5123
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 10, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1854-000
    Applicants: NV Energy, Inc.
    Description: NV Energy, Inc. submits a Compliance Filing for its
FERC Electric Tariff, Volume No 1--Open Access Transmission Tariff, to
be effective 10/21/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2010
    Accession Number: 20101021-5007
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 12, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1855-000
    Applicants: Cleco Power LLC
    Description: Cleco Power LLC submits revised OATT Section 23 for
inclusion in its Open Access Transmission Tariff, to be effective 10/
21/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2010
    Accession Number: 20101021-5034
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 12, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1856-000
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2056 Broken Bow Wind, LLC GIA to be effective 9/27/
2010.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2010
    Accession Number: 20101021-5042
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 12, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1857-000
    Applicants: NV Energy, Inc.
    Description: NV Energy, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35: Order
739 Compliance Filing--Capacity Reassignment to be effective 10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2010
    Accession Number: 20101021-5049
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 12, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1858-000
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation
    Description: NorthWestern Corporation submits tariff filing per 35:
Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 10/21/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2010
    Accession Number: 20101021-5053
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 12, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1859-000
    Applicants: Montana Generation, LLC
    Description: Montana Generation, LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Market Based Tariff to be effective 10/21/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2010
    Accession Number: 20101021-5054
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 12, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1860-000
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits tariff
filing per 35: Baseline Filing of PNM-EPE Interconnection Agreement to
be effective 10/21/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2010
    Accession Number: 20101021-5056
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 12, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1861-000
    Applicants: PacifiCorp
    Description: PacifiCorp submits tariff filing per 35: OATT Revised
Section 23 to be effective 9/24/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2010
    Accession Number: 20101021-5064
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 12, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1862-000
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. Resource Termination Filing.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2010
    Accession Number: 20101021-5100
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 12, 2010

    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 docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27240 Filed 10-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P