Additional conservatism in the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA includes several factors. The degree of accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans at the location of the maximum concentration. We also assume that peak emissions from each emission point in the source category and worst-case meteorological conditions co-occur, thus resulting in maximum ambient concentrations. These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these assumptions conservative. We then include the additional assumption that a person is located at this point during the same time period. For these two source categories (Large Appliances and Metal Furniture), these assumptions are likely to overestimate the true worst-case actual exposures as it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and worst-case meteorological conditions occur simultaneously. Thus, as discussed in the documents titled, Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Source Category in Support of the May 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances Source Category in Support of the May 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule in the docket for this action, by assuming the co-occurrence of independent factors for the acute screening assessment, the results are intentionally biased high and are thus health-protective and acceptable.
For these source categories, we considered all of the health risk information and factors discussed above, including other uncertainties associated with the risk assessment, to ensure that our decisions are health and environmentally protective (a discussion of these uncertainties is available in section III.C of the preamble to the proposed amendments (83 FR 46262, September 12, 2018) and in the documents titled, Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Source Category in Support of the May 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances Source Category in Support of the May 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule in the docket for this action), in proposing that the risks from these source categories are acceptable.
In addition, the risk assessments for Large Appliances and for Metal Furniture indicate no significant potential for multipathway health effects.
Considering all of the health risk information and factors discussed above, including uncertainties, we proposed to find that the risks from the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category and the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category are acceptable. Since proposal, neither the risk assessments nor our determinations regarding risk acceptability have changed.
Comment: One commenter (0668-0117) argued that the EPA has failed to establish an "ample margin of safety" between what the EPA considers to be an acceptable level of risk and the current emission limits taking into account the nature of the chemicals being emitted and the uncertainties in the EPA's risk assessments, as required under CAA section 112(f)(2). The commenter argued that the EPA simply repeated the same risk information it had found to be acceptable and stated that it was "considering all of the health risks and other health information considered in the risk acceptability determination."
The commenter (0668-0117) argued that the EPA has not shown that it has considered whether the uncertainties regarding its health risk assessment require a stronger standard. The commenter argued that recent court decisions regarding the same term ("ample margin of safety") in § 7412(d)(4), demonstrate that EPA must show that it has provided this margin in setting a standard, and it cannot lawfully fail to provide "any margin of safety at all." The commenter argued that the EPA has failed to consider whether uncertainties in the health risk assessments, as described in their comment letter, require an "ample margin" of safety instead of leaving the standards at their current levels.
The commenter (0668-0117) noted that the EPA has only provided information that it evaluated the cost and feasibility of additional controls as part of the technology review. The commenter argued that the EPA has not provided additional information in the record to support its conclusions that any technologies it discusses are not "cost effective."
Finally, the commenter (0668-01170 argued that even if the EPA had provided information to support its conclusions on cost-effectiveness, the CAA does not allow, and the courts have not supported, the consideration of cost in the analysis of the ample margin of safety needed to protect public health. The commenter argued that economic factors can only be considered in the environmental effects part of the test.
Response: We do not agree with the comment. As discussed in the Benzene NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, "the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor" and, thus, "[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information." 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety determination, "the Agency again considers all of the health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors." Id. Thus, the commenter's characterization of the statute is incorrect when claiming that cost may not be considered in the ample margin of safety analysis except with regard to environmental effects. See CAA 112(f)(2)(B) (Incorporating the interpretations in the Benzene NESHAP into the CAA). Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied in this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP, considering all of the health risks and other health information considered in the risk acceptability determination described above. In this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, the risk assessments, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine whether there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that would reduce emissions further and would be necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
With respect to the cost-effectiveness of the controls identified in the EPA's technology reviews, the EPA disagrees that the record demonstrates that cost-effective technologies are available for these source categories or that imposition of additional controls is necessary to provide an ample margin of safety. The EPA identified two technologies as potential developments in the technology reviews (the use of high-efficiency spray equipment in the Large Appliances and Metal Furniture source categories, and a ban on the use of materials containing ethylene oxide in the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category) and proposed measures to adopt those developments in the current standards as being cost-effective and solicited public comment on the use of those technologies. However, for the reasons described in the preamble to the final rule, those technologies are not being adopted in the final standards under the technology review. In addition, because additional HAP emissions control is not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety in the final rule, we are not imposing those controls pursuant to the risk review.
Regulation of Inorganic HAP
Comment: One commenter (0668-0117) argued that the EPA must establish emission standards for inorganic HAP that are emitted from the Large Appliances surface coating and Metal Furniture surface coating source categories. The commenter noted that the D.C. Circuit held in National Lime Ass'n, 233 F.3d at 633, that the EPA has a "clear statutory obligation to set emission standards for each listed HAP" and in subsequent decisions, the D.C. Circuit has repeatedly held that EPA has violated that obligation (the commenter cited Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). The commenter noted that the existing standards for Metal Furniture and Large Appliances do not currently contain any limit on inorganic HAP (metal HAP), even though the EPA is aware that these source categories were sources of these HAP in the past, and that the EPA's emission inventory for these sources include these HAPs, as shown by the risk assessments.
The commenter (0668-0117) noted that the Sierra Club submitted a petition to the EPA to regulate emissions of metal HAP from large appliance surface coating operations (Petition of Natural Resources Defense Council & Sierra Club to Administrator Stephen L. Johnson at 13 (Jan. 14, 2009)) and that the EPA has provided no formal response to that petition, even though the commenter notes that the EPA has used more recent rule makings to correct deficiencies specified in the 2009 petition. The commenter argues that the EPA has failed to address this deficiency by failing to conduct a technology review for the regulation of inorganic HAP in this notice.
The commenter (0668-0117) also argued that these metal HAP are not controlled at all and EPA did not conduct a technology review for these HAP, even though they are included in the EPA's residual risk assessment and that the EPA found some risks associated with these HAP. The commenter also argued that the EPA had underestimated the risk of these metal HAP because the EPA did not evaluate the multipathway (or non-inhalation based) risks at all. The commenter argued that metal HAP should go through a multipathway risk assessment because they persist and bioaccumulate.
The commenter (0668-0117) argued that because one large appliance source and six metal furniture sources reported these metal HAP, the EPA should collect information from other sources to determine if they should also be reporting these HAP. The commenter argued that because they are being emitted by any source requires that EPA must evaluate them in the technology review and establish an emission limit. The commenter argued that to not do so is arbitrary and capricious.
Response: The EPA is required under CAA section 112(d)(6) to periodically review, and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies), emissions standards promulgated under section 112(d). Regarding the scope of the Large Appliances surface coating and Metal Furniture surface coating technology reviews, the EPA acknowledges that standards for inorganic HAP have not been promulgated according to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). The EPA does not have any obligation to expand the scope of the existing standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). Though the EPA has discretion to develop standards under 112(d)(2) and (3) for previously unregulated pollutants at the same time as the Agency completes the section 112(d)(6) review, nothing in section 112(d)(6) expressly requires the EPA to do so as part of that review. The compressed schedule for the rulemaking, due to the court-ordered deadline, did not make it reasonable to appropriately evaluate new standards for metal HAP. Establishing emissions standards under 112(d)(2) and (3) involves a different analytical approach than reviewing emissions standards under 112(d)(6). In short, the EPA's reading of the requirement in section 112(d)(6) is that the EPA is to review emissions standards that have been promulgated and is not obligated as part of that review to address any pollutants or processes that are not currently subject to standards, though the EPA could as a matter of discretion, choose to do so at the same time and in the same rulemaking process as the section 112(d)(6) review.
Further, we note that metal HAP were identified when the original Large Appliances surface coating and Metal Furniture surface coating standards were developed. Judicial review of the final standards under CAA section 307(b)(1) was available for parties filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit following promulgation of the standards. No petitions for judicial review challenging the originally promulgated standards were received at that time.
As the EPA stated in the proposal preamble (83 FR 46262, p. 46267), inorganic HAP were considered in the development of the original NESHAP, but it was found that most of the inorganic HAP components of coatings remain as solids in the dry coating film on the parts being coated, or are deposited onto the walls, grates, and filters of the spray booth.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that these inorganic HAP are uncontrolled. The typical practice at surface coating facilities is to filter the exhaust air from spray applied coating operations in order to capture particulate overspray. This is done to prevent the buildup of paint overspray on the fans and inside the ducts used to ventilate the booths.
In the Large Appliances modeling file, the two inorganic HAP emitted (chromium compounds and nickel compounds) are associated only with source category code (SCC) 40201402, which is for parts cleaning and pretreatment, not the application of organic coatings. Therefore, these emissions are not actually part of the Large Appliances surface coating source category.
In the Metal Furniture modeling file, the inorganic HAP emissions from one facility are also associated with a SCC only for parts cleaning and pretreatment, not for surface coating.
The emissions from the Metal Furniture facility with the highest inorganic HAP emissions (antimony and nickel) were, according to the facility, over-estimated by a factor of 10 using worst case assumptions. (83 FR 46262, p. 46269).
It is possible that the inorganic HAP emissions in the modeling files from the four other Metal Furniture facilities were similarly over-estimated or were estimated from emission factors and not from actual emission measurements. Given the multiple factors that can affect inorganic HAP emissions from coating operations (e.g., coating application transfer efficiency, spray booth filter efficiency), it would not be feasible to establish inorganic HAP emission limits based only on the data in the risk modeling files.
In conclusion, we found the risks associated with the Large Appliances surface coating and Metal Furniture surface coating categories to be acceptable and that the current NESHAP provide an ample margin of safety in the absence of additional section 112(d)(2) and (3) standards for unregulated processes and pollutants. Therefore, the EPA is not taking any action at this time with respect to metal HAP for the Large Appliances surface coating and Metal Furniture surface coating source categories.
Technology Review for Large Appliances
Comment: One commenter (0668-0117) argued that the EPA may not refuse to take account of developments for Large Appliances including the use of powder coatings as CAA section 112(d)(6) requires. The commenter argued that the EPA could not ignore a development under CAA section 112(d)(6) simply because it could not be broadly applied, and that EPA is obligated to explain why it did not evaluate and propose to set stronger standards that would account for the use of powder coatings.
Response: As explained in the technology review memo in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670, the EPA considered the development and use of powder coatings in both the original NESHAP and in the technology review for the large appliances source category. The original standards for existing and new sources were based on the fact that some facilities were already using powder coatings for up to 90 percent of their coatings solids usage. (See 65 FR 81134, December 22, 2000, p. 81142.) The EPA found nothing in the technology review process indicating that powder coating technology has evolved since the rule was originally developed to the point of justifying amendments to the emission limits for existing or new sources.
High Efficiency Spray Equipment
Comment: One commenter (0668-0117) supported the EPA's proposal to require Large Appliances and Metal Furniture facilities to use high-efficiency spray equipment as a technology development under CAA section 112(d)(6). However, the commenter disagreed that the EPA can conclude that all or most sources are likely using high-efficiency spray equipment and this change would not result in an emission reduction because the EPA has provided no evidence there would be no emission reduction. Instead, the commenter noted that the EPA recognized that for any sources that do change to meet this requirement, there would likely be a 30-31 percent decrease in coating consumption, and thus a "corresponding decrease in organic HAP emissions from coating application." (83 FR 46282, 46311, 46304). The commenter argued that this proposal would result in decreased emissions, or at least prevent increases in the future if the economic incentives or state rules currently encouraging the use of high-efficiency spray equipment change.
One commenter (0668-0116) did not support adding a requirement to use high efficiency spray equipment for large appliances surface coating or metal furniture surface coating because the residual risk was found to be acceptable.
The commenter (0668-0116) also objected to the proposed language that "All spray application equipment must be operated according to company procedures, local specified operating procedures, and/or the manufacturer's specifications, whichever is most stringent, at all times." The commenter argued that facilities with high efficiency equipment would have to now compare their procedures with manufacturing specs and determine which is more stringent. The commenter also argued that it was unclear how the analysis to determine stringency would qualify as a technology advancement and that it appeared to be an unjustified requirement. The commenter was also concerned that facilities will have the added requirement of ensuring the equipment is operated according to the more stringent approach or they will have a potential permit deviation/violation despite the fact that they probably meet the underlying emission standard.
One commenter (0668-0116) supported providing the industry 3 years to comply with the high efficiency spray gun requirements, while not supporting the additional requirement.
Response: The EPA's response to these comments can be found in the preamble to the final rule amendments.
Technology Review for Fabric Coating
Comment: One commenter (0668-0117) argued that the EPA may not refuse to take into account developments for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category, and the ability to end the use of ethylene oxide, as CAA section 112(d)(6) requires, and that the EPA must revise the standards to ban the use of ethylene oxide under CAA section 112(d)(6). The commenter argued that failing to ban the use of ethylene oxide would allow facilities to begin using and emitting this chemical in the future. The commenter also noted that the EPA has recently re-affirmed the risks presented by ethylene oxide by recently updating the EPA's health reference value for cancer risks from ethylene oxide recognizing that it is carcinogenic, and by stating the EPA's commitment to "review Clean Air Act regulations for facilities that emit ethylene oxide to ensure that they protect the public."
Two commenters (0668-0119, 0668-0120) argued that they saw no justification or rationale to support a ban on the use of ethylene oxide in the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category based on both the statutory language and the facts reflected in the record. The two commenters argued that the decision by one company to stop using ethylene oxide based on cost did not represent a development in new control technologies, processes, or practices that could be deemed applicable and achievable by the rest of the source category. The first commenter (0668-0119) argued that unlike technology changes, where efficiency gains, emissions reductions, and similar advances are not easily reversed, market forces frequently change the business justification for and against using particular products.
The two commenters (0668-0119, 0668-0120) argued that what is in the record reflects only a decision by one company based on a unique set of factors that may be applicable to only that one company and does not provide the statement of basis and purpose required by CAA section 307(d)(3). The commenters argued that additional information and data would be needed on potential costs and emissions reductions and whether similar reductions are achievable across the source category and these would need to be available for public review and comment. Otherwise, the EPA's proposal would be arbitrary and capricious.
One commenter (0668-0119) also noted that the EPA had concluded that for this source category, the risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk, and EPA concluded that additional HAP emission controls were not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety (83 FR 46293).
Response: The EPA's response to these comments can be found in the preamble to the final rule amendments.
Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction (SSM) Provisions
Comment: One commenter (0668-0117) supported removing the existing standards' unlawful exemption allowing uncontrolled emissions during SSM periods. The commenter stated that the EPA appropriately proposed the elimination of exemptions from emission limits during periods of SSM, as legally required under the CAA and D.C. Circuit precedent.
Response:  The EPA is finalizing the amendments to the SSM provisions as proposed. The EPA acknowledges this support.
Malfunction Provisions for Fabric Coating
Comment: One commenter (0668-0117) disagreed with the EPA's suggestion, and request for comments, that the EPA establish a work practice standard for fabric web coating operations so that, in the event of a control device malfunction, a facility could keep operating so long as it continues to meet the emission limits for the current compliance period, and each workstation would discontinue its application of coating materials onto the web, and complete drying of any coating materials already applied onto the web as of the start of the malfunction. (83 FR 46285) Under a second alternative, the line would not have to stop operation, but repairs would have to be initiated and completed as soon as possible, and the line would be able to continue operating only as long as the 12-month rolling average emission limitation is not being exceeded. The line would have to cease operations once it became apparent they will be unable to complete repairs before exceeding the 12-month rolling average emission limit.
The commenter (0668-0117) argued that EPA may not lawfully add a malfunction exemption or set a so-called malfunction-based standard for any source category, including Textiles, because emission standards must be "continuous," and this is the type of exemption that the CAA does not allow, and that the D.C. Circuit court has repeatedly overturned.
The commenter (0668-0117) argued that the EPA cannot finalize a malfunction-based standard because it has not proposed and sought comment on any specific regulatory language.
The commenter (0668-0117) argued that the EPA has not cited any statutory language granting it the authority or discretion to establish a malfunction-based standard.
The commenter (0668-0117) argued that setting a malfunction-based limitation would be arbitrary and violate CAA section 112(d)(2)-(3) and CAA section302(k) [definitions of "emission limitation" and "emission standard"]. The commenter argued that the malfunction-based provision would not comply with the CAA section 112(d) requirements to set standards for new and existing sources based on the best performing sources and would not satisfy the requirement under CAA section 302(k) that standards be continuous.
The commenter (0668-0117) also argued that the EPA may set a work practice standard under CAA section 112(h) only if the EPA can show that it is not feasible to set a numerical emission limitation, and that the EPA has not met that criteria because the EPA has already established a numerical emission limitation. The commenter argued that the EPA has not shown how a facility using either alternative would comply with the existing emission limits, and that is, therefore in essence, an exemption from the emission limit.
The commenter (0668-0117) argued that the EPA has not demonstrated why such a malfunction-based standard is needed and has not provided any information showing past problems meeting the standard, emissions during malfunctions, or other information that could be used to evaluate the EPA's proposal.
The commenter (0668-0117) also argues that the EPA has provided no basis for why the EPA is using this rulemaking under CAA section 112(d)(6) to establish this malfunction-based standard and that this section does not allow the EPA to weaken an emission standard because the EPA's proposal does not qualify as a "development" under that section. The commenter also argued that CAA section 112(d)(7) prevents the EPA from establishing any standard under CAA section 112 that would weaken another standard.
The commenter (0668-0117) argued that the EPA's proposal to establish a malfunction-based standard is also inconsistent with the EPA's recent practice of removing malfunction provisions and longstanding practice of not accounting for malfunction periods in setting standards. The commenter noted that the only example cited by the EPA in support of its proposal  -  the Petroleum Refinery Rule (80 FR 75178, 75211-14, December 1, 2015) is currently the subject of a petition for reconsideration for which the EPA has not yet responded and is being challenged in the D.C. Circuit Court.
Response: The EPA's response to these comments can be found in the preamble to the final rule amendments.
Comment: A second commenter (0668-0116) supported the proposal to establish a standard during periods of malfunction of a control device or capture system for web coating lines subject to 40 CFR part 63, Subpart OOOO, the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category. The commenter argued that attempting to meet an emission limitation during malfunctions could create hazardous waste (substrate with undried coatings) and unsafe operating conditions. The commenter noted that the EPA stated in the proposal that facilities experiencing a malfunction may still be able to meet the emission limits because they are based on a 12-month rolling average; however, the 12-month compliance period cited by the EPA only applies to coating and printing affected sources that elect to comply with the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option, in which the emission limits are expressed as kilograms organic HAP per kilograms solids applied. The commenter argued that sources electing to comply with the percent reduction requirement or the control device outlet concentration requirement are required to demonstrate compliance on a 1-month compliance period basis, citing 40 CFR 63.4350(a)(3) and 63.4352(a). The commenter also argued that lines that are operated infrequently could also be at greater risk of non-compliance if they experience a malfunction, even if the line is shut down promptly. The commenter also noted that some lines are subject to subpart OOOO or subpart JJJJ depending on whether they coat fabric or paper substrate, another reason they may be subject to subpart OOOO for only short periods.
The commenter (0668-0116) requested that EPA add the following work practice to subpart OOOO:
      In the event of a malfunction of a control device or a capture system that is used to meet the Table 1 emission limits of this rule, the facility may elect to continue operation without the control device for the period of the malfunction so long as it continues to meet the Table 1 emission limits for the current compliance period. As an alternative, the facility shall expeditiously shutdown each web coating line subject to Subpart OOOO that is serviced by the malfunctioning control device or capture system. Expeditious shutdown shall consist of each work station discontinuing its application of coating materials onto the web and completing drying of any coating materials already applied onto the web as of the start of the malfunction. Draining coating materials from the line's applicators, or from piping, pans, or related equipment that deliver coating materials to the applicator, is not required. Deviations of a monitored parameter of a control device or enclosure are not malfunctions for purposes of this requirement.
Response: The EPA's response to these comments can be found in the preamble to the final rule amendments.
Electronic Reporting Provisions
Comment: One commenter (0668-0116) suggested that all reports submitted to the EPA be changed from semi-annual to annual to reduce burden.
One commenter (06668-0121) noted that, in response to the EPA request for comment on reducing reporting from semiannual to annual reporting, Title V permits are required to include semiannual reporting, so facilities would have no reduction in burden based on a change in the rules.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that because Title V permits are required to include semiannual reporting, facilities would have no reduction in burden based on a change in the rules. Therefore, the EPA is not amending these rules to change the reporting frequency.
Comment: One commenter (0668-0117) supported requiring electronic reporting to assure and account for compliance.
One commenter (0668-0117) argued that the EPA may not create any Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) outage or unlawful "force majeure event" exceptions to reporting, or any other requirements, as it proposes to do. EPA has proposed a provision amending subpart QQQQ to allow extensions for electronic reporting deadlines that should not be finalized, as these are unlawful and arbitrary for the reasons discussed below. The first part of the proposed provision allows an extension of the deadline to submit an electronic report due to "a claim of EPA system outage" of CEDRI within a 5-business day time period of the deadline. The second part of the provision allows an extension if a force majeure event "occurs or is still occurring or if there are still linger effects of the event in the 5 business days prior to a submission deadline, within a 5-business day time period of the deadline." In neither circumstance does EPA set a new firm deadline to submit the required report, nor does it set a firm deadline to request an extension of the reporting deadline. The proposed provision merely states that "[t]he decision to accept the claim . . . and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible."
The commenter (0668-0117) argued that if an event occurs that delays reporting, EPA and/or a court may address the implications of that event in an administrative or judicial enforcement proceeding, as part of the penalty assessment tests applicable under 42 U.S.C. § 7413(d) (EPA) and (e) (court). EPA has no lawful basis or authority to add any such exemption into the CAA, as the D.C. Circuit has previously explained in rejecting a similar "affirmative defense" to civil penalties for malfunctions. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
The commenter (0668-0117) argued that EPA's proposed options for extensions to electronic reporting deadlines are unlawful and arbitrary because they would create a broad and vague mechanism that an owner or operator could use to evade binding emission standards, by evading the binding compliance reporting deadlines set to assure compliance with those standards. The CAA sets binding compliance deadlines for air toxics emission standards that EPA may not lawfully evade or extend. [See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 7412(i)(3)(A), (B) (requiring compliance dates for section 112(d) standards "which shall provide for compliance as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 3 years after the effective date of such standard," unless a 1-year extension is granted if "necessary for the installation of controls"); id. § 7412(f)(4) (requiring compliance by all new sources with a section 112(f) emission standard on its effective date, and by all existing sources by 90 days after the effective date, and allowing extensions for existing sources of only up to two years after the effective date of a standard if "necessary for the installation of controls" and as long as "steps will be taken during the period of the waiver to assure that the health of persons will be protected from imminent endangerment").] EPA's proposal to extend compliance dates for reporting is an unlawful extension of emission standards, as those compliance dates are an essential part of ensuring that the emission standard is in force and compliance is assured. The proposed extension provisions would allow sources not to meet for a period of time, or possibly ever, the regulations' firm and enforceable reporting deadlines to submit information, which are required to assure compliance with the emission standards by the deadlines set by law, as the CAA requires.
The commenter (0668-0117) argued that the new proposed provisions would remove the deadline for a particular reporting requirement without creating a new firm deadline. Thus, the language "as soon as possible" removes a requirement ensuring the enforceability of the requirements and makes it likely that reporting will be significantly delayed, at best. At worst, it may lead a facility to drag its feet in submitting reports for an extended period, or ever, within a time when corrective action could and should be taken to prevent harmful and unlawful emission exceedances. Because EPA's proposal contains no new deadline, it is not an extension provision, it is an exemption. An exemption from reporting requirements is equivalent to an unlawful exemption from the standards. As long as a facility need not report, it need not be in compliance. The extension provisions are also arbitrary and capricious.
The commenter (0668-0117) argued that, as an additional problem, there is simply no authority for EPA to allow any type of "force majeure event" exception or extension under the CAA. As Commenters explained in their 2016 petroleum refinery comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0889), this is a law enacted to protect public health and welfare by reducing pollution and all of the harm it causes, including cancer and other serious health impacts from hazardous air pollution. The concept of "force majeure" comes from contract law, but the CAA is not a contract. It is a binding legal requirement that facilities have no choice but to meet if they seek to emit hazardous air pollution. EPA should not import the concept of "force majeure" into any part of the CAA. Its attempt to do so is just another variation of the prior malfunction exemptions that are unlawful under the CAA, as the D.C. Circuit has repeatedly held. There is no "force majeure" exception allowed for non-compliance with the CAA or its requirements, and EPA may not create such an exemption.
The commenter (0668-0117) argued that in the event that EPA does create a "force majeure event" extension provision, it must, at least, ensure that the facility is required to prevent similar problems in the future, and report what steps it will take in the future to prevent the same problem from recurring. When there is such a problem, the need for prompt reporting is especially important so that EPA can ensure that any actual emissions exceedances end and are corrected. Thus, allowing an unreasonable extension or not setting any deadline is especially unlawful and problematic because of the greater need for prompt reporting in the event of the type of incident EPA describes in order to protect public health and welfare.
The commenter (0668-0117) argued that EPA's stated reason for adding these provisions is to provide flexibility for facilities who wait until the last minute to prepare their report, without any evidence or basis of actual need or value to clean air or the public interest in creating the extension provisions. There is no way in which these provisions advance public health or public welfare, and thus they are inconsistent with the CAA's purpose and objectives. There is no such evidence in the record provided for public notice and comment. Nor is there any evidence that if there was any reporting problem where any such event occurred, that it could not be resolved through a case-by-case resolution, or that there was any harm of any kind from not having an extension provision. On the other hand, there is a requirement for reporting on the timeframe the regulations contain, to assure compliance, and achieve the health and environmental protections the regulations require. Delayed reporting and potentially a failure to report will cause harm in that it delays compliance assurance by EPA, the states, and affected citizens, and thus undermines the health and environmental protections of the standards themselves. EPA's proposal is thus arbitrary because it has not given any rational basis for providing the reporting extension provisions, nor any basis for providing facilities without any new deadline to assure reporting indeed does occur. There is such a strong public interest in ensuring reporting does occur on the timeframe the regulations require, and EPA has failed to justify delay.
The commenter (0668-0117) argued that even if EPA had a rational basis and legal authority to allow these extensions consistent with the CAA's goals, it may not create an exemption for CEDRI outages or force majeure events. At minimum, EPA must set a new firm deadline, assuring that the extension request allows only a temporary period when the facility need not report, such as, at most, a 10-day extension of the deadline, rather than an open-ended extension.
Response: EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for electronic reporting. The final rules require electronic reporting for all facilities subject to subparts NNNN, OOOO, and RRRR, as proposed. The commenter questions the limited flexibility EPA proposed (and is finalizing), namely inclusion of electronic reporting provisions for reporters facing circumstances beyond their control. The commenter asserts the brief case-by-case extension of report submittal deadlines is an "unlawful exemption [from compliance with] the emissions standards." This is not the case, as explained below. The proposed provisions the commenter questions are as follows (emphasis added):
      (3) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), and due to a planned or actual outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying the date, time and length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
      (4) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
There is no exception or exemption to reporting, much less an exemption from compliance with the numerical emission standards, only a method for requesting an extension of the reporting deadline. Reporters are required to justify their request and identify a reporting date. There is no predetermined timeframe for the length of extension that can be granted, as this is something best determined by the Administrator (i.e., the EPA Administrator or delegated authority as defined in 40 CFR 63.2) when reviewing the circumstances surrounding the request. Different circumstances may require a different length of extension for electronic reporting. For example, a tropical storm may delay electronic reporting for a day, but a Hurricane Katrina scale event may delay electronic reporting much longer, especially if the facility has no power, and as such, the owner or operator has no ability to access electronically stored data or to submit reports electronically. The Administrator will be the most knowledgeable of the events leading to the request for extension and will assess whether an extension is appropriate, and if so, a reasonable length for the extension. The Administrator may even request that the report be sent in hardcopy until electronic reporting can be resumed. While no new fixed duration deadline is set, the regulation requires that the report be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the CEDRI outage or after the force majeure event resolves.
The concept of force majeure is not arbitrary, as it has been implemented since May 2007 within the CAA requirements through the performance test extensions provided in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4) and 60.8(a)(1). Like the performance test extensions, the approval of a requested extension of an electronic reporting deadline is at the discretion of the Administrator.
EPA disagrees that the reporting extension will undermine enforcement because the Administrator has full discretion to accept or reject the claim of a CEDRI system outage or force majeure. As such, an extension is not automatic and is agreed to on an individual basis by the Administrator. If the Administrator determines that a facility has not acted in good faith to reasonably report in a timely manner, the Administrator can reject the claim and find that the failure to report timely is a deviation from the regulation. CEDRI system outages are infrequent, but the EPA knows when they occur and whether a facility's claim is legitimate. Force majeure events (e.g., natural disasters impacting a facility) are also usually well-known events.
EPA also disagrees that the ability to request a reporting extension "would create a broad and vague mechanism" that owners and operators "could use to evade binding emissions standards" or "extends the compliance date" for emissions standards. While reporting is an important mechanism for EPA and air agencies to assess whether owners and operators are in compliance with emissions standards, reporting obligations are separate from (i.e., in addition to) requirements that an owner or operator be in compliance with an emissions standard, especially where the deadline for meeting the standard has already passed and the owner or operator has certified and is monitoring operations to show that they are in compliance with the standard. This is one way in which an extension of a deadline for submitting an electronic report differs from the affirmative defense provisions (which center on compliance with the underlying emission standards). The commenter references deadlines set forth in the CAA for demonstrating initial compliance following the effective date of emission standards, which differs from deadlines for submitting reports. There are no such deadlines stated in the CAA for report due dates, meaning EPA has discretion to establish reporting schedules, and also discretion to allow a mechanism for extension of those schedules on a case-by-case basis. In fact, under the commenter's reasoning, if the statutory deadlines for compliance with standards were read to strictly apply to continuing reporting requirements, no such reporting could be required after 3 years from the promulgation of the standards. This would not be a reasonable result. Reporting deadlines are often different from compliance deadlines. Rules under 40 CFR part 60 and 63 typically allow months following an initial compliance deadline to conduct testing and submit reports, but compliance with standards is required upon the compliance date.
Additionally, the ability to request a reporting extension does not apply to a broad category of circumstances; on the contrary, the scope for submitting an extension request for an electronic report is very limited in that claims can only be made for an event outside of the owner's or operator's control that occurs in the five business days prior to the reporting deadline. The claim must then be approved by the Administrator, and in approving such a claim, the Administrator agrees that something outside the control of the owner or operator prevented the owner or operator from meeting its reporting obligation. In no circumstance does this electronic reporting extension allow for the owner or operator to be out of compliance with the underlying emissions standards.
EPA disagrees with the commenter's assumption that the requirement to report "as soon as possible" makes it likely that reporting will be significantly delayed, may lead a facility to drag its feet in submitting reports for an extended period, or may lead to a facility never reporting information. Each request for an extension of the electronic reporting deadline must be approved by the Administrator, and each request must state the time requested for the extension. In order to help prevent a spurious request, EPA has modified the proposed rule to incorporate the inclusion of the dates and times at which the unsuccessful attempt(s) to access CEDRI were made in the case of a CEDRI outage. EPA also disagrees that a delay in reporting due to a CEDRI outage or a force majeure event would necessitate a delay in a corrective action that would be taken to prevent harmful and unlawful emission exceedances. The facility must remain in compliance with all air emissions requirements and has an ongoing responsibility under the general duty clause of §63.6(e) to operate and maintain any affected source in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution practices for minimizing emissions. An extension of the deadline for submitting an electronic report in no way eliminates culpability for exceedances of emissions limitations or the requirement to address them.
The e-reporting deadline extension differs from affirmative defense in that it in no way excuses the liability from the facility for any emissions exceedances or deviations or shields facilities from the consequences of such exceedances or deviations, but merely addresses, under a narrow set of circumstances outside the control of the facilities, the deadline for submitting a report. The reporting deadline extension does not remove in any way the requirement to report.
EPA disagrees that the force majeure extension request must require a facility to report what steps it will take in the future to prevent the same problem from occurring. A force majeure event for the purpose of electronic reporting is defined as "...an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility." Examples of such events are acts of nature and acts of war or terrorism. By definition, force majeure events are not something that a facility is able to control, and thus there is no way for the facility to prevent it from happening.
EPA disagrees that the stated reason for these extensions is to provide flexibility for facilities who wait until the last minute to prepare their report or that such language was added without any basis of actual need. The purpose of these requests for extensions are to accommodate owners and operators in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report electronically for reasons that are beyond their control. The extension is not automatic, and the Administrator retains the right to accept or reject the request. The language was added as part of the standard electronic reporting language based on numerous comments received on the proposal for the Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the New Source Performance Standards (80 FR 15100).
Compliance Demonstrations after Operational Changes
Comment: One commenter (0668-0116) did not support the requirement to complete additional add-on control performance testing after operational changes that may adversely affect compliance because the EPA did not define the operational changes that would trigger the need for performance testing. The commenter argued that the EPA also did not define the anticipated costs, burdens, and benefits associated with this testing.
The commenter (0668-0116) also argued that the suggested 30-day period for testing and development of a test report is too short. The commenter recommended a period of at least 180 days to allow time to hire a testing contractor, achieve stable (representative) operating conditions before the test, and for the contractor to prepare the report.
One commenter (0668-0121) argued that the 30-day time frame to perform a test after a process change affecting compliance with an emission limit change does not seem adequate to allow a facility time to schedule an outside contractor to perform the required testing. In addition, test report preparation, review by responsible official, and submission of results is likely to require more than 30 days. The commenter recommended a 60-day or 90-day time frame as more appropriate. The commenter suggested that a process change could include venting additional equipment to the control device, increase in line speeds, increase in coating materials used, new coating materials, etc.
Response: The EPA is not finalizing the requirement for periodic testing as proposed. Instead, as explained in the preamble to the final rule and based on available information, the EPA is including in the final rules a requirement that facilities using add-on controls must complete a performance test every 5 years in conjunction with their Title V permit renewal.
In the preamble to the final rule is the EPA's response to the comments on the operational changes that would trigger the need for performance testing.
In the final rule, the time periods for completing a 5-year performance test and submitting the results are the same as for completing an initial performance test as specified in the general provisions.
EPA HAP List
Comment: One commenter (0668-0116) supported the EPA's proposal to include a list of HAP that had to be reported if present at 0.1 percent or more by weight. However, the commenter recommended that the EPA not use the terms "other organic HAP" and "other compounds" interchangeably. The commenter recommended not using the term "other compounds" and instead include another table of the remaining EPA HAP. The commenter also suggested that as an alternative, the EPA could include a "master" table of HAP and their corresponding threshold of 0.1 percent or 1.0 percent in either 40 CFR 63.2, Definitions, or subpart C (Subpart C -- List Of Hazardous Air Pollutants, Petitions Process, Lesser Quantity Designations, Source Category List) and reference the same list across all subparts as they are updated.
Response: The EPA has not adopted the commenter's recommendation to replace the term "other compounds" with "other organic HAP" because the EPA believes this would introduce a potential for confusion. The EPA is not including a table of all other HAP in these subparts because the complete list of HAP is subject to change and an up-to-date list is easily accessible on the EPA's website: https://www.epa.gov/haps/initial-list-hazardous-air-pollutants-modifications. The EPA is not revising 40 CFR 63.2 or subpart C as suggested by the commenter.
Allowable and Acute Multiplier for Metal Furniture
Comment: One commenter (0668-0116) noted that the data EPA used to develop the 1.8 Allowable and Acute Multiplier is based on metal furniture market data that indicated a decrease in sales from 2005 to 2014. The commenter stated that this information represents "liquid coatings" market data, and did not include powder coatings, so the commenter believed that the 1.8 multiplier would be overstated and should be closer to 1.0.
Response: Because powder coatings are a relatively small source of emissions compared to liquid coatings, it is reasonable to use allowable and acute multipliers based only on liquid coatings. Given that the multiplier used was 1.8, instead of 1.0, and the results of the risk analysis showed an ample margin of safety at the current emission limits using the higher multiplier, there would be no change in the overall outcome of the residual risk analysis if a lower multiplier was used. For these reasons, we are not changing our analysis.


[Federal Register: August 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 152)]
[Notices]
[Page 47805-47808]
[DOCID:fr09au10-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

August 2, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER01-2217-010.
    Applicants: Sunrise Power Company, LLC.
    Description: Sunrise Power Company, LLC submits additional
information supporting the continuation of its Market-based rate
authorization.
    Filed Date: 06/25/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100625-5138.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 24, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-1319-011; ER00-3562-016; ER00-1770-024; ER02-
453-014; ER03-446-010; ER04-831-010; ER09-886-004; ER09-1729-002.
    Applicants: Calpine Energy Services LP, Zion Energy LLC, Calpine
Philadelphia Inc., Calpine Bethlehem, LLC, Calpine Mid-Atlantic
Generation, LLC, Calpine Mid Merit, LLC, Calpine New Jersey Generation,
LLC, Calpine Vineland Solar, LLC, Calpine Newark Cogen Inc.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of Calpine Bethlehem,
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 07/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100729-5075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1894-002.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation submits tariff
filing per 35: Compliance Filing for WPSR OATT to be effective 7/30/
2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1901-002.
    Applicants: Upper Peninsula Power Company.
    Description: Upper Peninsula Power Company submits tariff filing
per 35: Compliance Filing for WPSR OATT to be effective 7/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1977-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator submits tariff
filing per 35.17(b): Errata Filing--IBRT--7/30/10 to be effective 9/30/
2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2064-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits its baseline tariff
for all Service Agreements, to be effective 7/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5153.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2065-000.
    Applicants: D.E. Shaw Plasma Trading, LLC.
    Description: The Shaw Parties submits notification of cancellation
of Market-Based Rate Tariffs.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-0223.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2066-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Southern Companies submits a Network Integration
Transmission Service Agreement etc. with City of Seneca, SC.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-0222.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2067-000.
    Applicants: D.E. Shaw & Co. Energy, LLC.
    Description: The Shaw Parties submits notification of cancellation
of Market-Based Rate Tariffs.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-0223.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2068-000.
    Applicants: Delaware City Refining Company LLC.
    Description: Delaware City Refining Company LLC submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Change-in-Status Notification to be
effective 10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5170.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2069-000.
    Applicants: D.E. Shaw Plasma Power, LLC.
    Description: The Shaw Parties submits notification of cancellation
of Market-Based Rate Tariffs.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-0223.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2070-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Public Service Company of Colorado submits tariff
filing per 35: 2010--07--30--PSCoOATT--Baseline to be effective 7/30/
2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5178.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2071-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota.
    Description: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.12: 2010--07--30--NSPM--concurrence--
PSCoOATT--Baseline to be effective 7/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5179.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2072-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.12: Transmission Owner Agreement to be
effective 7/31/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5181.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2073-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin.
    Description: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.12: 2010--07--30--NSPW--concurrence--
PSCoOATT--Baseline to be effective 7/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2074-000.
    Applicants: Kansas City Power & Light Company.
    Description: Kansas City Power & Light Company submits tariff
filing per 35.12: KCP&L Volume 4 (Market-Based) Baseline Filing to be
effective 7/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5184.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2075-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Southwestern Public Service Company submits tariff
filing per 35.12: 2010--07--30--SPS--concurrence--PSCoOATT--Baseline to
be effective 7/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5185.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2076-000.
    Applicants: Kansas City Power & Light Company.
    Description: Kansas City Power & Light Company submits tariff
filing per 35.12: KCP&L (OATT) Baseline Filing to be effective 7/30/
2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5186.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2077-000.
    Applicants: PBF Power Marketing LLC.
    Description: PBF Power Marketing LLC submits tariff filing per

35.13(a)(2)(iii: Change-in-Status Notification to be effective 10/1/
2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5188.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2078-000.
    Applicants: White Oak Energy LLC.
    Description: White Oak Energy LLC submits tariff filing per 35.12:
Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be effective 11/10/
2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5192.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2079-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35: 2010-07-30 CAISO Transmission Access
Charge Informational Filing to be effective 7/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2079-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits its revised Transmission Access Charges Informational Errata
filing.
    Filed Date: 08/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100802-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 23, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2080-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits an executed non-conforming Form of Service Agreement for Real-
Time Reserve Services During Phased Integration with Big Rivers
Electric Corp.
    Filed Date: 08/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100802-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 23, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2081-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: Black Hills Power, Inc. submits its baseline tariff
filing of its market-based rate wholesale power sales tariff pursuant
to FERC's Order No 714, to be effective 8/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100802-5003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 23, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA10-2-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 2nd Qtr Site Acquisition.
    Description: Report of Canandaigua Power Partners LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 07/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100729-5184.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-2-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 2nd Qtr Site Acquisition.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Arlington Valley,
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5220.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-2-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 2nd Qtr Site Acquisition.
    Description: NextEra Energy Companies Second Quarter 2010 Site
Control Quarterly Filing.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5241.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-2-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 2nd Qtr Site Acquisition.
    Description: Duke Energy Corporation 2Q 2010 Change in Status
Report Land.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5242.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-2-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 2nd Qtr Site Acquisition.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Astoria
Generating Company, L.P., et al.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5243.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-2-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 2nd Qtr Site Acquisition.
    Description: Quarterly Report of Generation Site Acquisitions of
AES Alamitos, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5244.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-2-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 2nd Qtr Site Acquisition.
    Description: The Shaw Parties submit Notification of Change in
Status/Quarterly Report for Second Quarter 2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5245.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-2-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 2nd Qtr Site Acquisition.
    Description: Change in Fact Notice Site Report 2010 Second Quarter
of Spring Canyon Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5246.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-2-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 2nd Qtr Site Acquisition.
    Description: Land Acquisition Report of Iberdrola Renewables, Inc.,
et al.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5247.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-2-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 2nd Qtr Site Acquisition.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of ALABAMA ELECTRIC
MARKETING, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5248.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-2-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 2nd Qtr Site Acquisition.
    Description: Land Acquisition Report (2Q 2010) of Lost Creek Wind,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5251.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: LA10-2-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2010 2nd Qtr Site Acquisition.
    Description: Order 697-C Quarterly Non-Material Change in Status
Report Compliance Filing of Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5252.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 20, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF10-574-000.
    Applicants: Rockland Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Form 556 for Ridgeline Energy LLC's Rockland Wind Farm
located in Power County.
    Filed Date: 07/13/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100713-5050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 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.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    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. 2010-19525 Filed 8-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 60684-60686]
[DOCID:fr14oc08-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings, 1

October 7, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC09-1-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: American Electric Power submits a Request for
Disclaimer of Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative Application for
Approvals under section 203 of the Federal Power Act, Request for
Expedited Consideration and Request for Confidential Treatment.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 22, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG09-2-000.
    Applicants: Krayn Wind LLC.
    Description: Krayn Wind, LLC submits a notice of self-certification
of exempt wholesale generator status.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 22, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER00-2117-006; ER00-2118-006; ER00-3751-006; ER02-
24-011; ER01-389-009; ER92-521-003; ER07-400-002; ER08-1236-002; ER93-
493-018; ER02-26-010; ER02-25-009.
    Applicants: ANP Bellingham Energy Company LLC, ANP Blackstone
Energy Company, LLC, ANP Funding I, LLC, Armstrong Energy Limited
Partnership, LLLP, Calumet energy Team, LLC, Hartwell energy Limited
Partnership, IPA Marketing, Inc., IPA Trading, Inc., Milford Power
Limited Partnership, Pleasants Energy, LLC, Troy Energy, LLC.
    Description: IPA Entities submits Troy market-based rate tariff, as
well as a redlined version of that tariff highlighting the changes Troy
made in compliance with Order 697 and 697-A.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-613-006.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits a report on the status of
stakeholder consideration of the possible implementation in New England
of a forward Ten-Minute Spinning Reserve.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1512-001; ER06-1512-002.
    Applicants: Verso Androscoggin LLC.
    Description: Verso Androscoggin LLC submits a revised Appendix B
Analysis and amends the effective date provision in its market-based
rate tariff.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0025.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 15, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1244-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Motion to withdraw the 7/9/08 filing of proposed
revisions and amendments made to Open Access Transmission & Energy
Markets Tariff of the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0307.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1272-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits
revisions to the Headroom cost allocation methodology contained in it's
Open Access Transmission Tariff Attachment S.
    Filed Date: 10/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081006-0169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 24, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1584-002.
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: Black Hills Power, Inc submits revised pages
comprising Attachment N, in clean and blacklined

formats to supplement its September 29, 2008 filing.
    Filed Date: 10/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081006-0168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-5-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool.
    Description: ISO New England and the NEPOOL Participants Committee
submits Second Revised Sheet 7011H et al. to FERC Electric Tariff 3 and
supporting testimony of Henry Y Yoshimura.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-9-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Carolina Power & Light Company submits a Partial
Requirements Service Agreement with Haywood Electric Membership Corp,
Rate Schedule 180.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-10-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool.
    Description: ISO New England Inc et al. submit revised tariff
sheets and supporting testimony of Donald L Gates to reflect or discuss
proposed revisions to the ISO New England Information Policy.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-11-000; OA08-13-003; RM05-5-005.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits
amendments to one aspect of its 6/6/08 compliance filing etc.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-12-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation, Public
Service Company of Oklahoma, and Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corp on behalf of
Public Service Co of Oklahoma et al. submits a compliance filing
supporting changes in the accounting for transmission and distribution
plant-in-service etc.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0212.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-13-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits amendments to the PJM
Open Access Transmission Tariff etc.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0114.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-14-000.
    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: NSTAR Electric Company submits an application seeking
return on equity incentives for their 345 kV Transmission Reliability
Project and three separate transmission projects collectively referred
to as the SEMA Upgrades.
    Filed Date: 10/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081006-0101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-16-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co submits the Engineering,
Design, Procurement and Construction Letter Agreement with the City of
Vernon.
    Filed Date: 10/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-17-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Business Services, LLC, Duke Energy
Indiana, Inc., Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Duke Energy Business Services, LLC on behalf of Duke
Energy Indiana, Inc et al. submits Notices of Cancellation of Rate
Schedules 208 and 254 et al.
    Filed Date: 10/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-18-000.
    Applicants: PJM Transmission Owners.
    Description: PJM Transmission Owners submit revised tariff sheets
to Rate Schedule 42.
    Filed Date: 10/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-21-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Inc.
    Description: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated submits a
Notice of Cancellation for the Generator Interconnection and Operating
Agreement with Calpine Corporation, as successor in interest to Fremont
Energy Center, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081006-0063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-22-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp submits
notice of termination of the Scheduling Coordinator Agreement of Lehman
Brothers Commodity Services, Inc.
    Filed Date: 10/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081006-0062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-23-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Co submits a power sales
agreement with Seminole Electric Coop, Inc as Service Agreement 91
under FERC Electric Tariff 8.
    Filed Date: 10/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081006-0064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-24-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits its proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission, Energy
and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff to address needless occurrences of
scarcity pricing observed during the Ancillary Service Market
operational testing.
    Filed Date: 10/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081006-0065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-25-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits an executed Amended and restated Large Generator
Interconnection Agreement with Valley View Transmission, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081006-0066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 24, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-26-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits modifications to its
Open Access Transmission Tariff and Reliability Assurance Agreement
etc.

    Filed Date: 10/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081006-0067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 24, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-27-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits a revised
interconnection service agreement and a revised interconnection
construction service agreement among PJM, Congentrix Virginia Leasing
Corporation and Virginia Electric and Power.
    Filed Date: 10/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081006-0061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 24, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-28-000.
    Applicants: Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc.
    Description: Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc requests a
waiver of the Commission affiliate sales restrictions effective 10/3/
08, with respect to power sales by Constellation to PacifiCorp relating
to the West Valley Facility.
    Filed Date: 10/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081006-0170.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 24, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-29-000.
    Applicants: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC.
    Description: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC requests
authorization to make wholesale power sales to its affiliate Potomac
Edison Company pursuant to the terms of a master Full Requirements
Service Agreement etc.
    Filed Date: 10/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081006-0171.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 24, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-24298 Filed 10-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P