[Federal Register: June 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 115)]
[Notices]
[Page 34209-34213]
[DOCID:fr16jn10-127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0114]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 30 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
in interstate commerce without meeting the Federal vision standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-

2010-0114 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this Notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments
on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end
of each 2-year period. The 30 individuals listed in this Notice have
each requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

David E. Balboni

    Mr. Balboni, age 41, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400 and
in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2010, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``This small limitation of his central field in
the right eye should not in any way impair his ability to drive a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Balboni reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 15 years, accumulating 750,000 miles. He holds a Class B
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from Massachusetts. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Mark S. Berkheimer

    Mr. Berkheimer, 47, has complete loss of vision in his right eye.
The best corrected visual acuity in his left eye is 20/20. Following an
examination in 2010, his optometrist noted, ``Mr. Berkheimer has safely
driven commercial vehicles for a number of years without incident. It
continues to be my medical opinion that he should be able to continue
to operate a commercial vehicle and be approved for an exemption.'' Mr.
Berkheimer reported that he has driven straight trucks for 21 years,
accumulating 627,186 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Rodney H. Bridges

    Mr. Bridges, 39, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400
and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his
optometrist noted, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Bridges' vision is
sufficient to perform the driving tasks to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Bridges reported that he has driven straight trucks for
20 years, accumulating 700,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations
for 17 years accumulating 255,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

James D. Broadway

    Mr. Broadway, 41, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200
and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2010, his
optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Broadway is visually capable of
driving safely.'' Mr. Broadway reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 3.5 years, accumulating 42,000 miles. He holds a Class D
chauffeur's license from Louisiana. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Wesley M. Creamer

    Mr. Creamer, 46, has had glaucoma and angle recession in his left
eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/20 and in his left eye, 20/300. Following an examination in 2010,
his optometrist noted, ``I believe he has sufficient vision to perform
the driving tasks to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Creamer
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating
75,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 18 years,
accumulating 270,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New Mexico. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and two
convictions for speeding in a CMV. In one instance, he exceeded the
speed limit by 14 miles per hour (mph) and in the other by 8 mph.

Charles M. Dunn

    Mr. Dunn, 46, has had macular scarring in his left eye since 1990.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/16 and in his
left eye, hand-motion vision. Following an examination in 2010, his
optometrist noted, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Dunn has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Dunn reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30
years, accumulating 3 million miles. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Alabama. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no

convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Tony K. Ellis

    Mr. Ellis, 57, has had optic atrophy in his right eye since 1995.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60 and in his
left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2010, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``I believe his vision is sufficient for him to operate a
commercial vehicle safely.'' Mr. Ellis reported that he has driven
tractor-trailer combinations for 38 years, accumulating 3.8 million
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Leonard J. Ferrin

    Mr. Ferrin, 25, has had retinal scarring in his left eye since age
14. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in
his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist
noted, ``In my medical opinion, Leonard has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Ferrin reported that he has driven straight trucks for 1 year,
accumulating 5,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years,
accumulating 125,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Paul A. Giarrusso

    Mr. Giarrusso, 56, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200
and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2010, his
optometrist noted, ``In my opinion Mr. Giarrusso has sufficient vision
to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Giarrusso reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 2 years, accumulating 2,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations
for 32 years, accumulating 2 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Florida. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jerry L. Gibson

    Mr. Gibson, 59, has retinal scarring in his right eye due to trauma
sustained during childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his
right eye is count-finger vision and in his left eye, 20/25. Following
an examination in 2010, his ophthalmologist noted, ``I believe he has
sufficient vision to maintain his license as a commercial driver in any
state.'' Mr. Gibson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20
years, accumulating 1 million miles and tractor-trailer combinations
for 16 years, accumulating 1.1 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL
from Florida. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Rici W. Giesseman

    Mr. Giesseman, 37, has had macular scarring in his right eye since
birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200 and
in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2010, his
optometrist noted, ``In my opinion this patient has sufficient vision
to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Giesseman reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 20 years, accumulating 300,000 miles and tractor-trailer
combinations for 8 years, accumulating 320,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

George R. House

    Mr. House, 53, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left
eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist noted,
``In my opinion his vision is sufficient to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. House reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 33 years, accumulating 330,000 miles and
tractor-trailer combinations for 33 years, accumulating 627,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Michael A. Jabro

    Mr. Jabro, 46, has had glaucoma in his right eye since 1998. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100 and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist noted,
``I certify in my medical opinion that Mr. Jabro has sufficient vision
to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle
without any restrictions.'' Mr. Jabro reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 575,000 miles and tractor-
trailer combinations for 8 years, accumulating 920,000 miles. He holds
a Class A CDL from Michigan. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Thomas L. Jashurek, Jr.

    Mr. Jashurek, 38, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200 and in his
left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist
noted, ``Thomas has sufficient vision to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Jashurek reported that he has driven straight trucks for
14 years, accumulating 518,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Michael M. Martinez

    Mr. Martinez, 47, has had macular scarring and retinal detachment
in his right eye due to a traumatic injury sustained in 2001. The best
corrected visual acuity in his right eye is count-finger vision and in
his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist
noted, ``Binocularly he has full peripheral vision and sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Martinez reported that he has driven straight trucks for
16 years, accumulating 384,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations
for 16 years, accumulating 384,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
New Mexico. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Robert L. McClain

    Mr. McClain, 54, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye
since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his left eye is
20/15. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist noted, ``I
certify that his medical condition in my medical opinion provides still
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. McClain reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 20 years, accumulating 2.5 million miles. He holds a Class B
CDL from Michigan. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Daniel E. Miller

    Mr. Miller, 59, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400 and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist noted,
``In my opinion, he is visually capable of safely operating a

commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Miller reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 1.2 million miles and
tractor-trailer combinations for 29 years, accumulating 2.7 million
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Buddy W. Myrick

    Mr. Myrick, 71, has had macular degeneration in his right eye since
2002. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200 and
in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2010, his
optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Myrick has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Myrick reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for
30 years, accumulating 3.2 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

James L. Okonek

    Mr. Okonek, 46, has had a prosthetic left eye since 2006. The best
corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20. Following an
examination in 2010, his optometrist noted, ``James has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Okonek reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years,
accumulating 50,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 14 years,
accumulating 1.8 million miles and buses for 5 years, accumulating
60,000 miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from Wisconsin. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Aaron L. Paustian

    Mr. Paustian, 42, has macular scarring in his right eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained during childhood. The best corrected visual
acuity in his right eye is 20/200 and in his left eye, 20/20. Following
an examination in 2010, his optometrist noted, ``In my medical opinion
I believe that Mr. Aaron Paustian has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Paustian
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 13 years, accumulating
36,504 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 17 years,
accumulating 1.8 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash, for which he was
not cited, and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Alan J. Reynaldos

    Mr. Reynaldos, 45, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400
and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``Mr. Reynaldos has sufficient vision to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Reynaldos reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 8,000 miles. He holds a Class
D operator's license from New Jersey. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Kenneth R. Riener

    Mr. Riener, 48, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic
injury sustained in 1965. The best corrected visual acuity in his left
eye is 20/15. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist noted,
``I certify that in my medical opinion Mr. Kenneth Raymond Riener has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Riener reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 5 years, accumulating 90,000 miles. He holds a Class D
operator's license from Montana. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Charles L. Rill, Sr.

    Mr. Rill, 60, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25 and in his left
eye, 20/150. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist noted,
``He has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Rill
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 42 years, accumulating
1 million miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 42 years,
accumulating 4,200 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Maryland. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Jules M. Sancho, Jr.

    Mr. Sancho, 50, has corneal scarring in his right eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained during childhood. The best corrected visual
acuity in his right eye is 20/200 and in his left eye, 20/20. Following
an examination in 2010, his optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr.
Sancho has the visual capability to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Sancho reported that he has driven straight trucks for 18 years,
accumulating 108,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 15
years, accumulating 187,500 miles. He holds a Class D Chauffeur's
license from Louisiana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Robert Smiley

    Mr. Smiley, 53, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic injury
sustained in 2000. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist noted, ``Mr.
Smiley meets the requirements and has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle in his right
eye.'' Mr. Smiley reported that he has driven straight trucks for 1\1/2
\ years, accumulating 6,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for
18 years, accumulating 2.2 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
New Mexico. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and one conviction for speeding in a CMV. He exceeded the speed limit
by 10 mph.

Roger L. Sulfridge

    Mr. Sulfridge, 60, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye
since childhood due to a dense cataract. The best corrected visual
acuity in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2010, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``I feel Mr. Sulfridge has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Sulfridge reported that he has driven straight trucks for 23 years,
accumulating 287,500 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 3
years, accumulating 75,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Kentucky.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Christopher M. Vincent

    Mr. Vincent, 32, has had complete loss of vision his left eye since
childhood due to a traumatic injury. The best corrected visual acuity
in his right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his
optometrist noted, ``Mr. Vincent is a one eyed driver with a very
healthy right eye, normal color vision and normal peripheral vision. I
do not consider this significant to restrict his operation of a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Vincent reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 4 years, accumulating 528,000 miles and tractor-trailer
combinations for 1 year, accumulating 22,000 miles. He holds a Class A
CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows

no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV. He was
cited for an improper stop on a highway.

Derik T. Winebrenner

    Mr. Winebrenner, 26, has had complete loss of vision his right eye
since birth due to optic nerve hypoplasia. The best corrected visual
acuity in his left eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2010, his
optometrist noted, ``I believe that Derik Winebrenner has more than
adequate visual skills to perform the duties of a commercial vehicle
operator.'' Mr. Winebrenner reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 10 years, accumulating 200,000 miles and tractor-trailer
combinations for 10 years, accumulating 275,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Curtis L. Wolff

    Mr. Wolff, 47, has had loss of vision his left eye since 1981 due
to cataract surgery and retinal surgery. The best corrected visual
acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, hand-motion
vision. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist noted, ``In
my opinion, Curtis has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Wolff reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating 1.2 million miles
and tractor-trailer combinations for 2 years, accumulating 140,000
miles. He holds a Class D Chauffeur's license from Louisiana. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Robert L. Zebrowski

    Mr. Zebrowski, 68, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50 and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist
noted, ``I believe Mr. Zebrowski is safe to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Zebrowski reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 6 years, accumulating 150,000 miles and tractor-trailer
combinations for 27 years, accumulating 499,500 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this Notice. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business July 16, 2010. Comments will be
available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable.
    In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in
the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after
the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public
docket for new material.

    Issued on: June 10, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-14537 Filed 6-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 3765]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1466]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Staff Attendance at Southwest Power Pool Regional
Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee and Board of Directors
Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of its staff may attend the meetings of the Southwest Power
Pool, Inc. (SPP) Regional Entity Trustee (RE), Regional State Committee
(RSC) and Board of Directors, as noted below. Their attendance is part
of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
    All meetings will be held at the Intercontinental Stephen F. Austin
Hotel, 701 Congress Avenue, Austin, TX 78701. The hotel phone number is
(800) 235-4670.

SPP RE

    January 30, 2012 (8 a.m.-2 p.m.).

SPP RSC

    January 30, 2012 (1 p.m.-5 p.m.).

SPP Board of Directors

    January 31, 2012 (8 a.m.-3 p.m.) .
    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following
proceedings:

Docket No. ER06-451, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1419, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-659, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1050, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-941, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3627, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3958, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3967, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-4105, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-140. Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-430, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-455, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-526, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-528, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-550, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-557, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-608, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-801, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3728, Midwest Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-480, Midwest Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-600, Midwest Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-739, Midwest Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL11-34, Midwest Independent System Operator, Inc.

    These meetings are open to the public.
    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5937 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 18, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1466 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


DCTM_ ARP. xls NUMBER OF NUMBER OF CHANGE IN TONS FACILITIES TONS FACILITIES TONS 75092 MC 217 79 136 78  37.33% 127184 PCE 224 65 142 62  36.61% 79016 TCE 1,409 176 1,153 180  18.17% 71556 TCA 995 322 740 306  25.63% TOTAL 2,845 2,171  23.69% 1999 2002 Pollutant COMPARISION OF 1999 AND 2002 NEI DATA ONLY FOR THOSE FACILITIES THAT APPEAR IN BOTH THE 1999 NEI DEGREASING DATABASE AND IN THE 2002 NEI DATABASE C:\ dmautop\ temp\ DCTM_ ARP. xls 8/ 11/ 2006


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32333-32340]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13872]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0978; FRL-9315-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan
(SIP); Permit Renewals

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the applicable State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Texas that relate to the
Permit Renewals. These portions of the SIP revisions proposed for
approval address the following requirements related to Permit Renewals:
Notification of permit holder, permit renewal application, and review
schedule. EPA finds that these changes to the Texas SIP comply with the
Federal Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA) and EPA regulations and are
consistent with EPA policies. EPA is proposing this action under
section 110 of the Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2010-0978 by one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) E-mail: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) U.S. EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
    (4) Fax: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), at
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) Mail: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section (6PD-R),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.
    (6) Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits
Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2010-0978. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http//www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means that EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Permits
Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 Freedom of
Information Act Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese
at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an appointment. If possible, please make the
appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There
will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On
the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception
area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittals, which are part of the EPA docket, are also
available for public inspection at the State Air Agency during official
business hours by appointment: Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ), Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin,
Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits
Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever any
reference to ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittals
    A. What is the background of the Texas permit renewal program?
    B. What changes did the State submit?
II. What action is EPA proposing to take?
III. EPA's Evaluation
    A. Section 30 TAC 116.310--Notification of Permit Holder
    1. What is the background of 30 TAC 116.310?
    2. What did Texas submit for 30 TAC 116.310?
    3. What is EPA's evaluation of the submitted revisions to 30 TAC
116.310?
    B. Section 30 TAC 116.311--Permit Renewal Application
    1. What is the background of 30 TAC 116.311?
    2. What did Texas submit for 30 TAC 116.311?
    3. What is EPA's evaluation of the submitted revisions to 30 TAC
116.311?
    C. Section 30 TAC 116.314--Review Schedule
    1. What is the background of 30 TAC 116.314?
    2. What did Texas submit for 30 TAC 116.314?
    3. What is EPA's evaluation of the submitted revisions to 30 TAC
116.314?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittals

A. What is the background of the Texas permit renewal program?

    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas
regulations relating to renewal of preconstruction permits. The rules
for permit renewals are currently approved in the Texas SIP under 30
TAC 116.310, 116.311, 116.312, 116.313, 116.314, and 116.315. EPA
approved these rules on March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12285), and revisions on
March 20, 2009 (74 FR 11851), and March 11, 2010 (75 FR 11464). The
approved rules require each preconstruction permit to be renewed every
ten years. Permit renewal is approved based upon a demonstration in the
renewal application that the permitted facility will operate in
accordance with all requirements and conditions of the existing permit,
including representations in the application to construct, and
subsequent amendments, any previously granted renewal, and the
compliance history of the facility. Although preconstruction permits
must remain in effect as long as the source operates and until voided
under the approved implementation procedures, periodic renewal of
preconstruction permits is neither required nor prohibited under the
Act or Federal Regulations.

B. What changes did the State submit?

    On December 15, 1995; July 22, 1998; and September 4, 2002; the
State of Texas submitted revisions to the Texas State Implementation
Plan (SIP) concerning the Permit Renewals under Title 30 of the Texas
Administrative Code (30 TAC), Chapter 116--Control of Air Pollution by
Permits for New Construction or Modification, Subchapter D--Permit
Renewals. The

December 15, 1995, revisions to these provisions were superseded and
rendered moot by revisions submitted to EPA on July 22, 1998, because
the latter submittal repealed and replaced the earlier versions of the
same provisions addressed in the December 15, 1995, submittal.
Submitted revisions included changes to 30 TAC 116.310--Notification of
Permit Holder, 30 TAC 116.311--Permit Renewal Application, 30 TAC
116.312--Public Notification and Comment Procedures, 30 TAC 116.313--
Renewal Application Fees, 30 TAC 116.314--Review Schedule, and 30 TAC
116.315--Permit Renewal Submittal. In this proposed action, we are
addressing submitted revisions to 30 TAC 116.310, 116.311, and 116.314.
    Section 30 TAC 116.310--Notification of Permit Holder--is currently
approved as adopted by Texas on August 16, 1993, approved March 10,
2006 (71 FR 12285). Today, we propose to approve revisions adopted by
Texas on November 16, 1995 (submitted December 15, 1995) and June 17,
1998 (submitted July 22, 1998).
    Section 30 TAC 116.311--Permit Renewal Application--is currently
approved as adopted by Texas on April 6, 1994, approved March 10, 2006
(71 FR 12285). The requirements of subsection (c) were later removed
from 30 TAC 116.311 and added to Section 116.315 and approved by EPA on
March 11, 2010, 75 FR 11464. Today, we propose to approve other
revisions adopted by Texas on November 16, 1995 (submitted December 15,
1995); June 17, 1998 (submitted July 22, 1998); and August 21, 2002
(submitted September 4, 2002). Today's proposed action does not address
severable revisions to 30 TAC 116.311(a)(2) submitted December 15,
1995; July 22, 1998; and September 4, 2002. This provision was revised
to exclude changes under the severable provisions relating to Qualified
Facilities. EPA will review these revisions to 30 TAC 116.311(a)(2) in
connection with separately submitted revisions to Texas Qualified
Facilities Program, submitted October 5, 2010.
    Section 30 TAC 116.314--Review Schedule--is currently approved as
adopted by Texas on August 16, 1993, approved March 10, 2006 (71 FR
12285). Today, we propose to approve revisions adopted by Texas on
November 16, 1995 (submitted December 15, 1995) and June 17, 1998
(submitted July 22, 1998).
    Additional information related to these SIP submittals is contained
in the Technical Support Document (TSD), which is in the docket for
this action.
    The table below summarizes the changes that were submitted and are
affected by this action. A summary of EPA's evaluation of each section
and the basis for this proposal is discussed in section III of this
preamble. The TSD includes a detailed evaluation of the referenced SIP
submittals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Date adopted by
            Section                     Title         Date submitted       the State             Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 TAC 116.310.................  Notification of          *12/15/1995       *11/16/1995  --Non-substantive
                                  Permit Holder.           *7/22/1998        *6/17/1998   changes to the
                                                                                section.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 TAC 116.311.................  Permit Renewal           *12/15/1995       *11/16/1995  --Removed paragraphs
                                  Application.             *7/22/1998        *6/17/1998   (a)(1), (a)(3), and
                                                                                (a)(4) and
                                                                                redesignated existing
                                                                                paragraphs (a)(2),
                                                                                (a)(5), and (a)(6) to
                                                                                paragraphs (a)(1)-
                                                                                (a)(3), respectively.
                                                     ................  ................  --Added new paragraphs
                                                                                (a)(4) and (a)(5).
                                                     ................  ................  --Added new subsection
                                                                                (b).
                                                                                --Revised and
                                                                                redesignated existing
                                                                                subsection (b) to new
                                                                                subsection (c).
                                                             9/4/2002         8/21/2002  --Added new paragraph
                                                                                (a)(1) and
                                                                                redesignated existing
                                                                                paragraphs (a)(1)-
                                                                                (a)(5) to paragraphs
                                                                                (a)(2)-(a)(6),
                                                                                respectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 TAC 116.314.................  Review Schedule...       *12/15/1995       *11/16/1995  --Revised and
                                                           *7/22/1998        *6/17/1998   reorganized subsection
                                                                                (a) into subsections
                                                                                (a) and (b) and
                                                                                revisions to these
                                                                                subsections.
                                                     ................  ................  --Revised and
                                                                                redesignated existing
                                                                                subsections (b) and
                                                                                (c) to subsections (c)
                                                                                and (d), respectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Because Texas repealed and resubmitted each section under Subchapter D in its 7/22/1998 submittal, our
  analysis includes 12/15/95 and 7/22/98 SIP submittal together.

II. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    We have evaluated the SIP submissions for consistency with the CAA,
NSR regulations for new and modified sources in 40 CFR Part 51, and the
approved Texas SIP. We have also reviewed the rules for enforceability
and legal sufficiency. On March 10, 2006, EPA approved revisions to 30
TAC, Chapter 116--Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New
Construction or Modification, Subchapter D--Permit Renewals, Sections
116.310, 116.311, 116.312, 116.313, and 116.314. On March 11, 2010 (75
FR 11464), EPA approved the removal of subsection (c) from 30 TAC
116.311 and added those provisions to 30 TAC 116.315. Section 30 TAC
116.312 relates to public participation and is severable from the
remaining rules (see 75 FR 68291, 68294). We will address the
requirements for public participation in a separate action when we act
on the Texas rules relating to public participation, submitted July 12,
2010. Under the CAA, EPA's statutory deadline to act on the revised
public participation rules is January 12, 2012. The revisions to 30 TAC
116.313 were approved in a separate action on March 20, 2009 (74 FR
11851). The revisions to 116.315 were approved in a separate action on
March 11, 2010 (75 FR 11464).
    This proposed action addresses revisions to 30 TAC 116.310,
116.311, and 116.314, submitted December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998,
and revisions to 30 TAC 116.311 submitted September 4, 2002. A
technical analysis of the submittals for the Permit Renewal Application
and Permit Renewal Submittal sections has found that these changes are
consistent with the CAA, 40 CFR Part 51 and EPA policies. Therefore,
EPA proposes to approve the

revisions to 30 TAC 116.310, 116 .311,\1\ and 116.314 submitted on
December 15, 1995; July 22, 1998; and September 4, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Except for 30 TAC 116.311(a)(2). See discussion in section
III.B of this preamble for further information on these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Evaluation

A. Section 30 TAC 116.310--Notification of Permit Holder

1. What is the background of 30 TAC 116.310?
    The currently approved provisions for 30 TAC 116.310 were submitted
to EPA on August 31, 1993. EPA approved the submitted revisions on
March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12285). These revisions became effective on May
9, 2006.
2. What did Texas submit for 30 TAC 116.310?
    Since EPA's last approval for this section, TCEQ has submitted two
SIP revisions to EPA for the Notification of Permit Holder in 30 TAC
116.310 on December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998. In this proposed
action, we are proposing to approve the revisions of the existing
provisions of section 116.310. The revisions submitted to this section
include updated references to the current agency name and update of a
state statutory citation to the current citation.
3. What is EPA's evaluation of the submitted revisions to 30 TAC
116.310?
    These submitted revisions are non-substantive and do not change the
underlying requirements of the section as currently approved. We
propose to approve the revisions to 30 TAC 116.310 as submitted
December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998.

B. Section 30 TAC 116.311--Permit Renewal Application

1. What is the background of 30 TAC 116.311?
    The currently approved provisions for 30 TAC 116.311 were submitted
to EPA on August 31, 1993, and April 29, 1994. EPA approved the
submitted revisions on March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12285). These revisions
became effective on May 9, 2006.
2. What did Texas submit for 30 TAC 116.311?
    Since EPA's last approval for this section, TCEQ has submitted
three SIP revisions to EPA for the Permit Renewal Application section
on December 15, 1995; July 22, 1998; and September 4, 2002. On March
11, 2010, we approved the recodification and revision of the existing
provisions of section 116.311(c) to a new section 116.315--Permit
Renewal Submittal. In this proposed action, we are addressing the
remaining revisions as described below, except for the revisions to 30
TAC 116.311(a)(2) and (a)(6). This includes the following revisions:
    a. Revisions submitted December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998.
    These revisions include:
     Removal of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(4), and the
redesignation of existing paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(6) to
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3), respectively;
     Addition of new paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5);
     Addition of new subsection (b); and
     Redesignation of existing subsection (b) to subsection (c)
with non-substantive revisions.
    b. Revisions submitted September 4, 2002.
    These revisions include the addition of new paragraph (a)(1) and
redesignation of existing paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) to
paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(6), respectively.
    3. What is EPA's evaluation of the submitted revisions to 30 TAC
116.311?
    a. The addition of new paragraph (a)(1).
    Texas submitted paragraph (a)(1) on September 4, 2002. This
paragraph ensures that upon renewal, ``dockside vessel emissions
associated with the permitted facility will comply with all rules and
regulations of the commission and with the intent of the TCAA,
including protection of the health and property of the public and
minimization of emissions to the extent possible, consistent with good
air pollution practices.'' This revision is consistent with the
provision in the SIP-approved 30 TAC 116.111(a)(2) as it relates to
associated dockside vessel emissions. See 72 FR 49198 (August 28,
2007). The TCEQ obtained the authority to regulate dockside emissions
under House Bill (HB) 3040, 77th Legislature, 2001 which amended the
Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), Sec.
382.065 (Acts 2001, 77th Legislature, Chapter 1166, Sec.  1). See page
2 of the TCEQ's evaluation of the revisions submitted September 4,
2002. The TCEQ further states:

    The commission determined that dockside vessels are facilities
as defined in TCAA, Sec.  382.003(6), and thus subject to the
requirements of Chapter 116. These emissions will require best
available control technology (BACT) review, maximum allowable
emission limitations, monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and
ambient air impacts review. The emissions originating from a
dockside vessel that are the result of functions performed by
onshore facilities or using onshore equipment include: Loading and
unloading of liquid bulk materials, liquified gaseous materials, and
solid bulk materials; cleaning and degassing liquid vessel
compartments; and abrasive blasting and painting.

See page 4 of the TCEQ's evaluation of the revisions submitted
September 4, 2002. Finally, concerning the revision to 30 TAC 116.311,
the TCEQ states:

    The adopted amendment to Sec.  116.311, Permit Renewal
Application, requires that owners or operators submit information
that demonstrates that dockside emissions comply with all commission
rules and regulations and the intent of the TCAA, including
protection of the health and property of the public and the
minimization of emissions to the extent practicable, consistent with
good air pollution control practices. Existing dockside emissions
will be reviewed for off-property effects considering magnitude,
frequency, and duration.

See page 4 of the TCEQ's evaluation of the revisions submitted
September 4, 2002. The addition of new paragraph (a)(1) ensures that
permits to construct and permit renewals that pre-date TCEQ's rule
change to regulate dockside emissions at 30 TAC 116.111(a)(2) are
required at renewal to ensure all dockside emissions comply with the
statute and regulations. We propose to approve the addition of
paragraph (a)(1), submitted September 4, 2002.
    b. The removal of existing paragraph (a)(1).
    This paragraph provides that upon renewal the emissions from the
facility will comply with all applicable specifications and
requirements in the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) \2\ rules and the
Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA). Texas submitted the removal of existing
paragraph (a)(1) on December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998. EPA believes
this provision is redundant because the SIP already contains the
substantive requirement at 30 TAC 116.115(b)(2)(H)(ii) requiring that
``[i]f more than one state or Federal regulation or permit condition
are applicable, the most stringent limit or condition shall govern and
be the standard by which compliance shall be demonstrated.'' The SIP
also provides TCEQ with the authority to re-evaluate a source's ability
to comply with the statute and regulations at renewal, as provided in
the existing SIP rule at 30 TAC 116.311(b), which is recodified to 30
TAC 116.311(c) in this proposal. Because the proposed removal of this
paragraph merely is the removal of a redundant requirement, it is not a
relaxation of the SIP. Therefore,

approval of this revision will not interfere with attainment and
reasonable further progress or any other applicable Federal
requirement, as required by section 110(l) of the CAA. Accordingly, we
propose to approve the removal of existing paragraph (a)(1), submitted
December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The TACB is a predecessor agency to the TCEQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Revisions to paragraph (a)(2).
    As currently approved, paragraph (a)(2) provides that upon renewal,
facility is being operated in accordance with all requirements and
conditions of the existing permit, including representations in the
application for permit to construct and subsequent amendments, and any
previously granted renewal. This paragraph was revised and redesignated
to paragraph (a)(1) in the December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998, SIP
submittals. This paragraph was again redesignated to paragraph (a)(2)
in the September 4, 2002, SIP submittal. The revisions submitted
December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998, as redesignated in the September
4, 2002, SIP submittal, were revised to add a provision that excludes
changes otherwise authorized for a Qualified Facility. The submitted
revisions to paragraph (a)(2) are related to severable provisions that
relate to Qualified Facilities that we disapproved on April 14, 2010
(75 FR 19467) and to the separately submitted revisions to the
Qualified Facilities Program on October 5, 2010. We propose to take no
action on the severable submitted revision to paragraph (a)(2) relating
to Qualified Facilities, and we will address these revisions in a
separate action on the submitted revisions to the Qualified Facilities
Program. The approved SIP will retain currently approved paragraph
(a)(2) as adopted by Texas on April 4, 1994 (submitted April 29, 1994),
and approved March 10, 2006.
    d. The removal of existing paragraph (a)(3).
    This paragraph required that upon renewal the facility will
continue to have appropriate means to measure the emission of
significant air contaminants as determined necessary by the Executive
Director. Texas submitted the removal of paragraph (a)(3) on December
15, 1995, and July 22, 1998. In its December 15, 1995 submittal, Texas
stated:

    Existing Sec.  116.311(a)(3) also duplicates a requirement
applicable to the original permit application. An applicant for a
permit to construct must demonstrate that a facility will have
provisions for measuring the emissions of significant air
contaminants, including the installation of sampling ports and
sampling platforms. When necessary, such requirements are written as
conditions of the permit. The renewal review will determine whether
a facility is in compliance with any sampling requirements in its
permit. * * * [A]n owner/operator could not remove sampling ports or
platforms in violation of permit conditions.
    Further, 30 TAC Sec.  101.9 provides independent authority for
the TNRCC to require sampling ports and platforms when necessary.
The existing Sec.  116.311(a)(3) was redundant and unnecessary.

See the December 15, 1995 SIP submittal at page 5 of the Section
entitled ``Evaluation of Testimony.'' EPA believes this provision is
redundant because the SIP already contains the substantive requirement
in the rules at 30 TAC 101.9 and 30 TAC 116.111(a)(2)(B). These two SIP
rules require the following:

    Any person, at the request of the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC or Commission), shall provide in
connection with each flue a power source near the point of testing
in addition to such sampling and testing facilities and sampling
ports, including safe and easy access thereto, exclusive of
instruments and sensing devices, as may be necessary for the
Commission to determine the nature and quality of emissions which
are or may be discharged as a result of source operations. Evidence
and data based on these samples and calculations may be used to
substantiate violations of the Act, rules, and regulations. Agents
of the Commission shall be permitted to sample the stacks during
operating hours.

30 TAC 101.9

    (B) Measurement of emissions. The proposed facility will have
provisions for measuring the emission of significant air
contaminants as determined by the executive director. This may
include the installation of sampling ports on exhaust stacks and
construction of sampling platforms in accordance with guidelines in
the ``Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC)
Sampling Procedures Manual.''

30 TAC 116.111(a)(2)(B). Because the proposed removal of this paragraph
merely is the removal of a redundant requirement, it is not a
relaxation of the SIP. Therefore, approval of this revision will not
interfere with attainment and reasonable further progress or any other
applicable Federal requirement, as required by section 110(l) of the
CAA. Accordingly, we propose to approve the removal of existing
paragraph (a)(3), submitted December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998.
    e. The removal of existing paragraph (a)(4).
    This paragraph required that upon renewal the facility will
continue to use the control technology determined by the Executive
Director to be economically reasonable and technically practicable
considering the age of the facility and the impact of its emissions on
the surrounding area. Texas submitted the removal of paragraph (a)(4)
on December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998. EPA believes that this
provision is redundant because the SIP already provides for this
substantive requirement at 30 TAC 116.311(a)(2) and 30 TAC
116.111(a)(2)(C). Section 30 TAC 116.311(a)(2) provides that upon
renewal, the facility is being operated in accordance with all
requirements and conditions of the existing permit, including
representations in the application for permits to construct and
subsequent amendments, and any previously granted renewal. Therefore,
the SIP-approved requirements 30 TAC 116.311(a)(2) require that upon
renewal, a facility will continue to meet the requirements of 30 TAC
116.111(a)(2)(C). This SIP rule requires that a proposed facility will
utilize Best Available Control Technology (BACT), with consideration
given to technical practicability and economic reasonableness of
reducing or eliminating the emissions from the facility. Because the
proposed removal of paragraph (a)(4) merely is the removal of a
redundant requirement, it is not a relaxation of the SIP. Therefore,
approval of the removal of 30 TAC 116.311(a)(4) will not interfere with
attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable
Federal requirement, as required by section 110(l) of the CAA.
    The removal of paragraph (a)(4) also removes a provision that
allows director discretion relating to the control technology that
could be utilized at a facility following renewal. Further, the TCEQ
maintains the authority to impose, as a condition of renewal,
additional requirements that it determines to be economically
reasonable and technically practicable considering the age of the
facility and the impact of its emissions on the surrounding area, as
provided in the submitted revisions related to 30 TAC 116.311(b) (which
is evaluated in section III.B.3.i of this preamble). Accordingly, we
propose to approve the removal of existing paragraph (a)(4), submitted
December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998.
    f. Revisions to currently submitted paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4).
    These paragraphs are currently approved as paragraphs (a)(5) and
(a)(6). These paragraphs require that upon renewal, the facility must
continue to meet the applicable requirements of the New Source
Performance Standards (required under section 111 of the Act and 40 CFR
part 60) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (required under section 112 of the Act and 40 CFR part 61).
These

paragraphs were redesignated to paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) with non-
substantive changes in revisions submitted December 15, 1995, and July
22, 1998, and were again redesignated to paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4)
in a revision submitted September 4, 2002, with no substantive changes.
These changes are non-substantive revisions to the existing SIP.
Accordingly, we propose to approve the redesignations and non-
substantive changes to these paragraphs as submitted December 15, 1995;
July 22, 1998; and September 4, 2002.
    g. Addition of new paragraph (a)(5).
    This paragraph was submitted as paragraph (a)(4) on July 22, 1998,
and then recodified to paragraph (a)(5), as submitted September 4,
2002. This paragraph requires that upon renewal, the facility must
continue to meet the applicable requirements of the maximum achievable
control technology standard as listed under 40 CFR Part 63, promulgated
by EPA under the authority of section 112 of the CAA, or as listed
under 30 TAC Chapter 113, Subchapter C of this title (relating to
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories) (FCAA Sec.  112, 40 CFR 63). This paragraph ensures that
upon renewal the facility continues to meet the requirements of the
current SIP at 30 TAC 116.111(a)(2)(F) which requires permitted
facilities to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63.
Accordingly, we propose to approve the addition of paragraph (a)(5) as
submitted December 15, 1995; July 22, 1998; and September 4, 2002.
    h. Addition of new subsection (b).
    Texas submitted subsection (b) on December 15, 1995, and July 22,
1998. This section provides that in addition to the requirements in
subsection (a) of this section, if the TCEQ determines it necessary to
avoid a condition of air pollution or to ensure compliance with
otherwise applicable Federal or state air quality control requirements,
then: (1) The applicant may be required to submit additional
information regarding the emissions from the facility and their impacts
on the surrounding area; and (2) the TCEQ shall impose as a condition
for renewal those requirements the Executive Director determines to be
economically reasonable and technically practicable considering the age
of the facility and the impact of its emissions on the surrounding
area. This new subsection provides the Executive Director of the TCEQ
with authority to require additional information and to require
additional requirements above and beyond the requirements stipulated in
subsection (a) whenever the Executive Director deems such additional
measures are necessary. EPA has already approved subsection (a) (as
adopted by the State on April 6, 1994) as meeting the requirements of
the Act and 40 CFR part 51. Because the requirements in subsection (b)
are in addition to the requirements in subsection (a) of this section,
and because EPA has approved subsection (a), subsection (b) can only be
used to impose additional measures when the Executive Director deems
them necessary. Subsection (b) does not authorize the Executive
Director to use the permit renewal process to relax terms and
conditions of the existing permit. Such relaxations of the existing
permit must be authorized through the SIP-approved procedures for
changing a permit under 30 TAC 116, Chapter 116, Subchapter B--New
Source Review Permits.\3\ Further, the addition of subparagraph (b)
provides a mechanism to ensure that upon renewal, the permit continues
to meet the approved SIP requirements at 30 TAC 116.111(a)(2)(A)(1)
which requires the initial permit must ``comply with all rules and
regulations of the commission and with the intent of the TCAA,
including protection of the health and property of the public.'' The
addition of subsection (b) provides TCEQ with a mechanism to impose
additional requirements at renewal when TCEQ deems it necessary to
address changes in air quality or changes to applicable Federal and
state requirements that may occur after issuance of the initial permit.
We therefore find that the submitted revision to add subsection (b) to
30 TAC 116.311 meets section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 40 CFR part
51; and does not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. Accordingly, we propose to approve the addition
of the new subsection (b) to the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Also see the SIP approved rule at 30 TAC 116.315(c) which
provides that a renewal application may be submitted at the same
time as an amendment application to modify an existing facility as
long as it is submitted no more than three years before the permit's
expiration date and the amendment is subject to public notice
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Revisions to subsection (c).
    This provision is currently approved as subsection (b). This
subsection requires that upon renewal, the facility shall continue to
meet the requirements under the undesignated heading in Subchapter B
relating to compliance history. This provision was redesignated to
subsection (c) with revisions, submitted December 15, 1995, and July
22, 1998. The submitted revisions include changing the citations to
refer to the Compliance History provisions to refer to the SIP-approved
requirement under 30 TAC 116.120 through 116.126 under Subchapter B,
Division 2--Compliance History. The changes also include clarifications
that failure to demonstrate compliance with the Compliance History
requirements shall result in the renewal not being granted. It further
changes the rule to provide that if a contested case hearing has not
been requested, the Executive Director, not the staff, must notify the
applicant of intent to recommend denial of an application for permit
renewal if the TCEQ finds that violations of the compliance history
constitute a recurring pattern of egregious conduct which demonstrates
a consistent disregard for the regulatory process, including failure to
make a timely and substantial attempt to correct the violations.
Accordingly, we propose to approve the redesignation of subsection (b)
to subsection (c) and the revisions thereto as submitted December 15,
1995, and July 22, 1998.

C. Section 30 TAC 116.314--Review Schedule

1. What is the background of 30 TAC 116.314?
    The currently approved provisions for 30 TAC 116.314 were submitted
to EPA on August 31, 1993. EPA approved the submitted revisions on
March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12285). These revisions became effective on May
9, 2006.
2. What did Texas submit for 30 TAC 116.314?
    Since EPA's last approval for this section, TCEQ has submitted two
SIP revisions to EPA for this section on December 15, 1995, and July
22, 1998. In this action, we are proposing to approve the revisions of
the existing provisions of section 116.314. The revisions submitted to
this section include the following:
     Reorganization of subsection (a) into subsections (a) and
(b) and redesignation of existing subsections (b) and (c) to
subsections (c) and (d).
     Non-substantive revisions to the reorganized subsections
(a) and (b).
     Revisions to subsection (c) as recodified.
     Non-substantive revisions to subsection (d) as recodified.
3. What is EPA's evaluation of the submitted revisions to 30 TAC
116.314?
    The revisions to 30 TAC 116.314 are evaluated and addressed in this
proposed action as described below:
    a. Revisions to subsections (a) and (b).

    The revisions submitted July 22, 1998, revised and reorganized
subsection (a) into subsections (a) and (b). These revisions include
clarifying amendments which streamline and reorganize the requirements
of subsections (a) and (b). The submitted changes are non-substantive.
Accordingly, we propose to approve subsections (a) and (b) as submitted
December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998.
    b. Revisions to subsection (c).
    These provisions are currently approved as subsection (b). As
approved, this subsection provides that in the event that the permit
holder fails to satisfy the requirements for corrective action by the
deadline specified in the report filed by the TCEQ, the applicant shall
be required to show cause in a contested case proceeding why the permit
should not expire. The proceeding will be pursuant to the requirements
of the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act, Article 6252-
13a, V.T.C.S. This subsection was recodified to subsection (c) in the
revisions submitted December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998. The submitted
revisions update the agency name and the statutory citation relating to
contested case hearings and referred to the contested case hearing
provisions in 30 TAC Chapters 1, 55, and 80. The submitted revision to
30 TAC 116.314(c) includes specific cross-references to 30 TAC Chapters
1, 55, and 80, which relate to Purpose of Rules, General Provisions;
Request for Contested Case Hearings; Public Comment; and Contested Case
Hearings. In contrast, the current SIP refers to the Contested Case
Hearing Process without cross references to specific rules relating to
Contested Case Hearings. Although the revision provides references to
the specific rules relating to Contested Case Hearings, the revision
does not make substantive changes to the requirements of the existing
SIP. Texas's use of the Contest Hearing Process in this context in both
the current SIP and the submitted revisions is to inform the permit
applicant of the availability of the contested case hearing but does
not incorporate the specific requirements of Chapters 1, 55, and 80
into the SIP. Further, the submitted revision to 30 TAC 116.314(c)
meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 40 CFR
part 51, does not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. Accordingly, EPA proposes to approve the
revisions to subsection (c) as submitted December 15, 1995, and July
22, 1998.
    d. Revisions to subsection (d).
    These provisions are currently approved as subsection (c) and
relate to the effective date of the existing permit. This subsection
was revised and recodified to subsection (d) in revisions submitted
December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998. These revisions include
clarifying amendments which streamline the requirements relating to
Permit Renewals. The submitted changes are non-substantive.
Accordingly, we propose to approve the revision to subsection (d) as
submitted December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998.

IV. Proposed Action

    Today, EPA proposes to approve the following revisions to the Texas
SIP:
     Revisions to 30 TAC 116.310--Notification of Permit
Holder--submitted December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998.
     Revisions to 30 TAC 116.311--Permit Renewal Application--
submitted December 15, 1995; July 22, 1998; and September 4, 2002; as
follows:
     [cir] Addition of new paragraph (a)(1);
     [cir] Removal of existing paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(4);
     [cir] Revisions to and redesignation of existing paragraphs (a)(5)
and (a)(6) to paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4), respectively;
     [cir] Addition of new paragraph (a)(5);
     [cir] Addition of new subsection (b); and
     [cir] Revisions to and redesignation of existing subsection (b) to
subsection (c)
     Revisions to 30 TAC 116.314--Review Schedule--submitted
December 15, 1995, and July 22, 1998, as follows:
     [cir] The revisions to and reorganization of existing subsection
(a) to subsections (a) and (b); and
     [cir] The revisions to and redesignation of existing subsections
(b) and (c) to subsections (c) and (d).
    Much of this SIP revision re-organizes and makes non-substantive
changes to the Texas renewals program. This revision also revises the
SIP by adding a requirement to ensure that permits that pre-date TCEQ's
rule change to regulate dockside emissions are required at renewal to
ensure all dockside emissions comply with the statute and regulations.
The revision also removed the following three requirements from the
renewals process: (1) Upon renewal the emissions from the facility will
comply with all applicable specifications and requirements in the Texas
Air Control Board (TACB) rules and the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA); (2)
upon renewal the facility will continue to have appropriate means to
measure the emission of significant air contaminants as determined
necessary by the Executive Director; and (3) upon renewal the facility
will continue to use the control technology determined by the Executive
Director to be economically reasonable and technically practicable
considering the age of the facility and the impact of its emissions on
the surrounding area. We believe that the removal of these provisions
is approvable because these requirements are provided elsewhere in the
Texas SIP; and therefore, their deletion will not interfere with
attainment and reasonable further progress of the NAAQS or any other
applicable requirement, as required by section 110(l) of the CAA.
    Final action on these revisions on or before October 31, 2011, will
meet EPA's obligation on the Permit Renewals component of the May 21,
2009, Consent Decree between EPA and the Business Coalition for Clean
Air Appeal Group, Texas Association of Business, and Texas Oil and Gas
Association.
    EPA proposes to take no action on the following revisions to 30 TAC
116.311, December 15, 1995; July 22, 1998; and September 4, 2002:
     Severable revisions to paragraph (a)(2), which relate to
the Qualified Facilities Program. Today, we propose to retain the
currently approved provisions of paragraph (a)(2) in the SIP as adopted
by Texas on April 6, 1994, approved March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12285). We
will address the revisions to paragraph (a)(2) in connection with a
separate SIP submittal that revises the Qualified Facilities Program,
submitted October 5, 2010. EPA disapproved Texas Qualified Facilities
Program on April 14, 2010 (75 FR 19467). Under the CAA, EPA's statutory
deadline to take action on the revised Qualified Facilities Program is
April 5, 2012.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this notice merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 20, 2011.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2011-13872 Filed 6-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P