3523 Oak Creek TX 345,794 374,757 383,419 447,994 3524 Paint Creek TX 385,254 244,576 211,512 267,146 3527 San Angelo TX 755,642 761,300 677,768 739,674 3548 Decker Creek TX 990,106 898,976 1,017,854 1,580,103 3549 Holly Street TX 389,249 485,096 412,982 1,165,529 3576 Ray Olinger TX 753,956 904,652 994,763 1,201,183 March 10, 2003 168 of 178 dwcgi 5548 1049746478 250744000. xls  759 Net Generation 90 00 Record for the Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Notice of Data Availability 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 I J K L M N O P Q R 298,841 162,936 109,630 38,038 81,649 60,511 30,917 323 340,085 338,169 291,375 335,135 292,366 321,979  79 1,454,696 1,466,900 2,062,540 2,190,701 2,366,659 1,919,029 964,272 257 1,208,641 1,212,959 806,906 1,566,834 1,642,086 1,475,380 647,099 206 57,815 640,349 3,300,180 3,553,311 2,052,903 424 5,217,292 5,906,989 6,406,103 6,943,129 6,502,571 6,680,747 7,259,625 113 545,857 498,683 1,115,976 916,301 955,757 1,112,116 1,390,264 75 17,903,312 19,802,156 15,426,841 13,698,065 17,424,368 19,836,917 20,386,294 49 2,561,897 2,196,563 1,213,763 1,128,192 1,721,996 1,155,702 2,191,184 506 1,431,121 1,433,000 1,015,676 998,385 1,144,707 1,322,688 1,344,515 202 4,284,279 4,127,259 4,180,657 3,844,930 4,153,977 4,582,008 4,575,966 456 3,728,969 3,150,022 4,038,240 4,320,894 3,107,923 4,473,810 4,353,342 162 642,005 298,232 351,600 528,081 593,569 840,169 917,915 152 1,647,126 1,700,738 1,480,420 1,682,899 1,951,798 2,107,203 2,063,540 301 5,039,899 4,897,074 4,832,035 4,634,862 4,886,674 4,290,517 5,322,431 340 5,401,046 6,234,873 5,040,287 6,668,782 5,741,162 4,629,044 5,967,053 277 13,440,860 19,623,701 16,193,159 20,130,829 16,536,053 16,549,121 19,240,613 298 6,205,633 6,155,428 6,645,927 6,627,277 6,423,081 7,742,632 7,182,261 341 5,410,824 4,754,391 5,565,167 5,160,554 5,468,754 5,477,585 5,193,401 24 7,178,314 6,599,342 7,752,582 6,382,590 7,114,301 7,238,333 8,659,089 519 9,847,820 10,120,498 9,796,157 9,641,772 10,201,537 10,031,531 9,778,492 313 663,409 829,919 578,677 507,187 611,050 616,193 601,242 237 2,229,122 2,795,161 2,293,540 2,760,920 2,916,477 2,752,456 2,274,273 457 493,148 852,225 704,994 944,783 704,640 1,101,187 892,276 522 2,203,723 2,206,285 1,781,678 2,121,940 2,672,883 2,576,603 2,665,782 349 1,929,572 2,191,876 2,368,586 2,428,168 2,715,474 2,127,684 2,283,187 205 1,196,065 1,722,473 1,556,789 1,475,007 1,967,390 1,611,723 1,919,915 158 2,405,197 2,870,861 2,416,151 2,276,900 2,472,074 2,952,703 2,855,245 138 9,073,707 9,850,465 8,517,795 7,831,765 9,175,454 9,556,603 8,531,948 13 6,989,610 6,870,170 6,720,513 7,156,466 7,089,891 7,214,750 8,201,319 215 112,491 98,709 86,524 71,997 139,298 179,733 191,096 314 8,339,760 5,399,907 5,773,914 5,575,433 7,805,085 8,809,719 9,308,940 451 799,243 573,103 1,019,525 1,118,484 1,341,705 1,330,329 1,868,402 275 18,942,837 19,655,789 18,573,508 18,823,235 20,041,986 20,153,048 18,179,532 263 291,477 520,921 502,686 686,802 881,502 950,854 499,719 167 1,187,676 900,638 1,018,268 851,259 1,060,764 1,346,222 1,296,194 302 2,488 2,722 7,865 10,041 51,100 52,778 56,442 332 2,634,613 2,313,447 2,139,573 1,580,420 1,987,073 2,258,021 2,389,036 284 729,904 649,546 744,352 618,240 1,113,413 854,528 935,687 367 2,110,715 2,369,206 2,196,188 2,225,559 2,536,877 2,430,913 2,293,324 231 2,453,108 2,054,687 2,577,754 3,188,893 3,443,441 2,502,484 3,008,390 143 2,274,091 2,732,924 3,340,879 2,877,236 3,318,543 3,349,964 3,596,656 108 6,843,952 5,781,047 6,456,833 6,298,877 6,181,615 6,209,465 8,544,983 104 703,762 680,087 680,108 769,443 1,002,692 760,548 901,084 169 401 ( 895) ( 985) ( 870) 130,061 120,441 183,042 523 2,501,594 2,305,342 2,378,797 2,008,791 2,358,364 2,510,159 2,374,121 400 5,809,416 5,694,114 5,352,928 5,112,243 6,392,504 5,813,690 5,401,353 18 38,351 ( 1,576) 495,208 549,777 561,827 475,201 397,926 531 3,257,620 2,693,674 2,668,554 2,779,000 3,687,724 3,194,509 3,193,711 32 840 736 2,601 1,519 39,891 22,386 23,719 511 317,890 395,706 385,872 382,576 349,759 380,243 327,109 177 320,126 505,971 313,956 124,231 375,917 454,084 445,706 50 940,621 857,287 708,132 795,452 846,437 764,119 757,421 67 1,465,686 1,357,102 2,052,016 2,071,115 2,253,034 2,039,350 2,226,790 235 798,723 656,202 574,757 489,006 1,106,206 873,701 1,244,904 232 1,291,292 1,442,849 1,166,404 941,703 1,214,922 973,175 1,086,200 407 March 10, 2003 169 of 178 dwcgi 5548 1049746478 250744000. xls  759 Net Generation 90 00 Record for the Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Notice of Data Availability 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF March 10, 2003 170 of 178 dwcgi 5548 1049746478 250744000. xls  759 Net Generation 90 00 Record for the Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Notice of Data Availability 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 A B C E F G H 3601 Sim Gideon TX 975,432 1,084,509 944,594 1,444,049 3611 O W Sommers TX 2,348,486 1,974,722 1,680,246 2,221,022 3612 V H Braunig TX 1,388,409 1,160,157 1,044,678 1,274,553 3627 North Texas TX 18,632 47,094 67,999 106,012 3628 R W Miller TX 1,419,407 1,615,710 1,566,923 1,395,392 3631 Sam Rayburn TX 13,494 16,053 10,816 7,757 3751 Vermont Yankee VT 3,616,268 4,108,314 3,734,594 3,372,148 3776 Glen Lyn VA 1,321,635 844,243 1,322,835 1,533,956 3788 Potomac River VA 2,227,910 2,277,243 1,898,169 2,089,635 3796 Bremo Bluff VA 622,954 1,080,314 1,049,123 1,237,312 3797 Chesterfield VA 7,531,436 8,378,620 8,653,594 9,986,199 3803 Chesapeake VA 2,955,097 3,256,458 2,896,191 3,934,092 3804 Possum Point VA 1,948,403 2,295,799 2,186,941 2,297,392 3806 Surry VA 10,609,965 10,576,150 11,650,269 10,770,898 3809 Yorktown VA 1,753,333 2,429,911 2,763,959 3,740,399 3935 John E Amos WV 14,220,055 10,985,855 10,520,825 11,600,011 3936 Kanawha River WV 1,256,809 281,362 1,099,073 994,852 3938 Phil Sporn WV 4,293,616 3,774,815 2,648,299 3,318,536 3942 Albright WV 1,289,840 1,411,024 988,464 1,000,132 3944 Harrison WV 13,111,818 12,503,653 12,234,913 10,994,887 3945 Rivesville WV 339,341 356,367 128,322 151,755 3946 Willow Island WV 755,794 767,058 612,977 683,916 3947 Kammer WV 4,714,609 4,888,516 4,620,257 4,831,300 3954 Mt Storm WV 10,482,221 10,909,983 11,085,209 10,491,084 3982 Bay Front WI 177,955 133,767 116,915 162,078 3992 Blount Street WI 215,720 225,677 167,788 104,048 4040 Port Washington WI 214,751 290,336 195,063 184,830 4041 South Oak Creek WI 4,394,838 4,898,748 4,541,708 5,118,533 4042 Valley WI 688,705 755,491 676,786 705,242 4046 Point Beach WI 7,325,410 7,316,973 7,269,580 7,648,774 4048 Blackhawk WI 7,341 16,432 4,283 4,720 4050 Edgewater WI 4,111,074 4,545,066 4,366,329 4,738,512 4054 Nelson Dewey WI 947,839 876,533 1,001,104 1,111,269 4057 Rock River WI 394,502 447,893 432,129 479,174 4072 Pulliam WI 1,354,485 1,524,511 1,482,389 1,532,576 4078 Weston WI 2,753,371 2,760,571 2,857,342 2,779,788 4125 Manitowoc WI 173,332 237,675 243,239 268,339 4127 Menasha WI 48,902 25,163 12,925 2,685 4140 Alma WI 579,185 586,033 548,570 540,960 4143 Genoa WI 1,415,677 1,543,183 1,604,172 1,199,558 4158 Dave Johnston WY 5,776,274 6,016,141 6,050,195 6,043,644 4195 Powerlane Plant TX 131,198 11,891 31,226 85,129 4270 Waterford 3 LA 8,604,229 7,268,993 7,592,839 9,140,232 4271 John P Madgett WI 1,774,846 1,618,632 1,558,506 1,712,088 4937 Thomas C Ferguson TX 694,009 793,377 1,092,605 1,008,463 4938 Fort Phantom TX 1,645,330 1,732,970 1,555,748 1,764,078 4939 Barney M Davis TX 2,422,042 2,839,812 2,811,295 2,877,953 6000 Donald C Cook MI 11,114,954 15,524,133 6,417,956 16,313,243 6001 Joseph M Farley AL 12,159,298 12,151,206 11,056,588 12,109,795 6004 Pleasants WV 7,109,588 6,775,410 8,165,393 8,016,143 6011 Calvert Cliffs MD 1,251,416 9,036,100 10,663,950 12,300,816 6014 Brunswick NC 8,371,147 8,032,102 3,080,964 3,908,236 6015 Harris NC 6,339,002 5,921,493 5,407,013 7,527,721 6016 Duck Creek IL 2,002,030 2,001,557 2,152,624 2,217,871 6017 Newton IL 4,708,299 4,186,676 3,764,904 5,733,074 6019 W H Zimmer OH 378 8,753,764 10,576,631 9,394,947 March 10, 2003 171 of 178 dwcgi 5548 1049746478 250744000. xls  759 Net Generation 90 00 Record for the Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Notice of Data Availability 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 I J K L M N O P Q R 1,497,385 1,834,723 2,022,717 2,103,229 2,202,628 2,093,775 2,214,828 249 1,400,682 1,141,102 1,409,377 2,285,024 2,809,959 2,742,235 2,564,440 125 968,069 778,725 817,331 1,278,634 2,046,379 1,836,214 1,778,434 95 65,994 46,000 38,699 19,085 63,363 40,360 31,224 187 1,702,652 2,007,284 1,881,234 1,429,256 1,831,338 1,751,610 1,784,594 320 552 9,959 18,580 10,276 20,771 24,886 21,404 119 4,315,544 3,858,509 3,798,790 4,266,866 3,357,696 4,059,107 4,548,065 488 1,706,323 1,500,298 1,554,581 1,493,602 1,906,415 2,009,123 1,777,752 254 2,109,207 1,972,332 1,665,054 1,869,932 2,191,094 2,704,690 2,018,257 432 996,138 1,327,251 1,050,654 1,292,646 1,229,493 1,247,820 1,639,676 471 9,547,265 8,932,022 8,784,080 8,535,650 8,962,421 8,749,612 9,535,230 444 2,706,959 3,196,697 3,412,786 4,223,816 4,126,777 4,245,843 4,475,695 193 2,073,057 2,485,530 1,698,330 2,113,002 2,591,730 2,708,573 2,864,750 330 11,142,888 11,264,289 13,219,240 12,091,744 12,931,239 12,991,029 13,087,875 379 3,249,496 2,529,784 2,532,448 2,504,799 3,778,792 4,166,928 3,560,256 300 13,817,491 11,734,823 15,390,586 16,294,752 15,461,702 17,654,777 15,387,776 29 981,937 1,203,453 1,922,827 2,540,766 2,557,072 2,128,032 2,451,449 291 3,396,509 5,686,147 5,916,199 5,742,311 6,795,743 6,071,142 6,817,288 459 1,135,083 978,783 912,062 849,028 788,326 1,171,201 1,516,252 374 11,841,202 12,401,805 13,534,785 13,247,026 13,935,814 13,653,676 13,542,618 23 256,257 161,914 110,386 130,676 238,816 333,395 518,140 65 758,209 849,049 755,332 889,749 862,330 1,457,226 1,485,800 175 4,498,271 4,709,260 4,532,382 4,640,046 4,001,603 4,145,103 4,301,253 454 10,937,655 11,251,871 11,058,768 10,726,577 12,049,200 10,741,008 11,633,564 375 199,908 205,946 225,719 281,180 322,861 303,964 264,282 398 244,511 316,019 285,076 337,130 407,466 375,758 456,964 37 470,496 799,786 811,538 1,067,607 1,071,341 905,492 1,228,364 473 5,349,018 5,533,866 5,535,941 6,108,723 5,960,195 6,152,103 6,573,867 222 818,419 841,926 916,329 1,217,706 1,141,627 1,014,903 1,063,493 355 7,556,113 7,177,413 6,950,646 1,644,207 5,692,894 7,072,077 7,712,961 358 6,625 14,465 7,583 20,684 22,168 13,203 15,967 139 4,674,063 4,687,525 4,778,091 4,435,251 5,009,033 4,880,883 4,697,294 475 1,156,103 1,098,532 1,081,423 1,189,383 1,079,734 1,070,789 1,068,814 80 588,898 478,001 687,424 687,264 662,871 312,436 105,748 315 1,677,014 1,755,690 1,948,984 2,121,254 2,282,092 2,203,750 2,260,415 415 2,809,510 2,823,803 3,034,549 3,230,543 3,344,204 3,196,521 3,286,567 135 294,056 260,442 219,193 264,807 244,272 257,871 291,889 211 3,130 2,112 685 13,206 8,603 12,992 19,106 57 676,286 333,385 406,576 559,003 691,210 537,044 731,669 27 1,498,560 1,788,596 1,670,758 2,170,438 1,480,810 2,060,855 2,031,011 326 6,183,480 5,956,956 5,958,080 5,984,541 5,928,660 5,233,792 5,667,380 449 57,089 55,852      31 7,931,431 7,756,309 8,928,846 6,720,006 8,601,304 7,418,983 8,459,242 114 1,454,602 1,548,306 1,182,086 1,593,406 1,965,013 2,055,415 2,185,090 218 1,343,016 997,440 1,507,550 1,008,576 1,480,416 1,194,900 1,448,162 318 1,691,051 1,672,789 1,449,477 1,162,237 1,223,318 1,205,203 1,326,599 207 3,004,193 3,255,693 3,121,071 3,518,679 4,073,375 3,551,419 3,455,934 445 9,291,420 13,999,316 16,395,865 10,420,682   4,919,654 140 13,208,246 10,844,142 12,880,723 12,700,404 11,502,571 12,600,784 12,562,059 54 7,485,550 8,149,353 8,236,891 7,870,790 8,253,065 7,815,653 7,477,304 337 11,235,408 12,937,971 12,092,768 13,212,967 13,330,598 13,312,335 6,323,940 183 10,759,296 11,993,637 10,896,270 12,902,437 13,315,718 13,094,527 13,801,532 512 6,057,257 5,966,344 7,067,739 5,900,566 6,711,587 7,244,139 6,877,960 292 2,154,023 2,161,996 2,260,928 1,854,620 2,169,791 2,111,752 2,172,839 380 5,232,107 5,827,031 5,461,877 5,947,960 5,573,869 6,146,302 6,296,144 87 9,011,335 9,330,098 10,291,411 8,369,448 9,338,263 8,458,104 7,708,485 155 March 10, 2003 172 of 178 dwcgi 5548 1049746478 250744000. xls  759 Net Generation 90 00 Record for the Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Notice of Data Availability 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF NAMEPLATE 259722 259722 18594 23800 23800 96135 96135 777908 March 10, 2003 173 of 178 dwcgi 5548 1049746478 250744000. xls  759 Net Generation 90 00 Record for the Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Notice of Data Availability 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 A B C E F G H 6020 Perry OH 6,495,238 8,977,538 7,153,179 3,923,575 6022 Braidwood IL 14,599,090 11,515,633 15,898,912 16,046,469 6023 Byron IL 12,948,425 15,079,911 15,970,120 14,979,936 6025 Collins IL 114,945 614,243 228,685 815,006 6026 LaSalle IL 14,821,165 15,537,477 12,274,374 13,043,622 6034 Belle River MI 8,748,744 8,797,756 7,570,748 6,920,887 6036 Catawba SC 13,307,448 13,938,721 16,305,004 15,742,119 6038 McGuire NC 11,195,170 16,358,830 14,265,836 12,322,970 6040 Beaver Valley PA 10,497,854 10,502,533 11,942,252 9,558,525 6042 Manatee FL 4,076,416 4,749,656 4,459,616 4,739,488 6043 Martin FL 4,432,130 4,222,249 3,503,971 3,288,147 6045 St Lucie FL 9,813,823 13,037,362 11,761,582 9,450,099 6051 Edwin I Hatch GA 10,601,562 9,623,057 10,845,721 9,952,124 6052 Wansley GA 10,485,833 10,156,417 11,374,485 10,694,861 6055 Big Cajun 2 LA 7,899,202 7,844,237 8,880,288 8,868,252 6064 Nearman Creek KS 1,351,622 1,291,038 1,295,485 1,309,788 6065 Iatan MO 4,148,009 4,340,485 4,089,701 3,641,706 6068 Jeffrey EC KS 10,344,279 10,860,449 9,461,466 11,707,838 6077 Gentleman NE 5,496,178 5,685,816 5,488,030 6,879,639 6082 Kintigh NY 5,001,909 5,468,098 5,384,895 5,131,213 6085 R M Schahfer IN 6,389,627 7,123,325 7,098,765 6,783,284 6094 Bruce Mansfield PA 13,075,492 12,642,791 13,359,116 14,886,222 6095 Sooner OK 5,721,165 5,169,301 6,386,495 6,759,133 6096 Nebraska City NE 3,102,987 3,680,577 2,757,983 3,255,484 6098 Big Stone SD 2,227,100 2,440,439 2,346,457 2,406,261 6099 Diablo Canyon CA 16,273,916 15,064,657 16,698,200 16,816,140 6103 Susquehanna PA 14,726,699 15,856,982 13,573,635 13,535,589 6105 Limerick PA 13,032,658 15,279,488 14,718,243 16,213,834 6110 James A FitzPatrick NY 4,601,925 3,376,750  4,746,460 6112 Fort St Vrain CO 6115 Seabrook NH 4,080,691 6,787,851 7,868,653 9,046,805 6118 Hope Creek NJ 8,100,135 7,394,343 7,050,635 8,857,564 6122 Ginna NY 3,440,205 3,476,458 3,475,477 3,491,727 6124 McIntosh GA 940,312 267,503 245,943 366,772 6127 Summer SC 6,113,945 5,351,646 7,505,456 6,112,012 6136 Gibbons Creek TX 3,073,380 2,792,390 2,923,631 2,902,429 6138 Flint Creek AR 2,837,228 2,705,000 2,799,439 2,855,554 6139 Welsh TX 7,433,288 8,166,827 7,874,440 8,056,686 6145 Comanche Peak TX 3,431,843 5,340,746 6,942,045 11,357,395 6146 Martin Lake TX 15,625,444 15,885,741 16,800,376 15,626,801 6147 Monticello TX 12,964,286 11,184,871 11,713,057 11,059,499 6149 Davis Besse OH 4,168,659 5,855,251 7,652,320 6,087,086 6152 Sequoyah TN 14,002,591 16,586,744 15,653,580 3,304,836 6155 Rush Island MO 5,568,312 5,459,442 5,131,640 4,983,003 6156 New Haven Harbor CT 2,525,320 2,174,116 1,988,717 1,776,050 6166 Rockport IN 16,088,792 16,343,040 17,153,266 16,180,609 6168 North Anna VA 13,213,619 13,313,664 11,687,838 11,921,805 6178 Coleto Creek TX 4,178,553 3,920,818 4,027,705 4,717,859 6179 Fayette Power Prj TX 10,056,678 9,205,485 8,942,604 11,241,743 6181 J T Deely TX 5,140,239 5,418,019 4,654,670 5,382,366 6190 Rodemacher LA 4,197,412 4,201,240 4,222,134 4,125,101 6213 Merom IN 4,371,728 4,661,636 4,550,686 5,257,356 6243 Dansby TX 377,569 436,020 499,555 428,176 6251 South Texas TX 12,427,415 14,459,121 17,554,347 1,049,379 6257 Scherer GA 8,800,662 8,479,802 8,442,124 13,124,706 6288 Healy AK 177,843 187,549 170,684 203,557 March 10, 2003 174 of 178 dwcgi 5548 1049746478 250744000. xls  759 Net Generation 90 00 Record for the Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Notice of Data Availability 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 I J K L M N O P Q R 4,560,975 9,110,300 7,462,352 8,151,829 10,334,072 9,061,770 10,085,677 494 14,027,306 16,118,578 15,611,178 16,287,008 17,264,349 18,955,737 18,819,271 352 16,296,064 15,881,001 14,681,099 16,255,644 16,433,749 18,082,620 19,297,240 199 2,828,092 2,707,998 1,775,536 3,064,643 3,931,508 2,236,080 76 13,349,261 14,337,194 8,883,046 ( 97,380) 3,241,987 14,630,465 18,785,839 245 8,432,450 8,978,485 8,668,067 8,862,884 9,286,116 8,668,257 9,327,382 469 17,454,329 16,668,577 15,543,912 17,766,777 17,575,930 17,929,117 17,904,371 458 15,529,454 17,950,214 15,754,173 13,650,071 18,750,906 17,184,838 18,447,389 30 12,528,833 11,366,008 10,463,225 10,155,717 4,484,627 11,860,369 12,092,401 520 4,874,390 3,499,147 3,089,568 3,702,782 5,422,707 4,744,850 5,023,047 42 8,222,146 10,328,426 11,502,652 11,205,225 12,033,377 11,140,319 13,227,285 102 10,948,437 10,508,457 12,138,697 12,275,348 13,649,561 13,910,409 14,409,438 146 10,778,336 11,517,480 12,747,571 12,042,579 12,774,842 13,029,645 12,896,325 368 8,885,591 8,352,175 8,964,084 9,221,288 9,890,606 10,504,572 10,274,281 521 8,885,903 8,595,039 8,695,319 9,769,956 10,206,392 10,784,481 2,667,786 269 1,142,837 1,403,408 1,452,532 1,558,930 1,530,800 1,164,518 1,656,326 28 4,895,138 4,668,026 4,821,735 4,566,194 4,736,149 4,548,452 3,946,409 481 10,931,199 11,130,379 12,924,632 12,916,019 12,711,810 12,657,583 14,401,955 208 6,789,708 8,030,683 7,420,899 8,819,590 8,600,509 8,027,302 7,791,230 259 5,108,595 4,573,081 4,456,279 4,479,289 4,919,605 1,969,014 344 6,379,965 7,540,302 7,735,215 8,645,032 9,327,294 9,973,795 9,763,527 485 12,465,640 12,151,099 14,582,165 13,983,452 14,731,684 13,227,256 16,404,565 262 5,413,210 7,208,426 6,399,324 7,195,083 6,210,811 6,696,070 7,258,912 381 2,637,435 3,418,674 3,193,838 2,759,874 3,983,987 4,035,708 4,436,145 150 2,573,168 2,506,148 1,898,563 3,167,816 2,910,377 3,541,831 3,507,173 44 15,264,969 16,268,987 16,709,721 17,070,807 17,105,398 16,715,623 17,008,538 189 15,310,180 15,621,302 16,880,065 16,809,562 16,405,850 16,609,175 8,162,308 383 16,440,036 16,548,897 17,142,725 17,634,011 16,740,055 18,298,496 18,928,824 6 4,972,050 4,828,720 5,290,380 6,624,580 4,930,535 6,567,395 5,257,056 416 78,988 130,258 561,270 1,619,175 2,733,681 518 6,203,747 8,379,376 9,844,744 7,979,448 8,387,023 8,676,237 7,921,880 294 7,125,640 7,063,919 6,757,265 6,400,982 8,719,866 7,694,100 3,913,768 156 3,367,588 3,633,282 2,874,568 3,891,217 4,112,438 3,548,120 3,809,117 297 328,820 914,823 798,175 984,373 1,580,801 1,327,394 1,304,634 365 4,462,123 7,550,597 7,140,178 7,253,084 8,172,571 7,363,052 6,359,958 71 3,000,334 2,712,041 2,823,175 3,003,474 2,520,236 3,091,489 3,202,238 278 2,287,290 2,957,573 3,030,303 3,634,788 3,690,707 3,706,431 3,816,686 164 7,600,313 7,441,328 9,181,011 9,884,240 10,025,529 10,379,650 10,819,312 144 14,603,250 16,967,148 15,103,600 17,536,122 17,851,259 17,346,530 18,456,868 447 16,492,472 15,443,100 16,299,814 15,936,206 16,130,533 16,770,905 16,523,889 118 7,237,976 9,577,486 12,439,036 13,219,646 12,851,817 13,185,063 12,370,262 305 6,391,272 7,657,750 6,457,038 7,179,001 6,141,660 7,360,240 6,695,701 461 11,932,352 15,708,421 16,971,341 17,047,902 18,705,275 18,965,943 16,774,623 90 5,808,313 6,105,559 6,829,880 6,527,403 7,783,758 7,556,438 7,895,566 96 1,237,355 1,543,216 1,812,294 2,576,916 2,235,586 902,110 5 17,793,158 17,772,249 16,821,534 17,042,052 17,490,873 16,593,963 17,933,848 184 14,290,031 13,875,635 13,073,240 14,996,966 14,306,534 15,311,586 15,236,662 509 4,016,140 3,991,045 4,751,455 3,924,131 4,662,674 4,743,595 4,823,734 308 9,395,731 10,151,572 10,809,498 9,954,065 7,763,948 11,752,331 11,871,988 233 4,200,561 4,249,228 5,404,914 5,478,644 5,205,809 5,998,032 5,534,842 319 4,290,909 3,549,233 3,992,958 4,291,999 4,323,699 4,536,592 4,770,447 85 5,006,402 4,855,806 6,726,202 7,136,035 7,012,345 7,003,383 6,853,549 342 462,534 435,887 421,369 364,255 485,192 422,301 345,522 480 14,142,224 19,184,177 20,662,950 19,821,525 20,833,870 19,413,369 19,098,939 229 19,616,070 19,154,645 15,754,521 15,081,765 17,997,730 21,235,429 21,213,740 390 174,056 189,251 120,424 149,970 158,238 160,256 185,277 129 March 10, 2003 175 of 178 dwcgi 5548 1049746478 250744000. xls  759 Net Generation 90 00 Record for the Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Notice of Data Availability 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF March 10, 2003 176 of 178 dwcgi 5548 1049746478 250744000. xls  759 Net Generation 90 00 Record for the Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Notice of Data Availability 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 A B C E F G H 6705 Warrick IN 675,650 986,695 1,023,637 979,464 7097 J K Spruce TX 370,378 4,093,571 7210 Cope SC 7242 Polk FL 7286 Richard Gorsuch OH 1,340,743 1,457,175 1,285,245 7343 Neal South IA 7652 USDOE SRS ( D Area) SC 7722 Watts Bar Nuclear TN 7740 Unspecified Resource TX 7902 Pirkey TX 3,524,352 3,388,891 3,674,633 4,252,517 8002 Newington NH 1,961,237 1,510,780 1,397,615 1,210,395 8006 Roseton NY 6,350,986 6,430,352 5,472,654 3,159,382 8023 Columbia WI 5,970,322 6,082,948 5,797,714 5,657,208 8024 Kewaunee WI 3,900,838 3,674,974 3,938,080 3,816,914 8036 Cooper NE 5,111,380 4,803,807 6,227,929 3,712,778 8042 Belews Creek NC 10,955,609 13,019,515 12,167,451 13,825,005 8048 Anclote FL 3,408,523 3,285,934 3,700,905 3,472,371 8054 Gerald Andrus MS 1,541,945 1,436,792 799,329 2,365,909 8055 Arkansas Nuclear One AR 11,282,053 12,661,793 11,325,661 13,521,676 8056 Waterford 1 & 2 LA 2,498,809 2,138,011 2,369,221 2,103,377 8063 DeCordova TX 4,236,437 3,867,667 2,646,563 3,908,128 8102 Gen J M Gavin OH 13,454,945 14,364,140 14,499,311 13,913,035 8226 Cheswick PA 3,333,567 2,907,949 3,603,628 3,238,308 8906 Astoria NY 5,489,362 4,065,933 3,256,042 3,875,895 8907 Indian Point 3 NY 5,031,769 7,300,771 4,760,596 1,192,553 10338 Maine Energy Recovery Co ME 10485 Sparrows Point MD 10617 CH Resources Inc Beaver Falls NY 10629 Baltimore Refuse Energy Systems Co LPMD 10743 Morgantown Energy Facility WV 10745 Midland Cogeneration Venture MI 50366 University of Notre Dame Power Plant IN 50880 Saugus Resco MA 50882 Westchester Resco NY 54775 University of Iowa Main Power Plant IA 54785 Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership PA 54914 Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration PartnerNY 54945 South Meadow Station CT March 10, 2003 177 of 178 dwcgi 5548 1049746478 250744000. xls  759 Net Generation 90 00 Record for the Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Notice of Data Availability 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 I J K L M N O P Q R 1,047,809 1,058,933 1,149,705 902,171 755,715 827,795 868,445 353 3,446,978 3,037,808 3,832,793 4,200,653 4,189,266 3,962,714 3,979,311 240 1,963,079 2,325,014 2,867,674 2,819,485 2,788,319 501 1,358,745 1,537,325 1,714,001 425 1,213,722 1,347,449 1,350,391 1,143,369 1,352,827 1,350,720 1,390,814 220  3,862,311 4,331,521 4,363,719 545 145,639 135,709 145,136 442 9,682,268 8,261,282 9,050,235 72 329 4,214,093 4,776,093 4,988,337 4,990,649 4,207,822 4,359,311 4,354,998 361 1,381,348 1,172,362 805,568 1,007,832 1,341,229 1,442,948 467,185 373 2,583,061 1,475,756 984,685 2,069,676 3,657,614 3,902,550 2,923,635 165 5,834,379 7,006,227 7,230,351 7,456,615 7,310,945 6,661,989 7,125,522 434 3,961,531 3,793,368 3,171,084 2,273,472 3,705,379 4,424,665 3,799,934 36 2,227,260 4,127,691 6,338,898 5,455,697 4,869,907 6,510,415 4,735,935 526 13,268,637 12,063,195 13,171,815 16,223,712 16,170,237 14,854,847 12,244,485 394 2,802,123 2,776,200 3,345,573 3,773,509 4,369,792 4,232,246 4,098,420 250 2,566,077 2,390,184 2,381,705 2,213,335 2,631,509 2,469,364 2,425,186 534 13,923,701 11,657,549 13,356,671 14,208,157 13,097,252 12,919,550 11,651,772 538 2,233,817 2,185,076 1,897,343 1,998,121 1,597,219 2,274,107 1,480,577 2 3,737,355 3,882,336 4,038,756 3,988,595 3,677,205 4,153,728 4,092,872 338 12,477,289 14,136,969 16,888,010 15,005,447 16,400,278 14,471,481 16,554,502 363 3,928,002 3,431,356 3,101,155 3,468,482 2,294,360 3,031,366 942,314 346 4,195,422 4,871,002 3,327,130 3,745,842 4,410,057 3,024,818 98  1,471,525 5,872,490 4,337,340 7,657,489 7,289,170 7,540,122 532 124 417 285 364 141 544 498 495 221 45 392 52 55 March 10, 2003 178 of 178 dwcgi 5548 1049746478 250744000. xls  759 Net Generation 90 00


[Federal Register: January 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 21)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5767-5768]
[DOCID:fr31ja08-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket Nos. FAA-2007-0413 and FAA-2007-0414; Directorate Identifiers
2007-NM-341-AD and 2007-NM-340-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440), CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 &
702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional
Jet Series 900) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting typographical errors in two NPRMs that
were published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2008 (73 FR 833,
and 73 FR 830). The errors resulted in incorrect docket numbers. One
NPRM applies to all Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series
100 & 440) airplanes. The other NPRM applies to all Bombardier Model
CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional
Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes.
Both actions proposed to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate
new limitations for fuel tank systems.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rocco Viselli, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 26, 2007, the FAA issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for all Bombardier Model CL-600-
2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. That NPRM, Directorate
Identifier 2007-NM-341-AD, was published in the Federal Register on
January 4, 2008 (73 FR 833).
    On December 21, 2007, the FAA issued an NPRM for all Bombardier
Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2D15
(Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900)
airplanes. That NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-340-AD, was
published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2008 (73 FR 830).
    Both actions proposed to require revising the Airworthiness
Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems.
    As published, those NPRMs specify incorrect docket numbers
throughout the preamble and the regulatory text. The docket number
associated with NPRM Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-341-AD was FAA-
2008-0413, and the docket number associated with NPRM Directorate
Identifier 2007-NM-340-AD was FAA-2008-0414. The docket numbers were
assigned by the Federal Document Management System. We have been
informed that incorrect docket numbers were assigned. The correct
docket number for NPRM Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-341-AD is FAA-
2007-0413. The correct docket number for NPRM Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-340-AD is FAA-2007-0414.
    Any commenter who submitted comments to an original, incorrect
docket number should check Docket No. FAA-2007-0413 or FAA-2007-0414 on
www.regulations.gov to determine whether the comments have been
received and filed in the appropriate docket. If not, or if it is not
possible to determine whether comments have been posted to the correct
docket, the comments should be resubmitted using the correct docket
number.
    No other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been
changed; therefore, the NPRMs are not republished in the Federal
Register.
    The last date for submitting comments to the NPRMs remains February
4, 2008.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of January 4, 2008, on page 833, in the
second column, the headings section of NPRM Docket No. FAA-2008-0413,
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-341-AD, is corrected to read as follows:

``[Docket No. FAA-2007-0413; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-341-AD]''

    In the Federal Register of January 4, 2008, on page 833, in the
third column, the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of NPRM Docket No.
FAA-2008-0413, Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-341-AD, is corrected to
read as follows:

``* * * Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-0413; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-341-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. * * *''

    In the Federal Register of January 4, 2008, on page 830, in the
second column, the headings section of NPRM Docket No. FAA-2008-0414,
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-340-AD, is corrected to read as follows:

``[Docket No. FAA-2007-0414; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-340-AD]''

    In the Federal Register of January 4, 2008, on page 831, in the
first column, the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of NPRM Docket No.
FAA-2008-0414, Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-340-AD, is corrected to
read as follows:

``* * * Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-0414; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-340-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. * * *''

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

    In the Federal Register of January 4, 2008, on page 835, in the
first column, paragraph 2. of PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES of NPRM
Docket No. FAA-2008-0413, Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-341-AD is
corrected to read as follows:
* * * * *
Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Docket No. FAA-2007-0413;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-341-AD.
* * * * *
    In the Federal Register of January 4, 2008, on page 832, in the
second

column, paragraph 2. of PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES of NPRM
Docket No. FAA-2008-0414, Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-340-AD is
corrected to read as follows:
* * * * *
Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Docket No. FAA-2007-0414;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-340-AD.
* * * * *

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 24, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service. 5
 [FR Doc. E8-1695 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 291-297]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28139]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2022-0531; FRL-9976-02-R7]

Air Plan Disapproval; Missouri; Control of Sulfur Dioxide
Emissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to disapprove revisions to the Missouri State Implementation
Plan (SIP)

submitted by Missouri on March 7, 2019. In its submission, Missouri
requested rescinding a regulation addressing sulfur compounds from the
SIP and replacing it with a new regulation that establishes
requirements for units emitting sulfur dioxide (SO2). The
EPA is disapproving the SIP revision because the state has not
demonstrated that the removal of SO2 emission limits for the
Evergy-Hawthorn (Hawthorn, formerly Kansas City Power & Light-Hawthorn)
and Ameren Labadie (Labadie) power plants from the SIP would not
interfere with National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) attainment
and reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable
requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This disapproval action is
being taken under the CAA to maintain the stringency of the SIP and
preserve air quality.

DATES: The final rule is effective on February 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2022-0531. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Vit, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. What is the EPA's analysis of the SIP revisions?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
IV. The EPA's Responses to Comments
V. What action is the EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is disapproving a submission from Missouri requesting to
revise the SIP by removing 10 Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.260
``Restriction of Emission of Sulfur Compounds'' and replacing it with a
new state regulation, 10 CSR 10-6.261 ``Control of Sulfur Dioxide
Emissions'' (effective date March 30, 2019). Missouri submitted its
request on March 7, 2019. 10 CSR 10-6.260 was originally approved into
the SIP at 40 CFR 52.1320(c) in 1998 (63 FR 45727, August 27, 1998) and
has been revised several times.\1\ 10 CSR 10-6.261 has not been
approved into the SIP. Missouri's analysis of the requested SIP
revisions can be found in the technical support document (TSD)
submitted to the EPA on May 4, 2022, which is included in this docket.
The EPA proposed to disapprove these SIP revisions on July 8, 2022 (87
FR 40759). A summary of the EPA's analysis of Missouri's requested SIP
revisions is in section II of this document, and additional detail can
be found in section II of the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 71 FR 12623 (March 13, 2006), 73 FR 35071 (June 20,
2008), and 78 FR 69995 (November 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the EPA's analysis of the SIP revisions?

    In order for the EPA to fully approve a SIP revision, the state
must demonstrate that the SIP revision meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA
may not approve a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. The EPA interprets section 110(l)
such that states have two main options to make this noninterference
demonstration. First, a state could demonstrate that emission
reductions removed from the SIP are substituted with new control
measures that achieve equivalent or greater emission reductions/air
quality benefit. Thus, the SIP revision would not interfere with the
area's ability to continue to attain or maintain the affected NAAQS or
other CAA requirements. The EPA further interprets section 110(l) as
requiring such substitute measures to be quantifiable, permanent,
surplus, and enforceable.\2\ For section 110(l) purposes, ``permanent''
means the state cannot modify or remove the substitute measure without
EPA review and approval. Additionally, when a control measure that was
previously approved into the SIP is relied on as a substitute, the
emission reductions must be ``surplus,'' meaning they cannot otherwise
be relied on for attainment/maintenance or Rate of Progress/Reasonable
Further Progress requirements. Second, another option for the
noninterference demonstration is for a state to develop an air quality
analysis showing that, even without the control measure or with the
control measure in its modified form, the area (as well as interstate
and intrastate areas downwind) can continue to attain and maintain the
affected NAAQS. For this air quality analysis option, the state could
conduct air quality modeling or develop an attainment or maintenance
demonstration based on the EPA's most recent technical guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In addition, if a new substitute control measure is relied
on in a CAA section 110(l) noninterference demonstration, the new
substitute measure should be contemporaneous to the time the
emission reductions from the removed/modified measure cease
occurring. Because the substitute control measures discussed in this
action are existing measures, not new measures, whether or not they
are contemporaneous is not a consideration in this disapproval
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missouri's proposed SIP revisions would remove SO2
emission limits for the Hawthorn and Labadie power plants from the SIP.
The Hawthorn SO2 emission limit is a 30-day rolling average
limit of 0.12 pounds/million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) contained
in Table I of 10 CSR 10-6.260 in the SIP. The Labadie SO2
emission limit is a daily average of 4.8 lb/MMBtu found at 10 CSR 10-
6.260 (3)(B)3.A.(II) in the SIP. As discussed in detail in its TSD,
Missouri contends that there are substitute measures of comparable or
greater stringency to these SO2 emission limits for Hawthorn
and Labadie, and therefore argues that removal of these limits from the
SIP would satisfy CAA section 110(l) requirements without the need for
an air quality analysis showing that removing the measures will not
interfere with NAAQS attainment or other applicable requirements.
    We disagree with Missouri's analysis and rationale for removing the
Hawthorn and Labadie SO2 emission limits from the SIP. The
substitute SO2 emission limit for Hawthorn is an equivalent
SO2 emission limit contained in a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit. Although the Hawthorn PSD permit is
federally enforceable, it is not approved into the SIP and could be
later modified without requiring EPA approval, and therefore the
substitute measure is not considered permanent.
    For Labadie, the substitute SO2 emission limit is a
facility-wide SO2 emission limit of 40,837 pounds per hour
(lb/hr) contained in a Consent Agreement that the EPA approved into the
SIP at 40 CFR 52.1320(d) as part of the maintenance plan for the
Jefferson County, Missouri nonattainment area

when the area was redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS (87 FR 4508, January 28, 2022). 10 CSR 10-6.261
does not include any of the limits contained in the Consent Agreement.
The proposal details our analysis showing that the 4.8 lb/MMBtu limit,
which applies to each of Labadie's four units individually, is more
stringent than the 40,847 lb/hr limit in the Consent Agreement under
certain operating scenarios. As an example, our analysis shows that
Labadie could exceed the 4.8 lb/MMBtu limit but still comply with the
Consent Agreement limit when a single unit is operating at 100% load.
Furthermore, because the SO2 emission limit for Labadie
contained in the already SIP-approved Consent Agreement is being relied
upon for the purpose of maintaining the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
the Jefferson County area, it cannot be considered surplus. In
addition, Missouri has not provided an air quality analysis
demonstrating their proposed SIP revisions related to the Labadie
SO2 emission limits will not interfere with NAAQS attainment
or other applicable requirements.

III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    As explained above, because the EPA's approval of Missouri's
requested SIP revisions would not be consistent with CAA section
110(l), we are disapproving the submission. However, the state
submission met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the
completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The state provided
public notice of the revisions from August 1, 2018, to October 4, 2018,
and held a public hearing on September 27, 2018. The state received and
addressed four comments from three entities, which included the EPA.
The state did not make changes to 10 CSR 10-6.261 as a result of
comments received prior to submitting to the EPA.

IV. The EPA's Responses to Comments

    The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened July 8,
2022, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed
on August 8, 2022. During this period, the EPA received comments from
one commenter, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR),
which are addressed below.
    Comment 1: The commenter states that the EPA's proposed action is
inconsistent with the plain text of CAA section 110(l). The commenter
argues that Missouri's SIP does not rely on either of the limits in
question for demonstrating attainment, maintenance, or RFP for any
NAAQS, and therefore, removal of the limits will not interfere with any
of these SIP requirements. The commenter contends that the EPA's
proposed disapproval injects new language into CAA section 110(l)
requiring states to prove a submitted SIP revision could never
interfere with attainment, RFP, or other applicable requirements. On
the contrary, according to the commenter, the plain text of the CAA
requires the EPA to prove the revision would interfere with applicable
CAA requirements. The commenter concludes that because the EPA made no
attempt to demonstrate the SIP revision would interfere with any of
these requirements, the EPA's basis for disapproval lacks a necessary
finding that interference would occur.
    Response to Comment 1: States have primary responsibility for air
quality within their jurisdictions by submitting SIPs and SIP revisions
that specify the manner in which the NAAQS will be achieved and
maintained. 42 U.S.C. 7407(a); Concerned Citizens of Bridesburg v. EPA,
836 F.2d 777, 779 (3d Cir. 1987) (The ``states have the primary
authority for establishing a specific plan . . . for achieving and
maintaining acceptable levels of air pollutants in the atmosphere.'').
After the EPA promulgates the NAAQs, or a revision thereof, each state
must submit to the EPA a SIP for the ``implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement'' of the standard. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1). The contents of
SIPs and the requirements they must fulfill with respect to each NAAQS
depend upon the designations and classifications of an area. States
must formally adopt SIPs or SIP revisions through state-level notice-
and-comment rulemaking. Id. Sec.  7410(a)(2).
    The EPA's role is to review the SIP or SIP revision. The EPA
``shall'' approve the SIP or SIP revision if it meets the minimum
requirements of the CAA. Id. section 7410(k)(3); Train v. Nat. Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 21 U.S. 60, 79 (1975). The EPA cannot disapprove
state regulations that form a SIP or SIP revision because the EPA
decides that the regulations should be more stringent, as long as the
SIP meets the CAA requirements. See Union Elec Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S.
246, 265 (1976); Duquesne Light Co. v. EPA, 166 F.3d 609, 611, 613 (3d
Cir. 1999).
    CAA section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l), provides in relevant part,
that ``[t]he Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if
the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment.'' The EPA has consistently interpreted CAA section 110(l)
as permitting approval of a SIP revision as long as ``emissions in the
air are not increased,'' thereby preserving ``status quo air quality.''
Ky. Res. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d. 986, 991, 996 (6th Cir. 2006);
see also Indiana v. EPA, 796 F.3d 803, 805 (7th Cir. 2015) (same); Ala.
Env't Council v. EPA, 711 F.3d 1277, 1292-93 (11th Cir. 2013) (same);
Galveston-Houston Ass'n for Smog Prevention v. EPA, 289 F. App'x 745,
754 (5th Cir. 2008) (same). CAA section 110(l) is an
``antibacksliding'' provision that does not impose substantive
obligations, but instead erects a ``high threshold for removing
controls from a SIP.'' S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472
F.3d 882, 900 (D.C. Cir. 2006), decision clarified on denial of reh'g
on other grounds, 489 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (emphasis added); see
also Indiana, 796 F.3d at 806 (describing CAA section 110(l) as an
``antibacksliding'' provision).
    The EPA implements this interpretation of CAA section 110(l) by
approving SIP revisions if they do not allow an increase of net
emissions. In doing so, ``the level of rigor needed for any CAA
[section 110(l)] demonstration will vary depending on the nature and
circumstances of the revision.'' \3\ Where the EPA anticipates that a
SIP revision may increase emissions, it typically requires that a state
either (1) submit an air quality analysis to demonstrate that the
revision would not interfere with any applicable requirement or (2)
substitute equivalent or greater emissions reductions in order to
preserve status quo air quality. See 86 FR 48908, September 1, 2021, at
48910 and 86 FR 60170, November 1, 2021, at 60172; see also Ky. Res.
Council, 467 F. 3d at 995 (denying petition challenging SIP revision
approval under CAA section 110(l) where the revision would not increase
net emissions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology
Determinations for Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 and 2008 8-
Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Final Rule, 86 FR
48908, September 1, 2021, at 48910. Also see Air Plan Approval;
Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology Determinations
for Case-by-Case Sources Under the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, Final Rule, 86 FR 60170, November 1,
2021, at 60172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in the proposal, the substitute SO2
emission limit for Hawthorn is contained in a PSD permit that is not
SIP-approved and therefore is not considered permanent. For Labadie,
the substitute SO2 emission limit in the SIP-approved
Consent Agreement is less stringent in certain operating scenarios

than the limit in 10 CSR 10-6.260 in the SIP and does not result in
surplus emission reductions. Because the substitute limit is less
stringent, Missouri would need to provide an air quality analysis
showing that removing the 4.8 lb/MMBtu limit from the SIP will not
interfere with any CAA requirement including but not limited to NAAQS
attainment, and of most relevance, the current 1-hour SO2
NAAQS, or alternatively provide substitute emissions reductions that
are equivalent or greater to protect air quality.
    Comment 2: The commenter states that CAA section 110(l) requires
the EPA to make a finding that removal of the Hawthorn SO2
limit would result in an emission increase that would interfere with an
applicable CAA requirement. The commenter says the EPA cannot show that
removal of the Hawthorn limit from the rule would result in any
emissions increase and therefore the EPA lacks the basis for
disapproving the SIP due to its concerns about Hawthorn. The commenter
says Hawthorn's limit has not been changed in over 20 years since the
permit was issued, and there is no cause to believe this permit limit
would ever be relaxed. In addition, the commenter notes that Hawthorn's
permit was issued under SIP-approved state new source review (NSR)
rule, 10 CSR 10-6.060 ``Construction Permits Required,'' which
incorporates by reference federal PSD requirements. The commenter
further contends that removing an emission limit from a major source
like Hawthorn in a future permitting action would trigger the PSD
permit review process, in which case the facility would be subject to a
more recent New Source Performance Standard requirement for
SO2, as well as NAAQS impact and Best Available Control
Technology analyses, which would likely result in a SO2
limit that is equal to, if not more stringent than, the limit in the
SIP-approved rule.
    Response to Comment 2: As stated in the proposal, the disapproval
is not based on an expectation that Hawthorn emissions would increase
if the limit were removed from the SIP. Rather, our rationale is based
on Missouri's reliance on a substitute measure that is not SIP-
approved.\4\ The equivalent SO2 emission limit in Hawthorn's
federally enforceable PSD permit is not considered permanent because it
is not contained in the Missouri SIP and could be modified without
requiring EPA approval. While the EPA can provide comments on PSD
permits during the state's public notice period, Missouri can issue or
modify PSD permits that are not in the SIP without EPA approval
pursuant to SIP-approved NSR rule, 10 CSR 10-6.060, and the State's
federally approved permitting program. Because substitute emission
reduction measures must be not only enforceable but also permanent to
be used for 110(l) analysis purposes, it would be inconsistent with CAA
section 110(l) to approve the removal of a SIP-approved limit based on
a permit that is not SIP-approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) (``Each such [SIP] shall . . .
contain adequate provisions . . .''). See also CAA section
110(a)(2)(A); Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169,
1175-1176 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that measures relied on by a
state to meet CAA requirements must be included in the SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: The commenter states that 10 CSR 10-6.260 in the SIP
includes a footnote to Table I in 10 CSR 10-6.260 stating the emission
limit comes from the PSD permit and is implemented in accordance with
the terms of the permit. The commenter says it is unclear why EPA
allowed for all the enforceable requirements for implementation of the
limit in 10 CSR 10-6.260 to be dictated by the permit itself, but now
indicates it is not acceptable to rely on the permit conditions due to
their lack of permanence.
    Response to Comment 3: In order for a source-specific permit limit
to be practically enforceable, the permit must specify (1) a
technically accurate limitation and the portions of the source subject
to the limitation; (2) the time period for the limitation (e.g.,
hourly, daily, monthly, annually); and (3) the method to determine
compliance including appropriate monitoring, record keeping and
reporting.\5\ Through regulations and policies, the EPA has long
interpreted the CAA to require monitoring, record keeping, reporting
and other compliance assurance measures in SIPs. As stated previously,
the substitute SO2 emission limit for Hawthorn must be SIP-
approved to ensure that it cannot be removed or modified without EPA
approval. It follows that the associated monitoring, record keeping,
and reporting provisions that make the limit practically enforceable
must also be approved into the SIP, otherwise these enforceability
provisions could be modified without EPA approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EPA guidelines on ``practical enforceability''
considerations are contained in a January 25, 1995 memorandum from
the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
entitled ``Guidance on Enforceability Requirements for Limiting
Potential to Emit through SIP and Sec.  112 Rules and General
Permits.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After carefully reviewing our previous actions pertaining to 10 CSR
10-6.260, we have discovered that monitoring, record keeping, and
reporting provisions associated with the Hawthorn SO2 limit
that should have been included in the SIP were not in fact included.
However, this previous omission from the State's prior submissions does
not justify or allow for the subsequent removal of the numerical limit
and averaging period from the approved SIP. In light of the continued
omission from the SIP of monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping
provisions associated with Hawthorn's approved SO2 emission
limit, the EPA is not taking final action on its proposed determination
that there is no deficiency in the SIP.
    Comment 4: The commenter notes that in January of 2022, the EPA
redesignated the Jackson County, Missouri SO2 nonattainment
area to attainment (87 FR 4812, January 31, 2022). The commenter
explains that a separate 24-hour average SO2 limit for
Hawthorn from the same PSD permit was relied on in the modeling
demonstration for the Jackson County maintenance plan and
redesignation. Hawthorn's 24-hour SO2 limit is also not SIP-
approved. The commenter questions why the EPA allowed the use of a non-
SIP approved permit limit in a maintenance demonstration (which
directly concerns attainment), but now indicates it is not acceptable
to remove a limit from the SIP when the equivalent limit exists in the
permit.
    Response to Comment 4: To redesignate a nonattainment area to
attainment, CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) specifies that the air
quality improvement must be due to permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions. The Jackson County redesignation to attainment for the 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS was based on Missouri's demonstration that
the air quality improvement resulted from permanent and enforceable
emission reductions at the Vicinity Energy-Kansas City (Vicinity) steam
plant.\6\ The State's demonstration for the Jackson County
redesignation did not rely on SO2 emission reductions at the
Hawthorn power plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 87 FR 4812, January 31, 2022. Vicinity switched from
burning coal to natural gas in its boilers. The fuel switch was made
permanent and enforceable via a Consent Agreement approved into the
SIP at 40 CFR 52.1320(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hawthorn is located approximately two kilometers outside of the
Jackson County nonattainment area boundary. In Missouri's modeling
demonstration supporting the redesignation, the state included Hawthorn
as a ``nearby source'' in accordance with Table 8-1 in

40 CFR part 51, appendix W, which allows the source to be modeled at
its maximum allowable emission limit or federally enforceable permit
limit with adjustments based on actual operations. It was acceptable
for Missouri to model Hawthorn as a nearby source using a federally
enforceable PSD limit that was not SIP-approved rather than as a
``stationary point source subject to SIP emissions limit evaluation for
compliance with ambient standards'' under Appendix W Table 8-1 because
(1) Hawthorn was not relied on for the state's maintenance
demonstration that air quality improvements resulted from permanent and
enforceable SO2 emission reductions, and (2) Hawthorn is
located outside of the former nonattainment area boundary.
    Comment 5: The commenter provided a summary of Labadie's total
monthly SO2 emissions allowed under the unit-specific 4.8
lb/MMBtu limit contained in 10 CSR 10-6.260 and the facility-wide
Consent Agreement limit of 40,837 lb/hr. Based on this summary, the
commenter concludes that the Consent Agreement limit reduces Labadie's
allowable facility-wide SO2 emissions by 66 percent and is
therefore more stringent, making the older 4.8 lb/MMBtu limit obsolete.
The commenter further states that an air quality modeling analysis
comparing the stringencies of the two limits would show the Consent
Agreement limit is nearly three times more protective than the 4.8 lb/
MMBtu limit.
    Response to Comment 5: As demonstrated in Missouri's modeling
analysis supporting the redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment
for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, the Consent Agreement limit of
40,837 lb/hr was set at a level that addresses Labadie's contributions
to the Jefferson County SO2 nonattainment area.\7\ However,
that analysis does not demonstrate that the Consent Agreement limit is
protective of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in all locations,
including locations outside the Jefferson County area, nor does it
demonstrate that removal of the 4.8 lb/MMBtu limit would not interfere
with any applicable requirements consistent with an air quality
analysis under CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Labadie is located approximately 36 kilometers outside of
the Jefferson County nonattainment area boundary to the northwest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described previously, where the EPA anticipates that a SIP
revision may allow an increase in emissions, the EPA typically requires
that a state either substitute equivalent or greater emissions
reductions or submit an air quality analysis demonstrating that the
revision would not interfere with any applicable requirement. In this
case, to compare the stringencies of the two different SO2
emission limits (the Consent Agreement limit of 40,837 lb/hr versus 4.8
lb/MMBtu), the limits must first be converted so that they are in
equivalent units of measure (i.e., both limits expressed as either lb/
MMBtu or lb/hr) and apply to the same number of emission units (i.e.,
both limits expressed on either a facility-wide basis or an individual
unit basis). This analysis requires making assumptions about the number
of units that are operating, as well as the heat input rate and load of
the individual units in operation. As discussed in the proposal, there
are potential operating scenarios in which individual units at Labadie
could exceed an SO2 rate of 4.8 lb/MMBtu while total
facility-wide SO2 emissions remain in compliance with the
40,837 lb/hr limit. Examples include a single unit operating at 100%
load or two units operating at approximately 50% load, among other
scenarios. Because the SO2 limit of 4.8 lb/MMBtu can be
shown to be exceeded in some situations, we conclude that the limit in
the Consent Agreement is not more stringent. For this reason, an air
quality analysis demonstrating that removal of the 4.8 lb/MMBtu limit
from the SIP would be protective of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is
needed.
    An air quality analysis for the requested SIP revisions may need to
take into account multiple operating scenarios because dispersion of
SO2 emissions from one or two units at Labadie may be
different from four units with the same mass of SO2
emissions.\8\ As an example, one scenario could be based on a
concentrated SO2 plume from a single stack consisting of
mass emissions totaling 40,847 lb/hr from one of Labadie's units
operating at an SO2 rate at or above 4.8 lb/MMBtu. Other
potential operating scenarios may also need to be included in the air
quality analysis (e.g., two of Labadie's units operating at 50% load
emitting from two separate stacks or from the dual flue stack) in order
to demonstrate that the removal of the 4.8 lb/MMBtu limit is protective
of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in all areas. An air quality
modeling demonstration comparing the stringencies of the two limits, as
suggested in the comment, is not sufficient for CAA section 110(l)
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Labadie units 1 and 2 are each routed to separate,
individual stacks. Labadie units 3 and 4 are vented through two
flues contained in a single stack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 6: The commenter notes that the EPA's basis for stating the
Consent Agreement limit is not always more stringent than the older 4.8
lb/MMBtu limit is based on a scenario where only one unit at the
facility is operating during a day. The commenter states that while
this is technically true, if the facility were to take advantage of the
facility-wide Consent Agreement limit in this way, it would prevent the
operation of any of the other three units that day. The commenter
states that conversely, the 4.8 lb/MMBtu limit does not prevent
additional units from operating if one of the units hits the maximum
allowable rate. The commenter concludes that even under the EPA's
hypothetical scenario, the Consent Agreement limit is still more
stringent and more protective than the 4.8 lb/MMBtu limit.
    Response to Comment 6: As discussed above, our analysis based on
multiple potential operating scenarios shows that the 4.8 lb/MMBtu
limit is more stringent than the Consent Agreement limit in some cases.
Consistent with CAA section 110(l), in order to support removal of the
4.8 lb/MMBtu limit from the SIP, Missouri would need to provide an air
quality analysis showing that the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS would be
protected in all areas under these operating scenarios if the 4.8 lb/
MMBtu limit were removed from the SIP. Alternatively, Missouri could
demonstrate that the various operating scenarios assumed for Labadie
are prohibited by permanent and enforceable measures to be included in
the SIP.
    Comment 7: The commenter analyzed daily and hourly emissions data
from the EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) database and concluded
there was not a single day in the last five years when only one unit at
Labadie was operating. Based on this analysis, the commenter states
there were only 55 days over this period where the facility operated
two units, which shows how unlikely EPA's assumed scenario is in
reality.
    Response to Comment 7: The commenter's analysis of operations at
Labadie focuses on recent data from CAMD, which does not necessarily
reflect how the Labadie plant will be operated in the future. For
instance, Ameren Missouri's Integrated Resource Plan, filed in 2020 and
updated in 2021 and 2022, states that two of the four units currently
operating at Labadie are anticipated to be retired by the end of

2036.\9\ It is plausible that with only two remaining coal units in
operation at Labadie, situations where only a single unit is operating
on a given day may occur more frequently in the future. Without an air
quality analysis showing that the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS would be
protected in all areas in this and potentially other operating
scenarios as discussed above, we cannot approve removal of the 4.8 lb/
MMBtu limit from the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See https://www.ameren.com/missouri/company/environment-and-sustainability/integrated-resource-plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 8: The commenter provided an analysis of the highest daily
average SO2 emission rate in lb/MMBtu for each of the
Labadie boilers during the past five years. Based on this analysis, the
commenter concluded that the highest daily average SO2
emission rate of any of the four boilers during the past five years is
0.78 lb/MMBtu, which is 16 percent of the 4.8 lb/MMBtu limit. The
commenter contends that this shows the 4.8 lb/MMBtu limit is not a
controlling limit, as there is not a single day in the past five years
where the facility did not operate with at least an 80 percent
compliance margin with this limit.
    Response to Comment 8: We agree that Labadie's boilers have
operated at actual SO2 lb/MMBtu rates well below the 4.8 lb/
MMBtu limit in recent years based on CAMD data. However, there is no
permanent and enforceable limit or requirement in place to prevent a
switch to a higher sulfur coal at Labadie, which potentially allows
individual units to emit an SO2 rate as high as 4.8 lb/MMBtu
or more.
    Comment 9: The commenter noted that because 10 CSR 10-6.261 is a
state enforceable rule, while 10 CSR 10-6.260 remains federally
enforceable until it is removed from the SIP, operating permits issued
by the state must include conditions from both of these regulations for
facilities meeting the applicability criteria. For this reason,
according to the commenter, the state's air permitting staff must spend
time explaining why both rules must be evaluated for permitting
purposes, a common question that arises with nearly every permit
application. The commenter concludes that this disapproval action
extends the time required for issuing operating permits and takes away
time that permit authors could be spending on priority initiatives such
as eliminating the permit backlog.
    Response to Comment 9: As discussed in greater detail above, the
EPA is disapproving Missouri's SIP submission because the state has not
demonstrated that the removal of SO2 emission limits for the
Hawthorn and Labadie power plants from the SIP would not interfere with
NAAQS attainment, RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA
as required under CAA section 110(l). This comment is beyond the scope
of this disapproval action.

V. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is disapproving a SIP submission from Missouri that would
rescind 10 CSR 10-6.260 ``Restriction of Emission of Sulfur Compounds''
and replace it with 10 CSR 10-6.261 ``Control of Sulfur Dioxide
Emissions.'' By disapproving these revisions, 10 CSR 10-6.260 will be
retained in the SIP, along with the already SIP-approved Consent
Agreement. The EPA has determined that Missouri's proposed SIP
revisions do not meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act because the
revisions would remove permanent and enforceable emission limits,
thereby relaxing the stringency of the SIP. Furthermore, Missouri has
not shown that the proposed SIP revision related to removal of the
Labadie 4.8 lb/MMBtu limit would not have an adverse impact on air
quality.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of part D, title I of the CAA (CAA
sections 171-193) or is required in response to a finding of
substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call)
starts a sanctions clock. The Missouri SIP submission being disapproved
was not submitted to meet either of these requirements. Therefore, this
disapproval will not trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179.
In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) within two years after either finding
that a State has failed to make a required submission or disapproving a
SIP submission in whole or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision
correcting the deficiencies within that two-year period. With respect
to the disapproval of Missouri's SIP submission, in our proposed action
we concluded that any FIP obligation resulting from this disapproval
would be satisfied by finalization of our proposed determination that
there is no deficiency in the SIP to correct.\10\ We are not taking
final action on making that determination, however. Specifically,
although the previously approved SO2 emission limits
discussed in this rulemaking will remain in the SIP and remain
federally enforceable, as discussed above we have discovered that
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with
the SO2 limit for Hawthorn were not previously approved into
the SIP. This omission precludes our finalizing the proposed
determination that there is no deficiency in the SIP to correct, and
consequently does not eliminate the EPA's duty to promulgate a FIP
within two years after disapproving the current SIP submission unless
the EPA approves a SIP revision correcting the deficiencies within that
two-year period. If the EPA were to take such an action, it would be
done through a separate rulemaking process, including a notice of
proposed rulemaking with the opportunity for the public to review and
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The EPA's obligation under CAA section 110(c)(1) to issue a
FIP following a SIP disapproval is not limited to ``required'' plan
submissions. However, the EPA can avoid promulgating a FIP if the
Agency finds that there is no ``deficiency'' in the SIP for a FIP to
correct. Association of Irritated Residents vs. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because it does not contain any information collection
activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action merely disapproves a SIP submission as not meeting the CAA.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and

responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land, any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of
Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it merely disapproves a SIP submission as
not meeting the CAA.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations. This action merely disapproves a SIP
submission as not meeting the CAA.

K. Congressional Review Act

    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

L. CAA Section 307(b)(1)

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 6, 2023. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: December 20, 2022.
Meghan A. McCollister,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2022-28139 Filed 1-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 36 (Friday, February 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11570-11572]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03590]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC17-2-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-549D & FERC-
733); Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is submitting its information collection [FERC-549D (Quarterly
Transportation and Storage Report for Interstate Gas and Hinshaw
Pipelines) and FERC-733 (Demand Response/Time-Based Rate Programs and
Advanced Metering)] to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review of the information collection requirements. Any interested
person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of
those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission
previously issued a Notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 91160, 12/16/
2016) requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments
on neither the FERC-549D nor the FERC-733 and is making this notation
in its submittal to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by March 27,
2017.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.
1902-0253 (FERC-549D) and 1902-0271 (FERC-733) should be sent via email
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC17-2-000, by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection
requirements for all collections described below with no changes to the
current reporting requirements. Please note that each collection is
distinct from the next.
    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the
burden and cost of the collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections

of information on those who are to respond, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.

FERC-549D, [Quarterly Transportation and Storage Report for Interstate
Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines]

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0253.
    Abstract: The reporting requirements under FERC-549D are required
to carry out the Commission's policies in accordance with the general
authority in Sections 1(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) \1\ and
Sections 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).\2\ This
collection promotes transparency by collecting and making available
intrastate and Hinshaw pipeline transactional information. The
Commission collects the data upon a standardized form with all
requirements outlined in 18 CFR 284.126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 717-817-w.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 3301-3432.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FERC Form 549D collects the following information:
     Full legal name and identification number of the shipper
receiving service;
     Type of service performed for each transaction;
     The rate charged under each transaction;
     The primary receipt and delivery points for the
transaction, specifying the rate schedule/name of service and docket
were approved;
     The quantity of natural gas the shipper is entitled to
transport, store, and deliver for each transaction;
     The term of the transaction, specifying the beginning and
ending month and year of current agreement;
     Total volumes transported, stored, injected or withdrawn
for the shipper; and
     Annual revenues received for each shipper, excluding
revenues from storage services.
    Filers submit the Form-549D on a quarterly basis.
    Access to the FERC-549D Information Collection Materials: A copy of
the current form and related materials can be found at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/forms.asp#549d, but will not be included in
the Federal Register. The Commission will not publish these materials
in the Federal Register.
    Type of Respondent: Intrastate natural gas and Hinshaw pipelines.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:

                                                                        FERC-549D
                             [Quarterly Transportation and Storage Report for Interstate Natural Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average burden   Total annual
                                                             Number of     Annual number   Total number    hours & cost   burden hours &     Cost per
                                                            respondents    of responses    of responses    per response    total annual     respondent
                                                                          per respondent                        \3\            cost             ($)
                                                                     (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =             (4)     (3) * (4) =       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)                             (5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PDF filings.............................................              76               4             304            12.5           3,800          $4,191
                                                                                $1,048        $318,516  ..............
XML filings.............................................              33               4             132              10           1,320          $3,352
                                                          ..............  ..............  ..............            $832        $110,642
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............             436  ..............           5,120  ..............
                                                                                $429,158
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FERC-733, [Demand Response/Time-Based Rate Programs and Advanced
Metering]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The hourly wage figure is $83.82/hour. This cost represents
the average cost of four career fields: Legal ($129.12/hour),
Accountants ($53.86/hour), Management Analyst ($60.53/hour), and
Computer and Information ($91.76/hour); this cost also includes
benefit costs within the hourly estimates. These figures were
compiled using Bureau of Labor Statistics data that were specific to
each occupational category: http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm.

    Note: The Commission previously issued a 60-day Notice in the
Federal Register (81 FR 91160, 12/16/2016) requesting public
comments. In that 60-day notice, the burden estimate for FERC-733
information collection was incorrect. The burden estimate below
provides the corrected numbers. Footnotes 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10
illustrate the previous figures (presented in the 60-day notice) and
the corrected figures. FERC did not receive any comments on this or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
any other issue concerning the FERC-733 information collection.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0271.
    Abstract: Section 1252(e)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,\4\
requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission)
to prepare and publish an annual report, by appropriate region, that
assesses demand response resources, including those available from all
consumer classes. Specifically, EPAct 2005 Section 1252(e)(3) requires
that the Commission identify and review:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Public Law 109-58, 1252(e)(3), 119 Stat. 594, 966 (2005)
(EPAct 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) saturation and penetration rate of advanced meters and
communications technologies, devices and systems;
    (B) existing demand response programs and time-based rate programs;
    (C) the annual resource contribution of demand resources;
    (D) the potential for demand response as a quantifiable, reliable
resource for regional planning purposes;
    (E) steps taken to ensure that, in regional transmission planning
and operations, demand resources are provided equitable treatment as a
quantifiable, reliable resource relative to the resource obligations of
any load-serving entity, transmission provider, or transmitting party;
and
    (F) regulatory barriers to improved customer participation in
demand response, peak reduction and critical period pricing programs.
    Type of Respondent: Persons interested in the above topics.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Annual number of                       Average burden      Total annual
                  Number of respondents                      responses per     Total number of    hours & cost per    burden hours &        Cost per
                                                               respondent         responses         response \5\    total annual cost    respondent ($)
(1)                                                                      (2)    (1) * (2) = (3)                (4)    (3) * (4) = (5)          (5) / (1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,400....................................................                  1              3,400            \6\ 3.5         \8\ 11,900       \10\ $260.75
                                                                                \7\ $260.75       \9\ $886,550
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: February 17, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
2016 FERC average salary plus benefits of $154,647/year (or $74.50/
hour). Commission staff finds that the work done for this
information collection is typically done by wage categories similar
to those at FERC.
    \6\ This figure was incorrectly presented as 260.75 hours in the
60-day notice pertaining to the FERC-733 renewal. It is corrected to
3.5 hours in this notice.
    \7\ This figure was incorrectly presented as $19,426 in the 60-
day notice pertaining to the FERC-733 renewal. It is corrected to
$260.75 in this notice.
    \8\ This figure was incorrectly presented as 886,550 hours in
the 60-day notice pertaining to the FERC-733 renewal. It is
corrected to 11,900 hours in this notice.
    \9\ This figure was incorrectly presented as $66,047,975 in the
60-day notice pertaining to the FERC-733 renewal. It is corrected to
$886,550 in this notice.
    \10\ This figure was incorrectly presented as $19,436 in the 60-
day notice pertaining to the FERC-733 renewal. It is corrected to
$260.75 in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-03590 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:This document is a continuation of the previous document OAR-2002-0088-0417. This document concerns pages 2158 through 2341 of BMI France response to an information collection request.