visibility during the 20% worst days. The majority of the decline in
total annual SO2 emissions from the Luminant sources is
driven by seasonal operation of Monticello units 1 and 2.\198\
Furthermore, as we discuss in more detail elsewhere, we do not
anticipate any significant reductions at these sources in the near
future, and information provided by Texas indicates it agrees.\199\ We
also note, as discussed above, NOX emissions for many of
these units were updated in our modeling to better reflect the recent
actual emissions. Therefore, we disagree that the observed trend in
SO2 emissions at Luminant's units in recent years
demonstrates that there is no basis for EPA's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ See Luminant CAMD emissions.xlsx in the docket for this
action.
    \199\ See TCEQ comment letter to EPA on draft modeling platform
dated June 24, 2014 available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: To the extent Texas and industry are arguing that the
current visibility conditions meet the reasonable progress goals EPA is
proposing, that is largely a result of the fact that EPA has not
updated the majority of the 2018 projections that CENRAP and Texas
relied on. Goals based on the controls EPA has proposed and also on
more updated projections would likely be lower than the reasonable
progress goals EPA is proposing. The recent improvement is due to a
variety of factors, which EPA discusses in the proposed rule, 79 FR
74843, most of which are not enforceable limitations or are beyond the
state's control and, therefore, may be temporary. The argument made by
Texas and industry does not show that the proposed controls themselves
are unnecessary or unreasonable. Further, the argument by Texas and
industry reflects a misunderstanding of how reasonable progress goals
are set. Reasonable progress goals are set to reflect controls that are
reasonable; controls are not required in order to meet pre-set
reasonable progress goals. Congress

defined reasonable progress as the amount of progress that could be
made after consideration of four factors. 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1). After
the four-factor analysis defines reasonable progress, each haze SIP
must include the enforceable measures necessary to make reasonable
progress. Id. section 7491(b)(2). The reasonable progress goal for 2018
is calculated as the baseline visibility condition minus the amount of
reasonable progress (which is established based on consideration of the
four statutory factors).
    Response: We generally agree with the commenter and agree that
these comments provide support of our FIP.
    Comment: EPA fails to even consider the four statutory factors with
respect to non-BART sources in Oklahoma that are impacting visibility
at the Wichita Mountains and to determine whether all existing and
reasonable controls on Oklahoma sources, including BART, are sufficient
to attain a reasonable rate of progress for the Wichita Mountains for
the first planning period. EPA does not explain why it failed to
conduct the modeling and perform the statutory analysis that it would
expect a state to conduct in determining a reasonable progress goal.
    EPA failed to consider the visibility benefit from imposing the
same levels of control on these sources as it is proposing to impose on
the targeted Texas sources. EPA is applying a different standard to
Texas sources than it is to sources in other states. EPA's ``reset''
reasonable progress goal is unlawful; and EPA has no basis for
disapproving Oklahoma's reasonable progress goal, no basis for issuing
a FIP with a substitute reasonable progress goal for the Wichita
Mountains, no basis for disapproving Texas' long-term strategy, and no
basis for imposing additional SO2 limits on Texas sources.
    Response: We disapproved Texas' long-term strategy because it was
technically flawed and we were under a statutory obligation to evaluate
Texas sources and propose a FIP for those facilities where we
determined that reasonable emission controls could be installed for
improved visibility benefit.
    Oklahoma's lack of adequate information from Texas prevented it
from properly developing its reasonable progress goals for the Wichita
Mountains, and we disagree that we are applying a different standard to
Texas sources than we are sources in other states. We note that we were
not required to do a four-factor analysis for Oklahoma's non-BART
sources because, as discussed in our proposal \200\ and OK TSD, we
reviewed Oklahoma's four-factor analysis for Oklahoma's non-BART
sources, and agree with Oklahoma that it has demonstrated that it is
not reasonable to require additional emission reductions for those
sources for this planning period. We agree with Oklahoma's reasonable
progress analysis for sources within Oklahoma and its assessment that
the Wichita Mountains would not meet the uniform rate of progress
without significant reductions from Texas sources. Because the
reasonable progress goals Oklahoma established for the Wichita
Mountains does not include appropriate consideration of reductions at
Texas sources, we were required by the Regional Haze Rule to disapprove
Oklahoma's reasonable progress goals. We recalculate new reasonable
progress goals for 2018 for the Wichita Mountains based on the results
of our technical analysis that additional controls at Texas sources
were reasonable to meet the reasonable progress/long-term strategy
requirement for reasonable progress and accounting for the visibility
benefit of the required controls anticipated to be in place by 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ 79 FR 74871.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R. International Emissions

    Comment: EPA acknowledged it failed to account for international
sources of emissions, which Texas cannot control. This renders its
proposal ineffective in improving visibility to meet the uniform rate
of progress and 2064 goal. EPA's action would require over-control of
Texas sources to compensate for international emissions. If the TCEQ
cannot meet the glide path without ``large emission reductions from
international sources,'' it is unreasonable for EPA to require
additional controls from Texas without making any effort to seek
emissions reductions from international sources.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that international emissions
significantly impact visibility conditions at Big Bend and the
Guadalupe Mountains. However, as we discussed in the preamble to the
Regional Haze Rule, ``the States should not consider the presence of
emissions from foreign sources as a reason not to strive to ensure
reasonable progress in reducing any visibility impairment caused by
sources located within their jurisdiction.'' While the goal of the
regional haze program is to restore natural visibility conditions at
Class I areas by 2064, the rule requires only that reasonable progress
be made towards the goal during each planning period, and in cases
where it is not reasonable to meet the rate of progress needed to
attain the goal in 2064, that the state demonstrate that it is not
reasonable and that the selected rate of progress is reasonable for
that planning period. We recognize that it may not be possible to
attain the goal by 2064, or at all, because of impacts from new or
persistent international emissions sources or impacts from sources
where reasonable controls are not available. However, states are still
required to demonstrate that they are establishing a reasonable rate of
progress that includes implementation of reasonable measures within the
state to address visibility impairment in an effort to make progress
towards the natural visibility goal during each planning period.
Nothing in the Regional Haze Rule or our FIP is calculated to hold
Texas accountable for emissions from Mexico. We agree those
international emissions should be addressed to achieve natural
visibility, but our agreement on this point does not in any way relieve
Texas of the obligation to make reasonable progress, including through
controls on its own sources, and particularly through the emissions
addressed with controls through our FIP.
    Comment: EPA is not doing enough to seek emission reductions from
international sources. Commenters noted that we committed to address
international emissions in our 1999 Regional Haze Rule when we stated,
``EPA will work with the governments of Canada and Mexico to seek
cooperative solutions on transboundary pollution problems (64 FR 35714,
35736),'' but have thus far done little.
    Response: We acknowledge that Texas requested in its SIP that we
initiate and pursue Federal efforts to reduce impacts from
international transport. There are efforts underway to address public
health problems related to air emissions along the United States-Mexico
border. Given that emissions contributing to health effects and those
contributing to visibility impairment are generally the same, the
border studies and continuing emissions inventory development will aid
in identifying solutions that we would expect to also address
visibility impairment. The Border 2020 program aims to, among other
things, reduce air pollution to help meet the NAAQS and reduce emission
through the use of energy efficiency and/or alternative/renewable
energy projects. We expect that recent commitments from Mexico to
reduce its carbon dioxide and black carbon emissions will have
ancillary benefits to improve visibility at Class I areas in the
future.
    Comment: It is not possible for Texas to achieve the uniform rate
of progress because of the contribution from

Mexico. An analysis shows that if every point source in Texas were shut
down, it would have only a marginal impact on visibility in the
Guadalupe Mountains. Further, the exclusion of all of Texas and other
United States elevated point sources resulted in a modeled haze index
value of 14.88 dv, meaning that Mexican sources and natural
contributions are projected to account for 92%, or all but 1.48
deciviews, of visibility impairment in the Guadalupe Mountains.
    Response: The commenter erroneously overstates the size of the
visibility impacts from Mexico relative to Texas. As we stated in our
proposal, efforts to meet the goal of natural visibility by 2064
``would require further emissions reductions not only within Texas, but
also large emission reductions from international sources'' (emphasis
added).\201\ The commenter's analysis fails to account for impacts from
mobile and area sources within Texas and other states, and fails to
differentiate Mexican sources from other international sources. The
analysis also fails to consider that deciviews are a logarithmic
function of extinction, resulting in the underestimation of the percent
contribution from Texas and U.S. point sources. Overall impacts from
all sources in Texas are larger than all sources in Mexico and the
boundary conditions (which represent external sources) combined. As we
discuss in our proposal and elsewhere in our response to comments,
Texas and we agreed that it was reasonable to focus on impacts from
point sources for this planning period. The visibility impairment from
Texas point sources is significant, and as our analysis shows, a
significant portion of this impairment can be addressed by controlling
a small number of sources. Controls on just four units at Tolk and Big
Brown are estimated to reduce visibility impairment due to all Texas
point sources at the Guadalupe Mountains by approximately 13%. All
required controls combined are estimated to reduce visibility
impairment at the Guadalupe Mountains from all Texas point sources by
approximately 22%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ 79 FR 74843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: CCP (through its contractor, AECOM) stated that back
trajectories for 2011-2013 indicate that approximately 77% of the 20%
worst day trajectories at the Guadalupe Mountains passed through
Mexico. For Big Bend, this percentage increases to about 96%. Mexican
point sources, particularly Carbon I and Carbon II, are only about 230
km away from Big Bend, while the nearest Texas facility with a proposed
new emission limit is about 500 km away. Emissions from these large
power plants are noteworthy--Carbon II emitted 162,329 tons of
SO2 in 2008, according to the draft EPA 2011 modeling
platform, which is an increase from 1997 (129,341 tons at Carbon II).
In addition to international point sources, smoke plumes from
agricultural fires in Central America travel northward into the U.S.
and contribute to haze. Modeling shows that the sources that cause haze
in Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains are rarely in the area where
most of the emission sources targeted by EPA are located. The effect of
controlling emissions at a plant like Big Brown would be dwarfed by the
massive impact of the international emissions. CCP reasons that since
the emissions from its facility, Coleto Creek, are even lower than Big
Brown's emissions, it would have a smaller impact. This component of
haze must be accounted for in regional haze SIPs in the development of
reasonable progress goals and/or natural conditions because these
emissions from agricultural burns, power plants, or wildfires from
international sources are beyond the jurisdiction of state agencies.
    Response: We have reviewed the back trajectories provided and have
noted several flaws in the analysis and conclusions. In general, back
trajectories are tools that may be used for analyzing potential upwind
contribution areas to a monitored value of concern. In this case we
generally agree that many back trajectories do pass through upwind
areas in Mexico for the 20% worst monitored days at Big Bend and the
Guadalupe Mountains. What the commenter fails to point out or conclude
is that a very large percentage of the trajectories that the commenter
attributes to Mexico also cross over or near areas of Texas, thus
indicating that Texas is also a potential contributor to the high
monitored values at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains. We do agree
that impacts from Mexico are significant and must be addressed to
achieve natural visibility, but our agreement on this point does not in
any way relieve Texas of the obligation to make reasonable progress,
including through controls on its own sources, and particularly through
the emissions addressed with controls through our FIP. Past analyses
have indicated that impacts from Texas on Big Bend and the Guadalupe
Mountains are as large as impacts from Mexico and that reducing impacts
from sources in Texas is also necessary to achieve natural
visibility.\202\ We disagree that impacts from Coleto Creek would be
smaller than impacts from Big Brown because it has fewer emissions. The
comment failed to consider the location of the source and the
meteorology/transport conditions. Coleto Creek is closer to Big Bend
and our source apportionment modeling shows that the one unit at Coleto
Creek has a larger impact on the 20% worst days at Big Bend than the
impact from the two units at Big Brown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ See FIP TSD pages A-30-32 and A-65-66 and Conclusions of
BRAVO study source apportionment techniques (TX166.017
BravoFactSheet20040915.pdf and BRAVOFinalReportCIRA.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comment presents a comparison between the visibility impact
from one facility to the visibility impact from all sources around the
world that lie outside of the modeling domain, including long range
transport from fires, windblown dust, and significant anthropogenic
emissions. The commenter states that annual average visibility
impairment from Big Brown is approximately 10% of the annual average
contribution from those sources captured by the boundary conditions.
This is a significant fraction of the total visibility impairment that
can be addressed through the installation of controls on merely two
emission units. We also note that visibility impairment on the 20%
worst days at each Class I area from Big Brown is larger; and as can be
seen by the data submitted by the commenter, on some days, the
visibility impairment due to Big Brown's emissions approaches or
exceeds that from all emissions sources captured by the boundary
conditions. For the Wichita Mountains, controls on just Big Brown
address almost 12% of the total visibility impairment due to Texas
point sources and 1.63% of the total visibility impairment from all
sources. In summary, the visibility impairment from the individual
sources analyzed is significant, and controls on these sources provide
for meaningful progress towards the goal of natural visibility
conditions at one or more Class I areas. This is not inconsistent with
the understanding that significant impacts from international emissions
and other sources exist and should also be addressed.
    Lastly, we agree with CCP that the sources it cites, Carbon I and
Carbon II, are responsible for significant levels of pollution. Carbon
I is a 1,200 MW power plant and Carbon II is a 1,400 MW coal-fired
power plant. These two power plants, less than 1.5 miles apart, are
less than 20 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border. Together, these power
plants comprise one of the largest

uncontrolled sources of SO2 and NOX in North
America.\203\ It has been demonstrated for some time that they are
significant contributors to visibility impairment at Big Bend.\204\
However, addressing international emissions can be complex. For
instance, Texas has recently issued water discharge and mining permits
to a coal mine in Maverick County, near the Texas border town of Eagle
Pass, to allow the Mexican company Dos Republicas to begin mining coal
that will reportedly be sent to these facilities.\205\ Prior to our
delegation of the National Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting authority to Texas, we issued a NPDES permit for the
operation of this mine, and in the process issued an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS).\206\ In our EIS, we stated that ``. . . EPA
does not have the authority to prohibit export of U.S. resources which
will cause the country environmental harm . . . EPA believes that the
U.S. policy should be to take actions which will generate the
investment capital needed to directly solve the Carbon I/II problem''
\207\ Subsequent to that, we attempted to work with the government of
Mexico specifically on the problem of installing controls on these
sources through a technical work group composed of EPA and SEMARNAP
(now SEMARNAT, the Mexican Environment and Natural Resources
Secretariat) staff. Unfortunately, these discussions did not result in
any control of Carbon I and II. However, EPA is committed to explore
opportunities for further discussions with Mexico concerning this
subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America,
``North American Power Plant Air Emissions,'' http://www.cec.org/storage/56/4876_powerplant_airemission_en.pdf. TCEQ may keep this in
consideration in future studies on the impacts of sources from
Mexico on Class I areas or otherwise.
    \204\ Big Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility Observational
Study (BRAVO), Final Report, September 2004.
    \205\ http://www.epbusinessjournal.com/2015/11/dos-republicas-coal-partnership-coal-mine-expanded-water-discharge-permit-application-to-be-heard-november-16th/.
    \206\ Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System. Permit No. TX0109011.
    \207\ Final Environmental Impact Statement on Dos Republicas
Resource Company, Inc.'s Proposed Eagle Pass Mine in Maverick
County, Texas, December 30, 1994. Page C-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

S. Grid Reliability

    Comment: The TCEQ recommended that we withdraw the proposed FIP;
however, if we do finalize the FIP, it believed we should include an
electric reliability safety valve provision in the final rule. The TCEQ
stated that we have not evaluated any potential impacts of our proposed
FIP to reliability and prices of electricity in Texas. It included a
2014 ERCOT study of the impacts that environmental regulations have in
the ERCOT Region. While the ERCOT report included a number of other
environmental regulations, such as the MATS rule, Clean Power Plan, and
CSAPR, ERCOT also included our proposed regional haze FIP for Texas in
its analysis. The TCEQ incorporated the ERCOT report into its comments
and encouraged us to consider its findings.
    Response: First, we note that controls achieving the level of
control that we are requiring are highly cost-effective, are in wide
use in the industry, and thus should not require a source to shut down
to comply. In response to the TCEQ's comments, however, we contracted
with Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., a nationally recognized firm with
particular expertise in the subject area. (Synapse).\208\ Synapse
assessed the information in the ERCOT report and we reproduce its
findings below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ Synapse's report,
``ERCOT_Report_Review_Memo_20150908.pdf'' is in our docket to this
rulemaking action.

    1. ERCOT's perspective of market operations is
short[hyphen]sighted. ERCOT raises concerns that reliability could
be impacted if numerous coal units choose to retire simultaneously
with little notice to either ERCOT or other market participants.
Unlike other competitive market regions, ERCOT's rules do not
require meaningful notice. ERCOT's charge as a reliability
coordinator may obligate it to implement rules requiring reasonable
notice for economic retirements.
    2. ERCOT's assumptions about new gas turbine capacity are not
realistic. While the FIP, along with other environmental regulations
ERCOT included in its study, will strain the economic viability of
coal plants and likely lead to less coal capacity, ERCOT has not
considered new resources that will be available to help address
potential reliability challenges. Specifically, ERCOT does not
include approximately 4,500 MW of additional gas[hyphen]fired
capacity coming online in Texas in the upcoming years. This
represents 7.5 percent of current gas capacity, and would double the
modeled baseline gas capacity additions through 2029.
    3. The set of regulatory scenarios modeled is both incomplete
and (now) outdated. Despite an overall thorough analysis ERCOT
excluded a critical scenario that would have modeled the impact of
the Regional Haze Program FIP by itself. This limits inferences we
can make about impacts. Additionally, since ERCOT finalized its
study, EPA finalized the Clean Power Plan. The final rule includes
substantive changes that are likely to affect all of the
CO2 limit and price-inclusive scenario modeling results.
    4. Electric Generating Unit owners' compliance ``burdens'' with
the regional haze FIP may be over[hyphen]stated. Of the 15
coal[hyphen]fired units subject to regional haze compliance
requirements, eight require upgrades to their existing scrubbers
rather than new scrubbers. ERCOT assumed that all of the scrubbers
would be priced at the cost of a new retrofit, thereby substantially
increasing the cost of the regulation.

    We reviewed and accept our contractor's finding and adopt its
conclusion that ERCOT's report contained significant flaws. In sum,
ERCOT's report cannot support a determination that there is likely to
be any significant, adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. During our comment period, we received no non-speculative
information to validate claims that sources would retire rather than
install demonstrably cost-effective controls. Commenters who have
alleged grid reliability concerns in response to our proposed controls
have not provided adequate documentation for their assertions.

T. Determination of Nationwide Scope and Effect

    Several commenters disagreed with our proposed determination of
``nationwide scope and effect,'' which would require all petitions for
judicial review to be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit Court. These commenters argued that our
proposed action did not have nationwide scope and effect because it
applied only to two states. They further argued that the control
requirements in the FIP applied only to sources in Texas. The
commenters acknowledged that the proposed action involved our
interpretation of our regulations, but asserted that the same is true
for many SIP actions. The commenters went on to cite several regional
haze SIP actions where we did not make a finding of nationwide scope
and effect as evidence that our proposal to do so in this instance was
unlawful. Ultimately, these commenters concluded that our proposed
action was ``locally or regionally applicable'' and that any future
petitions for review must be filed in the appropriate regional circuit.
Some commenters suggested that judicial review would only be
appropriate in the Fifth Circuit.
    We disagree with these comments. The commenters are conflating two
distinct portions of the CAA's judicial review provision. Under CAA
section 307(b)(1), ``[a] petition for review of . . . nationally
applicable regulations promulgated, or final agency action taken, by
the Administrator . . . may be filed only in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia.'' Contrary to the commenter's
assertions, we did not assert at proposal, nor do we

assert now, that our FIP for Texas and Oklahoma is a ``nationally
applicable'' regulation. CAA section 307(b)(1) next provides that ``[a]
petition for review of the Administrator's action in approving or
promulgating any implementation plan under section 7410 . . . or any
other final action of the Administrator . . . which is locally or
regionally applicable may be filed only in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit.'' The commenters cite this
sentence, but ignore the following sentence, which states
``[n]otwithstanding the preceding sentence a petition for review of any
action referred to in such sentence may be filed only in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia if such action is
based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking
such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is
based on such determination.''
    In other words, a final agency action that is locally or regionally
applicable, such as a FIP, is appealable only in the D.C. Circuit Court
if two conditions are met: (1) The action is based on a determination
of nationwide scope or effect, and (2) we find and publish our
determination. Both conditions are met here. First, we proposed to find
and have confirmed our finding in this final rule that our action on
the Texas and Oklahoma regional haze SIPs, which includes the
promulgation of a partial FIP for each state, is based on a
determination of nationwide scope and effect. Second, we have published
that finding in the Federal Register.
    While the CAA does not provide any guidance regarding the phrase
``nationwide scope and effect,'' the legislative history indicates that
a determination of nationwide scope and effect is appropriate if a
local or regional action encompasses two or more judicial circuits. The
commenters made no effort to explain why this legislative history
should not be taken into account. Instead, the commenters cited to
other EPA actions on regional haze SIPs where we did not make a
determination of nationwide scope and effect. However, the commenters
failed to mention that all of these actions involved a single state and
thus did not implicate multiple judicial circuits. We have routinely
made determinations of nationwide scope and effect when more than one
circuit is involved. Last year, for instance, we made a determination
of nationwide scope and effect in a SIP approval action that involved
the States of Florida and North Carolina, which reside in separate
judicial circuits.\209\ We have made many other such determinations
over the years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ See 79 FR 29362.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also determined that this action has nationwide scope and effect
because at the core of this rulemaking is our interpretation of the
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 169A(b)(2) of the CAA
and multiple complex provisions of the Regional Haze Rule. Many
commenters disagreed with our interpretation of these provisions, with
some providing alternative interpretations that would substantially
eviscerate the Regional Haze Rule. Congress intended for such issues of
national importance to be decided by the D.C. Circuit.

III. Final Action

    For the reasons discussed more fully in section II, above and
detailed in our proposal and its accompanying TSDs, in this action, we
are partially approving and partially disapproving a revision to the
Texas SIP received from the State of Texas on March 31, 2009, that
intended to address regional haze for the first planning period from
2008 through 2018. We also are disapproving the interstate visibility
transport portions of the Texas SIP that address CAA provisions for
prohibiting air pollutant emissions from interfering with measures
required to protect visibility in any other state. We also are
partially disapproving a revision to the Oklahoma SIP submitted in
February 19, 2010, that addresses regional haze for the first planning
period. We are finalizing a FIP to remedy certain of the deficiencies
and not acting on others. Below is a list of the specific actions we
are finalizing in this rulemaking.

A. Texas Regional Haze

    We are approving the portions of the Texas regional haze SIP
submitted on March 31, 2009, except for the following Regional Haze
Rule requirements contained in 40 CFR part 51:
     Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), regarding Texas' reasonable
progress four-factor analysis for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend.
     Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), regarding Texas' calculation
of the emission reductions needed to achieve the uniform rates of
progress for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend.
     Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii), regarding Texas' reasonable
progress goals for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend.
     Section 51.308(d)(2)(iii), regarding Texas' calculation of
natural visibility conditions.
     Section 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), regarding Texas' calculation
of the number of deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed natural
visibility conditions.
     Section 51.308(d)(3)(i), regarding Texas' long-term
strategy consultations with Oklahoma.
     Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii), regarding Texas securing its
share of reductions necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals
at Big Bend, the Guadalupe Mountains, and the Wichita Mountains.
     Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii), regarding Texas' technical
basis for its long-term strategy for Big Bend, the Guadalupe Mountains
the Wichita Mountains.
     Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C), regarding Texas' emission
limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable
progress goals for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains and Wichita
Mountains.
    We are also approving the Texas' BART Rules, 30 TAC 116.1500-
116.1540, except for the 30 TAC 116.1510(d) which relies on CAIR and is
disapproved.
    We are not taking action on 40 CFR 51.308(e) concerning Texas EGU
BART.

B. Oklahoma Regional Haze

    We are disapproving the portion of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP
that addresses the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) with respect to
reasonable progress goals, with the exception of Sec.
51.308(d)(1)(vi), which we are approving.

C. Interstate Visibility Transport

    We are disapproving portions of Texas SIP submittals that address
CAA provisions for prohibiting air pollutant emissions from interfering
with measures required to protect visibility in any other state for the
1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Our final FIP does
not cure these defects as that portion of the FIP would have partially
relied on CSAPR. We will address the visibility transport requirements
for Texas in a future rulemaking, once the issues surrounding the CSAPR
partial remand are resolved.

D. Federal Implementation Plan

    Our final FIP requires the following SO2 emission limits
for specific emission units in Texas:

       Table 7--Final 30-Boiler-Operating-Day SO2 Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           SO2 Emission
                          Unit                             limit  (lbs/
                                                              MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandow 4................................................            0.20
Martin Lake 1...........................................            0.12
Martin Lake 2...........................................            0.12
Martin Lake 3...........................................            0.11
Monticello 3............................................            0.06
Limestone 2.............................................            0.08
Limestone 1.............................................            0.08
Big Brown 1.............................................            0.04
Big Brown 2.............................................            0.04
Monticello 1............................................            0.04
Monticello 2............................................            0.04
Coleto Creek 1..........................................            0.04
Tolk 172B...............................................            0.06
Tolk 171B...............................................            0.06
San Miguel..............................................            0.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compliance with these emission limits is based on a 30 BOD period.
We are finalizing requirements providing that compliance with these
limits be achieved within:
     Five years of the effective date of our final rule for Big
Brown Units 1 and 2, Monticello Units 1 and 2, Coleto Creek Unit 1, and
Tolk Units 171B and 172B.
     Three years of the effective date of our final rule for
Sandow 4; Martin Lake Units 1, 2, and 3; Monticello Unit 3; and
Limestone Units 1 and 2.
     One year of the effective date of our final rule for San
Miguel. San Miguel may elect an alternative compliance method by doing
the following:
     Install a CEMS at the inlet of the scrubber system. The 30
BOD SO2 average from the existing outlet CEMS must read at
or below 6.0% (94% control) of a 30 BOD SO2 average from the
inlet CEMS. San Miguel must inform us in writing of its decision to
select this option for compliance by no later than their compliance
date.

Based on our technical analysis, we have calculated the following in
Tables 8 and 9 for Texas and Oklahoma:

   Table 8--Natural Visibility Conditions, Number of Deciviews by Which Baseline Conditions Exceed Natural Visibility Conditions, and Uniform Rate of
                                                                   Progress for Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Natural visibility conditions              Number of deciviews by which baseline
                                   ------------------------------------------------     conditions  exceed natural visibility
           Class I area                                                                               conditions                      Uniform rates of
                                           20% Worst               20% Best        -----------------------------------------------    progress at 2018
                                                                                20% Worst               20% Best
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Mountains...............  6.65 dv...............  0.99 dv...............  10.54 dv..............  4.96 dv..............  14.73 dv.
Big Bend..........................  7.16 dv...............  1.62 dv...............  10.14 dv..............  4.16 dv..............  14.93 dv.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Table 9--Reasonable Progress Goals for Texas and Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Reasonable progress goals
          Class I area          ----------------------------------------
                                      20% Worst            20% Best
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Mountains............  16.26 dv...........  5.70 dv.
Big Bend.......................  16.57 dv...........  5.59 dv.
Wichita Mountains..............  21.33 dv...........  9.22 dv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the Final Action
section above and the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. We
have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or in
hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

V. 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 exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) because it is not a rule of general applicability. This
action finalizes a source-specific FIP for that applies to eight coal-
fired power plants in Texas (Big Brown; Monticello; Coleto Creek; Tolk;
Sandow; Martin Lake; Limestone; and San Miguel).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Under the PRA, a
``collection of information'' is defined as a requirement for ``answers
to . . . identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on
ten or more persons . . . '' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the FIP
applies to only eight facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not
apply. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c).

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 will not impose any requirements on small entities. This FIP
will apply to eight facilities, none of which are small entities. The
final partial approval of the SIP merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, establishes requirements
for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions
on state, local,

and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the
UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to state, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider
a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 of
UMRA do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 of the UMRA allows EPA to adopt an alternative
other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that Title II of the UMRA does not apply to this
rule. In 2 U.S.C. 1502(1) all terms in Title II of UMRA have the
meanings set forth in 2 U.S.C. 658, which further provides that the
terms ``regulation'' and ``rule'' have the meanings set forth in 5
U.S.C. 601(2). Under 5 U.S.C. 601(2), ``the term `rule' does not
include a rule of particular applicability relating to . . .
facilities.'' Because this rule is a rule of particular applicability
relating to eight named facilities, EPA has determined that it is not a
``rule'' for the purposes of Title II of the UMRA.

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. The final
rule does not impose significant economic costs on state or local
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action applies to eight facilities in Texas
and to Federal Class I areas in Oklahoma and Texas. This action does
not apply on any Indian reservation land, any other area where 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

    Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive
Order 12866; and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk
that we have reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on
children. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
Moreover, ``regulation'' or ``rule,'' is defined in Executive Order
12866 as ``an agency statement of general applicability and future
effect.'' E.O. 12866 does not define ``statement of general
applicability,'' but this term commonly refers to statements that apply
to groups or classes, as opposed to statements, which apply only to
named entities. The FIP therefore is not a rule of general
applicability because its requirements apply and are tailored to only
eight individually identified facilities. Thus, it is not a ``rule'' or
``regulation'' within the meaning of E.O. 12866. However, as this
action will limit emissions of SO2, it will have a
beneficial effect on children's health by reducing air pollution.

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 action involves technical standards. Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''),
Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rule would require the
eight affected facilities to meet the applicable monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75 already incorporates a number
of voluntary consensus standards. Consistent with the Agency's
Performance Based Measurement System (PBMS), part 75 sets forth
performance criteria that allow the use of alternative methods to the
ones set forth in part 75. The PBMS approach is intended to be more
flexible and cost-effective for the regulated community; it is also
intended to encourage innovation in analytical technology and improved
data quality. At this time, EPA is not recommending any revisions to
part 75; however, EPA periodically revises the test procedures set
forth in part 75. When EPA revises the test procedures set forth in
part 75 in the future, EPA will address the use of any new voluntary
consensus standards that are equivalent. Currently, even if a test
procedure is not set forth in part 75, EPA is not precluding the use of
any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or
not, as long as it meets the performance criteria specified; however,
any alternative methods must be approved through the petition process
under 40 CFR 75.66 before they are used.

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 because it increases the level of
environmental protection for all

affected populations without having any disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population,
including any minority or low-income population. This FIP limits
emissions of SO2 from eight facilities in Texas.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on February 4, 2016.

VI. Judicial Review

    The scope and effect of this rulemaking extend to Texas and
Oklahoma, which are located in two judicial circuits. In addition,
EPA's clarified interpretation of its regulations as set forth in this
final action, including the accompanying RTC and TSD documents, is
applicable to regional haze actions in all states, not just the
specific actions we are taking here with regard to the regional haze
obligations for Texas and Oklahoma. Accordingly, the Administrator
determines that this is a rulemaking of nationwide scope or effect and
any petitions for review must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with CAA section
307(b)(1). Petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
March 7, 2016.
    In addition, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this action is
subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d) because it
promulgates a FIP under CAA section 110(c). 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, extend
the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, or
postpone the effectiveness of the rule. Per CAA section 307(b)(2), this
action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxides, Visibility, Interstate transport of pollution, Regional haze,
Best available control technology.

    Dated: December 9, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart LL--Oklahoma

0
2. Section 52.1920(e) is amended by revising the entry for ``Regional
haze SIP'' in the table titled ``EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions
and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Oklahoma SIP'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

             EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Oklahoma SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
      Name of SIP provision        geographic or  non-       State       EPA approval date       Explanation
                                     attainment  area   submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional haze SIP:...............  Statewide..........       2/17/2010  3/7/2014, 79 FR      Core requirements
(a) Determination of baseline and                                        12953.               of 40 CFR 51.308.
 natural visibility conditions.                                                               Initial approval
(b) Coordinating regional haze                                                                12/28/2011, 76 FR
 and reasonably attributable                                                                  81728. Approval
 visibility impairment.                                                                       for Sec.
(c) Monitoring strategy and other                                                             51.308(d)(1)(vi) 1/
 implementation requirements.                                                                 5/2016 [Insert
(d) Coordination with States and                                                              Federal Register
 Federal Land Managers.                                                                       citation].
(e) BART determinations except
 for the following SO2 BART
 determinations: Units 4 and 5 of
 the Oklahoma Gas and Electric
 (OG&E) Muskogee plant; and Units
 1 and 2 of the OG&E Sooner plant.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.1928 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) and
adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1928  Visibility protection.

    (a) * * *
    (3) ``Greater RP Alternative Determination'' (Section VI.E);
    (4) Separate executed agreements between ODEQ and OG&E, and ODEQ
and AEP/PSO entitled ``OG&E RH Agreement, Case No. 10-024, and ``PSO RH
Agreement, Case No. 10-025,'' housed within Appendix 6-5 of the RH SIP;
and

    (5) The reasonable progress goals for the first planning period and
the reasonable progress consultation with Texas for the Wichita
Mountains Class I area.
* * * * *

Subpart SS--Texas

0
4. Section 52.2270 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (c), adding center heading ``Subchapter M: Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART)'' and the sections 116.1500,
116.1510, 116.1520, 116.1530 and 116.1540 under ``Chapter 116 (Reg 6)--
Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or
Modification''; and
0
b. In paragraph (e), adding an entry for ``Texas Regional Haze SIP'' at
the end of the table titled ``EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and
Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP''.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                    EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
                                                        approval/
         State citation              Title/subject      submittal    EPA approval date         Explanation
                                                           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Chapter 116 (Reg 6)--Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Subchapter M: Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 116.1500................  Definitions........    2/25/2009  1/5/2016 [Insert     .......................
                                                                     Federal Register
                                                                     citation].
Section 116.1510................  Applicability and      2/25/2009  1/5/2016 [Insert     116.1510(d) is NOT part
                                   Exemption                         Federal Register     of the approved SIP.
                                   Requirements.                     citation].
Section 116.1520................  Best Available         2/25/2009  1/5/2016 [Insert     .......................
                                   Retrofit                          Federal Register
                                   Technology (BART)                 citation].
                                   Analysis.
Section 116.1530................  Best Available         2/25/2009  1/5/2016 [Insert     .......................
                                   Retrofit                          Federal Register
                                   Technology (BART)                 citation].
                                   Control
                                   Implementation.
Section 116.1540................  Exemption from Best    2/25/2009  1/5/2016 [Insert     .......................
                                   Available Retrofit                Federal Register
                                   Technology (BART)                 citation].
                                   Control
                                   Implementation.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           State
                                       Applicable        submittal
      Name of SIP provision        geographic or non-      date/      EPA approval date          Comments
                                    attainment area      effective
                                                           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Texas Regional Haze SIP.........  Statewide..........    3/19/2009   1/5/2016 [Insert    The following sections
                                                                      Federal Register    are not approved as
                                                                      citation].          part of the SIP: The
                                                                                reasonable progress
                                                                                four-factor analysis,
                                                                                reasonable progress
                                                                                goals and the
                                                                                calculation of the
                                                                                emission reductions
                                                                                needed to achieve the
                                                                                uniform rates of
                                                                                progress for the
                                                                                Guadalupe Mountains
                                                                                and Big Bend;
                                                                                calculation of natural
                                                                                visibility conditions;
                                                                                calculation of the
                                                                                number of deciviews by
                                                                                which baseline
                                                                                conditions exceed
                                                                                natural visibility
                                                                                conditions; long-term
                                                                                strategy consultations
                                                                                with Oklahoma; Texas
                                                                                securing its share of
                                                                                reductions necessary
                                                                                to achieve the
                                                                                reasonable progress
                                                                                goals at Big Bend, the
                                                                                Guadalupe Mountains,
                                                                                and the Wichita
                                                                                Mountains; technical
                                                                                basis for its long-
                                                                                term strategy and
                                                                                emission limitations
                                                                                and schedules for
                                                                                compliance to achieve
                                                                                the RPGs for Big Bend,
                                                                                the Guadalupe
                                                                                Mountains and Wichita
                                                                                Mountains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
6. Section 52.2302 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2302  Federal implementation plan for regional haze.

    (a) Requirements for Martin Lake Units 1, 2, and 3; Monticello
Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone Units 1 and 2; Sandow Unit 4; Big Brown
Units 1 and 2; Coleto Creek Unit 1; Tolk Units 1 and 2; and San Miguel
affecting visibility.
    (1) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to
each owner or operator, or successive owners or operators, of the coal
burning equipment designated as: Martin Lake Units 1, 2, and 3;
Monticello Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone Units 1 and 2; Sandow Unit 4;
Big Brown Units 1 and 2; Coleto Creek Unit 1; Tolk Units 1 and 2; and
San Miguel.
    (2) Compliance dates. Compliance with the requirements of this
section is required by February 4, 2019 for Martin Lake Units 1, 2, and
3; Monticello Unit 3, Limestone Units 1 and 2; and Sandow Unit 4.
Compliance with the requirements of this section is required by
February 4, 2021 for Big Brown Units 1 and 2; Monticello Units 1 and 2;
Coleto Creek Unit 1; and Tolk Units 1 and 2. Compliance with the
requirements of this section is required by February 4, 2017 for San
Miguel. These compliance dates apply unless otherwise indicated by
compliance dates contained in specific provisions.
    (3) Definitions. All terms used in this part but not defined herein
shall have the meaning given them in the Clean Air Act (CAA) and in 40
CFR parts 51 and 60. For the purposes of this section:
    24-hour period means the period of time between 12:01 a.m. and 12
midnight.
    Air pollution control equipment includes selective catalytic
control units, baghouses, particulate or gaseous scrubbers, and any
other apparatus utilized to control emissions of regulated air
contaminants which would be emitted to the atmosphere.
    Boiler-operating-day means any 24-hour period between 12:00
midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted
at any time at the steam generating unit.
    Daily average means the arithmetic average of the hourly values
measured in a 24-hour period.
    Heat input means heat derived from combustion of fuel in a unit and
does not include the heat input from preheated combustion air,
recirculated flue gases, or exhaust gases from other sources. Heat
input shall be calculated in accordance with 40 CFR part 75.
    Owner or Operator means any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises any of the coal burning equipment designated in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator of EPA
Region 6 or his/her authorized representative.
    Unit means one of the coal fired boilers covered under paragraph
(a) of this section.
    (4) Emissions limitations--SO2 emission limit. The
individual sulfur dioxide emission limit for a unit shall be as listed
in the table in this paragraph (a)(4) in pounds per million British
thermal units (lb/MMBtu) as averaged over a rolling 30-boiler-
operating-day period.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           SO2 Emission
                          Unit                             limit  (lbs/
                                                              MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandow 4................................................            0.20
Martin Lake 1...........................................            0.12
Martin Lake 2...........................................            0.12
Martin Lake 3...........................................            0.11
Monticello 3............................................            0.06
Limestone 2.............................................            0.08
Limestone 1.............................................            0.08
Big Brown 1.............................................            0.04
Big Brown 2.............................................            0.04
Monticello 1............................................            0.04
Monticello 2............................................            0.04
Coleto Creek 1..........................................            0.04
Tolk 172B...............................................            0.06
Tolk 171B...............................................            0.06
San Miguel..............................................            0.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) For each unit, SO2 emissions for each calendar day
shall be determined by summing the hourly emissions measured in pounds
of SO2. For each unit, heat input for each boiler-operating-
day shall be determined by adding together all hourly heat inputs, in
millions of BTU. Each boiler-operating-day of the thirty-day rolling
average for a unit shall be determined by adding together the pounds of
SO2 from that day and the preceding 29-boiler-operating-days
and dividing the total pounds of SO2 by the sum of the heat
input during the same 30-boiler-operating-day period. The result shall
be the 30-boiler-operating-day rolling

average in terms of lb/MMBtu emissions of SO2. If a valid
SO2 pounds per hour or heat input is not available for any
hour for a unit, that heat input and SO2 pounds per hour
shall not be used in the calculation of the 30-boiler-operating-day
rolling average for SO2.
    (ii) In lieu of paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section, and if San
Miguel meets paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section, it may install a CEMS
at the inlet of the scrubber system. The 30 BOD SO2 average
from the existing outlet CEMS must read at or below 6.0% (94% control)
of a 30 BOD SO2 average from the inlet CEMS.
    (5) Testing and monitoring. (i) No later than the compliance date
as set out in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the owner or operator
shall install, calibrate, maintain and operate Continuous Emissions
Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for SO2 on the units listed in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and
60.13(e), (f), and (h), and appendix B of part 60 of this chapter. No
later than the compliance date as set out in paragraph (a)(2), San
Miguel must submit a letter to the Regional Administrator that informs
the EPA which compliance option it elects, as specified in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section. San Miguel must then adhere to the compliance
method set forth in that letter to the Regional Administrator. All
owners or operators shall comply with the quality assurance procedures
for CEMS found in 40 CFR part 75. Compliance with the emission limits
for SO2 shall be determined by using data from a CEMS.
    (ii) Continuous emissions monitoring shall apply during all periods
of operation of the coal burning equipment, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for CEMS breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments. Continuous
monitoring systems for measuring SO2 and diluent gas shall
complete a minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and
data recording) for each successive 15-minute period. Hourly averages
shall be computed using at least one data point in each fifteen minute
quadrant of an hour. Notwithstanding this requirement, an hourly
average may be computed from at least two data points separated by a
minimum of 15 minutes (where the unit operates for more than one
quadrant in an hour) if data are unavailable as a result of performance
of calibration, quality assurance, preventive maintenance activities,
or backups of data from data acquisition and handling system, and
recertification events. When valid SO2 pounds per hour, or
SO2 pounds per million Btu emission data are not obtained
because of continuous monitoring system breakdowns, repairs,
calibration checks, or zero and span adjustments, emission data must be
obtained by using other monitoring systems approved by the EPA to
provide emission data for a minimum of 18 hours in each 24 hour period
and at least 22 out of 30 successive boiler-operating-days.
    (6) Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Unless otherwise
stated all requests, reports, submittals, notifications, and other
communications to the Regional Administrator required by this section
shall be submitted, unless instructed otherwise, to the Director,
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 6, to the attention of Mail Code: 6PD, at
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. For each unit
subject to the emissions limitation in this section and upon completion
of the installation of CEMS as required in this section, the owner or
operator shall comply with the following requirements:
    (i) For each emissions limit in this section, comply with the
notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for CEMS
compliance monitoring in 40 CFR 60.7(c) and (d).
    (ii) For each day, provide the total SO2 emitted that
day by each emission unit. For any hours on any unit where data for
hourly pounds or heat input is missing, identify the unit number and
monitoring device that did not produce valid data that caused the
missing hour.
    (7) Equipment operations. At all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner or operator shall, to the
extent practicable, maintain and operate the unit including associated
air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of
whether acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used
will be based on information available to the Regional Administrator
which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of
operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the unit.
    (8) Enforcement. (i) Notwithstanding any other provision in this
implementation plan, any credible evidence or information relevant as
to whether the unit would have been in compliance with applicable
requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been
performed, can be used to establish whether or not the owner or
operator has violated or is in violation of any standard or applicable
emission limit in the plan.
    (ii) Emissions in excess of the level of the applicable emission
limit or requirement that occur due to a malfunction shall constitute a
violation of the applicable emission limit.
    (b) [Reserved]

0
7. Section 52.2304 is amended by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.2304  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (d) Portions of SIPs addressing noninterference with measures
required to protect visibility in any other state are disapproved for
the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 1997 ozone, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    (e) The following portions of the Texas regional haze SIP submitted
March 19, 2009 are disapproved: The reasonable progress four-factor
analysis, reasonable progress goals and the calculation of the emission
reductions needed to achieve the uniform rates of progress for the
Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend; calculation of natural visibility
conditions; calculation of the number of deciviews by which baseline
conditions exceed natural visibility conditions; long-term strategy
consultations with Oklahoma; Texas securing its share of reductions
necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals at Big Bend, the
Guadalupe Mountains, and the Wichita Mountains; technical basis for its
long-term strategy and emission limitations and schedules for
compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goals for Big Bend, the
Guadalupe Mountains and Wichita Mountains.

[FR Doc. 2015-31904 Filed 1-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37690]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16089]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 73

[Docket Nos. FDA-2011-C-0344 and FDA-2011-C-0463]

CooperVision, Inc.; Filing of Color Additive Petitions

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of petitions.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that
CooperVision, Inc., has filed two petitions proposing that the color
additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of 1,4-
bis[4-(2-methacryloxyethyl)phenlyamino] anthraquinone (C.I. Reactive
Blue 246) and 1,4-bis[(2-hydroxyethyl)amino]-9,10-anthracenedione
bis(2-methyl-2-propenoic)ester (C.I. Reactive Blue 247). The color
additives are intended to be copolymerized with various monomers for
use as colored contact lens materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regarding CAP 1C0291: Judith Kidwell,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug
Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835,
240-402-1071.
    Regarding CAP 1C0292: Teresa Croce, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint
Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (section 721(d)(1) (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1))), notice is given that
two color additive petitions (CAP 1C0291, Docket No. FDA-2011-C-0344
and CAP 1C0292, Docket No. FDA-2011-C-0463) have been filed by
CooperVision, Inc., 6150 Stoneridge Mall Rd., Suite 370, Pleasanton, CA
94588. The petitions propose to amend the color additive regulations in
21 CFR part 73, subpart D, Medical Devices, to provide for the safe use
of 1,4-bis[4-(2-methacryloxyethyl)phenstylamino]anthraquinone (C.I.
Reactive Blue 246; CAS Reg. No. 121888-69-5) (CAP 1C0291) and 1,4-
bis[(2-hydroxyethyl)amino]-9,10-anthracenedione bis(2-methyl-2-
propenoic)ester (C.I. Reactive Blue 247; CAS Reg. No. 109561-07-1) (CAP
1C0292). The color additives are intended to be copolymerized with
various monomers for use as colored contact lens materials.
    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(l) that this action is
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    Dated: June 20, 2011.
Mitchell A. Cheeseman,
Acting Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2011-16089 Filed 6-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3619-3621]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

Monday, January 10, 2011.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC11-35-000
    Applicants: NStar, Northeast Utilities.
    Description: Application for Authorization of Disposition of
Jurisdictional Assets and Merger of NSTAR and Northeast Utilities.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5284.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 7, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG11-43-000.
    Applicants: LSP Energy, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certifiation of EWG Status of LSP
Energy, Inc.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5128.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: EG11-44-000.
    Applicants: Milford Wind Corridor Phase II, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Milford Wind Corridor
Phase II, LLC as an Exempt Wholesale Generator.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5266.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER03-721-015.
    Applicants: New Harquahala Generating Company, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to Updated Market Power Analysis for New
Harquahala Generating Company, LLC.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5282.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER04-925-023; ER04-925-024.
    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Description: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc. submits Notice of
Nonmaterial Change in Status and Supplemental Information.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5283.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-67-001.
    Applicants: Beacon Power Corporation.
    Description: Beacon Power Corporation submits tariff filing per 35:
Stephentown FERC Electric MBR Tariff to be effective 12/14/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/20/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101220-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 10, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1878-001.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35:
Compliance Filing, Nebraska Public Power District Interconnection &
Interchange to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5229.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2048-002.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35: Compliance Filing to Update Filing Type Code and
Record Effective Priority Order to be effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2084-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.17(b): Module B Facilities Study
Procedures Errata to be effective 1/12/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101202-5093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2145-001.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.17(b): Amend SGIA 9415 Kaiser Way Fontana CA 92335 Solar
Project SA 287 to be effective 11/19/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2192-001.
    Applicants: Red Mesa Wind, LLC.

    Description: Red Mesa Wind, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.17(b):
Red Mesa Revisions to Tariff Language to be effective 11/25/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2400-001.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Errata to XML Metadata: Proposed Effective Date ER11-2400, to
be effective 3/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5157.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2646-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35:
Schedule 3A, Generator Regulation & Frequency Response Svc to be
effective 8/31/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2647-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Cancellation of NITSA with Piedmont EMC by Carolina
Power & Light Company.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2648-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Service Agreement Deadline after System Impact Study
re Tariff Section 205.4.1 to be effective 3/9/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2649-000.
    Applicants: 3C Solar LLC.
    Description: 3C Solar LLC submits tariff filing per 35.12: 3C Solar
LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 3/8/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5136.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2650-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Compressed Air Energy Storage Station Power
Definition Revision, to be effective 3/9/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5156.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2651-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Continent Area Power Pool.
    Description: Mid-Continent Area Power Pool submits a Notice of
Cancellation of their Schedule F, FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised
Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 27, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2652-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Top of the World Facilities Maintenance Agreement to be effective 12/8/
2010.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5182.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2653-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Continent Area Power Pool.
    Description: Mid-Continent Area Power Pool submits a Notice of
Cancellation of their rate schedule designations for their restated
agreement, FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 2 to be effective
4/1/11.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-0202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 27, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2654-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 205 Filing of LGIA Among NYISO,
NYPA and Astoria Energy II to be effective 12/20/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5224.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2655-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): 1517R4 DWS Frisco, LLC SGIA to be effective 12/8/
2010.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5239.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2656-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: Black Hills Power, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Spinning Reserve Service Agreement to be effective 1/
10/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5269.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2657-000.
    Applicants: Milford Wind Corridor Phase II, LLC.
    Description: Milford Wind Corridor Phase II, LLC submits tariff
filing per 35.12: Application for Order Accepting Market-Based Rate
Tariff to be effective 1/18/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110107-5275.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES11-12-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection L.L.C.
    Description: Amendment to Application of PJM Interconnection L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011
    Accession Number: 20110107-5230
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 18, 2011.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:
    Docket Numbers: FC11-3-000
    Applicants: Mount Miller Wind Energy Limited Partner
    Description: Mount Miller Wind Energy Limited Partnership
Notification of Self-Certification of Foreign Utility Company Status.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2011
    Accession Number: 20110107-5155
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 28, 2011.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.

    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-1100 Filed 1-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 231)]
[Notices]
[Page 72871-72872]
[DOCID:fr01de08-128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 17f-2, SEC File No. 270-233, OMB Control No. 3235-0223.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 17f-2 (17 CFR 270.17f-2) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (the ``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a-1) is entitled: ``Custody of
Investments by Registered Management Investment Company.'' Rule 17f-2
establishes safeguards for arrangements in which a registered
management investment company (``fund'') is deemed to maintain custody
of its own assets, such as when the fund maintains its assets in a
facility that provides safekeeping but not custodial services. The rule
includes several recordkeeping or reporting requirements. The fund's
directors must prepare a resolution designating not more than five fund
officers or responsible employees who may have access to the fund's
assets. The designated access persons (two or more of whom must act
jointly when handling fund assets) must prepare a written notation
providing certain information about each deposit or withdrawal of fund
assets, and must transmit the notation to another officer or director
designated by the directors. Independent public accountants must verify
the fund's assets at least three times a year and two of the
examinations must be unscheduled.
    The requirement that directors designate access persons is intended
to ensure that directors evaluate the trustworthiness of insiders who
handle fund assets. The requirements that access persons act jointly in
handling fund assets, prepare a written notation of each transaction,
and transmit the notation to another designated person are intended to
reduce the risk of misappropriation of fund assets by access persons,
and to ensure that adequate records are prepared, reviewed by a
responsible third person, and available for examination by the
Commission's examination staff. The requirement that auditors verify
fund assets without notice twice each year is intended to provide an
additional deterrent to the misappropriation of fund assets and to
detect any irregularities.
    The Commission staff estimates that each fund makes 941 responses
and spends and average of 271 hours annually in complying with the
rule's requirements.\1\ Commission staff estimates that on an annual
basis it takes: (i) 0.5 hours of fund accounting personnel at a total
cost of $75.50 to draft director resolutions; \2\ (ii) 0.5 hours of the
fund's board of directors at a total cost of $1000 to adopt the
resolution; (iii) 263 hours for the fund's accounting personnel at a
total cost of $60,864 to prepare written notations of transactions; \3\
and (iv) 7 hours for the fund's accounting personnel at a total cost of
$1057 to assist the independent public accountants when they perform

verifications of fund assets.\4\ Approximately 300 funds rely upon rule
17f-2 annually.\5\ Thus, the total annual hour burden for rule 17f-2 is
estimated to be 81,300 hours.\6\ Based on the total costs per fund
listed above, the total cost of the Rule 17f-2's collection of
information requirements is estimated to be $18.9 million.\7\
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. Complying with the collections of
information required by rule 17f-2 is mandatory for those funds that
maintain custody of their own assets. Responses will not be kept
confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Lewis W. Walker, Acting
Director/CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 20, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 941 responses are: 1 (one) response to draft and adopt
the resolution and 940 notations. Estimates of the number of hours
are based on conversations with individuals in the mutual fund
industry. The actual number of hours may vary significantly
depending on individual fund assets.
    \2\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 0.5
(burden hours per fund) x $151 (fund senior accountant's hourly
rate) = $75.50.
    \3\ Respondents estimated that each fund makes 941 responses on
an annual basis and spent a total of 0.28 hours per response. The
fund personnel involved are Fund Payable Manager ($156 hourly rate),
Fund Operations Manager ($252 hourly rate) and Fund Accounting
Manager ($285 hourly rate). The weighted hourly rate of these
personnel is $231. The estimated cost of preparing notations is
based on the following calculation: 941 x 0.28 x $231 = $60,863.88.
    \4\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 7 x
$151 (fund senior accountant hourly rate) = $1057.
    \5\ Based on a review of Form N-17f-2 filings in 2007, the
Commission staff estimates that 300 funds relied on rule 17f-2 in
2007.
    \6\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 300
(funds) x 271 (total annual hourly burden per fund) = 81,300 hours
for rule. The annual burden for rule 17f-2 does not include time
spent preparing Form N-17f-2. The burden for Form N-17f-2 is
included in a separate collection of information.
    \7\ This estimate is based on the following calculation:
$62,996.50 (total annual cost per fund) x 300 funds = $18,898,950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-28418 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P