consistently achieve this emission level. See our Cost TSD for more
details about our analysis of the scrubber upgrades that San Miguel has
performed on its unit. We are specifically soliciting comments on this
proposed emission limit and the potential need for a slightly higher
limit to provide sufficient operational headroom to demonstrate
compliance.
2. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Determination
for Units Other Than San Miguel
    In Section VII.F, we present the results of our SO2
control cost analysis for those units listed in Table 30 with no
SO2 control. In Section VII.G, we present the results of our
control cost analysis for upgrading those units equipped with
underperforming wet FGD scrubbers. In Section VII.H, we present the
results of our modeled visibility benefits for these controls. We
believe that we have provided the technical analysis that was lacking
in Texas' development of its RPGs for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big
Bend, and in its consultations with Oklahoma for the development of the
RPG for the Wichita Mountains. Further, we believe that our proposed
control set, which we discuss below, developed through our reasonable
progress four factor analysis, would ensure that Texas secures its
share of the reductions needed for the RPGs of the Wichita Mountains,
the Guadalupe Mountains, and Big Bend. Specifically, we propose to find
that our technical analysis and control set makes whole our disapproval
of:
     Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), regarding Texas' reasonable
progress four factor analysis.
     Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), regarding Texas' calculation
of the emission reductions needed to achieve the URPs for the Guadalupe
Mountains and Big Bend.
     Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii), regarding Texas' RPGs for the
Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend.
     Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) regarding Texas' long-term
strategy consultation.
     Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) regarding Texas securing its
share of reductions in other states' RPGs.
     Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) regarding Texas' technical basis
for its long-term strategy.
     Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C), regarding Texas' emissions
limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPGs for Big
Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains.
    We also believe that this technical analysis and control set makes
whole our proposed disapproval of Oklahoma's submission under Section
51.308(d)(1), except for Section

51.308(d)(1)(vi), which we propose to approve. We believe our technical
analysis provides the information that Oklahoma should have had during
its consultations with Texas in order to determine whether sources in
Texas should have been controlled to improve the visibility at the
Wichita Mountains. We believe our proposed control set would ensure
that Texas' share of the emission reductions are incorporated into
Oklahoma's RPGs.
    For all but one of the units we analyzed that currently have no
SO2 controls, even at the lower level of control of 50%, the
cost-effectiveness of DSI was worse (higher $/ton) than either SDA or
wet FGD, even with the latter options offering much greater levels of
control and visibility benefit. At the higher 80% or 90% level of
control, the cost-effectiveness of DSI was worse than either SDA or wet
FGD in all cases. Consequently, we are not proposing that DSI be
installed at any unit.
    With the exception of Tolk,\306\ all of the scrubber retrofits were
analyzed on the basis of both SDA and wet scrubbers. The SDA level of
control was assumed to be a maximum of 95% not to go below 0.06 lbs/
MMBtu. The wet FGD level of control was assumed to be a maximum of 98%
not to go below 0.04 lbs/MMBtu. As we discuss in our Cost TSD, the
cost-effectiveness ($/ton) of wet FGD was better than SDA in all cases
except for the Tolk and Welsh units, which burn Power River Basin (PRB)
coal. However, even in those cases, the cost-effectiveness of wet FGD
was only 0.5 to 0.8% greater than SDA. Given the greater visibility
improvement of wet FGD over SDA, we propose to base our cost/benefit
reasonable progress and long-term strategy determination on wet FGD,
except for the Tolk units, due to their potential water issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \306\ As we discuss in section VII.D.2, we are only considering
SDA in our cost/benefit analysis for Tolk due to a potential water
issue that may have energy and non-air quality impact
considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Determination
for Scrubber Upgrades
    We propose to find that the cost-effectiveness of the scrubber
upgrades ($600/ton or less) to be reasonable, and that on an individual
basis, any reasonable amount of visibility improvement due to their
installation justifies their cost. We believe this is the case for all
of the scrubber upgrades except for the Parish 8 unit. Despite the same
level of cost-effectiveness of the Parish 8 unit, we do not believe
that the visibility benefits are large enough to justify the
implementation of a scrubber upgrade on that unit. Therefore we propose
that the scrubbers for the Sandow 4; Martin Lake 1, 2, 3; Monticello 3,
and Limestone 1 and 2 units be upgraded to perform at a 95% control
level. This level of control corresponds to the emission limits listed
in Table 38, below.
4. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Determination
for Scrubber Retrofits
    The cost-effectiveness of the scrubber retrofits for the Welsh and
Parish units are within a $/ton range that we have previously found to
be cost-effective in BART determinations. However, we do not believe
that their individual projected visibility improvements merit the
installation of scrubbers at this time. We encourage the State of Texas
to re-evaluate this determination as part of its next regional haze SIP
submittal.
    Similar to the scrubber upgrades, we believe the scrubber retrofits
for the Big Brown units to be cost-effective and we find the projected
visibility benefits from them to be significant. We therefore propose
that the Big Brown units meet emission limits corresponding to this
evaluation. Our proposed SO2 emission limits for the Big
Brown units are shown in Table 38.
    In comparison to the Big Brown units, the cost-effectiveness of the
scrubber retrofits for the Monticello, Coleto Creek, and Tolk units are
less, although still well within the range that we have found
acceptable for BART. Also, in comparison to the Big Brown units, the
visibility improvements projected to occur due to the installation of
the scrubber retrofits are less. For instance, as we discuss above in
Section VII.H, the visibility benefits of SDA scrubbers on the Tolk
units are projected to occur mainly at the Guadalupe Mountains. Those
visibility benefits are smaller than the visibility benefits at Wichita
Mountains from scrubber upgrades at W. A. Parish or Welsh, which we are
not proposing to control. However, when we evaluated other metrics,
such as extinction benefit or percent of extinction benefits, we
concluded that the overall visibility benefit for installing scrubbers
on the Tolk units was superior to either the W. A. Parish or the Welsh
units. Thus, we consider these visibility benefits to be significant.
Consequently, we propose that the Monticello, Coleto Creek, and Tolk
units meet SO2 emission limits corresponding to this
evaluation. Our proposed SO2 emission limits for these units
are shown in Table 38. In recognition of their lesser cost/benefit
ratio, we are specifically soliciting comments on the appropriateness
of one or more of these scrubber retrofits.
    We propose that compliance be based on a 30 Boiler Operating Day
(BOD) period. As the BART Guidelines direct, ``[y]ou should consider a
boiler operating day to be 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.''\307\ To calculate a 30 day rolling
average based on boiler operating day, the average of the last 30
``boiler operating days'' is used. In other words, days are skipped
when the unit is down, as for maintenance. This, in effect, provides a
margin of safety by eliminating spikes that occur at the beginning and
end of outages. Although we are not conducting BART determinations, our
reasonable progress guidance notes the similarity between some of the
reasonable progress factors and the BART factors contained in Section
51.308(e)(1)((ii)(A), and suggests that the BART Guidelines be
consulted regarding cost, energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts, and remaining useful life. We are therefore relying on our
BART Guidelines for assistance in establishing the emission limit
averaging period as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \307\ 70 FR 39172 (July 6, 2005).

     Table 38--Proposed 30 Boiler Operating Day SO2 Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed SO2
                          Unit                            emission limit
                                                            (lbs/MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber Upgrades:
    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
    San Miguel*.........................................            0.60
Scrubber Retrofits:
    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As we note elsewhere, we do not anticipate that San Miguel will have
  to install any additional control in order to comply with this
  emission limit.

J. Treatment of Potential Error in Scrubber Upgrade Efficiency
Calculations

    In our Cost TSD, we discuss how we calculated the SO2
removal efficiency of the units we analyzed for scrubber upgrades. We
note that due to a number

of factors we could not accurately quantify, our calculations of
scrubber efficiency may contain some error. Based on the results of our
scrubber upgrade cost analysis, we do not believe that any reasonable
error in calculating the true tons of SO2 removed affects
our proposed decision to require emission reductions, as all of the
scrubber upgrades we analyzed are cost-effective (low $/ton). In other
words, were we to make reasonable adjustments in the tons removed to
account for any potential error in our scrubber efficiency calculation,
we would still propose to upgrade these SO2 scrubbers. We
believe we have demonstrated that upgrading an underperforming
SO2 scrubber is one of the most cost-effective pollution
control upgrades a coal fired power plant can implement to improve the
visibility at Class I areas.
    However, our proposed FIP does specify a SO2 emission
limit that is based on 95% removal in all cases. This is below the
upper end of what an upgraded wet SO2 scrubber can achieve,
which is 98-99%, as we have noted in our Cost TSD. We believe that a
95% control assumption provides an adequate margin of error for any of
the units for which we have proposed scrubber upgrades, such that they
should be able to comfortably attain the emission limits we have
proposed. However, for the operator of any unit that disagrees with us
on this point, we propose the following:
    (1) The affected unit should comment why it believes it cannot
attain the SO2 emission limit we have proposed, based on a
scrubber upgrade that includes the kinds of improvements (e.g.,
elimination of bypass, wet stack conversion, installation of trays or
rings, upgraded spray headers, upgraded ID fans, using all recycle
pumps, etc.) typically included in a scrubber upgrade.
    (2) After considering those comments, and responding to all
relevant comments in a final rulemaking action, should we still require
a scrubber upgrade in our final decision making action we will provide
the company the following option to seek a revised emission limit after
taking the following steps:
    (a) Install a CEMS at the inlet to the scrubber.
    (b) Pre-approval of a scrubber upgrade plan conducted by a third
party engineering firm that considers the kinds of improvements
(e.g., elimination of bypass, wet stack conversion, installation of
trays or rings, upgraded spray headers, upgraded ID fans, using all
recycle pumps, etc.) typically performed during a scrubber upgrade.
The goal of this plan will be to maximize the unit's overall
SO2 removal efficiency.
    (c) Installation of the scrubber upgrades.
    (d) Pre-approval of a performance testing plan, followed by the
performance testing itself.
    (e) A pre-approved schedule for 2.a through 2.d.
    (f) Should we determine that a revision of the SO2
emission limit is appropriate, we will have to propose a
modification to our decision making to do so. It should be noted
that any proposal to modify the SO2 emission limit will
be based largely on the performance testing and may result in a
proposed increase or decrease of that value.

K. Proposed Natural Conditions for the Texas Class I Areas

    As discussed in Section V.B.1, we propose to disapprove Texas'
calculation of the natural visibility conditions for the Big Bend and
Guadalupe Class I areas under Section 51.308(d)(2)(iii). The TCEQ used
a refined approach to calculating the natural conditions for the
Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend. This approach, among other things,
requires knowledge about the amount of coarse mass and soil that is
attributable to natural sources. The TCEQ has provided data that
supports the conclusion that a large portion of dust impacting
visibility at its Class I areas is likely due to natural sources. We
agree that dust storms and other blown dust from deserts are a
significant contributor to visibility impairment at the Texas Class I
areas that may not be captured accurately by our default method.
However, we do not believe, as the TCEQ asserts, that all coarse mass
and soil can be attributable to 100% natural sources.
    Although we believe that some coarse mass and soil should be
attributable to natural sources, we do not have the information
necessary to determine how much should be attributable to natural
sources. We therefore acknowledge that like the TCEQ, we cannot
accurately reset the natural conditions for the Guadalupe Mountains and
Big Bend by using the TCEQ's methodology, which depends on this
information. In lieu of this, we propose to rely on the adjusted
default estimates for the new IMPROVE equation from the Natural
Conditions II committee,\308\ which was the starting point for the
Texas natural visibility calculations, but solicit comment on the
acceptability of alternate estimates in the range between our default
estimates and the Texas estimates. We propose that the natural
conditions for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend be set as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \308\ Regional Haze Rule Natural Level Estimates Using the
Revised IMPROVE Aerosol Reconstructed Light Extinction Algorithm,
Copeland, S. A., et al, Final Paper # 48, available in our docket.;
NC II, or new IMPROVE natural visibility conditions are available
at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Docs/IMPROVE/Aerosol/NaturalConditions/NaturalConditionsII_Format2_v2.xls, for which we
have filtered the data for Texas Class I areas and which is also
available in our docket.

Table 39--Natural Conditions (NC II) for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big
                                  Bend
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  20% Best    20% Worst
                 Class 1 area                    days (dv)    days (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Mountains...........................         0.99         6.65
Big Bend......................................         1.62         7.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recommend that the State of Texas re-evaluate the natural
conditions for its Class I areas in the next regional haze SIP.

L. Calculation of Visibility Impairment for the Texas Class I Areas

    Using our proposed natural visibility conditions for the Guadalupe
Mountains and Big Bend, we propose to reset the amount of natural
visibility impairment for these Class I areas under Section
51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A). We do this by modifying the table we present in
our TX TSD. We replace Texas' calculations of natural visibility for
its Class I areas, with the adjusted default values (NC II), discussed
above. We retain the baseline visibility values we proposed to approve,
then recalculate the amount the baseline values exceed the natural
visibility conditions. We propose that the natural visibility
impairment for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend be set as follows:

   Table 40--Revised Visibility Metrics for the Class I Areas in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Haze index (deciviews)
             Class I area              ---------------------------------
                                         Most impaired    Least impaired
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Estimate of Natural Visibility Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend..............................            7.16             1.62
Guadalupe Mountains...................            6.65             0.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Baseline Visibility Conditions, 2000-2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend..............................           17.30             5.78
Guadalupe Mountains...................           17.19             5.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Estimate of Extent Baseline Exceeds Natural Visibility Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend..............................           10.14             4.16
Guadalupe Mountains...................           10.54             4.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. Uniform Rates of Progress and the Emission Reductions Needed To
Achieve Them

    Section 308(d)(1)(i)(B) requires that we analyze and determine the
rates of progress needed to attain natural visibility conditions by the
year 2064 and consider the uniform rate of improvement in visibility
and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve them. Below, we
present the URPs for the 20% worst days for the Guadalupe Mountains and
Big Bend, using the natural conditions we propose to establish above:

                                           Table 41--URP for Big Bend
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Annual improvement
 Baseline conditions     needed to meet URP     Visibility at 2018   Improvement needed by   Natural conditions
         (dv)                   (dv)                   (dv)                2018  (dv)           at 2064  (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            17.30                   0.17                  14.93                   2.37                   7.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    Table 42--URP for the Guadalupe Mountains
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Annual improvement
 Baseline conditions     needed to meet URP     Visibility at 2018   Improvement needed by   Natural conditions
         (dv)                   (dv)                   (dv)                2018  (dv)           at 2064  (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            17.19                   0.18                  14.73                   2.46                   6.65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please see our FIP TSD for graphical representations of these URPs.
We propose to find that it is not reasonable to provide for rates of
progress at Wichita Mountains, Big Bend, or Guadalupe Mountains that
would attain natural visibility conditions by 2064 (i.e., the URP). Our
demonstration that a slower rate of progress is reasonable is based on
the reasonable progress analyses performed by us and Texas that
considered the four statutory reasonable progress factors, as described
above.

N. Reasonable Progress Goals and Demonstration

    We are quantifying proposed RPGs (in deciviews) for the 20-percent
worst days in 2018. The proposed RPGs for Oklahoma's Class I area, the
Wichita Mountains, and Texas' two Class I areas, Big Bend and the
Guadalupe Mountains, account for the emission reductions from the
reasonable progress control measures identified above in our proposed
regional haze FIPs. The proposed RPGs reflect the results of our
reasonable progress analysis of point sources as described in detail in
our FIP TSD. These proposed RPGs are established based on an adjustment
of the 2018 RPGs established by Texas and Oklahoma that were based on
the 2018 CENRAP modeling. We note that we do not anticipate
implementation of the identified scrubber retrofits by the end of 2018.
Therefore, we are only adjusting the RPGs established by the states to
reflect the additional anticipated visibility benefit from the scrubber
upgrades over the 2018 projected visibility conditions. The tables
below show the new adjusted RPGs as well as the additional improvement
that is anticipated once all the scrubber retrofits have been
implemented sometime after 2018. These new RPGs provide for an
improvement in visibility on the worst days during this planning
period. Table 44 below estimates the RPG if all proposed controls were
implemented by 2018.

     Table 43--Proposed Rpgs For 20% Worst Days Based On Predicted Benefit Of Scrubber Upgrades Beyond 2018 CENRAP Projected Visibility Conditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Predicted
                                                                                additional                                       Number of
                                                                            2018 CENRAP     benefit due    Proposed RPG       Natural      years needed
                                                          Baseline  (dv)    Projection      only to FIP        (dv)         visibility       to reach
                                                                               (dv)          scrubber                                         natural
                                                                                upgrades  (dv)                                    visibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains.......................................           23.81           21.47            0.14           21.33            7.58              92
Big Bend................................................           17.30            16.6            0.03           16.57            7.16             194
Guadalupe Mountains.....................................           17.19            16.3            0.04           16.26            6.65             159
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table 44--Calculated RPGS for 20% Worst Days Based on Predicted Benefit of all Proposed Controls Beyond 2018 CENRAP Projected Visibility Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Predicted    Additional
                                                                       additional      benefit                                                Number of
                                                         2018 CENRAP   benefit due    predicted       Total     RPG Assuming                years needed
                                            Baseline     Projection    only to FIP   due to FIP   benefit from  all controls     Natural      to reach
                                              (dv)          (dv)        scrubber      scrubber      proposed     in place by   visibility      natural
                                                                        upgrades      retrofits     controls        2018                     visibility
                                                                          (dv)          (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains.......................         23.81         21.47          0.14          0.30          0.45         21.03          7.58            82
Big Bend................................          17.3          16.6          0.03          0.09          0.12         16.48          7.16           173
Guadalupe Mountains.....................         17.19          16.3          0.04          0.12          0.15         16.14          6.65           141
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in more detail in the FIP TSD, current actual
emissions for many of the units that we propose to control are higher
than the projected CENRAP 2018 emission rate. Therefore, the actual
visibility impact due to emissions from these sources and the
anticipated benefit from controls are larger than the benefits
calculated above based on the 2018 CENRAP projected visibility
conditions. The table below summarizes the amount of visibility benefit
we anticipate will occur from the implementation of our proposed FIP
controls and the resulting emission reductions from the current actual
average annual emissions.

         Table 45--Anticipated Visibility Benefit due to Emission Reductions From Actual Emission Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Predicted          Benefit
                                                             benefit due to   predicted due to    Total benefit
                                                              FIP scrubber      FIP scrubber      from proposed
                                                              upgrades (dv)    retrofits (dv)     controls (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains.........................................              0.28              0.33              0.62
Big Bend..................................................              0.07              0.10              0.17
Guadalupe Mountains.......................................              0.07              0.12              0.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to find that it is not reasonable to provide for rates
of progress at the Wichita Mountains, Big Bend, or the Guadalupe
Mountains that would attain natural visibility conditions by 2064
(i.e., the URP). Our demonstration that a slower rate of progress is
reasonable is based on the reasonable progress analyses performed by us
and the states that considered the four statutory reasonable progress
factors, as described above. Although progress is slower than the URP,
the proposed FIP would provide for RPGs that reflect an improved rate
of progress and a shorter time period to reach natural visibility
conditions at each of the Class I areas, compared with the RPGs
established by Texas and Oklahoma in their regional haze SIPs. We have
provided an estimate of the number of years needed to meet natural
visibility conditions at the rate of progress proposed by us as
reasonable. We have also estimated the RPG and the number of years to
meet natural visibility conditions if all proposed controls were in
place by 2018. We note that this does not take into account the
visibility benefit from scrubber retrofits included in this proposed
FIP that will be implemented after 2018.

VIII. Our Evaluation of the Texas Infrastructure SIP Submittals for
Interstate Transport and Visibility Protection

    To determine whether the CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirement
for visibility protection is satisfied, the SIP must address the
potential for interference with visibility protection caused by the
pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS
applies. Pollutants which could interfere with visibility protection
include: (1) SO2 (which is also a precursor for
PM2.5), (2) nitrogen oxides (which includes NO2
and are precursors for ozone and PM2.5) and (3) particulate
matter.\309\ An approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the
regional haze requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 satisfies the requirement
for visibility protection as it ensures that emissions from the state
will not interfere with measures required to be included in other state
SIPs to protect visibility. In the infrastructure SIP submittals for
the ozone, PM2.5, NO2 and SO2 NAAQS
Texas indicated that the Regional Haze SIP fulfilled its obligation for
addressing emissions that would interfere with measures required to be
included in the SIP for any other state to protect visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \309\ Section II.A.3 of Appendix Y to Part 51--Guidelines for
BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule and 40 CFR
51.166(b)(i)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we note above, we gave limited disapproval to the Texas Regional
Haze SIP based on its reliance on CAIR. As

explained in our limited disapproval of the Texas regional haze SIP,
many states (including Texas) relied on the improvement in visibility
expected to result from the implementation of CAIR in developing their
long-term strategy.\310\ Texas relied on its own CAIR SIP as legal
justification for these planned controls and did not include separate
enforceable measures in its regional haze SIP to ensure these EGU
reductions. As CAIR has been replaced by CSAPR, and CSAPR is going into
effect in 2015, we propose to determine that Texas may not rely on its
regional haze SIP to ensure that emissions from Texas do not interfere
with the measures to protect visibility in nearby states. We propose to
disapprove Texas' SIP submittals for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS, with respect to interstate transport of air
pollution and visibility protection. CSAPR and our proposed FIP, which
relies on emission reductions from the implementation of CSAPR in lieu
of BART, addresses this deficiency in the Texas SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \310\ 77 FR 33643 (June 7, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An additional reason for our proposed disapproval of the submittals
for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS is our proposed conclusion that additional control
of SO2 emissions in Texas is needed to prevent interference
with measures required to be included in the Oklahoma SIP to protect
visibility. Our proposed FIP addresses this deficiency in the Texas
SIP.

IX. Proposed Determination of Nationwide Scope and Effect

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final agency actions by
the EPA under the CAA. This section provides, in part, that petitions
for review must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (i) when the agency action consists of ``nationally
applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the
Administrator'' or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally
applicable, 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 a determination.''
\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \311\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7607(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to find and publish that this rule is based on a
determination of nationwide scope and effect. The rule discusses our
interpretation of multiple provisions of the Regional Haze Rule and
explains how those provisions operate in the visibility-transport
context. Our interpretation of our regulations is applicable to all
states, not just Texas and Oklahoma. Consequently, our determination of
nationwide scope and effect is ``consistent with the legislative
history of the CAA, which evinces a clear congressional intent to
`centralize review of `national' SIP issues in the D.C. Circuit.' ''
\312\ This determination is also appropriate because in the 1977 CAA
Amendments that revised CAA Section 307(b)(1), Congress noted that the
Administrator's determination that an action is of ``nationwide scope
or effect'' would be appropriate for any action that has ``scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit.'' \313\ Here, the scope and
effect of this rulemaking extends to two judicial circuits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \312\ Texas v. EPA, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5654 at *15 (5th Cir.
Feb. 14, 2011) (citing Admin. Conference of the U.S.,
Recommendations on Judicial Review Under the Clean Air Act, 41 FR
56767, 56769 (Dec. 30, 1976) (Comments of G. William Frick)).
    \313\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323-24, reprinted in 1977
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we propose to determine that this is a rulemaking of
nationwide scope or effect such that any petitions for review must be
filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.

X. Proposed Action

    A listing of our proposed actions is provided below.

A. Texas Regional Haze

    We propose to partially approve and partially disapprove 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. This revision was intended to address the
requirements of the CAA and our rules that require states to prevent
any future, and remedy any existing, manmade impairment of visibility
in mandatory Class I areas. We propose to approve a portion of this SIP
revision as meeting certain requirements of the regional haze program
and to disapprove portions addressing the requirements related to RP,
the long-term strategy and the calculation of natural visibility
conditions. We propose a FIP to implement SO2 emission
limits on fifteen Texas sources, and to establish the natural
visibility conditions at two Class I areas in Texas to address these
issues. Specifically, we propose to disapprove the portions of the
Texas regional haze SIP addressing the following regional haze rule
requirements:
     51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)
     51.308(d)(1)(i)(B)
     51.308(d)(1)(ii)
     51.308(d)(2)(iii)
     51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A)
     51.308(d)(3)(i)
     51.308(d)(3)(ii)
     51.308(d)(3)(iii)
     51.308(d)(3)(v)(C)
    We propose a FIP to cure these defects in the Texas regional haze
SIP. We propose to approve all other sections of the Texas regional
haze SIP.
    With regard to Texas' BART Rules, we propose a FIP to replace
Texas' reliance on CAIR in 30 TAC 116.1510(d) with reliance on CSAPR.
We propose to approve the remainder of the provisions in Texas' BART
rules.
    Our proposed regional haze FIP relies on the already promulgated
CSAPR FIP for Texas at 40 CFR 52.2283-84 to satisfy the BART
requirement for SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs.
    Our proposed FIP requires that the following SO2
emission limits be met on a 30 BOD period.

     Table 46--Proposed 30 Boiler Operating Day SO2 Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed SO2
                          Unit                            emission limit
                                                            (lbs/MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber Upgrades:
  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
  San Miguel *..........................................            0.60
Scrubber Retrofits:
  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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As we note elsewhere, we do not anticipate that San Miguel will have
  to install any additional control in order to comply with this
  emission limit.

    We propose that compliance with these limits be 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. Although this is not a BART action, this is the maximum amount of
time allowed under the regional haze Rule for BART compliance. We based
our cost analysis on the installation of wet FGD and SDA scrubbers for
these units, and in the past we have typically required that scrubber
retrofits under BART be operational within five years.

    We propose that compliance with these limits be within 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. We believe
that three years is appropriate for these units, as we based our cost
analysis on upgrading the existing wet FGD scrubbers of these units,
which we believe to be less complex and time consuming that the
construction of a new scrubber. We solicit comments on alternative
timeframes, of from two years up to five years from the effective date
of our final rule.
    We propose that compliance with these limits be within one year for
San Miguel. We believe that one year is appropriate for this unit
because we based our analysis on scrubber upgrades that San Miguel has
already performed, and because it has demonstrated its ability to meet
this emission limit. We are specifically soliciting comments on this
proposed emission limit and the potential need for a slightly higher
limit to provide sufficient operational headroom to demonstrate
compliance.
    Our proposed FIP also resets the natural conditions and the URPs
for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend Class I areas, and establishes
new RPGs for the 20% worst days for these Class I areas.
    We propose that this FIP will fully satisfy the FIP obligation
stemming from our proposed disapproval of portions of the Texas SIP.

B. Oklahoma Regional Haze

    We are also proposing to partially disapprove a portion of a
revision to the Oklahoma SIP submitted by the State of Oklahoma on
February 19, 2010. Specifically, we propose to disapprove the portion
of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP that addresses the requirements of
Section 51.308(d)(1), except for Section 51.308(d)(1)(vi).
    We propose a FIP to reset Oklahoma's RPGs based on our analysis
conducted in support of our proposed Texas FIP. We propose to find that
the same controls we have proposed above in our Texas FIP also serve to
cure the defects in these sections of Oklahoma's regional haze SIP as
well, thus satisfying the FIP obligation stemming from our proposed
disapproval of portions of the Oklahoma SIP.

C. Interstate Transport of Air Pollution and Visibility Protection

    We propose to disapprove 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 (CAA
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and visibility protection). Specifically,
we propose to disapprove portions of the following SIP submittals made
by Texas for new or revised NAAQS:
     April 4, 2008: 1997 8-hour Ozone, 1997 PM2.5
(24-hour and annual)
     May 1, 2008: 1997 8-hour Ozone, 1997 PM2.5 (24-
hour and annual)
     November 23, 2009: 2006 24-hour PM2.5
     December 7, 2012: 2010 NO2
     December 13, 2012: 2008 8-hour Ozone
     May 6, 2013: 2010 1-hour SO2 (Primary NAAQS)
    We propose to determine that our regional haze FIP will satisfy our
FIP obligation for interstate transport of air pollution and visibility
protection.

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 \314\ and is therefore not
subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.\315\ The
proposed FIP applies to only eight facilities. It is therefore not a
rule of general applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \314\ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).
    \315\ 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
Section 3501 et seq. Because it does not contain any information
collection activities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply. See
5 CFR 1320(c).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In making this
determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse
economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net
burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This rule does not impose any
requirements or create impacts on small entities. This proposed SIP
action under Section 110 of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create
any new requirements on small entities but simply approves or
disapproves certain state requirements for inclusion into the SIP.
Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for the EPA to fashion for small
entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that
the CAA prescribes that various consequences (e.g., emission
limitations) may or will flow from this action does not mean that the
EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for
this action. We have therefore concluded that, this action will have no
net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, 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 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 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 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 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 UMRA does not apply to this
proposed rule. In 2 U.S.C. Section 1502(1) all terms in Title II of
UMRA have the meanings set forth in 2 U.S.C. Section 658, which further
provides that the terms ``regulation'' and ``rule'' have the meanings
set forth in 5 U.S.C. Section 601(2). Under 5 U.S.C. Section 601(2),
``the term `rule' does not include a rule of particular applicability
relating to . . . facilities.'' Because this proposed 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
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.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications, because the
SIP submittals the EPA is proposing to approve or disapprove would not
have a substantial direct effect on any Indian reservation land or in
any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this proposed
rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 \316\, nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action. Consistent with the EPA policy the EPA
nonetheless is offering consultation to tribes regarding this
rulemaking action. The EPA will respond to relevant comments in the
final rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \316\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 \317\ 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. EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis
required under Section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence
the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it implements specific standards established by Congress
in statutes. However, to the extent this proposed rule will limit
emissions of SO2 the rule will have a beneficial effect on
children's health by reducing air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \317\ 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 \318\
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \318\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action.
Today's action does not require the public to perform activities
conducive to the use of VCS.

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

    Executive Order 12898 \319\ establishes federal executive policy on
environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to
the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. We have determined that this proposed rule, if
finalized, will not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 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 proposed federal
rule limits emissions of SO2 from eight facilities in Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \319\ 59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: November 24, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be 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.

0
2. Part 52 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraph (d) in Section
52.2284 and paragraphs (d) and (e) in Section 52.2304.
    The additions read as follows:

Subpart SS--Texas

Sec.  52.2284  Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide?

* * * * *
    (d) 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 within 3 years of the effective date of this rule
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 within 5 years of the effective date of this rule
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 within one year 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 and in parts 51
and 60 of this title. 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).
    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 following table 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    (5) Testing and monitoring.
    (i) No later than the compliance date of this regulation, the owner
or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain and operate Continuous
Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for SO2 on the units
listed in Section (1) in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13(e), (f),
and (h), and Appendix B of Part 60. The owner or operator 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.
* * * * *

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) Measures Addressing Disapproval Associated with NOX
and SO2.
    (1) The deficiencies associated with NOX identified in
EPA's disapproval of the regional haze plan submitted by Texas on March
31, 2009, are satisfied by Section 52.2283
    (2) The deficiencies associated with SO2 identified in
EPA's disapproval of the regional haze plan submitted by Texas on March
31, 2009, are satisfied by Section 52.2284.

[FR Doc. 2014-28930 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21227-21228]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08439]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-1675-000]

Community Wind North 7 LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Community Wind North 7 LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 28, 2014.
    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
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed

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

    Dated: April 8, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08439 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 172)]
[
Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52464-52467]
[DOCID:fr06se06-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0436; FRL-8214-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois; Ford Motor Company Adjusted Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
January 4, 2006, request from Illinois for a site specific revision to
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Ford Motor Company (Ford).
The revision will allow Ford to discontinue use of its Stage II vapor
recovery system (Stage II) at its Chicago Assembly Plant. In place of
Stage II, Ford will comply with the standards of the federal onboard
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) regulations, as well as meet other
minor conditions. The exclusive use of ORVR will provide at least an
equivalent amount of gasoline vapor capture as Stage II.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective November 6, 2006,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 6, 2006. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0436, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0436. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Julie Henning, Environmental
Protection Specialist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Henning, Environmental
Protection Specialist, State and Tribal Planning Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. Why Did Ford Request an Adjusted Standard from the State?
III. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

A. Submitting CBI

    Do not submit this information to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI). In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.

B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Why Did Ford Request an Adjusted Standard From the State?

    Pursuant to requirements at 35 Illinois Administrative Code
218.586, Ford has been using and maintaining a vapor collection and
control system (Stage II) at the Chicago Assembly Plant, which is
certified as having a vapor recovery and removal efficiency of at least
95%. In addition, Section 202(a)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires
that automobile manufacturers such as Ford incorporate onboard
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems in new cars that recover at
least 95% of the gasoline vapors displaced during the refueling of
vehicles, with the intent that ORVR would fully replace the Stage II
system once the ORVR systems were in widespread use throughout the
motor vehicle fleet. Only ORVR-equipped vehicles can be fueled at this
facility, therefore, the Stage II system at the Chicago Assembly Plant
can be discontinued because it is a redundant control system.

III. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?

    The overall amount of gasoline vapor emissions emitted to the
atmosphere will not change as a result of this action, and the action
will therefore have no environmental effect. The Stage II system has a
95% vapor recovery. Every vehicle fueled with the Stage II system,
however, is already equipped with ORVR, which also captures at least
95% of evaporative gasoline emissions. ORVR therefore fully displaces
the need for Stage II vapor recovery at the Chicago Assembly Plant.

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is approving changes to the Illinois SIP to grant an adjusted
standard that will allow Ford to discontinue use of its Stage II vapor
recovery system at its Chicago Assembly Plant.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective November 6,
2006 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by October 6, 2006. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so

at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be
effective November 6, 2006.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

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

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132 Federalism

    This action also does not have federalism implications because it
does 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act.

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

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

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 rule 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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 6, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 17, 2006.
Norman Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart O--Illinois

0
2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding and reserving paragraph (c)(174)
and adding paragraph (c)(175) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (174) [Reserved]
    (175) On January 4, 2006, Illinois submitted a site-specific State
Implementation Plan revision for the Ford Motor Company (Ford) Chicago
Assembly Plant. The revision allows Ford to discontinue use of its
Stage II vapor recovery system and requires instead that Ford comply
with federal onboard refueling vapor recovery regulations and other
conditions.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) September 1, 2005, Opinion and Order of the Illinois Pollution
Control

Board, AS 05-5, effective September 1, 2005.

 [FR Doc. E6-14543 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Ellen Connett, Director Fluoride Action Network Pesticide Project 82 Judson Street, Canton, NY 13617 Reference: Docket ID OPP 2003 0129; Fluoxastrobin; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food Your Public Docket Comments, Dated 4/ 25/ 03 Dear Ms. Connett: This letter represents the Agency's response to your public docket comments on the Notice of Filing for the new chemical Fluoxastrobin.

You commented that; " References were not given for the studies cited in this Notice; nor were they available in the Docket. Without this information, it is impossible to comment on the findings presented. Examples:

1. Several genotoxicity tests were conducted 2. Acute toxicity studies 3. An oral developmental toxicity study in rat 4. An oral developmental toxicity study in rabbits 5. A 2 generation study in rats 6. Subchronic toxicity feeding study with rats over 90 days 7. Subchronic feeding study in mice over 14 weeks 8. A 14 week feeding study in dogs 9. A 24 month chronic/ oncogenicity feeding study in rats 10. Oncogenicity study in the mouse 11. 1 year feeding study with dogs 12. Metabolism and pharmacokinetic studies in the rats, lactating goats, and laying hens 13. Metabolite studies."

In response to your comments, the Agency is herewith transmitting its human health risk assessment ( dated 1/ 24/ 05) titled " Fluoxastrobin: Human health risk assessment for proposed uses on peanuts, tuberous and corm vegetables ( subgroup 1C), leaf petiole vegetables, ( subgroup 4B), fruiting vegetables ( group 8), turf. PC code 028869. Petition No. 3F6556. DP Barcodes: D292422, D303256. EPA File Symbol No's 264 TIT ) Flouxastrobin Technical), and 264 TIA ( HEC 480 SC Fungicide)".

If you still wish to receive copies of the toxicological studies submitted to support registration of this new chemical, please complete, sign and date the enclosed FIFRA Section 10( g) form titled " Affirmation of Non Multinational Status" ( we also faxed this form to you on 7/ 6/ 05). Please return it to my attention within 10 calendar days of receipt of this letter. While we are waiting for this form with the original signature, could you please fax the completed form to me at 703 308 1825.

We can release the data to you on CD ROM shortly after we receive the original signed form. You have 30 days from the date of this letter to provide comments on the data and risk assessment. We will respond to your comments in the final rule.

If you have any questions, please call me at 703 308 9443.

Sincerely,

Tony Kish Acting Product Manager 22 Fungicides Branch, Registration Division ( 7505C)

enclosures: Fluoxastrobin human health risk assessment FIFRA Section 10( g)


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 19694]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06962]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 6, 2023.

Place: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

Status: This meeting will be closed to the public.

Matters To Be Considered: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present. In the event that the time, date, or
location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along
with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on
the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:

    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement
proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
    Contact Person For More Information: For further information;
please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: March 30, 2023.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-06962 Filed 3-30-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P